US man killed by endangered tribe in india

bompington

and Pinno, you can keep your Luo, it's the Kalenjin who rock the most. Although I have a sneaking regard for the friendly, cheerful, casual, even idgaf way the Maasai will rip you off.

bompington

Come to think of it, doesn't the term "pre-state community" imply that they will become a state at some point? Therefore, that their current state is temporary, and will progress to a better state?
I find the assumption of superiority inherent in that to be micro-aggressive, and so I am officially triggered, and demand that this violent and problematic progressonormative term is withdrawn at once, and that anyone who has ever used it should be sacked, prevented from speaking in public, made to wear a pussy hat, and hounded off Twitter forever.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

Never mind all this, I'm not sure I've ever come across tribalism worse than that between the Pro Race pre-state community and the Cake Stop pre-state community

There's a bit of a difference between hand bags and arrows.

robert88

bompington wrote:

and Pinno, you can keep your Luo, it's the Kalenjin who rock the most. Although I have a sneaking regard for the friendly, cheerful, casual, even idgaf way the Maasai will rip you off.

I've met the Maasai and I think we did some good deals, didn't feel ripped off at all. You have to haggle but that's what they expect. The chief's son also knew how to work my new camera better than I did.

rick_chasey

So guys it’s not about offence. But I’ve explained that above already.

Pino - can I summerise your argument that because locals in former colonies refer to themselves as tribes it’s therefore freed of its colonial implications?

Only, as part of the colonial experience on both sides, the discourse, the system of knowledge if you will, of the dominator tends to get appropriated by the dominated.

Rwanda is the most obvious example; the definition between Hutus and Tutsis was largely an arbitrary one created by the Belgians, and codified in the bureaucracy they created.

Other examples are how, in a post colonial world, African nations still adhere to the geopolitical rules and nation borders the west imposed upon then and even drum up theirs own nationalism.

These are genuinely and purely western constructs yet they’ve been fully appropriated by the locals.

The “can the sabaltern speak” book is very good on this.

That’s why I find your “people in Kenya use the language of colonialists, so it must not be so bad for them” argument kind o missing the point. All that does, to me anyway, is demonstrate how the domination of those people went beyond the physical and into the epistemological.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Come to think of it, doesn't the term "pre-state community" imply that they will become a state at some point? Therefore, that their current state is temporary, and will progress to a better state?
I find the assumption of superiority inherent in that to be micro-aggressive, and so I am officially triggered, and demand that this violent and problematic progressonormative term is withdrawn at once, and that anyone who has ever used it should be sacked, prevented from speaking in public, made to wear a pussy hat, and hounded off Twitter forever.

Yeah you could argue that sure. It’s a fairly western perspective.

Though the faux “triggered” stuff doesn’t do you any credibility. First para was fairly sensible.

rick_chasey

Separately pino I don’t know why you’re so keen to defend British atrocities committed in the name of colonialism.

You need to ask yourself, what were the Brits doing there at all.

shirley_basso

Helping them become civilised?

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

Helping them become civilised?

Right - so you are therefore making an assumption that the Europeans are therefore more civilised than the local Africans, right? And therefore Europeans are superior. You can see where I’m going with this...

That’s basically the original premise of racism.

That’s the entire point people miss around modern colonialism. It’s entire premise rests on a basic superiority. That because Europe is ‘supeior’ they’re entitled to kill and maim locals in order to enforce their way of doing things, because it’s supeior.

If we’re all equal, why are some nations allowed to dominate others?

rick_chasey

Who are the Europeans to say they are superior?

orraloon

Shirley Basso wrote:

Helping them become civilised?

Whoosh?

Rick Chasey wrote:

If we’re all equal, why are some nations allowed to dominate others?

Erm, MAGA?

shirley_basso

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Helping them become civilised?

Right - so you are therefore making an assumption that the Europeans are therefore more civilised than the local Africans, right? And therefore Europeans are superior. You can see where I’m going with this...

