[Greg A. Young]

Quote:

Please put forth the definition of nation you are using,

The Marxist one.

Quote:

and then demonstrate (using that definition) that African Americans were a nation at the time of John Brown.

Why should I? I never made such a claim. Reading comprehension FTW.

Quote:

Then please prove that people who belong to that nation considered him a hero.

He is probably the most famous abolitionist in US history. Is that "proof" or not?

[Whitten]

Bobby Sands Probably the only MP of the Westminster Parliament to die of starvation.

[TheRussianLord]

Quote:

Why should I? I never made such a claim. Reading comprehension FTW.

So you agree with my main points, you agree with my criteria, and you agree that he does not fit them.

[Greg A. Young]

Quote:

So you agree with my main points, you agree with my criteria, and you agree that he does not fit them.

Joseph Stalin wrote:

A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations.

[TheRussianLord]

...... I appreciate your humor, but honestly don't understand the point you're making. So you can keep making snide remarks and posting pictures, or you can stop being an a*s and explain yourself.

I also don't see the relevance of the quote. We're not arguing about the process of nation forming. We're arguing about whether John Brown can be considered a national liberation hero.

[Besoshvili]

General Secretary Ahmad Sa'adat of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine


General Secretary Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance party.

[GreenCommunism]

*mega sarcasm*

russian lord is racist, he does not believe that slaves from all different part of africa who were forced to come here , and subsequently lost their language and identity. deserve to be a nation with their own history.

[Red Rebel]

António Agostinho Neto (September 17, 1922 – September 10, 1979) served as the first President of Angola (1975–1979), leading the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in the war for independence and the civil war.

Augustín Farabundo Martí Rodríguez (May 5, 1893 – February 1, 1932) was a social activist and Communist leader in El Salvador.

Augusto Calderón Sandino (May 18, 1895 – February 21, 1934) was a Nicaraguan revolutionary and leader of a rebellion against the U.S. military presence in Nicaragua between 1927 and 1933.

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.

[Whitten]

How the hell did we miss Yasser Arafat?

[redkuze]

Red Rebel wrote:

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.

I can't believe that a founder of the most oppressive settler empire in history is considered a "national liberation hero" by anyone. Especially when included with the others in that list.

Some other names to add to the list of true national liberation heroes.

Emiliano Zapata, Geronimo, Crazy Horse.

[TheFern]

Malcolm X, for sure!

[Dagoth Ur]

Quote:

I can't believe that a founder of the most oppressive settler empire in history is considered a "national liberation hero" by anyone. Especially when included with the others in that list.

In franklin's time being a liberal was incredibly progressive and even revolutionary.

[Red Rebel]

redkuze wrote:

I can't believe that a founder of the most oppressive settler empire in history is considered a "national liberation hero" by anyone. Especially when included with the others in that list.

Actually find that mildly amusing; I'd assume that you would have promoted independence movements with national bourgeois revolting against an imperialist monarchy. Also the settler state had existed for ~200 years prior to his birth. Franklin as defended Indians in 1763 when faced with anti-indian mobs he said, "If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians?" As stated in the Manifesto the Communist Party the bourgeoisie have traditionally and historically played a revolutionary role in society until recently.

[Besoshvili]

Quote:

In franklin's time being a liberal was incredibly progressive and even revolutionary.

But not for long - before the end of his lifetime Franklin saw the emergence of the Jacobins in France, and (dramatically to the left of them) Les Enrages. These respective positions were far more revolutionary than Franklin's liberalism, especially the latter. Though admittedly Franklin was considerably less conservative than many of his contemporaries.

[Kupredu]

Minin & Pozharsky


Bogdan Khmelnitsky


Kutuzov

[TheRussianLord]

Please take Suvorov off. He had little to do with any national liberation. He was an Imperial Russian Fieldmarshal, and fought brilliantly to expand the conquests of the Russian Empire.

[redkuze]

Red Rebel wrote:

Actually find that mildly amusing; I'd assume that you would have promoted independence movements with national bourgeois revolting against an imperialist monarchy.

Not when it is the Settler/imperialist bourgeosie. I would have supported the First Nations. Most of whom, incidently, sided with the British crown in order to play the imperialists off each other.

Why did the First Nations favor the British. Because they knew the settlers (who Franklin was trying to "liberate") where going to unleash a wave of imperialist violence against them that the world had never seen. You know what, they were right.

Red Rebel wrote:

Franklin as defended Indians in 1763 when faced with anti-indian mobs he said, "If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians?"

But Franklin was a settler. So if he is injured by an Indian, the Indian has done it in self-defence. If he injures an Indian, he is aiding the settler state.

Now, Franklin may have thought better of the First Nations than most settlers, but that is like saying a 1st worldist "marxist" cares more of the 3rd world workers than the average amerikan does. Materially, it means nothing. Because ultimately, the 1st worldist "marxist" aids the exploitation of the 3rd world by claiming that 1st world workers are oppressed and deserve more.

Just as Franklin saying that to kill all Indians because one Indian killed a settler is bad, he still believes that amerikan settlers should control the land.

He is still a settler, and he is still fighting for the settler state. That settler state is and was the enemy of the First Nations and the Black Nation, which it held as slaves. Franklin sides with the oppressor over the oppressed.

[TheRussianLord]

Quote:

Not when it is the Settler/imperialist bourgeosie. I would have supported the First Nations. Most of whom, incidently, sided with the British crown in order to play the imperialists off each other.

You support siding with the imperialists and playing them off each other? Funny. What a flip of positions. Just a few weeks ago me and you had a huge argument where you expressedly said that you'd rather side with the bourgeousie along national lines (hardly Marxist ) then with the imperialists for the sake of political expedience. I even distinctly remember accusations of opportunism.

Quote:

Why did the First Nations favor the British. Because they knew the settlers (who Franklin was trying to "liberate") where going to unleash a wave of imperialist violence against them that the world had never seen. You know what, they were right.

So a society that has not even reached the feudal mode of production gets destroyed by a society that is already entering the capitalist mode. Big deal. History happens. Get over it. I don't see you crying about those poor neanderthals that got wiped out and assimilated.

Quote:

But Franklin was a settler. So if he is injured by an Indian, the Indian has done it in self-defence. If he injures an Indian, he is aiding the settler state.

In other words any injury that an Indian does to him is automatically self defence?

Quote:

He is still a settler, and he is still fighting for the settler state. That settler state is and was the enemy of the First Nations and the Black Nation, which it held as slaves. Franklin sides with the oppressor over the oppressed.

I notice a distinct lack of historical dialectic materialism in your analysis. If you know what that is.

[redkuze]

TheRussianLord wrote:

You support siding with the imperialists and playing them off each other?

Yes, in 1776 amerika.

In 2009, I support the broad United Front against imperialism. There has been a few hundred years of history, a few things have changed. But amerika as an oppressor nation, has only gotten worse. I would have loved for the First Nations to unite with the Black Nation and quickly crush the growing amerikan empire in it's infancy.

Today it will take the 3rd World United Front to defeat the amerikan empire.

TheRussianLord wrote:

So a society that has not even reached the feudal mode of production gets destroyed by a society that is already entering the capitalist mode. Big deal. History happens. Get over it. I don't see you crying about those poor neanderthals that got wiped out and assimilated.

I will ignore the thinly veiled racist/nationally oppressive nature of your statement.

The war between the British Empire and the amerikan settler nation was a war between imperialists, in fact it was a civil war. The principal contradiction was between the oppressed nations and the settler imperialists. For the First Nations to temporarily side with Britain only makes sense, and history proves it.

Britain was the only thing keeping the settlers from wiping out the the First Nations. Which, when amerika won, is exactly what happened.

TheRussianLord wrote:

In other words any injury that an Indian does to [Benjamin Franklin] is automatically self defence?

If you conduct a power/class analysis, yes. Benjamin Franklin is an agent of the aggressor settler nation. He is an agent of the invader. To strike out against the invader/aggressor is defined as self-defence.

Overall, it is no suprise that 1st worldists would look to the amerikan settler revolution as good. It makes perfect sense.

The settler "revolutionaries" wanted more at the expense of others (First Nations, the Black Nation, etc...) 1st worldist "marxists" want more for themselves that comes at the expense of others.

[Mabool]

Quote:

The settler "revolutionaries" wanted more at the expense of others (First Nations, the Black Nation, etc...) 1st worldist "marxists" want more for themselves that comes at the expense of others.

Yeah, well, we do. We're going to take the bourgeoisie's property by force. This is stealing. This is morally bad. Oh, we're so despicable.

Seriously, stop using such moral arguments. Moral is irrelevant. Marxism is a science.