I know human beings need to express themselves — NOS4A2

Hmm. Do you? How? What's the premise for this which is...

Universal, fundamental and inalienable — AmadeusD

You will need something a little better than "i know..XXX" for this to be applicable.

And alternately, how does the 'right to free Speech' relate to a 'natural' right derived from a human 'need' to 'express' themselves? These are all contingent and not in any way fundamental, universal or inalienable. You'd have to claim that any society who doesn't enforce the same rights you do, is wrong. I cant really see that happening... (by this I mean, you don't come across as either a Moral absolutists or someone willing to claim their culture is the 'right one' per se)

Luckily, I've just covered the reality: Society dictates rights based on the socially-bound behaviour of it's members. Nothing about 'human nature' exists in this.

Human nature dictates that sex is the paramount goal of being a human being. This comes closer to the three criteria than does 'free expression'... Yet, this is not a right. And only what we considered 'backward' cultures would deem it so.

I'm supposed to get on with theories that begin with something I can't understand how a rational person would involve.

I don't know what to tell you, lots of rational people have embraced the idea of natural rights. You seem to be hung up on the idea of enforcement, but no natural rights theorists claim that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated.

The natural right then is something you can point to when justifying political action. E.g. "we are justified in revolting and demanding a constitution because the king keeps violating natural rights," or "this new bill should not be passed because it allows the state to violate natural rights."

You'd have to claim that any society who doesn't enforce the same rights you do, is wrong. I cant really see that happening... (by this I mean, you don't come across as either a Moral absolutists or someone willing to claim their culture is the 'right one' per se)

So, "children categorically have a right not to be sold off as sex slaves," is a bridge to far for you because it wouldn't be relativistic enough? Was there any grounds on which someone outside of American culture could have said that slavery or Jim Crow was immoral, or must they pass over it because to criticize chattel slavery would be to say that "someone else's culture was wrong?"


There is a place for particularism, sure, but particularism and relativism can become their own sort of absolute. And why stop the relativism at individual cultures and societies? Why not let it apply to the level of individual communities or even individuals?

Obviously, one answer would be that this makes any ethics impossible, no one can criticize anyone else on pain of "absolutism." But then why is the "society" the proper dividing line for determining when relativism should kick in? Natural rights theorists are simply claiming that society it isn't the proper dividing line for some issues.

The concept of "rights" as expressed in codes of conduct is a human idea. But the general practice exists in all social animals that are capable of individuation and autonomy (have a bigger brain than ants and bees). Every flock of wild geese, pack of wolves and colony of beavers has a social organization that recognizes the needs of its members and accords them each a degree of self-fulfillment. That degree is limited by the needs of the group. If the balance between rights and obligations is faulty, the society loses cohesion, becomes stressed and might cease to function. (As we see in modern human societies.)

The idea of according rights to every member of our society is far older that the idea of "human". It is therefore natural. The idea of depriving some members of a society of their rights, or bestowing unearned privilege on a few while placing the full burden of obligation on the less privileged is entirely human. It is therefore artificial. In all other social species, privilege is hard won and carries greater obligation.

The idea of according every member of every society the same rights that we all want for ourselves is also a human one, and is entirely rational on the grounds that it would greatly reduce stress and conflict in all societies.

Society dictates rights? I’ve only seen men dictate rights. By “society” I assume you mean men in power. But it isn’t true, in any case, that only some men can confer rights. And if you allow only politicians and lawyers the power to grant rights you make of yourself a slave or serf or some other subordinate, at any rate a sorry figure.

The language faculties are universal. The right to free speech itself has been battle-tested in its own arena, put to the grindstone of trial and error over thousands of years, and has proven itself morally right and socially valuable both in argument and in practice. What more does one need? Yes, anyone who doesn’t confer the right to free speech on others and defend everyone’s right to speak is wrong.

The concept of natural rights is a fairly modern development; say, from Grotius forward. As has been pointed out, it's very much a product of the Enlightenment.

Natural law, however, is different. The Stoics were the greatest proponents of it in the ancient world, probably. Natural law and natural rights are often considered one and the same, but are different.

