[Sivad]

If Iran or China somehow took over the US, gave all of its land to Iranians, kicked Americans off of their land and into small areas where they are out of sight and out of mind, put as much as possible into making it hard for Americans to live and own land, BUT gave them citizenship, would that suddenly no longer be a colonial relationship?

If they're given full citizenship then they're no more colonized than any other citizen. They're not a special category.

Based on your logic, no one has a right to any land.

No, no one has a right to claim more than their fair share.

[Beren]

There is a serious offer to resettle 500 Boer families with their own cattle near Stavropol and up to 15,000 Boers would emigrate to Russia in the long run.

At the end Russia saves the day for the Boers. Putin's country will be a great place for them. Maybe they will join his party (and army) too. "Putin's Boers for Russia!"

[Ter]

I propose Hungary should take in a couple of ten thousand. After all, they are white and Christian.

[layman]

Yes, I agree that everyone supporting this should, because of consistency, also support the return of North American lands to their actual owners.

What I disagree with is the idea that this is a reaction to “historical actions from generations ago”.

Colonialism in South Africa, like colonialism in North America is an ongoing and present problem. It never ended. At most, you could argue that the current plan to take land away from white farmers and return these lands to the original communities is a part of the ending of colonialism.

@Drlee uses the example of indigenous communities attacking each other and taking each others land, and points out that we no longer address this, so why should we address European settlers who took the land of indigenous people?

And the answer is because the latter is still an ongoing and real problem while the former ended centuries ago.

how is colonialism is South Africa ongoing?

You put a huge importance on whether actors are indigenous or not. Do you see that as problematic considering how keen you are on multiculturalism? I ask this well aware of the difference between legal immigration and colonialism.

[danholo]

This indigenous debate is really racist. It applies rights based on 'firstness' while ultimately this can only be attributed to racial aspects.

Ultimately the Bantu are also conquerors, so why should they have any "indigenous" rights to the places they spread out to? Or because they're black, even empty land white people settled, is "black property"?

Somehow the logic fails me. Can someone explain?

[layman]

If we forget race for a second and imagine that under a certain ruler, 99 percent of the wealth and land is siezed handed over to 10 families.

Let’s then assume that this situation survives 10 generations before a revolution.

I can certainly see in this situation how some kind of redistribution is needed though my default position is to be skeptical of such things.

Where I struggle is how socialists and liberals can take the nativist argument which always sounds like blood and soil to me. Pods argument about whether is is still ongoing doesn’t need to apply to colonialism at all. It could be any group who exploited any other group.

In many so called socialist states there is epidemic cronyism where by land is handed to loyal families who do nothing so obvious as to identify themselves by skin colour.

[danholo]

If we forget race for a second and imagine that under a certain ruler, 99 percent of the wealth and land is siezed handed over to 10 families.

Let’s then assume that this situation survives 10 generations before a revolution.

I can certainly see in this situation how some kind of redistribution is needed though my default position is to be skeptical of such things.

I totally agree. But how much was 'seized'? There are no indigenous land rights to empty plots of land. That's nonsensical.

Where I struggle is how socialists and liberals can take the nativist argument which always sounds like blood and soil to me. Pods argument about whether is is still ongoing doesn’t need to apply to colonialism at all. It could be any group who exploited any other group.

In many so called socialist states there is epidemic cronyism where by land is handed to loyal families who do nothing so obvious as to identify themselves by skin colour.

This is why it's so confusing. It just sounds like the same type of racism ultimately as if this type of racism should be allowed to one group over another.

[Drlee]

The term colonial refers to rule by a third party. Settlers and indigenous people ruled from another country. That is about the only useful definition these days. Whites in America are not a colonial power. To consider them that is just silly heated rhetoric.

The decision to divide up land owned by a few people is an internal question which in this case is based solely on race. If the Africans wish to be racist, that is their prerogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to call it anything other than what it is. South Africa is near to a failed state anyway. It is a mess and getting worse everyday. This appears to be true of Africa in general. Perhaps the Chinese can fix that. I hope my country stays the hell away from it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Bullshit. Natives have full citizenship rights.

Often, they do not.

