maybe gradual refers to gentle, as is with most Japanese ways.
the distinction is in the distinction, not of token, but type.
like in the picture, both are there at the same time.
the realization of this is both immediate and gradual
like water flowing up a waterfall...
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
maybe gradual refers to gentle, as is with most Japanese ways.
Yeah, like the way they used to test samurai swords. Or the Black Dragon Society. Tojo was pretty gentle, too. Also, the very concept of "esemono" is really tender.
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
the distinction is in the distinction, not of token, but type.
like in the picture, both are there at the same time.
the realization of this is both immediate and gradual
like water flowing up a waterfall...
WTF is this hippie shit? :crankey:
Bu: you forgot about wonder... :eek:
Yeah, the japanese are as gentle as the US is benevolent....
Dok, what's esemono? google fails me...
not knowing Bu, you know nothing of japanese martial arts, so please, Howl elsewhere
Quote from: Iptuous on July 06, 2010, 09:17:59 PM
Yeah, the japanese are as gentle as the US is benevolent....
Dok, what's esemono? google fails me...
Might have spelled it wrong. It was the concept of "non-human" status that was conferred on anyone not of the noble or warrior caste. For a good chunk of Japan's history, this class had no right to life...ie, anyone of higher caste could kill them with no penalty.
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:20:42 PM
not knowing Bu, you know nothing of japanese martial arts, so please, Howl elsewhere
Fuck off, hippie scum. I'll Goddamn Howl where I please. Take
your fake-ass ninja wannabe ass somewhere else.
TIA.
learning fails for some...
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:25:23 PM
learning fails for some...
Yeah, sorry about that, oh Ascended Master. :lulz:
Fucking hippie.
BOO
Cram, sorry about this. If you want the topic split, say the word.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
Might have spelled it wrong. It was the concept of "non-human" status that was conferred on anyone not of the noble or warrior caste. For a good chunk of Japan's history, this class had no right to life...ie, anyone of higher caste could kill them with no penalty.
I'm fairly certain that a large portion of Japan's citizens
currently think of non Japanese as, at least, a 'lesser' version of humans.
i base this off of what i have read, and the relationships that i have had with some Japanese guys in school.
they claimed it is just a healthy nationalism that they would expect everybody to have, but they seemed to honestly think that they were the correct ones, and everyone else is, at best, an honorable mention, and at worst, no better than animals. (they were, of course, very courteous about it.) it felt to me, though that it went far beyond nationalism, and that there was the perception that they were
inherently and genetically distinct and superior.
I don't have any idea of whether there is still this concept that you mention
within their society, but i would guess they would be perfectly content if it were applied to Japanese/non-Japanese.
and despite all that, i still love 'em...
(http://www.futurerelease.com/panchronos/DSC00444_2.JPG)
Minuspace's garbage here is exactly what gives Zen a bad name. Cram and some others posted some interesting thoughts on the subject, and without fail, some emtpy-headed twat (minuspace, in this case) has to come along and post some pseudo-mystical bullshit just to show how enlightened they are.
Dok,
Understands why Zazzen spags hit their students with sticks, now.
Oh, look...Minuspace has a bokken and a toy sword. He must be some kind of martial arts master. :lulz:
thats what the cat keeps on saying :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on July 06, 2010, 09:32:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
Might have spelled it wrong. It was the concept of "non-human" status that was conferred on anyone not of the noble or warrior caste. For a good chunk of Japan's history, this class had no right to life...ie, anyone of higher caste could kill them with no penalty.
I'm fairly certain that a large portion of Japan's citizens currently think of non Japanese as, at least, a 'lesser' version of humans.
i base this off of what i have read, and the relationships that i have had with some Japanese guys in school.
they claimed it is just a healthy nationalism that they would expect everybody to have, but they seemed to honestly think that they were the correct ones, and everyone else is, at best, an honorable mention, and at worst, no better than animals. (they were, of course, very courteous about it.) it felt to me, though that it went far beyond nationalism, and that there was the perception that they were inherently and genetically distinct and superior.
I don't have any idea of whether there is still this concept that you mention within their society, but i would guess they would be perfectly content if it were applied to Japanese/non-Japanese.
and despite all that, i still love 'em...
Oh, I have no beef with the Japanese, don't get me wrong. I was merely objecting to minuspace's retarded revisionist insistence that they're all treehugging hippie loveburgers.
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:40:20 PM
thats what the cat keeps on saying :lulz:
What are you like when you're NOT fucked out of your head on ditchweed, minuspace?
