Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Melbourne protesters urged to get tested for COVID-19" video.

@SquidkidMega "the ANZACs didn't invade any country you moron" No, White people did. And they ended up claiming the AUS and NZ as theirs.
3
@SquidkidMega "so only white people have invaded other countries throughout all of human history?....keep blaming white people for your own problems" Whites have invaded literally every single continent on this planet. What other race has done so? Throughout history, countries come and go. Lets focus on the now. Whites still continue to hold power on land that theyre not native to: US/CA/AUS/NZ/etc And who said I was blaming white people for my so-called "own problems". You dont know me. And stating facts is not called "blaming"
2
@Cube_Ernator1077 "Do you really think the British convicts-White Prisoners-came out here willingly..BECAUSE they Wanted to Invade this Country? Really?" A few questions for you. Who was in power? Who sent them there THEN GOVERNED them? Who were the ones killing the natives? Then stole their land? And took it as theirs?
2
@ElisPalace '"white people" generalising all white people' Dont pull things out of context. I said White people have invaded all the continents on this planet. Is that wrong? Are the invaders not White? Are there not more than 1 White person/country? Not once did I say "ALL white people". Its only wrong if I said ALL White people are invaders. Context is important.
2
@Kath Beck "look up First fleet year" Seems like you didnt bother reading my above comment before responding. Here it is again: A few questions for you. Who was in power? Who sent them there THEN GOVERNED them? Who were the ones killing the natives? Then stole their land? And took it as theirs?
1
@Kath Beck Did Mohammed (or any Arab) invade every single continent in this world? Are there any non-native Arab countries currently ruled by Arabs? Yeh nah I dont think so. Dont try to down play what the Whites did (and are doing).
1
@Cube_Ernator1077 "Your contention is 'ONLY Whites have invaded other Countries'?" Who said that? Can you read properly? Where in this convo have I said that ONLY Whites have invaded other countries? If anything, I said that ONLY Whites have invaded ALL the (habitable) continents in the world. "Answers: The British. Who were their Prisoners-more British, ordinary people not in power...The British Empire 'took' the land and colonised it..." So my point that Whites have invaded and took the natives land still stands valid. "Now, please cites your evidence that the White prisoners whom were transported here in chains CHOSE to come here as Prisoners" So if a Chinese dictator decided to invade a country. Forced its citizen to migrate there, populated the land and governed the natives. Then the Chinese dictator that made the order died. That doesnt change the fact that the Chinese invaded and colonised that land and is STILL governing them (under the guise of another independent state). Are we just going to let them continue? Or they meant to give that land back to the natives and go back from where they came from (even though theyre now citizens of this new country)? The people responsible had died afterall. "Cite your evidence that Prisoners took part in the British Aristocracy and made the Laws" The point you have raised doesnt counter my point that "Whites have invaded and took the natives land". Cite your evidence that British Royalty is full of commoners whom decided policy for the British Empire." The point you have raised doesnt counter my point that "Whites have invaded and took the natives land". "You CONFUSE Aristocracy and the British Empire with its ruled population, its prisoners and its downtrodden" The point you have raised doesnt counter my point that "Whites have invaded and took the natives land". "Can you Not understand that NO ONE Living today, had anything to do with atrocities committed centuries ago?" Then gtfo of their land and stop governing them. Theyre not alive right? So why are they still holding power over those lands? Obviously theyre still carrying the task of those in power then. Refer back to my China invasion analogy. "What atrocities did YOUR Family commit 300 years ago-are You responsible NOW for what 'they did'?" We are not talking about having those people accountable for the atrocities their ancestors did. We are talking about GIVING BACK land that doesnt "belong" to you in the FIRST PLACE. Its was STOLEN. GIVE IT BACK!
1
@dilligafwoftam985 "By the way, when do we get a 'Thank you' for letting the conquered people live?" If youre going to say something, do make it clear...your sarcasm is clearly not working over the internet...I mean, what was the intention of making such a statement? Did the conquered really live? Or did only a tiny fraction of them really lived? If someone broke into your house and stole everything, killed your wife but let you live, is the robber meant to expect a "thank you"? Like seriously what was your point? "Oh, and white, like black, is a tone ... it's not even a colour and it's definitely NOT a race" Every country has their own definition of a "colour" and their own way of depicting "people". Lets not get the little things get in the way of the points at hand here.
1
@ElisPalace "It would be like me saying Asians are trying to take over the world when I mean China" China is ONE country, while AsianS means there more than 1 Asian country. So thats an incorrect statement. "And the British were the ones doing all the invading btw" You must be ignorant. Besides the British, the French, Dutch, Spanish, Germans and Portuguese all took part in invading the world and colonising them. Thats almost all of Europe proper in terms of population and power already.
1
@patmos09 "Bruh. How about all of North Africa?" From what I know, theyre not ethnically "Arabs", they just speak Arab. Just like Singaporeans arent English. They just speak English. But lets assume Im wrong. Even if they are ethnically "Arabs", Im going to challenge you and ask, how do you know that North Africans were not ORIGINALLY "Arabs" to begin with? Or did you just assume that everyone from the African continent must be Black? I mean, even the Egyptian hieroglyphs didnt depict their people as "Black"...
