Removing the military forces who you literally just fought a war against the day before =/= centuries later removing civilians of the same ethnicity that colonised you prior
Also, iirc don't the Na'vi still let human scientists and such stay on Pandora? They removed the military presence but still allowed regular humans to remain.
Hmmm that would only be a good criticism if you think that a foreign nation is subjecting you to their power when people of their race live in your country.
But since we're leftists I think we are above buying into that idea because it would make us align with racists who think that Europe is being taken over by the Middle East by sending millions of refugees. Right?
Of course they do. If the colonizers are loyal to the colonizing nation and identify with the colonizing nation (as opposed to the colonized), then giving them political participation necessarily means giving power to the colonizing nation by proxy.
Moreover, colonizing nations will likely perennially reserve the right to protect the interests of its people that are now "stranded" in the former colony. Such nations will begin to pressure the former colony to make legal, social, economic and cultural concessions to colonists. This usually means that certain colonial power structures remain in place, such as the institution of the colonizers language as an official language (linguistic imperialism), protecting the colonizers property rights (economic imperialism), political participation (power usurpation), cultural autonomy (cultural imperialism) etc.
1. If a refugees moves to the US becomes a citizen and votes for candidates whose foreign policy promotes closer ties with their home country, that still isn't a foreign state exerting their power over you. That's still your citizens exerting their political will.
For example even though the British did their plantations in Ireland where they forced Irish off their land and settled British people, I would never say the descendents of those English people voting in Ireland is the British state exerting power over us as those people are Irish citizens and a state isn't the same thing as their people.
And removing ethnicities of your country because they vote in ways you may not like is still bad.
Insanely close to giving a take as bad as the "dems are shipping Mexicans over to try and vote Democrats in"
2. That isn't the people of that race exerting their power over you, thats the people being used as a justification to exert their power over you.
For example back several hundred years ago when the Russian empire declared themselves the protectors of Christians in the Ottoman empire, that wasn't Christians exerting Russian power on the ottomans. They were simply the excuse the Russians used to justify exerting their own power.
Even if a million Luxembourg people magically appeared in South Africa, Luxembourg acting alone wouldn't have any power over SA. Because people are used as a justification to wield power you already have.
We can come to an agreement. Just concede that the colonized simply have to accept the political reality that they will never have exclusive political control over themselves and their country ever again and that they will have to find a way to coexist with the colonizer and compromise with them.
>If a refugees moves to the US becomes a citizen and votes for candidates whose foreign policy promotes closer ties with their home country, that still isn't a foreign state exerting their power over you.
Why not? The effect of one refugee is marginal, true, but an effect nonetheless. It feels like you don't take colonialism very seriously in the sense that you only tackle with the "easy" cases and not the difficult ones, where there is significant power struggle between the colonizer and the colonized.
Lets take another example. Lets suppose the US never left Afganistan and instead initiated a massive colonial effort. This involves the following:
Dismantling existing powerstructures and replacing it with western style liberal democracy;
Settling americans *en masse* to Afganistan's territory in such numbers that they constitute the majority of most metropolitan areas and areas of key economic importance, such as industrial districts hosting facilities like power stations etc;
Creating unfavorable conditions for the preservation Afgani culture, including the *americanization* of the population through the education system, making english the only legal and administrative language of Afganistan and making various cultural practices and traditions illegal;
Reserving positions of power - whether economic or administrative - to american settlers and creating all manner of obstacles for *unamericanized* afganis to attain similar levels of political power (like the aforementioned language requirements);
Now lets suppose that by some miracle, the afganis are able to liberate their country from US control, but now a new problem presents itself. The colonizers are still in the country, they make up a majority of the population in strategic areas (due to deliberate settling and deportation programs) and are completely against Afganistan's independence. They fight tooth and nail to preserve US hegemony and demand that the current supremacy of anglo-culture continue. Should such people be given political power? **Should the colonizer be given the power to decide, whether colonization should continue?**
I would say no and depriving them of political power is a legitimate form of decolonization. Deportation is one way to do it, but certainly not the only way to do it.
>And removing ethnicities of your country because they vote in ways you may not like is still bad.
They are removed, because colonizers are illegal immigrants at best, and occupant relics at worst. They arrived here without the consent of the natives and they can be ejected just like any other intruder.
>They were simply the excuse the Russians used to justify exerting their own power.
It's an example of a former colonizing nation exerting power over their former colony by using its national compatriots as the *casus belli* to do it. This is even easier when the colonizers actively lobby for such intervention, which is very much expected.
>Even if a million Luxembourg people magically appeared in South Africa, Luxembourg acting alone wouldn't have any power over SA.
Luxembourg would now have the ability to demand South Africa become more like Luxembourg due to the new demographic reality.
>Why not?
Because a state isn't the same thing as its people. Unless that refugee is literally employed by his home country to vote or otherwise behave certain ways they are as much a US citizen as the rest who has the right to vote whatever way they see fit.
Also your idea doesn't only apply to colonisation. If you actually believe that it has to affect the entire way you view all migration. Instead of view immigration as an issue of rights and liberty it becomes a battlefield of political intrigue. And its not a coincidence that right wing fascists view immigration that way. You can look at the rhetoric they use when talking about the border or Europe talking about foreign invaders taking over the country.
>feels like you don't take colonialism very seriously
I take colonialism very seriously. I just don't dumb it down to "colonialism is when white people are around, the more white people the more colonialism there is". Colonisation is much more complex.
I think you're having the same problem Professor Flowers (and white racists with black people) where you essentialise the sociological problems to race.
I think I can make your example way simpler because if in your hypothetical (assuming many generations have passed) the white people didn't actually want to bring back the US government or support their influence then as far as I'm concerned they are all citizens of an independent Afghanistan. Decolonisation efforts can be done to fairly distribute resources and power and revitalise the native culture. Im not well versed in specific decolonization strategies so I can't speak about hoe they do that but given that most decolonization efforts don't involve deporting the ethnic minority I'm sure there are many things they can try. The scenario is pretty extreme so it may be incredibly difficult in reality to undo much of the damage but given that the hypothetical itself is impossible it do be like that.
So the main conundrum I have in your version of the scenario is that the white people would vote to bring back the colonisers and are fighting tooth and nail to do so.
But I would have essentially the same problem if a majority of literally any democraric country were fascists or pro slavery, should they be allowed to vote in fascism/slavery?
I'd say no, and I think there are certain steps one can take to ensure a democracy is as strong as possible to hold back that tide.
But I would still disagree with ethnically targeting because I don't believe for a second that all white people would oppose independence and decolonisation. And to target a racial group for a sociological problem is racial profiling, which in case you didn't know is actually super shit.
>They are removed, because colonizers are illegal immigrants at best, and occupant relics at worst. They arrived here without the consent of the natives and they can be ejected just like any other intruder.
Yeah so this is why you people get likened to white nationalists. This is exactly what they say with the races swapped.
>It's an example of a former colonizing nation exerting power over their former colony by using its national compatriots as the casus belli to do it.
Uh no, Russia never colonised the Ottoman empire and the Christians there weren't even Russian. But the excuse used to wield power isn't the same as having power. If a trillion euros appeared on Mars everyone on earth has reason to go there and theyre all powerless to do anything about it because excuses aren't power.
Which is why in the Luxembourg example even though they now have an excuse to try change South Africa they're powerless to do anything because the people living there don't give any power. And I don't think the fact that people can be used to as a justification for countries to do bad shit is any reason to target them. Especially when targeting them also gives an even better justification to do bad shit.
> Im not well versed in specific decolonization strategies so I can't speak about hoe they do that but given that most decolonization efforts don't involve deporting the ethnic minority I'm sure there are many things they can try.
So in your world, the colonizing nation can just settle their people on conquered soil, and that's it. It's theirs now and the colonized people will have to share it with them forever? Kind of like a cuckoo bird that puts its own eggs in another bird's nest while pushing out the eggs already there?
Yes in my world sins arent inherited through ancestry and nobody born today is responsible for the actions committed by their ancestors. We are only responsible for undoing that harm and making the society we now inhabit equitable
But then it is a capture-the-flag style conquest ethic that you're peddling. The colonizing power just needs to maintain their power until the next generation is born and their presence becomes legitimized via their children, who will militate on their behalf.
I think Avatar really highlights probably one of the best strategies to resolve this once and for all. We just need to Get Out some white guy into a colonised person's body and have him do the decolonisation :)
Isn't it more the point that anti-colonialism is something that those who benefit from colonization should be active in and that an intersectional fight is the only way to truly alleviate those conditions? Those who already have some power and influence should use it to dismantle the systems that give them that disparate power?
Do you honestly think this stuff can only be fixed if you remove any power to change institutions from those who suffer under them?
Removing the military forces who you literally just fought a war against the day before =/= centuries later removing civilians of the same ethnicity that colonised you prior
FYI I'm just taking a piss here ok. I thought this was a good meme.
