>...are different things, sort of like "if you are not
>striving for a solution...". Being aware and acting on
>principles is something every individual and group can
>choose to do.

I feel you.

Let's say that 20 European countries did not
>support imperialism (even 44) but, yet, it still spreads to
>take over the globe and cause all kinds of suffering for
>natives and folks of color.

Thing is, imperialism causes suffering for many people other than natives and people of color.

What to do? Close ranks, close
>your eyes and act as if it has nothing to do with you?
>Sounds like post-WWI Germany to me.

This is a myth. Every time there is a terrible atrocity against mankind, there are countless people who stand up against it, only to be muted by the powers that be. Let's think about post WWI Germany for a second. Yes, there was an attempted genocide going on and yes, many people turned their heads. However, when the US became involved and freed people from the camps, only about 1/5 of the people were Jews (Cohen, The Holocaust in American Life). There were many, many non-Jewish people who spoke out against Nazism and died because of it.

>I don't buy it. Global domination of European OR Western
>culture happened and people accepted it all over Europe and
>elsewhere.

I never disputed this. My point was that there were many, many people who did not. Imperialism is the result of ONE country imposing its culture on MANY others (Project for the New American Century), not a countless group of cultures coming together to form a super, world dominant culture.

>In high school I was concerned with origins but now I am in
>the present: What can I do in the present? That means not
>just looking backwards or carrying other people's baggage.
>It's my own manifest destiny, of sorts.

I am in total agreement.

>>The concept of the great chain was used improperly first and
>>foremost for the feudal system, and its SIMILAR (not the
>>concept itself) ideologies were used to justify racism.
>
>This concept, regardless of its origins, spread throughout
>the world. It's this fact that matters to me and if you
>think that this system is not linked to caplitalism, racism,
>etc. then you may not see the flow of the universe like I
>do. To me, it's all connected.

No, it certainly is, but there is no need to accuse its creators of racism. That's all I was trying to correct. The concept, ITSELF, isn't flawed. Someone took it and ran with $$$ in their eyes.

>>It was the expansion of the concept
>>(similarly to American slave owners using the Bible to
>>justify their actions) that leads to such an illusion.
>
>Slavery, specifically chattel slavery, was justified by many
>institutions and it was supported by the system itself. You
>have to view oneself as over all others to justify the
>domination and destruction of others. Conceptually, this is
>a idea/illusion that spread from Europe, throughout the
>world.

Ah, but its orgins are absolutely not European, but pre-European. We're talking about the very first Mesopatamians, Africans, and Natives, all of whom had slavery for economic purposes. It was from these orgins (all people, basically) that slavery spread. The fact that a few (yes, a few) European countries generated enough money to impose such a system through imperialism means nothing except an expanded franchise. You do have to view yourself as above the others to impose a system, but this didn't spread from Europe (44 countries), throughout the world. It was here from the beginning.

It led to the Middle Passage that stands out in my
>mind (as well as the Trail of Tears).

Many of my Cherokee ancestors died here.

We are talking about
>mass enslavement (or destruction) of a people, not
>individuals...based on the color of their skin.

I'm not denying that slavery, based on racism, happened.

Whole
>groups or tribes of white people were never enslaved, taking
>from their families, stripped of their language, their
>culture, religion, etc.

I'm sure the Slavs who resided in the heart of central Europe would strongly disagree.

>Sometime ago tribes were surviving and then, suddenly,
>civilizations were conquering others?

No. Tribes attacked other tribes continually in war... that's just a fact of life.

When did this happen
>and where?

From the beginning, everywhere.

Why? It's start with an idea, a seed that is
>planted and grows.

It is the result of greed, and greed is a sin that can strike millions who don't defend themselves against it.

In order for the growth to spread it has
>to have a foundation and lots of nurturing (like hundreds of
>years).

No, you don't. You have to see something and immediately want it.

In order to remove the growth you have to kill the
>root(s). Where those roots are is open for interpretation
>but necessary if discussing alternatives.

The roots are everywhere, bottom line. What is always relevant is who is imposing such actions today. Right now, it is the US and Britain...

>>It just so happens that
>>western whites found the right formula, bastardizing a
>>number of fixations, including religion, patrioticism, and
>>racism.
>
>But this is not arbitrary, some unplanned happening that
>took place over hundreds of years. Again, a seed was
>planted...took root and spread.

Greed... that's it. Man has it. peace,