5 ms·

we call out all our own flaws from the past and now reject colonialism additionally, our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution why are

by yters 6y ago

we call out all our own flaws from the past and now reject colonialism additionally, our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution why are not right to call out others currently making our mistakes from the past?

ceejayoz 6y ago
> now reject colonialism Nah, we just changed how it's done.
- yters 6y ago
  maybe we do something else bad now, but we no longer do the particular thing known as colonialism
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Afghanistan, Iraq? And that's before we get into proxy wars.
    - yenwodyah 6y ago
      Neither of those countries are being colonized, by any definition of the word.
      - NegativeLatency 6y ago
        https://www.wordnik.com/words/colonized https://www.wordnik.com/words/colonized > adjective politically ruled by citizens of another country. Seems to fit this definition
        kube-system 6y ago
        16 years ago, one of those countries met that definition for a period of 14 months.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        If the Ba'ath Party and Taliban had taken back control after those 14 months in each respective country, are you under the impression the US would've gone "welp, we tried!" and left? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
      - bobbyz 6y ago
        If puppet governments don't count as colonialism, then the British were not very colonial and the Japanese did not colonize Manchuria.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    Are Guam and Puerto Rico not de facto colonies?
sitkack 6y ago
Did this happen in the last 15 minutes? Those fleeing were fleeing the precursors to secularism.
magicsmoke 6y ago
Publicly calling out the flaws of colonialism but privately enjoying the benefits of colonialism exactly convincing. >additionally, our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution I'm assuming this refers to the US. The US criticizes its treatment of natives and how they were decimated as the US expanded west. But at the same time, it enjoys all the benefits from not having a large indigenous population that occupies militarily strategic land, poses a military/separatist threat, and is too numerous to assimilate. I don't see the US deciding to return North America to its indigenous population so they can rebuild their historic societies because conveniently, all those lands are either settled or their previous inhabitants have no descendants. I can only conclude that words are cheap when it comes to foreign events, but when it comes to the cost of fixing domestic injustice suddenly no one wants to pay. As an analogy, this is like the US racing to the top of a hill in a car, then telling everyone else they have to walk because driving is bad for the environment. And no, the US will not help pay for the extra time and water they'll have to take, nor will it drive back down and join them in a fair race.
- yters 6y ago
  so you agree colonialism is wrong, but will not denounce modern colonialism because the usa eliminated indigenous people in the past? colonialism is only wrong if done by the us? and if we need a pristine past to denounce modern injustice, then that is a recipe to accomodate every injustice that comes our way
  - tharne 6y ago
    Welcome to the new left, where the only wrongs that can be discussed are those committed by Europeans or Americans. Ironic, because if you're truly committed to the idea that all people are created equal, you have to acknowledge that that means we all have a similar capacity for evil and brutality, regardless of race or culture.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Basically you're right. I'm extremely progressive on human rights, gender freedom, lgbqt rights, universal health care, etc but I refuse to bend to the whims of the current far left that teach we should hate ourselves (at least if you're a white cis male) and that we should shut up and let those outside that group decide everything and anything. Well I don't play that game and neither should others. Basically they think we should just walk around self flagellating in the public square.
int_19h 6y ago
If US rejects colonialism, why doesn't Puerto Rico have voting representation in the federal government?
- tharne 6y ago
  To be fair, if Puerto Rico wanted it's independence, the current administration would probably give it to them. Likewise, had they wanted to become the 51st state, I have no doubt that in 2009 President Obama and the Democratic super majority would have been happy to make that happen and grab up two extra Senate seats in the process. The fact is, a lot Puerto Ricans like the current setup. The are natural born citizens who have full freedom of movement within the U.S. while Puerto Rico has fewer federal restrictions and obligations compared to a U.S. state.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    > The fact is, a lot Puerto Ricans like the current setup. The are natural born citizens who have full freedom of movement within the U.S. while Puerto Rico has fewer federal restrictions and obligations compared to a U.S. state. I think you have it reversed: Puerto Rico suffers from all of the federal obligations and has no states' rights to make up for it. No representative, no voting senator (and therefore no 'pork'). The burden of the federal restrictions were bared in the aftermath of the hurricane: the Jones Act meant relief could only be transported by American ships even as other countries stood ready to help.

