Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Imperialism

2007-09-02T18:11:21Z

Leftist03:

Why does this article only speak of Europe? This implies that only Europe was imperialistic. Shouldnt it mention islamic imperialism?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:One might guess that the article deals with nation-states not the predominate religion of the colonizers, which, yes, just happened to be Christianity.-_-[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 17:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Ok fine. Arabic imperialism or Middle eastern imperialism.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::One might think Bohdan had something against Islam. What about cultural imperialism? Chinese imperialism? Japanese imperialism? The imperialism of various central- and south-American ancient cultures and their imperialism? Zulu imperialism? Pre-Islamic middle-eastern and central Asian imperialism?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:18, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::for the record i dont care about the religion of anyone. I think the article seems to imply that only Europe was imperialistic, when this is clearly not true.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::Fair enough. I think the point is that Europeans - particularly Britain, France and Holland - were just the "''best''" at it. And as Rob Pommer said, Europeans colonised in the name of the state or the ruler - much like the Chinese or the Japanese.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Im pretty sure we think the same thing. I have nothing against islam, i just mentioned it because of the Ottoman Empires name recognition and familiarity.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Yeah Ok but then why not talk about Ottoman imperialism rather than Islamic? Personally I *do* have something against Islam, but the imperialism of Islam is not as important or far-reaching as that of Britain in particular, nor is it more important or far-reaching than that of many other cultures or "nations". I apologise for accusing you of anti-Islamism but you can see my point.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::alright. i admit my mistake. i misspoke. I see your point. fine leave the article as is. I cant really argue can I? after all "the sun never set on the British empire" (this is a real quote, no?)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]].
::::It is a real quote as far as I know, yes. And I guess it's true - the only problem area might have been across the Pacific between New Zealand and Canada, but since the sun shines on half the planet at once it's maybe not such an impressive claim as it might seem. Look, I'm not saying don't change the article. There is certainly a long history of imperialism around the world and Europe isn't the only guilty party. My point was just that any addition to the article shouldn't be limited to Islam. Feel free to talk about Islamic imperialism in Europe in the middle ages in the main article! but be aware that there are far more examples, and I would say that the USA's aggressive cultural imperialism is probably just as influential on the world today as any historic imperialism, and that the imperialism of, for example, certain Chinese emperors was just as far-reaching, relatively speaking, as any other.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::agreed. but i dont want to change it now, do you? i'll do some research and attempt to change it later.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::I don't want to change it, no. But this is the point of the talk pages, no? thanks for your civility Bohdan :) --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 18:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== American Imperialism ==

how come this article doesn't mention American imperialism?
:Why should it? Are you talking about western expansion? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

yes.

Talk:Imperialism

2007-07-31T23:08:42Z

Leftist03: American Imperialism

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2007-07-31T23:04:44Z

Leftist03: chavez IS NOT a dictator

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)
==This article is surprisingly neutral==
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Dictator!!!!????==
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::...Who was not democratically elected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==

you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!