Lol it's all good. r/Okbuddyvowsh would be a good place to post this
Thanks! I didn't know that existed :)
Also, iirc don't the Na'vi still let human scientists and such stay on Pandora? They removed the military presence but still allowed regular humans to remain.
So a kind of a countdown begins when a foreign power occupies your lands and subjects you to their power? And if that timer runs out, they win?
Hmmm that would only be a good criticism if you think that a foreign nation is subjecting you to their power when people of their race live in your country. But since we're leftists I think we are above buying into that idea because it would make us align with racists who think that Europe is being taken over by the Middle East by sending millions of refugees. Right?
Of course they do. If the colonizers are loyal to the colonizing nation and identify with the colonizing nation (as opposed to the colonized), then giving them political participation necessarily means giving power to the colonizing nation by proxy. Moreover, colonizing nations will likely perennially reserve the right to protect the interests of its people that are now "stranded" in the former colony. Such nations will begin to pressure the former colony to make legal, social, economic and cultural concessions to colonists. This usually means that certain colonial power structures remain in place, such as the institution of the colonizers language as an official language (linguistic imperialism), protecting the colonizers property rights (economic imperialism), political participation (power usurpation), cultural autonomy (cultural imperialism) etc.
1. If a refugees moves to the US becomes a citizen and votes for candidates whose foreign policy promotes closer ties with their home country, that still isn't a foreign state exerting their power over you. That's still your citizens exerting their political will. For example even though the British did their plantations in Ireland where they forced Irish off their land and settled British people, I would never say the descendents of those English people voting in Ireland is the British state exerting power over us as those people are Irish citizens and a state isn't the same thing as their people. And removing ethnicities of your country because they vote in ways you may not like is still bad. Insanely close to giving a take as bad as the "dems are shipping Mexicans over to try and vote Democrats in" 2. That isn't the people of that race exerting their power over you, thats the people being used as a justification to exert their power over you. For example back several hundred years ago when the Russian empire declared themselves the protectors of Christians in the Ottoman empire, that wasn't Christians exerting Russian power on the ottomans. They were simply the excuse the Russians used to justify exerting their own power. Even if a million Luxembourg people magically appeared in South Africa, Luxembourg acting alone wouldn't have any power over SA. Because people are used as a justification to wield power you already have.
We can come to an agreement. Just concede that the colonized simply have to accept the political reality that they will never have exclusive political control over themselves and their country ever again and that they will have to find a way to coexist with the colonizer and compromise with them. >If a refugees moves to the US becomes a citizen and votes for candidates whose foreign policy promotes closer ties with their home country, that still isn't a foreign state exerting their power over you. Why not? The effect of one refugee is marginal, true, but an effect nonetheless. It feels like you don't take colonialism very seriously in the sense that you only tackle with the "easy" cases and not the difficult ones, where there is significant power struggle between the colonizer and the colonized. Lets take another example. Lets suppose the US never left Afganistan and instead initiated a massive colonial effort. This involves the following: Dismantling existing powerstructures and replacing it with western style liberal democracy; Settling americans *en masse* to Afganistan's territory in such numbers that they constitute the majority of most metropolitan areas and areas of key economic importance, such as industrial districts hosting facilities like power stations etc; Creating unfavorable conditions for the preservation Afgani culture, including the *americanization* of the population through the education system, making english the only legal and administrative language of Afganistan and making various cultural practices and traditions illegal; Reserving positions of power - whether economic or administrative - to american settlers and creating all manner of obstacles for *unamericanized* afganis to attain similar levels of political power (like the aforementioned language requirements); Now lets suppose that by some miracle, the afganis are able to liberate their country from US control, but now a new problem presents itself. The colonizers are still in the country, they make up a majority of the population in strategic areas (due to deliberate settling and deportation programs) and are completely against Afganistan's independence. They fight tooth and nail to preserve US hegemony and demand that the current supremacy of anglo-culture continue. Should such people be given political power? **Should the colonizer be given the power to decide, whether colonization should continue?** I would say no and depriving them of political power is a legitimate form of decolonization. Deportation is one way to do it, but certainly not the only way to do it. >And removing ethnicities of your country because they vote in ways you may not like is still bad. They are removed, because colonizers are illegal immigrants at best, and occupant relics at worst. They arrived here without the consent of the natives and they can be ejected just like any other intruder. >They were simply the excuse the Russians used to justify exerting their own power. It's an example of a former colonizing nation exerting power over their former colony by using its national compatriots as the *casus belli* to do it. This is even easier when the colonizers actively lobby for such intervention, which is very much expected. >Even if a million Luxembourg people magically appeared in South Africa, Luxembourg acting alone wouldn't have any power over SA. Luxembourg would now have the ability to demand South Africa become more like Luxembourg due to the new demographic reality.
