Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Yes.
The objection is largely semantic because colonialism as a term originated later to describe modern european imperialism, but the ottoman empires practices fit exactly what you listed above here, only difference is that they had a strict religious hierarchy instead of a racial one.
so while they didnt have a modern european colonialist ideology, its still perfectly reasonable to say they were a colonial power due to its practices perfectly aligning with how that is generally defined.
define it
double standards
The objection is largely semantic because colonialism as a term originated later to describe modern european imperialism, but the ottoman empires practices fit exactly what you listed above here, only difference is that they had a strict religious hierarchy instead of a racial one.
so while they didnt have a modern european colonialist ideology, its still perfectly reasonable to say they were a colonial power due to its practices perfectly aligning with how that is generally defined.
Post automatically merged:
define it
Post automatically merged:
double standards
No. And that's why you don't understand the difference. The two modes of domination (imperial conquest and colonialism (then settler colonialism) are two very different ones, not just in terms of semantics.
Like I explained, imperialist conquest were not exploitative and did not subjugate in the same as the colonialism, religious hierarchy have always existed, but racialization and capitalism created a mode of exploitation that multiplied the power of colonialism. Just like a genocide is not a simple war crime, a colonization is not a conquest.
Imperialist conquest drive its power from military domination and direct extraction of value from subordinated regions. Colonialism on the other hand derives its power from from the imposition and reproduction of capitalists mode of production (or early capitalism in the case of the renaissance)
Capitalism transformed imperialism into a structure, global and much more powerful form of domination than any other imperialist and pre-capitalist forms of domination.
This is why today, colonialism is still impactfull and still used as a form of domination against many people. The remains of imperialist conquest are very different from the remains of the impact of colonialism.
To understand that, I'm sorry, you will have to adopt a much more materialist approach.. and look at reality through this materialist lens or I will keep sending you loads of logics that you won't understand, and you will keep denying.
Look at the definition yourself:
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Like I explained, imperialist conquest were not exploitative and did not subjugate in the same as the colonialism, religious hierarchy have always existed, but racialization and capitalism created a mode of exploitation that multiplied the power of colonialism. Just like a genocide is not a simple war crime, a colonization is not a conquest.
Imperialist conquest drive its power from military domination and direct extraction of value from subordinated regions. Colonialism on the other hand derives its power from from the imposition and reproduction of capitalists mode of production (or early capitalism in the case of the renaissance)
Capitalism transformed imperialism into a structure, global and much more powerful form of domination than any other imperialist and pre-capitalist forms of domination.
This is why today, colonialism is still impactfull and still used as a form of domination against many people. The remains of imperialist conquest are very different from the remains of the impact of colonialism.
To understand that, I'm sorry, you will have to adopt a much more materialist approach.. and look at reality through this materialist lens or I will keep sending you loads of logics that you won't understand, and you will keep denying.
Look at the definition yourself:
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
No the ottoman empire was not colonial and yes, the spanish empire was colonial.
Colonialism was a condition and consequence of the rise of capitalism through its proto-capitalist form (the pre-industrial type) and the primitive forms of accumulation of capitals that were taken place at the time. Capitalism didn't start in the XIX century but before that, just before the age of the conquest of Abya Yala.
Colonialism are the modern evolution of conquest. They reproduce the modes of production of capitalism localy as a means of subjugation and control. Therefore, we can't say "they are the same", they are not on a fundamental level.
Yeah. Go back to sleep.
Colonialism was a condition and consequence of the rise of capitalism through its proto-capitalist form (the pre-industrial type) and the primitive forms of accumulation of capitals that were taken place at the time. Capitalism didn't start in the XIX century but before that, just before the age of the conquest of Abya Yala.
Colonialism are the modern evolution of conquest. They reproduce the modes of production of capitalism localy as a means of subjugation and control. Therefore, we can't say "they are the same", they are not on a fundamental level.
Yeah. Go back to sleep.
Colonialism is equal to :
- 70 Million death in america
- 20 to 40 million death in africa
- Complete Slavery in Africa
- Slavery in america
- Importation of slave in America and plain and simple exploitation of ressources through slavery
- Extermination of multiple millenial cultures
- Settler colonialism that we are still seeing today in America
- Neo-colonialism that we are still seeing today in Africa
- Genocide, colonization and apartheid in Palestine
- Imperialism in the global south and subjugation of many region of the world.
Really. Just stop talking.
Maybe you lived oppression and I'm sorry for that, but you must not confuse what conquerors did in pre-capitalist periods and what was the colonization was for the entire world.
