Will Covid lock down protests grow or dissipate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

roscoe

Well-known member
While your other remarks have merit, this does not. We DO have "skin in the game" wherever and whenever a group of people yearn to breath free and the alternative is to not breath at all. "Give me liberty or give me death." I'm willing to bet most of the population of the planet knows that phrase. You bet we've got skin in the game. And if you're only referring to literal "skin" just ask any member of our military or NGO sent to some country like Afghanistan to represent American democratic principles and values. Some of whom left their literal skin there.

i don't mean metaphorically. I mean literally life or death for the protestors. Their decisions are made with that fact in mind.

We will never go in to protect protestors in Hong Kong. And we have never, to my knowledge of history, gone in to protect a true democratic revolution, at least since WW2. We go in for selfish or misguided reasons these days. In fact, we have overthrown a few democratically-elected governments over the last half-century or so because we didn't like the results of the election.

I say all this with regret.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
i don't mean metaphorically. I mean literally life or death for the protestors. Their decisions are made with that fact in mind.
Yes, so do I. And so they know. And if they believe freedom is worth dying for, and understand the consequence ... and the reward ... who are we to caution them against it? Honestly, @roscoe - sometimes I wonder whether you're an American.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Yes, so do I. And so they know. And if they believe freedom is worth dying for, and understand the consequence ... and the reward ... who are we to caution them against it? Honestly, @roscoe - sometimes I wonder whether you're an American.

That is my point. They are the ones to make that choice. We, on the outside, can easily offer our opinions because we won't face the consequences the way they will.

Not an American? Oh man. You think you know what it is to be American? It means spastically uttering the word 'freedom' at every opportunity? Should I hang a big "liberty" flag from my pickup?

You may not understand this, but the reason the Chinese have become so powerful is because they play the long game. Here, in the US, we play the short game, every time. Terrorist strike in the US? Let's invade two countries, whether or not they were responsible! Because "we gotta do something!" Let's flex our muscles! Those are not the only examples - see Central America (many times) , Vietnam, Iran (1953), Chile (1973), etc. Every single time we did, it was with short-term military victories and long-term political (and sometimes military) failure.

History is a long time. If we want to encourage the world towards democratic principles, we need to do it slowly and carefully. Build long-term relationships and institutions. It may take hundreds of years. I can tell you that China works on that time scale. My guess is that any kind of revolution in China is no less than 50 years off. Probably 100. But because we can't play the long-term chess game the way they do, with our short-term political thinking, any revolution will have to happen there without our help.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I am one. I think I know. But it not only takes being one to know, it also takes knowing what it took to become one. And what it takes to stay one.



It might help.

This is all BS. I reject it completely. Simply reading history does not mean you understand it.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
This is all BS. I reject it completely. Simply reading history does not mean you understand it.

This statement is typical of someone who thinks the events of history need to be reinterpreted within the context of the present. This is the real BS position.
 

Howland937

Active member
History is a long time. If we want to encourage the world towards democratic principles, we need to do it slowly and carefully. Build long-term relationships and institutions. It may take hundreds of years. I can tell you that China works on that time scale. My guess is that any kind of revolution in China is no less than 50 years off. Probably 100. But because we can't play the long-term chess game the way they do, with our short-term political thinking, any revolution will have to happen there without our help.
It really depends on which history you're referring to as to exactly how long history is. China's history of oppression is pretty lengthy, going back to the beginnings of their existence. For several centuries they were isolationists.

Trying to spread their influence around the globe is almost too new to call history. In that regard, I have to disagree that is part of any long game...as it seems they only recently (last 30-40 years) realized the means to compete on the world stage.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
It really depends on which history you're referring to as to exactly how long history is. China's history of oppression is pretty lengthy, going back to the beginnings of their existence. For several centuries they were isolationists.

Trying to spread their influence around the globe is almost too new to call history. In that regard, I have to disagree that is part of any long game...as it seems they only recently (last 30-40 years) realized the means to compete on the world stage.

I am not really sure they are expansionist even today. They feel very strongly that what was once part of China needs to be part of China today (e.g. Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, other islands, etc.), but you won't see them invading Vietnam, for instance. They definitely do want economic power, however. And given their history with Britain (i.e. the Opium wars), and our support of Chiang Kai-shek, they do have a deep grudge against the West. And a long memory.

But whatever their plan, the window of expectation is far into the distance. To put it in an economic metaphor, they don't care about quarterly earnings - they intend to control the market in 100 years. That is why they are building bridges and rail lines all over Africa, at their own expense. We simply have no counter-move to that. At least nothing that is politically viable in the US.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
This statement is typical of someone who thinks the events of history need to be reinterpreted within the context of the present. This is the real BS position.
History is always interpreted in light of the present. It started with Herodotus.
 

Howland937

Active member
I am not really sure they are expansionist even today
They may not be expansionist in the traditional sense of invade/conquer/subdue. I believe that's mostly because they're able to intimidate everyone in the region who disagrees with them, except for India. There's no need for a physical invasion when a fiscal invasion achieves the same goal, which is creating dependence.