That’s basically the original premise of racism.

That’s the entire point people miss around modern colonialism. It’s entire premise rests on a basic superiority. That because Europe is ‘supeior’ they’re entitled to kill and maim locals in order to enforce their way of doing things, because it’s supeior.

If we’re all equal, why are some nations allowed to dominate others?

Le whoosh.

robert88

No, modern colonialism is based on the premise that Europe, the USA or wherever is superior and wants other people's resources in return for stuff made by other inferior people paid for with money that the superior nations don't actually have.

It's better if they don't become too 'civilised'* lest they understand what is going on and how to do something about it. Like build their own nukes. Which they probably will anyway.

* knowing how to live in big conurbations and kill more of your enemies more quickly from further away.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Only, as part of the colonial experience on both sides, the discourse, the system of knowledge if you will, of the dominator tends to get appropriated by the dominated.

Rwanda is the most obvious example; the definition between Hutus and Tutsis was largely an arbitrary one created by the Belgians, and codified in the bureaucracy they created.

Other examples are how, in a post colonial world, African nations still adhere to the geopolitical rules and nation borders the west imposed upon then and even drum up theirs own nationalism.

These are genuinely and purely western constructs yet they’ve been fully appropriated by the locals.

Africa is a big place, but I think you are shoehorning your academic theory into somewhere that it doesn't fit. The borders imposed by colonialism have created a problem because they don't fit the ethnic groups. The ruling structures of much of African are still based around local chiefs.

Furthermore, wikipedia offers alternative views on the differences between Hutus and Tutsis, and suggests that your theory may be historical revisionism to create Rwandan nationalism - the very thing you suggest shouldn't happen.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Only, as part of the colonial experience on both sides, the discourse, the system of knowledge if you will, of the dominator tends to get appropriated by the dominated.

Rwanda is the most obvious example; the definition between Hutus and Tutsis was largely an arbitrary one created by the Belgians, and codified in the bureaucracy they created.

Other examples are how, in a post colonial world, African nations still adhere to the geopolitical rules and nation borders the west imposed upon then and even drum up theirs own nationalism.

These are genuinely and purely western constructs yet they’ve been fully appropriated by the locals.

Africa is a big place, but I think you are shoehorning your academic theory into somewhere that it doesn't fit. The borders imposed by colonialism have created a problem because they don't fit the ethnic groups. The ruling structures of much of African are still based around local chiefs.

Furthermore, wikipedia offers alternative views on the differences between Hutus and Tutsis, and suggests that your theory may be historical revisionism to create Rwandan nationalism - the very thing you suggest shouldn't happen.

My specialism was postcolonial theory 1870-1940 in sub-Saharan Africa. I’m not shoehorning it - this shade of postcolionsl theory was born specifically out of this.

The ruling structures are more complicated than either of us make out but broadly they sit within the structures the colonials left - and they are still governed as modern nations as they were created as part of colonialism.

So with Rwanda - the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi was broadly irrelevant until the Belgians turned up. I have spent a fair bit of time on this rather than 10 minute Googles on wiki.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

No, modern colonialism is based on the premise that Europe, the USA or wherever is superior and wants other people's resources in return for stuff made by other inferior people paid for with money that the superior nations don't actually have.

It's better if they don't become too 'civilised'* lest they understand what is going on and how to do something about it. Like build their own nukes. Which they probably will anyway.

* knowing how to live in big conurbations and kill more of your enemies more quickly from further away.

So why does the contemporary literature say otherwise?

mfin

All this is nothing to do with ONE BLOKE who's a religious nutcase, hoping to impose his own beliefs on an protected tribe on an island.

It seems a great majority of loads of these pages is born out of Rick morphing it into a thread for his own subject of interest. I don't know, perhaps psychologically it fills a need for him, dunno.

Can we get back to religious nutjobs please.

(People can always start another thread on colonialism etc if they want).

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Only, as part of the colonial experience on both sides, the discourse, the system of knowledge if you will, of the dominator tends to get appropriated by the dominated.

