When you try to be anarchist but just end up being the liberal strawman of your own ideology

Average anarchist activity /s

maybe their profile pic the ukraine fascist flag and not the anarchy flag :o

They also only won in 48 because Czechoslovakia shipped them weapons right at the last second.

all the good aussies are on hexbear

So a NATO leftist lmfao these people are too predictable.

nah capitalist settler colonialism is distinct from primitive conquest and accumulation. all the Normans did was (mostly) kill the old nobility and knick their stuff. the saxons were just as the norman peasant or the dijonnais peasant, not a group targeted for dispossession & extermination.

this distinction was observed just within the island of Ireland. the normans took over ireland in the 12th century, same way they did england, but all that came of it were some administrative impositions, and different names on the nobles. in a few centuries, like their compatriots in England spoke English, they were speaking Irish. now in the 16th century, the synthesis of protestantism, a centralizing state, and a developing merchantilist/capitalist economic system drove a different sort of conquest of Ireland. no longer sharing a common religion, the english took all the land from the catholics (irish) & while happy to make them dirt-poor laborers, they systematically kept them from food & killed so many in the wars, the English lords found themselves lacking sufficient labor—thus came the settlers, Good Protestants who wouldn’t rise up, who’d make common cause with the landlords against the indigenous, for fear of being driven off the stolen land

Was gonna say, it absolutely was

That’s actually a common historical misunderstanding. Anglo-Saxons didn’t eradicate or exile the natives, they simply replaced their ruling class. And even then, Brythonic nobility were allowed to rule under them provided they swore fealty and adopted their customs. A lot of people don’t realize that ethnic cleansing is very resource intensive, and why would you waste perfectly good subjects/peasants (provided you aren’t brain-rotted by early modern nationalism or race theory)? It’s not like they had enough settlers to feasibly do it anyway.

This was pretty much the norm of the time for the migrations of various Germanic tribes west except the Anglo-Saxons were actually successful in imposing their languages on the natives rather than adopting the locals’ (as had happened with the Visigoths, Franks and Vandals), probably because Roman Britain was one of the less developed and populated provinces. It’s not even a loose theory: historical records show “English” lords with mixed or completely Romano-British names/titles and DNA testing shows most Englishmen are descended to the Stone Age people who came before the Celtic migrations.

I think this is important to point out because it’s the exact kind of misunderstanding Zionists exploit by claiming Arabs wiped out the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa, so Palestinians are ackchully foreign colonizers themselves. It’s the same story there: the language of Arab Muslims, either by sword or by conversion, was spread throughout pre-existing populations though not entirely (see Maghreb languages).

didnt the celts also “displace” the previous, even more original population?