China has no choice but to expand its territory since it lacks the resources to sustain it's current population long enough into the future, much less it's future population into the future. If the tactics they're using in Africa now won't work, they'll resort to the tactics they've been using in Tibet and Hong Kong.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
China's philosophy is much like that of a shark: there is only that which they have eaten and that which they haven't eaten yet... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
They may not be expansionist in the traditional sense of invade/conquer/subdue. I believe that's mostly because they're able to intimidate everyone in the region who disagrees with them, except for India. There's no need for a physical invasion when a fiscal invasion achieves the same goal, which is creating dependence.

China has no choice but to expand its territory since it lacks the resources to sustain it's current population long enough into the future, much less it's future population into the future. If the tactics they're using in Africa now won't work, they'll resort to the tactics they've been using in Tibet and Hong Kong.

Well, historically, China hasn't really gone after new territory. But money, international influence, and world power, yes, they will. They are after the resources of Africa for the same reason as England, France, Germany, Portugal, etc. were 150 years ago - wealth for their population, world power, etc. They definitely think it is their 'turn'.

As for population pressure - their reproduction rate is currently below replacement (and has been since the early 90s).
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
History is always interpreted in light of the present. It started with Herodotus.
That still doesn't make it right.

Per Wikipedia (for what that's worth): "Herodotus has been criticized for his inclusion of "legends and fanciful accounts" in his work. Fellow historian Thucydides accused him of making up stories for entertainment."

History is a set of facts. Facts are facts regardless of how they're spun. If the current spin doesn't truthfully represent the context of the times in which the facts occurred then those facts are worthless for current decision-making. I guess that's why we keep making the same mistakes, and why history repeats (so they say). It just doesn't have to be this way.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
That still doesn't make it right.

Per Wikipedia (for what that's worth): "Herodotus has been criticized for his inclusion of "legends and fanciful accounts" in his work. Fellow historian Thucydides accused him of making up stories for entertainment."

History is a set of facts. Facts are facts regardless of how they're spun. If the current spin doesn't truthfully represent the context of the times in which the facts occurred then those facts are worthless for current decision-making. I guess that's why we keep making the same mistakes, and why history repeats (so they say). It just doesn't have to be this way.
You couldn't be more wrong. No fact is meaningful unless it is placed in context. Mathematically, a single data point is meaningless.

A simple example: Let's say 7,863 soldiers were killed at Gettysburg (a reasonable estimate). What is the meaning of this number? Is it a lot or a little? Did it mean anything for the outcome of the war? How does it compare, say, to Revolutionary War battle numbers? Napoleonic War battle figures?

We only understand this number in the context of the Civil War if we know Lee's plans and his strength, Meade's plans and his strength, and the subsequent outcome for both armies. That is done by scholarship, and new information, like letters, battle plans, is regularly uncovered. Or, we discover that earlier scholarship was wrong, and we correct it.

Now . . .

Let's take another, more controversial, example. What was the cause of the Civil War? For about 150 years after the end of the war, a set of Southern apologist historians pushed the idea that the war was about states' rights, and that the South was simply defending home and hearth from invaders. The most influential was probably Charles Dunning, a history professor at Columbia University who pushed this idea over his long career. He founded the 'Dunning School', where he, as PhD advisor, produced graduate students who went on to promote the same idea. You know - the whole 'Lost Cause' mythology, along with the 'War of Northern Aggression', 'states rights', etc. (BTW - Woodrow Wilson was one part of the extended 'Dunning School).)

The Dunning School was very influential, because it gave academic cover to some pretty unfortunate ideas. When I was a youth, those ideas still held in a lot of places, and some older school textbooks of my youth even promoted this idea.

You can bet this girl yelling at the top of her lungs (Hazel Bryan) had been taught with those textbooks:
1632341195926.png


Then, a group of historians in the middle of the 20th century went back and looked at the scholarship, and re-examined the causes of the war. It became clear that the Dunning School was largely driven by white supremacy, and analysis of economic and historical data showed that the war was caused by the South's determination to retain slavery. This idea percolated out of the universities so that by the 1990s it was mainstream, even in the South, although not among older Southern conservatives who still idolized Confederate heroes - especially Lee.

But now, no serious historian challenges the idea that the Civil War was about slavery. As the whole world passed through the Enlightenment and gave up slavery, the Confederacy was determined to retain it. It was, of course, about money, since about half of the equity in the Confederacy was made up of slaves. The wealthy slave-owners wanted to stay rich. The only 'states right' they cared about was slavery.

So, you see, history has to be re-examined, because historians are people with biases and agendas (like all of us), and we need to put the harsh spotlight on them. And not too infrequently, we find that the earlier historians were biased or just wrong.


