LogFAQs > #956659227

wydrah posted...

Okay, let's back up. How are we defining "colonialism"? We probably have different definitions.

Colonialism is not simply violent oppression and slavery. It's also the Westernization of non-European (descended) societies. I said colonialism "exports" European culture. More modernly, American culture is exported. Our corporate brands--Disney, Coca-Cola, McDonalds--are not only recognized worldwide, but adopted, imitated, etc. And when the world is consuming our media, for example, they are consuming our culture, and will inevitably reshape some of their own culture according to it.

This is different than, say, the Pokemon craze in the United States. Although we are consuming Japanese culture, this is not colonial due to the power imbalance. And there is a long history of this. We can look back to the 1850s when Matthew Perry demanded Japan end its isolationist policy of sakoku by trading with the United States. His forces totally outmatched Japanese forces, not unlike how Cortes' forces dwarfed the Aztecs. Another example, obviously, would be the Potsdam Declaration, which was a formal Westernization of Japan.

I'm not reading the rest of what you wrote because it's not worth my time to break down every single thing that's wrong with it. I feel like I already put in a lot of effort into this bullshit.

That is an unacceptable definition.

Firstly, it ensures that a colonial power can ONLY be European. This is why I listed multiple empires which engaged in similar practices that were not European (and some of which even tried to colonize Europe). If a nation did literally everything you described but existed in South America instead of Europe by your definition it couldn't be a colonial power or be engaging in colonialism. A nation that doesn't attempt to westernize couldn't be considered a colonial power. What England has done to Ireland in the past couldn't be considered 'colonial' because Ireland is a westernized nation already. Heck, in theory on an alien planet a nation could do literally everything you're describing and still fail to meet the criteria because the dominate powers are on the South in their world. This definition is a purely political one that is sorely lacking outside of pushing a narrative.

Secondly it, extremely wrongly, conflates cultural EXPORT with cultural SURPRESSION. If a company like Coke makes a desirable product and exports it, possibly even destroying local brands, that's the result of a free market at work and not some white ethnostate oppressing poor locals (especially since this can happen between westernized nations).

Thirdly this definition ignores that other cultures are capable of exporting said culture as well. We're currently seeing manga and anime, distinctly Japanese products, outright crush 'western' alternatives in America. Middle Eastern, Chinese, and Indian food markets have found firm niches. Yet you would say that this is not the same simply due to 'a power imbalance' ignoring that this is simply not how international trade works and, even if it somehow was, that local markets are not required to buy their product over local alternatives. Coke can undercut a local soda brand. Coke cannot force you to drink it's product. Even when it undercuts it manages this through having both a desirable product and a large enough revenue base to absorb such an impact and not, as CRT would imply, through some form of racial advantage afforded to it for being a 'westernized company'.

Colonies exist for one purpose and one purpose alone. To extract wealth, resources, and the like for the home country. As such the very notion of colonization would need to reflect that. However every nation has treated their colonies extremely differently. For example the Spanish effectively stripmined their nations warping the land and people groups for the purposes of the crown while, in comparison, the French were loathe to leave their homeland and saw colonies almost as more glorified trading ports. However the best, most accurate, and acceptable definition is that 'colonization' is the method by which a colonial power exerts its control over the indigenous people of an area; often displacing them and replacing local governments with ones representative of the power.

This was things such as the Chinese colonization of Tibet, what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe, what the Japanese did, and what many historical powers did where they moved into a land in which they were not native, oppressed the local people groups, forced them into submission, and frequently destroyed any local culture cannot escape your terms simply because we're talking about, say, ancient Persia and Israel (which would not qualify under your definition because they are not European) or the Roman conquests of basically everyone (since there was no 'westernization' to speak of at the time).

Gaawa_chan posted...

... but it's literally designed to specifically examine American law and history, because America's relationship to the trans-atlantic slave trade and its race relations are unique (same goes for a lot of countries, but the point is that a more generic framework would not give the same insight).

It's always so telling when people who have no idea what CRT is start whining about it. It's literally related to the work of American heroes like Frederick Douglass, but people keep acting as though it's some sort of communist revisionist plot. It's not.

And let me guess 'real communism hasn't been tried' as well?

No one is disputing that America's history with racial relations has been... strained... at best. I mean the civil rights act only happened in the 1960's, we had a civil war over it, and the south basically rebelled against England because they were afraid that increasing English influence would result in their slaves being freed. However the solution to that isn't to cram all white people (some of which have some VERY strongly negative feelings about each other due to their histories) into a single homogenous group, proclaim they have all the power when many of them have ancestors who came to America specifically because they had NO power, claim they all engage in a racist system, and then redefine words and change history to non-sense meanings whenever someone points out that they don't make sense.

I mean, you guys haven't even defined what 'white' even IS yet. Just said that society defines that.

---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage