Is the post-colonial discrimination... - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is the post-colonial discrimination against whites in Africa justifiable?

Yes
4
7%
No
44
72%
Maybe
4
7%
Other
9
15%
User avatar
By Beren
#13214424
I don't pull a Maas on you, I don't say former slaves' descendants should be compensated in the US.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214428
Beren wrote:I don't push a Maas on you, I don't say former slaves' descendants should be compensated in the US.

Fair enough. Then you understand why I consider Le Rouge's attitudes traitorous or worse.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214430
La Rouge just has anti-colonialist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214432
Beren wrote:La Rouge just has anti-colonialist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.

It would be more accurate to say he hates his own people and is so demoralized he wishes he belonged to a colonized people. The ideology is just the surface manifestation of the underlying despair.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214436
Dave wrote:he wishes he belonged to a colonized people.

He just wishes he were some kind of a new Che Guevera himself. ;)
User avatar
By Dr House
#13214439
You don't need to be a W***** to be Che. Shit, Fidel himself is white and a racist son of a bitch.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214443
Beren wrote:But you certainly need to reject WASP supremacy.

Well sure, since Che objected to American influence in Latin America.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214446
He objected US-imperialism in general. Especially in Latin America, since he was a Latin American himself too.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214447
Beren wrote:He objected US-imperialism in general, especially in Latin America, since he was a Latin American himself too.

In other words, he was loyal to his own people. Quite unlike Le Rouge.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214451
I would rather say he was loyal to everyone oppressed, especially to his own people.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214456
Beren wrote:I would rather say he was loyal to everyone oppressed, especially to his own people.

That is the romantic image, but on his one venture to a different "oppressed" people he turned out to feel very, very negatively about them. No one really gives a damn about everyone "oppressed". To do so would prevent one from living a normal life, dissociation from distant tragedies being key to staying emotionally healthy.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214460
He was a Cuban revolutionary, although he was an Argentinian. He was just familiar with Latin American people and culture, so he was some kind of a nationalist indeed, but he was against (Yankee) imperialism generally and basically.
User avatar
By Dr House
#13214464
Beren wrote:But you certainly need to reject WASP supremacy.

You do if you're Latin American. I certainly reject WASP supremacy. Nonetheless, rejecting Anglic supremacy does not imply rejecting white supremacy as a whole. Castro supported the restoration of the caste system in Cuba (which, by the way, I most certainly do not).
User avatar
By Dave
#13214465
Beren wrote:He was a Cuban revolutionary, although he was an Argentinian. He was just familiar with Latin American people and culture, so he was some kind of a nationalist indeed, but he was against (Yankee) imperialism generally and basically.

There is little to support this view aside from his adoption of Marxism, which was really just a vehicle of aggression against American imperialism. American imperialism being global, other Third World liberation movements were useful allies. Do you suppose the Diggers and Levelers were concerned about Oriental despotism? Little different than Ho Chi Minh's adoption of Marxism as a vehicle of aggression against French (and later American) colonialism.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214472
Dr House wrote:Castro supported the restoration of the caste system in Cuba

What about Che?

Dave wrote:There is little to support this view aside from his adoption of Marxism, which was really just a vehicle of aggression against American imperialism.

And a vehicle of getting closer to the USSR. He was rather a Latin American patriot than a Marxist, that's right. However, I'm sure he would have fought the apartheid if he had been born in Africa and I'm sure he did not appreciate it at all.
User avatar
By Dave
#13214474
Beren wrote:And a vehicle of getting closer to the USSR. He was rather a Latin American patriot than a Marxist, that's right. However, I'm sure he would have fought the apartheid if he had been born in Africa and I'm sure he did not appreciate it at all.

Born as what in Africa?
User avatar
By Dr House
#13214482
Beren wrote:What about Che?

He died before he could do more than fap to Marx and kill a shitload of gringos, but he was born in Argentna in the early 20th century, and Argentines are notoriously racist.

Beren wrote:Born as himself. ;)

Himself would never have been born in South Africa, as there isn't an established Spanish community in South Africa. he'd have been born as an Afrikaner, an Anglo-African, Coloured or Black. Now answer the question.
User avatar
By Beren
#13214490
He would have been more-or-less the same kind of person anyway if we assume he would have grown up the same way in Africa as he was grown up in Latin America. He would have sympathized with the poor and oppressed and rejected British or any kinds of European imperialism.

Nobody has even proven the IHRA definition of ant[…]

I hope Biden is able to win this election. I think[…]

World War II Day by Day

April 5, Friday Chamberlain: Hitler has missed t[…]

Oh joining the EU is easy ! Just ask Turkey ! :l[…]