Rwanda is the most obvious example; the definition between Hutus and Tutsis was largely an arbitrary one created by the Belgians, and codified in the bureaucracy they created.

Other examples are how, in a post colonial world, African nations still adhere to the geopolitical rules and nation borders the west imposed upon then and even drum up theirs own nationalism.

These are genuinely and purely western constructs yet they’ve been fully appropriated by the locals.

Africa is a big place, but I think you are shoehorning your academic theory into somewhere that it doesn't fit. The borders imposed by colonialism have created a problem because they don't fit the ethnic groups. The ruling structures of much of African are still based around local chiefs.

Furthermore, wikipedia offers alternative views on the differences between Hutus and Tutsis, and suggests that your theory may be historical revisionism to create Rwandan nationalism - the very thing you suggest shouldn't happen.

My specialism was postcolonial theory 1870-1940 in sub-Saharan Africa. I’m not shoehorning it - this shade of postcolionsl theory was born specifically out of this.

The ruling structures are more complicated than either of us make out but broadly they sit within the structures the colonials left - and they are still governed as modern nations as they were created as part of colonialism.

So with Rwanda - the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi was broadly irrelevant until the Belgians turned up. I have spent a fair bit of time on this rather than 10 minute Googles on wiki.

My point was that there was a difference between two groups of people and it was stirred up quite considerably by colonial powers. Pretending that the difference was entirely created by colonial powers is considered revisionism.

The thing is I don't think I can recall many people that I have met in Africa that would first and foremost identify themselves by nationality. Instead it would be by an ethnic group. In contrast, in Asia, I can think of countless examples where people have adopted colonial borders. That, of course, is not a rigorous academic study.

orraloon

Ok dokes. Religious nutjobs then.

Jehovah's Witnesses. I have 2 grandchildren who were born at 27 weeks at just over and just under 1kg bodyweight. Both survived and now thrive, due to massive NHS resource input including several blood transfusions.

JWs don't think transfusion oughter be allowed, will of their god or somesuch boxxox. So next time a couple of them (always team handed for some reason) come a-knocking, how many seconds should I pause before giving it them full force. 'kin arrogant a-holes preaching their sh!t. Perhaps just as well I don't possess arrows as those Andaman islanders.

slowmart

Loon, buy this and leave the vehicle on your drive which should stop any JW knocking


https://www.plates4less.co.uk/personali ... late/666LW

As an aside and many years ago I was driving with a mate when we saw some suited chaps riding bicycles. I suggested we pull over and throw bricks at the Mormons ( i was born and bought up in Wolverhampton and this was a more socially acceptable lesuire activity in the late 80’s). My mate politely declined and stated he was a Mormon.

No doubt the Mormons thought my home Teton was in desperate need of Christian missionaries.

We need to start a thread why people feel the need to commit violence on strangers who want to convert you to their religion.

bianchimoon

mfin wrote:

All this is nothing to do with ONE BLOKE who's a religious nutcase, hoping to impose his own beliefs on an protected tribe on an island.

It seems a great majority of loads of these pages is born out of Rick morphing it into a thread for his own subject of interest. I don't know, perhaps psychologically it fills a need for him, dunno.

Can we get back to religious nutjobs please.

(People can always start another thread on colonialism etc if they want).

Agree totally, an interesting thread is dying under the weight of ‘expertise’ on a matter that may or may not be indirectly related to the thread, it’s got more to do with religion than colonialism, can we get back on to the real subject matter?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Helping them become civilised?

Right - so you are therefore making an assumption that the Europeans are therefore more civilised than the local Africans, right? And therefore Europeans are superior. You can see where I’m going with this...

That’s basically the original premise of racism.

That’s the entire point people miss around modern colonialism. It’s entire premise rests on a basic superiority. That because Europe is ‘supeior’ they’re entitled to kill and maim locals in order to enforce their way of doing things, because it’s supeior.