1
@patmos09 "Genetic arguments are problematic as over such long periods they inevitably flow and shift. What is important is the residual CULTURE of such invasions" Thats not my point. For the most part of your response, you are talking about something else. My point is that White people are the only race to invade literally every single continent in this world. Then you quoted me out of context without bringing up the invasion of the WHOLE world part. Whites still continue to hold power on land that theyre not native to. Whereas for North Africa, the people that are governed by their OWN people. Big difference there. As for culture, although culture can be instilled, it can also be chosen. It just takes time. The fact that North Africa is still majority Muslim, it means its the will of the people there. "The vast majority of colonized British countries maintained non-angalo populations" Theres 2 types of British colonies. 1 for exploiting resources, the other for settling their own kind. US/CA/AUS/CA/NZ is part of the 2nd one. You say a lot of things that dont counter anything I have to say. Not sure why youre bring these points up...Youre opening new topics...lets stay on topic shall we? "Australia is made up on about half the population being post-federation immigrants, not British convicts or settler descendants. Does that make Australia a non colonial country?" Theyre still White. The earlier Whites paved way for newer Whites to spread their tentacles. My point still stands. "What i ask is that you do the same when you talk about colonialism. The descendants of colonialism are just trying to live their loves, just like everyone else" If I stole your property, transferred ownership to my descendants, then died. Lets say this all happened within a year. Whos land/property is it? Is it yours or is it my descendants? You argument is that my descendants should live their lives in YOUR stolen property... "despite its many failings and atrocities, the west has brought about the biggest emancipation of women and minorities, religious, social and political freedoms, and the highest education, health and life expectancy in human history" The "West" did not bring about such a thing. STABILITY, RESOURCES and POWER did. ANY country that had power, rich in resources and had stability would have brought about most of the points you raised. Just give them what the "West" had for 200 years. I bet you they can achieve what you have listed above. Western culture is not "new". For the most part, women was suppressed, minorities were cleansed, and religion was absolute. Its only when they had so much power, resources and stability that society evolved and people started to enjoy the high standards of life they enjoy today. "Ask the people of Hong Kong how they feel about British colonialism, the answer may surprise you" A better question would be, ask the people of Hong Kong THAT WERE STILL ALIVE that question. I believe THAT answer will surprise you.
1
@patmos09 "Race is a construct, what about this is so hard to understand? It's a fluid, shifting pattern of genetic traits manifesting in distinct, usually fairly incidental aesthetic differences" Again, youre missing the point. No matter how you want to pivot this conversation, it still doesnt change the fact that Whites invaded and pillaged the world. Ill throw your words right back at you, "what about this is so hard to understand"? By avoiding this point you are literally justifying their actions... "I absolutely reject your assertion that the enlightenment and its residual effects are solely the result of resources and power, demonstrated easily by the fact that MY OWN ANCESTORS (Greeks and Egyptians) had civilizations spanning thousands of years and each ruled their respective known worlds of the time" Greek and Egyptian empires although existed, they did not have stability. There was constant wars raging on. Territories were constantly changing. When your own countrys resources are spent on military, there is no room for society to evolve in same manner like the British did. They had external resources flooding in like no tomorrow. And when were talking about resources, power and stability, we talk about the STATE, ie, the country, not "civilisation". And that again is another topic. "An ideology...was critical in motivating the great, intrinsically philanthropic and sympathetic identity of the west" Youre forgetting about something called stability. Stability and resources are the critical factors here. It allowed education for the mass, which then enabled the country to utilise their minds to a level where "ideologies" can even be thought of, instead of just thinking about how to survive. "I will not sit here and have you suggest that the west is anything other than a marvel" Invading the world and enslaving natives to extract resources for your own development is indeed a "marvel". "100,000 years of human civilization and only in the last 2-300 have we had something approaching this miracle" Indeed a miracle. 100,000 years of human civilisation and only in the last 2-300 have we had people invade the entire world for their own benefit and development. Only when they develop themselves can they "liberate" others with their own culture right? "I honestly find it hilarious and insane that you trumpet so loudly that the British empire expunged dissent to the point where modern self determinism of British colonies is somehow invalid (Hong Kong)" Youre going off topic again. I never spoke about self determination...But if you must, HK is part of China. What they do to their OWN people in their OWN territory is none of our business. "but trumpet that North African Muslim determinism is wholly legitimate and not a product of the same inevitable process of imperialism" I trumpet that North African Muslim determinism is wholly legitimate? Dont put words in my mouth. I said the fact that it still exists after some time means its the will of the people there. I also said culture can also be chosen, it just takes time. 'How about you apply your silly "STILL ALIVE" question to them, because i assure you the varios Islamic conquests in the region were just as violent' NO WHERE did I justify such actions. You seem to have trouble reading. "The reality is that the reason we talk so much about western colonialism and its crimes is because the modern WEST is the most open, self critical and self reflective civilization in history" Thats partially the reason. Another part being that they have colonised the MOST countries in this world, especially in "modern" times. Another reason being that most of the records are in English, so naturally as English speakers we learn about English speaking countries and their history more. "It's easy to shit on western colonialism because the west is the first civilization in history to properly acknowledge and reflect on its failings" No. They get shit on the most because they colonised the most. Plain and simple. "If you believe every historical atrocity deserved contemporary reparations then we will need to be paying each other back and forth till the end of time" If the said groups want reparations and can be calculated, then yes it should given to them. A net reparations is suffice, no need to go "back and forth till the end of time". "Do half- Native Americans owe full-native Americans repayment?" Now we are talking. Thats up for negotiations between the said groups. Not up to me to decide. But a step forward is a step forward. And Im all for that. 'When we say "let them live thier life, we are talking about being productive with the populations we have now- trying to use historical atrocity as social engineering is insane and unproductive' Insane? You know whats insane? Me stealing your property, then handing it to my descendants after I die without reparations to the original owners. THATS insane. Or is stealing and reparations "unproductive" to you? "I should add that cultural genocide is every bit as terrible as actual genocide" Theres obviously a difference, and that one is obviously worse than the other. If a gun was held at someones head and was asked if theyd rather die or lose their culture, what do you think their answer would be? You keep bringing up these flawed opinions up out of no where...Its got nothing to do with the points Ive raised.
1