White Imperialism vs non White Imperialism

[tradeunionsupporter]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right ? Also they claim that non Whites have tried to take over Europe therefor why should Europe has to take in non Whites because of European Imperialism they point to Asian and Arab Imperialism of the past and the Moors or the Huns or the Japanese Imperialism during WW2 but in my opinion while it is true that there have been non White empires and Imperialism I don't think the non Whites did it because of race or racism the White Capitalist Imperialists were Racists and enslaved non Whites but the White nationalists say that Muslim Arabs enslaved Black Africans but I don't think they did it because of race. Also I have heard Marxists say that Capitalism created the idea of race and racism does anyone know any links with proof of this ?

[ComradeMan]

Racism did not produce capitalism, more like modern racism is a result of capitalism.

However, breaking things down into race issues when we should be thinking about class issues is perhaps playing into the racism game.

Japan can hardly accuse when it comes to allegations of racism for example.

[hatzel]

...well that's a devilishly rambling, impenetrable post, isn't It? Most people would use more than three instances of punctuation in a post of this length, but...okay, let's see what we can do:


am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White landsIf that's how you decide who has the 'right' to live in Britain, then you might have some serious ideological issues. Non-whites don't have the 'right' to live in Britain because Britain once had an empire, that's absolutely stupid. Switzerland didn't have an empire, does that mean all the blacks and Muslims and so on there are supposed to fuck off 'home', wherever that's supposed to be, as they don't have this reciprocal 'right' to live in Switzerland?

That's the only actual point I could pluck out of that post. The rest just seems to be nonsensical blabbering...sorry...

[ComradeMan]

To be quite honest I don't really like the whole idea of people having "rights" to live anywhere (or not having "rights")- if you see what I mean?

[L.A.P.]

What!?

[Robert]

I don't really like the whole idea of people having "rights" to live anywhere

Welcome to the dark side, man. Took you long enough! :)

[Blackscare]

Tradeunionsupporter, this is actually one of your better posts considering you didn't make the title a large run-on sentence that just cuts off when the character limit is reached, and I think I even see a -few- punctuation marks in this one, but it's still very hard to read and honestly, most people are just going to be discouraged from even reading what it is you have to say if they have to spend 5 minutes decoding it.


Please, make *some* kind of an effort to make your posts readable.

[ComradeMan]

To be quite honest I don't really like the whole idea of people having "rights" to live anywhere (or not having "rights")- if you see what I mean?

Saying people have a right to one place to live and de facto not to another together with barring other people, usually based on the accident of birth and/or genetic rights is at best reactionary and at worst statism that often leads to racism.

People should be allowed to live wherever they want without restriction.

[hatzel]

Really? So what progressive-minded alternative are you proposing here, an all-white Britain?

The comment was working on the assumption that non-whites already have a 'right' to live in Britain. Claiming that this 'right' is because of historical imperialism is stupid, not the 'right' in itself. I just assumed that nobody would think I would say "Britain once had an empire, therefore non-whites have no 'right' to live in Britain", there being absolutely no logical framework to support that suggestion. I thought we'd be above such assumptions, but I admit my sentence was technically ambiguous, and could have meant that, sure...in isolation...clarity next time!

[RGacky3]

Quote:
I don't really like the whole idea of people having "rights" to live anywhere
Welcome to the dark side, man. Took you long enough! :)


Yet you (Robert) are in favor of people having rights to stop people from living places, kind of hypocritical don't you think?

[Dimentio]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right ? Also they claim that non Whites have tried to take over Europe therefor why should Europe has to take in non Whites because of European Imperialism they point to Asian and Arab Imperialism of the past and the Moors or the Huns or the Japanese Imperialism during WW2 but in my opinion while it is true that there have been non White empires and Imperialism I don't think the non Whites did it because of race or racism the White Capitalist Imperialists were Racists and enslaved non Whites but the White nationalists say that Muslim Arabs enslaved Black Africans but I don't think they did it because of race. Also I have heard Marxists say that Capitalism created the idea of race and racism does anyone know any links with proof of this ?

He has officially owned you.

You are playing on his corner of the field right now, with collective identities based around ethnic origin.

Also, you are wrong about slavery. The West Europeans did not enslave Africans because of race, but because of money. The same with Arab slave dealers (and traditionally, Arabs view themselves as white).

[hatzel]

He has officially owned you.

