Erik Rush’s Blatant Self-Loathing


I generally don’t like calling anyone an Uncle Tom, but if anyone deserves it surely Erik Rush does. The black man who claims, bizarrely, that America suffers from an excess of “negrophilia” now says that the white man colonized Africa because the people there “gave the impression” that they were “only a few steps out of the trees.”

Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa.

Could the self-loathing be any more obvious?

Comments

  1. Michael Heath says

    I presume, “gave the impression”, is added to refer to himself as a young earth creationist.

  2. tbp1 says

    It just couldn’t have had anything to do with exploiting their natural resources, could it? Or racism? Nah, I’m sure it was pure altruism.

  3. some bastard on the net says

    It just couldn’t have had anything to do with exploiting their natural resources, could it? Or racism? Nah, I’m sure it was pure altruism.

    Of course it was! After all, white people made better guns, that means our culture is better and must replace those lesser ones! (Never mind the fact that if it wasn’t for one of those lesser cultures, we wouldn’t have the gun in the first place. It’s not important! Not important!)

  4. says

    Rush might want to crack open a history book or two about India. If he thinks that the cultures that produced works like the Taj Mahal were “only a few steps out of the trees” then he has no clue.

  5. manfromflanders says

    It’s because ‘Clayton Bigsby’ suits him better.

    I generally don’t like calling anyone an Uncle Tom, but if anyone deserves it surely Erik Rush does.

  6. matty1 says

    In my opinion colonisation happened for two reasons.

    1. To grab the wealth of colonised areas
    2. To stop rival nations doing the same thing

    Anything else whether it be altrusim, or racial theories is just post-hoc justification.

  7. otrame says

    Well, it is true that Westerners had invented guns. But the guns they had were only marginally better than the weapons available to Native Americans, and only then in specific circumstances. What made the colonization by Europeans and devastation of Native American cultures possible was an accident of history. Europeans had been living in large cities longer than Native Americans had. In fact, north of the Aztec Empire big cities were only just starting to develop (e.g. Cahokia).

    Big cities and primitive medicine create epidemic disease. When people live in small groups scattered widely over the landscape–as humans did for most of our existence–diseases that are easily transmissible and have short incubation periods, that is, the ones that can become epidemic in large populations, have a hard time getting established even if they have significant animal vectors.

    Big cities do something else that is important. They create “childhood diseases”, that is epidemic diseases that are so common that every generation is hit with them, and every generation is less susceptible to them. Measles and chicken pox were once terrible diseases. By the 17th and 18th century the human populations and the diseases had adapted to each other so that pretty much everybody got the disease (good for the disease) but only a small number died from it (good for the humans).

    The result was that there were a lot of diseases that were endemic to the cities of Europe that the Native Americans had never seen. Measles and chicken pox killed. Small pox and cholera killed. Guns didn’t kill anything like as many. And most of the damage was done before there were more than a few thousand colonists.
    Explorers scattered across the country, living behind glass beads and devastation.
    I heard a quote many years ago, one I cannot attribute: “They thought of America as a virgin wilderness, but America wasn’t a virgin. She was a widow.”

  8. colnago80 says

    I generally don’t like calling anyone an Uncle Tom, but if anyone deserves it surely Erik Rush does.</i

    Clarence Thomas gives it a good shot.

  9. Morgan says

    No possibility that Britain’s culture that said they should invade, occupy and exploit anyone they could justify as being inferior was the problem?

  10. escuerd says

    Pen @11,

    Nothing. But it looks like both monikers are accurate.

    Something about a black man using standard racist rhetoric goes beyond run-of-the-mill ignorance or idiocy. It seems like, for any oppressed group, there’s a subset that wishes to identify with the oppressor.

  11. iangould says

    Early European visitors to India were stunned by its osphisticaiton and wealth – including the near-total absence of extreme poverty.

    It was only after the Persians sacked Delhi, destroying the military power of the Moghuls that the British and French suddenly “discovered” that the poor, inferior Indians needed their guidance.

  12. says

    Well, it is true that Westerners had invented guns. But the guns they had were only marginally better than the weapons available to Native Americans, and only then in specific circumstances.

    At the risk of being pedantic, the Chinese invented gun powder and the first guns, not Westerners. But guns were unreliable weapons for the first few centuries after their invention, and were as dangerous to the people wielding them as to the enemy. Even by the time of the conquistadors, they were not the primary battlefield weapon. The conquistadors’ biggest advantage was steel. The native American cultures used stone weapons and cloth armor, and these were entirely ineffective against steel. So there was a huge technological discrepancy, but it had little to do with guns.

    Of course rampant disease also played a huge role. So too did the conquistadors’ amazingly deft use of diplomacy by pitting various native factions against each other. Still, it is almost mind-boggling how they managed to defeat such overwhelming numbers with such small forces. To some degree it’s just one of those accidents of history.

  13. dingojack says

    George Macdonal Fraser on English Imperialism:

    A word first, though. You’ll have heard it said that the English empire was acquired in a fit of absence of mind – one of those smart Oscarish squibs that sounds well but is thoroughly fat-headed. Presence of mind if you like – and countless other things, such as greed and Christianity, decency and villainy, policy and lunacy, deep design and blind chance, pride and trade, blunder and curiosity, passion, ignorance, chivalry and expediency, honest pursuit of right and determination to keep the bloody Frogs out. And, as often as not, such things came tumbling together, and when the dust had settled, there we were, and who else was going to set things straight and feed the folk and guard the gate and dig the drains – oh aye, and take the profit, by all means.”
    Flashman and the Mountain of Light. p 24.

    How else are empires won?
    Dingo

  14. caseloweraz says

    Modusoperandi: “Britain colonized India because India was primitive?”

    Not quite. Britain colonized Africa because India was primitive. According to Erik Rush.

Leave a Reply