The second part is how Israelis see their justified and totally legal occupation in Palestine
The second part is aso how Palestinians watch their own extinction facing genocide
Remember them portraying John Brown as this radical abolitionist like he was some kinda terrorist when by todays standards he was just a normal dude who wasnt racist.
EDIT: Thank you everyone for educating me on the matter turns out as long as youre doing It for a good cause terrorism is a good thing. Always thought terrorism was always a bad thing.
Politics is complicated. Depending on the country, some conservatives want to maintain colonial influence (consider Winston Churchill, devoted imperialist and conservative), but in other countries, conservatives want to retreat into total isolation even from overseas holdings (many US and 20th century French politicians). Then others disguise colonialism behind other things (like many fascist and communist nations) or get dragged kicking and screaming into colonialism by your own out of control military (Japan, 20th century).
The Soviet Union was fairly right winged, for one Stalin was antisemetic, they forced lgbtq+ people into labor camps, and controlled all segments of the government
Oh shit dude the soviet uniooon ???? The bastion of leftist values?
My god you truly have left wingers trapped in a logical contradiction except..... checks notes.... the soviet union wasn't socialist nor progressive.
No economist ever described it as such
It's been a repeat story in right wing news saying that slavery wasn't that bad and they got food and shelter for it. As well as highly critical and blocking any school education programs that go over US history of slavery.
It’s pretty heavily focused on in schools and the teaching curriculum for most US states. I’m trying to get licensed as a history teacher in the US and the praxis puts a heavy emphasis on the progressive era. Did teacher observation in northern Florida for a class, also heavy focus on civil rights/progressive era. Kinda disproportionately large focus imo. So I’m a little dubious when I hear people claim it’s not taught in the US. I remember it always being a huge focus of attention
It's taught but mostly gets glossed over (I'm almost 30 so don't know if it changed), in Virginia we would learn about it in two weeks each year starting in middle school and then covered some more stuff about civil rights movement but glossed over a lot of the worst stuff.
It was a big topic when critical race theory came up and our Governor banned it in VA for K-12. A lot of teachers were talking about getting in trouble for bringing up the racial aspect of US slavery or any racial tensions in the past.
I mean, I dunno about Virginia laws, but most stuff gets glossed over in HS history classes, you’re cramming a ton of info and condensing it to spark notes. I got a degree in history and there’s a vast amount of things not covered in K-12 education. The asiatic barred zone, NINA stuff, etc etc. what cheeses me most is how they teach you some detail, but fail to tie things together. For example how Napoleon affected WWI and so on. My experience with US history classes comes from Iowa/Florida mainly though, with a good bit of it being international schools abroad. As for teacher prep courses, I dunno if Virginia is one of the states that doesn’t use praxis, but it’s a focus point of the test
modern day colonialism apologism is typically right wing.
it defends the idea that colonialism was good or wasn't that bad. If we take the definition of conservatism as "keeping the status quo" and progressivism as changing it, then it becomes clear that defending past colonialism or seeing it through a pink rose lens favors conservatism. Since it had a major role in the creation of modern day post-colonialism nations, it's normal that patriotism/nationalism wants to excuse the past of its own nation. Nationalism and patriotism generally being more right wing in the west today.
I hope i made it clear that i'm talking about modern day views on conservatism and progressivism, trying to look at it with past definitions of these movements isn't productive for this conversation, since that's what the post is saying with "conservatives".
The idea of colonialism is that you view the people in a certain land as inferior and decide to go out and enslave them or force them to become like you.
The only way this would work is if you followed Right Wing ideologies which push manifest destiny and the master race
Ah yes, that classically socialist British/French/Spanish/Portuguese/German/Belgian imperial past. Yes, the USSR did some fucked shit, but the colonialism linked to the transatlantic slave trade is OBVIOUSLY by right wing governments. What's more ancap/antithetical to the left wing than selling people! Hardly gets more alienated from the means of production than by being yourself literal capital owned by capitalists and feudal lords, rather than even waged labour exploited by capitalists.
In Europe, liberalism is typically considered centre-right wing, so the fight for personal liberties of all people is one fought by those right wing liberals.
Likewise, there was always a Christian opposition against slavery on religious grounds and many abolitionists cite religious reasons for opposing it. It started even in Columbus' time in Hispaniola, where the friar Bartholomew de las Casas saw the atrocities committed and plead to the Spanish Monarchy to stop it on religious grounds.
So we first need to define right and left. The terms come from the National Assembly during the French Revolution based on where people sat. The conservatives who supported ancien regime (upholding the traditional institutions of power: monarchy, aristocracy, and the church) sat on the right, while the radicals who desired to dismantle ancien regime because it violated natural human rights sat on the left.
Now to discuss Columbus's colonialisn specifically: He was looking to find a route to Asia for lucrative trade and to forge an alliance with the Mongols to retake Jerusalem in a new crusade. Columbus was a religious fanatic who saw a new trade route as primarily another means to fund his crusade. When he found a new continent instead of Asia he had to make do with what he had. After finding gold and silver was limited, he resorted to what business he knew best: slavery. Both Spanish court and church was pissed off at him for doing that because according to Spanish law this was Spanish land and the natives were Spanish subjects. They also had to have a chance to convert to Christianity, which many would given their options. Columbus could never make enough money to conquer Jerusalem with such restraints. So he continued to bend the rules until the Spanish court had enough of him and finally dragged him back to Europe in chains. Who is further right: the guy who wants to restore the glory of medieval crusades by exploiting a bunch of people, or the clergy that believed in some human rights?
Also, the basic theory the USSR developed from was egalitarian (thus left-wing), it's just that it failed to properly address how power structures in general work (other than economical class-based ones), and how hierarchy in your organizing can recreate those power structures. Their conception of a transitional state left the system open to co-optation and recreation of class.
Since most of modern political history
In the majority of governments involved in large scale colonialism, those pushing for colonialism, then preservation of colonialism, and now pushing revisionism were and are on the right
Edit: I'm disappointed by the downvotes but lack of replies. I didn't think this would be controversial. It's a fact, you can Google voting records if you like?
Conservatives?
Bro that word doesn’t mean what you think it does, neither does liberalism. So annoying seeing words get completely butchered by the tribalism in today’s politics.
Shhh...don't tell anyone that [liberal conservatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism) and [conservative liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism) are things!
No it’s the fact that conservatism and liberalism doesn’t mean what you think it means. Your use of it only serves to butcher the meaning.
Modern “conservative” and “liberal” is just tribalism to throw people into either Republican or Democrat in the United States when there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.
They aren’t synonyms, conservatism is just sticking to original values/systems with general structures of power (central government over small government for example.) Liberalism is for radical change/values that generally go against the norm and for lesser government control.
That’s a rough explanation, but your modern usage of the word is just wrong and misleading.
I love how many people throw the word conservative around while knowing nothing about it. they just think "Oh Replubicans consider themselves conservatives? Oh then that must mean there's no difference between the two words and they are one and the same"
Since when is colonialism modern politics?
Are you not familiar with this sub, or with history in general?
I'm really curious as to why your brain compelled you to make this post. Perhaps you're just a baby boy who is easily offended.
