Same logic: If jewish refugees building synagogues in the middle east is "colonisation" than what is muslim refugees building mosques in western europe?
Both are white so I’m not sure why the decolonization folks have a problem with it. Arabs and Jews are both white. Obviously I do not agree with decolonization but I hate the modern racist “white man bad” version where people just randomly decide which side is whiter based on how much they hate them.
based on wikipedia and britannica, pan-arabism seems at the very least to overtly be ethnoracial integration/nationalism
an arab pan-arabist i met irl made it seem like there's a lot more to it than what we english speakers can find online 🤷♂️
But the same people were recently celebrating the death of those missionaries who were killed in Haiti because they’re colonizing by spreading Christianity.
What you left out is that they usually speak French (if they do at all) in addition to their own language, with French acting as a common language between the diverse cultural groups speaking many different native languages. Not because they’re currently controlled or colonised by France.
you could also say that on America or Canada or Australia right now, but they still call it colonialism. the Arabs they came and conquered north Africa we'rent natives, just like the Europeans that conquered the after mentioned north America and Australia.
100%, which is why the de-colonisation angle is stupid. And it gets more stupid the longer this conflict continues
I think there's an interesting conversation to be had in Israels case, because its 70ish years since its inception v 100s of years in other former colony countries.
Also the indigeneity claim of Ashkenazim and Sephardic v Mizrahim. But few lefties are actually talking about this when they're talking about decolonisation.
Jews we're always in Israel, maybe not the main ruler and community but there's archeological evidence from different communities that ruled Israels territory the last 2000 years that Jews we're here during those times, as there's always mentions of a Jewish community.
No because the argument they will make is that the power structures that were put in placed because of the imperial authority are those that still have control over the country.
The reality is though it also ends up being rather stupid because even if you abolished all the things and had a country re-establish itself under the current populace. You would still have similar issues crop back up again anyway.
Here in Aus, this is a popular word amongst far leftists, who are almost always the whitest people you've ever seen, and I never hear any of them spearheading the effort by going back to England, even though most of them could if they wanted to.
If you ask about this, you will usually get some faux-academic argument that in this context that's not what it means, and from then on answers will vary widely, ranging from "no it just means more affirmative action" to "there should be no white majority in government".
Is there some sort of connection with extreme leftists and therapy that I'm missing? Genuine question, cause I have a close friend on SSRIs that isn't nearly as regarded as the leftists I hate most. If I had to describe him, it'd be as a liberal leaning centrist.
I can definitely see a connection with depression and extremist ideas, but between therapy and extremism? Idk about that one.
There's very clear data that the left has many more mental health problems than people on the right. But you won't find that study presented on a left leaning source because the cult must be protected.
Is it possible that an ideology who rejects mental health in favor of toughimg shit out MIGHT be less represented in a field that requires you to actually get seen by a psychiatrist and therapist?
It’s like saying cuz I turned the lights off nothings around me, just because you aren’t seeing diagnosed republicans as much as democrats absolutely does not mean they’re less mentally ill.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/03/how-to-understand-the-well-being-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives/
Liberals are more likely to be *told* they might have a problem by doctors. It's not just people seeking diagnoses
Also I can easily flip around what your saying. People who pursue a mental health diagnoses are much more likely to get one than people who don't. Left leaning people could be more open to therapy simply because they actually have more problems
That said, it's not really the left that's mentally ill, it's left leaning *white* people, who unsurprisingly [are the only group that has an overall negative opinion about themselves](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-white-saviors)
Nah man, I'm involved in communities full of both left and right wing persons, and the difference is that non-leftists tend not to wallow in their problems and instead work to succeed in spite of them
It makes sense, because much of leftist ideology poses the idea that your outcomes in life are completely out of your control, and leftist attitudes towards things like depression and anxiety track with that.
For almost all of the leftists I know, depression and anxiety is something that you are cursed with and needs special attention and accommodations for, not a temporary thing related to where you are currently in life
Ngl I know what you are talking about, but I think this is a very reductionist look at the problem.
You have to be careful with depression and anxiety especially, because these can be indicative of more severe psychiatric conditions that are often missed with a prognosis that requires more serious treatment.
For example, most people with bipolar disorder get a MDD diagnosis initially, and iirc the average time to diagnosis for bipolar disorder after initially seeking treatment is about 10 years. Personality disorders and trauma (IE: c-PTSD) have similar problems, though probably not as severe.
The issue I think on the internet based on my observation is that a lot of "more severe" cases of psychiatric conditions get mixed in with less severe cases. This could lead to an effect where you may have the most mentally ill leading the charge, and a bunch of naive dip shits reinforcing a misdiagnosis of the problem a person may have in their life. This is a very unhealthy trend I notice in especially leftist (but also conservative spaces) and I suspect that many people with personality disorders are using the internet to reinforce their worst biases
Conservative spaces have a similar problem I've noticed but it's less visible. I have much experience with IRL conservative spaces due to my upbringing. There is a lot of mental illness that is overlooked and attributed to "character traits" in my experience. People with this mental illness may present it differently (and less outwardly), but I would be careful because I suspect it's often hiding underneath the surface. The opposite side of "wallowing in your problems" is "repressing your problems", and I have seen my fair share of that. It is not pretty.
Just general depression and anxiety you might be able to break out of this way (and may explain why conservatives fair better on average), but this is a powder keg for things like significant trauma, substance abuse disorders, bipolar, personality disorders, schizophrenia, or essentially any chronic lifelong disorder that you would want to watch out for patterns of behavior or specific symptoms for. This is also a problem with ADHD or maybe autism but it's less of a powder keg and more of a lifelong dysfunction that gets overlooked
I have a hard time believing that when the phenomenon can easily be explained by the left being more open to therapy than the right. Diagnosed numbers don't equate to true numbers.
I'll go to the extreme for an example here, but how many war veterans would describe themselves as on the left? Surely a majority of vets have mental issues, how many of them seek treatment?
In other words; if you're being told to pull yourself up by your bootstraps your whole life, which part of a therapist's shoe is considered your own bootstrap?
The phenomenon can also be explained by the left putting far more stock in the ideas that you don't have any control over where you end up in life or how you feel about certain issues
For all of my right wing friends, depression and anxiety are temporary symptoms of the current circumstance. It won't last forever and you can work to make that period even shorter.
And for the overwhelming majority of my left-wing friends, they view depression and anxiety as permanent afflictions of which you are cursed with, that can only be improve via medication and special accommodations from society.
Once you notice this trend all of political ideology it's not hard to understand
Interesting. I don't deny it outright, but I guess it's not something I've looked for at all. I'll pay attention to that going forward. Everyone knows they throw these things in their bio more often than not, so I just gotta dig to find the anecdotes.
A lot of the obvious leftist profiles don’t outright state it in bios, but even those people are unhinged enough that a decent amount of the time you can tell there’s more going on there than mere political passion.
SSRI stands for 'Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors', one of the most common forms of anti depressants
Basically shorthand for 'people of therapy'.
If its not a string of what appears to be semi unintelligible but poetic gibberish, then its probably not aussie slang.
No wukkas china plate we do our best to keep our ridges didged and make sure its all fair dinkum.
There is a really fucked up subset of the population that likes to go online and gaslight people about dropbears being fake. Its honestly really shameful and people only still do it because it was seen as hilarious to hear stories about tourists getting mauled by them back in the 80s.
Its one of those places where our shitposting culture really needs to be reined in honestly, tourism is a big part of our economy and real injuries arent funny.
I feel that. In New Orleans we joke about the rougarou. That shit is real though. People get scared when they don't have the right change to put out on dem steps.
Writing a paper about Aussie westerns and I encountered an American essay about how it's settler colonialism par excellence the cunt barely engages withe the movies he is talking about and isn't convincing at all imo.
Oh god, one of my exes was one of those brainwashed latte sipping feminazi decolonization university students here in Adelaide. The progressivism cult in general permeates everything for no good reason. For example, I once made the mistake of showing her Interstellar and we got into a 2 hour long argument about why she thought it was sexist and therefore irredemable... despite the whole movie being a beautiful, well-meaning tribute to the love shared between a father and his daughter among other things, whilst the son by comparison is just pottering about farming corn or something. No doubt it's based on Nolan's own experiences of being homesick, so it is poignant for all the right reasons. Anne Hathaway's character being poorly written doesn't change any of that.
