22-03-2010, 11:10 AM
David Guyatt Wrote:That an interesting slant on history Ruben. By which I mean the idea that the Spanish Conquistadors and the Europe-nization of Latin America was ultimately beneficial.
Ruben only addresses certain objective economic and cultural aspects. And whatever the benefits of those European contributions, even if they are found to increase the carrying capacity of land still under the control of the indigenes to the extent more of 'em may live today than otherwise could, it's very unlikely that in the long run the indigenes will benefit from events that included their losing control of their homeland. The peoples of multi-ethnic empires tend to be blended out of existence. To the degree (precisely) that South America's Amerindian leaders also allow European, Asian, and African-derived peoples in South America to form sovereign territorities of their own I would support secessionist movements. This is objectively fair while Morales's scapegoating of Europeans is clearly not principled.
Quote:But what is now evident is that European civilization and its Anglo-American arm are doing more harm than ever before. In the age of the Enlightenment, Europe had many laudable things going for it. But this surely is not the case today where the dominant factor is, well, to dominate and plunder.
[and addressing Lemkin's screed]
It's not European civilisation doing this, much less Lemkin's 'gringoes' -- we are the first victims of the regime, its most dominated and plundered. The attempts of the global financiers to bring Asia, Africa and South America under their heel follows their having gained control of Europe and Europeans. Our lands and resources were raped first; our people were the first modern wage slaves; our corrupt governments have been running up unpayable debts to these gangsters for centuries; our cultures were the first to come under systematic attack because they tended to bolster local and traditional tendencies; and finally and most importantly -- and it could only come after the cultural attack and not meet with violent resistance -- no race-civilisation-continent has ever faced the race-replacing migration today's Europeans endure.
For all that the colonisation of Venezuala by Europeans was wrong by our standards Venezuala today has a president who speaks explicitly for the rights of its native and majority people and whom Amy Goodman, Peter Lemkin, myself, and even European leaders do not see fit to attack on that account -- it's considered good. Europeans, who face a much more clear and present demographic challenge, can only dream that nationalist politicians who speak for us would draw the support of Goodman, Lemkin and the establishment politicians. Any one of the leading European nationalist politicians might have made all those responses to Amy Goodman, but because he defends a people that happens to be White he wouldn't be invited onto 'Democracy Now' -- Goodman's brand of anti-racism, like Lemkin's, being quite unashamedly biased against White peoples' interests, which is to say objectively racist.