I'm more interested in what they had to say than how they lived their lives.
An unpopular opinion I know, but when you focus on the lives you ignore important things. Take Stephen King and J.K. Rowling as examples. I love King as an author but think he's a political nut job. On the other hand I like Rowling's position on Trans issues but don't love her books. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate them, I'm just not her biggest fan.
So, when Rousseau says "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery,”
I see a meaningful statement. Was he a monster? Maybe, doesn't change the statement though?
Rousseau had five children with his girlfriend (never married) and dumped them all at orphanages. Maybe I'm just too family oriented for the internet but that sounds like a monster to me. I suppose it's better than starving his kids like Karl Marx.
Taking people based on their best quote and ignoring how they lived their lives is a form of moral relativism.
For example, if Vladimir Lenin wrote, "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery." amongst his various ravings, I would be skeptical since that's not how he lived his life.
Ya, I've heard the story. It seems every historical figure has baggage. The Founding Fathers, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., etc.
As I wrote those names out I started to wonder, is it possible to name anyone that you can't discredit by some action they took something they said? There must be, right?
I'm not saying Rousseau believed what he said - who knows what anyone else really believes - by quoting him I'm simply indicating that I agree with the statement.
I will continue to throw out quotes I find meaningful regardless of who said them and how they lived their lives. No offence intended.
One of the most salient political quotes in my library came from arguably the most crooked U.S. president of the 20th century. It gives me great joy to quote it at members of his party, and watch their heads explode.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
Not offended at all. After more than 3 decades of policing, my skin is fairly thick. And yes, the only quotable dude without flaws ended up on a cross.
The reason I raised the subject is most folks who quote Rousseau have no idea about his history, mainly because the teacher who taught the quote didn't want to provide context if they even knew of it.
C'mon the greatest example of cultural appropriation was Florida State University using Seminole indians as mascots. The PC crowd was shocked. Yet Bobby Bowden (the football coach) famously went to a legislative hearing on the issue. When confronted on the matter, he turned to his left and introduced the chief of the Seminoles, who stated that not only did he approve their use, but he was proud to be associated with the Florida State University. CASE CLOSED!
Back about 1890 some journalistic rag was interviewing an Indian chief, trying to get him to weepwail over the terrible injustice done to his people. The chief responded: "They came, we fought, they fought better, we lost. Get over it."
[I've seen this documented, tho I'm too lazy to go find it again]
Worth noting vis a vis Congo Free State that those death toll estimates are just completely bunk. No one knows how many people lived there to start— no one knows how many people lived there at the end. The high death/birth rate in societies of that type means that estimates are often wrong on their face, with huge volatility in numbers at any time. It would be very surprising, considering the character of the settlements there, if there were more than 15 million people in the region to begin with.
Plus, those estimates tend to just completely ignore the fact that in the best documented population groups (such as the Kuba)- it was a period of population growth.
True, but most historians agree that a massive demographic catastrophe did occur.
The low estimate is still millions (1.2 to 3 million). That makes it easier to find roughly comparable atrocities in Europe but the debate isn't necessarily about whether a tragedy happened, but about the scale of the pre-colonial population and the relative impact of direct violence versus introduced disease.
I think my skepticism is largely due to my familiarity with native american number estimates where experts tend to have an incentive to ramp up the scale of the devastation— without really firm numbers
Ya, but these things do tend to swing back. The initial historians make their names off high estimates and then "the revisionists" make theirs by countering this claim. It'll go on back and forth for decades before we have a number everyone grudgingly agrees upon. We both may be dead by that time.
The problem is that there might not have been that many natives in all of Africa.
There was a rough census in 1900 (as best one can in Africa, even today merely a wild-assed guess). The estimates ran from 2 to 10 million natives. For the entire continent.
A whole lot of population figures today are wildly exaggerated; how much worse then?
One I like to point at today is Faiyum, Egypt. Supposedly 440,000 people. But if you take a closer look (satellite and what streetview exists) you'll discover it's almost entirely abandoned. Many buildings have no roofs. Cars are parked any which way blocking the main streets. Apartment buildings sit empty. (This is also true of a lot of metros in Iraq, where most of the city area is abandoned.) There are also "ghost cities" sections of Cairo, where vast swaths of half-constructed apartment buildings are being slowly swallowed by the sand. Yet when it comes time to count heads for foreign aid, all those people miraculously appear!