by yters 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago

> now reject colonialism Nah, we just changed how it's done.

yters 6y ago
maybe we do something else bad now, but we no longer do the particular thing known as colonialism
- free_rms 6y ago
  Afghanistan, Iraq? And that's before we get into proxy wars.
  - yenwodyah 6y ago
    Neither of those countries are being colonized, by any definition of the word.
    - NegativeLatency 6y ago
      https://www.wordnik.com/words/colonized https://www.wordnik.com/words/colonized > adjective politically ruled by citizens of another country. Seems to fit this definition
      - kube-system 6y ago
        16 years ago, one of those countries met that definition for a period of 14 months.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        If the Ba'ath Party and Taliban had taken back control after those 14 months in each respective country, are you under the impression the US would've gone "welp, we tried!" and left? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
    - bobbyz 6y ago
      If puppet governments don't count as colonialism, then the British were not very colonial and the Japanese did not colonize Manchuria.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Are Guam and Puerto Rico not de facto colonies?

sitkack 6y ago

Did this happen in the last 15 minutes? Those fleeing were fleeing the precursors to secularism.

magicsmoke 6y ago

Publicly calling out the flaws of colonialism but privately enjoying the benefits of colonialism exactly convincing. >additionally, our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution I'm assuming this refers to the US. The US criticizes its treatment of natives and how they were decimated as the US expanded west. But at the same time, it enjoys all the benefits from not having a large indigenous population that occupies militarily strategic land, poses a military/separatist threat, and is too numerous to assimilate. I don't see the US deciding to return North America to its indigenous population so they can rebuild their historic societies because conveniently, all those lands are either settled or their previous inhabitants have no descendants. I can only conclude that words are cheap when it comes to foreign events, but when it comes to the cost of fixing domestic injustice suddenly no one wants to pay. As an analogy, this is like the US racing to the top of a hill in a car, then telling everyone else they have to walk because driving is bad for the environment. And no, the US will not help pay for the extra time and water they'll have to take, nor will it drive back down and join them in a fair race.

yters 6y ago
so you agree colonialism is wrong, but will not denounce modern colonialism because the usa eliminated indigenous people in the past? colonialism is only wrong if done by the us? and if we need a pristine past to denounce modern injustice, then that is a recipe to accomodate every injustice that comes our way
- tharne 6y ago
  Welcome to the new left, where the only wrongs that can be discussed are those committed by Europeans or Americans. Ironic, because if you're truly committed to the idea that all people are created equal, you have to acknowledge that that means we all have a similar capacity for evil and brutality, regardless of race or culture.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Basically you're right. I'm extremely progressive on human rights, gender freedom, lgbqt rights, universal health care, etc but I refuse to bend to the whims of the current far left that teach we should hate ourselves (at least if you're a white cis male) and that we should shut up and let those outside that group decide everything and anything. Well I don't play that game and neither should others. Basically they think we should just walk around self flagellating in the public square.

int_19h 6y ago

If US rejects colonialism, why doesn't Puerto Rico have voting representation in the federal government?

tharne 6y ago
To be fair, if Puerto Rico wanted it's independence, the current administration would probably give it to them. Likewise, had they wanted to become the 51st state, I have no doubt that in 2009 President Obama and the Democratic super majority would have been happy to make that happen and grab up two extra Senate seats in the process. The fact is, a lot Puerto Ricans like the current setup. The are natural born citizens who have full freedom of movement within the U.S. while Puerto Rico has fewer federal restrictions and obligations compared to a U.S. state.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > The fact is, a lot Puerto Ricans like the current setup. The are natural born citizens who have full freedom of movement within the U.S. while Puerto Rico has fewer federal restrictions and obligations compared to a U.S. state. I think you have it reversed: Puerto Rico suffers from all of the federal obligations and has no states' rights to make up for it. No representative, no voting senator (and therefore no 'pork'). The burden of the federal restrictions were bared in the aftermath of the hurricane: the Jones Act meant relief could only be transported by American ships even as other countries stood ready to help.