upheavals in England, 1640 - 1848
malecki at algonet.se
Thu Jun 20 01:26:22 MDT 1996
>Rahul writes (truncated version):
>>doesn't take much perspicacity to discern that certain attitudes are
>>prevalent in some societies, rare in others. Obviously, it's an
>>environmentally determined effect, not a genetically determined one. An
>>American is much more likely, in my experience, to try to justify an act of
>>butchery committed abroad by his government than a citizen of almost any
>>other country. I state a fact. One can speculate about the reasons for that
>>fact, the most obvious of which is government propaganda, but any
>>explanation which invokes only the coercion of the elite and not the
>>compliance of the masses, is only a half-truth.
>If you mean that certain societies, for some unspecified reasons, are
>incapable of commiting heinous acts in parellel situations where certain
>conditions are present that provoked similar heinous acts by other
>societies, then I would have to disagree. My own family, on my mother's
>side, is descended from the Possomoquoddy Indians (originally from
>northeastern Canada). They migrated into northern Maine several hundred
>years ago, driving out or killing or enslaving the original inhabitants.
>Three hundred years later, the English and French did the same to them.
>What's the difference? This was replicated hundreds of times throughout
>the Americas, from 500 AD through 1890.
>Brutish acts in brutish societies have their parellel, to a greater or
>lesser extent, in all societies. Hitler intended the deaths of millions of
>people to accomplish the ends of German national imperialism. The US has
>always accepted that millions of deaths were necessary to promote its own
>interests worldwide. We have a much more sophisticated elan to our
>killings (along with a wonderfully compliant media). They give us our cover
>to commit our crimes for the sake of altruistic ends. The Possomoquoddys
>originally killed off their elderly by pushing them out to sea on ice
>floats. The European's more gradual methods of elimination, through
>starvation or disease, were arguably more humane. Yet the same ends were
>met. Did this make them more humane? I suspect not.
>It is not the brutality of this or that society that can be isolated,
>singled out and condemned, any more than it is the "offensive" or
>"defensive" character of a war or conflict; it is the nature of the change
>being sought and resisted. All societies, yours and mine alike, have the
>drenching blood of untold masses on their hands. It is, in my view,
>pointless to define this or that society as causing more or less pain to
>more or less people, resulting somehow from racial or cultural differences.
>Similar conditions will produce similar results. Our tasks as Marxists is
>to study and define societies as they heretofore exist and the historical
>processes that will lead to a more facilitative, humane society where the
>premises for much of mankind's brutality will be erased.
Godena, I agree with the above...
malecki in exile
Stop acting like a knight in shiny armour. It exposes you on the women,s
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism