101–110 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"caused" it's all human decisions. especially at institutional level, there's no causing others to act
> it's all human decisions. especially at institutional level, there's no causing others to act And what is the difference? It seems the same ("A got dangerous, causing B to act" vs "A got dangerous, having B decide to act").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, it depends. Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest (Portugal literally shifted the government to Brazil during Pedro I, while the Spanish were intermarrying and handing out Spanish dukedoms to Native American monarchs). France was dumb because they barely did any extraction while they exploited the natives.
> Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest... I'm sorry but your characterization is very strange given the history. Portugal and Spain were just as brutal as the French.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the part where Sauvy fit the notion I grew up with, the only one I was familiar with (and ignored the "superstition" part of your reply). I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come acros…
> a third explanation for the term There is only one, only complex, that can be rephrased at will - and which was the intention of the coiner of the expression. > I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before) [...] Is that where you got it from? I know it from Books, the good old traditional way. And not necessarily books in French: it is in the…
As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ».
Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery looming over the Third World, and he laments the misallocation of funds for more war and NATO (« pacte atlantique »). The bit about the origin of the expression and Sieyès is just the final note.
So I frankly don't think I insinuated (unterstellen) anything that was not in his text, and I was and am surprised for being reprimanded. If we are to assume good faith, then it must apply universally, not selectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest... I'm sorry but your characterization is very strange given the history. Portugal and Spain were just as brutal as the French.
Yeah, I realized that when going down the rabbit hole. In a certain respect, the French were the least asshole-ish of the lot, simply because they didn't know how to colonize and extract properly.
If you want an interesting related story that's so incredible people wouldn't believe if it was a film plot, look up Otrag. Not the Wikipedia page, that only tells a fraction of the full story. There's a documentary floating around somewhere about their work in Zaire under Mobutu before they started building ballistic missiles for Gaddafi.
Both cases remind me of Project Harp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP ). After the project was shut down by the US and Canada, the engineer behind it (Gerald Bull) decided to work for Saddam Hussein to build a "Babylon Cannon" which then caused Mossad to 'intervene' in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull I wonder how many similar but unknown cases there are involving former Soviet scientists a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read from somewhere that Italy, Libya and some South America country were developing missile programs together, too. Probably from a book about Fiat I think.
The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya was part of a century long power struggle between France and Italy over influence of Libya. Italy had a good relationship with Gaddafi, to the detriment of French influence. Europeans and the US understood the motivation behind France's push to intervene and were reticent to get involved (because of the internecine spat, not out of concern for Libya), but France got the UK on their…
I don't believe anyone still gave a shit at that point or expected ghadaffi to redo after he paid for it. I think it might be better to look at the deals of BP and such in the area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a third explanation for the term There is only one, only complex, that can be rephrased at will - and which was the intention of the coiner of the expression. > I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before) [...] Is that where you got it from? I know it from Books, the good old traditional way. And not necessarily books in French: it is in the…
« You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions … explicitly forbidden » As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ». Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery loomin…
You wrote, see the emphasis, «[/]superior[/] first world» in apparent reply to member flohofwoe's «former Soviet scientists and engineers trying their luck with 3rd world despots». You wrote that «"third world", according to [some] Western definition, ... were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually came to be seen as stigmatizing, at least with left-leaning people)».
When people mention 'third world', they are assumed to mean Sauvy's frame - there is no subsequent one overriding it, it is still the reference. "Third world" means what that short piece you read proposed. Billions of people trying to bend language, concepts and culture have the weight of a hefty nuisance, not that largely opposite one of Authority.
In Sauvy's frame, 'third world' has no connotation of «[infer]iority», «primitiv[ity]» «backward cultur[e]» or «stigmatiz[ation]». And «hunger and misery» are just facts relevant to the phenomenon, of course they are there, they are part of the point (they are grounds for the parallel with the "third state" near the French Revolution) - they are not appreciative nor depreciative, they are analytical.
If people said "third world" as a disparaging label, it is their own fault, and you cannot assume it in instances - you can suppose it frequentistically, but you cannot point to John and take for granted that his speech yesterday meant what the laymen at the bar would have meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
« You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions … explicitly forbidden » As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ». Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery loomin…
We are having a communication failure here. You wrote, see the emphasis, «[/]superior[/] first world» in apparent reply to member flohofwoe's «former Soviet scientists and engineers trying their luck with 3rd world despots». You wrote that «"third world", according to [some] Western definition, ... were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually ca…
Well, that's what you're assuming. I had never heard of Sauvy and was totally unaware of his definition that had lost all meaning by the time I grew up (and I guess the same holds true for most other participants). But okay, learnt something in the process.
What I took issue with in floh's comment in the beginning was not some improper definition of a term but the arrogance implicit in his tone (learnt or rather osmotically received arrogance, instilled by propaganda), an irritation possibly accumulated from a series of prior comments he'd made and which I'd read as part of my feed (because I appreciate his tech comments).
Now I respectfully suggest that we leave it at that.
It is almost as if there's a country that since its foundation always find perfectly reasonable to kidnap or murder potential enemies in other jurisdictions, ignoring blatantly the sovereignty even of allied or friendly countries, without any restrictions, or respect for international law.
What is the value in reminding the readers? Is there anybody who does not know at that level? Avoidable also in view of the following: have you noticed in the past years a surge of indoctrinated that, at every misdeed from some part P immediately note how some other part S championed it? Judge: "Have you committed rape?" Defendant: "What about all the other rapists?". It's not even a bad argument, it's gut diversion…