According to natural law theory as developed in antiquity, from the study of nature and humanity's place in it we can infer that certain conduct is in accordance with nature, and human nature is such that we can infer that we have certain duties towards each other. Right conduct, duty and justice were far more important than individual rights. We should treat each other in a certain way, yes, but we didn't have the right to be treated in a certain way as we believe that to be the case now. It's a point of view I think preferable, personally. It's not all about ME and what I'M entitled to or owed.

For example, slavery was common in the ancient West. Slaves didn't have the right to be free, but they could be granted freedom. However, the Roman jurist Ulpian wrote that the the condition of slavery was contrary to nature. Nature tells us that humans should be treated equally, i.e. that we should treat each other as equals and shouldn't enslave each other. The focus is on what we should and should not do rather than on what each of us is entitled to.

Excellent points. And then the elucidation of certain natural rights gives us something ready-made to point to in order to show why a certain act is wrong. It's not unlike how civil rights legislation works. E.g., if the police act a certain way, you can point to the statute and say, "this is the right they have infringed," to make your case.

This doesn't mean the rights are always ensured. The same is true of civil rights. Often civil rights get violated in obvious ways and yet the justice system turns a blind eye to this. This was incredibly common during Jim Crow, when the rights identified in Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were routinely violated.

However, when civil rights advocates wanted to point out the evils here, they were able to point to both the Constitution and natural rights. For, if you just point at the law of the land, people might say "well, maybe you're right, but that just means our laws are wrong." But, provided they accept a natural right, they will have no grounds for defending their actions even if the current laws allow them. In this way, natural laws also show lawmakers what the laws of their state should be.

You seem to be hung up on the idea of enforcement, but no natural rights theorists claim that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This confuses me. I don't think that, haven't said that. Enforceability is what i've talked about. Not non-violability. A right wouldn't be a right if it wasn't violable. It would just be a state of affairs. A right is predicated on something being either given, or refused (i.e you have a right to 'something' or a right for others to not 'something'..). In this way, (and this is purely for your clarity) a right could only exist as a violable assertion of normative value.

The natural right then is something you can point to when justifying political action. E.g. "we are justified in revolting and demanding a constitution because the king keeps violating natural rights," or "this new bill should not be passed because it allows the state to violate natural rights." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, as I have mentioned, is entirely incoherent. It makes a claim that doesn't stand up to anything at all, best I can tell being "violates natural rights". Err, you're gonna need to justify THAT.

So, "children categorically have a right not to be sold off as sex slaves," is a bridge to far for you because it wouldn't be relativistic enough? — Count Timothy von Icarus

While this is actually exactly counter to what I had said (my quote is charging NOS with being too relativistic), I am currently of the view that, while I could personally tell someone I thought what they were doing was wrong (this, if you need, can be that they want to sell their child into the sex trade) for x, y and z reasons but I have no right to enforce that opinion on them.
That's a bad example though, because I could defend removing the child from the scenario for other reasons than disagreeing with the vendor.

And why stop the relativism at individual cultures and societies? Why not let it apply to the level of individual communities or even individuals? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It does. hehe.

But then why is the "society" the proper dividing line for determining when relativism should kick in? Natu — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because that's where people have to get along. It would be counter to the aim of society (ie, practical, not moral) not to co-operate. So relativism has to breakdown here, to enable things like regulation to take any reasonable shape. This is basically business acumen at this point.

Society dictates rights? I’ve only seen men dictate rights. — NOS4A2

That's odd. Almost all modern sets of rights are come to by deliberation among, what are meant to be, the best and brightest of that society. Which goes to the next point too...

By “society” I assume you mean men in power. But it isn’t true, in any case, that only some men can confer rights. — NOS4A2

I disagree, and see no evidence to the contrary. More than open to it - but I would just be ready for it to be lacking, as this is, in fact, where rights come from presently.

And if you allow only politicians and lawyers the power to grant rights you make of yourself a slave or serf or some other subordinate, at any rate a sorry figure. — NOS4A2

It's not up to me, If i am to take part in society. I think perhaps you think you're not subject to society's policies?

