07-12-2023, 12:28 PM
(07-12-2023, 11:13 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL "WE" get it? On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority.
It's interesting that you say that like it makes me automatically wrong.
Quote: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.
Sorry, there's no global conspiracy at work here. Just people tired of being held to account for the sins of people long dead. Especially when major efforts are being made to address those sins.
Quote: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?
Ahh, now you're again talking about recent events. You continue to do this when Murray is referencing events from hundreds of years ago. You keep doing this, and it's odd since I've pointed out several times that this isn't what we're talking about. I think you'll find that there are very few people who begrudge the pursuit of recompense for actions that took place within the seeker's lifetime.
Quote:Reparations isn't only about "The West": People in countries like Kenya and South Africa are suing for reparations against former governments.
For events that happened over 150 years ago?
Quote: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.
Again, simply turn on mainstream news and watch. You'll inevitably run into some of it within a few hours. Also, it's not about being uncomfortable, that's a projection of leftist reactions to these types of things. I am in no way made uncomfortable by discussion of wrongs committed by others, and no one I know is either.. If you have no hand in the wrongs being discussed why would you? I don't subscribe to the sins of the father, nor do I feel responsible for the actions of others simply because we share a similar ethnic origin. That kind of gestalt perception is a leftist value.
Quote: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.
This is a perfect example of you not actually listening to opposing viewpoints. No reasonable person could listen to that argument and take away that he was "dismissing any possible responsibility for it".
Quote:If you COULD answer that question, you would, instead of finding reasons you don't have to.
Uhh, I have, repeatedly. Race hustling is a booming industry in this nation. People like Al Sharpton have made a very nice living extorting corporations with threats of boycotts. Joy Reid has an entire show where this is a near daily topic. The fact that you even have to ask for examples shows what an isolated existence you live.
Quote: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.
Ugh, you really do make reading and responding to your posts a repetitive slog. How many times can you restate the same point, only with more words every time?
Quote: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.
No, you dismiss any argument as lacking in scholarly value if it doesn't confirm to your beliefs. You've literally dismissed Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris as not being a "scholar". I'd be very comfortable in claiming that Hitchens's knowledge absolutely dwarfed yours.
Quote: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"?
I don't "feel" condescension, I recognize it. Also, no one is dodging anything. Not answering in the exact Dill proscribed fashion is not dodging. Especially when your penchant for repetition and overly wordy responses makes engaging with you as pleasant as a root canal.