For example, First Nations people in Canada cannot access health care as easily as the rest of us. And no indigenous communities are allowed to exercise their own citizenship policies.

It was never their land. They never had any right to exclude anyone from settling here.

Yes, it was their land. And this is true according to their laws and according to our laws.

——————————

how is colonialism is South Africa ongoing?

You put a huge importance on whether actors are indigenous or not. Do you see that as problematic considering how keen you are on multiculturalism? I ask this well aware of the difference between legal immigration and colonialism.

Well, the obvious example of ongoing colonialism in SA is the fact that huge sections of land are still owned and controlled by settlers.

As for your question about my beliefs, I do not see this is as problematic. Indigenous communities can also welcome people from all around the world. They already do. They would just do it on their own terms rather than on imposed terms.

—————————

This indigenous debate is really racist. It applies rights based on 'firstness' while ultimately this can only be attributed to racial aspects.

Ultimately the Bantu are also conquerors, so why should they have any "indigenous" rights to the places they spread out to? Or because they're black, even empty land white people settled, is "black property"?

Somehow the logic fails me. Can someone explain?

I think your problem is that you are incorrectly assuming that rights are based on “firstness”, which is not the case.

The rights, instead, are based on redressing ongoing colonialism.

This current initiative in SA, for example, is about returning land to the communities that owned said land before the colonialists came and stole it.

When examining indigenous issues, colonialism must always be part of the analysis. These things do not take place in a historical vacuum.

——————————

The term colonial refers to rule by a third party. Settlers and indigenous people ruled from another country. That is about the only useful definition these days. Whites in America are not a colonial power. To consider them that is just silly heated rhetoric.

Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and of helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially in economics, religion, and health.

Let us see if the US and Canada fit the definition.

Are the US and Canada foreign countries, from the perspective of indigenous people? Yes.

Do the Us and Canada seek to extend or retain thwir authority over other people or territories? Yes, they do. They have no intention of allowing indigenous sovereignty.

Do the US and Canada have the aim of developing or exploiting indigenous people and their land to the benefit of the colonizing country? Yes. The obvious examples are resource extraction and farming.

They fit the definition.

The decision to divide up land owned by a few people is an internal question which in this case is based solely on race. If the Africans wish to be racist, that is their prerogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to call it anything other than what it is. South Africa is near to a failed state anyway. It is a mess and getting worse everyday. This appears to be true of Africa in general. Perhaps the Chinese can fix that. I hope my country stays the hell away from it.

Again, this analysis completely ignores colonialism and history.

I find many conservatives argue from a perspective where all the players are operating on some mythical playing field. In this case, conservatives are incorrectly assuming that white communities and black communities in SA are all equally powerful, had the same history, and were generally never in a colonial and racist relationship.

This is obviously an incorrect assumption. Many of us have adult memories of Apartheid.

[layman]

I totally agree. But how much was 'seized'? There are no indigenous land rights to empty plots of land. That's nonsensical.



This is why it's so confusing. It just sounds like the same type of racism ultimately as if this type of racism should be allowed to one group over another.

Well, much of the land in Scotland is uninhabited as in no one lives there and it is wilderness.

The real question is when a border. Becomes valid and sovereign surely ?

What did Africa’s borders actually look like when the white man arrived? Was any of it free for grabs?

When is any land free for grabs? Many uninhabited islands were taken by far of maritime powers, only for more local countries to demand them by reason of geography. The Falkland is a case in point as it isn’t really that close to Argentina either. The argument often comes down to who inhabited it first and whether it was a settlement or just a lame outpost.

[layman]

Often, they do not.

For example, First Nations people in Canada cannot access health care as easily as the rest of us. And no indigenous communities are allowed to exercise their own citizenship policies.



Yes, it was their land. And this is true according to their laws and according to our laws.

——————————



Well, the obvious example of ongoing colonialism in SA is the fact that huge sections of land are still owned and controlled by settlers.

As for your question about my beliefs, I do not see this is as problematic. Indigenous communities can also welcome people from all around the world. They already do. They would just do it on their own terms rather than on imposed terms.

—————————



I think your problem is that you are incorrectly assuming that rights are based on “firstness”, which is not the case.

The rights, instead, are based on redressing ongoing colonialism.