I don't think it would be particularly difficult to own somebody who is totally incomprehensible...it's somewhat important to be able to string a sentence together if you're going to win an argument...irrespective of what ideas you may or may not have, there's a reason why concepts such as oratory exist...

[ComradeMan]

Yet you (Robert) are in favor of people having rights to stop people from living places, kind of hypocritical don't you think?




Saying people have a right to one place to live and de facto not to another together with barring other people, usually based on the accident of birth and/or genetic rights is at best reactionary and at worst statism that often leads to racism.

People should be allowed to live wherever they want without restriction.


In case my position was not clear.

[#FF0000]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right ?

People have the right to live wherever they want because they have legs and can get there. That's pretty much it. Someone non-white has every right to move to Western Europe. Whether or not white people are native or non-white people aren't has nothing to do with it.

[ComradeMan]

People have the right to live wherever they want because they have legs and can get there. That's pretty much it. Someone non-white has every right to move to Western Europe. Whether or not white people are native or non-white people aren't has nothing to do with it.

What about snakes? :lol:

But yeah. That's what I meant too.

[#FF0000]

Snakes need to get the fuck out. St Patrick had the right idea.

[ComradeMan]

Snakes need to get the fuck out. St Patrick had the right idea.

St Patrick was chasing out the druids who worshipped the snakes, no snakes existed in Ireland since before the Ice Age or something.

:lol:

[Demogorgon]

Think of it like this. I live in Glasgow, should I wish to move to Edinburgh for instance, should I need permission? Should I worry if I have the "right" or not? Should there be a law restricting me from going to another Scottish city?

By the same principal what should stop me from going to another country or continent should I so desire?

[Demogorgon]

St Patrick was chasing out the druids who worshipped the snakes, no snakes existed in Ireland since before the Ice Age or something.

:lol:
If I may be permitted a diversion, I have often wondered about this. Snakes are noted for their love of swimming. There are snakes in Britain, how has Ireland avoided them swimming over? Grass snakes may not be able to make the swim, but adders should surely be capable?

[Apoi_Viitor]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites

The reason for this discrepancy likely has to do predominately with linguistic barriers. And also economic reasons... the average economic income of a Western European is far, far greater than Asia, so why would Europeans want to immigrate there? Finally, the ethnic composure of Europe is more homogeneous than they make it out to be. Not very many countries are liberal with their immigration laws.


I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right?

Why don't you just attack their separation of peoples in white and non-white categories? Seriously, modern genetic studies have shown that only around 19% (or so) of the .1 to .5 genetic variation within humans can be determined by regional background. The rest is the result of individual variation. So the idea that we can use scientific categories for separating human 'races' is completely absurd. Tell them that their separatist division of humans is as ridiculous as claiming that only "tall people" should settle in Britain. Because the idea that a single phenotype (skin color) can distinctly differentiate between the personality and traits of a group of people is no less retarded.


Also they claim that non Whites have tried to take over Europe therefor why should Europe has to take in non Whites because of European Imperialism they point to Asian and Arab Imperialism of the past and the Moors or the Huns or the Japanese Imperialism during WW2 but

This is an incredibly shitty argument. Ask them, "How many of the immigrants currently living in Europe attempted to take over the continent?" None. It's awfully ridiculous to suggest that all ethnic groups will/have acted the same. Actions are the result of material conditions. Why aren't most Arab states imperialistic now? Because they are in a de-priveldged position of power. Point to any society and you'll find a history of imperialism. That's a given - and it's the result of the structure of the society, not their ethnicity.


in my opinion while it is true that there have been non White empires and Imperialism I don't think the non Whites did it because of race or racism the White Capitalist Imperialists were Racists and enslaved non Whites but the White nationalists say that Muslim Arabs enslaved Black Africans but I don't think they did it because of race.

This is not true. For both peoples, slavery is started for economic reasons.


Also I have heard Marxists say that Capitalism created the idea of race and racism does anyone know any links with proof of this ?

Racism, as opposed to simple xenophobia is a modern phenomena. According to Michel Foucault, racist discourse dates back to around the 17th century at its earliest, with the creation of the "nation-state".

[ComradeMan]

If I may be permitted a diversion, I have often wondered about this. Snakes are noted for their love of swimming. There are snakes in Britain, how has Ireland avoided them swimming over? Grass snakes may not be able to make the swim, but adders should surely be capable?

Well yes, but over the Irish Sea? It would probably be too cold for reptiles like snakes to be able to make it in those Atlantic conditions but it's an interesting point.

