[anasawad]

@Victoribus Spolia
I don't follow much of the Alt-right, so I have some idea about their platform but not in full details.
There are many things wrong with their platform in that much of it is stupid and economically will lead to disasters over the short and mid term range, and the fact that many of them for some reason have a tendency to align themselves with fascists and supremacists and many other things.

But when talking regarding the left, its not really hard to see where the end goal is in accordance with the stated ideological groundwork.
The sought end of any class struggle is to end that class struggle with the oppressed taking power from and over the oppressor.
The end goal for the far left movements in North America is to take power, and if they have to "break a few eggs", if so to say, in the way to accomplish their goals, then they'll do it.

Lets not forget that the mainstream left wing movements in the US in general just happens to be funded by powerful, influential and rich individuals who would benefit greatly from the accomplishment of the movement goals.
The difference between them and other groups currently I would say is that they're populists in the true sense, in that I do believe they're intending to bring things like healthcare and education and better law enforcement and justice system for all once they fully take power. The problem I see with them is that they want to fully take power and historically speaking, it wont be very long before this power corrupts them as it does appear to already start corrupting large sections of the left movements in the west as they're growing more and more in power.

[Heisenberg]

When the colonialism actually ends.

In other words, when foreign governments stop exploiting indigenous people and lands as they are doing now, set up a hew relationship based on equality, and make meaningful stoes to redress the harm caused by this ongoing colonialism.

This is filled with exactly the sort of vague language that I mentioned before. There is no set of serious, objective criteria that can be met in the real world, and this is by design. I probably don't need to explain to you why your earlier suggestion that 300 million white people immediately leave North America is a little unrealistic.

Ultimately, this why "decolonisation" is such a good pretext for a power grab. The ANC has had 24 years of uninterrupted power in South Africa now, and for the vast majority of that, it has benefited from international good will. They won't be able to blame "colonialism" for their failures forever.

By the way, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I am not here to defend Apartheid or to paint the Afrikaners as an oppressed group. My concern, as ever, is that governments should adhere to the principle of the rule of law.

[anasawad]

@Heisenberg
Mind you but regarding the question, I don't believe my language was vague and I gave an example with a specific period that is easily noted and observed, that period being around 40 year period when the 2 groups became fully integrated and fully adopted one modified new-esh culture, so how is the question not yet answered ?

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is filled with exactly the sort of vague language that I mentioned before. There is no set of serious, objective criteria that can be met in the real world, and this is by design.

He does the same thing when defining hate speech. You must keep these definitions vague in order to use them as a pretense for state action against certain targeted groups.

I probably don't need to explain to you why your suggestion that 300 million white people immediately leave North America is a little unrealistic.

I don't believe my language was vague and I gave an example with a specific period that is easily noted and observed, that period being around 40 year period when the 2 groups became fully integrated and fully adopted one modified new-esh culture, so how is the question not yet answered ?

This assumes that colonialism can only end via assimilation and not multiculturalism; however, that is not what anyone is really speaking about.

The question is how can colonization end peacefully in multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Saying that colonizing will only end once the afrikaners cease to be afrikaners, dutch calvinists, and possibly even white, is not really a solution much different than genocide in the opinion of many.

[Heisenberg]

Mind you but regarding the question, I don't believe my language was vague and I gave an example with a specific period that is easily noted and observed, that period being around 40 year period when the 2 groups became fully integrated and fully adopted one modified new-esh culture, so how is the question not yet answered ?

Sorry, I missed your response.

First off, you're talking about a period 5,000 years ago. It's much easier to view these things from several millennia of historical detachment. It's like evolution: it's very hard to observe many changes generation to generation, but we know over a long period that we are ultimately descended from single-celled organisms.

If the basis of the argument is that white South Africans haven't assimilated into the new, democratic nation yet, how can you say they aren't doing so since you don't have the level of historical detachment that you do from ancient Persia?

Second, analysing waves of migration 5,000 years ago is probably not the best way to determine sensible political policy in the modern world.

My own view is that this obsession with clean breaks and abstract principle will cause far more harm than good in the long run.

Look at Zimbabwe: sure, "land reform" put the land back into the hands of native Zimbabweans, but at the cost of causing huge food shortages.

