Interesting analogy
Interesting analogy
You're viewing a single thread.
96 comments
-
In my world understanding colonialism was never good, but anything after ww2 is just invalid. There needs to be some cut off date where we say "at this point everyone knew and we had international laws against genocide" after which it just becomes invalid and any land claimed afterwards is not recognized or supported.
Israel was definitely too late to the colonial party and kinda should be considered illegitimate.
-
A little convenient that the cutoff date is after Europeans divided the world for themselves.
-
right? all colonial states are illegitimate
-
Ofcourse they are, but if you go back to times where colonialism was the norm and in no way internationally frowned upon, then not a single current day country would be legitimate. So it kinda makes sense to set the cut off at a point where colonialism was at an all time low, because if you dont then all you get is world war.
-
colonialism was the norm and in no way internationally frowned upon
When you mention colonialism wasn't frowned upon, who were the people that did not frown upon it then?
-
who were the people that did not frown upon it then
The fellow colonizers... yeah that was worded badly. But i think you know what i mean. Back then maybe other European countries were jealous of other colonizers, but they didnt really see it as a bad thing to be colonizers. Now even the ex-colonizers see it as a bad thing and when countries do it, they get called out for it. Russia, China, USA, Israel, etc
Its the same as with oil and coal dependency. Yes the West disproportionally profited from those historically, and we can think about compensation etc, but in the end its in everyones interest to just stop using it and bully anyone that doesnt reduce their usage of it.
-
My point is that your baseline for legitimacy and moral acceptability is based on the attitudes taken by the colonizers, then and now. It can feel pragmatic and reasonable, but I think it only seems like a defensible position because the "ex"-colonizers (I mean, the U.S. hasn't been decolonized, has it?) broadly agree that "colonialism is bad", though it does seem like strong support for Zionist Israel by colonial countries like the U.S. and UK is a clear counter-example to this.
Ultimately if you look closely and found Zionist occupation illegitimate, you will certainly think so of other occupations. The reasons you give for ignoring the illegitimacy of other occupations don't feel that different than those given for ignoring the illegitimacy of the Israeli occupation.
-
-
-
A huge proportion of the world was still under direct colonial control after WWII. Like most of Africa, swathes of Asia. Pick a country on a map and look at the date it was granted independence. I can almost guarantee that it will be later than you expected. Post-WWII is not a low point for colonialism.
I would further argue that many of the countries that were granted independence only received the ability to install administrators who were of an indigenous ethnic group. Trade agreements and terms dictated by loans from groups like the international monetary fund still directed a large proportion of domestic and foreign policy. So even though the government of a country may have had a constitution and veneer of democracy it was still operating at the behest of foreign interests (ex. Shell in Nigeria, Firestone in Liberia, Exxonmobil in Indonesia, etc.), who propped up puppet leaders that allowed them to continue to extract resources under the same or similar agreements they enjoyed under colonialism.
-
Post-WWII is not a low point for colonialism.
I was thinking creating new colonies, not maintaining existing ones. Ofcourse dismantling colonial government structures is also important, but arguably not creating new ones is the most important first step. Just pulling out all presence from all colonies over night would have most likely been disastrous for the natives too in most cases. But yeah the West definitely overstayed for far too long in many areas of the world and still does to this day.
-
One of the more jarring facts is that the so-called "post-colonial" era was more of a move to outsourced administration of colonies than actual independence. The fact that "intervention" is still performed basically only when some area has valuable resources or some kind of strategical advantage really says it all.
-
-
-
-
It's also a function of how far back are we willing to go? Are we going to split and merge countries? Or is it more important to get representative governments in place for the people that live there?
-
Saw an excellent video from some Al Jazeera offshoot yesterday. The guy was explaining the concept that Europeans actually tended to put in minority populations in charge that were sympathetic to their interests - Alawites in Syria, the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, European Zionists in Palestine - and that the borders were essentially designed for colonial administration instead of representing existing groups.
-
-
i disagree with your logic but you got to the right conclusion so cheers 😆
-
Israel as a state or the Israeli people? Because most of the jewish immigration to Palestine happened before 1945
-
No it didn't. Most of the Jews came after the Palestine nakba/massacre which made Jews feel unsafe in the middle east (jeez I wonder why, but also not their fault.) the Jews who came before the independence were all European terrorist who built armed settlements and militas Far away from Palestinans and Palestinan Jews as they didn't support them.
-
-
96 comments