Once the snakes heard about St Patrick it would probably put them off the long cold swim anyhow. Some subversive is going to start releasing snakes in Ireland now.... :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Well yes, but over the Irish Sea? It would probably be too cold for reptiles like snakes to be able to make it in those Atlantic conditions but it's an interesting point.

Once the snakes heard about St Patrick it would probably put them off the long cold swim anyhow. Some subversive is going to start releasing snakes in Ireland now.... :lol:
Well there is another point, you would have thought some idiot may have released a pregnant one by now. Still given the state of mind of some people here, I wouldn't want to plant ideas.

[Obzervi]

People have the right to live wherever they want because they have legs and can get there. That's pretty much it. Someone non-white has every right to move to Western Europe. Whether or not white people are native or non-white people aren't has nothing to do with it.

According to this logic the European colonialists had the right to move into Native American and African land.

[BIG BROTHER]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right ? Also they claim that non Whites have tried to take over Europe therefor why should Europe has to take in non Whites because of European Imperialism they point to Asian and Arab Imperialism of the past and the Moors or the Huns or the Japanese Imperialism during WW2 but in my opinion while it is true that there have been non White empires and Imperialism I don't think the non Whites did it because of race or racism the White Capitalist Imperialists were Racists and enslaved non Whites but the White nationalists say that Muslim Arabs enslaved Black Africans but I don't think they did it because of race. Also I have heard Marxists say that Capitalism created the idea of race and racism does anyone know any links with proof of this ?

The Western Europeans have plundered, raped, exploited and continue to do so under different ways the nations and people's all across the world.

The mass migration to their coutries is a result of what they themselves have done, in that sense is hipocritical of them to complain about that.

Also on the class level white workers should know that the policies that force other workers to migrate to western european countries are the same ones that are currently on the process of dismantling all their social gains.

[Obzervi]

The Western Europeans have plundered, raped, exploited and continue to do so under different ways the nations and people's all across the world.

The mass migration to their coutries is a result of what they themselves have done, in that sense is hipocritical of them to complain about that.

Also on the class level white workers should know that the policies that force other workers to migrate to western european countries are the same ones that are currently on the process of dismantling all their social gains.

I agree, the migrations taking place today are about retribution. I don't support this idea that "people should live wherever they want". That logic justifies white europeans moving into African and Indigenous American land. Fvck that. If the europeans don't like it they shouldn't have raped others' resources and plundered their lands in the first place.

[Lt. Ferret]

^ lol.

[Obzervi]

I should clarify, I mostly support people living where they want, but not at the expense of others by exploiting them and racism.

[ComradeMan]

The Western Europeans have plundered, raped, exploited and continue to do so under different ways the nations and people's all across the world..

Blaming people for what was done in a historical past based on their race/genetic heritage is dangerous, futile and reactionary. Okay, so 70 years ago GERMAN/AUSTRIAN Nazis etc did some terrible things- does that mean there is carte blanche to hate them forever? Everything that happens to them is their own fault even now? Or justified?

Perhaps the Greeks should claim Constantinople back? Perhaps the Arabs/Muslims should all vacate back to Saudia Arabia from the lands they conquered? Are the Greeks entitled to hate Iranians because they were always being attacked by them? What about the Japanese? What about the Russian Empire?

Your own "well-meant" rant and appeal to emotions is basically just as racist as the rightwingers but in the opposite direction.

Fundamentally racists divide things by race, non-racists don't.

[BIG BROTHER]

Blaming people for what was done in a historical past based on their race/genetic heritage is dangerous, futile and reactionary. Okay, so 70 years ago GERMAN/AUSTRIAN Nazis etc did some terrible things- does that mean there is carte blanche to hate them forever? Everything that happens to them is their own fault even now? Or justified?

Perhaps the Greeks should claim Constantinople back? Perhaps the Arabs/Muslims should all vacate back to Saudia Arabia from the lands they conquered? Are the Greeks entitled to hate Iranians because they were always being attacked by them? What about the Japanese? What about the Russian Empire?

Your own "well-meant" rant and appeal to emotions is basically just as racist as the rightwingers but in the opposite direction.

Fundamentally racists divide things by race, non-racists don't.

US and Western Imperialism still continues to do so. And is not about hating your average european workers but the goverment and the class that benefited from such exploitation.

[ComradeMan]

US and Western Imperialism still continues to do so. And is not about hating your average european workers but the goverment and the class that benefited from such exploitation.

Wrong- capitalist imperialism goes on today. It's capitalism... of which many in the Third World also collude and benefit to the detrement of their own people if you like.

Whilst no one doubts that capitalist imperialism largely benefits certain sections of the classes in the West, it is by no means exclusive and the attempts of Third Worldists to create a potentially charged and dangerous racial issue are stupid at best.

And is not about hating your average european workers

I thought the Third Worldists denied the existence of a "first world" proletariat- we all suddenly became bourgeoisie?

[RGacky3]

Wrong- capitalist imperialism goes on today. It's capitalism... of which many in the Third World also collude and benefit to the detrement of their own people if you like.

Whilst no one doubts that capitalist imperialism largely benefits certain sections of the classes in the West, it is by no means exclusive and the attempts of Third Worldists to create a potentially charged and dangerous racial issue are stupid at best.


Your right, however imperialism is a large part of Capitalism that us westerners don't have to deal with, so its not the same, in the third world they have to deal with the local Capitalists along with multinationals, who are harder to deal with than local Capitalists (which is one reason its much harder for third world workers to secure gains).

But its not about race, Nowerdays its just as much CHineese companies as it is European/American companies, trying to simplify it as juts a european vrs non european issues is silly.


I agree, the migrations taking place today are about retribution. I don't support this idea that "people should live wherever they want". That logic justifies white europeans moving into African and Indigenous American land. Fvck that. If the europeans don't like it they shouldn't have raped others' resources and plundered their lands in the first place.

Its not retribution you idiot, its poeple trying to make a life for their families. Africans and indigenous Americans did'nt have a problem eith Europeans "moving" to the area, that was'nt the problem, it was the imperialism.


According to this logic the European colonialists had the right to move into Native American and African land.

But not take it ... People have a right to live wherever they want.

[ComradeMan]

Your right, however imperialism is a large part of Capitalism that us westerners don't have to deal with, so its not the same, in the third world they have to deal with the local Capitalists along with multinationals, who are harder to deal with than local Capitalists (which is one reason its much harder for third world workers to secure gains).

Your right, however imperialism is a large part of Capitalism that us westerners don't have to deal with

So all the people out of work down to outsourcing by mulitnationals don't have to deal with this? The Fiat workers perhaps...?

[RGacky3]

So all the people out of work down to outsourcing by mulitnationals don't have to deal with this? The Fiat workers perhaps...?

Yes, I understand that, I spoke inartfully, I'm talking about layers of exploitation, those in the third world suffer an extra, if you work in a GM plant in the US you suffer exploitatoin from GM, to make a profit and give huge compensation to the executives. When you work in a sweatshop in Nigeragua, you suffering exploitation from the owner and the company contracting the sweatshop.

Also you live in a country who's economy is subject to first world nations rules that are made for their benefit.

But your right, imperialism hurts first world workers as well, I did'nt mean to say that it did'nt, I was talking purely from a direct exploitation standpoint.

[Obzervi]

And is not about hating your average european workers



First word workers benefit off the backs of third world people, and they do so indiscriminately. Those european workers you refer to are living luxurious lives in relation to the majority of the third world.

[Obzervi]

But not take it ... People have a right to live wherever they want.

Huh? how do you differentiate between the two? If I move into your house and start using up your resources and space, wouldn't the effect count as taking it?

[Obzervi]

But your right, imperialism hurts first world workers as well, I did'nt mean to say that it did'nt, I was talking purely from a direct exploitation standpoint.

You can't say someone benefits but loses out in a rigged economic system at the same time. All that matters is the net benefit, and in this case its clear that first world workers overwhelmingly benefit from the system.

[Dean]

I have had White nationalists tell me that why is it fair that Western Europe has millions of non Whites living in these nations but Japan has very few non Asians living in their nation and both Koreas as well as China they claim that since Whites are native to Western Europe why should Western Europe open it's borders to non Whites I don't know how to answer them but am I right that non Whites should have the right to live in Britain since the British wanted to and did settle in non White lands such as North America after all the American Indians or the Native Americans were there first right ? Also they claim that non Whites have tried to take over Europe therefor why should Europe has to take in non Whites because of European Imperialism they point to Asian and Arab Imperialism of the past and the Moors or the Huns or the Japanese Imperialism during WW2 but in my opinion while it is true that there have been non White empires and Imperialism I don't think the non Whites did it because of race or racism the White Capitalist Imperialists were Racists and enslaved non Whites but the White nationalists say that Muslim Arabs enslaved Black Africans but I don't think they did it because of race. Also I have heard Marxists say that Capitalism created the idea of race and racism does anyone know any links with proof of this ?