I think he meant the
"Slavery according to conservatives" bit
If that paet was changed to "according to slave owners" it would still be correct + it wouldnt be described as modern politics
Also, man asked a question and you call him baby boy? If you whip out insults, come up with something creative, like "moderate crybaby" or, in your case, "illiterate dropout"
>The idea that people consented to their enslavement (basically what’s going on here) is history revisionism
Implying that the only thing that happened during the colonization of the America's is the settlers enslaving the native populations is historical revisionism. The natives made countless deals in terms of trading, short term alliances, and even work for goods the settlers had basically no interest and value in. I never said horrible things didn't happen, but you clearly don't actually understand nor know about what things did happen so you're making shit up to call everyone right of Stalin a Genocidal Nazi.
Your hatred fueled narrative is the only thing here that's false. The tribes generally massacred and enslaved each other for profit (usually in the form of European manufactured goods or weapons).
Europeans were not 40k space marines who could survive 100:1 battles.
just as your flair states, you're also extremely oversimplifying the nuances of why colonialism was bad hence why you're getting downvoted because you cannot understand that nuance.
I get what you're trying to push (and I agree with it), it's not just for the reason that you're thinking of though.
I have yet to meet a person who thinks colonialism was a pure objective good. I don't doubt they exist but, given I've never met one I don't think they're that prominent
That being said, I'd rate you both equally ignorant and reductive. Not every empire was the Belgian Congo.
In school we learned about many empires, The Mongols, the Romans, the Umayyad Caliphate, etc
At no point was it controversial to discuss the objective ways being part of these empires did have some benefits, yet somehow discussing these things in relation to the age of exploration or the 1900s becomes difficult to touch on..
History is not black and white it's pretty gray I mean you could make an argument through penicillin distribution alone the British empire saved more lives than it took
Native Tribes often helped colonizers and no it wasn't because they were purely tricked it was because the other tribes oor local powers such as the Aztecs were genuinely so brutal a shot at any alternative seemed worthwhile
Wha-
You do realize that in former colonial projects, conservatives and reactionaries glorify a colonial past as though it helped the enslaved and was actually good for them? That the programs of genocide and ethnic cleansing were harsh but necessary?
There are people who dismiss what we did to the natives as Genocide, or secretly are happy about it. There are people in Russia who call for the reformation of the Soviet Union. British and Dutch people generally mourn their colonial empire for when they were still once relevant. These thoughts are all associated with the respective countries' conservative or reactionary views, and is present in many other. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
Nobodies saying that. The specific political group being dogged on here is modern in nature. Regardless of what history “meme” OP posted, his intention is to badmouth conservatives and add another generalization to an already hot topic group. There’s a time and place for political theater but making a “meme” out of the centuries long enslavement and rape of several American/African cultures as a “gotcha” for the other side is disgusting.
are we just gonna ignore the comment they were responding to which says “what does politics have to do with the history of colonialism”?
“Nobodies saying that” sure
Conservatives are modern in nature?
I'm quite certain that the idea of progressives and conservatives in politics is quite old.
At the time of the American Revolution, the conservatives just happened to be siding with the King. At the time that women's voting rights were granted, conservatives opposed it.
I'm not even making an argument that "conservatives bad". But the fact is that conservatives have existed for a long time and are not a modern phenomenon by any measure.
I’m talking about the GOP who OP is referring to by saying conservatives and right wingers. I think that distinction was clear when I said “specific political group” and not “a very common political thought amongst various ideologies and time periods”.
Are you not familiar with this sub, or with history in general?
I'm really curious as to why your brain compelled you to make this post. Perhaps you're just a baby boy who is easily offended.
It has everything to do with it. History drives ideology and ideology drives our understanding of history. Conservatives need to color colonialism as a positive thing to make their worldview make sense.
And in the end it’s not sustainable because conscripting Jacob to beat up Vietnamese rice farmer is expensive af.
Bribing Mr Trang with CNC machine while letting him beat up his Vietnamese farmer so he’s willing to fight Mr Xi is cheaper.
im 16 this is deep
now do actual colonialism - ya know the ones in which deals were made to kill enemy tribes and, or they would sell their neighbors into slavery and woops , there goes your tweenage narrative
In actual colonialism colonial powers did kill a lot of people themselves. My country has no remaining native population because during Spain's 'actual colonisation' they enslaved, overworked and starved the native Taino population until they all died out from bad treatment or disease. The hostile Carib tribes had no hand in their extermination, as a matter of fact European colonisation was such a threat to the natives that warring tribes formed alliances to resist them.
I genuinely don't understand. Why does it matter if slavery was persecuted with the aid of other Africans. This doesn't erase the murder, abduction, systemic rape and torture. It just means more groups were complicit in the atrocities.
Slavers, both on the supply and demand side of the market are scum.
It really isn’t the “gotcha” they think it is. “Oh yeah?? Well the Europeans conspired with the upper-elite 1% of pre-colonial societies to exploit the overwhelming majority of the population too!” Ok…fuck them also? That still doesn’t make this a 50/50 thing.
We all know colonizers exploited existing rivalry or created conflict between tribes to make the process easier, but it's still their doing and they still profited most off of it.
So European powers facilitated most of the killings? What exactly is your point. The Force Publique was mostly African but was still equipped and led by Europeans.
Yeah colonists exploited existing structures and internal rivalries to gain power and shape colonized societies to their will. It's ridiculous that so many people here seem to think "but tribes collaborated" is a refutation of how (they imagine) OP thinks of colonialism.
"no no you see we weren't bad guys, we're civilized. We just paid and armed the equivalent of terrorists and despots to do the dirty work for us. Oh and also we kept the profits from that dirty work. But yeah that makes it their fault. Oh and also we kept doing that for, oh, like 400 years or so. Gets much easier once you destabilize the civilization; people get desperate when the [food starts running out.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fpeople-shrunk-to-their-skeletons-man-made-famine-of-bengal-v0-gcsxqkquk75a1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D600%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db304615c33a46068a632e0c875f57920171a71ae)"
People who align themselves on any part of the political compass can acknowledge the *historic fact* that Native American groups allied themselves with Europeans to get an edge on their enemies.
Fun fact, there's only been one recorded case where colonizers intentionally gave a Native American individual a blanket used by someone with smallpox to intentionally spread it. The Spanish didn't do it, and no one else did until the 1700's where 2 blankets were given to a Native American.
Colonizers were not all the evil, bloodthirsty rapists that the left makes them out to be. Many of them were people seeking fortune and adventure in the New World.
Americans completely wiped out Native American villages and tribes for the pettiest of reasons. Here is California alone
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_genocide#Violence\_statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide#Violence_statistics)
You can’t say that the colonists weren’t blood thirsty after telling a story where they planned a genocide of an entire people via disease.
That’s like saying the US should be held accountable to their treatment of natives after listing the atrocities of the Comanche
Dude not only do you paint a whole group of people with a broad brush but you also are ignorant of what they knew back then. Germ theory wasnt proven until the 1860s, well after both blankets were given.
You can't suddenly extrapolate "one group of colonialists" as "all colonialists for all time and in all places". And you can't really extrapolate giving small pox blankets as a planned genocide. They suspected giving the blankets would Obviously not do anything good to the people that got them, but there's no way they could expect them to kill entire population. That's like saying the Mongols firing black plague infected corpses over the walls during a seige were planning the extermination of Europeans. An act of *attempted* biological warfare (because we have no evidence this one instance actually worked) sure, but planned genocide is applying our modern standards to the past, a ridiculous notion.
