Meanwhile western people have no idea with the correlation of French colonialism. They just think that it's all about parisian people's fault because of their arrogancy. Just funny.
There is a massive difference between colonisation (which everyone did do indeed) and Colonialism though lol and you're doing yourself and history a disservice by ignoring the distinction. Colonialism is a specific mode of conquest and control that sees conquered territories turn into extractive peripheries, with an unequal exchange of resources and wealth from the periphery to the colonial core. This is extremely different to colonisation such as say, the establishment of Danelaw, wherein the colonisers move in and settle the region with the intent of treating it as their homeland and major polity, and intermingled with those they conquered. Colonialism on the other hand upholds ethnic boundaries to distinct between coloniser and colonised - either via the European supremacist attitudes of the Americas or the upholding of colonial minorities such as the Tutsi in Rwanda or the pied-noirs in Algeria. Colonialism as a system was structurally extractive and divisive, and that model of colonisation was pioneered by and largely acted out by European powers, with ramifications to this day and with many continuing their extractive relationship via neo-colonial methods such as the Francafrique.
Nationalistic drivel. Cultural identity is changed in the former instance, not lost, settler culture and the culture of the conquered intermingles and oftentimes the conquering party adopt the culture of the conquered, such as the Mongols in China and Persia or the Nordics in Kievan Rus, and once again these are not extractionary polities that exist purely to drive wealth out of the conquered lands towards a core territory. With the latter, yes, Colonialism seeks to establish a certain type of ideal ethnicity to rule each periphery to ensure that said ethnicity is still loyal to the colonial core, and so often put in measures specifically to Other the colonised, such as the Christianisation schools in the Americas or the anti-Irish laws in Ireland. Furthermore, Colonialism incurs even bigger loses: the impovrishing of swathes of territories and their peoples which lead to cycles of death, disease and misery that could otherwise be avoided.
Right on. Nationalistic drivel alright. We're all just a mix of other things.
One thing I'm excited for (as a young Muslim) is the vast increase in Islamic identity going through Europe as a whole due to them letting us all pile in haha.
Birmingham in the UK is like almost 1/3 Muslim now. Perhaps over time as we gain a foothold in politics and democratic power we can keep increasing to take over the UK.
Imagine an Islamic flag on Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower showing off our culture. 🙂
Just like the commenter I replied to. Europe is asleep/oblivious/ too kind to us and we're going to infiltrate your lands until everyone is singing the praises of Allah 🙂 as he said above, it's part of culture to be overridden by something better.
You're on the third iteration of the same God, before Islam was Judaism and Christianity.
So what is it you believe your God did wrong in those two instances and why do you think he got it right this time?
I honwstly don't understand because im not religious, but if you think your God is all powerful, correct all the time etc, why is your belief built on the idea that he has failed twice before?
And I can't really accept the idea that humans did a bad job of receiving his message because, well, he made us after all, so he should know us right?
Sort yourself out you sorry wad of spit lmao, the Muslims aren't the reason this country is going to the dogs or the fact your life sucks, you're not even at fault for the former but I recommend not spending your time pretending to be people you hate online and you might be happier
Excuse me? My life isn't shit 🤔.
I follow the teachings of Allah here in Birmingham in the community I inhabit that's made literally no effort to integrate into British society. It's like a mini Iran right in the middle of the UK. I love it.
All the progress you've made over the last century on women's and LGBT rights are slipping down the drain, and mean nothing to me.
I suppose that's what you get for shoving multiple diametrically opposed cultures together right next to each other for some surreal unfathomable reason.
Keep you head up, cheer up and you won't have to resort to baselessly guessing someone else's happiness levels and living standard but cause you can't fathom an argument together for this surreal lunacy.
Not the point, I'm not talking about what's morally "ok" I am talking about the historical and material outcomes of different types of colonisation and what drives them, and the key differences in outcome from migrationary colonisation and systemic Colonialism, and I am not talking about "throwing them a sandwich."
The norse that settled Dublin became the Hiberno-Norse and a part of Ireland's broader cultural exchange and became a part of the region's fabric of polities and power, Colonialism inserts and then usurps the regions it finds itself in and systematically sets apart an Us vs Them exclusionary relationship between the coloniser and colonised in order to sustain it's extractionary economic purpose.
These statements are coming from English and French's people own arguments which are denying the massacres, exploitation of human and nature itself with the help of managing of masses of the society.