Dimentio makes a good point. You're basically playing to assumptions of his that you need not partake in: mainly, that for racism to be "wrong" it has to have only been done by the offending party, or maybe, that racism by the empowered is justified in the context of racism by many powers of varying powers & histories.

It's bullshit. I'd point to the exact same instances and say, "it didn't work for people then, and doesn't work now." Division like that always closes society and forces it to break down. Its unsustainable.

[Dean]

You can't say someone benefits but loses out in a rigged economic system at the same time. All that matters is the net benefit, and in this case its clear that first world workers overwhelmingly benefit from the system.

This difference is negligible compared to the extant division of power which leaves out the working classes of all nations from important decision-making posts (and hence the value their possession holds).

[revolution inaction]

People have the right to live wherever they want because they have legs and can get there. That's pretty much it. Someone non-white has every right to move to Western Europe. Whether or not white people are native or non-white people aren't has nothing to do with it.

what about people who have lost there legs in accidents? do they just have to stay put?

[BIG BROTHER]

Wrong- capitalist imperialism goes on today. It's capitalism... of which many in the Third World also collude and benefit to the detrement of their own people if you like.

Whilst no one doubts that capitalist imperialism largely benefits certain sections of the classes in the West, it is by no means exclusive and the attempts of Third Worldists to create a potentially charged and dangerous racial issue are stupid at best.

And is not about hating your average european workers

I thought the Third Worldists denied the existence of a "first world" proletariat- we all suddenly became bourgeoisie?

I meant that the ruling class benefits from the plundering of the 3rd world and it is the ruling class that benefits from this. Not so much the workers themselves.

As you have pointed out yourself, worker's jobs in the 1st world get outsourced to the 3rd meaning that the working class as a whole is being driven to the ground.

[ComradeMan]

I meant that the ruling class benefits from the plundering of the 3rd world and it is the ruling class that benefits from this. Not so much the workers themselves.

As you have pointed out yourself, worker's jobs in the 1st world get outsourced to the 3rd meaning that the working class as a whole is being driven to the ground.

Right! So the correct way to view things is on a horizontal class-based notion and not on vertically divided First World vs Third World notions.
:thumbup:

[Revolution starts with U]

We "first worlders" (i mean, i hate to pull the reactionary card but if these terms aren't idk wtf is) generally benefit greatly from 3rd world (f that word, it's just a prettier way of saying "barbarous") exploitation... even considering the "jobs that get sent over seas."
But it isn't about who benefits and who doesn't. It's about who has the power to put these so-called benefits into place. And as comrademan said, the answer to that question lies in a class-based analogy.

[ComradeMan]

We "first worlders" (i mean, i hate to pull the reactionary card but if these terms aren't idk wtf is) generally benefit greatly from 3rd world (f that word, it's just a prettier way of saying "barbarous") exploitation... even considering the "jobs that get sent over seas."
But it isn't about who benefits and who doesn't. It's about who has the power to put these so-called benefits into place. And as comrademan said, the answer to that question lies in a class-based analogy.

You're right- and there's another, admittedly rather nasty and cynical, argument too, if we the first world workers didn't buy the products from the developing world what would happen then?

Ooops.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree, the migrations taking place today are about retribution.

No. Just no. People migrate for all sorts of reasons, mainly economic. They're not doing it to get one over the imperialist white devils, they want a better life, not petty vengeance.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's hard not to. And in my opinion would be reactionary not too (setting yourself against the workers of the over-exploited world [much better term. Thx Parenti). A much better idea than just not buying overseas products would be to advocate for people's rights across the world.
Of all the things in capitalism we should condemn.... globalization is not one of them.

[Obzervi]

We "first worlders" (i mean, i hate to pull the reactionary card but if these terms aren't idk wtf is) generally benefit greatly from 3rd world (f that word, it's just a prettier way of saying "barbarous") exploitation... even considering the "jobs that get sent over seas."
But it isn't about who benefits and who doesn't. It's about who has the power to put these so-called benefits into place. And as comrademan said, the answer to that question lies in a class-based analogy.
But you still benefit from the First World exploitation of the Third World, and aren't anything to bring this exploitation to an end. You are complicit, therefore you are just as guilty as the capitalists directing the exploited wealth to the First World. Your standard of living is not in sync with the Third World, it will have to decrease substantially before equality is reached. Just because the richest capitalists' standard of living will have to decrease even more, doesn't diminish the fact that yours will have to as well.