Don't take it personal, really, you'll be just fine :argh!:
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:46:25 PM
Don't take it personal, really, you'll be just fine :argh!:
What the hell are you babbling about? :lulz:
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-AH818_NYSAMU_G_20100627172752.jpg)
Members of the Japanese Embassy, photographed on their trip to America in 1860.
In 1853, U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry steered his smoke-belching steamship into the Bay of Edo (today's Tokyo), terrorizing the Japanese citizenry and forcing the Tokugawa government to end 200 years of almost complete isolation. In the process, Adm. Perry and the U.S. consul he left behind further weakened a government battling famine and growing political opposition. As the U.S. established more formal relations, criticism of the shoguns grew. "Shogun" means "barbarian-subduing generalissimo," yet those very barbarians were now calling the shots.
Amid this turmoil, a Japanese delegation sailed to America to present the recently signed U.S.-Japan Treaty of Amity and Commerce to President Buchanan. They arrived in San Francisco on March 29, 1860, for a three-month tour that ended with two weeks in New York. That visit is the focus of "Samurai in New York," a new show at the Museum of the City of New York that uses photographs, newspaper clippings, personal belongings and a handful of artworks to commemorate its 150th anniversary.
Samurai in New York
Museum of the City of New York
1220 Fifth Ave., (212) 534-1672
Through Oct. 11
Two thick lines—one red, the other black—slash across the white wall of the introductory display at irregular angles, imbuing this otherwise airy space with a subtle tension. There, in a central display case, is the curving blade of a beautiful but lethally sharp Japanese sword, a gift to the U.S. Navy.
Foreshadowing aside, the effect is not as dramatic as it might seem: The show's presentation is unassuming and its content requires careful reading for the tensions to emerge.
The sword forms part of an introduction that includes reproductions from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly, an excerpt from Walt Whitman's poem "The Errand Bearers," and a bronze medal given as a commemorative gift. The message is clear: The growing tensions that were driving the U.S. toward the Civil War may have quickly superseded the Japanese visit in New Yorkers' consciousness, but at the time it was a big deal.
Big enough, as the next section shows, that famous photographers like Mathew Brady courted the Japanese delegates. Big enough, as the display of cartes de visites and stereoscopic photographs demonstrates, that New Yorkers flocked to buy images of men in kimonos against painted backdrops of palm trees.
While the three principals claim center stage in the official photographs, other images feature members of the delegation whose identities have been lost. Contrary to American expectations, these were not high-ranking members of the shogunate. In fact, most were in their 20s and 30s and under strict orders not to take any initiative. Reluctant to leave the Metropolitan Hotel, they visited such places as a naval shipyard, a rubber factory, schools and hospitals only at the Americans' insistence.
As a result, the envoys often chronicled life inside the hotel—one photogravure shows them clustered around laundresses using a sewing machine or ironing, the former something new and strange to them. Some, however, displayed increasing curiosity. In his diary, displayed here, Somo Kato recorded sketches of steamboats and cannons—a reminder that Japan was keen to catch up to a more technologically advanced West. Tateishi Onojiro, nicknamed "Tommy," collected female admiration. A darling of the U.S. press, he was only 18 and, says curator Kathleen Benson, alone among the envoys to wave and blow kisses to the crowds.
Each side harbored different aims and experienced different frustrations. For the Japanese, the visit was primarily ceremonial: A photogravure of a ball given in their honor shows the Japanese standing at the back of the room as though waiting for their hosts to stop partying and engage in a proper, sober ritual.
For the Americans, the celebrations were tied to commerce. A silver service presented to Adm. Perry by New York merchants grateful for the opening of Japan is displayed next to a facsimile of the treaty and just ahead of some photogravures and photographs recording the lavish horse-drawn cart that paraded the treaty up Broadway. One reads in the Japanese flags shown in the windows excitement at the prospect of profitable trade.
As the show progresses, ambivalent attitudes, particularly on the American side, become more apparent. A song sheet's lyrics mock the visitors with racial epithets, while a case with Japanese artifacts and Japanese-inspired Tiffany objects expresses a deep and lasting appreciation of their art. Similarly, while some questioned the wisdom of entertaining the Japanese so lavishly, others pointed to their "munificence" and "superb presents."
A New York Times quote stenciled on the wall, meanwhile, expressed the cynicism of many. Yes, the Japanese were buying "dry goods, hardware, firearms, jewelry, glassware, optical instruments and innumerable other evidences of our ingenuity and art—doubtless when our commerce with Japan is fully open, to be returned to us in the shape of duplicate imitations and improvements."