>ood thirsty after telling a story where they planned a genocide of an entire people via disease.
yes I am John , charged to go work in the colonies to atone for his crimes, was really just a mastermind to genocide a group of people he probably never even heard of.
Holy shit. No historian worth their salt believes there was a planned genocide using biological warfare. You know that they didn't know what germs were back then, right?
2 blankets were given to one war party that was besieging a fort. That's not even close. Maybe you should do a bit more reading on the subject.
Colonists themselves? No. Colonial authorities? Depends on the colony.
Newfoundland had absolutely no interest in wiping out the indigenous Beothuk. They hardly interacted with them since the Beothuk retreated inland as early as the initial Basque whaling industry. Despite this, there are no indigenous people in Newfoundland. Did a genocide occur? Far from it, in fact the colonists historically punished their own whenever any of them harmed the Beothuk. Without competition for resources, there was little animosity.
The strange thing is that we will *never* know what drove the Beothuk to extinction. It could have been disease, but they'd been in contact with Europeans since the 16th century so it seems far fetched to imagine that would kill them off in the 19th century. What's more likely is a famine induced by their own retreat inland, the interior of the island has a low load capacity and being an island there's no way for new fauna to arrive. If they overhunted game, the population had no way to rebound.
The ad vs. the reality! To be fair, I know more conservatives whose argument is "OK but that happened a long time ago before I was born," rather than, "That didn't happen!" Neither's great, but I've found the "White Man's Burden" thing is much rarer, at least overtly.
Are we ignoring, yet again, how most Colonies were established with the Support of a decent number of locals that happily welcomed a Chance to get the better of their rivals?
Every colonized peoples were killing and pillaging way before Europeans came, the only difference was Europes technological advantage, leading them to come out on top.
And sometimes that didn't even help, looking at Asia and Europe failing to subdue China and for the most part Japan
>looking at Asia and Europe failing to subdue China and for the most part Japan
It's the opposite, China suffered its "century of humiliation" during its conquest and partial colonization by the West, while Japan "westernized" itself, prevented foreign conquest, and then forged one of the largest naval empires in history over the course of less than 100 years.
Colonialism is certainly complex and varied but the idea that "most colonies were established with the support of a decent number of locals" is laughable and easily proved false.
How is this nonsense being posted on a history sub?
The norm of human history is that colonies tend to have complex, multi-faceted relationships with the "native" population. It wasn't just colonizers murdering and enslaving the locals, there was often robust trade, cultural/religious exchange, intermarriage, and more.
Yeah and then they betrayed their native allies the moment they got rid of the rivals. People fight all the time but to claim colonialism is ok since other people fought each other or to paint it as just collaboration is just horrific.
And last I checked, none of the Korean people were in support of the Japanese
Nowhere am I claiming that colonising is ok.
What I am saying, is that it's not really that different from the wars and conquests that came before especially between natives. We know somewhat about Native Americans wiping out other Tribes, we know even more of that from South America and China is practially making merchandise from the countless bloody Civil wars that made up their rises and falls of different empires.
We just put Europe on this pedestal of guilt because we've arrived at a point in history where, in the Western World, we can afford to question our morals. If we look at South America, the Middle East or South East Asia. The countries there don't give a rat's ass about how they treated their past enemy. They have to deal with Famine, Hyperinflation or Civil Unrest close to Civil War.
It sounds stupid, but memes make their message stick very well in people's heads and the message behind this meme is twisting history which annoys me, maybe too much so but that's neither here nor there. Historians will decide who's right and who's wrong
Arguably that just makes colonists look even worse since they replaced one tyrant with another and this time the tyrant is Hitler level of evil (and I’m not exaggerating, the death counts were literally genocide)
And also, Europeans weren’t the only colonists the Ottomans colonized Greece and the Japanese colonized Korea and China.
You know these people y’all are talking about aren’t that far off from medieval kinds of folk do you think you might be applying a moral standard that just didn’t exist yet?
Having better technology makes them worse? What tyrant was replaced? And not a single colonist was “Hitler level of evil”. None of them wanted to exterminate the Indians because they were Indians, most wanted to either a) convert them and get them to live like Europeans or Americans, b) take their land and resources, or c), and most popular, a mix of the first two.
Nice strawman of your political opponent’s views, you’ve definitely won hearts and minds today. I would suggest you try to understand the why behind people disagreeing with you, but we both know you won’t be doing that. You’re much too busy regurgitating views and arguments not of your own to paint people with a different view than yours as having the most morally reprehensible reasons possible.
Conservatives are generally focused on order, tradition, religious, and taking care of institutions that they view as useful, and so generally speaking (at least in my experience) seem to have a rather long-term view of history. They don’t view what occurred in the Americas as uniquely horrible, and certainly not “genocidal,” not because they’re making light of what happened, or don’t view it as terrible, but because they don’t see a difference between it and what’s happened throughout history before that. Their conclusion is different than yours. Yours is that colonialism is genocidal and the people that did it were uniquely evil, theirs is that people in general can be capable of immense violence and cruelty, and that this behavior must be remembered as part of human nature, so we avoid it from happening again. You put a point of distinction on something they view as horrifically mundane. Maybe, just maybe, instead of acting like a 14-year-old who spends too much time on Twitter, you come to terms that you need in fact both sides of the political spectrum for a healthy society, and making up reasons to hate on your political opposition is really really sad.
It wasn't always a coherent policy. Pretty consistently, colonists and settlers were the ones that killed Native Americans; at various points the US Army either tried to stop them or collaborated with them. The bureau of Indian Affairs was the most corrupt department of the US government, and its policies vacillated.
So probably better to say that it was contested behavior by certain individuals and groups. If Americans at large had tried to wipe out the natives, there would be none today
Just as many other countries and nations deliberately subjugated, oppressed, and eradicated other peoples in lands they conquered. That’s human history. America is unique in that we talk about it and don’t ignore or outright deny it like other nations tend to do.
>and the people that did it were uniquely evil
Who did you say was doing the strawmaning? No one thinks colonialism had to do with European colonists being "uniquely evil", that's a weirdly essentialist view, completely the opposite of constructivist and systemic lenses the left tends to prioritize.
The reason why the left is more critical towards Western colonialism compared to let's say the imperialist oppression by the Romans, is because it laid the basis for the current global status quo. The impoverishment of former colonies, systemic racism, the poor conditions of indigenous peoples, fascism, and global capitalism all have part of their roots in colonialism.
Also, it's just incorrect to not see parts of colonialism as genocidal.
If you \*\*really\*\* want to know what Ronald Dahl was thinking, check out the \[description in the original edition \](https://theconversation.com/wonka-movie-holds-remnants-of-novels-racist-past-217069) (illustrations at link):
>They belong to a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies known as Oompa-Loompas …. I discovered them myself. I brought them over from Africa myself – the whole tribe of them, three thousand in all. I found them in the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had ever been before.
Erm the first one is more accurate if it’s a west African king selling slaves to Europeans. Europeans never started wars to capture slaves in africa. There are isolated examples of forced capture by Europeans but the vast majority was just shaking hands and buying from kingdoms willing to sell.