PS - Apropos of your perspective on history is Charles Dunning's 1913 speech to the American Historical Society: "Truth in History"
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Let's take another, more controversial, example. What was the cause of the Civil War?
It's all bullshit, everything you mentioned. It was the North's manufacturing vs. the South's agriculture. In other words, yes, about money, and the right to buy and sell in a free market. The North wanted and needed the South's agricultural output at the cheap prices they were willing to pay as input for their mills, a captive buyer's market, if you will, and the South wanted to sell to Europe where they could get higher prices for their cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, etc. The war didn't begin about slavery, slavery was already on the way out as it was becoming an uneconomical means of production, and advancing agricultural technology already doomed it. Without the war, slavery would have died out anyway as a matter of economics. The South fought because they didn't want to be a captive economy to benefit the North. Keep in mind the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the secessionist states. The reason no historian today challenges the war being about slavery is because they've all gone to the same universities where such revisionism was taught.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
It's all bullshit, everything you mentioned. It was the North's manufacturing vs. the South's agriculture. In other words, yes, about money, and the right to buy and sell in a free market. The North wanted and needed the South's agricultural output at the cheap prices they were willing to pay as input for their mills, a captive buyer's market, if you will, and the South wanted to sell to Europe where they could get higher prices for their cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, etc. The war didn't begin about slavery, slavery was already on the way out as it was becoming an uneconomical means of production, and advancing agricultural technology already doomed it. Without the war, slavery would have died out anyway as a matter of economics. The South fought because they didn't want to be a captive economy to benefit the North. Keep in mind the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the secessionist states. The reason no historian today challenges the war being about slavery is because they've all gone to the same universities where such revisionism was taught.
Are you referring to the Morrill Tariff? You have been reading too much 'Lost Cause' literature. Because those taxes were lower than they had been in the 1830s. And it only passed because several senators from seceding states resigned from the senate.

Disprove this quote; "none of the statesmen seeking a compromise in 1860-61 to avert the war ever suggested the tariff might be either the key to a solution or a cause of the secession."

After the war, it was just an excuse the South could raise, as if it were like 1776, even though they had full (actually too much) representation in Congress. It was just a bill they didn't like that they lost, nothing more. Certainly nothing that would have justified the treason of shelling Ft. Sumter.

More importantly, everything you just said about slavery was wrong. Even though by 1859 every country in Europe, South America (except Brazil), Mexico, and Canada had outlawed slavery, the Confederacy very much intended to hold on to their slaves.

I point you to Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's 'Keystone Speech" (1861) in which he literally contradicts everything you just wrote:


But I will pull a quote:
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Washington) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
. . .
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I don't pay much attention to anything any politican says. I look at the facts and make my own analysis. Slavery, Aryan superiority, WMD, whatever, with a few exceptions it's almost always lies geared to get the public to support giving their blood and treasure for whatever the real reasons are.

With respect to this primary topic of this thread, the real reasons for the worldwide protests have got nothing to do with Covid, vaccines, masks, BLM, white privilege, or whatever. They're just the straws breaking the camel's back.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
I don't pay much attention to anything any politican says. I look at the facts and make my own analysis. Slavery, Aryan superiority, WMD, whatever, with a few exceptions it's almost always lies geared to get the public to support giving their blood and treasure for whatever the real reasons are.

With respect to this primary topic of this thread, the real reasons for the worldwide protests have got nothing to do with Covid, vaccines, masks, BLM, white privilege, or whatever. They're just the straws breaking the camel's back.

Well, I'm not sure of where you get your information. You reject the word of the Confederates, at the time, about why they seceded, but then you are going to believe some random revisionist 'Lost Cause' website? That is just not reasonable.

Where did you read that the Morrill Tariff was in any way contributory to secession? No one, North or South, thought so at the time.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
It's all bullshit, everything you mentioned. It was the North's manufacturing vs. the South's agriculture. In other words, yes, about money, and the right to buy and sell in a free market. The North wanted and needed the South's agricultural output at the cheap prices they were willing to pay as input for their mills, a captive buyer's market, if you will, and the South wanted to sell to Europe where they could get higher prices for their cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, etc. The war didn't begin about slavery, slavery was already on the way out as it was becoming an uneconomical means of production, and advancing agricultural technology already doomed it. Without the war, slavery would have died out anyway as a matter of economics. The South fought because they didn't want to be a captive economy to benefit the North. Keep in mind the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the secessionist states. The reason no historian today challenges the war being about slavery is because they've all gone to the same universities where such revisionism was taught.

Not to pound on you for this, but this idea that we should have waited around for slavery to peter out is a complete moral cop-out. Slavery stuck around in Brazil until 1888. And every extra day slavery existed was an additional day some white supremacist overseer without a moral bone in his body could do this (or worse) with complete legal impunity:

1632376792667.png


The inaccuracy of your arguments about tariffs aside, you need to understand that the Confederacy existed to defend their right to do this whenever they wanted.
 
Last edited:

Robert

Administrator
Staff member
Holy thread drift... I hate to do it, but I have no idea what any of this has to do with the question posed in the original post. First china, now this? Yeah, no. Inability to stay focused claims another one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top