But in the same vein you could argue that the true Mongol Empire (prior to fracture) lasted less than a hundred years, and that was in the 13th century, so their influence could be seen as porportional to 50 years in Palestine in the last century...

except that the Mongols made no attemt at assimilating conquored peoples.

I have coffee up my nose, again.

Please stop being so funny.
The British have had so little, argumentativeness might have become part of their culture. Others, (having more), might have been more gentle.
The gentleness of the partner relies on the gentleness of the other.

This will towards dominance I don't understand.

The British never really assimilated people either. Sure they set up proxy governments which mirrored their own, but nobody was ever made "British", at least not in the sense the brits would recognize.

But it is moot point, since comparing the mechanisms of Mongol and British expansionism is apples to oranges. I will stick to my earlier guns: if you want to condemn Britsh expansionism, you have to be willing to condemn all other expansionism. If not then please explain the difference (the ends, not the means) between the British (or European, since that was the original argument) and other, earlier expansionist movements.


Edit - This is really not the intent of the original post, so if you would like to start another thread I would be happy to continue there...

Generally speaking, the problem with Eurocentrism in the context of Orientalism is that the West traditionally viewed the East as inherently inferior. This is why "oriental" as applied to people has negative connotations. It still carries its historical signifier to some degree. Edward Said wrote a whole book on this, cryptically entitled Orientalism.

And the problem with European expansionism (and its resulting Eurocentrism) is also evident in Africa, where many of the people had Christianity thrust upon them. Europeans viewed Africans as a backward people who needed to be "saved" (i.e. modernized, civilized, etc.). They viewed Africans as inferior because they hadn't yet accepted Christ. This among other things.

debaser:

i dont think you have your basic facts together.
for example, estimates of the death toll in the congo alone, under the belgians, from 1885 to 1910 run as high as 10 million people.

here's a review/little net doodad:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM

or you might read a book:

Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (from the site above)

or if something more pissed off is more your cup o tea, chinweizu's "the west and the rest of us":

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/amazon...x90;ord=35118?

there are entire sections in any university library on this stuff....
books are good.

and this pertains to the belgians in the congo alone...so i dont know what "moral relativism" you are talking about.
but whatever.
this is not interesting.
there's no point in a debate.
there's no need to respond.

Well, as a history professor you will of course realize that during the period you refer to in your post the Belgian Congo was not technically a colonial possesion, but rather a personal possesion of the King, call the Congo Free State. If you wish to pass the blame for one homocidal butcher onto the whole of the Belgian people, I suppose that is your right as an esteemed member of academia.

An' as fer bookz, I don't read to good nohow.

Or, if you'd rather something lighter, albeit satirical and fictionalized, yet based on real issues, read Mongo Beti's Poor Christ of Bomba. A highly enjoyable read.

Calm down. I'd hate to see anyone banned for making personal attacks.

Attacks? Perhaps, but his insinuation that I don't read sort of pissed me off, especially when he obviously hasn't read the very books he cited.

And I have to say that I honestly do wonder about the credentials of any supposed academian who would come into a discussion like this and use the words:
Is this what we have sunk to in this country?

I mean to say that while comments like "there's no point in debate" could be considered rude, comments like "You seem far to arrogant to be a professor, high school teacher I can see, but not a professor." are a pretty clear personal attack and are in breach of TFP rules. I'm just posting this as a friendly reminder.

Granted. I have edited my post, but my contempt still stands.

Understood and appreciated.

On an unrelated note, I have a lot of trouble separating you from your avatar, so it always seems that I am arguing with Pierce Brosnan.

You are the only person on this board I have that problem with...

You think you got it bad? I keep waiting for you to propose that we live underground and breed a new race of super-people whilst trying to control your Nazi-leaning mechanical arm.

I guess you don't know your American History because the Irish had a hard time in America, "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" was common signage in 19th century America (1850s). Many lived in shanty towns and lived in extreme squalor.

Or that you don't know your European history to know that the Germans kicked Roman ass and were never subject to Roman rule.

For your movies:
Better Tomorrow
Crash
Sideways

But lets get a little more granular since you think your point still stands.

Any movie with Lou Diamond Phillips early as 1988 and Tia Carrere 1991 almost 20 years my friend. Or did you think that Lou Diamond Phillips was hispanic because of his role in La Bamba and Stand and Deliver?

edit: Tia Carrere had the show Relic Hunter for 3 seasons 99-02, and Dean Cain had Lois and Clark for 4 seasons from 93-97.

truly I don't know what your point is but to try and make someone answer some trivia questions to diffuse and misdirect the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and pulling things outta thin air.

That's not till page 5...

debaser:

i didnt ask that what i do for a living come up in this thread: i dont think it relevant and do not operate here in that mode--i rarely refer to it, and do not rely on it to legitimate what i say.

that said, i do not think you know what you are defending on this colonialism question.
the history of european colonialism--i know more about africa than other places/versions---it difficult to assimilate. it is deeply shocking, and is of a magnitude that changes you a little for knowing it. it is one of those areas where information corrodes.

had this gone another way, i would have preferred to introduce more and more of information, figuring that this would have done more damage than any amount of tedious messageboard bluster.

but it didnt.

i wondered about my last post after i put it up, whether the last three lines of it were necessary. they weren't. they did nothing constructive. mea culpa.

well, that didnt go well, did it?
sometimes its just like that.

