| |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you consider the historic Arabic expansion across the middle east to be colonial, or is colonialism when boats? | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure what you mean by "when boats" exactly it why you used that phrasing, but it seems like an attempt at pre-emptively mocking a strawman, framing it as childish. That's not very nice rhetoric, is it? These terms are well defined and it would serve you well to simply consult a dictionary. But in short colonialism implies the use of colonies (surprise surprise) meaning the use of settlers to control or displace populations. There from comes the name It also differs from other forms of expansionism in a few important ways. - The power class structure is built on trade imbalances which move resources from the colonised land to the metropole without building up local economies. - There's no absorption, the territories tend to remain separate and the colonised people can't become citizens or equals with those colonising them. - And it's understood when speaking about things like the "colonial era" or "historical colonialism" that there was a deal of racial justification and stratification along racial lines. You'll quickly be able to compare this list to whatever historical event you like. | | |
| ▲ | DemocracyFTW2 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can mock the grammar of "only colonialism when boats", but AFAIK when the Soviet Union accused some Western power of engaging in colonialism and got "well, you have your Central Asian dependencies" as an answer, they were quick to refine their definition of "colonialism" to include a "transmaritime" checkbox. So, yeah. FWIW there have been those who accused modern nation states of practicing "internal colonialism" in the sense that oftentimes all the money, support and political representation goes overwhelmingly to some select places while the rest of the country is treated as a convenient reservoir of cheap labor. |
|
| |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That requires buying into the very concept that "colonialism" is a specific sin different (and worse) from ye olde "I am stronger than you and will occupy your territory and take your wealth". I have even met people who claim that Russian expansion into Siberia was not colonialism, because it wasn't done using ships. I don't really buy it. It feels to me as unnatural as if somebody decided that theft of, say, a smartphone, was a separate and much graver offence than theft of anything else. It only makes sense to me if there is an underlying ideology, or maybe very practical demands for reparations which shouldn't be hindered by other demands for reparations, and thus the others need to be downgraded pre-emptively. It may also come handy for distraction from domestic governance failures, such as bad security situation, rolling blackouts, subpar maintenance of infrastructure and endemic corruption. "Hey, don't look into this, you know how bad the colonialists were?" (Fairly similar to the way the contemporary Russian propaganda tries to pin the failure of their current war of aggression on anyone and anything but their own stupid decision to go all in.) | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That requires buying into the very concept that "colonialism" is a specific sin different (and worse) from ye olde "I am stronger than you and will occupy your territory and take your wealth". It does, yes, and completely reasonably so. That's why it has a different name. > .. as if somebody decided that theft of, say, a smartphone, was a separate and much graver offence... Yes, it is like that indeed and I'm sure you'll recognise the difference between intellectual property theft and the theft of a car, or the difference between stealing food from a supermarket and stealing food from a beggar. > I don't really buy it > It only makes sense to me if there is an underlying ideology Ok? Maybe read some more about it. Right now it feels like you're the one pushing an ideology without really making an argument for it. > It may also come handy for distraction from domestic governance failures Yes, it might. Governments have a host of ways to distract the public from issues. That doesn't change the reality of the history of, or contemporary effects of, colonialism. > ... similar to the way the contemporary Russian propaganda ... Boogeyman argument and an emotional appeal. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have read quite a lot about it and my conclusion is what I wrote above. A mostly ideological distinction without real difference - even less difference than your examples of theft (intellectual property aside - that is not theft by any definition, but infringement). People have always tried to conquer other territories, make use of them and settle them. To make an artificial slice out of this continuous and omnipresent phenomenon and call it by another name is incoherent, but then ideologies are mostly incoherent, and colonialism as a very specific sin was a very good and efficient argument in Cold War propaganda and its struggle for influence in the Third World. Soviets excelled in propaganda, and many of their ideas (like AIDS being an artificial disease, unilateral nuclear disarmament, or the fake contrast between colonialism and membership in the Socialist Bloc) survived the fall of the country. That said, a very similar line was already pushed by the Japanese in order to paint their own brutal empire as some kind of Pan-Asian utopia. But their trace in global discourse is negligible to the Soviet one, which was much more sophisticated and long-lasting. |
|
|
|
#/media/Soubor:2014_Most_gotycki_i_kościół_MBR_w_Kłodzku.jpg){kind=link}