For once, Doktor Howl isn't jumping MY ass (I know, exaggeration, and I deserved it)...
Yeah, the Japanese were a bit brutal... Thomas Cleary spoke in an interview about how people need to always beware Japanese militarism, and read up on things in order to know their potential enemy... Or at least, that's the gist of it I remember, I'm not going to read it for a third time for a bit yet.
http://www.sonshi.com/cleary.html
EDIT: I've always thought of admiral Perry's forcing open Japan's ports as a mistake.
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 06, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
EDIT: I've always thought of admiral Perry's forcing open Japan's ports as a mistake.
Stop hating America™.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 06, 2010, 09:32:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
Might have spelled it wrong. It was the concept of "non-human" status that was conferred on anyone not of the noble or warrior caste. For a good chunk of Japan's history, this class had no right to life...ie, anyone of higher caste could kill them with no penalty.
I'm fairly certain that a large portion of Japan's citizens currently think of non Japanese as, at least, a 'lesser' version of humans.
i base this off of what i have read, and the relationships that i have had with some Japanese guys in school.
they claimed it is just a healthy nationalism that they would expect everybody to have, but they seemed to honestly think that they were the correct ones, and everyone else is, at best, an honorable mention, and at worst, no better than animals. (they were, of course, very courteous about it.) it felt to me, though that it went far beyond nationalism, and that there was the perception that they were inherently and genetically distinct and superior.
I don't have any idea of whether there is still this concept that you mention within their society, but i would guess they would be perfectly content if it were applied to Japanese/non-Japanese.
and despite all that, i still love 'em...
I have a friend who teaches English in Japan, and I know from her that there are simply parts of most major Japanese cities where foreigners are not at all welcome. It's not like, say, parts of the north of England where certain Asian and white gangs beat the shit out of anyone the wrong colour in their area, but more like...they refuse to acknowledge your existence. You wont get served, people will push past you, you're basically invisible.
A lot is changing, there are now a lot of Iranian workers in Japan for example (they're not treated well, but the Japanese are more used to them being around, which is slowly changing attitudes) and of course the increased links between Japan and America after the war have helped also. That said, there are still some shit-stirring nationalist types about, the sort of people who think Tojo had the right idea, and are willing to get in a car with speakers on the side and tell you all about it. These nationalists are often linked to the Yakuza as well, so people generally don't try to correct them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2010, 10:05:04 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 06, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
EDIT: I've always thought of admiral Perry's forcing open Japan's ports as a mistake.
Stop hating America™.
Yeah, going to have to disagree with it being a mistake too.
Well, American foreign policy has been kind of fucked up... Look at the shit they started in Hawaii. I've heard they did some weird stuff in the Philippines, too, but I haven't gotten around to reading about it yet.
So, what's good about going into another country and forcing them to trade with you?
Getting rich.
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 06, 2010, 10:16:44 PM
Well, American foreign policy has been kind of fucked up... Look at the shit they started in Hawaii. I've heard they did some weird stuff in the Philippines, too, but I haven't gotten around to reading about it yet.
So, what's good about going into another country and forcing them to trade with you?
We brought them into the modern era and trained their military. That bit us in the ass a little back in the 40s, but it allowed them to catch up with everyone else. Being isolationist doesn't help you. It allows your neighbors to advance militarily until they decide to "liberate" you.
Of course our foreign policy is fucked. We are, after all, the inheritors of the British Empire.
This is true... As far as being isolationist allowing one's enemies to grow stronger than oneself, but it's their country, if they want to get steamrolled by their neighbors with modern weaponry, fine. It doesn't matter whether we helped them or not, we interfered in their affairs. That would be like if I went into your house and started rearranging your furniture without permission, how would you feel?
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 06, 2010, 10:26:23 PM
This is true... As far as being isolationist allowing one's enemies to grow stronger than oneself, but it's their country, if they want to get steamrolled by their neighbors with modern weaponry, fine. It doesn't matter whether we helped them or not, we interfered in their affairs. That would be like if I went into your house and started rearranging your furniture without permission, how would you feel?
Saves me the trouble.
Come on now, you just walked in, and a stranger is in your house, and it looks like he's trying to steal your dining table, when in reality, he thinks it'd look better in the living room.
I don't really think that's how it went down in Japan.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the US having any direct interference in Japanese affairs, other than "you buy our stuff, we buy yours"
Wherever trade goes, political influence follows. If only to ensure the necessary political stability and economic conditions to continue that trade.