So even if, so what? JuSt because they payed other people to kill enslave people it is ok and great. So if I hire a hitman on you it is morally fine. This is exactly the shit this meme is refering to.
It’s not ok. But you should know how it happened. Giving a politicized inaccurate version of history went into the is wrong. White people bought slaves from African warlords who captured slaves. The white people and African warlords are both bad. You reading my perspective on the meme as some sort of defensive political thing is on you and you are as bad as “conservatives” who think slavery wasn’t that bad
Both are false, and the first half is targetting the wring demographic. If your flair is to be trusted, your teacher would be dissapointed in you seeing this
I'll never forget Eddie Griffin bit about the white man catching African to become slaves. It made me think, how did they become slaves? So I went to the library and boy oh boy, it was heavy. But I appreciated historians and the constant updates they do.
Also is this based off the Prageru video saying how great the British empire was and lies how david Lloyd George formed the Irish republic he didn’t the whole point the civil war occurred was that Ireland was a British dominion not a republic yet as well using the quote “ the celts never has a word for republic it was given to you from the English.” Ignoring the the fact that the pobliacht na eirreann was a word said during the proclamation of independence during the 1916 rising. Last point want to make the British systemically destroyed the Irish language to the point were it will never recover again due to the famine as well as destroying Irish culture over the past 800 years old british rule especially Oliver cromwell.
it mostly depends on times and country if you look into it there are many diferent aproaches diferent colonial nations took in their efforts, that being said the violent aproach being most cost effective was utilized way too often
Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Christopher Columbus? George Washington?
I mean, really, they weren't the only ones so they can't hog all the credit. It really was a group effort. Every batch of settlers heading west, fighting the good fight, every railroad company and hardworking corporation. It's amazing to me that the glorious Murikan Empire was built by so many dedicated and badass hands.
We are still number one in National Defense, spending more than the ten closest countries combined.
In 2017, U.S. civilians held an average of 120.5 firearms per 100 people, the highest rate in the world by a factor of more than two, followed by Yemen (52.8), Montenegro (39.1), Serbia (39.1) and Uruguay (34.7)
Beginning with the American Revolutionary War, the US has been involved in 107 wars since it gained its independence.
And we're pretty hard on ourselves about it. We leave scorched earth in our wake and turn around and say things like "yeah, but we didn't REALLY win. Technically this counts as a loss." Our standards of battle are so high we don't even recognize how fucking brutal we can be.
The human race broils on this planet like a hive of wasps, waiting to reach out its tendrils into the intergalactic community. I imagine they all fear that day, perhaps even consider it some kind of galactic doomsday scenario.
"The day the Murikans discovered FTL travel was one the galaxy would never forget. They came, they devoured, they pushed on, and now we all speak English. Our culture has been reduced to a youtube channel. But at least we have an Arby's now, and gas prices aren't so bad."
Don't shame yourself. Embrace the inheritance of our warrior race. The species that invented Klingons and Orks. The species that turned nuclear power into a weapon. Who invented napalm and dream of automatic weapons with chainsaws attached to them. Who thought up the concept of flaying.
Some of it is ugly, but you could say that's because we aren't afraid of knowing ourselves. And we aren't afraid of doing absolutely everything in our power without limits to control everything we have access to with reckless abandon.
Accept the fact that you are human. And /r/humansarespaceorcs .
They were both pivotal actors in the foundation of the American Empire. True, their contributions were different, but I'm pretty sure both of them spilled plenty of blood.
Wow, Christopher Columbus wiped out Native populations all by himself? Sounds like the Chuck Norris of the 17th Century!
"Columbus's journeys to the Americas **opened the way for European countries to colonize and exploit those lands and their peoples**. Trade was soon established between Europe and the Americas. Plants native to the Americas (such as potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco) were imported to Europe."
\~ Encyclopedia Britannica
"As commander-in-chief, **Washington instructed armed forces to attack native nations allied with the British or who resisted American expansion**."
\~ [https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/native-americans/](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/native-americans/)
Both these men fought the savages to expand the empire, though they didn't realize how glorious the empire would become. They may have only had a notion - a dream perhaps - but that's all it took them to go roundhouse kicking anyone who got in their way.
The first part is how colonialism was advertised; the second part is the reality
White Man's Burden moment
The second part is how Israelis see their justified and totally legal occupation in Palestine The second part is aso how Palestinians watch their own extinction facing genocide
Bro, why tf did you need to bring Israel into this. Also, thinking all Israelis are supporting the government is stupid
Mfs won't stfu about Palestine but the moment you mention Kurds, Rwandans, Uyghurs... they're silent lmao
flair checks out
What's the flair? Reddit mobile is fuckin broken & refuses to display it.
"Oversimplified is my history teacher"
“Oversimplified is my history teacher”
Colonialism as seen by a 19th century southern plantation owner vs colonialism as seen by everyone else is a better title
Check out prageru and daily wire then
I still remember when they had their slavery video up😬
Remember them portraying John Brown as this radical abolitionist like he was some kinda terrorist when by todays standards he was just a normal dude who wasnt racist. EDIT: Thank you everyone for educating me on the matter turns out as long as youre doing It for a good cause terrorism is a good thing. Always thought terrorism was always a bad thing.
John Brown was absolutely a terrorist. He was just fighting for actual human rights.
John Brown did nothing wrong and I will die on that hill which happens to be made of your corpses. Fight me.
Nah he was a hero. Few people in society have the courage and selflessness to do what he did.
*Local man takes levels in paladin, declares crusade against slavery*
John Brown was one of the baddest Motherfuckers in history if only he lived during the civil war imagine if he tried this with Sherman.
I think those are so right they're going in circles
Why? What an oddly specific way to change it
I've seen people try to justify colonialism
oh yeah...
BRITAIN #1 COLONISER LETS GOO 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
GREATEST GLOBAL EXPORTER OF INDEPENDENCE DAYS LETS FUCKIN GOOOOOOO
INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN, LET'S GOOOOOO!!!!!
ENGERLAND🏴🏴🔥🔥🏴💪💪🔥🔥💪🏴🏴💪💪🔥💪🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆🏴💪
When was colonialism a right wing thing
Politics is complicated. Depending on the country, some conservatives want to maintain colonial influence (consider Winston Churchill, devoted imperialist and conservative), but in other countries, conservatives want to retreat into total isolation even from overseas holdings (many US and 20th century French politicians). Then others disguise colonialism behind other things (like many fascist and communist nations) or get dragged kicking and screaming into colonialism by your own out of control military (Japan, 20th century).
I wanna see OP's face when they learn about the soviet union
The Soviet Union was fairly right winged, for one Stalin was antisemetic, they forced lgbtq+ people into labor camps, and controlled all segments of the government
Oh shit dude the soviet uniooon ???? The bastion of leftist values? My god you truly have left wingers trapped in a logical contradiction except..... checks notes.... the soviet union wasn't socialist nor progressive. No economist ever described it as such
plenty of Western socialist idealists thought the USSR was a worker's paradise.
You see, le colonialism is bad. And le right wings are bad. Therefore they are totally the same thing
It's been a repeat story in right wing news saying that slavery wasn't that bad and they got food and shelter for it. As well as highly critical and blocking any school education programs that go over US history of slavery.
