Well liberals is it time to stop July 4th being a holiday?

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, you're still not getting it.  Unsurprising.

And still not getting it.  We're talking public perception, not a court of law.  Inappropriate analogies don't help address the topic.

Who is saying that?

It's not clear?  Have you been in a coma the last three years?

Not sure why you're stuck on modern day examples when his point was regarding actions taken hundreds of years ago.  We get it, you're not interested in understanding why so many people hear "reparations" and "west is bad" polemics and increasingly roll their eyes and stop listening.  Like most ideologues you're incapable of understanding why people think differently than you, because what you think is "correct".  This response from you screams, I have taken in nothing of what is said and will now provide you with a boilerplate "progressive" response.

Also, and typically, you rush to dismiss the positions of your opponents as lacking in scholarly value, an old and apparently favored tactic of yours.  We know that anyone who agrees with Dill is learned and anyone who doesn't is a charlatan who "prefers YouTube to scholarly books", no need to constantly reinforce it.  Your responses positively drip with condescension.  It's not a good look.

LOL "WE" get it?  On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority. 

And yes, "push history" is about shaping and controlling "public perception" so that eyes roll and people hear "the West is bad" when exposed to a wider account of global history. The goal is to get people to pre-judge and shut out historical knowledge which might alter their views about how existing power arrangements came to be. And ideologues accomplish that by distorting what historians have actually said, reframing history as "grievance," a personal attack on "the West" by people who "hate" it.  

This is especially the case with talk of "reparations," a transnational concept finally enabled by global organizations and courts. So across many countries in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean we see people of various nations calling for reparations.  People who enslaved others and benefitted from that want this to be past harm. Those still affected don't think its all in the past. Haiti is a good contrast to Piers Morgan's example of the Norman invasion. It did not finish paying off its extorted debt to France until 1947 (the "independence debt" for "theft" of property--freed slaves). The role that debt played in Haitian underdevelopment, and Aristide's call for reparations, was still a very live issue when he was overthrown in 2004, 200 years after 1804. https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html. 

Should Aristide have "acknowledged" slavery in India 400 years ago when making his case "only" against France? 

Reparations isn't only about "The West": People in countries like Kenya and South Africa are suing for reparations against former governments.

That's why it is "not clear" WHO is "only taking Western nations to task." Because "who" might take us uncomfortably close to a "why" which cannot be dismissed with an eye roll by "virtuous" Westerners.     

So if I ask who "only" attacks "the West"? And in what context? That is a call to re-assess the easy and uninformed dismissal of reparations as "attacks" on "the West."  Especially curious in the case of someone like Murray, who claims "the West's" stance on slavery is "more virtuous" while dismissing any possible responsibility for it and dissing those responsible for that claimed virtue. 

If you COULD answer that question, you would, instead of finding reasons you don't have to. 

My asking such questions is not exactly a "rush to dismiss." You were given a perfectly good chance to explain what you think I'm not getting. It turns out you cannot. You can only refer me back to that vague and uninformed public perception. That might be ignorance. Murray gestures towards a vague "them" and you "know" what he means. It's "everywhere"--until you have to specify a where. The other possibility is that you can identify someone who "only attacks the West," but it turns out to be quite inconsequential--like a ranting college student on Youtube--or actually consequential, someone who makes a case you don't want heard. Either way, safer to NOT answer and ask if I'M the one who's been in a coma. 

When no substantive answer is forthcoming, then yes, I "rush to dismiss" your sort of response as "lacking in scholarly value." Because it does. Backing up historical claims with reference to historical record, and noting where my opponents cannot, is indeed "an old and apparently favored tactic of mine." Watch out for it in future posts.

Just as yours is to make expansive condemnations on the basis of "public perception," and then to feel "condescension" while dodging questions about the origins and validity of a "perception" you cannot defend.  Do you think that is a "good look"?