Are post colonialists just sore losers?

[Crusader occupied mecca]

Many nations are demonized for their imperial pasts. However the third world and their dupes elsewhere are the ones doing the demonizing, so you know that something doesn't add up. And sure enough the critics themselves used to be the big bullies until only the last few centuries and sometimes even longer. For example Islamic societies were quiet happy with aggressive self serving military expansion and the subjugation of other societies until they started losing at their own game. How can the post colonial critique of the west have any credibility when it is pushed by the biggest hypocrites?

Seems like post colonialism is just a celebration of failure : failed cultures, failed imperialism, failed societies. Is this because they want to infect the west with values that lead to failure or can they just not have any good or successful thoughts?

My opinion is both.

[Radiatia]

That is one scathing critique, but I agree with you.

I've always adhered as best I can to the 'theories as lenses' approach - that is that various schools of thought, realism, structuralism, etc., are all useful in terms of gaining a perspective on facts that can ultimately reveal the truth.

Post-colonialism is the one exception to this - I think it is the only school of thought that I have ever rubbished outright as being just plain ridiculous.

[Vassenor]

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

[The Grim Reaper]

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

This is just more irrelevant ranting against theoretical frameworks that have been adopted as an underpinning gloss for huge swathes of the developing world by people who would rather look like victims without also having to be, say, destitute on a global scale because their nation is ruled by an ethnic majority placed into power by Western maps and Western arms.

And, of course, the African Empires are /just/ as bad as, say, the Belgian rule in the Congo, or the Spanish Empire in South America, or the French attempts to hold Indochina into the Cold War.

Fanon (the Godfather of the postcolonialist theoretical framework) was a theorist of decolonization, not a historiographer of the process of colonialism. Postcolonialism is a theory that deals with "what is after colonialism" - it discusses the processes of colonialism in so much as it attempts to define the systems which cease to exist during the creation of new government structures. It does not argue that these processes are any worse or any better than anything else that existed prior. OP and Radiata seem to be under the presumption that postcolonialism boils down to "black man good white man bad".

Perhaps it's because it's terribly fun to assume that black people need to contribute political theories that "help and blame everyone equally!" when they were likely born in communities that really fucking suck compared to the white communities these theories tend to be developed. Of course Fanon doesn't blame the Algerian blacks for their poverty - he's a Marxist. The nature of power is as a one-way power relationship based on economic control - black people /don't/ have power in a Marxist world view, because they've lost it through the process of French colonialist economic control in Algeria.

(I'm referring to black French-Algerians because that was Fanon's background)

Postcolonialism doesn't compare the Islamic Empires to the Western Empires because it's entirely irrelevant to the people who were reading Fanon's work. He /lived/ in French-occupied Algeria. And if the Muslims happen to occupy Europe, as is the resounding fear OP tends to reflect in his posts, I'm sure Fanon will be more than happy to lend you the Wretched of the Earth.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Random guy: "At least we don't have silly things like your damn British Empire! Now keep out our land!"

- Muslim Conquests
- Muslim Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula (AKA, Spain and France)
- Muslim Invasion of Sicily

Among more.

But then again, there were other empires in places you now consider victims of imperialism, such as:

- The Zulu Empire (Africa)
- The Mali Empire (Africa)
- Sokoto Caliphate (Africa)
- Ottoman Empire (Asia)
- Sultanate of Johor (Asia)
- Mughal Empire (Asia)
- Fatimad Caliphate (Asia)

[Calimera II]

No. There are still neo-colonial political and economic structures in place which impede countries from the global south to develop. Furthermore, you employ a term that does not fit with the discussion. You call them "post colonialists," but aren't most of us post colonialists?

[Wolfmanne2]

Hell, this bloody theory keeps getting applied into my English Literature A Level. I've found it hard to take it seriously as a meaningful method of analysis.

Of Nicaraguan and Maltese descent by the way, so yes I do have a colonial background and I'm not just some ignorant white guy having a moan.

[Krasny-Volny]

Colonialism royally fucked up some countries.

But some nasty assholes in charge also scapegoat colonialism for their own idiotic failures, i.e. Robert Mugabe, entirely too often.

My opinion? At this point, stop flogging the dead horse. It's OK to look back from a historical perspective and discuss colonialism for those reasons, but constantly citing it as a contemporary problem still ruining post colonial nations today like Mugabe does is preposterous.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I don't to much like the idea of a cultures value being measured by its military might

[Kelinfort]

Man if many universe theory is proven correct, I'd love to see a universe where Nigeria colonized the UK.

In the long run, the fact that Europe got lucky here and now isn't really a sign of superiority.

[Risottia]

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

Religious beliefs?

Who cared about religious beliefs?

I don't recall the Spaniards or the Austrians deciding not to colonize Milan because the Milanese were Catholic just like them.
Neither did the fact that Ethiopia was Christian prevent Italy from colonizing it.

Religion mattered not. Money did.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

Religious beliefs?