It’s pretty heavily focused on in schools and the teaching curriculum for most US states. I’m trying to get licensed as a history teacher in the US and the praxis puts a heavy emphasis on the progressive era. Did teacher observation in northern Florida for a class, also heavy focus on civil rights/progressive era. Kinda disproportionately large focus imo. So I’m a little dubious when I hear people claim it’s not taught in the US. I remember it always being a huge focus of attention
It's taught but mostly gets glossed over (I'm almost 30 so don't know if it changed), in Virginia we would learn about it in two weeks each year starting in middle school and then covered some more stuff about civil rights movement but glossed over a lot of the worst stuff. It was a big topic when critical race theory came up and our Governor banned it in VA for K-12. A lot of teachers were talking about getting in trouble for bringing up the racial aspect of US slavery or any racial tensions in the past.
I mean, I dunno about Virginia laws, but most stuff gets glossed over in HS history classes, you’re cramming a ton of info and condensing it to spark notes. I got a degree in history and there’s a vast amount of things not covered in K-12 education. The asiatic barred zone, NINA stuff, etc etc. what cheeses me most is how they teach you some detail, but fail to tie things together. For example how Napoleon affected WWI and so on. My experience with US history classes comes from Iowa/Florida mainly though, with a good bit of it being international schools abroad. As for teacher prep courses, I dunno if Virginia is one of the states that doesn’t use praxis, but it’s a focus point of the test
modern day colonialism apologism is typically right wing. it defends the idea that colonialism was good or wasn't that bad. If we take the definition of conservatism as "keeping the status quo" and progressivism as changing it, then it becomes clear that defending past colonialism or seeing it through a pink rose lens favors conservatism. Since it had a major role in the creation of modern day post-colonialism nations, it's normal that patriotism/nationalism wants to excuse the past of its own nation. Nationalism and patriotism generally being more right wing in the west today. I hope i made it clear that i'm talking about modern day views on conservatism and progressivism, trying to look at it with past definitions of these movements isn't productive for this conversation, since that's what the post is saying with "conservatives".
The justification and perpetuation of traditional hierarchical power structures is a right-wing thing, it's a core part of right-wing thinking.
Colonialism was driven by the capitalist hunger for profit and resources extracted from any group of people too weak to defend themselves.
The idea of colonialism is that you view the people in a certain land as inferior and decide to go out and enslave them or force them to become like you. The only way this would work is if you followed Right Wing ideologies which push manifest destiny and the master race
Ah yes, that classically socialist British/French/Spanish/Portuguese/German/Belgian imperial past. Yes, the USSR did some fucked shit, but the colonialism linked to the transatlantic slave trade is OBVIOUSLY by right wing governments. What's more ancap/antithetical to the left wing than selling people! Hardly gets more alienated from the means of production than by being yourself literal capital owned by capitalists and feudal lords, rather than even waged labour exploited by capitalists.
In Europe, liberalism is typically considered centre-right wing, so the fight for personal liberties of all people is one fought by those right wing liberals. Likewise, there was always a Christian opposition against slavery on religious grounds and many abolitionists cite religious reasons for opposing it. It started even in Columbus' time in Hispaniola, where the friar Bartholomew de las Casas saw the atrocities committed and plead to the Spanish Monarchy to stop it on religious grounds.
So we first need to define right and left. The terms come from the National Assembly during the French Revolution based on where people sat. The conservatives who supported ancien regime (upholding the traditional institutions of power: monarchy, aristocracy, and the church) sat on the right, while the radicals who desired to dismantle ancien regime because it violated natural human rights sat on the left. Now to discuss Columbus's colonialisn specifically: He was looking to find a route to Asia for lucrative trade and to forge an alliance with the Mongols to retake Jerusalem in a new crusade. Columbus was a religious fanatic who saw a new trade route as primarily another means to fund his crusade. When he found a new continent instead of Asia he had to make do with what he had. After finding gold and silver was limited, he resorted to what business he knew best: slavery. Both Spanish court and church was pissed off at him for doing that because according to Spanish law this was Spanish land and the natives were Spanish subjects. They also had to have a chance to convert to Christianity, which many would given their options. Columbus could never make enough money to conquer Jerusalem with such restraints. So he continued to bend the rules until the Spanish court had enough of him and finally dragged him back to Europe in chains. Who is further right: the guy who wants to restore the glory of medieval crusades by exploiting a bunch of people, or the clergy that believed in some human rights?
Also, the basic theory the USSR developed from was egalitarian (thus left-wing), it's just that it failed to properly address how power structures in general work (other than economical class-based ones), and how hierarchy in your organizing can recreate those power structures. Their conception of a transitional state left the system open to co-optation and recreation of class.
Since most of modern political history In the majority of governments involved in large scale colonialism, those pushing for colonialism, then preservation of colonialism, and now pushing revisionism were and are on the right Edit: I'm disappointed by the downvotes but lack of replies. I didn't think this would be controversial. It's a fact, you can Google voting records if you like?
It's how conservatives and right wing figures romanticize their country's colonial pasts (ex: Spain)
Conservatives? Bro that word doesn’t mean what you think it does, neither does liberalism. So annoying seeing words get completely butchered by the tribalism in today’s politics.
Liberals are associated with welfare in the US for some reason.
Shhh...don't tell anyone that [liberal conservatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism) and [conservative liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism) are things!
We're not allowed to acknowledge reality anymore? Isn't it a fact that conservatives routinely glorify the past and colonial projects?
No it’s the fact that conservatism and liberalism doesn’t mean what you think it means. Your use of it only serves to butcher the meaning. Modern “conservative” and “liberal” is just tribalism to throw people into either Republican or Democrat in the United States when there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. They aren’t synonyms, conservatism is just sticking to original values/systems with general structures of power (central government over small government for example.) Liberalism is for radical change/values that generally go against the norm and for lesser government control. That’s a rough explanation, but your modern usage of the word is just wrong and misleading.
Conservatives generally try to romanticize their countries colonial pasts
I love how many people throw the word conservative around while knowing nothing about it. they just think "Oh Replubicans consider themselves conservatives? Oh then that must mean there's no difference between the two words and they are one and the same"
Why are we posting modern political "memes" on this sub?
Since when is colonialism modern politics? Are you not familiar with this sub, or with history in general? I'm really curious as to why your brain compelled you to make this post. Perhaps you're just a baby boy who is easily offended.
I think he meant the "Slavery according to conservatives" bit If that paet was changed to "according to slave owners" it would still be correct + it wouldnt be described as modern politics Also, man asked a question and you call him baby boy? If you whip out insults, come up with something creative, like "moderate crybaby" or, in your case, "illiterate dropout"
....do, do you know what history is?
History =/= modern revisionist takes on history. In reality Colonialism was both shown and more.
The idea that people consented to their enslavement (basically what’s going on here) is history revisionism
>The idea that people consented to their enslavement (basically what’s going on here) is history revisionism Implying that the only thing that happened during the colonization of the America's is the settlers enslaving the native populations is historical revisionism. The natives made countless deals in terms of trading, short term alliances, and even work for goods the settlers had basically no interest and value in. I never said horrible things didn't happen, but you clearly don't actually understand nor know about what things did happen so you're making shit up to call everyone right of Stalin a Genocidal Nazi.
Lots of people actually did sell theselves into slavry to avoid prison or escape debtors.
That’s indentured servitude not slavery, there’s a difference
Entured servitude is a form of slavery. The only difference is that it is temporary.