First off, the Japanese had some issues with Europeans. Christians would sail into their ports, offering to trade goods, which, they liked, and spreading their religion like some kind of disease, which, they didn't like, because as we know full well Christianity has its roots as an aggressive monotheistic patriarchal desert religion (not that the Japanese were relatively saints or anything), and once it sinks its teeth in, it never really lets go. This has destroyed countless religions and cultures over the years and even had the balls to burn down the Library of Alexandria (according to some accounts), so I don't really blame them for being untrustworthy.
Secondly, the actions of Perry indirectly destroyed a 400 year old system of government. It may not have looked ideal, but before the unification of Japan (Oda Nobunaga began it, but when forced to commit suicide by Akechi Mitsuhide (for murdering Mitsuhide's aunt, of all things, he was known as the "Demon King" for a reason, and he LIKED Christians) Tokugawa Ieyasu took the reigns, killing Mitsuhide for his betrayal and unifying the rest of Japan, resulting in 400 years of relative peace in a land known for being in a perpetual state of war. The Japanese had lost trust in the Shogun as a result of trade relations being established by force, and so he was overthrown (no, I'm not saying Ieyasu lived 400 years).
This led directly Meiji Restoration, the emperor being recognized as the leader of Japan, and the industrialization of Japan, the strengthening of the military, and the inevitable drive to expand. The Japanese have an old bit of mythology that indicates them as the descendants of the gods, and the emperor's line of the sun goddess, Amaterasu Omikami... It's not hard to imagine how those who believe themselves to be descended from the gods might come to see themselves as the destined rulers of the earth.
The Japanese felt violated, helpless, I'm sure, when admiral Perry came in and forced their ports open. The Shogun, whos duties include matters of national security, was ultimately the one to blame. The rapid expansion, the military build up, had we tried to ease our way in rather than going whole hog, maybe the whole thing could've been avoided, but I get the feeling that when someone brought up the whole "Pearl Harbor" idea that some thought it a pretty good idea to "get those fuckers back". This led to more loss of human life on both sides, but hey, we got to test our nukes on living people! Who else gets to say that? And as an indirect result, we now know what tentacle porn is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_Nobunaga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akechi_Mitsuhide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Tokugawa_shogunate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism
EDIT: I used "first off" twice. A sign I should stop posting as I've had a little too much to drink. Time for video games.
Nobunga always got a bad rap, IMO. He was cunning and dangerous, for sure, but usually those who are the most cunning and dangerous are actually the least problem as leaders, as they are smart enough to recognize the basic facts necessary to continue in their current position (so beautifully outlined by Machiavelli) and confident enough to be able to carry out reforms without feeling threatened on some psychological level.
It's very easy to pin the blame on a dead man when consolidating an Empire, is all I'm saying.
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 07, 2010, 12:12:05 AM
First off, the actions of Perry indirectly destroyed a 400 year old system of government.
Good. It needed lancing.
You know, I used to hate Nobunaga a long time ago, but you're right, Cain. He was cunning and ruthless, qualities highly prized in many parts of the world.
And Doktor Howl, why did it need lancing?
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 07, 2010, 12:57:32 AM
And Doktor Howl, why did it need lancing?
The common man had no rights at all. Not even the right not to be killed out of hand without any form of due process.
I feel as bad for those poor samurai as I do for those poor Mexica, who just wanted to chop peoples' hearts out.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 07, 2010, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: Fujikoma on July 07, 2010, 12:57:32 AM
And Doktor Howl, why did it need lancing?
The common man had no rights at all. Not even the right not to be killed out of hand without any form of due process.
I feel as bad for those poor samurai as I do for those poor Mexica, who just wanted to chop peoples' hearts out.
I'm with you on this. Let's take another example with St. Patrick.
Crap, now we're all Christians, and what's more the particular sect is sometimes a politically divisive issue for some people.
On the bright side, the tribes of Roscommon aren't going to break into my grandfather's house, burn it to the ground and sacrifice him to the Morrigan. Oh, and he can read and write too. And after Mass he gets to go to the pub and have a couple of pints with his buddies or have a friendly card game.
Thanks St. Patrick!
Hey, the British Empire is brutal and everyone hates their guts. But guess what? When Apu dies, Manjula won't have to throw herself on the funeral pyre. Man that would be a depressing episode of the Simpsons. Oh, yeah, and you don't really have to worry about that Thuggee sect jumping out and strangling you to death because Kali likes it when you kill random people. And all because the British just wanted to have a monopoly on India's resources.
Thanks British Empire!
Oh, shit, Napoleon's conquering most of Europe, wtf?!?!? Hey guess what guys, these French have some crazy ideas about democracy and human rights! Let's have an election!
Thanks Napoleon!
I guess cultural interference and imperialism aren't always a bad thing.
so... when everything else fails?
Quote from: minuspace on July 07, 2010, 06:56:24 AM
so... when everything else fails?
Could you expand on that question?
President Regan, excusing violence, on Machiavellian terms: what the naive might deem "Political Realism"
Quote from: minuspace on July 06, 2010, 09:25:23 PM
learning fails for some...
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1944/facepalmninjas.jpg)
I will laugh... :mrgreen:
Uh, Nephew, you are aware the British probably killed more Indians through deliberate acts of policy than the Thuggee sect or insane Hindu traditions ever did, right? Various massacres and famines, both of which were very much the responsibility of the British, took place during the Raj period. The lack of seriousness with which the British authorities took public health killed upwards of 48 million people from 1817-1917.
And that the French under Napoleon were not spreading democracy throughout Europe and, in fact, according to a contemporary (no less than Thomas Paine) was spreading autocracy and misery, trampling the traditional rights of people in every country he invaded and ruling through superior force? Hell, Napoleon re-instituted a hereditary monarchy with absolute power vested in the position of Emperor (as opposed to the French monarchy in existence before the Revolution, where fedual lords kept the power of Versailles in check, to a degree) under a massively centralized French state.
Knowing actual history might help your case here.
In fact, I think it's time to remind everyone exactly how British imperialism operated in Sri Lanka (http://exiledonline.com/when-pigs-fly-and-scold-brits-lecturing-sri-lanka/):
QuoteYou see some pretty sick stuff when you do my job, but I just read something sicker than any Congo cannibal buffet. It's an article by a posh little limey named Jeremey Brown condemning the Sri Lankan government for being too messy in putting down the LTTE, and demanding that we stop buying the cheap textiles the poor Sinhalese make their living churning out.
What's sick about this is that the British establishment destroyed the Sinhalese people completely. Completely and purposely, sadistically. Stole their land, humiliated and massacred their government, made it Imperial policy to erase every shred of self-respect the Sinhalese had left. You can talk about the Nazis all day long, but for my money nothing they did was as gross as what you find out when you actually look into the history of British-Sinhalese relations. If you can even call them "relations"; I guess a murder-rape is a relation, sort of.
But nobody knows about it. Weird, huh? Nothing weirds me out more than the total news blackout the Brits have managed to put on all the sick shit they did to brown and black people all over the world. They had a system, and it worked. They'd grab some paradise island in the tropics, use the Royal Navy to wall it off from the rest of the world, and crush the local tribe. If the locals resisted, the Brits would starve them to death, shoot them down, infect them with smallpox or get them addicted to opium–whatever they had to do to gang-rape the locals so bad that they'd lose the will to resist.
QuoteWith the Dutch trade rivals gone, the Brits had only one problem left: the damned natives, the Sinhala, or "Kandyans" as they were called back then. That dumb name, "Kandyans," came from the fact that their main city was Kandy, up in the highlands in the south of the island, the fat part of the teardrop. The Sinhala lived in the highlands for the simple reason that it was a little cooler, not as totally malarial, up there compared to the stinking coastal marshes.
By all accounts, the Sinhala/Kandyans were harmless slackers, who didn't need or want much from the outside world. All they asked was for people to leave them alone up on their big rocky highlands to do their Buddhist thing. Unfortunately that wasn't British policy. It irked the redcoats that Kandy still had a king, an army, all this impudent baggage that went with independence. The British decided to break the Sinhalese completely, crush the whole society.
You have to remember that by this time, the early 1800s, the Brits have perfected their techniques in little experiments all over the world. Those Clockwork Orange shrinks were amateurs compared to the Imperial Civil Service. They had dozens of ways of undermining native kingdoms.
British administrators were trained to do a kind of rough, quick sociological sketch of the natives, get a sense of the fault lines and then figure out how to exploit them. The Brits saw fast that the Kandyans were a sluggish bunch of people divided into rigid castes in the classic subcontinent pattern. That made it easy: the Brits made two big castes their official pets and shunned the others, setting up a violent hate between different parts of Sinhalese society. That guaranteed that if the diehard Sinhalese/Kandyan nationalists ever revolted, the teacher's-pet castes would have a good selfish reason to help massacre them.
QuoteAnd this is where another standard Brit policy came into play–a real smart one that we ought to be imitating: use native auxiliaries, not homeland troops, as much as possible. For all kinds of reasons, but here are the main ones:
1. If you bring in troops from some remote part of the Empire to do your dirty work, it's those troops, those faces and accents, the locals will remember, and hate, for generations. So you, the sly little pink Brit administrator, can stroll in later and commiserate with the locals as they show you around their burned huts, bayoneted kids, etc., and even say with a straight face, "Oh my, those auxiliaries from wherever, what ruddy heathens, eh? Outrageous, I shall certainly let Whitehall know about these abuses!" Then, of course, you get in your sedan chair, close the curtains and chuckle all the way home to where your little bum-boy is waiting.
2. Nobody back in London counts casualties as long as it's Malay mercs dying. You can lose a lot of them–and a lot of Malays did die fighting the Sinhala, especially in the total rout of a malaria-sapped Brit/Malay force at the Mahaveli River in 1803–but nobody is going to make a fuss in the Times of London (Mister Jeremy Brown's paper, as you may recall). If you're lucky they'll pop off before payday and you can keep their payroll for that estate in Shropshire.
3. Dropping hot-blooded feisty Malay muslims with guns far from home and making them fight Sinhalese bleeds Malay society as well as Sinhalese. Left in peace, Malays could be trouble–a proud, warlike people. So by sending them to die in Sri Lanka, you're diverting all that young, angry Malay blood away from SE Asia and using it to bleed Kandy (bleed Kandy–I like that!). Two birds, one bloodsoaked stone.
You see why I get impatient with you gullible suckers yammering about the fucking Nazis? The Nazis were retards, a white-trash tantrum, an eighth-grade chem-class pipe bomb, a quick-fizzle flash in the pan, compared to the Brits, the scariest motherfuckers ever to butt-fuck the planet.
The mercenaries the Brits sent to crush the Kandyans were Malays, muslims from SE Asia who didn't need a lot of pep talks to slaughter South Asian Buddhists (and steal their chickens). That was life for the Brits back then, at the top of their game: picking up pieces from one part of the world and dropping them where they'd do the most harm, half the world away. "Ah yes, let's ferry some Malay mercs to Kandy, that should give the bloody idol-worshippers something to think about!"
Destroying Buddhism was a big part of Brit policy. The Buddhist routine, the temples, begging monks, long boring prayers–it was the glue that kept Kandy together. So the Brits decided to destroy it. They even said so, in private memos to each other. They weren't shy in them days. Here's the Brit governor in 1807: "Reliance on Buddhism must be destroyed. Make sure all [village] chiefs are Christian."
Up to 1818, the Brits had a blast messing with doomed Sinhala rebellions, trying out CI recipes like Frankenstein guesting on Rachael Ray. A good time was had by all, except the Sinhalese. They had a very, very bad time, and it was about to get worse.
See, another constant you'll find in Brit imperial policy is that although they're very sly and patient, they have a very good sense of when to cut the crap and just wipe out a tribe that's been annoying them for too long. They were getting sick of the Sinhalese, with all their bickering and intrigues; the redcoats just weren't enjoying the Col. Kurtz game the way they used to. So boom: the "kill'em all" era begins.
But they did it smart, not like the idiot boastful Nazis y'all love to obsess on. I bet every one on the planet can name the Nazi death camps, but I'd be surprised if more than, say, a half dozen people outside Sri Lanka can name the policy the Brits used to destroy the Sinhala for good.
Anybody? Didn't think so. See, here's another little tip for up'n'coming genocidaires out there: always pick the most boring name possible. Those fucking Nazis, with their heavy-metal jewelry and titles! Dopes! You want extermination programs with names that put everybody to sleep.
And that's why in 1818 Britain brought "the wasteland policy" to Kandy. They could have called it what that Liberian wacko called his campaign: "Operation No Living Thing." That's what it meant: Brit-led troops "draining the sea" the Sinhala irregulars swam in by burning every hut, every field, and killing every animal in every village they suspected of harboring "rebels."
Hey, that's another key Brit CI techniques: that word "rebels." Blows me away: how can a Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, fighting for the country his people have owned for a hundred generations, be a "rebel"? And the pipsqueak redcoat officer hunting him down, who was born and raised in fucking London–he's not the "rebel," he's the forces of law and order, the rightful authorities. Quite a racket if you have the sheer, sociopathic nerve to say it with a straight face. (I'm talking to you, Mister Jeremy Brown!)
QuoteAnd then the nastiest CI weapon of all, the demographic bomb. This was a Brit specialty all over the world (see Fiji for a weirdly similar case). The Brits ran India, so they had total control over millions of obedient Tamil peasants who were starving, desperate, and ready to go anywhere, just pile into the hold of a ship and get out to cut cane or plant rice in some place that may as well have been on the Moon for all they knew.
So along with the massacre/reprisals, the Brits came up with one of their classic two-birds-one-stone plans: to neutralize the Sinhalese, let's import huge hordes of Tamils from India! They're cheap and docile and they'll give the Sinhala something to keep them busy even after we have to leave the island, haw! And meanwhile they'll drive the price of labor down even further! Brilliant, chaps, absolutely brilliant!
And they did it. Worked so well it's still working today.
Gosh, I wonder if the British ever used policies like this elsewhere?
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2010, 11:15:47 AM
Uh, Nephew, you are aware the British probably killed more Indians through deliberate acts of policy than the Thuggee sect or insane Hindu traditions ever did, right? Various massacres and famines, both of which were very much the responsibility of the British, took place during the Raj period. The lack of seriousness with which the British authorities took public health killed upwards of 48 million people from 1817-1917.
And that the French under Napoleon were not spreading democracy throughout Europe and, in fact, according to a contemporary (no less than Thomas Paine) was spreading autocracy and misery, trampling the traditional rights of people in every country he invaded and ruling through superior force? Hell, Napoleon re-instituted a hereditary monarchy with absolute power vested in the position of Emperor (as opposed to the French monarchy in existence before the Revolution, where fedual lords kept the power of Versailles in check, to a degree) under a massively centralized French state.
Knowing actual history might help your case here.
I'm not arguing for the atrocities of the British Empire or downplaying them. I was using other examples in history that go along the lines of Perry forcibly opening Japan up to trade with the US.
As far as Napoleon goes it's not like it's this one dictator single handedly going in and forcing everyone under his rule. He needed soldiers to do that. Soldiers who remembered the Revolution and its ideas. I'm well aware that Napoleon killed the Republic, just as I'm aware of what the British were capable (I am Irish, after all).
Actually, do you know what brutal imperialism is good for? Pissing off people to the point where they demand their rights and a representative government. People don't care about that sort of thing unless it starts to affect them personally. Please don't suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about or I don't know any actual history. I'm looking at the positive effects of negative events.
Edit-- In other words, yeah history's pretty fucked up, but at least for some of these events some good came out of it. You can tell me that I'm talking out of my ass if you want, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you do that, you'll also have to address what Roger said about the conquistadors. Unless of course, Spanish brutality in the New World is more excusable.
Thank you all for expressing your views, I'm going to take some time to brush-up on my history as well 8)
Quote from: minuspace on July 07, 2010, 09:05:53 PM
Thank you all for expressing your views,
:chokeonadick:
Damn. Need to add more emotes.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Elmer_Fudd.png)
stick: stop procrastinating
You know what Cain:
I'm looking at this from the wrong angle. Yeah some good stuff came out of it, but, is it worth the human cost?
I know my history, but I'm gonna take a step back from my interpretation and reassess. I'm sure my starving dead ancestors are rolling in their graves. You don't make new rules unless they're already broken. Some things should not be excused, despite what silver linings they may have. I was wrong.
...but it was an interesting position to come from, Nevvie Twid. It was sort of a "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" point of view. There are SOME historians out there who will espouse this sort of thing. But it's not a universalist/all-things-being-equal idea, more of a "how things turned out is much better than the mess that was before."
IS so-called democracy (there's no PURE model of ANYTHING in the universe when it comes to political ideologies) so much better than the fascism it purports to supplant? ARE the military coups that often precede them (whether artificially forced (and who's to determine what's artificial and what's not? I guess indigenous works better here) or not) so very necessary or necessarily evil?
Anyway, gave me food for thought, though I think I suscribe to Cain's POV much more recently and deeply.
Is it possible to develop a way that operates without violence?
Quote from: Jenne on July 09, 2010, 02:02:11 PM
...but it was an interesting position to come from, Nevvie Twid. It was sort of a "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" point of view. There are SOME historians out there who will espouse this sort of thing. But it's not a universalist/all-things-being-equal idea, more of a "how things turned out is much better than the mess that was before."
IS so-called democracy (there's no PURE model of ANYTHING in the universe when it comes to political ideologies) so much better than the fascism it purports to supplant? ARE the military coups that often precede them (whether artificially forced (and who's to determine what's artificial and what's not? I guess indigenous works better here) or not) so very necessary or necessarily evil?
Anyway, gave me food for thought, though I think I suscribe to Cain's POV much more recently and deeply.
Thanks Jenne.
I guess that what sparked that was a realization that history is really the history of war. Wars are the defining catalysts of history, and it seems like nothing gets done without violence. And of course, when that sort of thing happens there's a lot of grey.