This current initiative in SA, for example, is about returning land to the communities that owned said land before the colonialists came and stole it.

When examining indigenous issues, colonialism must always be part of the analysis. These things do not take place in a historical vacuum.

——————————

Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and of helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially in economics, religion, and health.

Let us see if the US and Canada fit the definition.

Are the US and Canada foreign countries, from the perspective of indigenous people? Yes.

Do the Us and Canada seek to extend or retain thwir authority over other people or territories? Yes, they do. They have no intention of allowing indigenous sovereignty.

Do the US and Canada have the aim of developing or exploiting indigenous people and their land to the benefit of the colonizing country? Yes. The obvious examples are resource extraction and farming.

They fit the definition.



Again, this analysis completely ignores colonialism and history.

I find many conservatives argue from a perspective where all the players are operating on some mythical playing field. In this case, conservatives are incorrectly assuming that white communities and black communities in SA are all equally powerful, had the same history, and were generally never in a colonial and racist relationship.

This is obviously an incorrect assumption. Many of us have adult memories of Apartheid.

I am still not quite such what a settler is. As pointed out, I don’t think any of the black people’s Decendants trace back to the country itself. Most are settlers from other parts of Africa.

What does the decendants locality have to be in order to be a native?

[Pants-of-dog]

@layman

I am simply using “settler” to mean “colonist”. Someone who belongs to the same nation as the colonising nation and benefits from the colonialism.

The ancestors of modern day SA blacks did not engage in colonialism, as far as I know.

[Zionist Nationalist]

They do benefit from the colonialism because without it South Africa would be like Zimbabwe

[Ter]

Well, the obvious example of ongoing colonialism in SA is the fact that huge sections of land are still owned and controlled by settlers.

No. By people whose ancestors, maybe ten generations ago, were settlers.
Even then, some of the land was not occupied.
Yet you called the people who live there now "settlers", implying they have no right to ownership.
Undeniably your reasoning is also based on race.
You are an anti-white racist, but we knew that since long.

Also. The Zulus were fierce warriors and many of the lands they now live on were conquered by war by their forefathers. Yet you would not dispute their ownership of their lands.

[layman]

@Pants-of-dog

South African whites don’t belong to any nation other than South Africa.

Most ancestors of sa blacks migrated to the south for economic reasons I understand.

This is all ver diffrtent from your American native argument which revolves are treaties and thefts between actual nations.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. By people whose ancestors, maybe ten generations ago, were settlers.
Even then, some of the land was not occupied.

Please see my previous post for a definition of how I am using the word. Thank you.

Also, colonialism in SA did not end generations ago. Apartheid was a part of colonialism, and it happened in your lifetime.

Yet you called the people who live there now "settlers", implying they have no right to ownership.
Undeniably your reasoning is also based on race.
You are an anti-white racist, but we knew that since long.

Your opinion of me is not relevant.

Also. The Zulus were fierce warriors and many of the lands they now live on were conquered by war by their forefathers. Yet you would not dispute their ownership of their lands.

Do the Zulus have an ongoing colonialist relationship with the original communities?

——————————

South African whites don’t belong to any nation other than South Africa.

Most ancestors of sa blacks migrated to the south for economic reasons I understand.

This is all ver diffrtent from your American native argument which revolves are treaties and thefts between actual nations.

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of SA history is not as good as my knowledge of NA history. While it is very possible that I am incorrect about black settlement in SA, my research for other threads clearly showed that Boer and British settlers in SA had (and have) a colonial relationship with the black communities living there.

I see the nation of SA as the colonising nation, and the pre-existing black communities as the colonised in this scenario.

[anasawad]

@layman
No they weren't.

Archaeological discoveries of livestock bones on the Cape Peninsula indicate that the Khoikhoi began to settle there by about 2000 years ago. In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Portuguese mariners, who were the first Europeans at the Cape, encountered pastoral Khoikhoi with livestock. Later, English and Dutch seafarers in the late 16th and 17th centuries exchanged metals for cattle and sheep with the Khoikhoi. The conventional view is that availability of livestock was one reason why, in the mid-17th century, the Dutch East India Company established a staging post where the port city of Cape Town is today situated. The initial origin of the Khoikhoi remains uncertain.