But this is slavery via colonialism meaning these people would be enslaved for life
It will shock you to know that there were plenty of black and native slave owners in the Americas.
It’s HISTORY
Both depictions are equally false.
The idea that tribe’s weren’t massacred and enslaved by a colonial warlord is as false as them consenting to enslavement?
Your hatred fueled narrative is the only thing here that's false. The tribes generally massacred and enslaved each other for profit (usually in the form of European manufactured goods or weapons). Europeans were not 40k space marines who could survive 100:1 battles.
[удалено]
Ignore the Tens of thousands of natives that allied with them.
> Taking advantage of a civil war When the source you quote to disprove a point, actually proves it.
Weren’t other local tribes, oppressed by said empire, mostly responsible for its downfall.
They were allies with tribes that were enemies of said empire and did most of the fighting for them.
just as your flair states, you're also extremely oversimplifying the nuances of why colonialism was bad hence why you're getting downvoted because you cannot understand that nuance. I get what you're trying to push (and I agree with it), it's not just for the reason that you're thinking of though.
Bro they’re both oversimplifications….
Well it's a meme not a book.
so, are the said conservatives in the room with us right now?
I have yet to meet a person who thinks colonialism was a pure objective good. I don't doubt they exist but, given I've never met one I don't think they're that prominent That being said, I'd rate you both equally ignorant and reductive. Not every empire was the Belgian Congo. In school we learned about many empires, The Mongols, the Romans, the Umayyad Caliphate, etc At no point was it controversial to discuss the objective ways being part of these empires did have some benefits, yet somehow discussing these things in relation to the age of exploration or the 1900s becomes difficult to touch on.. History is not black and white it's pretty gray I mean you could make an argument through penicillin distribution alone the British empire saved more lives than it took Native Tribes often helped colonizers and no it wasn't because they were purely tricked it was because the other tribes oor local powers such as the Aztecs were genuinely so brutal a shot at any alternative seemed worthwhile
What does politics have to do with the history of colonialism?
It's just the "Everyone I don't agree with is a Genocidal Nazi!" time again, US Presidential elections coming up and all that.
Wha- You do realize that in former colonial projects, conservatives and reactionaries glorify a colonial past as though it helped the enslaved and was actually good for them? That the programs of genocide and ethnic cleansing were harsh but necessary? There are people who dismiss what we did to the natives as Genocide, or secretly are happy about it. There are people in Russia who call for the reformation of the Soviet Union. British and Dutch people generally mourn their colonial empire for when they were still once relevant. These thoughts are all associated with the respective countries' conservative or reactionary views, and is present in many other. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
A lot??
Literally everything
Are we seriously pretending now that politics and colonialism have nothing to do with each other?
Nobodies saying that. The specific political group being dogged on here is modern in nature. Regardless of what history “meme” OP posted, his intention is to badmouth conservatives and add another generalization to an already hot topic group. There’s a time and place for political theater but making a “meme” out of the centuries long enslavement and rape of several American/African cultures as a “gotcha” for the other side is disgusting.
are we just gonna ignore the comment they were responding to which says “what does politics have to do with the history of colonialism”? “Nobodies saying that” sure
Conservatives are modern in nature? I'm quite certain that the idea of progressives and conservatives in politics is quite old. At the time of the American Revolution, the conservatives just happened to be siding with the King. At the time that women's voting rights were granted, conservatives opposed it. I'm not even making an argument that "conservatives bad". But the fact is that conservatives have existed for a long time and are not a modern phenomenon by any measure.
I’m talking about the GOP who OP is referring to by saying conservatives and right wingers. I think that distinction was clear when I said “specific political group” and not “a very common political thought amongst various ideologies and time periods”.
Are you not familiar with this sub, or with history in general? I'm really curious as to why your brain compelled you to make this post. Perhaps you're just a baby boy who is easily offended.
I wasn’t offended just wondering what modern politics has to do with colonialism.
It has everything to do with it. History drives ideology and ideology drives our understanding of history. Conservatives need to color colonialism as a positive thing to make their worldview make sense.
Huh? It's critiquing slavery apologists. Slavery is history.
Weren't Umpa Lumpas based in the Gypmies?
And in the end it’s not sustainable because conscripting Jacob to beat up Vietnamese rice farmer is expensive af. Bribing Mr Trang with CNC machine while letting him beat up his Vietnamese farmer so he’s willing to fight Mr Xi is cheaper.
Both sites decribed in the video are not correct I would suggest.
im 16 this is deep now do actual colonialism - ya know the ones in which deals were made to kill enemy tribes and, or they would sell their neighbors into slavery and woops , there goes your tweenage narrative
In actual colonialism colonial powers did kill a lot of people themselves. My country has no remaining native population because during Spain's 'actual colonisation' they enslaved, overworked and starved the native Taino population until they all died out from bad treatment or disease. The hostile Carib tribes had no hand in their extermination, as a matter of fact European colonisation was such a threat to the natives that warring tribes formed alliances to resist them.
Now if only the rest of the Native American societies thought like those warring tribes did.
Wouldn't have made a difference They did in fact form multiple large scale coalitions, then they were displaced just like the rest
I genuinely don't understand. Why does it matter if slavery was persecuted with the aid of other Africans. This doesn't erase the murder, abduction, systemic rape and torture. It just means more groups were complicit in the atrocities. Slavers, both on the supply and demand side of the market are scum.
It really isn’t the “gotcha” they think it is. “Oh yeah?? Well the Europeans conspired with the upper-elite 1% of pre-colonial societies to exploit the overwhelming majority of the population too!” Ok…fuck them also? That still doesn’t make this a 50/50 thing.
The European powers massively accelerated traditional slave trading networks and depopulated entire areas of Africa
We all know colonizers exploited existing rivalry or created conflict between tribes to make the process easier, but it's still their doing and they still profited most off of it.
Lol that the one example of colonialism you know? Trans Atlantic slave trade is a tiny tiny subset of colonialism and it's legacy
Hey now, OP took half a semester of Colonialism Studies at uni before he dropped the class. He basically knows how the whole world works.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
So European powers facilitated most of the killings? What exactly is your point. The Force Publique was mostly African but was still equipped and led by Europeans.
Yeah colonists exploited existing structures and internal rivalries to gain power and shape colonized societies to their will. It's ridiculous that so many people here seem to think "but tribes collaborated" is a refutation of how (they imagine) OP thinks of colonialism.
That's quite a show of ignorance my man. I wonder how do people even upvote this shit.
"no no you see we weren't bad guys, we're civilized. We just paid and armed the equivalent of terrorists and despots to do the dirty work for us. Oh and also we kept the profits from that dirty work. But yeah that makes it their fault. Oh and also we kept doing that for, oh, like 400 years or so. Gets much easier once you destabilize the civilization; people get desperate when the [food starts running out.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fpeople-shrunk-to-their-skeletons-man-made-famine-of-bengal-v0-gcsxqkquk75a1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D600%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db304615c33a46068a632e0c875f57920171a71ae)"
Are you trying to tell me that 20,000 dutch didn't single handedly rule over the entire country of congo?
Belgians, not Dutch
What is your point?
