this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
74 points (92.0% liked)

World News

32316 readers
1204 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd imagine states without colonial pasts weren't more moral, they just lacked the resources and/or opportunities.

[–] severien@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So, these days states forgo colonies only because they lack the resources? Does this apply to e. g. slavery? I don't like this line of thought.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FleetingTit@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And China's belt-and-road initiative is basically modern day colonialism as well. And the 9-dash line.

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, all international development is colonialism. 🤡

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

wasps always project

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There may be other reasons, but morality is unlikely to be one of them.

[–] severien@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Morality is not a reason for e. g. civil rights movement? (not the same as colonialism, but coming from the same origin)

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Neocolonialism is just colonialism with a hat.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

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

I think it's more about finally getting a chance to direct the conversations about these type of things for those countries, not that they're some kind of moral arbiters because of their history, but that they probably have some unique and unheard perspective.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl -2 points 1 year ago

It’s not about morality, it’s about having a damn clue. Shared traumas matter.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

At least two of the BRICS countries have a colonial present, so this demand is rather hypocritical.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

It’s not a horrible idea.

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Historical sticklers could also note that Latvia had a brief past as a colonial power. The Duchy of Courland, an antecedent to Latvia, held territory on the island of Tobago in the Caribbean and on the Gambia River in West Africa in the mid-1600s.

lol

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet nowhere in that statement they said that Latvia should be the one to lead the talks. So it's just shifting the focus.

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are a few obvious wrinkles in his plans. Poland, for example, is probably the most significant European country without a past as a colonial power in Africa, Asia or South America but politicians from around the world will not be blind to some of Warsaw’s latest pronouncements on migration. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki recently said he wants to hold a referendum asking citizens whether they support the arrival of “thousands of illegal migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa.”

So which European country that isn't racist and doesn't have a colonial past?

[–] Nefrayu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ireland doesn’t have a colonial past, except in the being colonised sense. While no country is completely without racism, Ireland doesn’t have any racist policies or prime ministers calling for referenda on immigration. Fairly small population though.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Challenge level: impossible

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

lol

Latvia wants to join BRICS now

[–] jackmarxist@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

It's fine if its Ireland.

[–] aluminium@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

Please let me talk with them for whatever arbitrary reason