The News Thread

[CiG]

Marseille attack: Two young women stabbed to death.

Soldiers on guard at the station shot dead the attacker, who police described as of North African appearance and aged about 30. Witnesses said he shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest).

So-called Islamic State (IS) said the attacker was one of its "soldiers".

One victim had her throat slit and the other was stabbed in the stomach. They were aged 17 and 20.

President Emmanuel Macron said he was disgusted by the "barbarous act" and paid tribute to the soldiers and the police officers who responded.

The attack took place by a bench outside the southern French city's Saint Charles train station.

Interior Minister Gérard Collomb told reporters that the attacker had fled after the first murder but returned to kill again.

I like how they throw that one in there.

You never get a so-called Antifa of course, it's just self-evident that they're anti-fascism.
(Or maybe you do, I just haven't seen it. Selective skepticism.)

 

[CiG]

He confirmed that an ISIS flag was seized from the vehicle initially connected with the attack on the police officer.

A man who attacked a police officer with a knife and deliberately plowed into pedestrians on Edmonton's busiest downtown strip is being investigated for "acts of terrorism,"

Trucks of peace are now turning up in Canada.

 

[UltimateApathy]

American Assault Rifle Fetish:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/active-sh...-9d83-c17f2088b031&.tsrc=notification-brknews

 

[Dak]

Wonder if the unnamed mass shooter is an anti-Trumper.

 

[CiG]

Stephen Paddock is his name apparently.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Definitely assault rifle:

 

[Einherjar86]

I know, that's my point. China doesn't blindly protect NK anymore because they are a red-facade now

Okay, well this is getting further from the point. So now you're agreeing that China actually isn't communist anymore, which confuses me as to what you meant in an earlier comment by referring to China's "redness," unless you were referring to their faux redness, or something like that.

My next comment would be to say that it appears as though China was never blindly protecting North Korea--it always had to do either with the preservation of political ideology, or (more likely now) the preservation of economic stability in the Asian world, or some other material reason. I don't see why Trump's comments are having any tangible effect on how China conducts itself, aside from not wanting to appear blatantly hostile toward the United States, which is all I'm saying Trump should be doing. He's not ingratiating China to U.S. economic interests or foreign policy, and I don't think there's much strategy behind comments that stoke an already growing diplomatic firestorm.

There's a chance Trump's demeanor could push the situation over the edge, but I'm not sure that's a good thing either.

 

[Einherjar86]

Particularly when they weren't flourishing pre-subjugation either. Almost like people matter at least as much as the system.

 

[Dak]

The wiki page on marxist theory of the subaltern is hilarious.

[There is] no need to hear your voice, when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you, I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still [the] colonizer, the speaking subject, and you are now at the center of my talk.

— "Marginality as a Site of Resistance" (1990)

Like putting "colonizer" in the phrase prevents it from ever being substituted for "marxist theorist".

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, that basically describes what happens between colonial powers and their territorial subjects. Not really much room for debate there. Anthropological and postcolonial studies reflect the tendency of colonial powers to silence their subjects (not literally, of course, although literal silence does factor into it), to construct their subjects (as legal citizens of a world they don't understand), to establish their subjects as elements of a regime, bodies on which the colonial power leaves its mark. Just read the original documents by which colonial powers justified their subjugation of "settled" lands.

Additionally, the history of colonialism and other forms of political power furnish us with words like "flourish," which you used above. You can't use that word neutrally when a colonized region feels as though it was flourishing perfectly well without its people being subject to brutality and imprisonment. Sure, they might have Western education and technologies now, but they also have a lot more dead people.

I think we can deal with the legacy of colonialism without affirming it, as you tend to do.

 

[CiG]

As I type this, I wish I were nude cutting up a kangaroo with a sharpened rock, rather than having medicine and a knowledge of science.

 

[rms]

So now you're agreeing that China actually isn't communist anymore, which confuses me as to what you meant in an earlier comment by referring to China's "redness," unless you were referring to their faux redness, or something like that.

if i wanted to argue China was communist still I would say "Red China," ya know? seems linguistically correct at least.

My next comment would be to say that it appears as though China was never blindly protecting North Korea--it always had to do either with the preservation of political ideology

I would say blind support does not mean there is no logical reason to support NK, but supporting NK is a mistake to anything but fuck the West. Now China, Japan, SK and the U.S. are at large risks because China chose this path.

I don't see why Trump's comments are having any tangible effect on how China conducts itself, aside from not wanting to appear blatantly hostile toward the United States, which is all I'm saying Trump should be doing.

Trump has had a larger effect on NK than any president in recent memory. It's likely not 'well thought out' or anything, but it does appear to be righting the ship. Until he starts tweeting Rex on twitter about NK...fucking goof

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say blind support does not mean there is no logical reason to support NK, but supporting NK is a mistake to anything but fuck the West. Now China, Japan, SK and the U.S. are at large risks because China chose this path.

Okay, I think I understand. I'm just not sure where China really stands on this, and what exactly their motivations in are in appearing to placate Western demands.

Trump has had a larger effect on NK than any president in recent memory. It's likely not 'well thought out' or anything, but it does appear to be righting the ship. Until he starts tweeting Rex on twitter about NK...fucking goof

I guess time will tell. I'm hoping for the best, just not expecting it.

As I type this, I wish I were nude cutting up a kangaroo with a sharpened rock, rather than having medicine and a knowledge of science.

I would agree 100% were I in your position. In fact, I'll go ahead and say I'm glad I can cook eggs on the stove in the morning as opposed to hunting antelope in the savannas (ignoring the sarcasm of the comment, of course).

But you're eliding the fact that radical shifts in cultural production and organization are not superseded by subsequent developments down the line. If the logic is "well, a bunch of my ancestors had to die, but at least we have medicine now," then I call bullshit.

To take a playful example, we don't force our grandparents to learn how to use Twitter (and judging by our current president, maybe grandparents shouldn't use Twitter). We tolerate it while they roll their eyes at all that gadgetry. It's already incredibly hard to expect someone to accept a way of life so radically and perhaps violently different than that to which they're accustomed, especially when the process of modernization is one of subjugation.

I don't think we have to discount all the developments in science and technology that have come as a result of colonization in order to acknowledge the true horror that was colonization for those immediately impacted. I'm not blind to the notion of cultural progress here, and I'm not saying we should flush our allergy medicine down the toilet. I also don't think that simply because we have developed technologies and sciences, that gives us the right to absolve colonial history of its bloodiness.

Every time I make this argument, someone comes back saying "Well, it's too bad we have all these inconveniences like medicine and airplanes," as if I somehow think those things shouldn't exist.

 

[CiG]

I don't think we have to discount all the developments in science and technology that have come as a result of colonization in order to acknowledge the true horror that was colonization for those immediately impacted. I'm not blind to the notion of cultural progress here, and I'm not saying we should flush our allergy medicine down the toilet. I also don't think that simply because we have developed technologies and sciences, that gives us the right to absolve colonial history of its bloodiness.

Good I'm glad as that was the point of my comment. You say I think we can deal with the legacy of colonialism without affirming it and I agree but too often people take the opposite side of affirmation and personally I think it's a bullshit dichotomy to begin with.

The only people who ever seem to speak frankly about colonialism are the delusional ones who say they were doing just fine until we/you came along and the chauvinists who say they were wretched until we/you came along.

The truth is somewhere in-between and I think it's unfair to accuse someone of affirmation when all you offer is condemnation.

An honest, nuanced view of colonialism is essential at this point.

 

[Dak]

There were horrors in colonization, but the very perspectives which niggling fault find with colonialism neglect to apply the same critiques the the precolonial indigenous persons. There's an implicit "noble savage sentiment" in statements about numbers of deaths from colonialism, as if west Africa, and North/South America were bastions of human life and liberty prior to the arrival of Europeans.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Turns out he had 10 rifles, the NRA must be *so* proud!

 

[UltimateApathy]

But of course you guys don't want to talk about that because he was a local white guy, and you'd rather keep talking about non-news-related shit. I can imagine the conversation would look very different in here if he was a different color, nationality, or religion, eh? What is this, Ultimate Redneck Forum?

 

[Einherjar86]

There were horrors in colonization, but the very perspectives which niggling fault find with colonialism neglect to apply the same critiques the the precolonial indigenous persons. There's an implicit "noble savage sentiment" in statements about numbers of deaths from colonialism, as if west Africa, and North/South America were bastions of human life and liberty prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Many small primitive communities enjoyed peaceful lives and "freedom" (whatever that might mean in their context). And many had practices that we identify as violent and inhuman. It's illogical to extend the barbaric vision of primitive peoples to all primitive peoples, and it's illogical to say that they were all peaceful communities. I'm not promoting any noble savage vision, and honestly I can't say that postcolonial theory does so either. In fact, postcolonialists are often the first to point out that the noble savage is a myth constructed by Western society, and derives from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century discourses surrounding colonialism (for and against). Orientalism and exoticism were big in nineteenth-century England, and inspired a complex wash of perspectives on foreign civilizations. In many cases, these discourses defended colonized subjects by painting them as natural reflections of Western values. This vision is as delusional as those that perceived all primitive communities as bloodthirsty savages.

But acknowledging that many societies were violent doesn't magically absolve the violence of colonial occupation.

 

[Dak]

Many small primitive communities enjoyed peaceful lives and "freedom" (whatever that might mean in their context). And many had practices that we identify as violent and inhuman. It's illogical to extend the barbaric vision of primitive peoples to all primitive peoples, and it's illogical to say that they were all peaceful communities. I'm not promoting any noble savage vision, and honestly I can't say that postcolonial theory does so either. In fact, postcolonialists are often the first to point out that the noble savage is a myth constructed by Western society, and derives from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century discourses surrounding colonialism (for and against). Orientalism and exoticism were big in nineteenth-century England, and inspired a complex wash of perspectives on foreign civilizations. In many cases, these discourses defended colonized subjects by painting them as natural reflections of Western values. This vision is as delusional as those that perceived all primitive communities as bloodthirsty savages.

But acknowledging that many societies were violent doesn't magically absolve the violence of colonial occupation.

My point is that there is a myopia of focus on particular sins of particular persons, sins conceived as such generally long after the era of analysis (obviously there were contemporary criticisms of slavery and colonialism, but they were marginal rather than celebrated as today). Just as the Aztecs probably left their spectacles of human sacrifice to go home and love their families, so to did Spaniards brutally extract gold from the hills through slave labor and write letters back home lamenting the distance. But one is a curiosity in the history of the Oppressed and the other is Most Vile.

The reality is that, as with anything else, actions involve any number of tradeoffs. The sorts of processes which would drive exploration of the seas drove exploration in other areas as well, and exploration of new physical spaces is probably done by less cautious and conscientious persons. This leads to both the killing of "found" persons as well as providing them schools and medicine. It's a lose-lose situation too: had the Europeans simply "stayed home" all this time, one can easily imagine Leftists pushing a white-mans-burden afresh, like they currently do anyway with calls for global redistribution.

 

[EspaDa]

Did really ISIS have hand in it? How do you think?