your executive leadership is fundamentally incapable of acknowledging reality. and i wish that was hyperbole.
We left the age of colonialism because social mores and pressure meant that we couldn't justify pillaging lands for resources, or to "civilize the savages". In this regard, yes, technology has played a big factor, because now the people who occupy areas where we want resources are more than just words in a book, spectacles to gawk at in tomes about the far east. I see neoliberal policy as a way to circumvent the social pressure - we aren't trying to civilize the savages any more, we are trying to open up their economy so that they can prosper. Lift up the global poor! But the end result is the same.Larssen wrote:
I'll respond to this seperately because I don't agree at all. If you accuse me of being myopic I can't hope to imagine what you make of your own writing here. If 'the goal' has always been the same you might as well ask yourself why we ever left the age of colonialism and empire to begin with. We've been in the process of rectifying this issue since the justification of colonial possession became untenable. A process over the course of decades and centuries, mind you, not years.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This may not be the age of colonialism as we know it, but there are activities taken by the global north that still seek to exert control over weaker areas - except the new currency of warfare is money, not bombs. The end goal is the same - to extract wealth and resources, to open up new markets, to ensure consumption. Whether it's old-fashioned imperialism, colonialism, or modern neoliberal policy, the goal is the same.
I take issue with the western heuristic of international relations, if that isn't already obvious.
I also have a degree in International Relations, by the way. We can do the dick-swinging if you want.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
European colonialism didn't end because Europeans collectively developed empathy for non-Europeans. It ended because the colonial empires were not economically or militarily sustainable.
Alternatively: colonialism never ended, it's just been rebranded to make it seem innocuous.
That's an interesting point concerning accelerated realism. In the EU's case I can see the foundational ECSC as being a fairly obvious example of that. But I think after, give or take, the 1992 Maastricht Treaty the EU became about ideological goals. You could argue it was to prevent the former communist states from falling backwards, but really it was about making them more European, in my opinion, since they were on the doorstep. Similar reason Turkey is never getting in despite having a real shot in the late 2000's (never--to ideologically different).KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The formation of the EU was largely an institutionalist approach. I understand you want to add in that you can still apply constructivist ideology to any current relations, but let's stop pretending that this particular application of international relations theory followed anything that could be construed as as constructivist ideology. It's accelerated realism where practical goals are championed over any ideological goals - and that is my biggest issue with IR theory in general.
I know your pet is the EU, but I feel like your closeness to it, from your studies through your work experience has clouded your ability to objectively look at other applications of IR theory. It's evident in your post - i point out historical examples of real international cooperation, and you immediately dismiss it because "the EU wasn't like that".
I had a much longer post queued up before the forums borked, but I don't have the time to respond.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
colonialism will about be over when the ex-imperial powers forgive the debt of the global south. those countries have struggled to prosper under the onus of some quite ridiculous debts. but that's a whole other story.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
This covers up the awfulness of European colonial past more than it advocates on anyone's behalf today. I don't ever call China's action in Africa colonialism because there is a vast difference between what the Chinese are doing today and what the Europeans did in the past. The Chinese have a right to feel slandered by the accusation.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Alternatively: colonialism never ended, it's just been rebranded to make it seem innocuous.
I will definitely concede that there are ideological drivers - it can't all be pragmatism, after all. But I think one of the key detriments of EU policy (and international relations in general) is the overarching desire to let practical goals dictate policy. I think it's much like prosecutorial conduct as applied in the US - the focus of "justice" takes a back seat to winning a case. The practical goal (the ability to win a case) supercedes ideological goals (the want to uphold justice). In my opinion, the ideology should be driving practical application, not practical applications circling back to make sure it's in line with the ideology.Pochsy wrote:
That's an interesting point concerning accelerated realism. In the EU's case I can see the foundational ECSC as being a fairly obvious example of that. But I think after, give or take, the 1992 Maastricht Treaty the EU became about ideological goals. You could argue it was to prevent the former communist states from falling backwards, but really it was about making them more European, in my opinion, since they were on the doorstep. Similar reason Turkey is never getting in despite having a real shot in the late 2000's (never--to ideologically different).KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The formation of the EU was largely an institutionalist approach. I understand you want to add in that you can still apply constructivist ideology to any current relations, but let's stop pretending that this particular application of international relations theory followed anything that could be construed as as constructivist ideology. It's accelerated realism where practical goals are championed over any ideological goals - and that is my biggest issue with IR theory in general.
I know your pet is the EU, but I feel like your closeness to it, from your studies through your work experience has clouded your ability to objectively look at other applications of IR theory. It's evident in your post - i point out historical examples of real international cooperation, and you immediately dismiss it because "the EU wasn't like that".
I had a much longer post queued up before the forums borked, but I don't have the time to respond.
neocolonialism mostly points the finger at western corporations/business/elites to be honest.SuperJail Warden wrote:
This covers up the awfulness of European colonial past more than it advocates on anyone's behalf today. I don't ever call China's action in Africa colonialism because there is a vast difference between what the Chinese are doing today and what the Europeans did in the past. The Chinese have a right to feel slandered by the accusation.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Alternatively: colonialism never ended, it's just been rebranded to make it seem innocuous.
You have a very specific view of what colonialism is, and I don't have any issue with that - for all i care, colonialism can only mean white men in funny outfits cutting the hands off indigenous workers for not hitting their daily quota. But the goals, desires, end result is the same - the subjugation of people for the benefit of the global powers. But just because there is no whip doesn't mean there is no subjugation. It just manifests differently, which is why i say it has rebranded.SuperJail Warden wrote:
This covers up the awfulness of European colonial past more than it advocates on anyone's behalf today. I don't ever call China's action in Africa colonialism because there is a vast difference between what the Chinese are doing today and what the Europeans did in the past. The Chinese have a right to feel slandered by the accusation.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Alternatively: colonialism never ended, it's just been rebranded to make it seem innocuous.
Colonialism is the old cathode ray TV. Neoliberalism is the shiny new iPhone.
I know Mac hates it when I mention books because there's already a uzique, but have you read Jeremy Rifkin's The European Dream? I think there are arguments there that would suggest that the whole thing has always been about a uniquely European ideology coming out of WW2, made real by a grounding in the practical value for the folks who can't wrap their heads around anything intangible. Now, I think there's likely a lot of rose-tinted retrospection going on in this understanding, but I think there's at least something there.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I will definitely concede that there are ideological drivers - it can't all be pragmatism, after all. But I think one of the key detriments of EU policy (and international relations in general) is the overarching desire to let practical goals dictate policy. I think it's much like prosecutorial conduct as applied in the US - the focus of "justice" takes a back seat to winning a case. The practical goal (the ability to win a case) supercedes ideological goals (the ability to implement justice). In my opinion, the ideology should be driving practical application.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
the EU was absolutely a grand vision. it was a huge idealistic undertaking.
the problem is it is now a neoliberal technocratic apparatus doing everything in the name of 'common sense', which, of course, reflects only neoliberal common sense.
this tepid sort of managerialist politics was fine when the economy was working for the majority of europeans. but it hasn't been doing so for decades.
the problem is it is now a neoliberal technocratic apparatus doing everything in the name of 'common sense', which, of course, reflects only neoliberal common sense.
this tepid sort of managerialist politics was fine when the economy was working for the majority of europeans. but it hasn't been doing so for decades.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/05/ho … ange-world
how the black death changed the world.
how the black death changed the world.
The most remarkable thing about the emerging post-plague landscape was the diversity of political outcomes across Europe. Faced with a common shock, different countries responded in radically different ways. In England, the popular struggles after the Black Death led to a new form of agrarian capitalism. In France and Spain, the aristocracy entered into an alliance with the monarchy, leading to a centralisation of political authority in the absolutist state. In Italy, power remained decentralised within city-states, allowing merchant oligarchies to entrench their particular form of commercial capitalism.
In the Near East, the outcomes were different still. The powerful military landlords of Mamluk Egypt pressed down so hard on the peasantry that local communities were forced continuously to till the fields and abandon their maintenance work on the Nile irrigation system, causing its canals to become chocked with silt and leading to long-term agricultural decline.
The Byzantine empire similarly went into its death throes following the plague, opening up a power vacuum for the Ottomans to fill, finally leading to the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The rise of the Ottoman empire dashed European efforts to re-establish direct trade relations with the Far East. The Genoese, having lost their stronghold on the Black Sea, turned west in the hope of finding new commercial opportunities in the Atlantic.
Genoese merchants soon established a firm presence along the West African coast, and eventually became heavily involved in the Portuguese sugar plantations on Madeira and the Azores. The Portuguese and Genoese turned to the forced labour of captives purchased from African emperors and warlords for the manpower to grow this labour-intensive crop – giving rise to the Atlantic slave trade. Portugal’s early colonial adventures soon triggered a competitive struggle with neighbouring Spain, culminating in the rival voyages of Columbus and Vasco da Gama. Aiming to circumvent the Muslim monopoly over the Far East trade routes, the Genoese explorer eventually stumbled upon the Americas, while his Portuguese counterpart circumnavigated Africa to find a direct route to India. A new era in world history had begun.
The Black Death, which had acted as a powerful catalyst in this complex chain of events, was truly an epoch-making event. The world eventually recovered from the late-medieval crisis it spawned, but if there is one lesson we can draw from this historical experience, it is that the social, economic and political consequences of a major pandemic can linger well beyond the immediate impact. This pandemic, too, will pass – but the after-effects may remain with us for a long time to come. Although coronavirus itself will not create a new world, the way in which social movements, political actors and international powers choose to respond to it certainly will.
Yeah but there weren't 330 million Americans then...
jay's scientific calculator has only one function button: ÷ 330,000,000.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
This is the sort of Historical Abuse that the National Review does.uziq wrote:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/05/how-plagues-change-world
how the black death changed the world.The most remarkable thing about the emerging post-plague landscape was the diversity of political outcomes across Europe. Faced with a common shock, different countries responded in radically different ways. In England, the popular struggles after the Black Death led to a new form of agrarian capitalism. In France and Spain, the aristocracy entered into an alliance with the monarchy, leading to a centralisation of political authority in the absolutist state. In Italy, power remained decentralised within city-states, allowing merchant oligarchies to entrench their particular form of commercial capitalism.
In the Near East, the outcomes were different still. The powerful military landlords of Mamluk Egypt pressed down so hard on the peasantry that local communities were forced continuously to till the fields and abandon their maintenance work on the Nile irrigation system, causing its canals to become chocked with silt and leading to long-term agricultural decline.
The Byzantine empire similarly went into its death throes following the plague, opening up a power vacuum for the Ottomans to fill, finally leading to the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The rise of the Ottoman empire dashed European efforts to re-establish direct trade relations with the Far East. The Genoese, having lost their stronghold on the Black Sea, turned west in the hope of finding new commercial opportunities in the Atlantic.
Genoese merchants soon established a firm presence along the West African coast, and eventually became heavily involved in the Portuguese sugar plantations on Madeira and the Azores. The Portuguese and Genoese turned to the forced labour of captives purchased from African emperors and warlords for the manpower to grow this labour-intensive crop – giving rise to the Atlantic slave trade. Portugal’s early colonial adventures soon triggered a competitive struggle with neighbouring Spain, culminating in the rival voyages of Columbus and Vasco da Gama. Aiming to circumvent the Muslim monopoly over the Far East trade routes, the Genoese explorer eventually stumbled upon the Americas, while his Portuguese counterpart circumnavigated Africa to find a direct route to India. A new era in world history had begun.
The Black Death, which had acted as a powerful catalyst in this complex chain of events, was truly an epoch-making event. The world eventually recovered from the late-medieval crisis it spawned, but if there is one lesson we can draw from this historical experience, it is that the social, economic and political consequences of a major pandemic can linger well beyond the immediate impact. This pandemic, too, will pass – but the after-effects may remain with us for a long time to come. Although coronavirus itself will not create a new world, the way in which social movements, political actors and international powers choose to respond to it certainly will.
hardly. it's not advocating any political interpretation. the black death was a major catalyst in fulminating social change. how is that controversial? 1/2 of europe died in about 2 years. power structures were left vacant, labour forces decimated. the post-pandemic world was a different one.
he teaches political science at the london school of economics. he's not a 24-year-old trained singer with some opinions.
try again.
he teaches political science at the london school of economics. he's not a 24-year-old trained singer with some opinions.
try again.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
The people who write those dummy articles citing World War 2 have degrees in history also. He is blaming the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire on the Black Plague. Blaming colonialism on the Black Plague. Blaming the decline of Mamluk Egypt on the Black Plague. It's ridiculous. It's like blaming World War 2, the Cold War, Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq on the Spanish Flu.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
You can advocate that the Black Plague was a world changing event without needing to drag in every other world changing event into the narrative. It just makes the whole thing look dumb.
How much of it is politics and how much is actual fear? The media is still in full #resist mode and is scaring the ever living shit out of everyone by dwelling on the outlier cases. I mean, they do this regularly for ratings, but now it's in hyperdrive and they have a captive audience.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think a majority of the country would be willing to sign off on massive government spending to restore confidence in the economy and society at large. We just have a very vocal minority that vetoes whatever. I boldened the phrase 'restore confidence' for good reason. Anyone who grew up watching the History Channel will tell you that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression. That's true but the New Deal helped restore confidence in the system and made people feel like their concerns were being addressed and their best interest was at heart. Nothing is being done to restore confidence in the system at the moment. Our executive political leadership is fundamentally incapable of providing the support we need.
Trump's big thing was the economy, so, politically it's in the Democrats interest to extend the shut down for as long as possible to damage him. Notice they just proposed to extend the extra $600/mo through January? We're one of the few job sites open right now and we can't find electricians that are willing to work because they're making more sitting on the bench.
Right now they're delaying reopening as leverage for a bailout. Once they secure it I think we'll start getting back to normal, with some caution.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
The media doesn't need to do anything to scare people beyond reporting on things like nursing homes with 80 people dead or hospital trailers full of dead bodies. Look at what happened to Italy and Spain. Was European media collaborating to bring Trump down too?Jay wrote:
How much of it is politics and how much is actual fear? The media is still in full #resist mode and is scaring the ever living shit out of everyone by dwelling on the outlier cases. I mean, they do this regularly for ratings, but now it's in hyperdrive and they have a captive audience.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think a majority of the country would be willing to sign off on massive government spending to restore confidence in the economy and society at large. We just have a very vocal minority that vetoes whatever. I boldened the phrase 'restore confidence' for good reason. Anyone who grew up watching the History Channel will tell you that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression. That's true but the New Deal helped restore confidence in the system and made people feel like their concerns were being addressed and their best interest was at heart. Nothing is being done to restore confidence in the system at the moment. Our executive political leadership is fundamentally incapable of providing the support we need.
Trump's big thing was the economy, so, politically it's in the Democrats interest to extend the shut down for as long as possible to damage him. Notice they just proposed to extend the extra $600/mo through January? We're one of the few job sites open right now and we can't find electricians that are willing to work because they're making more sitting on the bench.
Right now they're delaying reopening as leverage for a bailout. Once they secure it I think we'll start getting back to normal, with some caution.
Bailout or not, people are not going to resume life as normal. I mentioned this before, but I don't expect schools to reopen in September. There has been zero guidance as to how to prepare and manage schools, zero aid offered too. People see this and it doesn't give them confidence that their kids are going to be safe going to school in a few months. Now repeat this along with every other industry and and service and you end up with the same thing. No one knows what to do because the executive branch is trying to make it look like nothing is happening. And people don't accept that.
nope he didn't say that.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The people who write those dummy articles citing World War 2 have degrees in history also. He is blaming the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire on the Black Plague. Blaming colonialism on the Black Plague. Blaming the decline of Mamluk Egypt on the Black Plague. It's ridiculous. It's like blaming World War 2, the Cold War, Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq on the Spanish Flu.
the medical evidence is starting to suggest that covid-19 is bad news for kids, too. not deaths from pneumonia, of course, but a massive immune system over-response (kawasaki syndrome) and inflammatory problems requiring urgent care. it has been reported in new york and italy.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I mentioned this before, but I don't expect schools to reopen in September. There has been zero guidance as to how to prepare and manage schools, zero aid offered too. People see this and it doesn't give them confidence that their kids are going to be safe going to school in a few months. Now repeat this along with every other industry and and service and you end up with the same thing. No one knows what to do because the executive branch is trying to make it look like nothing is happening. And people don't accept that.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 … y-disorder
the entire attitude that you can send children into the firing line of covid and not worry about it is very badly flawed.Doctors in Italy have reported the first clear evidence of a link between Covid-19 and a rare but serious inflammatory disorder that has required some children to undergo life-saving treatment in intensive care units.
The mysterious condition emerged last month when NHS bosses issued an alert to doctors after hospitals admitted a number of children with a mix of toxic shock and symptoms seen in an inflammatory disorder known as Kawasaki disease.
On Tuesday, medics at the Evelina London Children’s Hospital announced the death of a 14-year-old boy, the first known fatality from the condition in Britain. Between 75 and 100 children are now receiving treatment across the country. Typical symptoms include a fever, skin rashes, red eyes, cracked lips and abdominal pain.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3717
uziq wrote:
nope he didn't say that.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The people who write those dummy articles citing World War 2 have degrees in history also. He is blaming the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire on the Black Plague. Blaming colonialism on the Black Plague. Blaming the decline of Mamluk Egypt on the Black Plague. It's ridiculous. It's like blaming World War 2, the Cold War, Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq on the Spanish Flu.
it was the conclusion of the article pointing forward at the history of europe after 'the late middle ages'. he didn't make any claims that the black death 'caused' those things. that would be an elementary mistake not even supportable in a high-school essay.
how about you read the links before dismissing things?
how about you read the links before dismissing things?