[Lt. Ferret]

the third world gets a helluva lot from the first world, just sayin'.

[Revolutionair]

the third world gets a helluva lot from the first world, just sayin'.

Could you name one thing?

[Frosty Weasel]

the third world gets a helluva lot from the first world, just sayin'.

Hmm, I suppose you're right.

Colonialism, enslavement, linguistic/cultural destruction, environmental degradation...the list just goes on and on!

[Lt. Ferret]

all technological innovation in the last 400 years? they sure love their consumer goods and electronic goods and longer life expectancy. .

[#FF0000]

all technological innovation in the last 400 years? they sure love their consumer goods and electronic goods and longer life expectancy. .

yeah see i don't think this means everything else is a-okay.

[Lt. Ferret]

never said anything about a utopia.

[#FF0000]

well sorry guy. I see what you're saying but coca cola and camera phones don't make things okay. You can point at schools and telephone lines and luxuries, and yeah these things are definitely nice but they don't outweigh the atrocities committed through colonialism.

Also, life expectancy doesn't really work the way someone might expect it to. I wouldn't be so sure that a native of the Americas or Africa or Southeast Asia had a shorter life expectancy before colonialism when compared to after colonialism.

[Lt. Ferret]

i would.

[#FF0000]

based on what?

[Lt. Ferret]

life expectancy, quality of life, and population growth.

[#FF0000]

I don't know. These things are based on statistics and are wonky when you break them down, and I am almost positive that the quality of life and life expectancy of a person in Tenochtitlan was higher than that of someone living in most contemporary European cities. (Source is 1491 by Charles Mann, but, uh, I have to double check to make sure that's what it says).

But yeah in any case, I don't really understand how coming in, disenfranchising a population, brutalizing them while bleeding the country dry of resources is at all helpful.

[TC]

All restrictions on immigration are racist.

[Lt. Ferret]

I don't know. These things are based on statistics and are wonky when you break them down, and I am almost positive that the quality of life and life expectancy of a person in Tenochtitlan was higher than that of someone living in most contemporary European cities. (Source is 1491 by Charles Mann, but, uh, I have to double check to make sure that's what it says).

But yeah in any case, I don't really understand how coming in, disenfranchising a population, brutalizing them while bleeding the country dry of resources is at all helpful.


im also under the impression that in a lot of places (not all, like belgian congo) were under imperial colors in name only. the population may have been under the jurisdiction of france or britain, but that power or influence went about as far out as the railroads went. one country claiming a region mostly stopped other countries from claiming that region. exploiting the resources was haphazard at best.

also, most of these conquered nations were tribalist at best, feudal hellholes at worst. very few times were the general populace given any sort of franchise, and almost never were they exploiting their own resources in any meaningful way.

[Frosty Weasel]

...and almost never were they exploiting their own resources in any meaningful way.So that justified colonialism? They weren't using it so colonial masters could in a "meaningful way?"

Hey, since you're not using your brain, mind if I...?

[#FF0000]

im also under the impression that in a lot of places (not all, like belgian congo) were under imperial colors in name only. the population may have been under the jurisdiction of france or britain, but that power or influence went about as far out as the railroads went. one country claiming a region mostly stopped other countries from claiming that region. exploiting the resources was haphazard at best.

Yeah but see, they got better at it, which is the thing. And despite sooo many people being under colonial or imperialist rule "in name only", there were still an awful lot of atrocities that are impossible to justify, and even today the countries and peoples affected are still feeling the hurt from European colonialism.


also, most of these conquered nations were tribalist at best, feudal hellholes at worst. very few times were the general populace given any sort of franchise, and almost never were they exploiting their own resources in any meaningful way.1) Colonial rule didn't put an end to this tribalism. In fact, the British took advantage of it when cutting up Northern Africa after World War 2 to create unstable nations that were hella easy to manipulate.

2) You are missing the point which is that this doesn't justify slapping a yoke on as much of the population as possible and brutalize them for fun and profit anyway.

And, please, this "we used it better" nonsense. England and France and co. didn't go and teach people in Africa how to set up and run their own mining operations for the benefit of African people. They made them dig up the wealth and then send it overseas. That's bleeding a country dry.

[#FF0000]

Is your point "colonialism wasn't bad for EVERYONE" or something? I am struggling to understand.

