The topic of Colonialism,Neo-Colonialism and Decolonization

[Twentyfirst]

54 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There is no such thing as "White people", that's a racist notion. There are several ethnic groups in europe that have white skin color, many of them had zero to do with colonialization and in fact were victims of imperialism.

There is no such thing as a "white european identity", that's an american concept.

Racism is a European thing. No other continent focused as much on race as the europeans or whites or whatever you want to call them. I don't think it's a big deal but you know what I mean. The colonizers 

[Nemra]

10 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Racism is a European thing

No.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Racism is a European thing. No other continent focused as much on race as the europeans or whites or whatever you want to call them. I don't think it's a big deal but you know what I mean. The colonizers 

Racism is not a european thing. What an absurd thing to say. There is no such thing as "europeans" as a collective anyways, that is a generalizing term that has little to do with the reality of what the different ethnic and cultural groups in europe are.  The reason why Christian colonizers focused on race so much has deeper historical reasons, and has nothing at all to do with the "whiteness" of europeans.

Colonialism was spured on by scientific advancement and competition between nation states. To make it about europe or whiteness obscures any true understanding of how these things came to be, and might come to be in the future.

[Twentyfirst]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

Racism is not a european thing. What an absurd thing to say. There is no such thing as "europeans" as a collective anyways, that is a generalizing term that has little to do with the reality of what the different ethnic and cultural groups in europe are.  The reason why Christian colonizers focused on race so much has deeper historical reasons, and has nothing at all to do with the "whiteness" of europeans.

Colonialism was spured on by scientific advancement and competition between nation states. To make it about europe or whiteness obscures any true understanding of how these things came to be, and might come to be in the future.

You lost the plot focusing too much on when I said the word white 

The way the West sees racism is not the same way the rest of the world sees racism

[Basman]

Focusing on the ethnicity of colonization is ironically a colonist concept. Colonization is essentially just another form of domination like the conquest of the Roman Empire or Alexander The Great.

European colonization has more to do with geographical and cultural factors that allowed for effective exploitation of less culturally/technologically developed countries. It has less to with ethnicity and more with opportunity and timing. The desire to dominate others is universal because it is advantageous for survival. Focus on "race" or ethnicity is a red herring if the goal is to actually understanding geopolitical domination and a past of such.

I believe there is a degree to which people from certain countries that have been affected by colonialism have resentment for Europe/the West and feel justified in being racist towards "white" people, I.E. punching up. Probably also mixed in with a lack of education and a relatively illiberal culture. I have a Greenlandic relative who likes to make racist remarks sometimes, which is apparently common among Greenlanders. I once joined in once because you kind of lose the sense of wrongness of something when everyone supports it. I made a "white" person visibly uncomfortable and I immediately regretted it. Racism is about putting people down so it's never really justified to base a conversation on race unless it is a meta-discussion.

[Twentyfirst]

5 minutes ago, Basman said:

Focusing on the ethnicity of colonization is ironically a colonist concept. Colonization is essentially just another form of domination like the conquest of the Roman Empire or Alexander The Great.

European colonization has more to do with geographical and cultural factors that allowed for effective exploitation of less culturally/technologically developed countries. It has less to with ethnicity and more with opportunity and timing. The desire to dominate others is universal because it is advantageous for survival. Focus on "race" or ethnicity is a red herring if the goal is to actually understanding geopolitical domination and a past of such.

I believe there is a degree to which people from certain countries that have been affected by colonialism have resentment for Europe/the West and feel justified in being racist towards "white" people, I.E. punching up. Probably also mixed in with a lack of education and a relatively illiberal culture. I have a Greenlandic relative who likes to make racist remarks sometimes, which is apparently common among Greenlanders. I once joined in once because you kind of lose the sense of wrongness of something when everyone supports it. I made a "white" person visibly uncomfortable and I immediately regretted it. Racism is about putting people down so it's never really justified to base a conversation on race unless it is a meta-discussion.

So what should I call that group of people to identify them if not white

[Nemra]

Racism reflects people's developmental level.

Edited April 7 by Nemra

[Twentyfirst]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Racism reflects people's developmental level.

