3 ms·

But the Icelandic settlers were eventually colonised by Norway. Those settlers may have originally come from the same geographical region that eventually turned

But the Icelandic settlers were eventually colonised by Norway. Those settlers may have originally come from the same geographical region that eventually turned into the kingdom of Norway, and subsequently colonised Iceland. But the only topics you could debate there is how much time has passed, and how different the groups are considered to be. After all, there’s reasonably strong evidence to support the theory that both the Icelandic settlers and the Norwegian colonialists originally migrated from Africa. Would the colonization Iceland in the 13th century be considered a significantly different event if the colonizing was being done by the Mongol Empire instead of the Kingdom of Norway? Because the only difference between those two states/empires would be an arbitrary judgement about how different they are, and the amount of time that had passed since they diverged from their shared origin. The history of all nations and peoples revolves around claiming land, and then fighting over it. Even the act of founding a country carries many of the same sins as conquest or colonization. When a country is founded, a person or group of people decides that they are the ruler of everybody within some particular boundaries on the map. The only difference between that and conquest is whether or not those people had an established ruler.

camgunz 6y ago
There are important differences. Iceland was originally settled mainly by Norwegians and there was no violent takeover. Compared to a theoretical Mongol conquest, where the invaders would be very ethically and culturally different, and legendarily brutal, I think there really is no comparison. And indeed I think we shouldn’t trivialize those differences; colonialism has devastated cultures across the globe, and we should acknowledge that, instead of making some vague “well that’s the story of humanity” defense.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  The history of humanity is very literally one of violence, conquest and subjugation. Your comment falls into the fallacy of presentism: > uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. History is not divided into victims and perpetrators in this respect, the only distinction you can make is that at any particular point in time any particular group may have been on the winning or losing end of it. > colonialism has devastated cultures across the globe, and we should acknowledge that To what end is it important to acknowledge this? The history of all people is drenched in the blood and atrocity of the past. Colonialism is not different from any other form of historic state or empire building.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    Presentism (I’ve discovered after googling) is not a fallacy, it’s some niche criticism of eurocentrism that’s being reappropriated by the cultural right to try and whitewash some pretty atrocious stuff. Here’s an excerpt from Forbes [1]: > Let’s acknowledge that most modern Americans are not fans of slavery, the confederacy or racism. But is it right or useful to go back into history and cleanse the campus of references to those events and people who, in an earlier era with a different set of values, participated in them? So much is lost if we insist on this approach to history: –Leaders are not perfect. In fact, the very qualities that may lead to huge success may also result in grand failures. Ask Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton or, yes, Woodrow Wilson. We’re better off celebrating and learning from leaders warts and all. –History itself is full of failures and successes. Before the U.S., essentially every culture and country had slavery. Only in America was the prospect of eliminating it on the table at the founding, and eventually it was accomplished, Are we now to cleanse the public square of all failures? ——- Generally, I think slavery and mass murder/subjugation are pretty awful, no matter the era, no matter if someone else is also doing it. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/12/01/presentism-the-dangerous-virus-spreading-across-college-campuses/#15b55242dcb5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/12/01/prese...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      > In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past. > The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_his... Your comment goes beyond a typical ad hominem, you’re dismissing an argument simply because it has previously been used at least once by people you disagree with.

camgunz 6y ago

There are important differences. Iceland was originally settled mainly by Norwegians and there was no violent takeover. Compared to a theoretical Mongol conquest, where the invaders would be very ethically and culturally different, and legendarily brutal, I think there really is no comparison. And indeed I think we shouldn’t trivialize those differences; colonialism has devastated cultures across the globe, and we should acknowledge that, instead of making some vague “well that’s the story of humanity” defense.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
The history of humanity is very literally one of violence, conquest and subjugation. Your comment falls into the fallacy of presentism: > uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. History is not divided into victims and perpetrators in this respect, the only distinction you can make is that at any particular point in time any particular group may have been on the winning or losing end of it. > colonialism has devastated cultures across the globe, and we should acknowledge that To what end is it important to acknowledge this? The history of all people is drenched in the blood and atrocity of the past. Colonialism is not different from any other form of historic state or empire building.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Presentism (I’ve discovered after googling) is not a fallacy, it’s some niche criticism of eurocentrism that’s being reappropriated by the cultural right to try and whitewash some pretty atrocious stuff. Here’s an excerpt from Forbes [1]: > Let’s acknowledge that most modern Americans are not fans of slavery, the confederacy or racism. But is it right or useful to go back into history and cleanse the campus of references to those events and people who, in an earlier era with a different set of values, participated in them? So much is lost if we insist on this approach to history: –Leaders are not perfect. In fact, the very qualities that may lead to huge success may also result in grand failures. Ask Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton or, yes, Woodrow Wilson. We’re better off celebrating and learning from leaders warts and all. –History itself is full of failures and successes. Before the U.S., essentially every culture and country had slavery. Only in America was the prospect of eliminating it on the table at the founding, and eventually it was accomplished, Are we now to cleanse the public square of all failures? ——- Generally, I think slavery and mass murder/subjugation are pretty awful, no matter the era, no matter if someone else is also doing it. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/12/01/presentism-the-dangerous-virus-spreading-across-college-campuses/#15b55242dcb5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/12/01/prese...
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    > In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past. > The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_his... Your comment goes beyond a typical ad hominem, you’re dismissing an argument simply because it has previously been used at least once by people you disagree with.