It is the same old Marxist fairy tale, originated by Rousseau in his myth of the Noble Savage, to the effect that a perfect world is being prevented from emerging by a conspiracy of irredeemable bad guys, whether by Capitalists, Jews, Colonizers, the Patriarchy, etc.
It is cartoonish thinking, a facile mindset which most kids outgrow by the age of 8, but it infests the blithering midwit colonies of academia. As Orwell noted, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
Well obviously many countries did engage in colonialism and did bad things to native populations. Stole resources and land subjugated populations. But you can't turn back time so everyone just needs to move forward.
It is indeed the "old colonization," asserted to be mentally subjecting the once-colonized to this day - specifically those who didn't get the catharsis of a violent struggle for independence.
To quote from the article...
>Frantz Fanon, the latter of whom argued that “violence is a cleansing force” that “frees the native from his inferiority complex” and “restores his self-respect.”
Horrible, yet...one cannot deny a ring of truth, in just the same way that the mere performance of a duel, even one in which both parties shoot the ground, restores the feudal honor of both parties.
For a subject people, a successful fight for independence restores an equal status with the former overlord. Freedom merely given, rather than won, has a sickly sweet taste.
We see that the Vietnamese, after suffering most bloodily to win their independence from the French, and succeeding in that effort, bear the French little ill will - nor do they even particularly resent Americans, even though we were bombing their fathers and grandfathers and napalming their aunts and uncles. We brought to bear as much strength as the American public would permit, and it was not enough. They won, they beat us, we left. There is thus no shame in trading as equals.
The broad decolonization that happened in the 50s and 60s was partly a result of genuine moral feeling, and partly an effort to pre-empt communists by means of indigenous democratic governments - but it nonetheless left a lot of would-be revolutionaries with what we may call "dialectical blue balls." They didn't get to have a glorious struggle for independence - all they got was a note from Whitey saying "here's your country back." Not nearly as nice to hang on your wall as a bloody sword. So the argument that these academics are making is even stranger than you might expect...it's that European colonizers shouldn't have just given their subject nations freedom, they should've made them fight for it.
In other words, simply giving colonies independence was not, as you might have whitely thought, a long-overdue act of moral humanitarianism - in fact it was a final, supreme, and incontrovertible act of "Whiteness" that forever denied our former subjects equality with us. They instead remain forever our children, having merely been granted freedom, rather than earning it.
You may disagree with this analysis - certainly I think it is ridiculous to base future actions on it - but this is the logic they are following, and it is a good explanation for why these anti-colonial sentiments remain so strong, even in the absence of much real colonialism.
Yet their conclusion - "engage in now-pointless violence against former oppressors" - seems both lazy & rather unlikely to result in the equalization of socio-emotional status that they desire. To me it seems that such tantrums rather entrench the parent-childhood relationship further - they merely give us more excuses for that same unbearable, superior, parental White forbearance we have for those consider not-yet-civilized.
the 3rd world still has "warrior morality" if you will; the mentality of the strong and the free which is why the fanonian reasoning found such strength; in the end it was just the nietzschean "master morality" of the african. But all people want to be strong and free, it's a longing of all, which is why colonialism -the imposition of alien modes of feeling and acting - is so hateful & why receiving one's home back as if it were a gift will always be an outrage (tho hist. i don't think this is really how colonialism ended, nonetheless one could make a strong case that decolonization was intended to set up patron-client relationships between former colonizers and colonized).
It's also why left-wing politics is a real sham, a real neo-colonialism, b/c it also sees itself as ultimately a gift-giving, not a rendering back of land or hard assets out of necessity but a doling of patronage and largess - of gifts, tokens -out of "liberality" aka liberalism. It's a swindle which could only be rejected so long as we understand that the warrior mentality only exists if there are assets, substances, qualities, etc. in this world which really are inalienable.
I should also say that I think actual Africans are far less sensitive to this theoretical injustice than our American academics who claim to speak on their behalf.
Actual Africans have prosaic concerns like food, houses, cars, jobs, and roads, which American academics do not concern themselves with providing. Nor do they call for the provision thereof - in fact they would condemn such gifts as yet another attempt to set up the patron-client relationship that you describe.
We fiercely wrangle with our precious consciences - we ask ourselves, in desperation, is it crueler to help up a man we've knocked over & thus rub our victory in his face, or is it crueler to leave him in the dust to his own devices? O our tortured hearts!
In the meanwhile, serene Zhongguo lends a hand and a seed and a plow, and a car and a truck or two or three, and a brick or a thousand or a billion... and we have the gall, the absolute gall, to decry the Han for selfish action, for base commercial interest, as if these petty sins were at all comparable to our incessant arguing back and forth amongst ourselves while our victim lies still hungry & barefoot in the dust! How dare they help our victim! How dare they rob us of the chance to clear our conscience! Wait until we get our precious rectitude in order, please!
Forget the past - that it is Guangdong Foday, and not Ford or Chevrolet, which provides assembly kits at discount to Kantanka Auto is injustice enough. And that our so-called progressives would strenuously, viciously, venomously oppose such mutually beneficial interaction - on the basis of *purported love* of all things - is evidence enough of the white man's inherent & incurable evil - it seems that even our anti-racists still seek to keep the African in subjection, and merely for the salve of their own precious conscience! At least spices were tasty.
and what is ''colonization'' then?? and did it end a century or two ago, or is it still being pursued presently?
It is the same old Marxist fairy tale, originated by Rousseau in his myth of the Noble Savage, to the effect that a perfect world is being prevented from emerging by a conspiracy of irredeemable bad guys, whether by Capitalists, Jews, Colonizers, the Patriarchy, etc.
It is cartoonish thinking, a facile mindset which most kids outgrow by the age of 8, but it infests the blithering midwit colonies of academia. As Orwell noted, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
Well obviously many countries did engage in colonialism and did bad things to native populations. Stole resources and land subjugated populations. But you can't turn back time so everyone just needs to move forward.
very flattering.. thanks..
Islamic colonization will never stop
That's because their philosophy doesn't tell them to feel guilty about it.
Indeed, their philosophy demands colonization
Christianity is Abrahamic too.
It is indeed the "old colonization," asserted to be mentally subjecting the once-colonized to this day - specifically those who didn't get the catharsis of a violent struggle for independence.
To quote from the article...
>Frantz Fanon, the latter of whom argued that “violence is a cleansing force” that “frees the native from his inferiority complex” and “restores his self-respect.”
Horrible, yet...one cannot deny a ring of truth, in just the same way that the mere performance of a duel, even one in which both parties shoot the ground, restores the feudal honor of both parties.
For a subject people, a successful fight for independence restores an equal status with the former overlord. Freedom merely given, rather than won, has a sickly sweet taste.
We see that the Vietnamese, after suffering most bloodily to win their independence from the French, and succeeding in that effort, bear the French little ill will - nor do they even particularly resent Americans, even though we were bombing their fathers and grandfathers and napalming their aunts and uncles. We brought to bear as much strength as the American public would permit, and it was not enough. They won, they beat us, we left. There is thus no shame in trading as equals.
The broad decolonization that happened in the 50s and 60s was partly a result of genuine moral feeling, and partly an effort to pre-empt communists by means of indigenous democratic governments - but it nonetheless left a lot of would-be revolutionaries with what we may call "dialectical blue balls." They didn't get to have a glorious struggle for independence - all they got was a note from Whitey saying "here's your country back." Not nearly as nice to hang on your wall as a bloody sword. So the argument that these academics are making is even stranger than you might expect...it's that European colonizers shouldn't have just given their subject nations freedom, they should've made them fight for it.
In other words, simply giving colonies independence was not, as you might have whitely thought, a long-overdue act of moral humanitarianism - in fact it was a final, supreme, and incontrovertible act of "Whiteness" that forever denied our former subjects equality with us. They instead remain forever our children, having merely been granted freedom, rather than earning it.
You may disagree with this analysis - certainly I think it is ridiculous to base future actions on it - but this is the logic they are following, and it is a good explanation for why these anti-colonial sentiments remain so strong, even in the absence of much real colonialism.
Yet their conclusion - "engage in now-pointless violence against former oppressors" - seems both lazy & rather unlikely to result in the equalization of socio-emotional status that they desire. To me it seems that such tantrums rather entrench the parent-childhood relationship further - they merely give us more excuses for that same unbearable, superior, parental White forbearance we have for those consider not-yet-civilized.
the 3rd world still has "warrior morality" if you will; the mentality of the strong and the free which is why the fanonian reasoning found such strength; in the end it was just the nietzschean "master morality" of the african. But all people want to be strong and free, it's a longing of all, which is why colonialism -the imposition of alien modes of feeling and acting - is so hateful & why receiving one's home back as if it were a gift will always be an outrage (tho hist. i don't think this is really how colonialism ended, nonetheless one could make a strong case that decolonization was intended to set up patron-client relationships between former colonizers and colonized).
It's also why left-wing politics is a real sham, a real neo-colonialism, b/c it also sees itself as ultimately a gift-giving, not a rendering back of land or hard assets out of necessity but a doling of patronage and largess - of gifts, tokens -out of "liberality" aka liberalism. It's a swindle which could only be rejected so long as we understand that the warrior mentality only exists if there are assets, substances, qualities, etc. in this world which really are inalienable.
I should also say that I think actual Africans are far less sensitive to this theoretical injustice than our American academics who claim to speak on their behalf.
Actual Africans have prosaic concerns like food, houses, cars, jobs, and roads, which American academics do not concern themselves with providing. Nor do they call for the provision thereof - in fact they would condemn such gifts as yet another attempt to set up the patron-client relationship that you describe.
We fiercely wrangle with our precious consciences - we ask ourselves, in desperation, is it crueler to help up a man we've knocked over & thus rub our victory in his face, or is it crueler to leave him in the dust to his own devices? O our tortured hearts!
In the meanwhile, serene Zhongguo lends a hand and a seed and a plow, and a car and a truck or two or three, and a brick or a thousand or a billion... and we have the gall, the absolute gall, to decry the Han for selfish action, for base commercial interest, as if these petty sins were at all comparable to our incessant arguing back and forth amongst ourselves while our victim lies still hungry & barefoot in the dust! How dare they help our victim! How dare they rob us of the chance to clear our conscience! Wait until we get our precious rectitude in order, please!
Forget the past - that it is Guangdong Foday, and not Ford or Chevrolet, which provides assembly kits at discount to Kantanka Auto is injustice enough. And that our so-called progressives would strenuously, viciously, venomously oppose such mutually beneficial interaction - on the basis of *purported love* of all things - is evidence enough of the white man's inherent & incurable evil - it seems that even our anti-racists still seek to keep the African in subjection, and merely for the salve of their own precious conscience! At least spices were tasty.