The language faculties are universal. The right to free speech itself has been battle-tested in its own arena, put to the grindstone of trial and error over thousands of years, and has proven itself morally right and socially valuable both in argument and in practice. — NOS4A2

While I totally accept, and find reasonable this take, it is nothing but your personal opinion of the states of affairs previously seen in the world. The 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, anywhere, really. So, what's the "universal" you're talking about? It doesn't seem to obtain. It appears we, at least, value free speech to the same level, if not for hte same reasons.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t confer the right to free speech on others and defend everyone’s right to speak is wrong. — NOS4A2

I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose given your position in this thread I shouldn't be. I just didn't take you as this type of thinker. Interesting. I'm fine with you feeling that way, as it goes.
Would you say that someone should have the right to call another person (who, aesthetically fits the description) a "Big, fat gay n***a" as a derogatory term intended to harm the person's psyche? This is not a gotcha, I just wanted an example that the answer to would be a clear commitment one way or the other.

But the general practice exists in all social animals — Vera Mont

You are seriously suggesting that non-sentient animals have 'rights and obligations' rather than autonomous reactive behaviours limited by the survival tactics of the species? Interesting.

That's odd. Almost all modern sets of rights are come to by deliberation among, what are meant to be, the best and brightest of that society.

That is odd. Philosophers have been expounding and conferring rights long before any politician, bureaucrat, or jurist has codified them. Hell, some constitutions weren’t created until the disco era. Perhaps society is just a thief.

I disagree, and see no evidence to the contrary. More than open to it - but I would just be ready for it to be lacking, as this is, in fact, where rights come from presently.

Yet I just granted you the right to free speech, entailing that I temper my own behavior in defense of yours. Should you be met with a censor I will be there defending you and your right to speak, so long as you aren't conflicting with his property rights.

While I totally accept, and find reasonable this take, it is nothing but your personal opinion of the states of affairs previously seen in the world. The 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, anywhere, really. So, what's the "universal" you're talking about? It doesn't seem to obtain. It appears we, at least, value free speech to the same level, if not for hte same reasons.

It is an opinion derived from argument and evidence, all of which attests to the merits of rights. If you have better arguments and better evidence in favor of, say, censorship or theft or kidnapping, I’m willing to change that opinion. Except no argument has been forthcoming—the fact that there is no free speech is certainly no argument against free speech, just as the fact that there are still slaves is no argument against abolition. The “universal” I’m talking about simply means the right ought to apply to everyone.

I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose given your position in this thread I shouldn't be. I just didn't take you as this type of thinker. Interesting. I'm fine with you feeling that way, as it goes.
Would you say that someone should have the right to call another person (who, aesthetically fits the description) a "Big, fat gay n***a" as a derogatory term intended to harm the person's psyche? This is not a gotcha, I just wanted an example that the answer to would be a clear commitment one way or the other.

Yes, I’m an absolutist. Everyone should have the right to say what they want. Would you censor him?

provided they accept a natural right, — Count Timothy von Icarus

A belief in natural rights may inspire or inform the decision to adopt a law (or not adopt one, or enforce or not enforce a law). Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law.

That is odd. Philosophers have been expounding and conferring rights long before any politician, bureaucrat, or jurist has codified them. Hell, some constitutions weren’t created until the disco era. Perhaps society is just a thief. — NOS4A2

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the line you're taking, no. No one but an authority has conferred any rights, ever. Philosophers have discussed them, and pretended to them (in the face of an enforcing authority which does not recognise them). Think: Why did Socrates drink the hemlock ;) There are no other rights. There are ideals. Even 'natural rights' only ever come into being once codified by an authority. The argument that they are derived from some universal, i reject, but even if that were true, the rights themselves are formal enunciations of 'natural ideals' for lack of a better term.

Yet I just granted you the right to free speech — NOS4A2

You absolutely did no such thing, in any sense of that word. If this is your conception of a 'right' I'd just say you're wrong and move on.. What you actually did was tell me you would do what you are now claiming you did do, and that was not to 'confer a right'. It was to act according to your moral outlook. That's fine. It is not a right, and you've conferred nothing on me. So, this was predictably lacking in anything establishing a right.

It is an opinion derived from argument and evidence, all of which attests to the merits of rights. — NOS4A2

Yet, it remains your personal, emotionally-informed opinion. It doesn't do anything but tell me that. I happen to agree on the 'merit' of enforceable rights, too. Says nothing for the disagreement we're having though.

If you have better arguments and better evidence in favor of, say, censorship or theft or kidnapping — NOS4A2

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. You're telling me that rights are derived from some objective, universal 'human nature'. This request has nothing to do with my objection to that.
I've not even tangentially made an argument 'against free speech'. I have no idea where you got that from.

The “universal” I’m talking about simply means the right ought to apply to everyone. — NOS4A2

Then you now seem to have dropped your initial claim. I agree, the right to free speech should be afforded everyone.

Yes, I’m an absolutist. Everyone should have the right to say what they want. Would you censor him? — NOS4A2

I would not. Again, it wasn't a 'gotcha'. I'm just interested - some of your responses have given different impressions. We seem to have similar values. I just reject your premise that rights exist outside of law (or analogous enforcement).

Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law. — Ciceronianus

:ok:

You absolutely did no such thing, in any sense of that word. If this is your conception of a 'right' I'd just say you're wrong and move on.. What you actually did was tell me you would do what you are now claiming you did do, and that was not to 'confer a right'. It was to act according to your moral outlook. That's fine. It is not a right, and you've conferred nothing on me. So, this was predictably lacking in anything establishing a right.

That’s too bad, I did. And though you can refuse it and pretend I didn’t, I’ll still be there granting you the right and defending it.

Start small. Give your neighbor the right to borrow your lawnmower, or something.

Yet, it remains your personal, emotionally-informed opinion. It doesn't do anything but tell me that. I happen to agree on the 'merit' of enforceable rights, too. Says nothing for the disagreement we're having though.

Might makes right. Or was it the best and brightest make rights? I can’t say I’m a big fan of social Darwinism either way, but limiting social power in favor of state power is the going rate, so you’re not entirely in bad company.

That’s too bad, I did. And though you can refuse it and pretend I didn’t, I’ll still be there granting you the right and defending it. — NOS4A2

Hehe, this is a two way street. And that fact (illustrated in a moment) provides me ample evidence that your position is not stable: You can claim this all you want, but you have no authority or standing to do so. That is entirely the crux of why you are wrong. You are inventing, out of thin air, an institution that doesn't exist. "rights conferred by NOS4A2" is nonsense, and you know it. Your ideals don't matter to anyone else but you. No one accepts your 'rights'. Therefore, they convey and confer nothing but your opinion on another person. Try 'conferring' a right counter to the Law in your locale.

Start small. Give your neighbor the right to borrow your lawnmower, or something. — NOS4A2

That would be a dispensation (though, that's a somewhat imprecise word - trying not to employ legalese). If he's borrowing something of mine, he has no right to it. I have abrogated my legal property rights to him, temporarily which gives him what's called "effective control" where I live. Conferring a right is not something I personally have the power to either effect, or enforce. It is a result, entirely, of the Law which I allows me to abrogate my legal right to another person. You can also do this via 'nominee' when entering into a contract. My wants and needs are secondary to whether or not i legally can abrogate my rights in such a way. I concede, though, there is a second level to this - certain rights can be conferred by the right-holder, by proscription of legal right in the first instance. Meaning, my ability to confer that right is express within the right which I actually have had conferred upon my by the granting authority.
There are several that I cannot do this with (depending on Jurisdiction, the majority of them). Your logic seems to suggest I can also do away with my own rights, at my own leisure. That, in the vast majority of cases, is not true, on either of our accounts it seems.

Might makes right. Or was it the best and brightest make rights? I can’t say I’m a big fan of social Darwinism either way, but limiting social power in favor of state power is the going rate, so you’re not entirely in bad company. — NOS4A2

I'm not entirely sure what the quip underlying this passage is, so If i'm making a fool of myself, fine... They are not, on my view, very much related. Social 'power' is a power separated from legal power. Rights, are not social entities other than to the extent a legal proscription causes certain behaviours. But, that's an externality to the authority conferring a right of whatever kind.

The West does not think, and all the people who live in this undefined western region do not think with one mind. Nor do they all share the same values, or even interpret specific values in the same way. "The West" is a diverse, incoherent and frequently self-contradictory human construct. — Vera Mont

This is well said. And to some degree, the same can be said when we begin talking about the X community or the Y community as if they shared the same brain. In some sense, a "human construct" is simply a useful "illusion."

.

Won't they mean something in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation?
— Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to beg it's question. The 'evil' seems to consist in the violation of a right. If so, without hte right, there is no evil. — AmadeusD

I am not certain I agree with that. The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character.

The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. — Arne

Hmm, a few things to unpack here. Up-top, it's worth noting that this is not my position - It is my trying to clarify Timothy's. His account seems to suggest the quote you've used. I was pointing it out. I don't think its particualrly consenquential to the disagreemetn we were having anyway - it was just an external possibly objection that Timothy, if he can't make sense of it, might use to review his position. But, i take no position on whether i'm correct.

The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character. — Arne

That might be true, but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it (on my account/s) so i can't see this as at all relevant. An act, without causal an emotional valence in a sentient being does not have moral character, to me. So, I think it's not true, because of that. But, prima facie, I don't disagree with what you're getting across - i just don't accept objective morality.

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Then you are correct, we have little to talk about.

Id be interested to hear your take on how Morality exists outside of that context or, more discreetly: What does morality consist in, on your view?

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void?

And I concede in advance that natural rights, if they exist, are the rights of beings with minds and that is certainly where they are to be found.

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void? — Arne

So, this isn't meant to be the usual dig it would be in a face-to-face conversation: Im not 'suggesting' anything - exactly what i wrote is my position. I'll reiterate:

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

It doesn't exist outside of those minds (directly inferred from the above). It's not a suggestion: the above is my position. Morality does not obtain except as a thought of relation between a sentient observing subject and an action (to be verbose).

I asking for a elucidation of how you view morality obtaining outside of that parameter? Is it an inherent physical property? Is it a non-physical property floating around, or like an aura attached to certain events ? Im not being facetious - I'm interested.

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

A sense of "evil" is a physiological phenomenon not limited to only those who experience evil. I have never experienced evil yet nonetheless have a sense of what it is. An evil act is repugnant to nature.

I am going to bed now.

oh. I see…

You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society. — Wolfgang

For practical purposes, an initially democratic society will eventually develop into a more homogeneous one.

It's simply not economically or socially viable to be different, unless one's kind of "different" can be monetized readily enough.

Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
/.../
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.

Of course.

True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages.

Rather, the solution seems to be for the world to become significantly less globalized, less connected.

Yeah, pretty much. America does not have much to with that. Biden's country (then Bush's) however used it as an excuse to inflict decades of suffering upon Iraq and other countries, where no weapons of mass destruction were found, and the Saudis — Bush's buddies — were to blame instead.
Nine eleven was not for any reason by the way, 9/11 was only surprising because they managed to hijack and hammer 3 airplanes into VIP locations without being taken down. But that someone (be the Taliban or the Al Qaeda) would try to retaliate is completely expected. Yankees and the Soviets used and abused the Middle East for a long, long time before nine eleven happened. And then they play victim. Whatever the motivation was, it is evil through and through.

Yankees and the Soviets used and abused the Middle East for a long, long time before nine eleven happened. And then they play victim. Whatever the motivation was, it is evil through and through. — Lionino

Anything that tries to rationalise 9/11 probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.

It was not a rational event, or action to take.

