5 ms·

>Stamford Raffles stands – according to the plaque attached to the plinth – on the ‘historic site’ where he first landed as an agent of the British East India C

>Stamford Raffles stands – according to the plaque attached to the plinth – on the ‘historic site’ where he first landed as an agent of the British East India Company on 28 January 1819 and, thereafter, ‘with genius and perception changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure fishing village to a great seaport and modern metropolis’. This is one of the greatest lies ever told, that Singapore was an obscure fishing village when the colonial powers came to "modernise" Singapore. Read the history books, Singapore is bang in the middle of ancient super powers of India and China. It's has been and always has been for most of its history a successful entreport for several thousand years before the colonials first visited, and the later Chinese immigrants settled in Singapore. The founder of Malacca, where the Strait of Malacca name originated from, was himself a prince from Singapore and at the time better known as Temasek. The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers. Their descendents discovered and migrated to wider Austronesia including Madagascar to the west, and New Zealand and Hawaii to the east several thousand years before the colonial powers "re-discover" these places. They also who speak their ancestors derivatives languages until now, that at one time US government tried to ban.

wahern 4mo ago
By the time the Europeans arrived Singapore had long since declined: > However, by the time the Portuguese arrived in the early 16th century, Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore How far back and how much context is required for a simple narrative to not constitute lying? And for a narrative about national origin, is it not also misleading to insinuate that successive settlements and polities constitute a singular, shared history? And Europeans were not the first colonial powers to land on and assert control over the peninsula. In fact, the incumbent Muslim powers the Europeans encountered had colonized the peninsula only a couple of centuries beforehand. Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers") still live in Malaysia, and they're still as isolated and impoverished by the state as they were before Europeans arrived. Malaysia even has its own Plymouth Rock-like monument (on the coast somewhere near Malacca, IIRC), and it's not where Europeans first stepped ashore. And it seems a little odd to presume Singaporeans would identify with the political and social history of their Malay and aboriginal predecessors when Singapore, a majority Chinese community, was kicked out of Malaysia precisely because of racist and xenophobic sentiments of many Malays. The racial politics of Malaysia and Singapore are at least as complicated as in the US if not more so. I count South Africa and Malaysia as the two countries where racial politics are not only as complicated, but open and explicit as in the US, and like the US the relationship between European colonizers and the "native" groups constitutes only a portion of that complexity. Many other countries have similarly diverse groups, but usually one group is unchallenged in its power and there's very little open discourse about the subject. But contemporary anti-colonial rhetoric whitewashes (figuratively and literally) all of this.
- hirako2000 4mo ago
  Not sure about Singapore but Malaysia's racism is not complicated. It is discrimination into law. It makes things rather clear. About discourse of course there is not discussion to have.
  - SanjayMehta 4mo ago
    The most amusing part of Malaysia's discrimination is in the term "bhumiputra," which is Sanskrit for "son of the soil," but today it's used for Malay muslim. All these lands were Dharmic originally, all the way to Japan, before the various cults arrived.
    - hirako2000 4mo ago
      We are all migrants. No exception.
    - hirako2000 4mo ago
      Just look historicaly. Sorry of you feel entitled to whatever land.
      - SanjayMehta 4mo ago
        I don't feel entitled to anything. I'm just pointing out facts. You reveal more about your mindset with your comments. And your downvotes.
  - mansarip 4mo ago
    a major factor is the lack of societal assimilation. with separate schooling systems, many Malaysians grow up in ethnic silos, which fundamentally hinders national unity even beyond any legal framework
- teleforce 4mo ago
  >Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers") What nonsense, colonizers do not live and settle there for thousand of years. Would you called majority Japanese now a colonizers since the originally come from Korea/China and before them they were people there? >Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque. Albuquerque was the first European colonial who conquered Malacca in the early 16th CE, later Dutch and then British. They all came because they wanted to bypass what they considered "trading bottleneck" created by Ottoman, the most powerful maritime empire in the Mediterranean and Europe for many centuries. The local authorities most probably very well deployed a typical scorched-earth strategy to prevent the Albuquerque to fully utilize Singapore infrastructure. The British did exactly this to most part of Singapore including totally damaging the very important causeway when the were defeated by Japanese in the mid 20th CE. Fun facts, the world busiest causeway still not return to the its original sophisticated design with elegant pass-thru water design until today, thus pollution side effect are still happening and not being solved [2]. [1] Scorched earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth [2] Why Singaporeans Are Fleeing to Malaysia Every Weekend | AB Explained [video]: https://youtu.be/vUWOhAs5rTs https://youtu.be/vUWOhAs5rTs
freewestpapua 4mo ago
