Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

From Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex:

"No matter how liberated you are, if you are still occupying indigenous lands, you are still a colonizer."

It's a chapter in Revolutionary Solidarity: A Critical Reader for Accomplices, if anybody is interested.

3

therealmidnite wrote

So... you backpedalled on calling me a colonialist (in that exchange). But now my mother is a colonialist for owning the house she is living in? I own stuff in South Africa, too, you know. The computer I'm typing this on, for one. So do tell... if I didn't own this computer, would I still qualify as a colonialist?

3

didiDIDI wrote

It's the image of anarchists like this in SA that keeps anarchism irrelevant to the conversations being had here.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

A computer isn't South African property. A house is. As long as your family owns a house or a business on stolen land (especially while so many indigenous South Africans don't have that luxury), it's colonialism.

I don't understand why that's controversial to a radical.

The ppl talked about in the cringeanarchy link before were obviously farmers. Land owners. Controllers of capital.

There's no way anyone can deny they're not colonialists so you taking offense to me calling them such and taking it as a personal attack against yourself left me confused because your post history suggests you consider yourself an anarchist.

-1

therealmidnite wrote

Considering that there's a good chance the gold used in this computer (and the gold inside the piece of IT you're using) was mined within walking distance of where I'm typing this right now, I'd think twice before lecturing any South African (whatever their skin-colour may be) about "South African property". You didn't pay the externalized costs of that mineral - the people over here did. And I don't mean South Africa in general - I mean the very people in this toxic little town I'm in. I didn't "colonize" it - I was born into it.

So, yes, I am an anarchist. And my "anarchism" doesn't take a leave of absence and gets replaced by drive-through convenience leftism just because some place I could only ever be a tourist in doesn't fit an imaginary racial profile that means absolutely nothing to the people that actually has to live there. Those people in cringeanarchy? Fascists? Most of them probably are... for all practical considerations. Farmers? Land owners? "Controllers of capitol"? I grew up with those kinds of people - I know them better than you ever could. Yet you can tell all these things about them, while I can't. Feel free to explain that.

2

ziq wrote

And the owners of 79% of the land in the cringeanarchy screenshot are farmers, developers, mine owners, industrialists. Why else would they own that much land?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You can say whatever you want about them, who's stopping you? The most hateful racists I've ever met were all white SA's who fled here in the 90s. I don't think all white SA's are like that but it seems to be engrained in the culture to such a degree that white supremacy is the norm and deviators are a rarity.

If you're an anarchist then don't deny colonialism just because you were born into it. White SA's have all kinds of privileges that most indigenous SA's don't.

1

therealmidnite wrote

Here's my reddit post-history.

https://www.reddit.com/user/MisOes

I openly DARE you (or anyone on this site) to find me one example of me "denying" colonialism. It shouldn't be too difficult (if your summation is correct) - I spent most of my time on r/southafrica, and the subject of colonialism came up a lot there (well, it did until they banned me).

Engrained? No! It's almost as if this country was ruled by a violent, fascist, and openly white supremacist regime that spent an enormous amount of time, effort and resources to shove their beliefs down every light-skinned child's throat over a five-decade period! Compare that to the nazis - who barely had one decade. You know, when I tell people that my knowledge of fascism isn't based on theory... I actually mean it. And I don't view having that knowledge "ingrained" in me as a "privilege".

Speaking of white supremacism as a norm... I'd be more concerned about the "norms" of the countries white supremacists are fleeing to, than the one they are fleeing from.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

If you weren't denying colonialism then idk what this convo is. You said your white mother is a property owner but somehow not a colonialist.

countries white supremacists are fleeing to, than the one they are fleeing from.

I come from a heavily colonized country.. including by the British.

1

therealmidnite wrote

So at what point will my mother cease to be a colonialist (according to your definition of it)? When she's living on the streets?

1

Pop wrote (edited )

so radicals I know would hold the position that until the land is returned and various reparations are made, whoever is occupying stolen indigenous lands is a coloniser

I'm not sure why this is troublesome for you either

coloniser is not an identity you choose, it's a relation to a space
there's no escaping the position in the same way that there's no escaping inhabiting whiteness until the whole structure of white supremacy is destroyed and amends have been made

accepting that as true rather than resisting being called something uncomfortable that you straightforwardly are, and then working to destroy colonial structures and ideas from your position, is the best option all colonisers have

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Just be conscious of the power disparity and recognize it for what it is.

-1

therealmidnite wrote

Afraid of saying it, ziq? I think we get enough reductionist bullshit from our own political establishment - we don't need it from first-world leftists as well. Goodbye.

0

ziq wrote

I'm not a first world leftist... afraid of saying what? I already said my bit in the OP.

2

rot wrote

A computer is not property, it is a possession. Houses are possessions too but they are also occupying land taken from the indigenous South Africans. I would assume that ziq meant private property as in land ownership and ownership over natural resources when they said property.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah. A house can be personal property too, but not when it's on stolen land in an occupied country like in this case - Then it qualifies as private property because it's a luxury afforded to invaders while millions of indigenous are denied access to their own land and have to struggle to survive.

4

JoeMemo wrote

There's even a case to be made that all Europeans are colonialists since they directly benefit from their government's colonialism overseas.

2

ziq wrote

And even if they don't own property, they could still control capital in other ways.

-2

CommieCuck wrote

You people are human garbage and should all KEEP YOURSELVES SAFE.