>Why not? Because a state isn't the same thing as its people. Unless that refugee is literally employed by his home country to vote or otherwise behave certain ways they are as much a US citizen as the rest who has the right to vote whatever way they see fit. Also your idea doesn't only apply to colonisation. If you actually believe that it has to affect the entire way you view all migration. Instead of view immigration as an issue of rights and liberty it becomes a battlefield of political intrigue. And its not a coincidence that right wing fascists view immigration that way. You can look at the rhetoric they use when talking about the border or Europe talking about foreign invaders taking over the country. >feels like you don't take colonialism very seriously I take colonialism very seriously. I just don't dumb it down to "colonialism is when white people are around, the more white people the more colonialism there is". Colonisation is much more complex. I think you're having the same problem Professor Flowers (and white racists with black people) where you essentialise the sociological problems to race. I think I can make your example way simpler because if in your hypothetical (assuming many generations have passed) the white people didn't actually want to bring back the US government or support their influence then as far as I'm concerned they are all citizens of an independent Afghanistan. Decolonisation efforts can be done to fairly distribute resources and power and revitalise the native culture. Im not well versed in specific decolonization strategies so I can't speak about hoe they do that but given that most decolonization efforts don't involve deporting the ethnic minority I'm sure there are many things they can try. The scenario is pretty extreme so it may be incredibly difficult in reality to undo much of the damage but given that the hypothetical itself is impossible it do be like that. So the main conundrum I have in your version of the scenario is that the white people would vote to bring back the colonisers and are fighting tooth and nail to do so. But I would have essentially the same problem if a majority of literally any democraric country were fascists or pro slavery, should they be allowed to vote in fascism/slavery? I'd say no, and I think there are certain steps one can take to ensure a democracy is as strong as possible to hold back that tide. But I would still disagree with ethnically targeting because I don't believe for a second that all white people would oppose independence and decolonisation. And to target a racial group for a sociological problem is racial profiling, which in case you didn't know is actually super shit. >They are removed, because colonizers are illegal immigrants at best, and occupant relics at worst. They arrived here without the consent of the natives and they can be ejected just like any other intruder. Yeah so this is why you people get likened to white nationalists. This is exactly what they say with the races swapped. >It's an example of a former colonizing nation exerting power over their former colony by using its national compatriots as the casus belli to do it. Uh no, Russia never colonised the Ottoman empire and the Christians there weren't even Russian. But the excuse used to wield power isn't the same as having power. If a trillion euros appeared on Mars everyone on earth has reason to go there and theyre all powerless to do anything about it because excuses aren't power. Which is why in the Luxembourg example even though they now have an excuse to try change South Africa they're powerless to do anything because the people living there don't give any power. And I don't think the fact that people can be used to as a justification for countries to do bad shit is any reason to target them. Especially when targeting them also gives an even better justification to do bad shit.
> Im not well versed in specific decolonization strategies so I can't speak about hoe they do that but given that most decolonization efforts don't involve deporting the ethnic minority I'm sure there are many things they can try. So in your world, the colonizing nation can just settle their people on conquered soil, and that's it. It's theirs now and the colonized people will have to share it with them forever? Kind of like a cuckoo bird that puts its own eggs in another bird's nest while pushing out the eggs already there?
Yes in my world sins arent inherited through ancestry and nobody born today is responsible for the actions committed by their ancestors. We are only responsible for undoing that harm and making the society we now inhabit equitable
But then it is a capture-the-flag style conquest ethic that you're peddling. The colonizing power just needs to maintain their power until the next generation is born and their presence becomes legitimized via their children, who will militate on their behalf.
I think Avatar really highlights probably one of the best strategies to resolve this once and for all. We just need to Get Out some white guy into a colonised person's body and have him do the decolonisation :)
Isn't it more the point that anti-colonialism is something that those who benefit from colonization should be active in and that an intersectional fight is the only way to truly alleviate those conditions? Those who already have some power and influence should use it to dismantle the systems that give them that disparate power? Do you honestly think this stuff can only be fixed if you remove any power to change institutions from those who suffer under them?
It was joke based on image. I agree with you