"Developmental levels"

Favorite phrase of the colonizing mindset

There are no developmental levels. To me it seems as if developmental levels are just to use in the framework of equality. In the west they have equality where all persons are born equal but since people operate at different levels they had to create developmental levels to explain that away. So the other person is equal but doesn't act the same so given enough time they will catch up developmentally 

Edited April 7 by Twentyfirst

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

There are no developmental levels

I would say that a religious fundamentalist is less developed than you. That person will have to do a lot of introspection to change himself/herself.

[Twentyfirst]

Just now, Nemra said:

I would say that a religious fundamentalist is less developed than you. That person will have to do a lot of introspection to change himself/herself.

What does more or less developed even mean? 

Who said that person has to change themselves? Why change at all?

[Nemra]

19 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

What does more or less developed even mean?

I mean, the easiest example is ideally between a child and an adult.

I think that the more developed you are, the more open-minded, self-aware, and comprehensive you can be.

Edited April 7 by Nemra

[Twentyfirst]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I mean, the easiest example is ideally between a child and an adult.

You don't have to put names on it such as developmental levels to explain that. Everyone knows the differences between children and adult. It just is what it is

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I think that the more developed you are, the more open-minded, self-aware, and comprehensive you can be.

In that case then I guess racism would reflect someone's level of development. But then it would go back to what I was saying before that how racism works and solutions to racism is different in the west than anywhere else

[Basman]

8 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

So what should I call that group of people to identify them if not white

It's a pejorative term that can send the wrong message if that is not your intent. Ask yourself, what is the problem with referring to people from the global south as "blacks" or "N-words"?

8 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

What does more or less developed even mean? 

Who said that person has to change themselves? Why change at all?

Global corruption index, standard of living, mean age, freedom of press, economic stability, infrastructure, women's rights, education, global slavery index, per capita income, access to health care, cultural tolerance, technology, security, etc.

Would you rather live in Japan or Syria? That is development.

Edited April 8 by Basman

[Twentyfirst]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

It's a pejorative term that can send the wrong message if that is not your intent. Ask yourself, what is the problem with referring to people from the global south as "blacks" or "N-words"?

I have no problem calling people of the global south yellow, brown, or black people 

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Global corruption index, standard of living, mean age, freedom of press, economic stability, infrastructure, women's rights, education, global slavery index, per capita income, access to health care, cultural tolerance, technology, security, etc.

Let me guess. The West is superior in all these?

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Would you rather live in Japan or Syria? That is development.

Uhh you gotta be able to think deeper than this to understand what's really going on 

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Twentyfirst you are not bringing anything of substance to the topic, only cynic spirit and people needing to affirm to you the obvious, like the fact that there are indeed levels of development. 

When talking about colonialism my aim is not ramdom theory and opinions but History. 

when cases like The Scottsboro Boys  happens it happens because of systemic reasons and not ramdom ideias of if white exists or not.

The Scottsboro Boys was a series of trials that took place in the 1930s, involving the wrongful conviction of nine Black teenagers for raping two white women. The case was a landmark example of racial injustice in the US justice system and helped to spark the Civil Rights Movement. 

What happened?

On March 25, 1931, the nine boys were riding a freight train in Alabama when they were accused of raping two white women. 

The boys were met with an angry mob and charged with assault. 

Eight of the nine boys were found guilty by all-white juries and sentenced to death in the electric chair. 

The boys were ultimately saved from execution, but they spent years in prison. 

The case was tried and appealed in Alabama and twice before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Significance

The Scottsboro Boys case: 

Highlighted the racial inequities in the US justice system.

Helped to spur the Civil Rights Movement.

Led to two landmark Supreme Court rulings that established important rights for criminal defendants.

Undermined the structures of white supremacy in the South.

The Scottsboro Boys case is commonly cited as an example of a legal injustice in the United States legal system. 

Read Books, read from people who studied the field. Of course if you are at least interested in the topic and in justice, otherwise dont lose your time and others with your objections.

Read for Example 

W.E.B De Bois, Frantz Fanon,George Padmore,Albert Memmi,Richard Wright, Langston Hughes,Claude McKay,Suzzane Césare, Ralph Bunche,Isabel Wilkerson.

Can you even tell any name of any black and latino writer  ativist? 

[Rafael Thundercat]

https://lux-magazine.com/article/suzanne-cesaire/

On this study work there is not exact beginning, one can go as far as the historical writings started in human history, one will find it everywhere like the blood of civilization, this work is not about Trancendence of Humanity but Understanding our Undergroud Shadows, our Ancestrality. 

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

16 hours ago, Scholar said:

Why are you focusing and making this about skin color? Where do you think the term "slave" comes from in the first place? Who do you think, for hundreds of years, ran the greatest slave trades in the world? Again, you can't justify your racism with racism, that's assinine.

Where I am focusing in skin color? Tell me where the term slave came from. Tell me who ran the greatest slaves trade in the world. 

Here is a comment from someone of black skin, yes someone of black skin. Please stop this color blind bullshit. Advocacy to awareness of the things made by colonialism against people of Color have nothing to do With Color alone, but fact is that most of it was enacted by people with white skin and from certain regions.

"You only call yourself a person of color when you juxtapose yourself to WHYTness.
We only call ourselves BIPOC when we live in reaction to WHYTness  as the standard of humanity.
Even “native,” “indigenous,” and “aboriginal” are all colonial settler terminologies, because all of us are indigenous to somewhere, and that indigeneity doesn’t need legalization or institutional validation.
All race-based terminology simply confirms you are not racialized as white, but it does not affirm your identity."

[Twentyfirst]

@Rafael Thundercat Why is your aim history if colonialism is still alive and well today? I was pointing out the western propaganda of "we are inferior to nobody, the bad things we did such as slavery and war everyone else did so we are equal to everyone, and the good things we do such as all the stuff Basman listed and standard of life we are superior to everyone" which is at the root of it all. But in my opinion if there really are levels of development it's not as easy as bringing up western sources to prove that because the west has a history of making discrimination into a science. I am not a scholar and haven't studied all that stuff but I am awake and disillusioned to what the West truly is and I have seen it first hand. Once you see it you can't unsee it. The civil rights movement is just a drop in the bucket but all the issues always repeat the same patterns and habits so if you know those you will see all the issues out of that lens

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 07/04/2025 at 9:40 PM, Scholar said:

There is no such thing as "White people", that's a racist notion. There are several ethnic groups in europe that have white skin color, many of them had zero to do with colonialization and in fact were victims of imperialism.

There is no such thing as a "white european identity", that's an american concept.

Well is the case that the very Ideia of being American is also a construction. The name "America" came from the Explorer Americo Vespucio. 

Ok, several groups from Europe? And was was the main skin color of most of these groups? Who end up becoming the LandLords and Slave Owners? Why is not the Black people that are in Power but most part.of the whites? Wtf are you talking about? 

Here is another one for your contemplation: 

"I was asked why I call “white Americans” “European Americans” I said because too long your people have said that they are Americans yet the rest of us had to be compartmented as African American, Asian American, Polynesian American and the such. Why do you only deserve to be called American? He says my family has been here since the 1600’s and I said my family has been here before your ancestors even knew this place existed. 

Mic drop moment.

Please, take your head out of your (  *  ) 

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

@Rafael Thundercat Why is your aim history if colonialism is still alive and well today? I was pointing out the western propaganda of "we are inferior to nobody, the bad things we did such as slavery and war everyone else did so we are equal to everyone, and the good things we do such as all the stuff Basman listed and standard of life we are superior to everyone" which is at the root of it all. But in my opinion if there really are levels of development it's not as easy as bringing up western sources to prove that because the west has a history of making discrimination into a science. I am not a scholar and haven't studied all that stuff but I am awake and disillusioned to what the West truly is and I have seen it first hand. Once you see it you can't unsee it. The civil rights movement is just a drop in the bucket but all the issues always repeat the same patterns and habits so if you know those you will see all the issues out of that lens

You clearly have an anti-western bias. I don't know if your Muslim or something. You bring up some interesting points like western bias in spiral dynamics but it comes of as in bad faith rather than genuine interest in learning. Nor do you do meaningfully contribute to the conversation as you rebuke obvious and basic stuff. It should be obvious that spiral dynamics isn't a moral judgement.

I'm not going to waste my time on your trolling anymore.