your response was to attempt to minimize the seriousness of those abuses
Don't tell me what my response was. I know what I said: 1) "Europeans" are hardly the only group that has ever committed abuses, and 2) We don't particularly like being constantly lectured about the abuses that they HAVE committed.
Then stop trying to minimize the abuses and people will stop bringing it up. An emphasis on European human rights abuses is a response to a tendency to avoid acknowledging them.
You say that history courses downplay the seriousness of past crimes. Who knows, maybe they do. But you are OVERplaying them, which is just as bad.
Dude, I'm talking about European abuses in this thread because
someone else brought it up. I'm not sure what fantasy you've concocted for yourself, but in the real world, I don't go around bringing up European human rights abuses any more than I bring up any other groups' abuses; that I am talking about them in this thread is a function of the fact that this thread was started specifically to talk about them. If this thread was about, for instance,
Asian human rights abuses, I'd be talking about
that.
ETA: For instance, if the topic had been, "Would the Federation name a ship the
U.S.S. Genghis Khan or the
U.S.S. Qin Shi Huang?," I'd be arguing just as strongly against those examples and I'd been against Cortés, and I'd react just as strongly against someone wanting to downplay historical Asian human rights violations out of Asian pride. That I am talking about European abuses is a function of the fact that that is the topic at hand, nothing more.
End edit.
A willingness to discuss European human rights abuses does not equal an overemphasis on them. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that any desire to talk about European human rights violations constitutes an overemphasis on them. So why would you take
this instance as an overemphasis?
I would just like to thank both Sci and Dusty for their help in unequivocally proving that most of their desire for revisionist history is actually born out of anti-white bigotry. (No matter what their individual skin-colors actually happen to be.)
Ah, yes, that old bugaboo: Anyone who thinks that the abuses of Europeans should not be minimized because of a P.C. desire to portray European history in a positive light must therefore have an anti-white bigotry.
Never mind that I am, myself, quite proud of my English, Irish, Welsh, French, German, and Finnish heritages. Never mind that I self-identify as a British-American and greatly admire British and English cultures, or that I happen to think that European countries have some of the best systems of government and economics in the world. Never mind that I'm proud of my European heritage and all the good things Europeans have brought to the world. Never mind that I'll happily concede that the Enlightenment and the rise of liberal democracy are the greatest gifts Europeans have ever given this planet and that every society should embrace those basic principles.
No no no -- only anti-white bigots are willing to talk about European human rights abuses. And if someone is willing to say, hey, this guy or that guy who's often venerated was actually a bad guy? Obviously he hates whitey.
Anyway, now that
you've demonstrated a complete inability to formulate a counter-argument, resorting to lying about the contents of a book on one hand and then engaging in baseless
ad hominem attacks on the other, I'm done, sure.