5 ms·

Comparing countries like this to the US and Mexico shows how clueless you are. And the hypocrisy of bringing up South Korea... like North Korea doesn't exist.

Comparing countries like this to the US and Mexico shows how clueless you are. And the hypocrisy of bringing up South Korea... like North Korea doesn't exist. I guess because it has to be us African savages who don't have leadership and vision right? North Korea doesn't fit the narrative so we'll pretend they weren't part of the Korea that was colonized... right. - I always tell people trying to act like an entire continent is just magically incapable of giving birth to a leader this example of why these countries end up like this. (The choice of Texas comes from the fact it's usually white Americans saying this stuff, so this might be lost on others, but feel free to sub in "big group A that looks down on small group B") Imagine today the Netherlands invaded North America, and then took Texas. Then they took not Mexico, but just Chihuahua state (3 mil pop), an area half the size of Texas (29 mil pop) That'd be bad enough right? Imagine Texas of all places having to deal with the humiliation of being conquered, then topping it off with becoming the same country as the Mexicans they have a history if looking down on. From there the Netherlands puts the Mexican minority in charge of the Texans knowing the history of anti-Mexican racism in the state. They intentionally treated the Mexican minority as kings, and the Texan majority as second class citizens to ensure distrust and hatred between them. So even if you weren't some anti-Mexican racist before, you sure more likely to be one now... After all, all the negative notions that were already stewing just got proven right? That ensures the Mexicans who are in higher positions of power are loyal to the Netherlands, and are highly motivated to maintain this new state, lest the Texans get their payback for the current set up. In the meantime the rest of the US undergoes the same thing. Then one day, the Netherlands just leaves. I'd like to know what leader and "vision" you think would keep the average "damn illegals" Texan from not revolting immediately and destroying every reminder those Mexicans ever existed in a position of power over them. You have a country that was intentionally engineered as a powder keg. That was supposed to be the leverage that kept things running. So is it any surprise that when you haphazardly toss the powder keg out the window because sour grapes about losing your new toy... it explodes? Oh yeah then I guess to sprinkle some spice on all that, let's remove Christianity from the Mexican side. Netherlands brought it, but only the Texans took to it. So now the Mexicans are also heathens to the bible thumpers.

zaphirplane 5y ago
I don’t know if it’s that personal fwiw colonisation is horrible And there are countries that have come out of colonisation to succeed, South Korea Singapore Malaysia India in Asia Australia newzeland Canada US. Germany and Japan were bombed and occupied Inspiring hopefully other countries
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  I don't think you get to count Australia, NZ, US or Canada here. For the most part, colonization in those places was a process of removing the indigenous populations to make room the offspring of the colonial power's settlers. That allowed the colonizing countries to export their political systems wholesale, including cultural expectations and created a relative tabula rasa for historical grudges (though there are some that we still see ripples of today, e.g. in Quebec and Appalachia). On the other hand, most of the colonization of Africa was characterized by, er, conscripting the local population as labor forces for extractive industries (running from slavery in the 17th century to minerals today). The colonial powers imposed controlling political systems onto groups of people who had their own histories, political cultures (read: methods of conflict resolution) and grudges. Since the colonizers were running the colonies solely for extraction without expectation for economic growth, they didn't prioritize economic and political self-sustaining capability in drawing borders; that those borders have remained in place after the withdrawal of colonial life support has been the source of much of the economic struggle (which begets violence, which begets destructive undevelopment, which begets further economic struggle).
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    > they didn't prioritize economic and political self-sustaining capability in drawing borders And even further, they weaponized this. They wanted inherently unstable countries that required their presence to function. That was what culminated in the Rwandan genocide, intentionally setting up a country such that without their invisible hand propping one side up, the other would seek to destroy it.
    - 5y ago

zaphirplane 5y ago

I don’t know if it’s that personal fwiw colonisation is horrible And there are countries that have come out of colonisation to succeed, South Korea Singapore Malaysia India in Asia Australia newzeland Canada US. Germany and Japan were bombed and occupied Inspiring hopefully other countries

InitialLastName 5y ago
I don't think you get to count Australia, NZ, US or Canada here. For the most part, colonization in those places was a process of removing the indigenous populations to make room the offspring of the colonial power's settlers. That allowed the colonizing countries to export their political systems wholesale, including cultural expectations and created a relative tabula rasa for historical grudges (though there are some that we still see ripples of today, e.g. in Quebec and Appalachia). On the other hand, most of the colonization of Africa was characterized by, er, conscripting the local population as labor forces for extractive industries (running from slavery in the 17th century to minerals today). The colonial powers imposed controlling political systems onto groups of people who had their own histories, political cultures (read: methods of conflict resolution) and grudges. Since the colonizers were running the colonies solely for extraction without expectation for economic growth, they didn't prioritize economic and political self-sustaining capability in drawing borders; that those borders have remained in place after the withdrawal of colonial life support has been the source of much of the economic struggle (which begets violence, which begets destructive undevelopment, which begets further economic struggle).
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  > they didn't prioritize economic and political self-sustaining capability in drawing borders And even further, they weaponized this. They wanted inherently unstable countries that required their presence to function. That was what culminated in the Rwandan genocide, intentionally setting up a country such that without their invisible hand propping one side up, the other would seek to destroy it.
  - 5y ago