Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
What newly emerged truths, specifically, have emerged that support your contentions? o ahead, surprise us...
The burden of proving an allegation rests rationally on the person making the allegation... especially with allegations that are visibly and immediately suspect.
In other words, you can't support the allegations you're making. Why then should anyone take them seriously?
If you're going to claim that FDR caused the chaos of decolonization, you have to be able to cite specific actions that FDR initiated that had a demonstrable impact on the decolonization process. Opinions are irrelevant. We all know that FDR had a low opinion of empire, as did almost any other thinking person. His opinion was scarcely going to have an impact on a process that took place well after his death. What did FDR actually do, and what impact did that action have on the decolonization process?
Responsibility for decolonization rests naturally on the colonial power. Certainly the US has some responsibility for the decolonization process in the Philippines. If you want to hold the US responsible for the decolonization process in India or Africa you have to be able to cite specific US actions and demonstrate that they had a significant impact on those processes. Again, words mean nothing, unless the words were translated into actions that had a demonstrable impact on events.
Similarly, if you want to claim that FDR caused the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or the Communist victory in China, you have to cite concrete actions by FDR and establish a causative link between those actions and the events that followed.
The burden of proof lies on whoever made the allegation in the first place. Make a claim, you have to be prepared to support that claim if someone calls BS. Consider it called. Support the allegations credibly, or abandon them.
Bookmarks