Look, again you're trying to paint things out as somehow equal. Do you read what you write? It sounds like you're apologizing for dicatorships here?davec1 wrote: turned out the fascist side won a civil war (not so surprising, it was an army general, after all). Now if you (not you personally, but people in general) look a little closer rather than just reading hemingway's drunk self-glorification, you'll find that, as in most civil wars, everybody commits atrocities (i.e. in spain the anarchists, the fascist, the communists...). That's what war does, turn everyone into monsters.
I'm not "weilding the fascist logic schtick" at you for no reason.
A: Read Orson Wells not-so-drunken-account. You aren't that well versed in this subject.
B: The anarchists and socialists won something like 1/3 to 2/3 of the country at one point. The reason they lost is simple, the only backing they got was from Stalin, and only if they adhered to traditional military hierarchal code, which basically equalled the same system the fascists had. People lost interest once Russia was involved.
C: The fascists had German air support, and german munitions support, the anarchists had NO SUPPORT, until Russia, who demanded to be in control. Franco was losing until Hitler stepped in.
D: America, where I live anyway, did NOT come from a fascist state. Whatever you can say about the people of Spain etc. they have every right to dislike a political system based on a military coup, period.
I don't expect you to get this, I have every reason to believe the you have a lot of sympathy for western culture which is translating into sympathy for fascism, or at least thinking it's not that bad, which is mind boggling in modern times. Why would I think that?
davec1 wrote: being against the central government in those cases (and many others) is just an immature reflex, like in puberty, rebel against authority, no matter what, root for the underdog etc. makes people feel special. minorities often feel like that, very undemocratic, if you think about it.
apart from that, empires aren't all bad. they're not all good either. but too much is easily blamed on them, it's a popular movement in recent history.
take africa for example. if you ask certain people, (mostly french and english) imperialism are the root of every single problem on that continent. nevermind the tribal structures, the clan mentality that is still prevalent nowadays and has people going at each other with machetes. The empires are long gone. Sure, many effects are still a consequence for what happened back then. but it's also time to assume responsability for one's own actions.
The roman empire was bloody, too. But many good things came from
davec1 wrote: you'll find that, as in most civil wars, everybody commits atrocities (i.e. in spain the anarchists, the fascist, the communists...). That's what war does, turn everyone into monsters.
what I'm saying is that not everything bad that happens in today's world can be blamed on what happened 1,2,3 centuries ago. That's cheap and irresponsible.
There's no wrong assumptions here, you are very much trying to paint out war, dictatorships, and colonialism as being not as bad as people are acting like it is.pray, do tell, I'm curious where this kind of logic (based on wrong assumptions) leads...Wow? So what you're saying is if you are a conquered people, you should suck it up, and if you don't you're an immature brat? Considering Spain was a fascism, what does that say about you?
You're acting the typical western culture apologist, and looking for excuses for the bad behavior of the west. You point at people who are still mad about this stuff and call them childish, but you are the one who isn't looking things squarely in the eye. Spain did side with the USA in Iraq, they still have a huge fascist party, and they still have government corruption etc.
So, if Spain is so great, why did they decide that the most obvious example of an attempt at modern colonialism was a worthy endeavor? I'm dammed sure the "immature" people there that are anti government etc. were directly responsible for a lot of the work that went into getting rid of the government that sent troops to Iraq.
You repeatedly defend fascism and imperialism, why? Sure, not all human problems are the result of dictatorial governments and imperialistic actions against nations or people, but it doesn't help one bit. 70 years isn't that long ago in the case of Spain, and it wasn't until the 70's that Franco died wasn't it? Africa is the same, it's been only maybe 20 years since apartheid ended, that's a lot closer to present day than your 100-300 year number, but yeah, some guy in one of the richest countries in europe knows what it's like, and thinks it's "cheap and irresponsible" for people to be affected by it.
I can agree with you that western culture has good points, politically and otherwise, but I don't respect or agree with the concept that we now can ignore the rotten parts, or that we're off the hook for damage done in the past, just look at Iraq right now. What do you see? We very obviously have no learned form the past.