The establishment of the staging post by the Dutch East India Company at the Cape in 1652 soon brought the Khoikhoi into conflict with Dutch settlers over land ownership. Cattle rustling and livestock theft ensued, with the Khoikhoi being ultimately expelled from the peninsula by force, after a succession of wars. The first Khoikhoi–Dutch War broke out in 1659, the second in 1673, and the third 1674–1677. By the time of their defeat and expulsion from the Cape Peninsula and surrounding districts, the Khoikhoi population was decimated by a smallpox epidemic, against which the Khoikhoi had no natural resistance or indigenous medicines. The disease had been brought to the Cape by Dutch sailors.

The Bantu expansion was one of the major demographic movements in human prehistory, sweeping much of the African continent during the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.Bantu-speaking communities reached southern Africa from the Congo basin by the early centuries AD. The advancing Bantu encroached on the Khoikhoi territory, forcing the original inhabitants of the region to move to more arid areas. Some of the migrant groups, ancestral to today's Nguni peoples (the Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi, and Ndebele), preferred to live near the eastern coast of what is present-day South Africa.Others, now known as the Sotho–Tswana peoples (Tswana, Pedi, and Sotho), settled in the interior on the plateau known as the Highveld, while today's Venda, Lemba, and Shangaan-Tsonga peoples made their homes in the north-eastern areas of present-day South Africa

If you looked at the maps.
The dutch first colonized the cape in the south west. Then the Brits came and so the dutch went up east and north east and established the Boer republics there which, looking at the maps, were where the Bantu people lived.
So South Africa was mainly made of 2 ethnic groups each with their own nations, tribes, and kingdoms, one in the east and one in the west. The Dutch colonized the west, then when the Brits came moved on to colonize the east.
Evident to this the fact that when the Boers moved east, they first signed a treaty with the Bantu people there in the Zulu kingdom to allow them to move to their lands. That is, allowed them to migrate into the Zulu kingdom and lands.
The same for the north and central territories which were then under the Sotho people, also a bantu group, who had their own kingdoms and lands and were also colonized. Not all were colonized since they still kept some of their lands which became today the kingdom of Lesotho surrounded by south Africa, but non the less, the Dutch colonists took a large portion of their lands by force.

So not the Dutch nor the British or any European settlers arriving to south Africa found empty land that they settled in, they colonized existing kingdoms and states and took their lands.


@Ter
For why the Bantu colonization is of the land is irrelevant currently ?
3 things.
1- Some Bantu groups did colonize and take land from existing native populations in south Africa, while others settled actually empty land. Unlike the Dutch.
2- The Bantu expansion is not only a much older event but also one that is no longer an issue today because all the groups currently existing have mixed and integrated together to a point the distinction no longer exists to a notable degree.
3- And finally, Because much of the people whom Bantus like the Zulu did colonize don't have any living descendants to claim their rights to the land from the Zulu. Mainly because they were wiped out either by the Dutch, or by disease brought by the Dutch.

[Alchemy]

@Hong Wu more of your high road, huh?

Fuck the Boers and fuck colonialism. I can't imagine a more pathetic white supremacist than an Asian one.

Lol Ditto. It’s like the most embarrassing shit ever.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Relevant Poll I just posted: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=174435

Also, the blacks lost their lands to the whites. They lost, the whites won, the land belongs to the victors.

The whites foolishly ended apartheid and now they are the victims of circumstances they created.

If the blacks come for their lands, even if defeat is inevitable, they should fight to the last man and make the conflict into the bloodiest spectacle possible so that the media cannot avoid it (like they are trying to) and so the world can see it for what it is and so they can see the blacks who will invariably go too far and become genocidal.

This will draw sympathy in the west and reinvigorate both Far-Right groups and anti-government groups in both the U.S. and Europe.

knowing Afrikaner history, whether they lose or not, they will make the conflict painful for anyone they go to war with as they have always done.

[Beren]

I propose Hungary should take in a couple of ten thousand. After all, they are white and Christian.

Sorry Ter, but we don't let foreign farmers have that much of our land. Hungarian land is for Hungarians!