4 ms·

> As a citizen of Tunisia, a former French colony And before that it was controlled by the Ottomans, Muslims, Byzantine Romans, Vandals, Romans, Phoenicians an

> As a citizen of Tunisia, a former French colony And before that it was controlled by the Ottomans, Muslims, Byzantine Romans, Vandals, Romans, Phoenicians and Berbers. (I may have left some groups out). Many of these invaders had themselves been previously colonised from elsewhere. It often seems to me that it’s only the last one or two groups that are demonised, and the atrocities perpetrated by previous generations of colonists are forgotten by those who would construct a new national myth.

Cyph0n 6y ago
Well, that’s not really surprising, is it? The more recent the colonizer, the larger the impact felt by the average citizen. Besides, I think invaders only got more “organized” as time progressed. Brutality and domination are shared across time periods, but the more subtle techniques, such as cultural genocide and historical revisionism, only became effective tools in the invader’s toolbelt relatively recently. More crucially, thanks to various technological advancements, modern European colonizers were able to steal resources at a scale never before seen in the history of this planet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sudosysgen 6y ago
As a citizen of Morocco, another former French colony, this is pretty absurd. Under the Ottomans, the Caliphates, Rome, and under Berber rule (which is pretty much 99% of people), the Average Tunisian was was more or less equal to anyone else. The land was integrated, and so on You seem to be missing the distinction between invasion, colonisation, and imperialism. Out of all of those you listed, only one group colonized (read: Settled) Tunisia, which are the Berbers. The others simply invaded. Which, under the feudal system, was not that big of a deal for the average person, and Tunisia was kept to a pretty high degree of development, with an economy focused on trade and production. This is completely different to Imperial economies based around resource extractions, where you are treated as inherently lesser to the citizen from the Métropole, where people are kept poor on purpose, and where industrial scale massacres were often commited, nowhere even near the scale of anything that came before.
- nec4b 6y ago
  Romans extracted tons of resources and used plenty of people as slaves. Arabs annihilated any culture that was there before and replaced it with islam and a lot of people died in ottoman invasions. What exactly did the French do to your country that was objectively so much worse than what any other invader before them did?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Rome did, but that was par for the course at the time, and Maghrebians were allowed to become full citizens to the point where many became Roman emperors. The Ottoman invasions didn't actually do that much damage to the Maghreb. It's a place very far away from them. Ottoman conquests of the Maghreb had around 40 000 casualties, many of them not of Algerians but of Ottomans and French/Spanish soldiers. As for the Caliphate, they certainly did not annihilate any culture before them, and it's incredible to equate culture with Religion. The dominant religions there at the time of their invasion were Christianism and Judaism, which were preserved for a long time and are barely different from Islam, and religion is a tiny aspect of Culture. Their impact on the common person is so small that during Islamic rule the vast majority of people didn't even speak Arabic. What the French did that was objectively much worse was to create a system where the citizens of the Maghreb were to remain an inferior second class only useful insofar as resources can be stolen forever. As for colonialism in general, which I should remind you is the point, it caused more deaths than WW2.
    - nec4b 6y ago
      You have hand waved away 2 thousand years of conquests of Maghreb as minor infractions. I'm mean it went from carthaginians to romans, vandals, byzantium, arabs, turks. Changed religion, culture and languages several times. You can't seriously believe that this were non violent happy occurences. Before the french even came they already spoke a different language than their ancestors, they prayed to a different god than their ancestors and they had no control over their territories. They were second class citizens even before the french came. I understand how you feel about French occupation and consider it worse because it was not so long ago and is in the nation's living memory. Other colonializations were more complete and successful and therefore part of what Maghreb is today. But objectively they were at least as bad as the french occupation.

Cyph0n 6y ago

Well, that’s not really surprising, is it? The more recent the colonizer, the larger the impact felt by the average citizen. Besides, I think invaders only got more “organized” as time progressed. Brutality and domination are shared across time periods, but the more subtle techniques, such as cultural genocide and historical revisionism, only became effective tools in the invader’s toolbelt relatively recently. More crucially, thanks to various technological advancements, modern European colonizers were able to steal resources at a scale never before seen in the history of this planet.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sudosysgen 6y ago

As a citizen of Morocco, another former French colony, this is pretty absurd. Under the Ottomans, the Caliphates, Rome, and under Berber rule (which is pretty much 99% of people), the Average Tunisian was was more or less equal to anyone else. The land was integrated, and so on You seem to be missing the distinction between invasion, colonisation, and imperialism. Out of all of those you listed, only one group colonized (read: Settled) Tunisia, which are the Berbers. The others simply invaded. Which, under the feudal system, was not that big of a deal for the average person, and Tunisia was kept to a pretty high degree of development, with an economy focused on trade and production. This is completely different to Imperial economies based around resource extractions, where you are treated as inherently lesser to the citizen from the Métropole, where people are kept poor on purpose, and where industrial scale massacres were often commited, nowhere even near the scale of anything that came before.

nec4b 6y ago
Romans extracted tons of resources and used plenty of people as slaves. Arabs annihilated any culture that was there before and replaced it with islam and a lot of people died in ottoman invasions. What exactly did the French do to your country that was objectively so much worse than what any other invader before them did?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Rome did, but that was par for the course at the time, and Maghrebians were allowed to become full citizens to the point where many became Roman emperors. The Ottoman invasions didn't actually do that much damage to the Maghreb. It's a place very far away from them. Ottoman conquests of the Maghreb had around 40 000 casualties, many of them not of Algerians but of Ottomans and French/Spanish soldiers. As for the Caliphate, they certainly did not annihilate any culture before them, and it's incredible to equate culture with Religion. The dominant religions there at the time of their invasion were Christianism and Judaism, which were preserved for a long time and are barely different from Islam, and religion is a tiny aspect of Culture. Their impact on the common person is so small that during Islamic rule the vast majority of people didn't even speak Arabic. What the French did that was objectively much worse was to create a system where the citizens of the Maghreb were to remain an inferior second class only useful insofar as resources can be stolen forever. As for colonialism in general, which I should remind you is the point, it caused more deaths than WW2.
  - nec4b 6y ago
    You have hand waved away 2 thousand years of conquests of Maghreb as minor infractions. I'm mean it went from carthaginians to romans, vandals, byzantium, arabs, turks. Changed religion, culture and languages several times. You can't seriously believe that this were non violent happy occurences. Before the french even came they already spoke a different language than their ancestors, they prayed to a different god than their ancestors and they had no control over their territories. They were second class citizens even before the french came. I understand how you feel about French occupation and consider it worse because it was not so long ago and is in the nation's living memory. Other colonializations were more complete and successful and therefore part of what Maghreb is today. But objectively they were at least as bad as the french occupation.