377
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

What does "indigenous" even fucking mean. I'm of European descent living in Europe, motherfucker I'm the indigenous one around here.

This comic pretty directly equates "indigenous" with "brown & too poor to meaningfully impact their own ecosystems" (which isn't true either because poor countries have a pretty good track record of destroying their own ecosystems as well).

Saying "humans are a plague" is some edgelord type shit. Equating it with fascism is just dumb and dilutes the term "fascism", and on top of that they've managed to illustrate it in one of the most racist ways I've had the displeasure to read in a while.

Maybe I can give the author some slack and assume they're being a typical yankee and completely disregarding the rest of the world, and trying to be progressive by supporting the work Native American reserves do. But even then it's inexcusably dumb.

[-] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Fuck... I never thought about indigenous Europeans. Does this mean Brexit was technically an anti-colonism movement?

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Great Britain's a particularly bad example because most of the people living there today are descended from invaders and colonizers.

[-] flamingos@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Wales voted for Brexit though.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, oops! Forgot that they're like the US South of England!

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

eh, when only [former] colonial powers are fighting it's just called fighting.

However, I've seen people unironically say that the Irish were colonized by the Brits, we just don't call it that because Irish people are white.
IDK whether or not I agree, but it's certainly an interesting parallel as British rule over Ireland really did not differ that much from British rule over other overseas territories.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 6 points 1 year ago

I don’t see how that’s in any way controversial. The colonization of Ireland by the English using the Scots-Irish as the primary Settler class is pretty well documented.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

The facts of English rule over Ireland is well-documented. The particular framing of it as colonization is something that stands out to me is all.

Wikipedia only uses that terminology Sparingly. Again, not because it's not colonization, but because I think most people think of colonization as a thing that white people do to brown people.

The choice of framing is interesting because when you think about it colonization is just invading a place and imposing your citizens as a ruling class and your culture as superior (etc.). There are LOTS of instances of that throughout history that we don't usually call "colonization" (say, the Normans colonizing England), because in practice that word evokes the very specific kind of colonization that was practiced by Europeans from the 1400s onward. So I see insisting on saying that "Ireland was colonized" instead of "Ireland was invaded/oppressed" (both of which are correct) as a way to emphasize the harshness of British rule by appealing to colonial remorse. I don't say that judgmentally, I just find the linguistic aspect interesting.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 1 year ago

Sometimes i forget that not everyone has an oversized interest in colonization, and things that seem obvious to me may not be so to others or widely held as popular opinion. Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. Cheers!

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
377 points (99.7% liked)

196

16724 readers
2296 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS