You must log in or register to comment.
The settler can’t conceive of land not belonging to someone!Wild as fuck mask off chauvinism. This is why I am advocating defederation from that whole instance because that mfer is one of the admins.
This guy is deeply unserious, but the general userbase seems much less bad. I wonder if it would be possible to get them to pressure the admin team to either drop this guy or at the very least keep a lid on this shit.
that would be preferable to defederating for sure.
these other instances sure know how to pick 'em
they were able to conceive of it when the land belonged to australian natives…
how curious
“If I don’t steal it, someone else will steal it.”
That part isn’t crazy – for example, it doesn’t make sense to say Europeans stole land from indigenous peoples unless the indigenous peoples owned it in some way.
I’d say it’s more sensible than you give it credit for. To say that the land belongs to everyone and then have a group remove you from it and deprive you of access to it, you can absolutely say it was stolen from you even though you did not own it, because it went from belonging to everyone to being monopolized by a few.
If land belongs to everyone, then I (as part of everyone) have an ownership stake in it even if I do not own it exclusively. Or maybe my group has exclusive ownership of it, or at least over particularly lucrative fruits of it (e.g., hunting and fishing), and I have a stake as a member of the group that is not extended to everyone.
There were also non-Europeans that viewed land ownership much closer to how Europeans did than the usufructian model we’re discussing (the empires of pre-colonial South America, Central America, China, Korea, and Japan come to mind). And we can’t forget the colonial logic of erasing indigenous history and culture, in particular those aspects of history and culture that give indigenous people claims to land.
What are you saying? Obviously joe shmoe from outside should also be able to use the land so long as he doesn’t deprive his fellows, what I am saying is that making it exclusive introduces stealing to a paradigm that otherwise doesn’t have a very recognizable form of ownership.
I’m not saying all colonized people held this view, obviously they didn’t (at least three groups you mention had slavery pre-colonially, i.e. several Native American nations and Korea), simply arguing for the coherence of a perspective that some aboriginal and Native American nations held.
I’m saying many indigenous people did have land ownership as part of their societies, even if the specifics of that concept differed from European ideas about land ownership. The idea that European settlers introduced the idea that one could have property rights in land is ahistorical, egregiously so depending on the indigenous society you’re looking at.
simply arguing for the coherence of a perspective that some aboriginal and Native American nations held
I agree individual, exclusive ownership of land in the European sense was pretty foreign to plenty of aboriginal Australians and indigenous North Americans, but I think a lot of these societies had ideas of collective land overship (maybe extending only to using the land or taking its fruits) that Europeans could have recognized had they had any incentive to. We know there were conflicts between various indigenous societies, we know the Americas were much more densely populated before the initial wave of European diseases hit (I’d imagine Australia was the same), we know more people means less abundance for all, and we know groups fought over land all over the world, including the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. This all points to ideas about at least collective ownership of property being common, or at least not foreign.
It also strikes me as suspicious that the idea indigenous people had a “live and let live” approach to land is strongest in the places where the eradication of indigenous people was most thorough (North America, Australia, and Argentina come to mind). We know justifying the theft of indigenous land was a conscious part of colonial projects, and “they didn’t really own it, they just lived there for a little” is one attempt at justification.
Europeans first imposed the concept of land ownership and then stole it
Europeans often had a different version of land ownership than the people they colonized, but Europeans were not the only ones to develop the idea that people could have rights to use land, or use the fruits of land, or destroy some of the wealth of the land – all property rights that can be stolen in the sense we talk about stealing lands from indigenous people.
There were also huge differences in land ownership philosophies among the many distinct societies outside of Europe, and plenty of these had land ownership laws that were not radically different from European laws.
Could you please explain the point of your point because it just sounds like apologia for colonialism?
No one said Europe has one model of land tenure (Carl Marks, anyone?)
Agrarian capitalism definitely developed in England thought
“Colonized people knew they had rights to the land so everyone at the time knew it was stolen” is apologia for colonialism now? Really?
Beyond that, being accurate about history is inherently important.
this guy is so ignorant and “all look same” racist that he has Mao confused with Pol Pot
China didn’t start developing until years after Mao left office
during Mao’s tenure China’s life expectancy DOUBLED and from 1952-1978 there was 6.2% annnual growth. just chauvinist fantasies from this asshole
One of the biggest moments for me or realizing how propagandized westerners are is when I discovered how much improvement happened in the USSR and China under the “bad” leaders. These facts are not in dispute or being surpressed, but the western public is being effectively kept ignorant of them.
Same sources will be constantly “handing it” to fascists and excusing their crimes because ‘they made the trains run on time’ (for a few years before war and destruction engulfed their countries)
fascists and excusing their crimes because ‘they made the trains run on time’
The dumbest part of that is that Mussolini’s policies “made the trains run on time” by placing enormous pressures on the rail workers and eschewing maintenance and safe operating procedures, causing some marginal increase in normal punctuality at the cost of massively increasing deadly accidents and shutdowns from trains derailing.
These facts are not in dispute or being surpressed
Well, liberal economists are still way too negative on Mao because they have no way to account for collective ownership, or in any case choose to account for it inadequately.
Oh hey it’s the dude who said he wouldn’t want to live in China because he’d be killed for being an intellectual.
Wait, no!
Reddit brain is tough, man.
No, to put it mildly
Being so cocksure about something so obviously factually incorrect while also inflating your own ego
Truly the
of all
This whole thread was a fucking trip. OP was a landlord complaining about real estate agents calling him to value a rental property.
White Australia fucking sucks
Its easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine Australia
😭
i love this account
beyond everything I just have no idea where people get this stuff. like clearly they never got it from an actual book, there’s no actual mapping to real events good or bad. this is what happens when you learn 20th century history from reddit threads
It’s a vague mishmash of half remembered facts linked together by “logical inferences” (making shit up).
Failure of the 4 pests campaign = dabbling and experimentation. Deaths during cultural revolution = millions of deaths (it’s communism so it’s always millions of deaths). Pol Pot killed the intelligencia, but they’re too racist to remember who all these foreigners are, so they feel safe attributing it to Mao. There was a famine, so it was probably caused by industrialisation (they don’t actually know what the 4 pests campaign was, so don’t know it caused the famine).
It’s always funny to me when Westerners can’t even conceive of why anyone would support the Chinese government. Imagine being a middle-aged Chinese person who watched all this happen. Within living memory, you went from the tail end of the century of humiliation, emerging from under the heel of Western hegemony, and now you’re a world superpower of unprecedented independence from that hegemony. For the first time in the history of the colonial world, a country of the oppressed has risen up by its own power to challenge the oppressors that have spent the past 400 years immiserating every non-white country on earth. They went from ox carts to high speed rail in one lifetime. From colonial humiliation, to unprecedented pride and dignity for the first counterhegemonic force outside the West in the history of capitalism. They can look around themselves and see several examples of countries like India and Myanmar that didn’t choose communism, couldn’t challenge the West, didn’t have a cultural revolution (it was a mixed bag of very good and very bad) and they can see, clear as day, where their path led them vs the path the West would have preferred for them. Vassalage. Poverty. Exploitation. Rural idiocy, as Lenin put it. The path the West still wants to put them back on.
—u/Gravelord-_Nito
All you have to do is look at a graph of any quality of life indicator in China to disprove this. Like every single one is just
after 1949a lotta youtube i figure
@[email protected] come on over I just wanna talk.
Lol it’s four days before Invasion Day, and my so-called compatriots are already in full swing
what’s invasion day?
Edit: nevermind found it
‘australia day’, Jan 26, the date the first fleet landed/union jack was flown
Also probably the early start of a smallpox pandemic that devastated Australia’s people
Or, if some calls you out about this, when England declared sovereignty over the Australian landmass
You rang?
“I can’t conceive the land not belonging to anyone”
Really? Why? It’s not an object you can carry with you, it’s not something created, to preceded us all by billions of years and will be there when we are gone, typically only with superficial differences. How can it even be property beyond being defined that way by some laws, let alone ontologically need to be property?
The rest is shit too, but come the fuck on. At least with Mao it hinges on history he is disconnected from. On the question of land, he has had his entire life interacting with it in various ways and he can’t even imagine an exception to this axiom of ownership.
so you’re saying your anglo granpappy that got a shallow grave in korea was put there by a starving, uneducated, undeveloped China? sounds like a skill issue
This guy sounds like my brother
you have my sympathies. i used to have that same brother, shit sucks
“Criticism without investigation is my favorite thing to do actually” -Mao “Crazylegs” Zedong
“Agriculture is bad, and starvation is good” -Mao “The Body” Zedong
