Jump to content

Stefanski’s staff


pnies20

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

I do not think that is an accurate characterization of the entire world at all.

You do live on planet Earth right?

25 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

such as communist ideologies prevelent in many 3rd world countries, cambodia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Vietnam.

All of those countries named had their country resources/wealth extracted, were pilfered, partitioned, and/or freedom-fire-bomb destroyed by Imperialism and subsequently colonized via non-Communist Empires for capital gains or dominance/subjugation purposes, namely the French, Portugese, British, German, and our very own beloved American Empire.

Those countries weren't dealt fatal blows by an ideology of resource allocation (i.e., their economic system) or forces within, but instead by detailed, thought-out, and planned colonial/neo-colonial imperial projects of dominant military and geopolitical Empires.

The individual is subject to history and place and time. Where that individual finds themselves in a certain place and certain time decides mostly whether they have individual sovereignty and rights of self-determination the likes that many of us privileged few get to enjoy in our lives to varying degrees just b/c we live in a certain place and time or look a certain way. A lot of people across the globe and our neighbors in our own communities or on the other side of town don't get that benefit unfortunately.

Also ... be afraid.. the reds are coming ...

Is-This-Tomorrow-000a-Front-Cover.jpg

Edited by Mind Character
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

You do live on planet Earth right?


 

All of those countries named had their country resources/wealth extracted, were pilfered, partitioned, and/or freedom-fire-bomb destroyed by Imperialism and subsequently colonized via non-Communist Empires, namely the French, Portugese, British, German, and our very own beloved American Empire.

Those countries weren't done in by an ideology of resource allocation (i.e., their economic system), but instead by detailed, thought-out, and planned colonial/neo-colonial imperial projects of dominant military and geopolitical Empires.

COllinisation was bad, without a doubt. The issues faced by south and east africa are more complex than a policital ideology. Western interests have been a terrible thing for AFRicans an continue to be so today,  Churchhill and firends making AFRICAN countries by drawing lines on the map through people groups and ancient tribal boundaies was terrible for AFRICA> I have African friends who are in danger for their lives because of oil companies operations. THAT SAID the ideology of communist has bee n a factor and a significant one at that. 

I agree with what you are saying, if you ae born in NZ you have won lifes lottery 90% of the time. however every week for the last 6 years i have met and looked after someone who has tried to top themselves. That is not an issue faced in Mozambique, people have better emotional health there than they do hear. On average they live 20 years less, 5-10+% of people have aids, they are always hungry, poorly nourished, but they are happier than new zealanders and less likely to kill themselves.

Privilege is complex.

Edited by Kiwibrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

COllinisation was bad, without a doubt. The issues faced by south and east africa are more complex than a policital ideology. Western interests have been a terrible thing for AFRicans an continue to be so today,  Churchhill and firends making AFRICAN countries by drawing lines on the map through people groups and ancient tribal boundaies was terrible for AFRICA> I have African friends who are in danger for their lives because of oil companies operations. THAT SAID the ideology of communist has bee n a factor and a significant one at that. 

We disagree.

On Planet Earth, a deep and lengthy well of history and documentation of lived experiences illustrates that Thee factor in determining those and other Countries development and outcomes has been and continues to be Imperialist, Colonialist, and Neo-colonialist dominance and destruction of other country's resource allocation systems, lands, wealth, religious and cultural institutions, educational institutions, ties to history and shared pro-social beliefs, ties to community trust and sense of belonging, sense of hope, security, and self-determination.

Interestingly enough, the idea of, "Civilizing or Saving Backward, Savage, Underdeveloped Countries" was/is used as justification and rationalization of military force, resource extraction, and colonization. As in the case of Vietnam and many others, the idea of ridding the world of the scourge and terror of "communism" was popularized as righteous service and calling to save the people of Vietnam from their backwards leaders and to prevent the spread of the poisonous ideology before it destroyed the world. History tells us that the reality of ours and other Empire's motivations for destroying Vietnam as well as the catastrophic reality of what was actually done there in the name of "ridding the evils of communism" don't match what was and is popular held beliefs about what "communism" was doing to the people of Vietnam before our country's imperialism there. Now, totalitarianism is typology of capitalism/socialism/communism but that's something different.

That's not just the case in Vietnam but many other countries around the world. Much like Capitalism in one country functions differently in another Capitalist country so did socialism, communism, collectivism, etc function differently in other countries. No country is all one system or another but hybrid systems much like the US where social security is a socialist social contract between citizens or in New Zealand or Canada where health care has been socially decided by citizens to be "free" or highly subsidized and de-facto "free" via a socialist allocation of resources.

But as in other things I'm sure we don't see it the same way.

Edited by Mind Character
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

We disagree.

On Planet Earth, a deep and lengthy well of history and documentation of lived experiences illustrates that Thee factor in determining those and other Countries development and outcomes has been and continues to be Imperialist, Colonialist, and Neo-colonialist dominance and destruction of other country's resource allocation systems, lands, wealth, religious and cultural institutions, educational institutions, ties to history and shared pro-social beliefs, ties to community trust and sense of belonging, sense of hope, security, and self-determination.

Interestingly enough, the idea of, "Civilizing or Saving Backward, Savage, Underdeveloped Countries" was/is used as justification and rationalization of military force, resource extraction, and colonization. As in the case of Vietnam and many others, the idea of ridding the world of the scourge and terror of "communism" was popularized as righteous service and calling to save the people of Vietnam from their backwards leaders and to prevent the spread of the poisonous ideology before it destroyed the world. History tells us that the reality of ours and other Empire's motivations for destroying Vietnam as well as the catastrophic reality of what was actually done there in the name of "ridding the evils of communism" don't match what was and is popular held beliefs about what "communism" was doing to the people of Vietnam before our country's imperialism there. Now, totalitarianism is typology of capitalism/socialism/communism but that's something different.

That's not just the case in Vietnam but many other countries around the world. Much like Capitalism in one country functions differently in another Capitalist country so did socialism, communism, collectivism, etc function differently in other countries. No country is all one system or another but hybrid systems much like the US where social security is a socialist social contract between citizens or in New Zealand or Canada where health care has been socially decided by citizens to be "free" or highly subsidized and de-facto "free" via a socialist allocation of resources.

But as in other things I'm sure we don't see it the same way.

To be fair, the only communist governments they had to go by were Russia (Stalin and his cronies jailing & murdering their own people), China (Mao and his cronies jailing & murdering their own people), North Korea (the Kims and their cronies jailing & murdering their own people) and Cuba (Castro and his cronies jailing & murdering their own people). If that was all you had to go by, wouldn't you want to prevent the spread of that around the world?

 

Anyway, back to football. I think Joe Woods is a lock for DC, and I wonder if Van Pelt will be OC/QB coach or just OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, buno67 said:

but why would he hate Cleveland tho? 

I could see if we didnt let him out of the contract when he wanted out but the franchise granted him his wish

I wouldn't say he hates Cleveland, but he had a rough time here. Then we didn't hire Saleh. I'm not hardcore connecting dots, just saying it's not crazy to think him and Saleh might be discouraging anyone there from coming here now. Maybe they still plan on Saleh getting an HC gig as early as next year and some of these guys are now gonna wait for him. Who knows? I'm just speculating here, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

I wouldn't say he hates Cleveland, but he had a rough time here. Then we didn't hire Saleh. I'm not hardcore connecting dots, just saying it's not crazy to think him and Saleh might be discouraging anyone there from coming here now. Maybe they still plan on Saleh getting an HC gig as early as next year and some of these guys are now gonna wait for him. Who knows? I'm just speculating here, of course.

Why would he be upset that we didn’t hire his DC? He should be happy he doesn’t have to replace he DC, especially one that created a dominating scheme. He should be happy we didn’t hire him or he would have lost more than a secondary coach. 
  
it be a pretty petty thing to discourage guys from taking a promotion especially when they are FA coach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buno67 said:

Why would he be upset that we didn’t hire his DC? He should be happy he doesn’t have to replace he DC, especially one that created a dominating scheme. He should be happy we didn’t hire him or he would have lost more than a secondary coach. 
  
it be a pretty petty thing to discourage guys from taking a promotion especially when they are FA coach

Maybe. Like I said, we're just speculating. He could be irritated that we seemed like we were gonna hire Saleh, the 49ers spanked the Vikings and then we still burned his guy, whether or not he really wanted to lose him. 

You make some good points, though; rationally speaking, he really shouldn't be mad at us. I just think he is 😁.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...