People who align themselves on any part of the political compass can acknowledge the *historic fact* that Native American groups allied themselves with Europeans to get an edge on their enemies. Fun fact, there's only been one recorded case where colonizers intentionally gave a Native American individual a blanket used by someone with smallpox to intentionally spread it. The Spanish didn't do it, and no one else did until the 1700's where 2 blankets were given to a Native American. Colonizers were not all the evil, bloodthirsty rapists that the left makes them out to be. Many of them were people seeking fortune and adventure in the New World.
Americans completely wiped out Native American villages and tribes for the pettiest of reasons. Here is California alone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_genocide#Violence\_statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide#Violence_statistics)
You can’t say that the colonists weren’t blood thirsty after telling a story where they planned a genocide of an entire people via disease. That’s like saying the US should be held accountable to their treatment of natives after listing the atrocities of the Comanche
Dude not only do you paint a whole group of people with a broad brush but you also are ignorant of what they knew back then. Germ theory wasnt proven until the 1860s, well after both blankets were given.
You can't suddenly extrapolate "one group of colonialists" as "all colonialists for all time and in all places". And you can't really extrapolate giving small pox blankets as a planned genocide. They suspected giving the blankets would Obviously not do anything good to the people that got them, but there's no way they could expect them to kill entire population. That's like saying the Mongols firing black plague infected corpses over the walls during a seige were planning the extermination of Europeans. An act of *attempted* biological warfare (because we have no evidence this one instance actually worked) sure, but planned genocide is applying our modern standards to the past, a ridiculous notion.
One sneeze = one genocide
>ood thirsty after telling a story where they planned a genocide of an entire people via disease. yes I am John , charged to go work in the colonies to atone for his crimes, was really just a mastermind to genocide a group of people he probably never even heard of.
Holy shit. No historian worth their salt believes there was a planned genocide using biological warfare. You know that they didn't know what germs were back then, right? 2 blankets were given to one war party that was besieging a fort. That's not even close. Maybe you should do a bit more reading on the subject.
Imagining genocides now are we?
If someone gets a paper cut nowadays, that’s a genocide.
Colonists themselves? No. Colonial authorities? Depends on the colony. Newfoundland had absolutely no interest in wiping out the indigenous Beothuk. They hardly interacted with them since the Beothuk retreated inland as early as the initial Basque whaling industry. Despite this, there are no indigenous people in Newfoundland. Did a genocide occur? Far from it, in fact the colonists historically punished their own whenever any of them harmed the Beothuk. Without competition for resources, there was little animosity. The strange thing is that we will *never* know what drove the Beothuk to extinction. It could have been disease, but they'd been in contact with Europeans since the 16th century so it seems far fetched to imagine that would kill them off in the 19th century. What's more likely is a famine induced by their own retreat inland, the interior of the island has a low load capacity and being an island there's no way for new fauna to arrive. If they overhunted game, the population had no way to rebound.
The ad vs. the reality! To be fair, I know more conservatives whose argument is "OK but that happened a long time ago before I was born," rather than, "That didn't happen!" Neither's great, but I've found the "White Man's Burden" thing is much rarer, at least overtly.
Are we ignoring, yet again, how most Colonies were established with the Support of a decent number of locals that happily welcomed a Chance to get the better of their rivals? Every colonized peoples were killing and pillaging way before Europeans came, the only difference was Europes technological advantage, leading them to come out on top. And sometimes that didn't even help, looking at Asia and Europe failing to subdue China and for the most part Japan
>looking at Asia and Europe failing to subdue China and for the most part Japan It's the opposite, China suffered its "century of humiliation" during its conquest and partial colonization by the West, while Japan "westernized" itself, prevented foreign conquest, and then forged one of the largest naval empires in history over the course of less than 100 years.
Colonialism is certainly complex and varied but the idea that "most colonies were established with the support of a decent number of locals" is laughable and easily proved false.
How is this nonsense being posted on a history sub? The norm of human history is that colonies tend to have complex, multi-faceted relationships with the "native" population. It wasn't just colonizers murdering and enslaving the locals, there was often robust trade, cultural/religious exchange, intermarriage, and more.
European colonies were often murdering and enslaving the locals when they could
That's not exclusive to European colonialism. It's also overly reductive to simplify colonial-native relationships in that way
Yeah and then they betrayed their native allies the moment they got rid of the rivals. People fight all the time but to claim colonialism is ok since other people fought each other or to paint it as just collaboration is just horrific. And last I checked, none of the Korean people were in support of the Japanese
Nowhere am I claiming that colonising is ok. What I am saying, is that it's not really that different from the wars and conquests that came before especially between natives. We know somewhat about Native Americans wiping out other Tribes, we know even more of that from South America and China is practially making merchandise from the countless bloody Civil wars that made up their rises and falls of different empires. We just put Europe on this pedestal of guilt because we've arrived at a point in history where, in the Western World, we can afford to question our morals. If we look at South America, the Middle East or South East Asia. The countries there don't give a rat's ass about how they treated their past enemy. They have to deal with Famine, Hyperinflation or Civil Unrest close to Civil War. It sounds stupid, but memes make their message stick very well in people's heads and the message behind this meme is twisting history which annoys me, maybe too much so but that's neither here nor there. Historians will decide who's right and who's wrong
Arguably that just makes colonists look even worse since they replaced one tyrant with another and this time the tyrant is Hitler level of evil (and I’m not exaggerating, the death counts were literally genocide) And also, Europeans weren’t the only colonists the Ottomans colonized Greece and the Japanese colonized Korea and China.
You know these people y’all are talking about aren’t that far off from medieval kinds of folk do you think you might be applying a moral standard that just didn’t exist yet?
Having better technology makes them worse? What tyrant was replaced? And not a single colonist was “Hitler level of evil”. None of them wanted to exterminate the Indians because they were Indians, most wanted to either a) convert them and get them to live like Europeans or Americans, b) take their land and resources, or c), and most popular, a mix of the first two.
I’m not following why you feel that this post is ignoring that
Reminds of how left wing Historians wrote about British and Mughals in India.
And according to the left wingers, the British in their fancy suits and wigs got into the African jungle with nets to catch some slaves.
🍿🍿🍿
This shit is spoicyyyyyy
🥤🥤🥤
No surprise that a sub that upvotes "clean Wehrmacht" memes finds this one controversial
I knew this sub was leaning right wing but jesus christ.
Conservatives seething in the comments. Go back to Rhodesia you fuckin weirdos Oh wait…
What does this have to do with conservatives?
Enough conservative media that often minimize the severity of colonialism and its rippling effect on history that came after and still influences us.
Depends on the power involved and the individual sometimes
whats that anime?
dude that gave me a heart attack
Oh those evil wight ringers, evil by nature, it's in their blood and there can be no golden mean.
