Towards a more inclusive Sword & Sorcery

[jhkim]

This is exactly what I was saying -- that immigration alone isn't inherently a moral good or moral bad.

It seemed like your argument was that Wakanda was an ethnostate and morally wrong because it didn't open itself up to non-Wakandan immigrants. But now I'm not clear. Are you saying that there is a moral wrong with Wakanda's isolationism? What should Wakanda be like to be morally right?

Wakanda IS an Ethnostate

Wakanda is morally wrong because having super advanced tech allowed all kinds of atrocities to be committed against their neighbors: The Arab slave trade, 12 centuries 15 million souls enslaved, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade 4 centuries 12 million souls enslaved, not counting ALL the natural disasters like droughts, etc. More recently for allowing the contamination of the planet to continue because they would not share their super tech.

From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").

Instead, you think that they should have used their advanced technology to become a superpower and act as world police to solve the problems of other countries.

---

This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.

Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.

I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.

[GeekyBugle]

This is exactly what I was saying -- that immigration alone isn't inherently a moral good or moral bad.

It seemed like your argument was that Wakanda was an ethnostate and morally wrong because it didn't open itself up to non-Wakandan immigrants. But now I'm not clear. Are you saying that there is a moral wrong with Wakanda's isolationism? What should Wakanda be like to be morally right?

Wakanda IS an Ethnostate

Wakanda is morally wrong because having super advanced tech allowed all kinds of atrocities to be committed against their neighbors: The Arab slave trade, 12 centuries 15 million souls enslaved, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade 4 centuries 12 million souls enslaved, not counting ALL the natural disasters like droughts, etc. More recently for allowing the contamination of the planet to continue because they would not share their super tech.

From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").

Instead, you think that they should have used their advanced technology to become a superpower and act as world police to solve the problems of other countries.

---

This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.

Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.

I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.

Given that I openly support closing Mexico's borders and deporting ALL the illegals you could hardly say I'm an open borders proponent, no I have no problem with country X deciding they do not want Immigration.

Stopping the slave trade can hardly be described as intervening in foreign wars, and since I do admire the Brits for spending blood and treasure to stop it I do think that if someone else had the power and choose to do nothing then that's morally wrong.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

To do nothing to stop an evil when it's within your power (supertech compared to other nations) it's morally wrong, I would even say it's downright evil.

[jhkim]

From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").

Given that I openly support closing Mexico's borders and deporting ALL the illegals you could hardly say I'm an open borders proponent, no I have no problem with country X deciding they do not want Immigration.

OK. I saw your earlier labelling Wakanda as an ethnostate here:

So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.

And I thought that you were implying that it was morally wrong that only Wakandans can live in Wakanda.

This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.

Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.

I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.

Stopping the slave trade can hardly be described as intervening in foreign wars, and since I do admire the Brits for spending blood and treasure to stop it I do think that if someone else had the power and choose to do nothing then that's morally wrong.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

To do nothing to stop an evil when it's within your power (supertech compared to other nations) it's morally wrong, I would even say it's downright evil.

From our modern view, it's obvious that slavery is evil and so any good country should act to go out and stop slavery.

But in the 16th century, slavery was common. Countries across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East all participated in it. You're suggesting that 16th century Wakanda was evil for not stopping slavery -- and I would technically agree, but I'd also say that it was no more evil than countries like England, Spain, Egypt, and others who actively promoted slavery. Not better, but also not worse.

Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.

Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.

[GeekyBugle]

From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").

Given that I openly support closing Mexico's borders and deporting ALL the illegals you could hardly say I'm an open borders proponent, no I have no problem with country X deciding they do not want Immigration.

OK. I saw your earlier labelling Wakanda as an ethnostate here:

So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.

And I thought that you were implying that it was morally wrong that only Wakandans can live in Wakanda.

This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.

Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.

I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.

Stopping the slave trade can hardly be described as intervening in foreign wars, and since I do admire the Brits for spending blood and treasure to stop it I do think that if someone else had the power and choose to do nothing then that's morally wrong.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

To do nothing to stop an evil when it's within your power (supertech compared to other nations) it's morally wrong, I would even say it's downright evil.

From our modern view, it's obvious that slavery is evil and so any good country should act to go out and stop slavery.

But in the 16th century, slavery was common. Countries across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East all participated in it. You're suggesting that 16th century Wakanda was evil for not stopping slavery -- and I would technically agree, but I'd also say that it was no more evil than countries like England, Spain, Egypt, and others who actively promoted slavery. Not better, but also not worse.

Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.

Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.

Why would you assume that? Could it be because when you think about ethnostates you think about a white ethnostate?

Mexico isn't an ethnostate and wouldn't be even if we closed our borders.

If immigration is morally neutral then it follows that not allowing it is also morally neutral.

I've explained why Wakanda is evil, but I can't claim that of a fictional black country so you must make claims about the UK's motives, did you know they just recently finished paying of the debt they acquired to stop the slave trade? that it was illegal to own slaves in the UK before they started their war? that many British citizens died stopping this objectively evil trade?

I seriously doubt incurring in such debt was to their economic benefit.

[jhkim]

I've explained why Wakanda is evil, but I can't claim that of a fictional black country so you must make claims about the UK's motives, did you know they just recently finished paying of the debt they acquired to stop the slave trade? that it was illegal to own slaves in the UK before they started their war? that many British citizens died stopping this objectively evil trade?

I seriously doubt incurring in such debt was to their economic benefit.

So if I rank evil and good based on this, it might be:

"Extreme evil" - participate, promote, and profit from slavery
"Evil" - don't participate, but do nothing to stop slavery and the slave trade
"Good" - work to stop the slave trade

In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?

If that isn't how you see them, then can you unpack how you conceive of it?

[Grognard GM]

In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?

See that's the problem with your ideology, you give people no reason to do better.

Hey, you were one of the first peoples to decide that slavery was evil, and not only banned it, but spent a vast fortune, and bled your military to enforce your ban internationally? Tough shit, you're still not good, and all people will talk about in 200 years is how you were shitty slave traders.

Between the woke stances of one-strike-and-evil-forever, and constantly shifting standards for 'allyship,' people may as well embrace being Istaphobes. Why crawl over broken glass, just to be told it's not good enough? Wokeness has permanently damaged race and sexual relations in the West.

PS - You think not doing something to stop slavery is evil, but if a Western nation rolled in to Africa or China, you'd call them cultural imperialists, and run cover for the slave nations.

[jhkim]

In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?

See that's the problem with your ideology, you give people no reason to do better.

PS - You think not doing something to stop slavery is evil, but if a Western nation rolled in to Africa or China, you'd call them cultural imperialists, and run cover for the slave nations.

Grognard GM, the post you are quoting isn't a declaration of my own ideology. It is questions for GeekyBugle to try to understand his ideology.

In my own ideology, I wouldn't use labels like good and evil for countries, or for humans. There is always better and worse on different issues, and it always has to be in comparison to others. For example, I wouldn't say the initial U.S. was evil because it practiced slavery and promoted the slave trade. I am opposed to slavery, but it is only one of many practices on which to judge a country.

I would criticize a country that has a past of conquering others, but I'd also give it credit where it participated for positive change. I would criticize a highly isolationist country for failing to contribute enough to make the world better, but also give it credit for doing better than most other countries that engaged in territorial wars and conquest.

[Krazz]

Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.

Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.

Britain lost a bunch of colonies that became the US in the 18th century, but it didn't lose all of its colonies in the Americas. In particular it had colonies in the Caribbean which used slave labour on sugar plantations, and those were impacted by Britain abolishing the slave trade, and then abolishing slavery itself. Since those laws only affected the British Empire, it's clear they weren't set up to hurt rivals.

Even if we consider the later British crusade against the wider slave trade, much of the cotton grown in the American south was sent to UK textile mills, which were an important part of the British economy. Impacting the ability of the US to grow cotton would have impacted the British Empire economically, not furthered them.

[GeekyBugle]

Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.

Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.

Britain lost a bunch of colonies that became the US in the 18th century, but it didn't lose all of its colonies in the Americas. In particular it had colonies in the Caribbean which used slave labour on sugar plantations, and those were impacted by Britain abolishing the slave trade, and then abolishing slavery itself. Since those laws only affected the British Empire, it's clear they weren't set up to hurt rivals.

Even if we consider the later British crusade against the wider slave trade, much of the cotton grown in the American south was sent to UK textile mills, which were an important part of the British economy. Impacting the ability of the US to grow cotton would have impacted the British Empire economically, not furthered them.

Shhhhh, those pesky facts can't be allowed to disrupt the narrative.

[GeekyBugle]

In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?

See that's the problem with your ideology, you give people no reason to do better.