Deforestation of almost half of the African forest with the help of colonialism and killing big extent of revolters against the state and slavery as it own purpose are totally proving that small portion of tribal fighters aren't destroying all human's fate but European countries. indeed, a huge deal of the world's ending brought about the discussion of overexploitation of nature and human's sensivity by the tyrannical forces.
We're talking about billions of people and changement through their lives because of colonial purpose of europeans. If people are still suffering from lack of nutrition, education and health care, that's the reason of European exploitation.
These colonialist states are not underdeveloped, they are overexploited by European forces.
Also, you're English too so that proves that you guys are still denying the big part of world's exploitation are made up by colonialist purpose.
I'm Welsh, I'm from a conquered land who at one point even had its own language outlawed.
I'd assume that because I'm from the UK, you may assume everyone is English and may not even know about Wales. Which speaks volumes about the loss of cultural identity.
But because England is next door and both countries people are mostly white, history sees it in a very different light to say, Britain in India.
I have to ask you, where does it end?
You're making the claim that billions of people are effected by colonialism, in 100 years time would you claim trillions?
At what point do we say, you know what, countries are responsible for their own lands now instead of putting any social issue on the past.
Are you really that naive for considering countries like Haiti can easily adjust without the years of exploitation and still ongoing on external influence economical problems in a short time?
Indeed, I am not talking about the solutions but there's lying fact of colonalism: tribes war aren't the same deal with European empowerment and tyrannical pressure on the subject of colonial states.
Not naive at all, I just don't think it solves any issues to blame what happened 200, 300 years ago when there are current issues.
Your example of Haiti, you yourself mentioned ongoing external influence, which I'm going to guess isn't revolutionary France, or the ongoing gang warfare that I highly doubt is Napoleon Bonaparte's fault.
The issue goes back to Napoleon, as France exacted a terrible debt on Haiti, which the haitans were forced to repay over centuries, with the help of large loans from the USA, who then would send in troops several times during the 18 and 1900's when Haiti had issues with repaying those loans.
That is the foundation for the issues plaguing Haiti today.
And if they hadn't been forced to pay that "debt", then they most likely wouldn't have needed that aid later on. It's a perfect example of how making a something worse makes it more costly to fix.
“Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.”
Like I said before every nation has done this at one point or the other.
No, we have specific definitions for countries and nations, and a tribal group or even an early kingdom would not qualify as a country.
So for example, medieval Denmark uniting Scandinavia, then placing danes (and germans) in charge of castles, moving german iron workers to create mining towns for extraction of natural resources etc. does not fall within colonialism because this is a time before countries or states were a thing.
We don't get either until the Early modern period really, with kings like Henry VIII (and similair despots) who centralized kingdoms and created a state bureacracy to efficiantly run them as states and not medieval fiefdoms.
France is the only country in Europe that is still actively colonialist. UK also tries to be, but is far too weak (it's only power is clandestine terrorism). Even if all the hatred in the world was directed at them, they would still deserve worse.
Just like there was a grace period after the independences waves, that is almost over, and they didn’t do great out of these.
It’s now more than time to talk about Arab imperialism and colonialism, how they didn’t achieve a single working democracy out of their independences (democracy is how to live with others basically), and same for African countries with "oral tradition" and no records of their endless genocides
Most of the ex-colonies are still controlled and subjugated by the global financial and industrial systems of their ex-colonisers which was set up for this purpose at the independence stage.
Yes it's time to talk about Arabic imperialism, especially with the current horror happening in parts of Sudan right now.
If there are no records, how are you confidently saying there have been 'endless genocides' in African history?
If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:
r/Colonialism
r/AmericanEmpire
r/BelgianEmpire
r/BritishEmpire
r/DanishEmpire
r/DutchEmpire
r/FrenchEmpire
r/GermanEmpire
r/ItalianEmpire
r/PortugueseEmpire
r/SpanishEmpire
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Every nation on earth has a dark history of colonialism. France is no different and the hatred towards them is unjustified.
"Every nation"? That's pretty euro-centric.
Every single country is made up of tribes that defeated neighbouring tribes and took their land.
