Anti colonialism would be against colonialism as you said. Presumably to stop encroaching colonialism, to stop existing colonialism, or to gain independence.
decolonialism just seems like a really weird specific to use here since normally context would provide that. Also if we’re talking about palestine, wouldn’t israel be actively colonizing palestine, instead of having already colonized it? Like you can’t just start making outposts in a region that you haven’t already colonized. You can’t just make settlements in a place that isn’t already colonized.
They wouldn’t be settlements/outposts if they weren’t colonial by nature. Like surely it can’t already be colonized if hamas exists. The end game of colonization is literally integration and assimilation. A decolonial struggle would be something like hawaii being brought back to the ownership and independence of the natives.
The settlements are colonial. Resistance against already existing settlements and settlers is decolonial. Preventing more settlements is anticolonial.
They’re both relevant in the Palestinian context, I just focused on decolonisation because it recognizes the already existing colonization. I guess it probably should be anticolonial/decolonial to recognize both.
The settlements are colonial. Resistance against already existing settlements and settlers is decolonial. Preventing more settlements is anticolonial.
i mean i guess in that context it would be, but then wouldn’t this be an anti/de colonial resistance? Since there are most definitely both going on.
They’re both relevant in the Palestinian context, I just focused on decolonisation because it recognizes the already existing colonization. I guess it probably should be anticolonial/decolonial to recognize both.
yeah this was pretty much my thinking.
I think if you wanted to recognize the colonial aspects it’s probably better to just mention the outposts and settlements lol. Sometimes demonstrating a concept is more powerful than the concept itself.
I also consider the so-called state of Israel to be an example of colonization, because literally it took a bunch of European Jewish settlers to come down from Europe and drive out the indigenous population during the Nakba. It’s not just the settlements and outposts.
man there is so much reading material here you could literally write a PHD dissertation on it.
So from the skim reading i’ve done, it seems that the early “israel” state as it exists today (it has historical roots as well, if you go back into religion the area that is referred to as “palestine” is also israel, so there’s that) but going back to the very beginning, it seems that they initially purchased land from the ottoman empire, which would’ve been a thing at that time. And probably shortly after that i would imagine, tensions rose and conflict started to become a problem, basically up until 1948 it seems there was constant conflict between palestine and israel. So that’s a thing. Unfortunately i’m not a history scholar with a PHD on the history and conflict between these two nations so i can’t really pin anything down here.
But just based off of what wikipedia is telling me, this is probably “colonization spurred by conflict” although more arguably “convenient colonization”
Idk as far as colonization goes i just consider war and conflict to be a constant within humanity, and therefore colonization follows in suit, the loser gets colonized. It’d be bad military strategy to kill an entire population, demolish their productive base, and then just, fucking leave. As well as bad for the society, colonized or not. Obviously the alternative here is not doing a war, but good luck with one.
It’d be nice if animals stopped killing each other over territorial disputes, but that’s just how the animal kingdom works, and i think this is basically just an extension of that for humans. Anyway, i think this is also sort of a defective argument, because depending on how “pure” your stance on colonization is, humanity should literally just roll back every modern society until nothing is left except for like, 12 people. Because i’m almost certain that war and colonization is such an influential part of human history, that it would basically end up producing a constant chain of colonization.
There are also other examples of colonization as well, russia invading ukraine for example, the annexation of crimea, although people cope by saying that the “public voted for it” which sure, but, idk about that one tbh. And of course theres the territory that only russia recognizes to be “russian” when it’s globally considered to be ukrainian. You also get into weird places like ownership over the sea floor, russia is especially pushing hard for this one, there has long been a massive contest on whoever owns parts of the artic circle for example. Would this be considered colonization by extension?
What about shit like uninhabited islands, theres snake island, there’s a few near korea, there’s also contests over who owns ocean territory and airspace (although these are more of a meme) china being a prominent example, pushing really aggressive stances on military power staging in the south china sea, claiming they own more than they do. And the classic meme of “leave the airspace immediately” “this is international airspace”
I feel like you could basically talk without end on this topic if you really tried, and i’m not really convinced it has productive value. Like i said in my previous comment, i would rather talk about specifics, than generics that don’t really make sense, or apply in the first place.
