Zed wrote:Since you seem so glad to use dictionaries when they suit you, but not when they don't, here's the definition of imperialism from The Dictionary of Human Geography: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."
Imperialism is not a motivator, but rather a mindset that leaves you incapable of recognizing why this might be offensive.
Samuel wrote:Political, economic or social control constitute a "minset"?
Holy shit, I already used that definition!
Thanas wrote:I think you are a lesser version of Darkstar.
See what I just did?
Yes, I think it was a good article. It gets its point across. Too bad little guys like you love to nitpick it to death rather than deal with the full theory.
The "full theory" being Americans are hypocrites and support terrorism against our enemies but are angry when people do it to us?
It is a good thing no one on this thread has attacked that item.
And I am like Darkstar because... what exactly? Darkstar was known for being dishonest. In this case forum posters immediately pointed out that Chomsky was blatantly wrong about the perception of native Americans in the US. Care to respond to that- you seem to have been silent about this.
Now, you might say this is tangential... except this was a major part of the imperial mindset he was ranting about.
The reason I rate him lower than Moore is because this is something about the United States that is incredibly obvious to anyone who actually lives in the United States.
According to you, blatant falsehoods are a nitpick.
Semantic whoring? Really? I thought you better than this. Very well. Explain then what the opposition was to make capture impossible.
Let me get this straight. Pointing out how something is deceptively phrased is semantics whoring. The problem with the phrase is that it makes it sound like the only opposition was from Bin Laden's wife. It is implying there were absoluting no other sources of opposition.
There isn't much more I can say about this as the US hasn't released the report about the incident and I'm not willing to make any claims with incomplete information.
....are you that ignorant or do you really mean for that sentence to be taken seriously?
If you think something is wrong say why.
Bakustra wrote:If you really want to go ahead with this definition, then I will include references to the mighty Canuck Empire from now on, in the hopes that you will recognize how over-broad that definition is. You yourself abandon it by pretending that the Japanese Empire was single-ethnicity or singly-national. No, it wasn't, and neither is Japan today.
I didn't know that about Japan. Care to provide the different groups? I know about the Ainu, but that is it.
On the topic of being overbroad, I wasn't aware we got to ignore the definition of a word because we don't like it. Your rebutal seems to be it sounds silly. Since when do personal feelings count as a fact statement?
This is dishonest in the extreme, since it implies that I said that as a serious, useful definition.
No, you said it was an old definition that isn't useful. I showed the definition was wrong. If Thanas finds that wrong, than you still have the good old Athenian Empire.
You know, when you admit that you didn't know who Chomsky was and yet posted as though you were familiar with him... that's not impressive. It's, frankly, pathetic.
...what are you talking about? I made it clear the reason I was juding Chomsky was because of the article posted.
You also ignore that I was talking about peoples as a whole, not as just "leaders". Unless you think there really were guys named Apache and Comanche in the distant past.
While those would make awesome names, no I didn't think that. I missed that you were refering to the groups alone. That is different than the names of leaders. I concede that is rather off, although its offensiveness is the perview of the tribes. If they complain we should change the name.
Although Chomsky complained that we were calling our weapons Comache and... Tomohawk.