User name change

[Last Conformist]

I must say I never suspected that the 'Africanus' part refered to black skin colour/race. It rather reminded me of Latin honorifics, like Scipio Africanus, so to the extent it reminded me of any race it was of Caucasoids.

I'll note it's bad Latin tho - pax being a feminine noun, "African Peace" should be pax africana.

***

I, BTW, wholeheartedly support renaming Kuciwalker to just that.

/me brandishes "Kuciwalker Now!" poster.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by St Leo
[q] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, there's no real dirt on Norway if you count from 1905 onwards. They've done some nasty things to whales, but other than that they are clean.

Executed Vidkun Quisling despite that Norwegian law at the time only recognized capital punishment in peacetime.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Ok so as to the Original topic, was wanting others to know you were black is that the reason your using the Data Angels leader as your avatar (Roze isn't it)? If so dose that mean your female as well as Morgan would seem the natural choice if your male? Or was Morgan unpalatable to you because of his Imperialistic coroporate tendencies?

When I play SMAC, I usually play either Sven or Morgan. Sometimes the Peacekeepers or Datajack. My style of play is more suited to Sven and Morgan. The whole goal of all of these games is to conquer the world so I go with the my favorite Imperialists.
I use Roze as an avatar because I like her philosophy and she's cute.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Frankychan
This site= Teh r0x0rz!

I'm a Japanese-Local person and I don't feel awkward around here. Bronze and a little mixed, but this place shows the love.

Although there are some ppl that like to take some jabs at me for fun.....Lonestar and Tuberski come to mind...

But that has nothing to do with with you being Japanese.



ACK!

[Pax]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I must say I never suspected that the 'Africanus' part refered to black skin colour/race. It rather reminded me of Latin honorifics, like Scipio Africanus, so to the extent it reminded me of any race it was of Caucasoids.

I'll note it's bad Latin tho - pax being a feminine noun, "African Peace" should be pax africana.

***

I, BTW, wholeheartedly support renaming Kuciwalker to just that.

* Last Conformist brandishes "Kuciwalker Now!" poster.

I don't speak latin. So Scipio Africanus reminds me of Africa and is masculine. I had no knowledge of whether Pax is feminine or masculine. I thought if anything peace would not be gender specific.

[Arrian]

It's very complicated and I'm also embarassed to admit my feelings.
I stereotyped the people on this site based on my experiences with white people to date.
I made the assumption that most people here were probably right wing fanatic caucasian Imperialist pigs.
I assumed that most people in this forum had negative stereotypes of blacks.
I thought that by wearing my color basically on my sleave I would challenge your preconceived notions about blacks. I realize that in reality many of my preconceived notions needed to be challenged.
So I came to feel that only half of my login name really represents me. The part that I feel is the desire for all men regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, and etc. Should be able to live together in peace and prosperity.
Pax

That is the coolest thing I've seen in this forum for a long time... maybe ever.

-Arrian

[Japher]

That is the coolest thing I've seen in this forum for a long time... maybe ever

I think Asher's old "If your going to make a phallic symbol, at least give it some girth" (or something like that) statement still takes the cake...

Was that Asher? Or did he just have it as his sig for a while?

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Tuberski


But that has nothing to do with with you being Japanese.



ACK!

BYU SUCKS!!!

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Pax
I don't speak latin.

To put it mildly, you're not alone.

So Scipio Africanus reminds me of Africa and is masculine.

Well, the specific purpose of the name is to remind you of Africa, and more specifically Scipio's victories there. However, in his day, Africa meant, to a first approximation, modern Tunisia.

I had no knowledge of whether Pax is feminine or masculine. I thought if anything peace would not be gender specific.

Indo-European gender assignments are not known for making sense. A personal favourite is German Mädchen "girl" being neuter.

The lesson being, one assumes, that the same words evoke different associations for different people.

"I am black" should, BTW, translate as niger sum into Latin. Thought you might want to know.

[St Leo]

Russian "muzhchina" or "man" generally declines as a female noun. I don't remember if it's considered male or female though.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
"I am black" should, BTW, translate as niger sum into Latin. Thought you might want to know.

Pax Niger Sum does not sound catchy to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

As well you should, for they do the same. They spread their ideology with little to no concern for prevailing ideologies; either b/c they are 'inferior', or more common these days b/c they feel the need to 'save' the lost souls. Regardless, their ultimate motive is self-serving.

How so? The missionaries gain no benefit from conversions personally. They certainly gain plenty of strife.

Some also saw better methods in what the British did and wanted to copy them to help spread throughout their people.

Doesn't matter. Imperialism's ultimate motive, again, is to help the homeland. Whether or not the locals are aided or worsened by the exchange is inconsequential.

Ah, but I see certain real differences in the two. If Imperialism benefitted the people in India, since they liked the methods of the British, as you admit here, then how can one say that the sole, or supreme motive of Imperialism was to benefit the home country? There were other motives, and one of them was to improve the living conditions of the colonised people.

Granted, not all Imperialists held this ideal, but the British were the most successful because they included this motivation in their Imperialism.

The motive may be altruistic, but the ends haven't changed. If you kill someone for 'altruistic' reasons, isn't it still murder?

I think you mean that the means have not changed. The ends do not justify the means. I agree that you cannot kill someone for purely altruistic motives. Nor do I argue that the British were Imperialists for purely altruistic motives. However, it still remains that the British were successful because they treated the natives well.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


That is the coolest thing I've seen in this forum for a long time... maybe ever.

-Arrian

Agreed.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How so? The missionaries gain no benefit from conversions personally. They certainly gain plenty of strife.

Ah, but I see certain real differences in the two. If Imperialism benefitted the people in India, since they liked the methods of the British, as you admit here, then how can one say that the sole, or supreme motive of Imperialism was to benefit the home country? There were other motives, and one of them was to improve the living conditions of the colonised people.

Granted, not all Imperialists held this ideal, but the British were the most successful because they included this motivation in their Imperialism.

I think you mean that the means have not changed. The ends do not justify the means. I agree that you cannot kill someone for purely altruistic motives. Nor do I argue that the British were Imperialists for purely altruistic motives. However, it still remains that the British were successful because they treated the natives well.

You are totally wrong. The British did not treat the natives anywhere as equal. They felt themselves superior to the non-whites. The uncivilized, the godless, the barbarians, and etc. They rationalized that it was the white mans burden to bring order to places were they saw none.
1. It's well known that missionaries were used for cultural imperialism, they were used to help pacify the natives and they also used for a scapegoat for the Europeans to send in troops to put down the barbarians who were threatening the good missionaries.
2. I am not admitting that Imperialism benefitted the people in India. They may have gotten a better deal than other people but that does not mean that it was good for them to be subjugated.
3. The British are the ones who forced the sale of opium to the Chinese. They have a long history of subjugation and destroying native cultures. You must be talking about some other British Empire.
4. To get a fuller understanding of this I suggest you read Arrow of God by China Achebe or A Grain of wheat by Ngugi wa Thiong'o. The British basically, destroyed the cultures that were already there. Replacing them with a new society with themselves at the top.
5. I don't understand how you can be anti-abortion yet condone colonialism. One of the most evil things to ever happen.
Your position on Imperialism is does not take into consideration the destruction of the Incas, The Mayans, The Aztecs, or the situation in Africa to name a few. European Imperialism ****ed up the world so there's no way you can be like "Mission Accomplished" unless that was the plan.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Frankychan


BYU SUCKS!!!

The only reason they didn't beat Hawaii last year, is cause they didn't play.

But, yeah, they suck.



ACK!