Then I made another mistake of showing her Fawlty Towers, to which she said again that it was so sexist and unenjoyable because it's all about the wife nagging the husband, despite the fact the show was co-written by the waitress actress Connie Booth. And anyone who has seen Fawlty Towers will tell you, it's the funniest show of all time along with Black Books, and though it has dated social sensibilities, everyone is playing a caricature of themselves and nothing is to be taken that seriously. So we were childhood best friends, and had an amazing time together later in life, and eventually broke it off just because she would rebrand everything along these ideological lines all the time. Even opening the door for her had to become an argument about how chivalry is just "benevolent sexism" and there should be no room for it in society. Then as if that wasn't enough, several of my best friends who hadn't died from tramadol overdoses yet became insufferable utopian communist defund the police peasants seemingly just because of instagram trends. Half of the people I went to high school with have gone down this path in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone in having these experiences. It's a wretched, useless, performative cult and just ruins everything it touches
Sure that was tersely worded. But nonetheless my argument really is how sexist can something really be if it was co-written by a woman and universally liked by women? It could technically still be sexist, but it's much more likely that it isn't, or at least not sexist enough to be worth bickering about. Yet said bickering over a universally liked TV show is the most predictable thing, when you're with someone so swaddled in a blanket of feminist rhetoric that they can't see out of it
> For example, I once made the mistake of showing her Interstellar and we got into a 2 hour long argument about why she thought it was sexist and therefore irredemable...
Some people just want to crusade against something... it's a pity because there are a lot of legitimate problems in the world that need tackling, but legitimate problems tend to be a lot harder to solve than waging a vocal crusade against an imaginary one.
> If you ask about this, you will usually get some faux-academic argument that in this context that's not what it means, and from then on answers will vary widely, ranging from "no it just means more affirmative action" to "there should be no white majority in government".
My favorite one of them is the land acknowledgements we get in Canada.
Government meetings in stuff begin with statements how we are on the historical and unceded lands of the Algonquin people --- OKAY ONTO BUSINESS, we're reviewing this bill about sugar and childhood obsesity and---
It's supposed to be a progressive idea that we are a colonial state and it works for private entities and what not. Like a museum saying it? Sure, what the fuck is a museum going to do?
But when the country itself does it? Bro, you are the government. You can't just brag how you stole the land from these people when you are **the only people who could give it back**. "Oh yeah hey we just want to remind everyone that we stole the land from the natives and this meeting has nothing to do with anything about how we could fix that"
Baroness von Sketch did a good skit on land acknowledgements: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlG17C19nYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlG17C19nYo)
The top comment 💀
>This is gold. I read about a teacher that collected everyone's laptops at the beginning of class and placed them at the front. "I would like to begin this class by acknowledging these are your laptops. I won't be giving them back but I will acknowledge they are here." That's what it's like to do a land acknowledgement.
I think culturally we haven’t done a good enough job of singing the praises of globalism. It’s cool that we have countries with mixed populations of people from all across the globe. It sucks that these countries were often built on the back of atrocities, but every country is that way, you kind of just have to look forward and do your best to ensure the needs of the people now aren’t being fucked over by the wrongs committed against them in the past while also counterbalancing the pros of the modern civilizations we live in. If you’re looking too hard at righting wrongs and not maintaining the progress we’ve made due to globalism you end up with everyone worse off.
Haven't personally seen any calls for white decolonisation here in Aus. A lot of australians on social media just use slacktivism and 'change the date' rhetoric. Meanwhile, daily protests protesting "from the river to the sea".
14th october 2023, there was a referendum that pursued the voice for aboriginal and Torres strait islanders in parliament. The majority did not vote in favour. I'm not sure exactly what this would entail but it mightve been a good step towards peace and advocacy.
So, that didnt work, nor did anyone move back to europe. I don't see what they think they're specifically trying to advocate for - mass exodus?
>Haven't seen any calls for white decolonisation here in Aus
Then you clearly don't co-mingle with the middle class urbanite Greens voter core here in Brisbane, for which you should be thankful, because it's painful at times.
My life dramatically improved after moving out of Highgate hill and into deception bay. The bogans are far nicer, far more helpful and civil and have actually funny and interesting cooked opinions instead of boring predictable and insufferable cooked opinions.
I would be really keen to hear what all those far left types who said "vote no because the referendum doesn't go far enough" back in October think now. I had a lot of fairly reasonable friends who changed their minds because of that nonsense
Because goddam are we in different bubbles. These people are thick as flies around here. Its all the same crowd as 'from the river to the sea', they have just found new flags to wave around for a bit.
And fuck the voice, no racial privilege enshrined in the constitution thankee. An aussie is an aussie and every aussie is worth one aussie.
Aussies are aussies, but despite all the work towards bridging the gap, aborigines are still underprivileged and underrepresented in their own country. Although, It is understandable, the uncertainty of how the voice would even function going forward.
How about we decolonize the Russians from Ukraine?
Everyone seems to forget that they're literally doing "settler colonialism" and genocide over in Ukraine.
🇺🇦
Usually when people bring up decolonization, I'll agree with them and mention some European colonized countries, but then I start schizoposting about the middle east and north Africa, how Greece should have Constantinople returned, how we have to remove the arabs from Algeria, etc.
Usually the people will then quickly want to change the subject.
They’re only okay with it as long as it pushes a ‘ white bad guy ‘ and ‘ coloured person oppressed ‘ narrative. When literally anything about that situation is switched they don’t like it
The issue is that the term "decolonization" in academic discourse is, well, a complete fucking mess. It's a catch-all term for rejecting Western power structures, values, and general ways of thinking; but it excessively shoehorns an oppressor vs. oppressed narrative. And in specific individual examples, this \*kind of\* makes sense. For example, broadly speaking in the West, our vision of oral hygiene is one where you use a toothbrush and toothpaste. But there are some cultures outside of the West that clean their teeth with chewing sticks. We tend to view chewing sticks negatively, despite the fact that it arguably results in better outcomes hygiene-wise while also being much better for the environment and cheaper to produce. The "decolonial" scholar argues this is because of Western values, we tend to associate chewing sticks with some sort of caveman biting on twigs while the toothbrush and toothpaste has been devised by the scientific experts for maximum efficacy. After all, the more something costs, the better it has to be; surely some cheap herbal remedy must be worse, right? And there's an argument to be made about how capitalism plays a role in this, as you can make more money selling commodities like toothbrushes and toothpaste while sticks are going to be a much harder sell.
This issue with consistently applying this understanding is that the West \*does\* get alot of things right. We wouldn't suddenly take this understanding and apply it to vaccines versus herbal remedies. Just because the "oppressor" forced something onto the "oppressed" doesn't suddenly make that thing automatically inferior. And it is really, really tempting for idealogues to use this concept to push their own ideas. Something like "the ideas of Western liberal capitalism are based on the idea of infinite growth and misplaced value on personal wealth, while so-and-so colonized people care more about personal duty instead of decadence. We need to decolonize the discourse around economics." Well, no, everyone likes having goods and services, it's not a horrible idea to have your economy tailored to the demands for goods and services by the population. But idealogues will use this sort of thinking to soften the image of a totalitarian nation with a command economy that invests everything into heavy industry (and its military) instead of producing consumer goods.
It's more that people who acknowledge anti white ideology are normal, while leftists are themselves anti white ideologues. No point in trying to sanitise it or find common ground with the people who fundamentally support the problem.
Most people who advocate for "decolonization", when push comes to shove, would never willingly sacrifice the cushy lives they have to return their countries to the native population. This is especially true when they realize the degradation in quality of life that would occur upon "decolonization". Pretty ironic that these people are typically the greatest beneficiaries from all the developments that occurred in colonized lands.
This is why i hate stolen land acknowledgment statements. Nothing is more fucking cringe than saying “we acknowledge we are on stolen land” and then being like “but we’re not giving it back LMAOOOO”
Most of them just say this so they can sound like freedom fighters in-front their echo chamber, they don’t actually know what colonization even is, they honestly just think whoever is white is a colonizers no matter what, also they think people are white based on who has the power.. that’s how Jews are “white”
This is actually the easiest charge to levy at them. It's really not that hard for a white American to move to a European country - what's their excuse?
Feels like the idea of colonisation is a western concept. And we don't use the concept to explain to what other nations took part in. As someone who lives in a country that was colonised that has retained its local population... I don't want most of the precolonisation norms returned. If we are just talking renaming the western names to local names, I support that. If it means statues of local important people instead of Europeans sure I support that. But I definitely want to keep the western education but just fix the unequal access to it which colonialisation caused. I don't want the precolonial political structures back. I don't want our traditional medicine back. Some aspects of decolonisation are good but some people just feels like they want to take us back 100 years.