- 70 Million death in america
- 20 to 40 million death in africa
- Complete Slavery in Africa
- Slavery in america
- Importation of slave in America and plain and simple exploitation of ressources through slavery
- Extermination of multiple millenial cultures
- Settler colonialism that we are still seeing today in America
- Neo-colonialism that we are still seeing today in Africa
- Genocide, colonization and apartheid in Palestine
- Imperialism in the global south and subjugation of many region of the world.
Really. Just stop talking.
Maybe you lived oppression and I'm sorry for that, but you must not confuse what conquerors did in pre-capitalist periods and what was the colonization was for the entire world.
You are using a very specific way to define colonialism and now pretend like its the only way to use this word.
This is exactly the reason why i said its a semantic issue. You are not describing colonialism or its definition, you are asserting a specific political theory of colonialism and you are pretending like thats the only way people are allowed to use the term colonialism.
And me pointing out the semantic issue doesnt mean i disagree or dont understand what you are saying, just that like with everything else, it depends on how you define the fucking term. colonialism in its general definition is about establishing control over another territory and its people and impose political and economic dominance. So the broad definition is structural, while what you are getting at is ideological.
And thats what i already said in my response, that they didnt have modern european colonialist ideology, but their practices were colonial, only without having an underlying capitalist or racial ideology. And the bolded was a major self defeat anyway.
This is exactly the reason why i said its a semantic issue. You are not describing colonialism or its definition, you are asserting a specific political theory of colonialism and you are pretending like thats the only way people are allowed to use the term colonialism.
And me pointing out the semantic issue doesnt mean i disagree or dont understand what you are saying, just that like with everything else, it depends on how you define the fucking term. colonialism in its general definition is about establishing control over another territory and its people and impose political and economic dominance. So the broad definition is structural, while what you are getting at is ideological.
And thats what i already said in my response, that they didnt have modern european colonialist ideology, but their practices were colonial, only without having an underlying capitalist or racial ideology. And the bolded was a major self defeat anyway.
Never said it was. I talked about the consequences. Don't look at them individually, look at them in their ensemble.
Plus, we are not talking about a simple exportations and importation of slaves, but genocides and war crime through entire population displacement.
And I forgot to mention racialization, which ended up being one of the main factor of difference.
I'm using the definition and logic of post-colonial researches and scholars. In other words, science.
You are free to use another one, but that will make you miss the entire point and specificity of colonialism. It would be like saying that you don't really like the distinction between the Mesolithic and the neolithic and decided to refuse the distinction based on your unwillingness to call these periods something else than prehistorical ones.
No.
What your definition is is a broad definition, a basic one. Broad definitions are not to be used is advanced political debate about advanced means of dominations. Where are not in high-school anymore. We don't need vulgarization to understand the difference between capitalism and feudalism. At best, we make researches before talking. Now, it's time to use the definitions of scholars and researchers. And the most knowledgeable on the subject, if possible.
So no. it's not a semantic issue, the issue is that you guyz want to use words (and not just on this subject) that were taught to you in high school to make you learn about complex subjects more easily : Gender, Colonization, Racism, Sexism, Ableism..
All these terms were taught to you with basic definitions first, these definitions are usually what you can see in dictionnaries. but to move the world or understand it, we need more, we need to listen at scientists and their researches (and political scholars or thinkers)
It's time to think beyond basic definitions.
Plus, we are not talking about a simple exportations and importation of slaves, but genocides and war crime through entire population displacement.
And I forgot to mention racialization, which ended up being one of the main factor of difference.
I'm using the definition and logic of post-colonial researches and scholars. In other words, science.
You are free to use another one, but that will make you miss the entire point and specificity of colonialism. It would be like saying that you don't really like the distinction between the Mesolithic and the neolithic and decided to refuse the distinction based on your unwillingness to call these periods something else than prehistorical ones.
No.
What your definition is is a broad definition, a basic one. Broad definitions are not to be used is advanced political debate about advanced means of dominations. Where are not in high-school anymore. We don't need vulgarization to understand the difference between capitalism and feudalism. At best, we make researches before talking. Now, it's time to use the definitions of scholars and researchers. And the most knowledgeable on the subject, if possible.
So no. it's not a semantic issue, the issue is that you guyz want to use words (and not just on this subject) that were taught to you in high school to make you learn about complex subjects more easily : Gender, Colonization, Racism, Sexism, Ableism..
All these terms were taught to you with basic definitions first, these definitions are usually what you can see in dictionnaries. but to move the world or understand it, we need more, we need to listen at scientists and their researches (and political scholars or thinkers)
It's time to think beyond basic definitions.
Last edited:
