You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
Settler colonialism a form of imperialism (theft of land, labor and natural resources of a weaker country by a stronger one), where the stronger country sets up a military garrison, and evicts or enslaves the local population. This is border conflict to halt the ever-eastward march of NATO.
The accusations of “russifying the ukrainian language” is pure projection; its the banderites who (with NATO help, Obama bragged about this one) couped Ukraine in 2014 (and who were killing thousands of civilians in the donbass) that have been attempting to make spoken russian illegal in the country. They’ve also been reviving nazi collaborators and building monuments to them as fast as they can.
It was the Bolsheviks (Stalin especially) who strongly supported the creation of a Ukrainian state, as it had a distinct national, lingual, and cultural character, while the western nations were opposed to Ukrainian sovereignty (The fascist dictatorhips of the 30s were essentially at war with all slavic peoples). Modern Russia wants to preserve Ukraine as a buffer state (as it was before 2014). There are many ppl more knowledgeable on lemmygrad and hexbear, that could give you a long background on this conflict.
In simple words, in colonialism a country invades another country in the aim of taking its resources or exploiting and descriminating against its population or in the case of settler colonialism wiping them out and replacing them, what Russia has done is use military power to invade an area not controlled by it to change their ruling class, they want to make the population have a Russian citizenship and for the land to be under the map of Russia.
A citizen of an eastern Oblast of Ukraine after Russia takes over will still be the same as he was earlier, just now with a Russian citizenship. Just like how people in Crimea were Ukrainian citizens before 2014, but after they became Russian citizens, and Crimea is treated as a part of Russia (although not recognized by a lot of countries).
A Palestinian citizen after the colonialism of Palestine now lives either abroad or in a concentration camp or is dead.
you don’t know what is settler colonialism and you don’t know what is reality, gtfo don’t compare Palestine to Ukraine
Would you care to explain anything, or do you just want to have a hissy fit?
You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
Previously. Previously. Previously.
Settler colonialism a form of imperialism (theft of land, labor and natural resources of a weaker country by a stronger one), where the stronger country sets up a military garrison, and evicts or enslaves the local population. This is border conflict to halt the ever-eastward march of NATO.
The accusations of “russifying the ukrainian language” is pure projection; its the banderites who (with NATO help, Obama bragged about this one) couped Ukraine in 2014 (and who were killing thousands of civilians in the donbass) that have been attempting to make spoken russian illegal in the country. They’ve also been reviving nazi collaborators and building monuments to them as fast as they can.
It was the Bolsheviks (Stalin especially) who strongly supported the creation of a Ukrainian state, as it had a distinct national, lingual, and cultural character, while the western nations were opposed to Ukrainian sovereignty (The fascist dictatorhips of the 30s were essentially at war with all slavic peoples). Modern Russia wants to preserve Ukraine as a buffer state (as it was before 2014). There are many ppl more knowledgeable on lemmygrad and hexbear, that could give you a long background on this conflict.
Modern imperialism (usually) takes a different form from classical colonialism, but even with that definition, Russia can’t be called imperialist as it fits none of the traits.
In simple words, in colonialism a country invades another country in the aim of taking its resources or exploiting and descriminating against its population or in the case of settler colonialism wiping them out and replacing them, what Russia has done is use military power to invade an area not controlled by it to change their ruling class, they want to make the population have a Russian citizenship and for the land to be under the map of Russia.
A citizen of an eastern Oblast of Ukraine after Russia takes over will still be the same as he was earlier, just now with a Russian citizenship. Just like how people in Crimea were Ukrainian citizens before 2014, but after they became Russian citizens, and Crimea is treated as a part of Russia (although not recognized by a lot of countries).
A Palestinian citizen after the colonialism of Palestine now lives either abroad or in a concentration camp or is dead.
Completely different situations
Removed by mod