A similar thing is happening in Venezuela today. There's a core of left-wing fantasists on this forum who doggedly insist that Venezuela is a bastion of freedom simply because it is not aligned with the USA, all the while ignoring the grotesque waste of the country's natural wealth by a cabal of mustachioed buffoons.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Besides @anasawad , if you are talking about assimilation in all areas except race, do you really think that if only the dutch afrikaners converted to pentecostalism, learn to speak Bantu and eat bush meat that all their problems with the majority population will be solved?

Thats crazy talk.

I can't speak to the example you gave, but the issue is pretty black-and-white in SA (pun intended).

[Pants-of-dog]

land acquisition via the spoils of war is not theft, which is your argument.

If it were, then most of the African tribes are guilty of it against each other, as are all peoples, and the balance sheet could never be corrected by "land seizing."

Please explain which war you are discussing and how it ended. Thanks.

That is exactly what I am addressing.

What part confused you, then?

It eliminates the colonizers in a manner commensurate with their crimes and thereby ends, fully and completely, their occupation of native lands.

Colonizers are guilty of genocide, own land they stole, and make money off of resources that don't belong to them. All of this is corrected simultaneously via a genocide.

So answer my question.

How would genociding the white occupiers not be a just action?

Since the colonisers would have already lost power (as a necessary condition for being powerless to stop their own genocide, colonialism is already mostly over in your hypothetical example and so gencoide would not be necessary.

Or, in your words, the colonisers are no longer able to genocide the locals, steal local land, or make money off local resources.

I do not know if this answers your question about “justice”, but justice seems more like an abstract value, while ending colonialism is a concrete goal.

Also answer me this;

Why can't the ANC just not seize lands as an act of grace and forgiveness commensurate with the whites giving up their apartheid regime? Wouldn't that be a better gesture of peace working towards racial harmony?

Because the goal is to end colonialism, not let it continue because the colonisers are no longer overtly killing people.

————————

This is filled with exactly the sort of vague language that I mentioned before. There is no set of serious, objective criteria that can be met in the real world, and this is by design. I probably don't need to explain to you why your suggestion that 300 million white people immediately leave North America is a little unrealistic.

It probably is a bit vague, because I was specifically addressing colonialism as a whole, and was therefore addressing the very defintion of colonialism, since this is pretty much the ony thing that is the same in all colonial relationships.

If you want specific actions that need to be taken in order to address specific issues, you would need to look at specific relationships. Even within a country, you would have to do this. To use Canada as an example, the colonial relationship between Canada and the Métis is diffierent from the colonial relationship between Canada and the Tlingit.

But I can say this: it is about changing the relationship between the foreign government and the local group. The idea is to move from an unequal relationship focused on exploitation to a more equal relationship based on mutual consent.

Also, please note that I never argued that 300 million white people should leave NA. I think I clarified this with Drlee already.

[anasawad]

@Victoribus Spolia

This assumes that colonialism can only end via assimilation and not multiculturalism; however, that is not what anyone is really speaking about.

The question is how can colonization end peacefully in multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Saying that colonizing will only end once the afrikaners cease to be afrikaners, dutch calvinists, and possibly even white, is not really a solution much different than genocide in the opinion of many.

It can end with multiculturalism. If both groups abandoned their in-group out-group senses in regard to the other group and co-operated with them, then you have a multicultural society that is done by the new group being assimilated and integrated into the nation.

This is how it happened in Lebanon, though I figured it would be pointless to really mention this as an example because this is harder to specify when it happened either in a specific point in time or a period of time.

With full cultural Assimilation and merger, it is easier as you can see the change happening, mainly in politics and literature, so it works better as an example.
You can try to take an example of Lebanon of this process, but then you'd have to spend a couple of hours researching and eliminating foreign factors at play, and then another hour writing a post explaining it to show how integration happened in a specific period all while accounting for all foreign actors and factors like wars, invasions, regional and economic crises, natural disasters, farmers' uprisings, etc.
And really, I don't think 'm going to spend 2-3 hours of my time on a single post.

[anasawad]

@Heisenberg

Sorry, I missed your response.

