No no no! You’re not allowed to talk about the US laying claim to huge swaths of the Ukrainian interior in exchange for another round of weapons imports. My libertarian friends told me that this is fine because the US is getting the land through contracts, which are totally bloodless and not in any way an infringement on the rights of the Ukrainian native peoples.
The above comic only applies to folks on the Eastern side of the big line. Westerners would never exploit the precarious position of Ukrainian nationalists to rob them, press-gang them into front-line combat rolls, and then snatch up all the vacant real estate once the smoke clears.
They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn’t even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about “this is just like the white genocide in south africa”
it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I’ll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I’ll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO “allies” while they’re forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I’ll even through in a “Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played”.
But the idea that Russians aren’t above a little expansionism and exploitation is just… my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
How on Earth is it not settler colonialism when Russia engages in a prolonged campaign of trying to russify the Ukranian language, heavily propogandizing those in border regions to either get them to apply for, or either grant them Russian passports/citizenship, then they claim the rightful borders have moved, then invade and capture those border areas (and others), and then emgage in ethnic cleansing within those border areas?
Please, explain to me how that isn’t settler colonialism, just with a few initial, semi-novel/semi-uncommon extra steps?
You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
Yep, Russia stole third of Ukraine and tries to pretend it’s a part of their country not because they’re doing colonialism, but because… um… nothing I guess, it’s not happening actually. All the Ukranians just deciding to die of natural causes there.
It’s only Colonialism if it’s from Colonial region of the world, otherwise it’s sparkling war with the exploitative and/or genocidal purposes, and then it’s OK if it’s the country that I like. You wouldn’t understand, lib.
It’s real cute how you can just infer the genocidal and exploitative purposes when it’s an enemy of the US, but you’re a Russian disinfo bot in the pocket of China when you point out at the many examples of US proxies going “We think they’re lower than animals and we’re literally gonna exterminate them and their children”
Hey, let’s compare definitions.
In my books, it’s when a big country tries to take some land, usually rich in resources, murder those parts of local population who disagrees with that, and make the rest into a workforce, taking all the resources into metropolis.
Now, given that, what parts of Russian relationships with Crimea, Donbass, and Lugansk regions don’t fit this definition? Well, apart from the fact that Russian military force is a military farce and they fail at all their plans except one when they murder local population.
Or do you think attempted colonialism doesn’t count? Because it’s not for the lack of trying, you know
Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.
Exactly, the Nazis in the Ukrainian government are sending Ukranians into meat grinders for the profits of the U.S. empire
No no no! You’re not allowed to talk about the US laying claim to huge swaths of the Ukrainian interior in exchange for another round of weapons imports. My libertarian friends told me that this is fine because the US is getting the land through contracts, which are totally bloodless and not in any way an infringement on the rights of the Ukrainian native peoples.
The above comic only applies to folks on the Eastern side of the big line. Westerners would never exploit the precarious position of Ukrainian nationalists to rob them, press-gang them into front-line combat rolls, and then snatch up all the vacant real estate once the smoke clears.
Aaaaand there it is.
They come here with their nonsnense equalizing a regular war to a genocide going on right now, the comic doesn’t even make sense in the situation of Ukraine, it’s about settler colonialism, something Russia doesn’t do
Edit: this is like coming under a post about the holocaust and talking about “this is just like the white genocide in south africa”
Okay, tap the breaks dude.
I’ll spot you that Ukraine/Russia is the latest in a long line of proxy wars between Eastern and Western oligarchs. And I’ll happily concede that Ukrainians are being swindled by their NATO “allies” while they’re forced to play punching bag in order to exhaust its historical enemy. I’ll even through in a “Maidan was a color revolution and liberal Ukrainians got royally played”.
But the idea that Russians aren’t above a little expansionism and exploitation is just… my god, man. Literally centuries of history to the contrary.
How on Earth is it not settler colonialism when Russia engages in a prolonged campaign of trying to russify the Ukranian language, heavily propogandizing those in border regions to either get them to apply for, or either grant them Russian passports/citizenship, then they claim the rightful borders have moved, then invade and capture those border areas (and others), and then emgage in ethnic cleansing within those border areas?
Please, explain to me how that isn’t settler colonialism, just with a few initial, semi-novel/semi-uncommon extra steps?
you don’t know what is settler colonialism and you don’t know what is reality, gtfo don’t compare Palestine to Ukraine
Would you care to explain anything, or do you just want to have a hissy fit?
You don’t read books or theory about colonialism, you don’t look at the news or the current event, you give vibe based “analysis” of the situation, and you want me to explain the entirety of colonialism from beginning to end just because your lazy ass won’t read Frantz Fanon.
Ok so I actually have a degree in Poli Sci and another degree in Econ, I have read quite a lot of theory, often got into arguments with my NeoLiberal professors over things like the IMF, WorldBank, how to evaluate systemic risk in financial markets, the idea of bailing out Wall Street during the GFC instead of jailing them all as corrupt, as Iceland did, once got a bad mark on a paper about conflict goods because my PoliSci prof simply refused to acknowledge that US Army troops were guarding opium farms in Afghanistan, independently sought out and studied modern Marxist economists outside of the scope of course work, etc etc.
I want you to explain, in a couple sentences, or paragraphs if you need to… how the situation I described above either is not settler colonialism, or is a wildly innacurate mischaracterization of the situation, or some mix of both.
Not just yell ‘read theory!’ at me and give me an author name.
I do not need the entire concept of settler colonialism explained to me. I am familiar with it.
If you’ve read and understood Fanon, you should be able to… you know, make that argument.
Succinctly.
In your own words.
Otherwise you’re just a pretentious hipster, arrogantly name dropping authors and scoffing.
Yep, Russia stole third of Ukraine and tries to pretend it’s a part of their country not because they’re doing colonialism, but because… um… nothing I guess, it’s not happening actually. All the Ukranians just deciding to die of natural causes there.
you genuinely don’t know what colonialism is
Colonialism is when a country I don’t like does a thing I don’t like somewhere else. Imperialism is when any country attacks any other.
There, who needs books when it’s that simple, tankies?
Colonialism is when two countries have a war
It’s only Colonialism if it’s from Colonial region of the world, otherwise it’s sparkling war with the exploitative and/or genocidal purposes, and then it’s OK if it’s the country that I like. You wouldn’t understand, lib.
It’s real cute how you can just infer the genocidal and exploitative purposes when it’s an enemy of the US, but you’re a Russian disinfo bot in the pocket of China when you point out at the many examples of US proxies going “We think they’re lower than animals and we’re literally gonna exterminate them and their children”
Hey, let’s compare definitions.
In my books, it’s when a big country tries to take some land, usually rich in resources, murder those parts of local population who disagrees with that, and make the rest into a workforce, taking all the resources into metropolis.
Now, given that, what parts of Russian relationships with Crimea, Donbass, and Lugansk regions don’t fit this definition? Well, apart from the fact that Russian military force is a military farce and they fail at all their plans except one when they murder local population.
Or do you think attempted colonialism doesn’t count? Because it’s not for the lack of trying, you know
I love how all the chuds from nazi adjacent instances come out of the woodwork to downvote anybody pointing out the basic facts of the situation.