this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
88 points (92.3% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1095 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd imagine states without colonial pasts weren't more moral, they just lacked the resources and/or opportunities.
So, these days states forgo colonies only because they lack the resources? Does this apply to e. g. slavery as well? I don't like this line of thought.
Mostly because all land is claimed by some country or another, and the current occupants could raise enough of an international stink that people come to their defense.
One might argue that what Russia is doing in Ukraine and Georgia is the modern equivalent of colonialism.
And China's belt-and-road initiative is basically modern day colonialism as well. And the 9-dash line.
Yes, all international development is colonialism. 🤡
wasps always project
There may be other reasons, but morality is unlikely to be one of them.
Morality is not a reason for e. g. civil rights movement? (not the same as colonialism, but coming from the same origin)
I mean the British had a huge role in ending slavery, not because it was the right thing to do but because other countries were doing it better and so it was better to invest in stopping others than doing it themselves
The US and USSR similarly ended most colonialism because they were the most powerful nations in the world and yet couldn't compete in that field
As countries become powerful, they seek to destroy whatever the previous symbol of power was and replace it with whatever they're good at until the next newly powerful country comes along
Neocolonialism is just colonialism with a hat.
Yes pretty much really using the right definitions, however there's different types of colonialism - the type where you make your own cities and push out the natives (eg Australia, most of the Americas) is gone, as is the type where you find a (nearly?) uninhabited area/island and use it to expand your influence in the area (eg. Mauritius and Singapore with 0 and 150 population at colonisation respectively) leaving only the type where you take over and control the administration of the existing population, eg in India, most of Africa, the USSR in Central Asia (among other places) and in neocolonialism
It's also hard to group them all together as "evil colonialism" too though as the 1st and 3rd are of course pretty evil, there's not a whole lot wrong with the 2nd
So going by that logic, countries that were colonised before by western powers would’ve done the same thing if they had the same resources? Not that I don’t agree with that, I’m just trying to figure out what you mean
It’s not about morality, it’s about having a damn clue. Shared traumas matter.