First off, you're talking about a period 5,000 years ago. It's much easier to view these things from several millennia of historical detachment. It's like evolution: it's very hard to observe many changes generation to generation, but we know over a long period that we are ultimately descended from single-celled organisms.

If the basis of the argument is that white South Africans haven't assimilated into the new, democratic nation yet, how can you say they aren't doing so since you don't have the level of historical detachment that you do from ancient Persia?

Second, analysing waves of migration 5,000 years ago is probably not the best way to determine sensible political policy in the modern world.

My own view is that this obsession with clean breaks and abstract principle will cause far more harm than good in the long run.

Look at Zimbabwe: sure, "land reform" put the land back into the hands of native Zimbabweans, but at the cost of causing huge food shortages.

A similar thing is happening in Venezuela today. There's a core of left-wing fantasists on this forum who doggedly insist that Venezuela is a bastion of freedom simply because it is not aligned with the USA, all the while ignoring the grotesque waste of the country's natural wealth by a cabal of mustachioed buffoons.

1- No, I said the first wave arrived 5000 years ago, not that the change took 5000 years.
The example I gave was a specific wave led by Timurlane building the Timurid empire in the 14th century and settling down and integrating, with the merger being completed and observed to be completed in a period of flourishing in arts and literature that started less than 50 years after they settled in the region and began the integration process.
Go back and read the post.

2- This post just before this one is relevant.

It can end with multiculturalism. If both groups abandoned their in-group out-group senses in regard to the other group and co-operated with them, then you have a multicultural society that is done by the new group being assimilated and integrated into the nation.

This is how it happened in Lebanon, though I figured it would be pointless to really mention this as an example because this is harder to specify when it happened either in a specific point in time or a period of time.

With full cultural Assimilation and merger, it is easier as you can see the change happening, mainly in politics and literature, so it works better as an example.
You can try to take an example of Lebanon of this process, but then you'd have to spend a couple of hours researching and eliminating foreign factors at play, and then another hour writing a post explaining it to show how integration happened in a specific period all while accounting for all foreign actors and factors like wars, invasions, regional and economic crises, natural disasters, farmers' uprisings, etc.
And really, I don't think 'm going to spend 2-3 hours of my time on a single post.

And 3-
My point is, that the integration takes multiple generations through out many decades at the very least, specially when its regarding two entirely opposing cultures being mixed with each other.

SA will have it harder because of the existing tension, ethnic bias and isolation, and political landscape.


@Victoribus Spolia

Besides @anasawad , if you are talking about assimilation in all areas except race, do you really think that if only the dutch afrikaners converted to pentecostalism, learn to speak Bantu and eat bush meat that all their problems with the majority population will be solved?

Thats crazy talk.

I can't speak to the example you gave, but the issue is pretty black-and-white in SA (pun intended).

They don't have to turn fully into what ever culture black people in SA have, the two more so better start moving towards the center in between.
Atleast thats what it would be if an actual attempt to integrate and assimilate everyone happened.



@Heisenberg @Victoribus Spolia
From this point on, take what ever post and example as a general not a specific, because I usually mean it in a general sense but get misunderstood as a specific.
Like when I give an example of Iran, I don't mean this is the only way it could happen, I mean this is one of many examples of the process of integration between various cultures and its beneficial to consider it if we were talking about lets say time scales of this process.

[Heisenberg]

1- No, I said the first wave arrived 5000 years ago, not that the change took 5000 years.
The example I gave was a specific wave led by Timurlane building the Timurid empire in the 14th century and settling down and integrating, with the merger being completed and observed to be completed in a period of flourishing in arts and literature that started less than 50 years after they settled in the region and began the integration process.
Go back and read the post.

I didn't say it took 5,000 years either. I said you are talking about a situation with several millennia of historical detachment. It's easier to identify the "50-year period" you mentioned when you're looking back at an era of history, than it is to identify gradual changes while they're happening.

Follow your own advice, and go back and read my post.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please explain which war you are discussing and how it ended. Thanks.

Pretty much every war that took place in South Africa since 1600.

Your Welcome.

What part confused you, then?

No confusion, which is why what I said was relevant.

Since the colonisers would have already lost power (as a necessary condition for being powerless to stop their own genocide, colonialism is already mostly over in your hypothetical example and so gencoide would not be necessary.