The US was born out of violence and clever twisting of news and ideas by our patriots, and it created a great nation that basically wiped out the natives until they were exotic and cool, kept slavery legal until the country split for economic and cultural reasons, etc. And this sort of thing keeps happening, but yet, people who are allied with us generally have a positive view of our country despite its history and current entanglements. Why is that?
Quote from: minuspace on July 12, 2010, 11:29:52 PM
Is it possible to develop a way that operates without violence?
It already exists. Everything that happens has a violent and non-violent cause. The violent cause is usually the successful one however, especially since the figurehead of the non-violent movement is pretty much destined to be assassinated anyway.
Example: Ireland, after several failed revolutions, the last of which had almost no public support (due to the fact that it happened in the middle of WWI), gains its independence after said revolutionaries are hanged, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood gets an influx of new recruits who are angry about it. Rampant assassinations ensue until the British say, "ok here's the deal. Take this agreement or we're going to send in the whole fucking army, who, by the way, are pretty hardened from trench warfare with the Germans." Deal includes a partition of Ireland. The Irish Civil War breaks out almost immediately, and all the terrorist activities there today are rooted in this deal.
Example: Gandhi, a rare example, manages to non-violently defeat the British Empire and secure Indian independence. He goes on to get assassinated, and India ends up becoming a nuclear power with frequent and bloody sectarian violence, as well as a modest, but active and destructive Maoist insurgency in progress.
If it's going to happen and history is going to take note, someone is going to be forcibly removed from the planet.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 13, 2010, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: Jenne on July 09, 2010, 02:02:11 PM
...but it was an interesting position to come from, Nevvie Twid. It was sort of a "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" point of view. There are SOME historians out there who will espouse this sort of thing. But it's not a universalist/all-things-being-equal idea, more of a "how things turned out is much better than the mess that was before."
IS so-called democracy (there's no PURE model of ANYTHING in the universe when it comes to political ideologies) so much better than the fascism it purports to supplant? ARE the military coups that often precede them (whether artificially forced (and who's to determine what's artificial and what's not? I guess indigenous works better here) or not) so very necessary or necessarily evil?
Anyway, gave me food for thought, though I think I suscribe to Cain's POV much more recently and deeply.
Thanks Jenne.
I guess that what sparked that was a realization that history is really the history of war. Wars are the defining catalysts of history, and it seems like nothing gets done without violence. And of course, when that sort of thing happens there's a lot of grey.
The US was born out of violence and clever twisting of news and ideas by our patriots, and it created a great nation that basically wiped out the natives until they were exotic and cool, kept slavery legal until the country split for economic and cultural reasons, etc. And this sort of thing keeps happening, but yet, people who are allied with us generally have a positive view of our country despite its history and current entanglements. Why is that?
Because, really, scratch the surface, and all governments and all countries have their deep-rooted problems that are like unto a cancer. None are exempt. Though there are many that will not admit this. The US has a big fucking chip on its shoulder, or has had since the 1950's and '60's...but I think that might be changing with some of our fringes (read: some who are better-informed than others). Our hegemony is waning, and many are coming to accept this.
The US still offers hope of many things and fulfillment in still others, whereas it's harder to obtain them from elsewhere. Hard as it is to live here for a lot, for most it's still pretty easy, relatively. That last word, that adverb, is an important one.
so...that's why...
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 13, 2010, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: minuspace on July 12, 2010, 11:29:52 PM
Is it possible to develop a way that operates without violence?
especially since the figurehead of the non-violent movement is pretty much destined to be assassinated anyway.
There's that Machiavellian maxim: overthrown, or, assassinated if too violent?
Which would have developed into game theory and still originates from the fact that people cannot seem to level with the evolution of an executive ordering faculty emergent in mankind...
They say good fences make good neighbors, but then "over 50% of the root complex being in my property blah blah blah". The rules are meant to be broken perhaps because they cannot be seen as fixed in the first place. Then we deny an "objective" reference point and human arbitration comes into play for the conflict of intentions. How do we otherwise align intentions?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 13, 2010, 02:45:40 PM
Example: Gandhi, a rare example, manages to non-violently defeat the British Empire and secure Indian independence. He goes on to get assassinated, and India ends up becoming a nuclear power with frequent and bloody sectarian violence, as well as a modest, but active and destructive Maoist insurgency in progress.
Hate to rain misery, but I'm fairly confident the British left becasue the situation in India was deteriorating, and it was more the threat of violence that got them out, not Ahimsa.
That said, I really don't want to downplay Gandhi's role in the movement against the Brits.
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India