Britain was there before them, and France and Italy... Europe dragged its two big wars across those lands, plundering the resources and exploiting the population, altering the division of territories with no regard to national identities or needs. And it was Britain that shoehorned modern Israel in there.
The US just took over the European franchise when its own power waxed as theirs waned. That's why it keeps trying to put an alliance front on the wars it wages there: they're all part of the colonial legacy.
Of course it was logical, from the POV of generations of smouldering resentment and suppressed rage, to attack the biggest empire's centers of financial, military and political power with its own weapons - if successful, it would have been a significant symbolic act. As far as it got, it was merely destructive and the US government was able to both spin it as victimhood and suppress commentary on the rationale. And an immortal capitalist slogan was born: Go shopping or the terrists win!

Anything that tries to rationalise 9/11 probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.

It was not a rational event, or action to take. — AmadeusD

Right, let's just ignore how the CIA literally trained the members of the al-Qaeda and the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of Obama's policy. Stuff just happens for no reason.

Britain was there before them, and France and Italy — Vera Mont

If you are talking about colonialism, everybody did that or tried to before the 20th century century, that France or Portugal were so good at it is a point of virtue, not of vice. Yankees didn't, they were colonised instead until the 18th century, so I couldn't possibly be talking about colonialism.

Other than that, I completely agree with all the Britain slander, they are the cause of many of the modern world's problem.

plundering the resources and exploiting the population — Vera Mont

Without Europe's colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa, do you think the countries there would have developed to be able to exploit the Molybdenum mines that are important for refinement of petroleum?
It is always interesting how people say Europe "plundered" Africa's resources and then, after watching a DW documentary on Youtube, they fill up their chest to enlighten us about how France currently has a hidden empire in West Africa. Curious, I thought the resources were plundered.
If anything, it is some American countries that should complain to Spain that their gold was plundered, but yet we don't see them doing so.

If you are talking about colonialism, everybody did that or tried to before the 20th century century, that France or Portugal were so good at it is a point of virtue, not of vice. Yankees didn't, they were colonised instead until the 18th century, so I couldn't possibly be talking about colonialism. — Lionino

You could, if you looked at the history of US involvement. Both in the middle and far east, the US took over power in European colonies, just as it did in North America and indirectly in South America.

Without Europe's colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa, do you think the countries there would have developed to be able to exploit the Molybdenum mines that are important for refinement of petroleum? — Lionino

Were we talking about the plunder, disarrangement and corruption of sub-Saharan Africa? I thought this was about the series of Middle East crises that resulted in the 9/11 attack, and all that insane, costly, ineffective warfare resulting from the US response to that.

It is always interesting how people say Europe "plundered" — Lionino

My reference to plunder was in the context of Mesopotamia in the two world wars. As to the 'peacetime' plunder of Africa, that's been ongoing since c.1650 and will continue yet a while, now China's in the game.

If anything, it is some American countries that should complain to Spain that their gold was plundered, but yet we don't see them doing so. — Lionino

The extinct hardly ever complain.

Both in the middle and far east, the US took over power in European colonies, just as it did in North America and indirectly in South America. — Vera Mont

That doesn't imply colonialism, at most imperialism.

My reference to plunder was in the context of Mesopotamia in the two world wars. As to the 'peacetime' plunder of Africa, that's been ongoing since c.1650 and will continue yet a while, now China's in the game. — Vera Mont

I don't know enough about the exploitation of resources during imperialism in the Middle East to comment on that.

Were we talking about the plunder, disarrangement and corruption of sub-Saharan Africa? I thought this was about the series of Middle East crises that resulted in the 9/11 attack, and all that insane, costly, ineffective warfare resulting from the US response to that. — Vera Mont

When you said plunder I immediately thought of Africa, not of the Middle East, so never mind it.

The extinct hardly ever complain. — Vera Mont

There are millions of pure Amerindians in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. Europeans rarely promoted deliberate extermination campaigns, that was something more up Pacific Islanders' and sub-Saharans' alley.

That doesn't imply colonialism, at most imperialism. — Lionino

Which is why I called the US an empire.

There are millions of pure Amerindians in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. — Lionino

And they're not complaining about their and their ancerstors' treatment by the current and past European regimes? Maybe they do - to the European God. It's not like anyone else could hear them.