I've also heard figures as high as 80 million "Native Americans killed by colonization" yet somehow the largest known settlement was guestimated at 20,000 people, and that was abandoned long before Europeans arrived. So how were they fed? Where did they live? Where are the bodies?? Find me the bones. Surely they weren't all carried off by Coyote!
I will leave the debate around numbers to those better suited to determine them. Numbers aside, I'm inclined to believe most historians when they say "a massive demographic catastrophe did occur."
Now that I’m living in Ohio let’s discuss the Guardians —why was this name change so necessary? What’s wrong with calling a team the Indians? I mean it’s not the R-word!
But speaking of the R-word Ohio does have a college (I won’t give the school’s name) that calls itself “Big Red”! What do you think that’s about (pronounced like “a-boot”)?
My research revealed that the school (unofficially) used an Indian mascot in the 1970s. I mean come on?!—“Big Red”?!
When I read "R-word" I think "retards" which would probably not be the best name for a sports team. Although just thinking about it makes me laugh because I'm a terrible person.
Had to look up the Browns. They're named after their first head coach and general manager, Paul Brown. But I see where you're going here.
The Big Reds is a similar situation. They're named that because of its athletic teams' long-standing tradition of wearing red and white.
However, you have demonstrated how easy it is to deem something racist for pretty much any reason.
Take a long look at the world map of colonization.
Now consider which parts of the world have electricity and running water.
Some fellow traveling in West Africa noted that Country A (I forget which ones) was tolerably clean and modern, while Country B right next door was a typical third world disaster. He asked his native guide why the stark difference? His native guide replied: Country A was colonized by Europeans. Country B was not.
It's shocking how Europeans settlers, I mean colonizers, disrupted the cannibalistic slaver tribes.
Of the many insane ideas Jean-Jacques Rousseau spewed, the Noble Savage mythology might have been the worst.
It's still very much alive on the left.
Sadly, many on the right believe it as well. Not surprising since our public schools have been indoctrinating for decades.
If you're ever bored, take a closer look at the life of Rousseau. Like most of the left's heroes, Rousseau is a monster.
I'm more interested in what they had to say than how they lived their lives.
An unpopular opinion I know, but when you focus on the lives you ignore important things. Take Stephen King and J.K. Rowling as examples. I love King as an author but think he's a political nut job. On the other hand I like Rowling's position on Trans issues but don't love her books. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate them, I'm just not her biggest fan.
So, when Rousseau says "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery,”
I see a meaningful statement. Was he a monster? Maybe, doesn't change the statement though?
Rousseau had five children with his girlfriend (never married) and dumped them all at orphanages. Maybe I'm just too family oriented for the internet but that sounds like a monster to me. I suppose it's better than starving his kids like Karl Marx.
Taking people based on their best quote and ignoring how they lived their lives is a form of moral relativism.
For example, if Vladimir Lenin wrote, "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery." amongst his various ravings, I would be skeptical since that's not how he lived his life.
Ya, I've heard the story. It seems every historical figure has baggage. The Founding Fathers, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., etc.
As I wrote those names out I started to wonder, is it possible to name anyone that you can't discredit by some action they took something they said? There must be, right?
I'm not saying Rousseau believed what he said - who knows what anyone else really believes - by quoting him I'm simply indicating that I agree with the statement.
I will continue to throw out quotes I find meaningful regardless of who said them and how they lived their lives. No offence intended.
One of the most salient political quotes in my library came from arguably the most crooked U.S. president of the 20th century. It gives me great joy to quote it at members of his party, and watch their heads explode.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
Not offended at all. After more than 3 decades of policing, my skin is fairly thick. And yes, the only quotable dude without flaws ended up on a cross.
The reason I raised the subject is most folks who quote Rousseau have no idea about his history, mainly because the teacher who taught the quote didn't want to provide context if they even knew of it.
C'mon the greatest example of cultural appropriation was Florida State University using Seminole indians as mascots. The PC crowd was shocked. Yet Bobby Bowden (the football coach) famously went to a legislative hearing on the issue. When confronted on the matter, he turned to his left and introduced the chief of the Seminoles, who stated that not only did he approve their use, but he was proud to be associated with the Florida State University. CASE CLOSED!
We need more of this.
By the way, I'm proud of the Fighting Irish mascot.
Less so of the Lucky Charms guy.