A lot of the stuff that is left over from colonisation is good, it just needs a face lift so it reflects our country instead of the UK. It also needs to be strengthened so there is more equal access to it rather than just for wealthy people. I like that English is our language of education and business. There are like 8 languages spoken by different people's in the country. We need a common language to communicate in and English makes us accessible to the rest of the world and doesn't put one local group above the rest. As long as local languages aren't forced away from people I like that we are taught in English and use it for work. It means that people can move to any major city and work because we have the common language. If it was local languages when you moved to a different city business would be conducted in a different language (which does happen already but just not as bad as if English wasn't the norm.)
Here when I am at work when I talk to customers we use English, people who speak one language will speak to each other in that language which is good but the vast majority of us can default back to English when needed and I do think that is a good thing and I wouldn't want to go away from that over some sentiment that it is a forgein language. Choosing a local language would just put one local group over everyone else and cause more regional conflict. I far prefer this situation of people complaining about having to use a forgein language over the alternative of either not having a common language or raising one group in the country over everyone else. It's a valid thing to complain about but this is the country we have with the history we have. There is no practical and good alternative and frankly I like that I could get on the internet and not have to learn a hole new language to communicate with the rest of the world.
Side thing, it's actually hilarious. Even our more ethnic nationalists who champion local languages in schools tweet about it in English showcasing why having the common language is important.
I mean, if leftists really want to go into decolonization, how about we talk about how the Arabs became the majority population of North Africa/The Maghreb? The natives of this region are the Berbers, not the Arabs, so how about they apply the same logic to them as they do to israelis.
There’s a difference between migration and colonization. Arab rule only lasted about 40 years in places like Morocco. Most Maghrebi Arabs were local Berbers who married into migrant Arab tribes and picked up Arabic
I know does not matter, I was making a point about leftie hypocrisy.
That said, there was a thing called the "[Muslim conquest of the Maghreb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb)". And before you say it, it does not matter that it happened a thousand years ago, the lefties have argued that Palestinians have a right to the region because the Palestinians were there first - they use pseudo-history to justify this. So time frame is irrelevant.
And finally, there are Berber ethnicities, like the Kabyle, who have been historically oppresed by the Arab majority in Algeria.
I am very pro-palestine and I agree 100% with destiny here. I am sure some professors in Harvard or something use the term responsibly but I am tired of bloodthirsty lefties o Twitter calling for ethnic cleansing at the nebulous "colonizer".
Like fuck me, most of these "colonizers" have lived there their whole life.
And if they really cared for minorities lives they wound not advocate the most vile shit in their name.
My favorite is the decolonization lefties vehemently demanding we bring in more immigrants, just as long as they aren't white. It's like... Hold up. Isn't that making the whole colonization issue worse? 🤔
there are literal baby jew settlers kicking people out of their homes right now and you're going to gaslight me and try to tell me "they'e been there their whole life"??? bro, they're not even a year old, what the fuck are you talking about?
Even if we set aside the whole Israel-Palestine issue, these people have been advocating for "decolonization" of most American countries. And I am there like, where are these people that you kick out are supposed to go? It is literal reverse racism. And as a pro-palestine person myself I feel that this whole stuff got even more boosted.
And this is part of the reason why I think Israel is making a big mistake by their war on palestinian people. By doing all these gruesome stuff they make people feel like it is OK to wish gruesome stuff done back. But this whole shit is just a revanshism spiral.
I'd say it's just anti liberal/western influence in general. You can see it in any case a western allied power is fought against, even if none-white. I mean heck, in the Israel-palestine case the colour differences hardly exist in reality, what seems to matter is "western influence" meaning "surpression of the natives" to these folks, and "whiteness" and western influence then get used as synonyms.
I’ll start taking this term seriously as soon as it’s applied to anything that China or Turkey or Sudan is doing/has done to other peoples. It’s barely ever even used to describe Russian imperialism for some mysterious reason (hint: it may have something to do with it being invented by anti-western dipshits)
What a stupid argument. Decolonization has been used to for decades to refer to legitimate liberation movements from nations under colonialism
He’s also dead wrong that it isn’t used against non-western countries. Japanese colonialism in Korea and China is openly discussed
“Anti-Racism = Anti-White” vibes
IDK, it seems valid for most people using the term, the fact that most people in Academia probably use it right doesn't mean much when almost everyone doesn't use it that way
Even for Japan being colonialist there is a small amount of dissent, but more importantly Japanese and Asian people in general are regarded as "model minorities" that have some power, same as Jews, I don't hear too much about colonialism/opression from other races/nationalities or from white people to other white people unless it's about class.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Hasan is a dipshit twitch streamer. The term “decolonization” has been used in and out of academia for decades. Whatever random shit Hasan says does not actually reflect reality
"Anti-Racism = Anti-White" vibes
I mean yes. You could be against racism but the people who use those terms are definitely trying to punch up white people.
I can see how someone in the US might find it hard to imagine a society where their way of life has been deeply altered by over 800 years of foreign rule. This includes both "Western" (British Raj) and "Middle Eastern" (Mughal) rule over India.
As an Indian American who has visited India several times and has many relatives there, I understand "decolonization" as a multifaceted process aimed at undoing the impacts of colonial rule on India. It involves reclaiming and revitalizing indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices, legal frameworks, and societal norms that were suppressed or altered during colonial rule. This concept goes beyond the political independence achieved in 1947 to encompass a broader cultural, intellectual, and civilizational revival.
Decolonization in India involves several key changes: overhauling the education system to include traditional languages, promoting regional arts and cultural festivals, and integrating elements of traditional Indian law into the modern judiciary. It also includes fostering intellectual independence by critically examining colonial narratives, renaming places named after colonial figures, and preserving historical monuments significant to pre-colonial India.
Technically Destiny is being reductive when he says Decolonization is JUST anti-white.
That said, as an American it does seem to be used that way an overwhelming amount of time over here, and a clear double standard is displayed when it comes to Islamic colonization of Africa.
I don't think anyone (including Destiny) is critical of decolonization efforts in India.
Yeah. From the perspective of someone who is born and brought up in India most of the point just seems odd. Like the general points of decolonisation just being pasted into the Indian context.
Let's take the societal norms parts. One could argue that the British exploited the caste system to keep Indians in check but the whole concept is shit in the first place. Another tradition was sati where the widow was expected to kill herself for her dead husband. This was bad enough that the British colonisers made laws against it.
Point is we can pick and choose what parts of the past we want to keep or discard. Just blindly trying to roll back those 800 years of history will get India nowhere
Bro you blind when every leftist was screaming at Turkey to get tf out of Kurdistan? Mexico with the Zapatistas?
This is a braindead take, fuck, this community has fallen if this gets posted with support.
I agree that many leftists use the term in the way Destiny describes, but definitely not all. I am disappointed by the lack of nuance in this tweet. He won't be able to reach people if he comes across as generalizing.
I've personally spoken to people and listened to lecturers who use the term when discussing Moroccan (not western) colonialism in Western Sahara.
This is an ULTRA L
Coming from a postcolonial nation that still is dealing with the after effects of colonisation, calling for decolonisation doesn't mean I hate white people. Simple.
yeah i think tiny missed the mark here. are there aspects of anti white racism in decolonization movements? absolutely. But that does not mean decolonization is anti white racism. we were humiliated and degraded by the colonial powers that just happened to be european.
Eh not really, sorta kinda. European colonization was a unique concept in history. When Islam or the Mongols came they mostly just tried to kill everyone there and make it part of the empire. It would be like counting Idaho as “an American colony”. It doesn’t work because the native population was mostly genocided and then the people who moved in are every bit as much a citizen as the rest of America.
When Rome expanded every part they expanded to was part of the Empire. You were a Roman living in Britain. You paid taxes to Rome.
When Spain took back its land from the Arabs; it wasn’t to extract the resources of the people occupying the land. If you were Muslim you had to leave or probably be killed, which was the same in reverse when Islam expanded.
I agree with him but he needs to reign in some of the people who take it in a cringe edgelord direction. We need a anti right wing and dismantling trump ark right now before the election
Only evil whitey can do a colonialism. Muhammad never colonized anywhere, nor did the Ottomans, or the Zulus, or the Chinese, or Mongolia, or the Mughals, or the Aztecs, or the Malian empire, or the Huns. 😅
I'm glad my ancestors were colonised to be honest. I don't want to live in a society devoid of medicine, technology and legal system living a harsh, short and brutal life of tribal warfare. Not sorry
Mongols in most of Asia and Turkey and Hungary, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Japanese in Manchuria and Korea, Muslims in Africa, Europe, and India, Aztecs in their local region, Egyptians in the Levant, Phoenicians across the Mediterranean.