PS - You think not doing something to stop slavery is evil, but if a Western nation rolled in to Africa or China, you'd call them cultural imperialists, and run cover for the slave nations.

Grognard GM, the post you are quoting isn't a declaration of my own ideology. It is questions for GeekyBugle to try to understand his ideology.

In my own ideology, I wouldn't use labels like good and evil for countries, or for humans. There is always better and worse on different issues, and it always has to be in comparison to others. For example, I wouldn't say the initial U.S. was evil because it practiced slavery and promoted the slave trade. I am opposed to slavery, but it is only one of many practices on which to judge a country.

I would criticize a country that has a past of conquering others, but I'd also give it credit where it participated for positive change. I would criticize a highly isolationist country for failing to contribute enough to make the world better, but also give it credit for doing better than most other countries that engaged in territorial wars and conquest.

I understand my ideology perfectly, people aren't perfect and a country can change for the better or the worse:

The UK changed for the better, while being the world's hegemon they abolished slavery (something no other country had ever done), then went to war to stop the slave trade, against their own economical interests.

On the other side we have countries who had to be forced to stop slavery and then became insidious and found an underhanded way to keep enslaving others while other countries openly practice slavery TODAY.

In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.

The UK (and USA) washed away their sins with the blood of their people and their treasure. Not that they are perfect and haven't done evil things recently.

But if you're going to judge the country for their sins you need to do so for the ones they haven't washed away. For instance the "war on terror", destabilizing countries for profit, etc. While keeping in mind that (like during slavery) there's people in those countries speaking against those evil deeds even if they haven't been allowed to do anything because they are just a bunch of istaphobes.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Geesus. The constant crying about SLAVERY!

You know what? Hundreds of thousands of Americans DIED fighting, to END SLAVERY IN AMERICA. And far more than that gave up crippled limbs ad ruined lives, forever.

None of that sacrifice had to happen.

People could have said, "Heh. Fuck the slaves! Let them stay under the lash! They can stay in fucking chains!"

And there wouldn't have been fuck all that the African slaves could have done about it.

So, how about everyone be fucking happy we ended slavery in America? And fuck all the Libtard bastards that are crying today about "Mum Reparations!" Yeah, that's a real thing, spreading throughout the United Stats right now. California was recently talking about shelling out $300K to each and every citizen that identifies as being an African American. Some cities back east, as well. Black Americans who have never been enslaved in generations, paid fucking TAX MONEY by OTHER citizens that aren't fucking BLACK--who never owned slaves, and even if related to some, haven't owned slaves IN GENERATIONS. Meanwhile, the vast majority of WHITE AMERICANS that never owned slaves--but are related to family that fought and died, and got maimed or crippled--well, too fucking bad. That isn't enough! 150 fucking years later, YOU STILL NEED TO PAY!

Fuck these people crying about slavery and reparations. Life is fucking hard. You get stronger, survive, and move the fuck on. It is never enough with these fucking racist scumbags. Just bow the fuck down and worship the black ass, right? Just make BLACK people a fucking untouchable, noble fucking class that deserves to be fucking worshipped...because. This shit gets so old, especially in recent times. Lets also sweep under the rug that lots of BLACK KINGS IN AFRICA actually started slavery. They introduced slavery to the European traders and ship captains! WHY? So they could get MORE GUNS to crush OTHER BLACK TRIBES that they hated, and wanted to take their land, and in the bargain, get richer themselves FROM ENSLAVING OTHER BLACK AFRICANS. Yeah, that's right. The Black Kings didn't give a fuck who they sold the fucking slaves to, either. Europeans, Americans, MUSLIMS. It was all good, for booty, for gold, and for guns.

And as far as immigration goes, again, who cares? Why is every fucking thing with Libtards some crying moral crsis? Every damned thing with these morons simply HAS TO BE ASSIGNED A MORAL VALUE. Oppressors, and the Oppressed, RIGHT? Gee, where does that kind of thinking come from?

Yes, Alex, I'll take Fucking Communism for $1,000!

Not everything is a huge moral struggle or some crisis, where there simply must pour everything into the damned Marxist language blender. Some things just ARE. It is what it is. Oh, that's right, what does so many sociology and psychology and relationship studies say? THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE PREFER LIVING WITH THEIR OWN RACE. Yeah, you win the cookie! The studies have shown again, and again, that most people prefer to live amongst their own race, and likewise prefer to marry their own race, too. By the way--cosmopolitan trade cities aside--that has been TRUE for all of humanity, everywhere, throughout history. A minority likes to marry outside their race, and even live amongst others. Everywhere.