> The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers. That comment upset me as a Melanesian. I'm sorry, but I need to challenge the above statement as it is factually incorrect. What you are claiming is widely spread in a politicized way in Malaysia and Indonesia, and in a similar but different context in Thailand and Phillipines. Firstly, I'm sure you know that the actual original first peoples (called as "orang asli negrito" or "sakai" (derogatory) by "Malay" settlers) are Melanesian/Negrito/Aboriginal tribes. Again, Malay settlers are not the the 'people who originally settled' as you claimed, they took the land from Melanesians. To be precise, the original people are MT Haplogroup P, MT Haplogroup M/sub-R, Y Haplogroup K/F. They have predominantly jet black skin and curly hair or straight hair in the case of some Aboriginal tribes in Australia. These are the genuine first peoples. They were in South and South East Asia, Papua and Australia first prior to the Toba eruption 70ka ago. Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations. You can see this process happening even today in West Papua where 'Malay' soldiers and settlers brought over from Java, Indonesia are genociding Melanesian men in West Papua and taking over their land. The indigenous Melanesians are now a minority in their own land. There's brutal horific videos you can find online of Javanese settlers attacking and skinning a Melanesian man alive inside an oil drum. Truly barbaric stuff. It is a slow genocide but you don't hear much about it, probably because the mines of Freeport McMoran and Grassburg supply a huge chunk of the copper/gold that's key for EV and other modern technologies. That's as much time as I can spend on communicating this right now. I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers. Thank you.
- teleforce 4mo ago
  Naturally they inter-married, the first wave from out of Africa people (e.g Perak man) and the second wave from the Taiwan diaspora [1]. This as you probably know happened over many thousands of years. The word one to ten in most Austronesian countries from Madagascar to Hawaii, spanning more than 17,000 km or 10,000 miles (about half of earth's perimeter of 40,000 km). These countries main languages including Malagasy, Malay, Indonesian, Javanese, Tagalog, Sulu, Palau (Micronesia), NZ Maori, Hawaii (Polynesia), etc are very similar. In particular, "Lima" meaning five/hand is the common and signature Malay/Austronesian world, even in Hawaii. Based on your throw away name, most probably you're from Papua Island, you probably know that one of its original main languages, apart from the recent colonial based Tok Pisin, is the Malay Austronesian based Hiri Motu [2]. >Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations. What nonsense, as they said the proof is in the pudding. If genocide happened as you claimed most of these people are gone but they're everywhere. Please check Borneo Island for example, ruled by the Malay Brunei Kingdom for several centuries until the colonial Brooke the White Rajah came. This third largest Island in the world probably has the most diverse demographic population of indigenous peoples in the world [3]. Fun facts, as comparison the Champa Malay people were genocided by the Vietnamese warlords mainly by the Nguyen lords. They controlled majority of Vietnam for about two thousands years but now you hardly find this Champa Malay people, similar to what happened in muslim in Spain. The highly contested South Chinese Sea original name was Champa Sea [4]. >I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers. Since we are in the Singapore topic, by your own definition of land grab by settlers, the Chinese immigrants where the first PM LKY are from, that constitute majority of Singaporean were performing land grab by settlers because just 200 years ago majority were Malay? [1] Asia’s secret World Heritage site: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160518-malaysias-11000-year-old-treasure-trove https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160518-malaysias-11000-... [2] Hiri Motu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiri_Motu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiri_Motu [3] Borneo:Demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#Demographics [4] The Cham: Descendants of Ancient Rulers of South China Sea Watch Maritime Dispute From Sidelines: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140616-south-china-sea-vietnam-china-cambodia-champa https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140616-so...
rayiner 4mo ago
That’s a different kind of misleading narrative, the “$PLACE was rich in pre-modern times” narrative. Places decline. Heck, by the middle ages, Rome’s population had dropped to just 30,000.
- teleforce 4mo ago
  >Ptolemy’s maps of the world I can assure you Ptolemy never been to India let alone Singapore. But hey you just deleted your Ptolemy narrative, are you misleading a narrative? Ironically although Ptolemy never been to Singapore it's apparently recorded in his book as Sabana [1]. Perhaps that the reason you deleted your Ptolemy entry. It's also recorded in ancient Chinese record in the 3rd CE Chinese traveller's record describing an island at the same location called Pú Luó Zhōng a transcription of Singapore's early Malay name Pulau Ujong, literally meaning Tip End Island because it's located at the southern most tip of Malaysian Peninsular. The famous Indian Emperor Chola also said to briefly conquer Singapore/Temasek in the 11th CE [1]. Singapore by any definition for the past two thousands years was not an obscure fishing village. It's always has been a bustling metropolitan with international entreport status. Anyone who said otherwise is lying through their teeth and pushing their own wicked narrative. [1] Early history of Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Singapore
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    I edited because I realized Rome was a much easier example. But at least according to Wikipedia, chittagong was one of the major seaports of the ancient world and appeared on Ptolemy’s world map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chittagong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chittagong. The map was based on Greek knowledge of Asia through trade. But Ptolemy also described the Malay peninsula. As to your other point, again, you’re overlooking that places change over time. The Arabs built a huge civilization a thousand years ago. But by the 19th century, there wasn’t much left. What was the population of what is now Singapore when Raffles landed there? Wikipedia says that under the Sultanate the population was under 1,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore
PearlRiver 4mo ago
European powers had taken over shipping in that region since the 17th century because their sailing ships were superior to anything the locals built.