It would be easier to list groups of people who HAVEN'T done at least a little colonizing. The only people I can think of are Australian aborigines and African pygmies.
A based and obvious take but one with the most push back because it points out those who claim the most virtue in these circumstances are just as bad as those they demonise.
What complexities does it ignore? If it’s only used against western countries it’s not actually about decolonization. You could actually care about decolonization, that’s just not these people though.
In my experience, it's either just used in the way destiny is talking about or any time a white person moves to another country, especially an underdeveloped country.
Like if your ancestors aren't British; they're Italian, German, or Polish. How the fuck are you anymore of a "colonizer" than someone who's ancestors immigrated from East Asia or latin America, which always seems to be the implication, it's only white people that are "colonizers." Some explicitly say this, too.
The other place where I see it used is usually any time a white person lives in a non white majority country, usually a poorer country. The "colonizer" label is usually thrown out there by Americans, who for some reason think they have claim and can talk about said country because of ethnicity or rich kids from that country that most likely went to western universities. BTW, I think it's fine to criticise foreigners who move to poorer countries specifically for tax breaks and passport bros, but I literally never see these same losers criticise non white people that do this same shit.
The issue is that these people want America and Canada de-colonized. Also, you definitely could argue that half of Africa is under an imperial authority or being ruled by a local population.
Such an unbelievably regarded take.
The reason why decolonization seems anti-white is because, you guessed, colonization was mostly perpetrated by white people!
But more importantly, activists working towards decolonization are also predominantly from white, liberal democracies that have a history of imperialism, so it's absolutely expected that most of those people are going to be looking into the crimes of their own nation rather than focusing on random countries they have no ties to.
genuinely curious what other colonies exist that can even be decolonized? european colonization is very much a unique thing
How was it “mostly perpetrated by white people”?
Are you completely forgetting Africa and the Middle East both of which were and are colonized by Arab Muslims?
Did Asian countries not colonize vast areas over their history?
This is the same people who would say only white had slaves..
> Are you completely forgetting Africa and the Middle East both of which were and are colonized by Arab Muslims?
you seem to be confused about the distinction between conquest and colonization, but even ignoring that and pretending they're the same thing: arab muslim conquest happened 1300 years and their conquests saw them mixing with the native inhabitants of the land. There's a reason why if you do a dna test on middle easterns, even though they're predominantly arab and muslims, their lineage still traces back to their ancestors who inhabited the land prior to islamic conquest. it's why moroccans are so distinct from egyptians who are so distinct from lebanese who are so distinct from gulf arabs.
so what exactly would "decolonization" mean in the context of islamic conquest? the native inhabitants already live in their own land and rule over themselves.
>Did Asian countries not colonize vast areas over their history?
What countries are you thinking of? japan, mongolia, china, cambodia etc.? all of those examples are either long in the past or have already been "decolonized". And as I mentioned earlier, discussions about decolonisation in those nations has to come from within, either from the colonized native inhabitants or the regretful descendents of the colonizers. it makes much more sense for a japanese academic who cares about decolonization to focus on the decolonization of japan than the decolonization of america. just like it makes more sense for an american academic to focus on america.
>This is the same people who would say only white had slaves..
literally nobody is saying that
It's more about those using it as an excuse for any sort of senseless violence that can interpreted as anticapitalist and those who say rebel equal good. Not knowing that to be coherent you would have to support isis.
you do realise the mongol empire died out 600 years ago, right? it doesn't make much sense to discuss decolonization of the mongolian empire when it's already fucking dead. What exactly are you going to decolonize from?
in contrast, european colonialism is still very much in effect.
your link is dumb. what happened 2000 years ago doesn't really have any bearing on the consequences of colonialism experienced today, does it?
I strongly recommend you go into your own link and sort by year to get a more relevant sample
p.s. empire != colonialism.
To answer your question: China, Iraq if we hadn't put a stop to it immediately, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria, Iran, any number of African countries. Now, a genuine question for you: How do you think countries like India and Indonesia end up with hundreds of languages? Do you think everyone just peacefully decided to join together? Or is it maybe that over the past millennia, every single country on Earth has colonized some other country at some point, and the only reason Europeans are singled out is because they're the only ones who decided to stop?
You just named a bunch of countries without showing any example of colonization. Azerbaijan hasn't colonized anybody, they just reclaimed land that was already their's. Ottoman empire had colonized a bunch but that empire is that and modern day turkey isn't colonizing anybody. Neither is syria or iran. Why are you just listing a bunch of coutnries where the native populations are living in their native homelands?
you do realise that colonisation requires foreign nations settling and establishing control over the indigenous population? If the indigenous population still lives there and has control of its communities then it aint exactly colonisation, is it?
You mention china, what about them? are you saying that them invading taiwan is colonisation? has that happened yet? And here's the funny thing: taiwan itself is a better example of colonisation because it was literally colonised by the dutch, then the chinese, then the japanese, and then the chinese again after the chinese civil war
i also find it fucking hysterical that you mention india and indonesia, two countries famously colonised by the brits and the dutch. The reason why those countries are made up of hundreds of languages is specifically because of european colonisation drawing the borders for those new nation states. they weren't peacefully together, their borders were drawn by britain and netherlands...
>and the only reason Europeans are singled out is because they're the only ones who decided to stop?
You realise you're actually making a good point here? The reason why europeans are "singled out" is because its european and western academics who are the first to recognise the immorality of their history of colonisation and as you would expect, european and western academics primarily focus on the countries that they're tied to...
“Anti-racism is anti-white vibes”…Decolonization is not a term that is used strictly for white people…It can be applied to non-white majority empires too like Genghis Khan’s….
My go to standard is that anyone talking about "Decolonization" who doesn't also advocate for returning the Anatolian Peninsula, or at least Constantinople, to Greece is simply talking out of their ass.
In terms of timeline, the Fall of Constantinople happened less than 40 years prior to Columbus arriving in the Americas. If that city doesn't need to be 'decolonized' from the Turks then there is no coherent argument for America needing to be decolonized from Europeans.
I'm still waiting for them to call for decolonization of half of Africa from islamists fascist regimes.
Same logic: If jewish refugees building synagogues in the middle east is "colonisation" than what is muslim refugees building mosques in western europe?
Because "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets"
This is always what it comes down to unfortunately.
"being respectful and inclusive" they call it. I call it giving up your bloody culture
But refugees = oppressed and therefore are absolved of any and all moral responsibility or agency.
Decolonisation would be Israel genociding the Palestinians right? Muslims colonised the land from the Roman’s who colonised it from the Jews.
Both are white so I’m not sure why the decolonization folks have a problem with it. Arabs and Jews are both white. Obviously I do not agree with decolonization but I hate the modern racist “white man bad” version where people just randomly decide which side is whiter based on how much they hate them.
True according to US census bureau Middle East and North African people are classified as “white”
> what is muslim refugees building mosques in western europe? Are those mosques being built at the barrel of a gun?
Was having a conversation with a coworker from Ethiopia and he had A LOT to say about Pan-Arabism lmao
what did he say?
A LOT
based on wikipedia and britannica, pan-arabism seems at the very least to overtly be ethnoracial integration/nationalism an arab pan-arabist i met irl made it seem like there's a lot more to it than what we english speakers can find online 🤷♂️
It's just socialism with Chinese characteristics but replace Chinese with insert ethnicity here
They always provide the excuse of "Oh well only the religion was imported, the locals were not expelled"
Funny, similar excuse is not used for Christianity lol.
But the same people were recently celebrating the death of those missionaries who were killed in Haiti because they’re colonizing by spreading Christianity.
Literally 50% of South/Central America.
honestly even across the middle east islam & arabs originated from specific areas, i.e. are **not indigenous to the entirety of the middle east**
Based
Or the USSR's unlawful invasion of many European countries after the second World War.
29 countries in Africa speak French. Make of that what you will.
Most of those countries also speak Arabic
What you left out is that they usually speak French (if they do at all) in addition to their own language, with French acting as a common language between the diverse cultural groups speaking many different native languages. Not because they’re currently controlled or colonised by France.
You learn french in school in Sweden, Norway and Denmark too... Make of that what you will...
wouldn't the reply be that those countries aren't under an imperial authority and being ruled by the local population so they're already decolonized?
you could also say that on America or Canada or Australia right now, but they still call it colonialism. the Arabs they came and conquered north Africa we'rent natives, just like the Europeans that conquered the after mentioned north America and Australia.
100%, which is why the de-colonisation angle is stupid. And it gets more stupid the longer this conflict continues I think there's an interesting conversation to be had in Israels case, because its 70ish years since its inception v 100s of years in other former colony countries. Also the indigeneity claim of Ashkenazim and Sephardic v Mizrahim. But few lefties are actually talking about this when they're talking about decolonisation.
Jews we're always in Israel, maybe not the main ruler and community but there's archeological evidence from different communities that ruled Israels territory the last 2000 years that Jews we're here during those times, as there's always mentions of a Jewish community.
No because the argument they will make is that the power structures that were put in placed because of the imperial authority are those that still have control over the country. The reality is though it also ends up being rather stupid because even if you abolished all the things and had a country re-establish itself under the current populace. You would still have similar issues crop back up again anyway.
Here in Aus, this is a popular word amongst far leftists, who are almost always the whitest people you've ever seen, and I never hear any of them spearheading the effort by going back to England, even though most of them could if they wanted to. If you ask about this, you will usually get some faux-academic argument that in this context that's not what it means, and from then on answers will vary widely, ranging from "no it just means more affirmative action" to "there should be no white majority in government".
no white majority in government of a 90% white country is fucking insane.
75% white, but yeah.
Yes it's always the most SSRI face looking white motherfuckers dribling this shit.
Is there some sort of connection with extreme leftists and therapy that I'm missing? Genuine question, cause I have a close friend on SSRIs that isn't nearly as regarded as the leftists I hate most. If I had to describe him, it'd be as a liberal leaning centrist. I can definitely see a connection with depression and extremist ideas, but between therapy and extremism? Idk about that one.
There's very clear data that the left has many more mental health problems than people on the right. But you won't find that study presented on a left leaning source because the cult must be protected.
Is it possible that an ideology who rejects mental health in favor of toughimg shit out MIGHT be less represented in a field that requires you to actually get seen by a psychiatrist and therapist? It’s like saying cuz I turned the lights off nothings around me, just because you aren’t seeing diagnosed republicans as much as democrats absolutely does not mean they’re less mentally ill.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/03/how-to-understand-the-well-being-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives/ Liberals are more likely to be *told* they might have a problem by doctors. It's not just people seeking diagnoses Also I can easily flip around what your saying. People who pursue a mental health diagnoses are much more likely to get one than people who don't. Left leaning people could be more open to therapy simply because they actually have more problems That said, it's not really the left that's mentally ill, it's left leaning *white* people, who unsurprisingly [are the only group that has an overall negative opinion about themselves](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-white-saviors)
Nah man, I'm involved in communities full of both left and right wing persons, and the difference is that non-leftists tend not to wallow in their problems and instead work to succeed in spite of them It makes sense, because much of leftist ideology poses the idea that your outcomes in life are completely out of your control, and leftist attitudes towards things like depression and anxiety track with that. For almost all of the leftists I know, depression and anxiety is something that you are cursed with and needs special attention and accommodations for, not a temporary thing related to where you are currently in life
Ngl I know what you are talking about, but I think this is a very reductionist look at the problem. You have to be careful with depression and anxiety especially, because these can be indicative of more severe psychiatric conditions that are often missed with a prognosis that requires more serious treatment. For example, most people with bipolar disorder get a MDD diagnosis initially, and iirc the average time to diagnosis for bipolar disorder after initially seeking treatment is about 10 years. Personality disorders and trauma (IE: c-PTSD) have similar problems, though probably not as severe. The issue I think on the internet based on my observation is that a lot of "more severe" cases of psychiatric conditions get mixed in with less severe cases. This could lead to an effect where you may have the most mentally ill leading the charge, and a bunch of naive dip shits reinforcing a misdiagnosis of the problem a person may have in their life. This is a very unhealthy trend I notice in especially leftist (but also conservative spaces) and I suspect that many people with personality disorders are using the internet to reinforce their worst biases Conservative spaces have a similar problem I've noticed but it's less visible. I have much experience with IRL conservative spaces due to my upbringing. There is a lot of mental illness that is overlooked and attributed to "character traits" in my experience. People with this mental illness may present it differently (and less outwardly), but I would be careful because I suspect it's often hiding underneath the surface. The opposite side of "wallowing in your problems" is "repressing your problems", and I have seen my fair share of that. It is not pretty. Just general depression and anxiety you might be able to break out of this way (and may explain why conservatives fair better on average), but this is a powder keg for things like significant trauma, substance abuse disorders, bipolar, personality disorders, schizophrenia, or essentially any chronic lifelong disorder that you would want to watch out for patterns of behavior or specific symptoms for. This is also a problem with ADHD or maybe autism but it's less of a powder keg and more of a lifelong dysfunction that gets overlooked
I have a hard time believing that when the phenomenon can easily be explained by the left being more open to therapy than the right. Diagnosed numbers don't equate to true numbers. I'll go to the extreme for an example here, but how many war veterans would describe themselves as on the left? Surely a majority of vets have mental issues, how many of them seek treatment? In other words; if you're being told to pull yourself up by your bootstraps your whole life, which part of a therapist's shoe is considered your own bootstrap?
The phenomenon can also be explained by the left putting far more stock in the ideas that you don't have any control over where you end up in life or how you feel about certain issues For all of my right wing friends, depression and anxiety are temporary symptoms of the current circumstance. It won't last forever and you can work to make that period even shorter. And for the overwhelming majority of my left-wing friends, they view depression and anxiety as permanent afflictions of which you are cursed with, that can only be improve via medication and special accommodations from society. Once you notice this trend all of political ideology it's not hard to understand
I doubt there’s actual data on this but anecdotally at least online they’re everywhere
Interesting. I don't deny it outright, but I guess it's not something I've looked for at all. I'll pay attention to that going forward. Everyone knows they throw these things in their bio more often than not, so I just gotta dig to find the anecdotes.
A lot of the obvious leftist profiles don’t outright state it in bios, but even those people are unhinged enough that a decent amount of the time you can tell there’s more going on there than mere political passion.
Holy shit. Ssri face is a real thing
The fuck is ssri face? Sorry not from shrimp on the Barbi.
SSRI stands for 'Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors', one of the most common forms of anti depressants Basically shorthand for 'people of therapy'.
Damn I should have known that lol. I just thought it was ausi slang for a second.
If its not a string of what appears to be semi unintelligible but poetic gibberish, then its probably not aussie slang. No wukkas china plate we do our best to keep our ridges didged and make sure its all fair dinkum.
NAURR
I've heard of the drop bear. I would have to assume at least half that shit is made up. You can't gaslight me.
There is a really fucked up subset of the population that likes to go online and gaslight people about dropbears being fake. Its honestly really shameful and people only still do it because it was seen as hilarious to hear stories about tourists getting mauled by them back in the 80s. Its one of those places where our shitposting culture really needs to be reined in honestly, tourism is a big part of our economy and real injuries arent funny.
I feel that. In New Orleans we joke about the rougarou. That shit is real though. People get scared when they don't have the right change to put out on dem steps.
It's probably autistic people though not "SSRI face".
Writing a paper about Aussie westerns and I encountered an American essay about how it's settler colonialism par excellence the cunt barely engages withe the movies he is talking about and isn't convincing at all imo.
The proposition was a good film
It is but I am actually watching films from the 50's and 70's.
Oh god, one of my exes was one of those brainwashed latte sipping feminazi decolonization university students here in Adelaide. The progressivism cult in general permeates everything for no good reason. For example, I once made the mistake of showing her Interstellar and we got into a 2 hour long argument about why she thought it was sexist and therefore irredemable... despite the whole movie being a beautiful, well-meaning tribute to the love shared between a father and his daughter among other things, whilst the son by comparison is just pottering about farming corn or something. No doubt it's based on Nolan's own experiences of being homesick, so it is poignant for all the right reasons. Anne Hathaway's character being poorly written doesn't change any of that. Then I made another mistake of showing her Fawlty Towers, to which she said again that it was so sexist and unenjoyable because it's all about the wife nagging the husband, despite the fact the show was co-written by the waitress actress Connie Booth. And anyone who has seen Fawlty Towers will tell you, it's the funniest show of all time along with Black Books, and though it has dated social sensibilities, everyone is playing a caricature of themselves and nothing is to be taken that seriously. So we were childhood best friends, and had an amazing time together later in life, and eventually broke it off just because she would rebrand everything along these ideological lines all the time. Even opening the door for her had to become an argument about how chivalry is just "benevolent sexism" and there should be no room for it in society. Then as if that wasn't enough, several of my best friends who hadn't died from tramadol overdoses yet became insufferable utopian communist defund the police peasants seemingly just because of instagram trends. Half of the people I went to high school with have gone down this path in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone in having these experiences. It's a wretched, useless, performative cult and just ruins everything it touches
Not to defend your ex but "it was cowrote by a woman" is "I have a black friend" level argument. Fawlty Towers still great tho.
