Why did the modern left decide go from workers rights to SJW concerns?

Dec 2015
2,512
USA
The debate started on the point that somehow the white man -and the white man only- was uniquely guilty of all kinds of unpleasantness.. .This simply is not the case....
Literally no one here has stated or claimed that.

Imperialism is a natural feature of ANY power.
That doesn't make it ethical or permissible.

Therefore condemning the europeans (or any other power for that matter) for it is not adequate... That is how countries became what they are.. Without imperialism all we'd still have is tribes fighting each other off occasionnally...It's by being imperialistic that one or several tribes eventually led to the creation of their current country. Imperialism among other things contributed to the creation of countries we now celebrate, and to progress.
It's not progress to those wiped out or enslaved by empires. Imperialism only benefits the central mother nation; Latium, England, Spain, any benefits to the colonies and subject-nations themselves are entirely coincidental.

Its also amusing when people who claim that "no borders" and "everyone has a right to be where they want" start complaining because european powers did just that....
No, they didn't. Spreading your own borders over everyone else and creating a geo-political relationship to where borders are less and less relevant are two entirely different things.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,305
US
Yes, the number of jobs has increased, but not enough that it would replace the jobs lost. No new MINES have been established...

And in the end, environmentalism is not the same as Social Justice, and as a concept is not something that is limited to any one side of the political aisle. Shoot, environmental concerns got their start with Teddy Roosevelt and the National Park system, which was designed to preserve wild places in the recognition that at the time America's growing industry was swallowing up vast amounts of wild land, that if unchecked... the wilderness would be gone. It's why places like Yellowstone and Yosemite were established.

And that's continued on, with to an extent with support from both sides. One often hears a lot about environmental concerns coming from the Left, but I really don't think that most people on the Right would truly want the National Parks plowed over and turned into the proverbial parking lots.

And the environmental issues that are raised are real. There is NO such thing as "clean" coal. Any coal mined WILL have some amount of other materials in it that could be seriously damaging to the environment... things like Sulfur, which leads to Sulfuric Acid being formed when it mixes with water in the atmosphere. And that HAS had major consequences. The Black Forest in Germany, for example has been ravaged by acid rain. And that is ALWAYS a risk with regard to burning coal. There have been measures around that, but that's also been technological in that the smokestacks are given a device that is designed to catch the Sulfur BEFORE it gets into the atmosphere.

And issues with nuclear power are similar in that it also represents REAL environmental problems. Nuclear power plants can provide a lot of power, yes, and in theory they COULD lower the reliance on things like coal and oil and thus lower the issue of global warming... BUT nuclear power has the issue of radiation. And that goes with more than just power plants, as nuclear power presents that danger... I think more died in Japan from the radiation from Little Boy and Fat Man than from the actual blast itself... and nuclear power plants possess that same danger, as if the core melts down, that radiation spreads. I think that Chernobyl is STILL unsafe for human habitation after that plant melted down. And even without a meltdown, there is still the issue of disposing of the used rods. They can't just go to a standard landfill. At present, I think the US buries its used rods deep under a mountain in specialized containers to wait out the lengthy half-lives needed to wait before it is safe to remove otherwise...

And while some may have played some roles in trying to expedite coal's demise... that still doesn't change that changes in the fuel industry is happening on its own and the use Natural Gas which is more efficient and doesn't have the same level of negative environmental impact that both coal and nuclear power have...

And in this, I'd still say that trying to defend jobs in the coal industry is still not something that defends labor but defends an industry that is dying anyway. And what will you then do when that death finally occurs if your "labor measure" is limited to simply protecting the existence of jobs in coal mines? Either the industry will fully switch over to another fuel, or the mines will either run out of coal or enough coal to make mining it profitable...

Similar to what happened to Homestake Gold Mine in Lead, SD. There's actually PLENTY of Gold there to mine, but when the mine closed, the price of gold had dropped so low that the cost of mining it was more than the cost of the gold itself. The same thing could happen with coal, and probably will at some point.
Regarding the mine jobs, at least the bleeding has stopped and some miners have returned to work. For these people, this is no small feat and this goes to the heart of the OP as another example. A statement such as "I'd still say that trying to defend jobs in the coal industry is still not something that defends labor but defends an industry that is dying anyway " is quite telling to those to whom these jobs matter. Even when it comes to shale gas, the SJWs are out. I live in the heart of shale gas territory and I can't tell you how many people of my SJWs acquaintances are opposed to this.
Shell Cracker Pipeline Opposition Another Window Into World of FractivismNatural Gas Now

Strangely enough, I just received a notice that my electric supplier had switched with one from whom I had contracted. It seems in the small print it was written that at the end of the contract, my account would be automatically switched (as in bait and switch because the free market doesn't support the "clean" energy venture) to a "clean" energy company. The rate was over twice what I had been paying. Thus, my $200 electric bill would be $400. After I called the "clean" energy company to suggest where they can place their power, I re-contracted with my original company. Few people can pay twice the rate for "clean" energy and I can tell you for most environmentalists/SJWs shale gas is not "clean" energy.

As for environmentalists and TR, I don't look at things along political lines, per se. Roosevelt was a progressive, regardless of the his political affiliation. Most people who term themselves "environmentalists" are progressive or liberal. Conservatives who care about their natural surroundings usually refer to themselves as conservationists.
 
Last edited:

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
The debate started on the point that somehow the white man -and the white man only- was uniquely guilty of all kinds of unpleasantness.. .This simply is not the case....

Imperialism is a natural feature of ANY power. Therefore condemning the europeans (or any other power for that matter) for it is not adequate... That is how countries became what they are.. Without imperialism all we'd still have is tribes fighting each other off occasionnally...It's by being imperialistic that one or several tribes eventually led to the creation of their current country. Imperialism among other things contributed to the creation of countries we now celebrate, and to progress.

Its also amusing when people who claim that "no borders" and "everyone has a right to be where they want" start complaining because european powers did just that....
I'd agree that every culture has had its histories of violence and empire building in various ways.

However, what makes Europe different from the major states the rest of the world has been the combination of power and ability actually dominate much of the world. That was something that the rest of the world didn't have for various reasons... For France and Britain's colonial empires covered much of the world and controlled millions of people who were vastly different from them...

The other major empires lacked that sort of means for varying reasons. And often many of these other empires didn't begin to gain the ability to try and seize greater power until after they'd come into contact with Europe and gotten either technology or advice from Europe/America.

So, while I agree that empire builders haven't been limited to Europe/US, they have uniquely had the power to project that power over a wide part of the globe in ways that other empire builders did not.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
Regarding the mine jobs, at least the bleeding has stopped and some miners have returned to work. For these people, this is no small feat and this goes to the heart of the OP as another example. A statement such as "I'd still say that trying to defend jobs in the coal industry is still not something that defends labor but defends an industry that is dying anyway " is quite telling to those to whom these jobs matter.
The jobs matter to them, sure, but the point of good labor legislation should do more to given the opportunity to adapt and change to a changing job market. Yes, the miners may be happy to have their jobs now, but that doesn't mean the overall market is going to stay the same. As the ability of coal to be profitable may decline or its presence will run out. Protecting their jobs now will only be a short term measure.

Being good for labor as a whole will require being ready provide some means of stability when change happens. This could include having measures for training for new jobs... For some it could be some measure of historical presentation. It would provide some measure of authenticity in the presentation in the education on how the history of mining and energy usage has gone.

And some of that may relate to finding a new industry. Just as the building of wagons and massed breeding of horses was ultimately replaced by making cars and getting gasoline... How that would work out though is something different. With a lot of American history, those changes in industry has largely evolved on its own. Much of the government's intervention has been more in relation to how much or how little to regulate those businesses.