For some reason tankies like to do this, using big fancy words in places they really shouldn’t, i guess it makes them look more read up when in reality they still know almost nothing. Fascists do something tangential, they just make shit up instead though. Tankies are unique in this case for some reason.
how are those significantly different?
Anti colonialism would be against colonialism as you said. Presumably to stop encroaching colonialism, to stop existing colonialism, or to gain independence.
decolonialism just seems like a really weird specific to use here since normally context would provide that. Also if we’re talking about palestine, wouldn’t israel be actively colonizing palestine, instead of having already colonized it? Like you can’t just start making outposts in a region that you haven’t already colonized. You can’t just make settlements in a place that isn’t already colonized.
They wouldn’t be settlements/outposts if they weren’t colonial by nature. Like surely it can’t already be colonized if hamas exists. The end game of colonization is literally integration and assimilation. A decolonial struggle would be something like hawaii being brought back to the ownership and independence of the natives.
The settlements are colonial. Resistance against already existing settlements and settlers is decolonial. Preventing more settlements is anticolonial.
They’re both relevant in the Palestinian context, I just focused on decolonisation because it recognizes the already existing colonization. I guess it probably should be anticolonial/decolonial to recognize both.
i mean i guess in that context it would be, but then wouldn’t this be an anti/de colonial resistance? Since there are most definitely both going on.
yeah this was pretty much my thinking.
I think if you wanted to recognize the colonial aspects it’s probably better to just mention the outposts and settlements lol. Sometimes demonstrating a concept is more powerful than the concept itself.
I also consider the so-called state of Israel to be an example of colonization, because literally it took a bunch of European Jewish settlers to come down from Europe and drive out the indigenous population during the Nakba. It’s not just the settlements and outposts.
man there is so much reading material here you could literally write a PHD dissertation on it.
So from the skim reading i’ve done, it seems that the early “israel” state as it exists today (it has historical roots as well, if you go back into religion the area that is referred to as “palestine” is also israel, so there’s that) but going back to the very beginning, it seems that they initially purchased land from the ottoman empire, which would’ve been a thing at that time. And probably shortly after that i would imagine, tensions rose and conflict started to become a problem, basically up until 1948 it seems there was constant conflict between palestine and israel. So that’s a thing. Unfortunately i’m not a history scholar with a PHD on the history and conflict between these two nations so i can’t really pin anything down here.
But just based off of what wikipedia is telling me, this is probably “colonization spurred by conflict” although more arguably “convenient colonization”
Idk as far as colonization goes i just consider war and conflict to be a constant within humanity, and therefore colonization follows in suit, the loser gets colonized. It’d be bad military strategy to kill an entire population, demolish their productive base, and then just, fucking leave. As well as bad for the society, colonized or not. Obviously the alternative here is not doing a war, but good luck with one.
It’d be nice if animals stopped killing each other over territorial disputes, but that’s just how the animal kingdom works, and i think this is basically just an extension of that for humans. Anyway, i think this is also sort of a defective argument, because depending on how “pure” your stance on colonization is, humanity should literally just roll back every modern society until nothing is left except for like, 12 people. Because i’m almost certain that war and colonization is such an influential part of human history, that it would basically end up producing a constant chain of colonization.
There are also other examples of colonization as well, russia invading ukraine for example, the annexation of crimea, although people cope by saying that the “public voted for it” which sure, but, idk about that one tbh. And of course theres the territory that only russia recognizes to be “russian” when it’s globally considered to be ukrainian. You also get into weird places like ownership over the sea floor, russia is especially pushing hard for this one, there has long been a massive contest on whoever owns parts of the artic circle for example. Would this be considered colonization by extension?
What about shit like uninhabited islands, theres snake island, there’s a few near korea, there’s also contests over who owns ocean territory and airspace (although these are more of a meme) china being a prominent example, pushing really aggressive stances on military power staging in the south china sea, claiming they own more than they do. And the classic meme of “leave the airspace immediately” “this is international airspace”
I feel like you could basically talk without end on this topic if you really tried, and i’m not really convinced it has productive value. Like i said in my previous comment, i would rather talk about specifics, than generics that don’t really make sense, or apply in the first place.
For some reason tankies like to do this, using big fancy words in places they really shouldn’t, i guess it makes them look more read up when in reality they still know almost nothing. Fascists do something tangential, they just make shit up instead though. Tankies are unique in this case for some reason.