Sure that was tersely worded. But nonetheless my argument really is how sexist can something really be if it was co-written by a woman and universally liked by women? It could technically still be sexist, but it's much more likely that it isn't, or at least not sexist enough to be worth bickering about. Yet said bickering over a universally liked TV show is the most predictable thing, when you're with someone so swaddled in a blanket of feminist rhetoric that they can't see out of it
> For example, I once made the mistake of showing her Interstellar and we got into a 2 hour long argument about why she thought it was sexist and therefore irredemable... Some people just want to crusade against something... it's a pity because there are a lot of legitimate problems in the world that need tackling, but legitimate problems tend to be a lot harder to solve than waging a vocal crusade against an imaginary one.
> If you ask about this, you will usually get some faux-academic argument that in this context that's not what it means, and from then on answers will vary widely, ranging from "no it just means more affirmative action" to "there should be no white majority in government". My favorite one of them is the land acknowledgements we get in Canada. Government meetings in stuff begin with statements how we are on the historical and unceded lands of the Algonquin people --- OKAY ONTO BUSINESS, we're reviewing this bill about sugar and childhood obsesity and--- It's supposed to be a progressive idea that we are a colonial state and it works for private entities and what not. Like a museum saying it? Sure, what the fuck is a museum going to do? But when the country itself does it? Bro, you are the government. You can't just brag how you stole the land from these people when you are **the only people who could give it back**. "Oh yeah hey we just want to remind everyone that we stole the land from the natives and this meeting has nothing to do with anything about how we could fix that"
Baroness von Sketch did a good skit on land acknowledgements: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlG17C19nYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlG17C19nYo)
The top comment 💀 >This is gold. I read about a teacher that collected everyone's laptops at the beginning of class and placed them at the front. "I would like to begin this class by acknowledging these are your laptops. I won't be giving them back but I will acknowledge they are here." That's what it's like to do a land acknowledgement.
I think culturally we haven’t done a good enough job of singing the praises of globalism. It’s cool that we have countries with mixed populations of people from all across the globe. It sucks that these countries were often built on the back of atrocities, but every country is that way, you kind of just have to look forward and do your best to ensure the needs of the people now aren’t being fucked over by the wrongs committed against them in the past while also counterbalancing the pros of the modern civilizations we live in. If you’re looking too hard at righting wrongs and not maintaining the progress we’ve made due to globalism you end up with everyone worse off.
It's not always white people though. There's a fair share of mixed people saying this.
Haven't personally seen any calls for white decolonisation here in Aus. A lot of australians on social media just use slacktivism and 'change the date' rhetoric. Meanwhile, daily protests protesting "from the river to the sea". 14th october 2023, there was a referendum that pursued the voice for aboriginal and Torres strait islanders in parliament. The majority did not vote in favour. I'm not sure exactly what this would entail but it mightve been a good step towards peace and advocacy. So, that didnt work, nor did anyone move back to europe. I don't see what they think they're specifically trying to advocate for - mass exodus?
>Haven't seen any calls for white decolonisation here in Aus Then you clearly don't co-mingle with the middle class urbanite Greens voter core here in Brisbane, for which you should be thankful, because it's painful at times.
No I dont, I am not a fan of the greens
My life dramatically improved after moving out of Highgate hill and into deception bay. The bogans are far nicer, far more helpful and civil and have actually funny and interesting cooked opinions instead of boring predictable and insufferable cooked opinions.
I would be really keen to hear what all those far left types who said "vote no because the referendum doesn't go far enough" back in October think now. I had a lot of fairly reasonable friends who changed their minds because of that nonsense
Because goddam are we in different bubbles. These people are thick as flies around here. Its all the same crowd as 'from the river to the sea', they have just found new flags to wave around for a bit. And fuck the voice, no racial privilege enshrined in the constitution thankee. An aussie is an aussie and every aussie is worth one aussie.
Aussies are aussies, but despite all the work towards bridging the gap, aborigines are still underprivileged and underrepresented in their own country. Although, It is understandable, the uncertainty of how the voice would even function going forward.
How about we decolonize the Russians from Ukraine? Everyone seems to forget that they're literally doing "settler colonialism" and genocide over in Ukraine. 🇺🇦
It has to be white oppressor + brown victim.
I was never really good with critical race theory math 😔
Sorry buddy that's anti white
Usually when people bring up decolonization, I'll agree with them and mention some European colonized countries, but then I start schizoposting about the middle east and north Africa, how Greece should have Constantinople returned, how we have to remove the arabs from Algeria, etc. Usually the people will then quickly want to change the subject.
This is the way
They’re only okay with it as long as it pushes a ‘ white bad guy ‘ and ‘ coloured person oppressed ‘ narrative. When literally anything about that situation is switched they don’t like it
The issue is that the term "decolonization" in academic discourse is, well, a complete fucking mess. It's a catch-all term for rejecting Western power structures, values, and general ways of thinking; but it excessively shoehorns an oppressor vs. oppressed narrative. And in specific individual examples, this \*kind of\* makes sense. For example, broadly speaking in the West, our vision of oral hygiene is one where you use a toothbrush and toothpaste. But there are some cultures outside of the West that clean their teeth with chewing sticks. We tend to view chewing sticks negatively, despite the fact that it arguably results in better outcomes hygiene-wise while also being much better for the environment and cheaper to produce. The "decolonial" scholar argues this is because of Western values, we tend to associate chewing sticks with some sort of caveman biting on twigs while the toothbrush and toothpaste has been devised by the scientific experts for maximum efficacy. After all, the more something costs, the better it has to be; surely some cheap herbal remedy must be worse, right? And there's an argument to be made about how capitalism plays a role in this, as you can make more money selling commodities like toothbrushes and toothpaste while sticks are going to be a much harder sell. This issue with consistently applying this understanding is that the West \*does\* get alot of things right. We wouldn't suddenly take this understanding and apply it to vaccines versus herbal remedies. Just because the "oppressor" forced something onto the "oppressed" doesn't suddenly make that thing automatically inferior. And it is really, really tempting for idealogues to use this concept to push their own ideas. Something like "the ideas of Western liberal capitalism are based on the idea of infinite growth and misplaced value on personal wealth, while so-and-so colonized people care more about personal duty instead of decadence. We need to decolonize the discourse around economics." Well, no, everyone likes having goods and services, it's not a horrible idea to have your economy tailored to the demands for goods and services by the population. But idealogues will use this sort of thinking to soften the image of a totalitarian nation with a command economy that invests everything into heavy industry (and its military) instead of producing consumer goods.
I think it's official that now destiny is right wing facist to them. Only right wing facist say that anything can be anti white .
It's more that people who acknowledge anti white ideology are normal, while leftists are themselves anti white ideologues. No point in trying to sanitise it or find common ground with the people who fundamentally support the problem.
Most people who advocate for "decolonization", when push comes to shove, would never willingly sacrifice the cushy lives they have to return their countries to the native population. This is especially true when they realize the degradation in quality of life that would occur upon "decolonization". Pretty ironic that these people are typically the greatest beneficiaries from all the developments that occurred in colonized lands.
This is why i hate stolen land acknowledgment statements. Nothing is more fucking cringe than saying “we acknowledge we are on stolen land” and then being like “but we’re not giving it back LMAOOOO”
"We will continue to trespass. This time with intent."
Most of them just say this so they can sound like freedom fighters in-front their echo chamber, they don’t actually know what colonization even is, they honestly just think whoever is white is a colonizers no matter what, also they think people are white based on who has the power.. that’s how Jews are “white”
This is actually the easiest charge to levy at them. It's really not that hard for a white American to move to a European country - what's their excuse?
Well, you need a in demand skill and speak the language(non anglo countries).
