4 ms·
I've never quite understood the nature of this criticism. At best I'd describe it as deeply intellectualized tribalism. But I think I'm being a little too kind.
by eej71 2mo ago
I've never quite understood the nature of this criticism. At best I'd describe it as deeply intellectualized tribalism. But I think I'm being a little too kind.
- Apocryphon 2mo agoIs it any different from Disney being criticized for filming Mulan (2020) in Xinjiang? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/disney-criticized-for-filming-mulan-in-chinas-xinjiang https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/disney-criticized-for-film...
- skrebbel 2mo agoI (in good faith) don’t understand what you don’t understand. Western Sahara is basically a colony so if you’re opposed to colonialism it isn’t super weird to be opposed to making a movie in that colony, paying taxes etc to the colonizers and so on, no?
- owebmaster 2mo agoWhy is western Sahara a colony and not California, Puerto Rico, North Ireland, French Guyana, the Falklands?
- skrebbel 2mo agoBecause resources are extracted for the profit of the colonizers and not the locals, who are being suppressed and purposefully supplanted. Seriously man, this is not really very controversial, Morocco isn’t really behaving all that nicely down there. Tell me again how the locals are suppressed and resources stolen from on the Falklands? What are we even talking about, grass and sheep?
- brazukadev 2mo agowhat you described is that rich countries can have colonies because the colonized likes it but poor ones can't. I also forgot to mention Greenland.
- brazukadev 2mo agowhat you described is that rich countries can have colonies because the colonized likes it but poor ones can't. I also forgot to mention Greenland in Europe (sic).
- twister2920 2mo agoAll of those regions are colonies or former colonies. The main difference is that Western Sahara is being actively colonized right now whereas all of those regions were colonized 100+ years ago. Falklands were uninhabited before European settlement btw
- nephihaha 2mo agoMany people do consider those colonies. However, the Falklands/Malvinas had no native population (plot twist: the French were there first). Northern Ireland's position raises questions about Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. I think Hawai'i is a better example than California. Hawai'i was a constitutional monarchy, with fully developed law courts etc. California was the fringe of Mexico and the Spanish Empire, and not so well organised. I have heard Puerto Rico described as a colony many times before. But again, I would say there is a better example: American Samoa. As for the French, like the USA, they are pretty much in denial about colonies. There were people in France who considered Algeria an integral part of France right up until the end.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]