Back about 1890 some journalistic rag was interviewing an Indian chief, trying to get him to weepwail over the terrible injustice done to his people. The chief responded: "They came, we fought, they fought better, we lost. Get over it."
[I've seen this documented, tho I'm too lazy to go find it again]
Worth noting vis a vis Congo Free State that those death toll estimates are just completely bunk. No one knows how many people lived there to start— no one knows how many people lived there at the end. The high death/birth rate in societies of that type means that estimates are often wrong on their face, with huge volatility in numbers at any time. It would be very surprising, considering the character of the settlements there, if there were more than 15 million people in the region to begin with.
Plus, those estimates tend to just completely ignore the fact that in the best documented population groups (such as the Kuba)- it was a period of population growth.
True, but most historians agree that a massive demographic catastrophe did occur.
The low estimate is still millions (1.2 to 3 million). That makes it easier to find roughly comparable atrocities in Europe but the debate isn't necessarily about whether a tragedy happened, but about the scale of the pre-colonial population and the relative impact of direct violence versus introduced disease.
Thanks for the note Caballero!
I have no doubt of some form of disaster.
I think my skepticism is largely due to my familiarity with native american number estimates where experts tend to have an incentive to ramp up the scale of the devastation— without really firm numbers
Ya, but these things do tend to swing back. The initial historians make their names off high estimates and then "the revisionists" make theirs by countering this claim. It'll go on back and forth for decades before we have a number everyone grudgingly agrees upon. We both may be dead by that time.
The problem is that there might not have been that many natives in all of Africa.
There was a rough census in 1900 (as best one can in Africa, even today merely a wild-assed guess). The estimates ran from 2 to 10 million natives. For the entire continent.
A whole lot of population figures today are wildly exaggerated; how much worse then?
One I like to point at today is Faiyum, Egypt. Supposedly 440,000 people. But if you take a closer look (satellite and what streetview exists) you'll discover it's almost entirely abandoned. Many buildings have no roofs. Cars are parked any which way blocking the main streets. Apartment buildings sit empty. (This is also true of a lot of metros in Iraq, where most of the city area is abandoned.) There are also "ghost cities" sections of Cairo, where vast swaths of half-constructed apartment buildings are being slowly swallowed by the sand. Yet when it comes time to count heads for foreign aid, all those people miraculously appear!
I've also heard figures as high as 80 million "Native Americans killed by colonization" yet somehow the largest known settlement was guestimated at 20,000 people, and that was abandoned long before Europeans arrived. So how were they fed? Where did they live? Where are the bodies?? Find me the bones. Surely they weren't all carried off by Coyote!
I will leave the debate around numbers to those better suited to determine them. Numbers aside, I'm inclined to believe most historians when they say "a massive demographic catastrophe did occur."
Confused ... I thought you weren't combining humor with politics?
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
I'm keeping politics out of my humor articles not humor out of my political articles.
So, Schrodinger's Chicken (https://schrodingerschicken.substack.com/ ) will not have any politics because I think we all need a place like that.
I'm giving myself a free hand on this site and it's hard not to be sarcastic when discussion progressive ideas.
Now that I’m living in Ohio let’s discuss the Guardians —why was this name change so necessary? What’s wrong with calling a team the Indians? I mean it’s not the R-word!
But speaking of the R-word Ohio does have a college (I won’t give the school’s name) that calls itself “Big Red”! What do you think that’s about (pronounced like “a-boot”)?
My research revealed that the school (unofficially) used an Indian mascot in the 1970s. I mean come on?!—“Big Red”?!
And what about (“a-boot”) the Cleveland Browns?!
When I read "R-word" I think "retards" which would probably not be the best name for a sports team. Although just thinking about it makes me laugh because I'm a terrible person.
Had to look up the Browns. They're named after their first head coach and general manager, Paul Brown. But I see where you're going here.
The Big Reds is a similar situation. They're named that because of its athletic teams' long-standing tradition of wearing red and white.
However, you have demonstrated how easy it is to deem something racist for pretty much any reason.
Redskins was what the Indians called themselves. Why are we not respecting their choices??
Take a long look at the world map of colonization.
Now consider which parts of the world have electricity and running water.
Some fellow traveling in West Africa noted that Country A (I forget which ones) was tolerably clean and modern, while Country B right next door was a typical third world disaster. He asked his native guide why the stark difference? His native guide replied: Country A was colonized by Europeans. Country B was not.