wahern 4mo ago

By the time the Europeans arrived Singapore had long since declined: > However, by the time the Portuguese arrived in the early 16th century, Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore How far back and how much context is required for a simple narrative to not constitute lying? And for a narrative about national origin, is it not also misleading to insinuate that successive settlements and polities constitute a singular, shared history? And Europeans were not the first colonial powers to land on and assert control over the peninsula. In fact, the incumbent Muslim powers the Europeans encountered had colonized the peninsula only a couple of centuries beforehand. Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers") still live in Malaysia, and they're still as isolated and impoverished by the state as they were before Europeans arrived. Malaysia even has its own Plymouth Rock-like monument (on the coast somewhere near Malacca, IIRC), and it's not where Europeans first stepped ashore. And it seems a little odd to presume Singaporeans would identify with the political and social history of their Malay and aboriginal predecessors when Singapore, a majority Chinese community, was kicked out of Malaysia precisely because of racist and xenophobic sentiments of many Malays. The racial politics of Malaysia and Singapore are at least as complicated as in the US if not more so. I count South Africa and Malaysia as the two countries where racial politics are not only as complicated, but open and explicit as in the US, and like the US the relationship between European colonizers and the "native" groups constitutes only a portion of that complexity. Many other countries have similarly diverse groups, but usually one group is unchallenged in its power and there's very little open discourse about the subject. But contemporary anti-colonial rhetoric whitewashes (figuratively and literally) all of this.

hirako2000 4mo ago
Not sure about Singapore but Malaysia's racism is not complicated. It is discrimination into law. It makes things rather clear. About discourse of course there is not discussion to have.
- SanjayMehta 4mo ago
  The most amusing part of Malaysia's discrimination is in the term "bhumiputra," which is Sanskrit for "son of the soil," but today it's used for Malay muslim. All these lands were Dharmic originally, all the way to Japan, before the various cults arrived.
  - hirako2000 4mo ago
    We are all migrants. No exception.
  - hirako2000 4mo ago
    Just look historicaly. Sorry of you feel entitled to whatever land.
    - SanjayMehta 4mo ago
      I don't feel entitled to anything. I'm just pointing out facts. You reveal more about your mindset with your comments. And your downvotes.
- mansarip 4mo ago
  a major factor is the lack of societal assimilation. with separate schooling systems, many Malaysians grow up in ethnic silos, which fundamentally hinders national unity even beyond any legal framework
teleforce 4mo ago
>Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers") What nonsense, colonizers do not live and settle there for thousand of years. Would you called majority Japanese now a colonizers since the originally come from Korea/China and before them they were people there? >Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque. Albuquerque was the first European colonial who conquered Malacca in the early 16th CE, later Dutch and then British. They all came because they wanted to bypass what they considered "trading bottleneck" created by Ottoman, the most powerful maritime empire in the Mediterranean and Europe for many centuries. The local authorities most probably very well deployed a typical scorched-earth strategy to prevent the Albuquerque to fully utilize Singapore infrastructure. The British did exactly this to most part of Singapore including totally damaging the very important causeway when the were defeated by Japanese in the mid 20th CE. Fun facts, the world busiest causeway still not return to the its original sophisticated design with elegant pass-thru water design until today, thus pollution side effect are still happening and not being solved [2]. [1] Scorched earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth [2] Why Singaporeans Are Fleeing to Malaysia Every Weekend | AB Explained [video]: https://youtu.be/vUWOhAs5rTs https://youtu.be/vUWOhAs5rTs