If we’re all equal, why are some nations allowed to dominate others?

Whoever stated that we are all equal? Does anyone seriously believe that this is the case? Not in ideology, but in reality.

mfin

orraloon wrote:

Ok dokes. Religious nutjobs then.

Jehovah's Witnesses. I have 2 grandchildren who were born at 27 weeks at just over and just under 1kg bodyweight. Both survived and now thrive, due to massive NHS resource input including several blood transfusions.

JWs don't think transfusion oughter be allowed, will of their god or somesuch boxxox. So next time a couple of them (always team handed for some reason) come a-knocking, how many seconds should I pause before giving it them full force. 'kin arrogant a-holes preaching their sh!t. Perhaps just as well I don't possess arrows as those Andaman islanders.

JW's and blood transfusions... I know 6 people who would be dead for sure, who've at some point had massive blood loss and would have died had they not received blood.

JW's also can be incredibly damaging to families, in the same way that scientologists actively get people to cut off their families in self-serving circumstances, I have close inside knowledge of the same thing happening at the direction of JW's. Many aspects of JW's seem to play out very cult-like. Morally, JW as a religion is bankrupt really. There's no point in deconstructing it much 'belief-wise' as it's just a religion and all are people believing in fictitious mumbo-jumbo and in that regard most religions are the same.

pinno

The dead missionary party of this thread went dead and was hijacked by the morally superior.
I do resent someone who applies all this contemporary moral theory yet has spent little or no time at all in the part of Africa he studied. It's quite rich.
I will not and I refuse to be held responsible for the fact that we, the British were the last to have an Empire.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pino - can I summerise your argument that because locals in former colonies refer to themselves as tribes it’s therefore freed of its colonial implications?

What?!

First if all, I was born in a post colonial Kenya - it was independent.
Neither parent had anything to do with British rule.
Therefore, I am not a 'colonial'.

Would you like to take all the surviving colonials to court?!

Why can't you be objective about the past?
Colonising was acceptable then. However, it is not acceptable now.

The Dutch were at it, the Germans were at it, the Belgians were at it, the French were at it, the British were at it and before them, the Greeks, we had the Roman, Alexandrian and Byzantine empires before that and so on and so on (in no particular historical order).
It's only in the post British Empirical world that we no longer have empire.

There was no International court, there was no NATO, there was no UN.
The above institutions were formed because of war, because of atrocities, because of a post WW2 need to have a world order, where individuals and nations could be answerable to crime and genocide and aggression.
(Barely effective but that's another argument).

Current moral standards is an evolution. Humanity has evolved (in part).

The carnage and bloodshed of the 1st world war is a good example but it is difficult to comprehend. That was an era of self sacrifice and yes, one could argue until the cows come home about the ineptitude of the Generals and conclude that Haig was the worst of them, the most Brutal but the deaths in the background of the Political and social landscape then was very different to what it is now. Life was cheap. Those poor souls were cannon fodder and probably lost their lives in vain because the Naval blockade was the thing that finally brought Germany to it's knees. And again, most of the above is hindsight and we have to be very careful about applying any moral standpoint whatsoever.
To cast moral value on that event and the events within colonialism and the construct that is Empire is totally and utterly spurious.

To give a man a vote and 'freedom' has only got value where there is democracy.
So many ex colonies are corrupt. Post Apartheid South Africa can boast (in reality) a 1 party state and 22,000 murders a year. It's stabilised to 52 murders per day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... uth_Africa

We have replaced Apartheid with corruption and repression but this is somehow acceptable because it isn't a white government metering out execution and brutality. I don't actually see the difference. What exactly did Mandela achieve?

Before anyone says anything silly or asks the question, I believe that Apartheid needed to be abolished and people had the right to not be ruled over. However. we in the West cannot blame ourselves in perpetuem for the mess that many ex colonial countries are in.
One could argue that they are in the mess because we went there in the first place but that is another spurious argument because Africa would have been brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century regardless of British rule. Had we not colonised those countries, the French or Germans or Belgians would have colonised it or someone else in our absence.
We don't do that now (unless you are Russian), we rape these countries for resources. This is far more significant, pressing and contemporary than applying modern morality to past events or changing terminology.
The ship of retribution for Historical sins has sailed a long time ago.

