USS Cortez? Really?

That's truly hilarious the way you speak of the Sanctuary Districts as though they've already happened and can analyze them with the precision of a historian. Now, your path to that history might be possible, but you also have no proof that it wasn't some other chain of events. (My own take is that it was the combined malfeasance of BOTH political parties.)

 

Oh yes, Dusty, it's all the WASP's fault, innit? We're so thoroughly eeeeeeeeeevil? Everything bad about the world can be laid solely at the feet of the eeeeeeeeeeeevil WASP?

And I thought we'd at least gone beyond using bullshit meaningless crap words like "herstory".

 

I think it's silly to link a discussion about real-world politics to the fictional politics of the Sanctuary Districts, but the overall point that history is often misrepresented in American culture is valid.

Actually, Dusty's thesis is that WASPs are lied to about history, not that they are evil.

But, hey, don't let a willingness to accept that Europeans have sometimes done the wrong thing stop you from misrepresenting someone else's words. If it's more fun for you to turn, "Europeans have sometimes done bad things" into "Europeans are evil," well, hey, have fun.

But don't delude yourself here: You're not actually defending Europeans, and you're not actually promoting equality or peace.

 

Well, that's the WASP's sorted but what about us WIC's?

 

Well of course "Europeans" have sometimes done bad things. Who the hell HASN'T?

And you can read my mind...how, exactly?

 

But history as taught in the United States often downplays or ignores the abuses perpetuated by Europeans, particularly those European groups that gave rise to the U.S. That's why it's important to draw attention to those abuses -- to make sure that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that our ancestors didn't do things that were truly wrong and therefore find ourselves unable to learn from our past.

It's not a matter of reading your mind, it's a matter of describing the consequences of your actions. Someone else was pointing out that Europeans have committed human rights abuses and that these abuses need to be remembered, and your response was to attempt to minimize the seriousness of those abuses by misrepresenting what Dusty said as, "WASPs are evil." The consequence of that is both to promote untruths about European and American history and to promote an inability to learn from the bad parts of our past to create a better future.

 

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. (For example, I personally am descended from German immigrants. You think I like being called a Nazi? Of fucking COURSE the Nazis were evil. Fine. I FUCKING GET IT. But am I or my family responsible for that? Of course not. I had at least one relative who fought in WW II - AGAINST the Nazis. Oh, but let's not let "facts" get in the way of some gratuitous white-bashing, right? )

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.

 

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.) Granted this should come as a shock to no-one, really.

So, are we done now?

 

Actually, the idea for the episode came from something Ira Steven Behr saw that the city of Los Angeles was contemplating: namely, what goes on in this episode.

And no, I'm not saying that they already exist: I'm saying the the writers of this episode had a chance to give a good knock to the so-called great legacies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr., and said nothing except some vague bullshit at the end of Part Two about 'how could this happen?' rather than 'this situation was the end result of years of right-wing neoconservative policies on the parts of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush'. That's what should have been said, and needed to be said, and understood by many of the American fans of the show. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

And again, no, neither Sci or I am bringing up any anti-white bigotry or revisionist history, I'm just reiterating what's being said in Lies My Teacher Told Me, and making it an imperative for all Americans like yourself to truly learn the real facts about their history, rather than the nonsense and overblown hyperbole. When you can do that, American will be a better place, because you've learned from your history and aren't doomed to repeat it.

 

Dusty, you and Sci have stopped only one step short of saying "Everything you know is really a Jewish conspiracy" (which is something your pet historical revisionists actually DO say)... and, frankly, if this thread continues much longer, I expect you both to say that - you've already claimed it's a 'WASP' conspiracy now, which is in of itself a bigotted statement.

You and Sci both were factually wrong about Cortez, you're factually wrong about your own authors, you're putting up rediculous race-baiting tidbits borne of complete bullshits, throw a rediculous conspiracy theory about WASP-domination history, all within a sharp far leftist viewpoint (which, by the way, is explicitly a Communist Meme) and then presume to lecture ME on what facts really are?

Give me a break.

 

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.

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?

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.

 

Sci, if you really want a mature, rational discussion on the issue raised in this thread, then it requires you to at least be honest - both in fact and in intellect. You haven't been. You've lied here, you've obfuscated answers, you've personally attacked several people here, and you have used bigotry as a 'defense' of your position in several posts.

At this point, I've got no reason to continue my discussions with you. I know you're wrongly going to celebrate this as a victory, rather than realize the snub for what it really is, and for that I have great pity on you.

 

Then blame L.A., not the entire US government.

Oh yes, because whoever wrote that book is always right, yes? Has it ever occurred to you that there might be lies in that book as well?

Then why are you going out of your way to tear down what you claim to love so much?

 

Because I do not believe that acknowledging European -- or American -- human rights abuses is tearing down the greatness of European culture. I believe that European culture is great, on its own, without any need to defend its past human rights abuses. I believe that by talking about what we've done wrong in the past, we can build on what we've done right in the past.

It's like the old quote: "My country, right or wrong: If right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."

It applies to my cultural inheritance, too. "My culture, right or wrong: If right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."

In short, I'm not attacking Europe. I'm not attacking European culture. I'm attacking the bad things that Europeans did, and I'm attacking the general unwillingness that many people of European descent have to acknowledge those bad things. I'll attack Spanish imperialism, but that doesn't mean I don't think Spain has a rich and beautiful history and culture and language. I'll attack British imperialism, but as a proud British-American, I'll still bow to the Queen.

 

Sorry, but the policies of a federal government affect those of a state/province and city, and the policies of all three men were what was responsible for what really happened in the episode. The writers not mentioning this possible fact, for me, is stupidity.

There's no lies in the book, sir, just a statement of truth about a crisis that needs to be addressed. How you want to address it or not is up to you, but I'd advise that you do address it, because the same old, same old is too dangerous to keep on going.

Maybe because Sci loves America, and wants to see it become better than it is now.

 

Ah-ha! NOW who's being insufficiently skeptical?

Are you threatening me?

I question the way that he shows it.

 

Victim card.

Sorta like "Anyone who says anything even slightly negative about Israel is an anti-semite."

 

It is common practice to arrange an intervention for a loved one when you think that person is living a destructive lifestyle. It is even more common to point out the more glaring mistakes for a cherished family member to try and get them to improve their lifestyle.

The only people who will never criticize you are people who don't give a shit. And as far as the social/political situation in L.A., fact is most of us have known that LA is and has pretty much always been the most corrupt city government in the entire country (with the possible exception of Chicago). Anything that goes wrong in America usually goes wrong in LA first.

 

I can criticize Isreal on any case-by-case basis as it warrants. But if I were to do nothing but criticize Isreal as a knee-jerk reflex, and never offer a positive (in specific terms, more than "I love Isreal, really!"), then the anti-semite charge would have some validity.

To the point, there are certain individuals here that, in the years I've been here, have never said anything positive about 'white' or 'western' society, but do immediately pounce on anything anti-white or anti-western and laud it. After a few hundred, or even thousand, times of this being in evidence, isn't it natural that I would draw the conclusion that they're anti-white and anti-western?