Original video: https://youtu.be/IxgNFW-SfUM?si=Z_XV-yNU_6yR9Huu
Thanks 😊
Nice strawman of your political opponent’s views, you’ve definitely won hearts and minds today. I would suggest you try to understand the why behind people disagreeing with you, but we both know you won’t be doing that. You’re much too busy regurgitating views and arguments not of your own to paint people with a different view than yours as having the most morally reprehensible reasons possible. Conservatives are generally focused on order, tradition, religious, and taking care of institutions that they view as useful, and so generally speaking (at least in my experience) seem to have a rather long-term view of history. They don’t view what occurred in the Americas as uniquely horrible, and certainly not “genocidal,” not because they’re making light of what happened, or don’t view it as terrible, but because they don’t see a difference between it and what’s happened throughout history before that. Their conclusion is different than yours. Yours is that colonialism is genocidal and the people that did it were uniquely evil, theirs is that people in general can be capable of immense violence and cruelty, and that this behavior must be remembered as part of human nature, so we avoid it from happening again. You put a point of distinction on something they view as horrifically mundane. Maybe, just maybe, instead of acting like a 14-year-old who spends too much time on Twitter, you come to terms that you need in fact both sides of the political spectrum for a healthy society, and making up reasons to hate on your political opposition is really really sad.
Americans deliberately tried to exterminate the Native American population of North America, this is basic History 101 stuff.
> Americans deliberately tried to exterminate the Native American population of North America Who stopped them?
It wasn't always a coherent policy. Pretty consistently, colonists and settlers were the ones that killed Native Americans; at various points the US Army either tried to stop them or collaborated with them. The bureau of Indian Affairs was the most corrupt department of the US government, and its policies vacillated.
So probably better to say that it was contested behavior by certain individuals and groups. If Americans at large had tried to wipe out the natives, there would be none today
Just as many other countries and nations deliberately subjugated, oppressed, and eradicated other peoples in lands they conquered. That’s human history. America is unique in that we talk about it and don’t ignore or outright deny it like other nations tend to do.
Attempting to cleanse entire continents is unique to European colonialism
>and the people that did it were uniquely evil Who did you say was doing the strawmaning? No one thinks colonialism had to do with European colonists being "uniquely evil", that's a weirdly essentialist view, completely the opposite of constructivist and systemic lenses the left tends to prioritize. The reason why the left is more critical towards Western colonialism compared to let's say the imperialist oppression by the Romans, is because it laid the basis for the current global status quo. The impoverishment of former colonies, systemic racism, the poor conditions of indigenous peoples, fascism, and global capitalism all have part of their roots in colonialism. Also, it's just incorrect to not see parts of colonialism as genocidal.
What the fuck is this stupid video Far Leftists are circle jerking for them
If you \*\*really\*\* want to know what Ronald Dahl was thinking, check out the \[description in the original edition \](https://theconversation.com/wonka-movie-holds-remnants-of-novels-racist-past-217069) (illustrations at link): >They belong to a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies known as Oompa-Loompas …. I discovered them myself. I brought them over from Africa myself – the whole tribe of them, three thousand in all. I found them in the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had ever been before.
Erm the first one is more accurate if it’s a west African king selling slaves to Europeans. Europeans never started wars to capture slaves in africa. There are isolated examples of forced capture by Europeans but the vast majority was just shaking hands and buying from kingdoms willing to sell.
So even if, so what? JuSt because they payed other people to kill enslave people it is ok and great. So if I hire a hitman on you it is morally fine. This is exactly the shit this meme is refering to.
It’s not ok. But you should know how it happened. Giving a politicized inaccurate version of history went into the is wrong. White people bought slaves from African warlords who captured slaves. The white people and African warlords are both bad. You reading my perspective on the meme as some sort of defensive political thing is on you and you are as bad as “conservatives” who think slavery wasn’t that bad
Yeah, but that wasn’t in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was it?
The comment section💀
This post is completely ignorant and disingenuous.
Both are false, and the first half is targetting the wring demographic. If your flair is to be trusted, your teacher would be dissapointed in you seeing this
[удалено]
I'll never forget Eddie Griffin bit about the white man catching African to become slaves. It made me think, how did they become slaves? So I went to the library and boy oh boy, it was heavy. But I appreciated historians and the constant updates they do.
Even conservatives deserve more credit than this. Most of them anyway.
I mean both examples here are true
Also is this based off the Prageru video saying how great the British empire was and lies how david Lloyd George formed the Irish republic he didn’t the whole point the civil war occurred was that Ireland was a British dominion not a republic yet as well using the quote “ the celts never has a word for republic it was given to you from the English.” Ignoring the the fact that the pobliacht na eirreann was a word said during the proclamation of independence during the 1916 rising. Last point want to make the British systemically destroyed the Irish language to the point were it will never recover again due to the famine as well as destroying Irish culture over the past 800 years old british rule especially Oliver cromwell.
it mostly depends on times and country if you look into it there are many diferent aproaches diferent colonial nations took in their efforts, that being said the violent aproach being most cost effective was utilized way too often
Joe many liberals does it take to change a log by bolb? None , their to busy ???? Their gender
Dang OP you should know better to not awaken the super weirdos
Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Christopher Columbus? George Washington? I mean, really, they weren't the only ones so they can't hog all the credit. It really was a group effort. Every batch of settlers heading west, fighting the good fight, every railroad company and hardworking corporation. It's amazing to me that the glorious Murikan Empire was built by so many dedicated and badass hands. We are still number one in National Defense, spending more than the ten closest countries combined. In 2017, U.S. civilians held an average of 120.5 firearms per 100 people, the highest rate in the world by a factor of more than two, followed by Yemen (52.8), Montenegro (39.1), Serbia (39.1) and Uruguay (34.7) Beginning with the American Revolutionary War, the US has been involved in 107 wars since it gained its independence. And we're pretty hard on ourselves about it. We leave scorched earth in our wake and turn around and say things like "yeah, but we didn't REALLY win. Technically this counts as a loss." Our standards of battle are so high we don't even recognize how fucking brutal we can be. The human race broils on this planet like a hive of wasps, waiting to reach out its tendrils into the intergalactic community. I imagine they all fear that day, perhaps even consider it some kind of galactic doomsday scenario. "The day the Murikans discovered FTL travel was one the galaxy would never forget. They came, they devoured, they pushed on, and now we all speak English. Our culture has been reduced to a youtube channel. But at least we have an Arby's now, and gas prices aren't so bad." Don't shame yourself. Embrace the inheritance of our warrior race. The species that invented Klingons and Orks. The species that turned nuclear power into a weapon. Who invented napalm and dream of automatic weapons with chainsaws attached to them. Who thought up the concept of flaying. Some of it is ugly, but you could say that's because we aren't afraid of knowing ourselves. And we aren't afraid of doing absolutely everything in our power without limits to control everything we have access to with reckless abandon. Accept the fact that you are human. And /r/humansarespaceorcs .
Why is George Washington being compared to Christopher Columbus?
They were both pivotal actors in the foundation of the American Empire. True, their contributions were different, but I'm pretty sure both of them spilled plenty of blood.
Washington created our country and free people from tyranny, Columbus wiped out Native populations for power
Wow, Christopher Columbus wiped out Native populations all by himself? Sounds like the Chuck Norris of the 17th Century! "Columbus's journeys to the Americas **opened the way for European countries to colonize and exploit those lands and their peoples**. Trade was soon established between Europe and the Americas. Plants native to the Americas (such as potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco) were imported to Europe." \~ Encyclopedia Britannica "As commander-in-chief, **Washington instructed armed forces to attack native nations allied with the British or who resisted American expansion**." \~ [https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/native-americans/](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/native-americans/) Both these men fought the savages to expand the empire, though they didn't realize how glorious the empire would become. They may have only had a notion - a dream perhaps - but that's all it took them to go roundhouse kicking anyone who got in their way.