Just because a handful of Europeans were better at it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
There is a massive difference between colonisation (which everyone did do indeed) and Colonialism though lol and you're doing yourself and history a disservice by ignoring the distinction. Colonialism is a specific mode of conquest and control that sees conquered territories turn into extractive peripheries, with an unequal exchange of resources and wealth from the periphery to the colonial core. This is extremely different to colonisation such as say, the establishment of Danelaw, wherein the colonisers move in and settle the region with the intent of treating it as their homeland and major polity, and intermingled with those they conquered. Colonialism on the other hand upholds ethnic boundaries to distinct between coloniser and colonised - either via the European supremacist attitudes of the Americas or the upholding of colonial minorities such as the Tutsi in Rwanda or the pied-noirs in Algeria. Colonialism as a system was structurally extractive and divisive, and that model of colonisation was pioneered by and largely acted out by European powers, with ramifications to this day and with many continuing their extractive relationship via neo-colonial methods such as the Francafrique.
Both can result in the biggest loss of all; cultural identity.
Nationalistic drivel. Cultural identity is changed in the former instance, not lost, settler culture and the culture of the conquered intermingles and oftentimes the conquering party adopt the culture of the conquered, such as the Mongols in China and Persia or the Nordics in Kievan Rus, and once again these are not extractionary polities that exist purely to drive wealth out of the conquered lands towards a core territory. With the latter, yes, Colonialism seeks to establish a certain type of ideal ethnicity to rule each periphery to ensure that said ethnicity is still loyal to the colonial core, and so often put in measures specifically to Other the colonised, such as the Christianisation schools in the Americas or the anti-Irish laws in Ireland. Furthermore, Colonialism incurs even bigger loses: the impovrishing of swathes of territories and their peoples which lead to cycles of death, disease and misery that could otherwise be avoided.
Right on. Nationalistic drivel alright. We're all just a mix of other things.
One thing I'm excited for (as a young Muslim) is the vast increase in Islamic identity going through Europe as a whole due to them letting us all pile in haha. Birmingham in the UK is like almost 1/3 Muslim now. Perhaps over time as we gain a foothold in politics and democratic power we can keep increasing to take over the UK. Imagine an Islamic flag on Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower showing off our culture. 🙂
What a sad thing to be excited about.
Just like the commenter I replied to. Europe is asleep/oblivious/ too kind to us and we're going to infiltrate your lands until everyone is singing the praises of Allah 🙂 as he said above, it's part of culture to be overridden by something better.
I have a couple of questions.
You're on the third iteration of the same God, before Islam was Judaism and Christianity.
So what is it you believe your God did wrong in those two instances and why do you think he got it right this time?
I honwstly don't understand because im not religious, but if you think your God is all powerful, correct all the time etc, why is your belief built on the idea that he has failed twice before?
And I can't really accept the idea that humans did a bad job of receiving his message because, well, he made us after all, so he should know us right?
Sort yourself out you sorry wad of spit lmao, the Muslims aren't the reason this country is going to the dogs or the fact your life sucks, you're not even at fault for the former but I recommend not spending your time pretending to be people you hate online and you might be happier
Excuse me? My life isn't shit 🤔. I follow the teachings of Allah here in Birmingham in the community I inhabit that's made literally no effort to integrate into British society. It's like a mini Iran right in the middle of the UK. I love it. All the progress you've made over the last century on women's and LGBT rights are slipping down the drain, and mean nothing to me. I suppose that's what you get for shoving multiple diametrically opposed cultures together right next to each other for some surreal unfathomable reason.
Keep you head up, cheer up and you won't have to resort to baselessly guessing someone else's happiness levels and living standard but cause you can't fathom an argument together for this surreal lunacy.
TIL it’s ok to conquer someone’s entire homeland for yourself as long as you throw them a sandwich once in a while.
Not the point, I'm not talking about what's morally "ok" I am talking about the historical and material outcomes of different types of colonisation and what drives them, and the key differences in outcome from migrationary colonisation and systemic Colonialism, and I am not talking about "throwing them a sandwich."
The norse that settled Dublin became the Hiberno-Norse and a part of Ireland's broader cultural exchange and became a part of the region's fabric of polities and power, Colonialism inserts and then usurps the regions it finds itself in and systematically sets apart an Us vs Them exclusionary relationship between the coloniser and colonised in order to sustain it's extractionary economic purpose.
That's conquest, not colonialism. Colonialism is piracy on a global scale.
These statements are coming from English and French's people own arguments which are denying the massacres, exploitation of human and nature itself with the help of managing of masses of the society.
Deforestation of almost half of the African forest with the help of colonialism and killing big extent of revolters against the state and slavery as it own purpose are totally proving that small portion of tribal fighters aren't destroying all human's fate but European countries. indeed, a huge deal of the world's ending brought about the discussion of overexploitation of nature and human's sensivity by the tyrannical forces.