As for environmentalists and TR, I don't look at things along political lines, per se. Roosevelt was a progressive, regardless of the his political affiliation. Most people who term themselves "environmentalists" are progressive or liberal. Conservatives who care about their natural surroundings usually refer to themselves as conservationists.
But I see that as "to-may-to" versus "to-mah-to." In the end, it's the same thing.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,305
US
The jobs matter to them, sure, but the point of good labor legislation should do more to given the opportunity to adapt and change to a changing job market. Yes, the miners may be happy to have their jobs now, but that doesn't mean the overall market is going to stay the same. As the ability of coal to be profitable may decline or its presence will run out. Protecting their jobs now will only be a short term measure.

Being good for labor as a whole will require being ready provide some means of stability when change happens. This could include having measures for training for new jobs... For some it could be some measure of historical presentation. It would provide some measure of authenticity in the presentation in the education on how the history of mining and energy usage has gone.

And some of that may relate to finding a new industry. Just as the building of wagons and massed breeding of horses was ultimately replaced by making cars and getting gasoline... How that would work out though is something different. With a lot of American history, those changes in industry has largely evolved on its own. Much of the government's intervention has been more in relation to how much or how little to regulate those businesses.
We apparently still need coal and nuclear and shale gas. Why do you think the "clean" energy has to charge over 2 times per Kwh for the same power? Or are they simply greedy capitalists seeking to deceive people with their "save the environment" sales pitch? So, I'll keep those jobs for now and so will those who work in these industries. Let the SJW worry about more pressing matters.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
Al Gore is an "environmentalist." Ted Nugent is a conservationist. You think they have the same agenda?:)
My point is in the general protection of the environment and nature, even if the specific reasons for doing so are different. For example, the people that saved the White Tail Deer from extinction in the early 1900s were actually sports hunters in rural areas, which have generally tended to be more "Conservative" than urban areas. And their reasoning for it wasn't simply to let animals run free... it was to preserve their right for recreational hunting...

But in the end, those efforts did the same thing, saved the species, which today, despite human hunting (and the occasional collisions with vehicles) and the continued presence of natural predators (wolves, mountain lions, bears) the White Tail Deer population been rather stable and has even gone up in some places. In the end, that's good for all parties.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
We apparently still need coal and nuclear and shale gas. Why do you think the "clean" energy has to charge over 2 times per Kwh for the same power? Or are they simply greedy capitalists seeking to deceive people with their "save the environment" sales pitch? So, I'll keep those jobs for now and so will those who work in these industries. Let the SJW worry about more pressing matters.
At present to varying degrees, yes, they are needed.

However, a lot of the reason for higher costs for "greener" fuel sources may have more to do with the fact that they aren't getting the financial support from the government in the way of loans to help these businesses grow to become self-sustaining. They could well face opposition from existing industries directly trying to block the new business from being able to expand to a point where they are more competitive... thus, limited to a smaller size, they have to raise their prices just to afford to keep what they have running...

Some of this may be in the cost of their use in getting them "off the ground" as it were and some could be because established industries are lobbying heavily to BLOCK these new industries to protect themselves.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,566
So, while I agree that empire builders haven't been limited to Europe/US, they have uniquely had the power to project that power over a wide part of the globe in ways that other empire builders did not.
Agree... however this is "an accident of history and geography"... if the right resources (coal, iron) had been conveniently concentrated in an easily accessible and populated place in China for example, then the industrial revolution might have happened in China... with that and its vastly more numerous population, it would have been quite interesting what chinese imperialism might have achieved

So the difference I think is not in intent but in capability... europeans through good fortune and resources found themselves with more capability than others..
 
Mar 2011
5,045
Brazil
" The Good results could be obtained provided disciple was kept was shown by the fact the Guard reached the Russian Capital Intact"

Page 73
Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton
By Martin van Creveld

Well the Guard started with 50,000 and was down to less than Half Strength by teh Time it reached Moscow 21,000 more or less.

His accuracy as a Military Historian is quite Questionable.
You are not being fair to him. Of course for any historian with dozens of publications you might find numbers that might be regarded as controversial.
 

Similar History Discussions