Wait, genocide is done by those in power against those not in power, you are arguing for genocide against people in power which is non-sense.

Likewise, if not being able to do a genocide is evidence that colonialism has "pretty much ended" as your argued, then why do the land grab at all? You just basically contradicted yourself, your rebuttal to my question is that genocide against whites is unnecessary because their colonialism is over, but you justify the land-grab because of on-going colonialism, so which is it? It cannot be both.

Some points to be made based on your own worldview:

1. Genocide is a logistical option for the ANC against the Boers, this is a fact.

2. Genocide will end on-going colonialism in South Africa, even better than the land grab. This is a fact.

3. Genocide will a proportionate and commensurate action on the part of the ANC because that is how whites treated blacks in the past.

So I ask again;

If the ANC decided to genocide the white minority, how would such not be just?

Also;

How would it not be a effective means of ending on-going colonialism?

Because the goal is to end colonialism, not let it continue because the colonisers are no longer overtly killing people.

Here is another question for you to answer:

If ending Aparteid was known to lead to land-seizure without compensation (and who knows what else), would you say that the whites acted irrationally and against their own interests in ending that regime? Yes or No?

[anasawad]

@Heisenberg
But it doesn't, its something that happened only 5-6 centuries ago. The first wave arriving 5000 years ago is harder to come by with data on, but the one a handful of centuries ago have a very well documented sets.

In specific dates, first the invasion came in 1370, settlement fully began at around 1390-1400s, and by the period between 1450-1500 where there are many books and documents and arts from that period, we can see that the new Turkic tribes that arrived under the Timurid flag had already fully assimilated and integrated into society. That means the integration took roughly 5-6 decades to complete.
Thats not of an entire race or nation, nor at a very long period of time, but with a very specific group of tribes (4 of them), that came and settled in northern Khorasan, Golestan and Semnan along side Persians. They came as a conquering empire, but they settled in and integrated.
They first adopted the language and started mixing with the locals and living by their side, 2 generations latter, they'd fully melted into the culture.
So this is an example of a colonizing group coming in, and settling in the land only to be absorbed into the nation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@anasawad,

No offense, but I don't think @Heisenberg or anyone for that matter wants to discuss Iranian history right now. At least not in the detail your are attempting.

Call it a hunch.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pretty much every war that took place in South Africa since 1600.

Your Welcome.

This is vague and does not answer the question.

If you wish to discuss this, please be more specific. Thanks.

No confusion, which is why what I said was relevant.

Well until you expalin what was wrong with my previous response, I cannot help you.

Wait, genocide is done by those in power against those not in power, you are arguing for genocide against people in power which is non-sense.

No. i am not arguing for genocide at all.

Likewise, if not being able to do a genocide is evidence that colonialism has "pretty much ended" as your argued, then why do the land grab at all? You just basically contradicted yourself, your rebuttal to my question is that genocide against whites is unnecessary because their colonialism is over, but you justify the land-grab because of on-going colonialism, so which is it? It cannot be both.

You seem to be confusing my replies to your hypothetical example with my analysis of the actual situation in SA.

They are two different situations.

Some points to be made based on your own worldview:

1. Genocide is a logistical option for the ANC against the Boers, this is a fact.

2. Genocide will end on-going colonialism in South Africa, even better than the land grab. This is a fact.

No, I have already pointed out that the steps necessary to get into a position where you can commit genocide are also the steps that need to be taken in order to solve colonialism.

In other words, by the time you are in a position to commit genocide, enough of the anti-colonialism work has been done so as to make genocide superfluous.

3. Genocide will a proportionate and commensurate action on the part of the ANC because that is how whites treated blacks in the past.

Maybe in your morality. Not in mine.

So I ask again;

If the ANC decided to genocide the white minority, how would such not be just?

I already answered this.

Why are you focusing on abstract issues of justice when I am discussing the much more concrete goal of ending colonialism?

Also;

How would it not be a effective means of ending on-going colonialism?

I have already pointed out that the steps necessary to get into a position where you can commit genocide are also the steps that need to be taken in order to solve colonialism.

In other words, by the time you are in a position to commit genocide, enough of the anti-colonialism work has been done so as to make genocide superfluous.

Here is another question for you to answer:

If ending Aparteid was known to lead to land-seizure without compensation (and who knows what else), would you say that the whites acted irrationally and against their own interests in ending that regime? Yes or No?

Whites who owned large tracts of land that were taken through colonialism definitely acted against their own interests if they then supported the end of white minority rule.

Mind you, I do not think that the rich and powerful whites at the time chose to end Apartheid. I think they had it forced on them.

[anasawad]

@Victoribus Spolia
I know. But I keep saying its a period of 50 years, and he says its a period of 5000 years. So I have to specify to make sure its clear.
And I can mainly bring examples of Iranian or Lebanese history, since thats what I know mainly. Other than a few periods in the wider region, I don't anything to give much examples from.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have already pointed out that the steps necessary to get into a position where you can commit genocide are also the steps that need to be taken in order to solve colonialism.

In other words, by the time you are in a position to commit genocide, enough of the anti-colonialism work has been done so as to make genocide superfluous.

The ANC and the black majority could genocide the whites RIGHT NOW. This is a logistical fact.

Which under your argument means colonialism is over and so the land-grab would therefore also be superfluous.

Whites who owned large tracts of land that were taken through colonialism definitely acted against their own interests if they then supported the end of white minority rule.

Thanks, maybe that will be a lesson to whites in the future.

[Suntzu]

The ANC and the black majority could genocide the whites RIGHT NOW. This is a logistical fact.

Which under your argument means colonialism is over and so the land-grab would therefore also be superfluous.



Thanks, maybe that will be a lesson to whites in the future.

You might want to watch the movie Zulu.

[Heisenberg]

But it doesn't, its something that happened only 5-6 centuries ago.

Now you're splitting hairs. Five centuries still counts as "historically detached".

For example, no one in 1914 knew that World War One would be as destructive as it was or cause such a profound change in the way the entire world's politics ran. 100 years on, we can identify 1914-1918 as the era-defining period that it was. It is much easier to analyse these things from a position of historical distance.

In other words, it is far too soon to say that white South Africans have not integrated into the new South Africa when the state is only 24 years old and we are still living in the period during which this integration could be occurring. Especially if, as your side claims, that same period is too short a time frame for colonialism to have ended.

[anasawad]

@Heisenberg
Sure, but we should look at the historical examples to get a basic understanding of the process.

For South Africa. I didn't say anything so far about where it is in the process or atleast whether I think it is in that process.
I can say that black and white people in South Africa generally speak the same language, which is a much bigger progress than previous times as it helps with communications, and that they're gradually starting to live and work together in some areas which means the integration process is in progress.

But, South Africa itself is not isolated, and we have to consider outside factors into the discussion.
Like the ideological influence of foreign powers and support either side gets from foreign nations or entities, both play major role in the integration into one nation whether multi or uni cultural.

And here comes in the previously mentioned prediction I made a couple of years ago come into question, being that I don't expect that a full integration or a successful integration will occur, and there will most likely be chaos and a significant downturn.
The ideological and political support for the governing party and the radical left from the radical left of the US and Europe is far stronger than that received by the boers. Which means they have no incentive to back down.
The world is heading towards an economic downturn which will play to increase the isolationism of each side, as well as potentially spurs violence.

Then you have to account for corruption, propaganda, regulatory failure and incompetence across the field which is pushing the groups further away from each other than bringing them closer to each other.

And to take a look at historical precedents, when integration whether full or partial either fails or stops and multiple factors combine together to counter it, what usually follows is either civil unrest and conflict or full blown civil war if things went further down the line.


So, yes, the period is indeed to short for integration to fully occur.
Colonialism ends when the integration is finished.
Integration is in process but there are many factors at play to counter it.
And I don't predict the situation to get better in the upcoming future.

So from that stand point, I see the best scenario to play out if these conditions consisted is one where the conflict is pre-empted and the Boer minority be relocated somewhere else where they are accepted both for their own safety and for the continuation of the nation as whole.
Atleast that what I think the best solution ,given the current circumstances, is.

[B0ycey]

I can only assume you are for this action VS. Aren't you pro imperialist?