I'm less only a small fraction Irish. I'm mainly German. When I talk about my ancestors, I'm usually referring to East Germans who settles in Oklahoma about 150 years ago. yes, the Irish had it tough when they came here. Of course, they came over by the millions, so I'm not sure why they couldn't just organize (a la Gangs of NY) quickly and simply overwhelm those racists who would subjugate them.
Ah, I guess I know more about this one than you. Northern Europeans, including what could now be called Germans, were enslaved and served in Rome. The Northern Europeans got their asses handed to then for decades before Rome started to implode. It was only late in the Empire that the Northern Europeans started to pwn.

I see from what I've learned the Northern Europeans you are speaking of were just a portion of the Germanic tribes, but again, Germania was never conquered by the Roman Empire in the manner you are implying.

Obviously the Irish at that time coiuld not organize because they were impoverished, if that is what you are implying then why don't the Hispanics/Latinos do what you are saying? Because as history is written the Irish didn't have people in any power, finance, or white collar business, they held the same labor type postions domestic service, building, and factory work. Or maybe they haven't made a movie about that yet...

I still don't get your point of asking about Asians in any type of movies, politics, etc. again, you're diffusing and misdirecting to avoid defending that "point that still stands."

Will, I think you need to take a lesson in Roman history. The Romans fought the Germanic tribes for CENTURIES. Hadrian even erected a turf analogy of the wall in Britain to keep the Germanics at bay. There were raids over the border by both sides before Ceasar. It was a 500-year low grade war that flared very hot at time. Generally speaking the Romans won out because their technological advances kept them much better armed, but when the Empire started to stagnate they quickly lost that edge. That's why Rome was sacked multiple times in the end.

Also, the Romans didn't enslave whole cultures. That was illegal, and the Romans were nothing if not sticklers for the law. They enslaved individuals, usually for nonpayment of bills or taxes. Generally, though, they just bought slaves from others, so the majority of German slaves in Rome would have been sold by their own people (or rival tribes).

I never meant to suggest that Germania was contoured. Such an implication was never made. I happen to know that it's possible that my (specifically my) ancestors were slaves because of my family records. I also know there were many (estimated in the tens of thousands) Germanic slaves serving under the Roman Empire. Only Central Europe was conquered by Rome.
Organization...You mean like almost all Latino immigrants taking one day off work in order to show what their contribution would be?


BTW, if someone wants me to 'take a lesson' or who guesses I "don't know [my] American History", they should make sure I'm wrong first or at least ask me to clarify my position in case they are misunderstanding.

Racism stinks

In all it's forms. We don't all live in the same societies, and thank reality we don't have to live within each other's brains. I'm actually glad racism was brought up, because it's very shallow. And here, in the Tilted Forum, people have been attacking each other's ideas in an unkind way. How thin are our skins?

Yes, and that affected????? Because it didn't affect anything in NYC as far as I can tell. It is but not even a memory, or even a footnote here.

I have asked you to clarify your position. What POINT is it that you are trying to make regarding the Asians in film, TV, politics.

I'll ask you point blank, what is your point and why does it still stand?

It is entirely possible that some of my angst in replying was due to a squardon S-4 with his head firmly ensconced in his descending colon.

No hard feelings either way.

(And just a note, I was not defending colonialism, just mutually condemning cultural expansionism.)

You mean that on the clear opposite side of the country to Mexico, a Mexican movement isn't making a huge mark? It made quite a stir here.
Asians are still not treated equally. Racism against Asians is still alive. I don't think I can make it more clear.

The point of this thread is that racism is alive and well no matter what culture you are within, which I think you miss because you do not see the forest for the trees. To sit and look at racism as just a mexican, black, or asian thing, belies the fact that it doesn´t change when you go across borders and no my friend, I´m referring about borders beyond your small world of south just speaking of mexico.

Maybe you need to go where YOU feel different, where YOU see and feel people looking and speaking at you differently. But as far as I can see, you are just speaking out and postulating with nothing more than just guesses at what you think it is like but not knowing the reality of what it is.

Just because I'm white doesn't mean I've not been on the receiving end of racism. I'm aware of the scope.

The reason, to give you context (something a lot of people seem too have trouble with lately), that I was referring specifically to Asians was the 'oriental' comment by Debaser.

Just some factoids...nothing much to contribute to the discussion.

German immigrants were discriminated against in the US, as well as the Irish. Especially so after the outbreak of WWI.

If you are white and want to know what it feels like to be hated for the color of your skin...you need only to go so far as SW Louisiana.

I think there is a difference between discriminating amongst the races (which isn't always a negative thing) and racism. And there is a difference between personal discrimination and systemic racism. We seem to discuss them here as if they are part and parcel of the same thing. I really don't believe they are.