To re write the whole of Empire with the same moral brush is highly erroneous.
Just like the slave trade - it was wholly barbaric and unethical but that perspective is the modern perspective, not the perspective during the slave trade. People were a commodity. Indigenous African tribes sold captured slaves to the French, British and before them, the Portuguese through Sierra Leone for example.
Empire is multi faceted.

You often view History in an equivocal moral perspective and yet you keep banging on about not understanding my argument. Therein lies a relativism to which you are acutely unaware of.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... relativism

pblakeney

Chapeau.
No more to be added. I fear that it will be though.

tangled_metal

Whenever the word "discourse" is used in a discussion I always think academic. There's a kind of language used by academics particularly from a BA degree background. Discourse, narrative, etc. Is there an academic bingo game potential there? If so you could probably call "House!" by now with just the posts from RC.

Pre-state? What is state that they're pre of? Is there a hierarchy of which pre-state is somewhere below state? Judgemental? Colonial hang up in western academia?

bianchimoon

Nothing to be argued with there pinno, thanks for taking the time

pinno

Tangled Metal wrote:

Colonial hang up in western academia?

Quite an accurate summation but no, Colonial hang up in certain niche pockets of British academia. (Not historians I might add - Shama's First World War is as heavy going as heavily bombed and barbed Neutral territory but so accurate whilst clearly defining the era and draws scant moral conclusion, for that is irrelevant).
This academic view then spreads into main stream media and we then have the contemporary result which requires self flagellation in order to repent our (historical) sins.
It's the same sort of group that aired the big bang theory until it suddenly is presented as fact "Scientists are studying x comet or x planet in an effort to see where the universe started".
The problem is, people take on board these perspectives without reference and assumption becomes established norm.
It's easy to then cross reference selectively; sympathetic to the perspective or theory.

(Sorry, i'm waffling again).

rick_chasey

I don’t really see what the problem is with taking a view that certain things in the past were ethically wrong in hindsight.

To cast moral value on that event and the events within colonialism and the construct that is Empire is totally and utterly spurious.

Come on mate, history is just the current take on the past right? It changes over time.

So here you wrote

To re write the whole of Empire with the same moral brush is highly erroneous.
Just like the slave trade - it was wholly barbaric and unethical but that perspective is the modern perspective, not the perspective during the slave trade

So, if we move beyond the fact plenty of contemporaries did think it unethical, here you say that from your perspective, the slave trade was barbaric, but probably not from the contempories’ perspective who were doing at the time. No. Way.!

Yet, as per your first quote, you think casting a current moral view on it is spurious. But you just have by calling it barbaric.

So which is it?

At what point can you stop making moral judgments about things in the past. A week, a month, a year, a century?

Come on, right here, right now, the idea of turning up to somewhere where you’re not from and using various forms of violence to make them do what you want, is pretty shitty, no? Regardless of motive or historical context.

Minus the violence bit that’s why we seem to all agree this American evangelist was a bit of a mug.

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

It seems a great majority of loads of these pages is born out of Rick morphing it into a thread for his own subject of interest. I don't know, perhaps psychologically it fills a need for him, dunno.

Can we get back to religious nutjobs please.

Yes, let's get back to your pet subject, mfin

TBF to RC he hasn't said that anyone should feel any personally responsibility for the various European empires. I think he's just arguing for awareness of how fundamentally they have shaped the world. As for academic jargon, inevitably academics want to be more detailed and precise in cataloguing and describing things, so will need to invent new names for to differentiate these things. If your area is the history of empires, imperialism isn't good enough; you need six different types of imperialism. And then of course there is the tendency of groups (tribes?) to develop jargon to differentiate themselves from outsiders .