Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
Versus
Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
It’s not unreasonable for a person reading your responses to see that particular form of national essentialism and then you referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain.
It’s okay to be wrong here. If you’re okay with it you can move on to something else after learning some shit. If you’re not okay with it you’ll end up dying mad and no one wants that.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
Yes, they occupy roughly the same region and thus have the same material constraints. Just because a revolution took place, doesn’t mean the incoming government is going to be less reliant on access to the black sea.
referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain
You honestly think that I believe the people yearn for warm water ports? That seems to be a bit of a stretch, I think you’re being purposely obtuse.
It’s okay to be wrong here
Lol, how am I being wrong about my original claim? You have a semantic dispute with the use of the word Russian, despite the given context, and my further explanation. You are just fighting a strawman you erected yourself.
I’m not talking about the veracity of your original claim, whatever that is.
The thing you’re wrong about is that it’s obvious what you’re talking about when you aren’t careful with your nationalist language and present the modern history of Russia in the Black Sea as a book entitled “the quest for a warm water port”.
If it was there wouldn’t be a bunch of people giving your posts the hairy eyeball in written form.
If it was obvious you’d have a bunch of people apologizing for doubting you instead of thoroughly questioning you to figure out what the heck you mean.
And if that questioning was gonna turn up a hapless lib who stumbled into right wing language without knowing, you’d be recognizing it instead of digging your heels in!
I’m not talking about the veracity of your original claim
Well it’s good to know we agree that you’re arguing against a strawman.
obvious what you’re talking about when you aren’t careful with your nationalist language and present the modern history of Russia in the Black Sea
Nationalist language is when …you utilize the name of a state, sure.
If it was there wouldn’t be a bunch of people giving your posts the hairy eyeball in written form.
A bunch of people meaning…two? In reality it seems you didn’t really have much to argue with about my original claim, so you hyper focused on a pedantic misinterpretation that I all ready clarified.
you’d be recognizing it instead of digging your heels in!
Lol, you do realize that you’re the only one who’s focused on nationalism, right? You steered the question towards it, even when I stated that was an incorrect interpretation, explaining the context, and how it would be impossible for me to think that the Russian people had control over a pure monarchy.
I already said that it was silly to hold the beliefs you accuse me of, and have explained my reasoning. You still are completely disinterested in any discord that doesn’t involve nationalism. And have admitted that your entire rebuttal has nothing to do with my original claims.
Leftist like you are a cancer to the cause. Instead of open discord and mutual aid, you offer nothing but gait keeping and dogmatic theory. All you do is attempt to force some aspect of theory you poorly understood to any conversation that allows you to be a contrarian. Ego boosting isn’t praxis ya dweeb.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Versus
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
It’s not unreasonable for a person reading your responses to see that particular form of national essentialism and then you referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain.
It’s okay to be wrong here. If you’re okay with it you can move on to something else after learning some shit. If you’re not okay with it you’ll end up dying mad and no one wants that.
Yes, they occupy roughly the same region and thus have the same material constraints. Just because a revolution took place, doesn’t mean the incoming government is going to be less reliant on access to the black sea.
You honestly think that I believe the people yearn for warm water ports? That seems to be a bit of a stretch, I think you’re being purposely obtuse.
Lol, how am I being wrong about my original claim? You have a semantic dispute with the use of the word Russian, despite the given context, and my further explanation. You are just fighting a strawman you erected yourself.
I’m not talking about the veracity of your original claim, whatever that is.
The thing you’re wrong about is that it’s obvious what you’re talking about when you aren’t careful with your nationalist language and present the modern history of Russia in the Black Sea as a book entitled “the quest for a warm water port”.
If it was there wouldn’t be a bunch of people giving your posts the hairy eyeball in written form.
If it was obvious you’d have a bunch of people apologizing for doubting you instead of thoroughly questioning you to figure out what the heck you mean.
And if that questioning was gonna turn up a hapless lib who stumbled into right wing language without knowing, you’d be recognizing it instead of digging your heels in!
Well it’s good to know we agree that you’re arguing against a strawman.
Nationalist language is when …you utilize the name of a state, sure.
A bunch of people meaning…two? In reality it seems you didn’t really have much to argue with about my original claim, so you hyper focused on a pedantic misinterpretation that I all ready clarified.
Lol, you do realize that you’re the only one who’s focused on nationalism, right? You steered the question towards it, even when I stated that was an incorrect interpretation, explaining the context, and how it would be impossible for me to think that the Russian people had control over a pure monarchy.
I already said that it was silly to hold the beliefs you accuse me of, and have explained my reasoning. You still are completely disinterested in any discord that doesn’t involve nationalism. And have admitted that your entire rebuttal has nothing to do with my original claims.
Leftist like you are a cancer to the cause. Instead of open discord and mutual aid, you offer nothing but gait keeping and dogmatic theory. All you do is attempt to force some aspect of theory you poorly understood to any conversation that allows you to be a contrarian. Ego boosting isn’t praxis ya dweeb.
My point is perhaps best expressed as follows:
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.