Who cared about religious beliefs?

I don't recall the Spaniards or the Austrians deciding not to colonize Milan because the Milanese were Catholic just like them.
Neither did the fact that Ethiopia was Christian prevent Italy from colonizing it.

Religion mattered not. Money did.

Eh, not entirely.

The Spanish and Portuguese were pretty stir-crazy about converting the natives to Catholicism. Sure, money played a bigger role, but missionaries weren't being sent over en masse for nothing.

[Crusader occupied mecca]

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

This is just more irrelevant ranting against theoretical frameworks that have been adopted as an underpinning gloss for huge swathes of the developing world by people who would rather look like victims without also having to be, say, destitute on a global scale because their nation is ruled by an ethnic majority placed into power by Western maps and Western arms.

And, of course, the African Empires are /just/ as bad as, say, the Belgian rule in the Congo, or the Spanish Empire in South America, or the French attempts to hold Indochina into the Cold War.

Fanon (the Godfather of the postcolonialist theoretical framework) was a theorist of decolonization, not a historiographer of the process of colonialism. Postcolonialism is a theory that deals with "what is after colonialism" - it discusses the processes of colonialism in so much as it attempts to define the systems which cease to exist during the creation of new government structures. It does not argue that these processes are any worse or any better than anything else that existed prior. OP and Radiata seem to be under the presumption that postcolonialism boils down to "black man good white man bad".

Perhaps it's because it's terribly fun to assume that black people need to contribute political theories that "help and blame everyone equally!" when they were likely born in communities that really fucking suck compared to the white communities these theories tend to be developed. Of course Fanon doesn't blame the Algerian blacks for their poverty - he's a Marxist. The nature of power is as a one-way power relationship based on economic control - black people /don't/ have power in a Marxist world view, because they've lost it through the process of French colonialist economic control in Algeria.

(I'm referring to black French-Algerians because that was Fanon's background)

Postcolonialism doesn't compare the Islamic Empires to the Western Empires because it's entirely irrelevant to the people who were reading Fanon's work. He /lived/ in French-occupied Algeria. And if the Muslims happen to occupy Europe, as is the resounding fear OP tends to reflect in his posts, I'm sure Fanon will be more than happy to lend you the Wretched of the Earth.

Everything that you mark down as being "not as bad" is actually just called being a failure. Yes empires without steamships, railroads, telegraph, etc will have less destructive power than those with. But this dkes not make them superior ethically. What those empires could destroy they did, for they were no less greedy or bloodthirsty or narrow minded than those ebul cis-het white males. The difference is that they lacked the technology because they were losers running on failed architectures of social and political organization. Because let's tell everyone that we are operating on superior ethical paradigms while actually just celebrating failed and mediocre villains, no way that's hypocrisy.

You should look at what happens to the people that your precious POCs do manage to get under their power, like the conquered subjects of the Aztec, Inca, Ottoma, Mongol, and other empires. Or for that matter any black people captured and sold into slavery by other black people (hint: just about everyone in the trans-Atlantic slave trade). These are many entities that produced what could be called oppression so much so that had they been white, would be condemned as much as actual white imperialism. But no, only deafening silence. And why the deafening silence? Because of the belief that POCs = good and white = evil.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Imperialism, regardless of who's doing it, is motivated mainly by greed; anything and everything else, whether religion, racism, paternalistic concern for the poor natives, etc., either or plays second fiddle to or into greed. The greed is what makes it wrong.

[Teemant]

Man if many universe theory is proven correct, I'd love to see a universe where Nigeria colonized the UK.

In the long run, the fact that Europe got lucky here and now isn't really a sign of superiority.

It is the superior European institutions that made it possible.

Yes, how dare we consider a time when we rampaged across the world killing anyone who wouldn't follow our religious beliefs to be a bad thing.

I'm going to do you:

[citation needed]

[The New Sea Territory]

Seems like post colonialism is just a celebration of failure : failed cultures, failed imperialism, failed societies. Is this because they want to infect the west with values that lead to failure or can they just not have any good or successful thoughts?

This and your nation name lead me to search your posts, and my hunch was proven correct.

Your bitching because postcolonialism doesn't line up with your own anti-SJWism and xenophobia. What about African culture "failed" so much that allowed the white people to triumph over them?

[Farnhamia]

Many nations are demonized for their imperial pasts. However the third world and their dupes elsewhere are the ones doing the demonizing, so you know that something doesn't add up. And sure enough the critics themselves used to be the big bullies until only the last few centuries and sometimes even longer. For example Islamic societies were quiet happy with aggressive self serving military expansion and the subjugation of other societies until they started losing at their own game. How can the post colonial critique of the west have any credibility when it is pushed by the biggest hypocrites?

Seems like post colonialism is just a celebration of failure : failed cultures, failed imperialism, failed societies. Is this because they want to infect the west with values that lead to failure or can they just not have any good or successful thoughts?

My opinion is both.

*** Warned for trolling and troll-bait. ***