[Lt. Ferret]

So that justified colonialism? They weren't using it so colonial masters could in a "meaningful way?"

Hey, since you're not using your brain, mind if I...?

thats the history of the world, not just western imperialism. shaka zulu carved out his empire and exploited the population. the chinese emperors ran roughshod over east asia. the ottoman turks built up its central asian empire on invasion and dominance.

even the capitalist city state of venice had a prosperous and wide ranging economic mediterranean empire.

the western nations made it into a sort of art, but its not like the other regions of the world weren't trying, they could only go so far with their technology or ability to field armies.

[Lt. Ferret]

Is your point "colonialism wasn't bad for EVERYONE" or something? I am struggling to understand.


in a sense, yes. in the same sense that i would claim that "pre-colonialism wasnt good for everyone"

[#FF0000]

in a sense, yes. in the same sense that i would claim that "pre-colonialism wasnt good for everyone"

Ehhhhhhh just saying it'd be a lot better for everyone (except the imperialists) if these countries got to develop on their own or with the help of mutually beneficial trade instead of being bled dry via colonialism.

[#FF0000]

I also think the Aztecs and the Inca and the Apachean tribes and everyone who lived in the Americas before the Europeans came would have greatly preferred pre-colonialism.

[Lt. Ferret]

well, not the ones who were captured and sacrificed to the blood gods.

[#FF0000]

Ehh I think "Guys who got sacrificed" is a smaller demographic than "everyone"

[Lt. Ferret]

unless it was a hella good party.

[ComradeMan]

I also think the Aztecs and the Inca and the Apachean tribes and everyone who lived in the Americas before the Europeans came would have greatly preferred pre-colonialism.

I read that a lot of non-Aztec tribes allied themselves with Cortez because they were sick and tired of the Aztecs bullying them, but yeah- I see what you mean.

Using this term "pre-colonialism" is just silly. There is no such thing as "pre-colonialism", it's like saying "non-judaism" or "non-capitalism"- it's meaningless as it implies a non-system/ideology was in operation that basically wasn't.

[#FF0000]

I read that a lot of non-Aztec tribes allied themselves with Cortez because they were sick and tired of the Aztecs bullying them, but yeah- I see what you mean.

Oh, yeah. The Spaniards played the different tribes/civilizations against each other like a champ. P. sure the same thing happened to the North American tribes too.


Using this term "pre-colonialism" is just silly. There is no such thing as "pre-colonialism", it's like saying "non-judaism" or "non-capitalism"- it's meaningless as it implies a non-system/ideology was in operation that basically wasn't.Pre-European-Colonialism. :p

[ComradeMan]

Pre-European-Colonialism. :p

No- because if you play that game then you might find that Pre-European Colonialism was just as bad if not worse in some instances- sorry, but true- then you fall into the trap of seeing European colonialism as "better" when in truth colonialism of any kind generally sucks for the colonised.

[#FF0000]

I can agree that all colonization sucks but I think European Colonialism is markedly different just in the scope of it. I mean when the Aztecs or the Zulus fought another and did their thing, it was a fight. If it was one-sided it was because one side was tactically superior, had superior numbers, something like that. Meanwhile you had Europeans going out with sturdy, metal weapons, cannons, muskets and eventually things like Gatling guns and there's jut no comparison anymore, you know what I mean?

And even if you don't accept that, I think talking about "Pre-European-Colonialism" is still fine since it's a specific thing, you know?

Also to be honest I'm thinking about it now and I am pretty sure Europeans or "The West" were the only "Colonial" powers after like, the middle ages or something. You can't really call the conflicts of the Aztecs and Zulus imperialism or colonialism. :confused:

EDIT: Yeah in fact I'm really sure of it. It doesn't make sense to talk about the Zulus or the Aztecs and talk about "colonialism" or "imperialism".

[ddof5]

Saying people have a right to one place to live and de facto not to another together with barring other people, usually based on the accident of birth and/or genetic rights is at best reactionary and at worst statism that often leads to racism.

People should be allowed to live wherever they want without restriction.

you cannot be serious? are you aware that a country has borders? and the people of that nation have the right to say who goes into their nation and who does not. do you think that anyone should be able to go to your house, and eat your food whenever they please? do you think there should be a new law stating that locks on houses should be made illegal?

[ddof5]

The Western Europeans have plundered, raped, exploited and continue to do so under different ways the nations and people's all across the world.

The mass migration to their coutries is a result of what they themselves have done, in that sense is hipocritical of them to complain about that.

Also on the class level white workers should know that the policies that force other workers to migrate to western european countries are the same ones that are currently on the process of dismantling all their social gains.

what about the scandinavian countries? they never had a history of imperialism. why should they suffer because they are also white. it thought race does not exist anyway.

[Bud Struggle]

you cannot be serious? are you aware that a country has borders? and the people of that nation have the right to say who goes into their nation and who does not. do you think that anyone should be able to go to your house, and eat your food whenever they please? do you think there should be a new law stating that locks on houses should be made illegal?

Welcome to RevLeft!

Communism is stateless so in theory there will be no national borders under Communism so anyone could live anywhere and go anywhere.

Your house is your personal property.

[ddof5]

Welcome to RevLeft!

Communism is stateless so in theory there will be no national borders under Communism so anyone could live anywhere and go anywhere.

Your house is your personal property.

yes, anyone living inside the country can move anywhere they want within said country, unless of course, you propose a new world order type government where the entire world will be communist.

but i does not matter, in case you do not know, the real world is not all communist, and therefore, i should not have the right to go into another country without permission, just like i cannot enter your house without permission from you.

[ComradeMan]

you cannot be serious? are you aware that a country has borders? and the people of that nation have the right to say who goes into their nation and who does not. do you think that anyone should be able to go to your house, and eat your food whenever they please? do you think there should be a new law stating that locks on houses should be made illegal?

Yes I am aware of a country having borders. But you might find that those borders are not anything more but arbitrary lines on a map. Sorry, but you're going to find people here are not particularly into nation-states as such.

Show me why you think and/or can prove that one "nation" in itself an arbitrary social construct in many senses has a particular genetic right to live in/on a territory.

Someone living on a given piece of territory is not the same as someone coming into my house and stealing my food, but sure- if someone were hungry I'd share my food with them.

Sorry- but if you want to argue with false analogies and preach the natural rights of nation-states then go have fun on Stormfront, why don't you?

[#FF0000]

you cannot be serious? are you aware that a country has borders? and the people of that nation have the right to say who goes into their nation and who does not. do you think that anyone should be able to go to your house, and eat your food whenever they please? do you think there should be a new law stating that locks on houses should be made illegal?

I don't think they do have the right to tell people to stay out of "their country" actually. An entire country is not comparable to one's home.


what about the scandinavian countries? they never had a history of imperialism. why should they suffer because they are also white. it thought race does not exist anyway.

Scandinavian countries, iirc, are actually having a problem with the lack of genetic diversity because of the low immigration rate, actually.

And secondly, race is a social construct, just like class. Just because it doesn't biologically exist does not mean that it can't affect people as a social construct.

[Obzervi]

you cannot be serious? are you aware that a country has borders? and the people of that nation have the right to say who goes into their nation and who does not. do you think that anyone should be able to go to your house, and eat your food whenever they please? do you think there should be a new law stating that locks on houses should be made illegal?

Those borders are just invisible lines. Your house is just a place to live, why would I go there if you're already taking up space inside it? You have a capitalist mindset, you're too obsessed with so-called property rights. Under an equal system everybody would have enough to live comfortably anyway, so I would have no need to go into "your" house.

[Obzervi]

what about the scandinavian countries? they never had a history of imperialism. why should they suffer because they are also white. it thought race does not exist anyway.
It doesn't, but genetic diversity is a good thing. Scandinavians will benefit from the increased genetic diversity as it will make them less susceptible to disease as a whole, and will also increase their resistance to the sun and skin cancer.

[Rafiq]

yes, anyone living inside the country can move anywhere they want within said country, unless of course, you propose a new world order type government where the entire world will be communist.

but i does not matter, in case you do not know, the real world is not all communist, and therefore, i should not have the right to go into another country without permission, just like i cannot enter your house without permission from you.

New World order government? It will be decentralized economy, not big brother controlling everything.

And no, your house is your possession, no one can go in it.

Earth does not belong to you, sonney. No country belongs to a certain people.

Possessions belong to people though. Because they payed their fair share to society and therefore get what they need or want in return. But Earth belongs to everyone, Earth is not something you work for, you are born on Earth, and it does not belong to any ethnicity.

Fucking idiot.

All borders should be abolished.

The workers will DIRECTLY administrate the Earth. Most of us are against leaders and partys in control over the masses.

We want REAL democracy.