We're talking about billions of people and changement through their lives because of colonial purpose of europeans. If people are still suffering from lack of nutrition, education and health care, that's the reason of European exploitation.
These colonialist states are not underdeveloped, they are overexploited by European forces.
Also, you're English too so that proves that you guys are still denying the big part of world's exploitation are made up by colonialist purpose.
I'm Welsh, I'm from a conquered land who at one point even had its own language outlawed.
I'd assume that because I'm from the UK, you may assume everyone is English and may not even know about Wales. Which speaks volumes about the loss of cultural identity.
But because England is next door and both countries people are mostly white, history sees it in a very different light to say, Britain in India.
I have to ask you, where does it end?
You're making the claim that billions of people are effected by colonialism, in 100 years time would you claim trillions?
At what point do we say, you know what, countries are responsible for their own lands now instead of putting any social issue on the past.
Are you really that naive for considering countries like Haiti can easily adjust without the years of exploitation and still ongoing on external influence economical problems in a short time?
Indeed, I am not talking about the solutions but there's lying fact of colonalism: tribes war aren't the same deal with European empowerment and tyrannical pressure on the subject of colonial states.
Not naive at all, I just don't think it solves any issues to blame what happened 200, 300 years ago when there are current issues.
Your example of Haiti, you yourself mentioned ongoing external influence, which I'm going to guess isn't revolutionary France, or the ongoing gang warfare that I highly doubt is Napoleon Bonaparte's fault.
The issue goes back to Napoleon, as France exacted a terrible debt on Haiti, which the haitans were forced to repay over centuries, with the help of large loans from the USA, who then would send in troops several times during the 18 and 1900's when Haiti had issues with repaying those loans.
That is the foundation for the issues plaguing Haiti today.
Haiti has been given twice as much money in aid than their original debt was:
https://www.cgdev.org/media/haiti-where-has-all-money-gone-–-vijaya-ramachandran-and-julie-walz#:~:text=Since%20the%202010%20earthquake%2C%20$6,of%20income%20of%20most%20Haitians.”
And if they hadn't been forced to pay that "debt", then they most likely wouldn't have needed that aid later on. It's a perfect example of how making a something worse makes it more costly to fix.
Nah, just make research about Haiti more deeply. It lasted until 20th century and still ongoing problem comes from external factors.
have a good day.
Weak.
By definition no it isn’t.
“Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.”
Like I said before every nation has done this at one point or the other.
I wouldn't classify the same category with tribal fights of africa for french and english exploitation.
Well it is whether you classify it or not.
Why?
You realise it's racist to say that only someone if a certain race can live in a place.
What's the difference if the invader comes from the next country over or overseas? Apart from skin colour?
It's only colonialism when white people do it.
Otherwise, it is sparkling expansionism and imperialism.
No, we have specific definitions for countries and nations, and a tribal group or even an early kingdom would not qualify as a country.
So for example, medieval Denmark uniting Scandinavia, then placing danes (and germans) in charge of castles, moving german iron workers to create mining towns for extraction of natural resources etc. does not fall within colonialism because this is a time before countries or states were a thing.
We don't get either until the Early modern period really, with kings like Henry VIII (and similair despots) who centralized kingdoms and created a state bureacracy to efficiantly run them as states and not medieval fiefdoms.
France is the only country in Europe that is still actively colonialist. UK also tries to be, but is far too weak (it's only power is clandestine terrorism). Even if all the hatred in the world was directed at them, they would still deserve worse.
I often wonder if the french experience a somewhat limited worldview, due to the relatively low population of French speakers?
At least in comparison to English and Spanish.
Nazi’s didn’t think they were on the wrong neither.
Just like there was a grace period after the independences waves, that is almost over, and they didn’t do great out of these.
It’s now more than time to talk about Arab imperialism and colonialism, how they didn’t achieve a single working democracy out of their independences (democracy is how to live with others basically), and same for African countries with "oral tradition" and no records of their endless genocides
Most of the ex-colonies are still controlled and subjugated by the global financial and industrial systems of their ex-colonisers which was set up for this purpose at the independence stage.
Yes it's time to talk about Arabic imperialism, especially with the current horror happening in parts of Sudan right now.
If there are no records, how are you confidently saying there have been 'endless genocides' in African history?
Genetics keep the trace. And overall, the people who kept no records are usually the most criminal ones, still to this day, the "no data" countries
Genetics are a pseudoscience.