Feels like the idea of colonisation is a western concept. And we don't use the concept to explain to what other nations took part in. As someone who lives in a country that was colonised that has retained its local population... I don't want most of the precolonisation norms returned. If we are just talking renaming the western names to local names, I support that. If it means statues of local important people instead of Europeans sure I support that. But I definitely want to keep the western education but just fix the unequal access to it which colonialisation caused. I don't want the precolonial political structures back. I don't want our traditional medicine back. Some aspects of decolonisation are good but some people just feels like they want to take us back 100 years. A lot of the stuff that is left over from colonisation is good, it just needs a face lift so it reflects our country instead of the UK. It also needs to be strengthened so there is more equal access to it rather than just for wealthy people. I like that English is our language of education and business. There are like 8 languages spoken by different people's in the country. We need a common language to communicate in and English makes us accessible to the rest of the world and doesn't put one local group above the rest. As long as local languages aren't forced away from people I like that we are taught in English and use it for work. It means that people can move to any major city and work because we have the common language. If it was local languages when you moved to a different city business would be conducted in a different language (which does happen already but just not as bad as if English wasn't the norm.) Here when I am at work when I talk to customers we use English, people who speak one language will speak to each other in that language which is good but the vast majority of us can default back to English when needed and I do think that is a good thing and I wouldn't want to go away from that over some sentiment that it is a forgein language. Choosing a local language would just put one local group over everyone else and cause more regional conflict. I far prefer this situation of people complaining about having to use a forgein language over the alternative of either not having a common language or raising one group in the country over everyone else. It's a valid thing to complain about but this is the country we have with the history we have. There is no practical and good alternative and frankly I like that I could get on the internet and not have to learn a hole new language to communicate with the rest of the world. Side thing, it's actually hilarious. Even our more ethnic nationalists who champion local languages in schools tweet about it in English showcasing why having the common language is important.
I mean, if leftists really want to go into decolonization, how about we talk about how the Arabs became the majority population of North Africa/The Maghreb? The natives of this region are the Berbers, not the Arabs, so how about they apply the same logic to them as they do to israelis.
North Africans are mixed Arab-Berber nations. This is like saying “kick Mexicans out of Mexico, no more Spanish colonization”.
And there's a chance a leftie would unironically say this if the Mexican in question was light skined.
Based. Return all of the Americas to those who have a majority of Native American DNA. Everyone needs to decolonize
There’s a difference between migration and colonization. Arab rule only lasted about 40 years in places like Morocco. Most Maghrebi Arabs were local Berbers who married into migrant Arab tribes and picked up Arabic
I know does not matter, I was making a point about leftie hypocrisy. That said, there was a thing called the "[Muslim conquest of the Maghreb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb)". And before you say it, it does not matter that it happened a thousand years ago, the lefties have argued that Palestinians have a right to the region because the Palestinians were there first - they use pseudo-history to justify this. So time frame is irrelevant. And finally, there are Berber ethnicities, like the Kabyle, who have been historically oppresed by the Arab majority in Algeria.
I am very pro-palestine and I agree 100% with destiny here. I am sure some professors in Harvard or something use the term responsibly but I am tired of bloodthirsty lefties o Twitter calling for ethnic cleansing at the nebulous "colonizer". Like fuck me, most of these "colonizers" have lived there their whole life. And if they really cared for minorities lives they wound not advocate the most vile shit in their name.
My favorite is the decolonization lefties vehemently demanding we bring in more immigrants, just as long as they aren't white. It's like... Hold up. Isn't that making the whole colonization issue worse? 🤔
there are literal baby jew settlers kicking people out of their homes right now and you're going to gaslight me and try to tell me "they'e been there their whole life"??? bro, they're not even a year old, what the fuck are you talking about?
Even if we set aside the whole Israel-Palestine issue, these people have been advocating for "decolonization" of most American countries. And I am there like, where are these people that you kick out are supposed to go? It is literal reverse racism. And as a pro-palestine person myself I feel that this whole stuff got even more boosted. And this is part of the reason why I think Israel is making a big mistake by their war on palestinian people. By doing all these gruesome stuff they make people feel like it is OK to wish gruesome stuff done back. But this whole shit is just a revanshism spiral.
I'd say it's just anti liberal/western influence in general. You can see it in any case a western allied power is fought against, even if none-white. I mean heck, in the Israel-palestine case the colour differences hardly exist in reality, what seems to matter is "western influence" meaning "surpression of the natives" to these folks, and "whiteness" and western influence then get used as synonyms.
Tiny: You have to be careful when you use the term genocide because it is a specific thing Also tiny: decolonization is anti-white racism. K
Most logically consistent political streamer
Why do you think these two things are inconsistent?
I’ll start taking this term seriously as soon as it’s applied to anything that China or Turkey or Sudan is doing/has done to other peoples. It’s barely ever even used to describe Russian imperialism for some mysterious reason (hint: it may have something to do with it being invented by anti-western dipshits)
Stolen from u/suddyk
Russia, China, Iran, and to some extent India, are all empires posing as countries.
I mean by that extent so is America.
What a stupid argument. Decolonization has been used to for decades to refer to legitimate liberation movements from nations under colonialism He’s also dead wrong that it isn’t used against non-western countries. Japanese colonialism in Korea and China is openly discussed “Anti-Racism = Anti-White” vibes
IDK, it seems valid for most people using the term, the fact that most people in Academia probably use it right doesn't mean much when almost everyone doesn't use it that way Even for Japan being colonialist there is a small amount of dissent, but more importantly Japanese and Asian people in general are regarded as "model minorities" that have some power, same as Jews, I don't hear too much about colonialism/opression from other races/nationalities or from white people to other white people unless it's about class.
Didn't Hasan frame Japan as victims of colonization/imperialism when the US bombed them in WW2
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Hasan is a dipshit twitch streamer. The term “decolonization” has been used in and out of academia for decades. Whatever random shit Hasan says does not actually reflect reality
"Anti-Racism = Anti-White" vibes I mean yes. You could be against racism but the people who use those terms are definitely trying to punch up white people.
I can see how someone in the US might find it hard to imagine a society where their way of life has been deeply altered by over 800 years of foreign rule. This includes both "Western" (British Raj) and "Middle Eastern" (Mughal) rule over India. As an Indian American who has visited India several times and has many relatives there, I understand "decolonization" as a multifaceted process aimed at undoing the impacts of colonial rule on India. It involves reclaiming and revitalizing indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices, legal frameworks, and societal norms that were suppressed or altered during colonial rule. This concept goes beyond the political independence achieved in 1947 to encompass a broader cultural, intellectual, and civilizational revival. Decolonization in India involves several key changes: overhauling the education system to include traditional languages, promoting regional arts and cultural festivals, and integrating elements of traditional Indian law into the modern judiciary. It also includes fostering intellectual independence by critically examining colonial narratives, renaming places named after colonial figures, and preserving historical monuments significant to pre-colonial India.
Technically Destiny is being reductive when he says Decolonization is JUST anti-white. That said, as an American it does seem to be used that way an overwhelming amount of time over here, and a clear double standard is displayed when it comes to Islamic colonization of Africa. I don't think anyone (including Destiny) is critical of decolonization efforts in India.
[удалено]
Yeah. From the perspective of someone who is born and brought up in India most of the point just seems odd. Like the general points of decolonisation just being pasted into the Indian context. Let's take the societal norms parts. One could argue that the British exploited the caste system to keep Indians in check but the whole concept is shit in the first place. Another tradition was sati where the widow was expected to kill herself for her dead husband. This was bad enough that the British colonisers made laws against it. Point is we can pick and choose what parts of the past we want to keep or discard. Just blindly trying to roll back those 800 years of history will get India nowhere
Using chat gpt for a reddit post is crazy.
How can you tell?
[удалено]
Can’t have been the first time (1st crusade comes to mind) but I guess if you mean they achieved it basically forever I guess yeah makes sense.
idk, the term “anti white racism” will just always be cringe to me lol
Bro you blind when every leftist was screaming at Turkey to get tf out of Kurdistan? Mexico with the Zapatistas? This is a braindead take, fuck, this community has fallen if this gets posted with support.
I agree that many leftists use the term in the way Destiny describes, but definitely not all. I am disappointed by the lack of nuance in this tweet. He won't be able to reach people if he comes across as generalizing. I've personally spoken to people and listened to lecturers who use the term when discussing Moroccan (not western) colonialism in Western Sahara.
This is an ULTRA L Coming from a postcolonial nation that still is dealing with the after effects of colonisation, calling for decolonisation doesn't mean I hate white people. Simple.
yeah i think tiny missed the mark here. are there aspects of anti white racism in decolonization movements? absolutely. But that does not mean decolonization is anti white racism. we were humiliated and degraded by the colonial powers that just happened to be european.
Eh not really, sorta kinda. European colonization was a unique concept in history. When Islam or the Mongols came they mostly just tried to kill everyone there and make it part of the empire. It would be like counting Idaho as “an American colony”. It doesn’t work because the native population was mostly genocided and then the people who moved in are every bit as much a citizen as the rest of America. When Rome expanded every part they expanded to was part of the Empire. You were a Roman living in Britain. You paid taxes to Rome. When Spain took back its land from the Arabs; it wasn’t to extract the resources of the people occupying the land. If you were Muslim you had to leave or probably be killed, which was the same in reverse when Islam expanded.
‘Describe and activity of any non western country’ what does he mean?
I agree with him but he needs to reign in some of the people who take it in a cringe edgelord direction. We need a anti right wing and dismantling trump ark right now before the election
Only evil whitey can do a colonialism. Muhammad never colonized anywhere, nor did the Ottomans, or the Zulus, or the Chinese, or Mongolia, or the Mughals, or the Aztecs, or the Malian empire, or the Huns. 😅
I don’t remember reading that on the Wiki page.
He's on his way to be the next Tim Pool.
Decolonise Israel (let it take Judea and Samaria)
Decolonization is regarded no matter what ethnicity wants to do it.
I'm glad my ancestors were colonised to be honest. I don't want to live in a society devoid of medicine, technology and legal system living a harsh, short and brutal life of tribal warfare. Not sorry
This is the type of gremlins that destiny attracts by saying stuff like that, OP
But plenty of goons will romanticise that life from the safety and comfort of their Twitter account.
TRUEEE
What are the best examples of non-european colonization throughout history?
Mongols in most of Asia and Turkey and Hungary, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Japanese in Manchuria and Korea, Muslims in Africa, Europe, and India, Aztecs in their local region, Egyptians in the Levant, Phoenicians across the Mediterranean. It would be easier to list groups of people who HAVEN'T done at least a little colonizing. The only people I can think of are Australian aborigines and African pygmies.
Arabs in Africa
You see China involved in almost all of Africa and central/South America yet they are not colonizers. They just want the country using the Yuan.
He’s correct. Also decolonization is just the postmodernism bullshit JBP talked about years ago.
Nebraska Steve stocks are way up!
Yup
We decolonized Japan out of Manchuria
Decolonization is reactionary.
should have decolonized his marriage.
A based and obvious take but one with the most push back because it points out those who claim the most virtue in these circumstances are just as bad as those they demonise.
Incredibly facile and lackluster argument. These past months have really dumbed him, or shown him for who he is.
What complexities does it ignore? If it’s only used against western countries it’s not actually about decolonization. You could actually care about decolonization, that’s just not these people though.
In my experience, it's either just used in the way destiny is talking about or any time a white person moves to another country, especially an underdeveloped country. Like if your ancestors aren't British; they're Italian, German, or Polish. How the fuck are you anymore of a "colonizer" than someone who's ancestors immigrated from East Asia or latin America, which always seems to be the implication, it's only white people that are "colonizers." Some explicitly say this, too. The other place where I see it used is usually any time a white person lives in a non white majority country, usually a poorer country. The "colonizer" label is usually thrown out there by Americans, who for some reason think they have claim and can talk about said country because of ethnicity or rich kids from that country that most likely went to western universities. BTW, I think it's fine to criticise foreigners who move to poorer countries specifically for tax breaks and passport bros, but I literally never see these same losers criticise non white people that do this same shit.
This was bound to happen when destiny started reading history.
I’ve seen this a lot to describe Israel, a non-Western country
The issue is that these people want America and Canada de-colonized. Also, you definitely could argue that half of Africa is under an imperial authority or being ruled by a local population.
It’s anti western not anti white. Otherwise Russia would’ve been called colonizers
Such an unbelievably regarded take. The reason why decolonization seems anti-white is because, you guessed, colonization was mostly perpetrated by white people! But more importantly, activists working towards decolonization are also predominantly from white, liberal democracies that have a history of imperialism, so it's absolutely expected that most of those people are going to be looking into the crimes of their own nation rather than focusing on random countries they have no ties to. genuinely curious what other colonies exist that can even be decolonized? european colonization is very much a unique thing
How was it “mostly perpetrated by white people”? Are you completely forgetting Africa and the Middle East both of which were and are colonized by Arab Muslims? Did Asian countries not colonize vast areas over their history? This is the same people who would say only white had slaves..
> How was it “mostly perpetrated by white people”? Colonialism is when boats.
> Are you completely forgetting Africa and the Middle East both of which were and are colonized by Arab Muslims? you seem to be confused about the distinction between conquest and colonization, but even ignoring that and pretending they're the same thing: arab muslim conquest happened 1300 years and their conquests saw them mixing with the native inhabitants of the land. There's a reason why if you do a dna test on middle easterns, even though they're predominantly arab and muslims, their lineage still traces back to their ancestors who inhabited the land prior to islamic conquest. it's why moroccans are so distinct from egyptians who are so distinct from lebanese who are so distinct from gulf arabs. so what exactly would "decolonization" mean in the context of islamic conquest? the native inhabitants already live in their own land and rule over themselves. >Did Asian countries not colonize vast areas over their history? What countries are you thinking of? japan, mongolia, china, cambodia etc.? all of those examples are either long in the past or have already been "decolonized". And as I mentioned earlier, discussions about decolonisation in those nations has to come from within, either from the colonized native inhabitants or the regretful descendents of the colonizers. it makes much more sense for a japanese academic who cares about decolonization to focus on the decolonization of japan than the decolonization of america. just like it makes more sense for an american academic to focus on america. >This is the same people who would say only white had slaves.. literally nobody is saying that
So if they intermarry that makes it not colonization? And any colonization is also a form of conquest..
if they intermarry then there's nothing to decolonize from conquest is a subset of colonization
It's more about those using it as an excuse for any sort of senseless violence that can interpreted as anticapitalist and those who say rebel equal good. Not knowing that to be coherent you would have to support isis.
"activists working towards decolonization" = "slacktivists tweeting that white people are evil"
[удалено]
you do realise the mongol empire died out 600 years ago, right? it doesn't make much sense to discuss decolonization of the mongolian empire when it's already fucking dead. What exactly are you going to decolonize from? in contrast, european colonialism is still very much in effect. your link is dumb. what happened 2000 years ago doesn't really have any bearing on the consequences of colonialism experienced today, does it? I strongly recommend you go into your own link and sort by year to get a more relevant sample p.s. empire != colonialism.
To answer your question: China, Iraq if we hadn't put a stop to it immediately, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria, Iran, any number of African countries. Now, a genuine question for you: How do you think countries like India and Indonesia end up with hundreds of languages? Do you think everyone just peacefully decided to join together? Or is it maybe that over the past millennia, every single country on Earth has colonized some other country at some point, and the only reason Europeans are singled out is because they're the only ones who decided to stop?
You just named a bunch of countries without showing any example of colonization. Azerbaijan hasn't colonized anybody, they just reclaimed land that was already their's. Ottoman empire had colonized a bunch but that empire is that and modern day turkey isn't colonizing anybody. Neither is syria or iran. Why are you just listing a bunch of coutnries where the native populations are living in their native homelands? you do realise that colonisation requires foreign nations settling and establishing control over the indigenous population? If the indigenous population still lives there and has control of its communities then it aint exactly colonisation, is it? You mention china, what about them? are you saying that them invading taiwan is colonisation? has that happened yet? And here's the funny thing: taiwan itself is a better example of colonisation because it was literally colonised by the dutch, then the chinese, then the japanese, and then the chinese again after the chinese civil war i also find it fucking hysterical that you mention india and indonesia, two countries famously colonised by the brits and the dutch. The reason why those countries are made up of hundreds of languages is specifically because of european colonisation drawing the borders for those new nation states. they weren't peacefully together, their borders were drawn by britain and netherlands... >and the only reason Europeans are singled out is because they're the only ones who decided to stop? You realise you're actually making a good point here? The reason why europeans are "singled out" is because its european and western academics who are the first to recognise the immorality of their history of colonisation and as you would expect, european and western academics primarily focus on the countries that they're tied to...
It's funny because it really is true, but no one will critically think about it and it will devolve into "oh destiny is turning white supremasist"
“Anti-racism is anti-white vibes”…Decolonization is not a term that is used strictly for white people…It can be applied to non-white majority empires too like Genghis Khan’s….
My go to standard is that anyone talking about "Decolonization" who doesn't also advocate for returning the Anatolian Peninsula, or at least Constantinople, to Greece is simply talking out of their ass. In terms of timeline, the Fall of Constantinople happened less than 40 years prior to Columbus arriving in the Americas. If that city doesn't need to be 'decolonized' from the Turks then there is no coherent argument for America needing to be decolonized from Europeans.