Quote:
Originally Posted by SECdomination
I refrained from putting in my own two cents, but this pretty much sums it up. But I sure haven't seen any of those books fueling capitalist agendas.
|
That can be found in
some Marxists' (not Marx himself but Marxists), neo-Marxists', economist, and other conflict theorists' accounts of history as fueling capitalism.
Some people think colonialism, slavery, and contemporary forms of systemic oppression of groups are about a hatred toward a group of people. However, people such as myself argue that prejudice and bigotry are unnecessary (except as a surface level attack) and it is really about group power dynamics and if there was an opportunity for history to work out differently, nonEuropeans would not have been the group in power. And the outcome would've been similar to the movie "White Man's Burden." One type of group power dynamic is pre-capitalist and the development and advancement of capitalism is why the pursuit of some type of profit led to slavery and modern day global oppressions. Of course, certain "capitalism" and conflict accounts of history can skew history because there are different takes 1) that the "natives" were a peaceful people until pre-capitalists came and raped them and their land and 2) what Europeans did was ncessary for capitalism in that it prompted competition, therefore "teaching" the world how to advance as the capitalist gods intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SECdomination
Without using the fancy terminology, I find it ridiculous that people think all of Africa's problems come from "the white man". Good grief. Are these not the same African's that were capturing each other to sell to Europeans and Americans as slaves in the 18th century? Good thing there were no problems before whites interfered.
|
"All" or "some" is an unnecessary distinction in the long run, though, because we all know the outcome of colonialism and slavery.
Some Africans sold Africans into slavery (similar to how Europeans had indentured servants and so forth) but that historical point has been exaggerated by paranoid whites who are tired of "being blamed." Even the tone of your post sounds like a defense mechanism rather than an intolerance for inaccurate historical accounts. This is why I remove the racial aspect of it. When you type "the white man" it holds a different historical and racial connotation than talking about "Europeans" or just talking about power dynamics, in general.
So you are an example of how and why unbiased historical accounts are hard to come by.