Again, if you don't want to live with other races of people, GOOD. Stay in your lane. Stay in some mono-cultural neighborhood. Want to live alongside some different people? GREAT! There are lots of places you can easily do that.

None of these choices--or government immigration policies--like restricting who can come into the country--necessarily have a damned thing to do with morality, or racism!--or any other bullshit. It is normal human preferences on one hand, and wanting to safeguard the country's security, economy, and culture on the other hand with immigration policies.

Why the fuck do people care that Japan is a fucking "ETHNOSTATE?" Good for them. Japan does not need to let hordes of fucking foreign immigrants pour into their country. NO COUNTRY NEEDS TO DO THAT.

Ok. I'm going to smoke a cigar now. Carry on! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Ruprecht]

Can someone explain how having a rare and super-special medal allowed Wakanda to become technologically advanced because I don't see the connection.

[GeekyBugle]

Can someone explain how having a rare and super-special medal allowed Wakanda to become technologically advanced because I don't see the connection.

Melanin, it must be the melanin.

[SHARK]

Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.

Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.

Britain lost a bunch of colonies that became the US in the 18th century, but it didn't lose all of its colonies in the Americas. In particular it had colonies in the Caribbean which used slave labour on sugar plantations, and those were impacted by Britain abolishing the slave trade, and then abolishing slavery itself. Since those laws only affected the British Empire, it's clear they weren't set up to hurt rivals.

Even if we consider the later British crusade against the wider slave trade, much of the cotton grown in the American south was sent to UK textile mills, which were an important part of the British economy. Impacting the ability of the US to grow cotton would have impacted the British Empire economically, not furthered them.

Shhhhh, those pesky facts can't be allowed to disrupt the narrative.

Greetings!

Exactly, GeekyBugle! The whole Leftist movement hates *facts*. These Marxist troglodytes do not believe in facts, evidence, or even rationality. The only thing they believe in is their ideological cult. Everything MUST conform and bow down to their CULT--or be destroyed.

Just listen to how they talk and think. Forget that BLACK scholars and commentators, like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, or Candace Owens or police officers like Brandon Tatum all disagree entirely with racist, Leftist, Woke BS--the Woke morons simply dismiss anyone that disagrees with them as "Uncle Toms" or "The Black Face of White Supremacy"--like the LA Times put front and center on an article against Larry Elder, when he ran for Governor of California.

It is sad. You can't talk reason, facts, or logic with these people--let alone Christian morality or ethics. They have spent years in school being brainwashed by the Marxist, Woke propaganda. That is the real tragedy, is they so often can't be saved, like Yuri Bezhmenov described. The brainwashing is too effective, too deep, and too entrenched.

(Cue the Invaders of the Body Snatchers clip with Donald Sutherland, where he in the end gets turned into a pod-zombie).

Black scholars and commentators--and some politicians, too--have described over and over, that 90% of all the problems and BS facing the Black American community are essentially from themselves. Their own fucked up choices; their own social disintegration; their own social and individual dysfunctions--have been cultivated by themselves, by grifters and race hustlers, and through government race programs--and stupid, deceitful college classes that lie to them constantly and seek to mold them into being racist morons. All of this is founded within the Black American community--and has very little to do with White people, Hispanics, or Asians, or anyone else.

The Woke morons dismiss anything, any facts, any sources, that they don't like, as part of "White Supremacy" or Alt Right "Misinformation".

Keep up the fight though!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.

GeekyBugle, you are the one claiming that you judge a modern country by its history of slavery. You're the one who brought up the topic in order to say that Wakanda is evil, citing the history of slavery. Likewise, you recently posted a video where people similarly claimed modern Korea was evil based on its history of slavery.

I haven't said anything about judging modern countries at all by their history of slavery - and certainly not calling them evil. History is important to understand the present, but the important thing is to change the future.

But if you're going to judge the country for their sins you need to do so for the ones they haven't washed away. For instance the "war on terror", destabilizing countries for profit, etc. While keeping in mind that (like during slavery) there's people in those countries speaking against those evil deeds even if they haven't been allowed to do anything because they are just a bunch of istaphobes.

I'd love more voices speaking against the "war on terror" and destabilizing countries for profit. We need to convince more people on both sides that its wrong, since it is a program that is thoroughly supported by the uniparty.