freewestpapua 4mo ago

> The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers. That comment upset me as a Melanesian. I'm sorry, but I need to challenge the above statement as it is factually incorrect. What you are claiming is widely spread in a politicized way in Malaysia and Indonesia, and in a similar but different context in Thailand and Phillipines. Firstly, I'm sure you know that the actual original first peoples (called as "orang asli negrito" or "sakai" (derogatory) by "Malay" settlers) are Melanesian/Negrito/Aboriginal tribes. Again, Malay settlers are not the the 'people who originally settled' as you claimed, they took the land from Melanesians. To be precise, the original people are MT Haplogroup P, MT Haplogroup M/sub-R, Y Haplogroup K/F. They have predominantly jet black skin and curly hair or straight hair in the case of some Aboriginal tribes in Australia. These are the genuine first peoples. They were in South and South East Asia, Papua and Australia first prior to the Toba eruption 70ka ago. Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations. You can see this process happening even today in West Papua where 'Malay' soldiers and settlers brought over from Java, Indonesia are genociding Melanesian men in West Papua and taking over their land. The indigenous Melanesians are now a minority in their own land. There's brutal horific videos you can find online of Javanese settlers attacking and skinning a Melanesian man alive inside an oil drum. Truly barbaric stuff. It is a slow genocide but you don't hear much about it, probably because the mines of Freeport McMoran and Grassburg supply a huge chunk of the copper/gold that's key for EV and other modern technologies. That's as much time as I can spend on communicating this right now. I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers. Thank you.

teleforce 4mo ago
Naturally they inter-married, the first wave from out of Africa people (e.g Perak man) and the second wave from the Taiwan diaspora [1]. This as you probably know happened over many thousands of years. The word one to ten in most Austronesian countries from Madagascar to Hawaii, spanning more than 17,000 km or 10,000 miles (about half of earth's perimeter of 40,000 km). These countries main languages including Malagasy, Malay, Indonesian, Javanese, Tagalog, Sulu, Palau (Micronesia), NZ Maori, Hawaii (Polynesia), etc are very similar. In particular, "Lima" meaning five/hand is the common and signature Malay/Austronesian world, even in Hawaii. Based on your throw away name, most probably you're from Papua Island, you probably know that one of its original main languages, apart from the recent colonial based Tok Pisin, is the Malay Austronesian based Hiri Motu [2]. >Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations. What nonsense, as they said the proof is in the pudding. If genocide happened as you claimed most of these people are gone but they're everywhere. Please check Borneo Island for example, ruled by the Malay Brunei Kingdom for several centuries until the colonial Brooke the White Rajah came. This third largest Island in the world probably has the most diverse demographic population of indigenous peoples in the world [3]. Fun facts, as comparison the Champa Malay people were genocided by the Vietnamese warlords mainly by the Nguyen lords. They controlled majority of Vietnam for about two thousands years but now you hardly find this Champa Malay people, similar to what happened in muslim in Spain. The highly contested South Chinese Sea original name was Champa Sea [4]. >I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers. Since we are in the Singapore topic, by your own definition of land grab by settlers, the Chinese immigrants where the first PM LKY are from, that constitute majority of Singaporean were performing land grab by settlers because just 200 years ago majority were Malay? [1] Asia’s secret World Heritage site: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160518-malaysias-11000-year-old-treasure-trove https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160518-malaysias-11000-... [2] Hiri Motu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiri_Motu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiri_Motu [3] Borneo:Demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#Demographics [4] The Cham: Descendants of Ancient Rulers of South China Sea Watch Maritime Dispute From Sidelines: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140616-south-china-sea-vietnam-china-cambodia-champa https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140616-so...

rayiner 4mo ago

That’s a different kind of misleading narrative, the “$PLACE was rich in pre-modern times” narrative. Places decline. Heck, by the middle ages, Rome’s population had dropped to just 30,000.

teleforce 4mo ago
>Ptolemy’s maps of the world I can assure you Ptolemy never been to India let alone Singapore. But hey you just deleted your Ptolemy narrative, are you misleading a narrative? Ironically although Ptolemy never been to Singapore it's apparently recorded in his book as Sabana [1]. Perhaps that the reason you deleted your Ptolemy entry. It's also recorded in ancient Chinese record in the 3rd CE Chinese traveller's record describing an island at the same location called Pú Luó Zhōng a transcription of Singapore's early Malay name Pulau Ujong, literally meaning Tip End Island because it's located at the southern most tip of Malaysian Peninsular. The famous Indian Emperor Chola also said to briefly conquer Singapore/Temasek in the 11th CE [1]. Singapore by any definition for the past two thousands years was not an obscure fishing village. It's always has been a bustling metropolitan with international entreport status. Anyone who said otherwise is lying through their teeth and pushing their own wicked narrative. [1] Early history of Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Singapore
- rayiner 4mo ago
  I edited because I realized Rome was a much easier example. But at least according to Wikipedia, chittagong was one of the major seaports of the ancient world and appeared on Ptolemy’s world map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chittagong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chittagong. The map was based on Greek knowledge of Asia through trade. But Ptolemy also described the Malay peninsula. As to your other point, again, you’re overlooking that places change over time. The Arabs built a huge civilization a thousand years ago. But by the 19th century, there wasn’t much left. What was the population of what is now Singapore when Raffles landed there? Wikipedia says that under the Sultanate the population was under 1,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore

PearlRiver 4mo ago

European powers had taken over shipping in that region since the 17th century because their sailing ships were superior to anything the locals built.