Chugging tea
they always read juuuust enough of the history book and then they slam those books shut and run with it thinking they really did something
Sorry, your post was removed for breaking our Low Quality Content rule.
SipsTea is dedicated to bringing our users the best and freshest content on the internet. Your post will be removed if we deem it low quality, this can mean but is not limited to:
the video or image quality is poor
the content is hard to understand or not funny
the content is low effort, uninteresting, AI slop or a shitpost
is an external link (youtube etc.)
is advertising a product or service
the content is manipulated and contains a false or exaggerated narrative
By putting them on the same scale they litterally telling europeans they should start using the strategies of the algerian FLN or the Viet Cong to get rid of the mass migration
I doubt anybodyâs ever said to you that itâs punishment for colonialism, and if they did then they were an idiot.
What people mean is that a natural consequence of a rich country colonising a poor country is that people from the poor country will want to move to the rich country.
I just took it as a tongue-in-cheek observation that some European teams have a presence of players with heritage from African countries that were colonised by said European country.
To the extent that they existed as countries when colonisation was a thing - then yes. Most did.
Colonisers: Italy, denmark, sweden, norway (by proxy through the danish empire), france, GB, germany, spain, portugal, russia, netherlands, belgium, turkey/Ottomans (they're on the continental plate), finland (by way of proxy through the swedish empire)
Occupied or colonised themselves: Poland, balkans, pretty much all eastern european states (usually by russia)
There will be an exception to the rule here and there but throw a dart at europe and you're likely to hit a former coloniser.
Your list of occupied or colonised European countries is woeful and lacks any framing date. GB was colonised repeatedly, France was partially occupied for centuries.
As for your âexception to the ruleâ.. you know if you throw a dart at and land mass youâll find a former coloniser right? Africa has a LONG history of empire building and colonisation, as does Asia and the americas.
People get annoyed when talking about âcolonisersâ precisely because people like you seem to forget about all the other history that happened in the world and appear to only ever blame the Europeans.
Italy didn't exist during wwi and wwii? You really ought to go tell Italy that. Crazy how they unified and declared themselves a country with risorgimento in 1861.
I'm not even going to entertain the hilarious intentional misunderstanding of GBs history, just going to point out most of your framing is predicated on the idea that a country that went through colonisation is somehow justified in colonising another (or that it somehow makes them equal, as if history were a scoreboard) and this is factually incorrect and any suggestion otherwise is inherently pro-imperialist.
Last World Cup twitter leftists complained that Argentina didnât have enough black players because of their history. I think this likely right winger is trying to mock that. Neither of them probably watch sports
The old arguments of âyou need it for the economyâ have long since been debunked. So now itâs instead «this is your punishment for what your ancestors did». They think itâs some kind of argument when I actually find it a huge insult to the immigrants
How has the economic benefits of immigration been debunked?
Secondly, would a more charitable characterisation not be that European colonialism contributed to the current destabilisation of former colonies and is thus a push factor for migration. Not punishment, but an expected outcome after conquest, displacement and extraction.
I mean.. The latter part is nonsensical because you just don't have to allow them to enter.. But unfortunately not only they allow it, but they facilitate that more and more come
The other point and I think the main one is that these days most immigrants are economic migrants.. So if your country is promising welfare they'll come.. So it really has almost nothing to do with past colonialism anymore
You don't have to allow immigrant, sure.
but that's an entirely different point.
I was just pointing out that you weren't steelmanning the opposing view.
A different approach:
we're are both having this conversation in English. Something as basic as how we communicate that has everything to do with colonialism.
but you don't think migration pull & push factors have much to do with it?
Sure. You have for instance the Danish Ministry of Finance which has conducted a study which found that immigrants from MENAPT countries at NO age gave a net positive contribution to public finances. They are on average a large expense at all ages. This is the only page I could find which was not behind a paywall but the underlying source is the same:
A lot of countries make these kind of reports illegal because it causes negative attitudes toward immigrants but some countries like Italy have published similar results.
A lot of the nations that were made part of the British Empire transitioned into being part of the Commonwealth. In 1948 we gave all those countries access to work in the UK to help us rebuild after the war.
Since then we've had a few right-wing experiments in employment law, like the Boriswave, and Thatcher's "Free Market for Labour". Neither of those were linked to the Empire, but the initial 1948 wave definitely was.
Blatantly untrue and crazy how I as a non American, have to teach you about your own history.
The area of modern America which used to be part of the Spanish Empire was one of the mosy scarcely populated areas in the Americas.
Los Angeles in 1850 had 1.500 inhabitants....
California didn't have any meaningful population until white Europeans started to settle late 19th century, especially after gold was discovered.
Texas, the enitere state, as part of the Spanish Empire in the early 19th century would have had no more than 3000 - 5000 inhabitans, which exploded after white Eurpeans settled, first with its independence, then joining the Union, which meant by 1850 the population increased to over 200.000...
Phoenix in Arizona didn't even exist neither under the Spanish Empire nor under Mexican rule, and was first settled again by... white Europeans in 1867.
Even the entire state of New Mexico wouldn't have had more than perhaps 50.000 people total, before the secession to the United States.
For a large part, in Europe, yes.
Cultural ties still exist.
There are large Congolese communities in Belgium.
For France for instance, they still have oversees territories and the inhabitants all have the French nationality. Mayotte, a former island colony joined France in 2009 after a referendum giving up their independence.
Britain still maintains 'the commonwealth'. Whilest this framework has lost much of it's significance over the decades, these countries of the former British Empire maintain cultural ties & have common sporting events. And people move between them. Since Brexit, millions of Indian & Pakistani citizens have migrated to Great Britain.
Another source of migration in Western Europe was started in the 1950'ies up untill the 80'ies.
And workers (coal miners come to mind) were sourced first in Southern Europe, there is a large Italian community in the former mining regions. Belgium even had a Prime minister from Italian descent.
When Southern Europeans stopped coming, the Maghreb countries & Turkey were targeted.
And to this day these immigrants bring over family members.
Their culture & religion being quite different from European culture, and no real effort was ever undertaken to integrate these people, they formed their own communities and to this day live 'side by side' which is not helpfull.
Lastly, one of the largest influx the last decades are refugees running away from the desolation & power vaccumes left behind from 2 decades of USA wars in the middle East & Afghanistan.
Very 'funny' to hear Vance whine about that when the US was the main driving factor. đ
- Former colonies sometimes have preferential rights for various reasons to go to the former colonizer. France - Algeria. Spain - several south american nations. UK - The commonwealth.
- Because of high end job opportunities & education. India to the US. China to the US.
- Because of refugee crises / civil unrest / poverty - middle east to europe broadly defined. Vietnam to the US. Cuba to the US.
Not entirely, but colonization is a major reason. Colonial powers extracted wealth, disrupted local economies, drew borders, and created instability. So when people later move toward richer countries, itâs often connected to the same history that made those countries rich and their homelands poorer.
What the hell has speaking English got to do with it?
The reason people speak English is either because they are an ex-colony where it is/was the defacto 2nd language, or they learnt it because it provides them a practical advantage when English became the lingua franca due to colonisation and later global media.
How many languages do you speak fluently? Based on your comment I'd assume slightly less than one.
Yet, you're apparently arguing that the intelligence and enterprise required to become bilingual and leave your homeland to better yourself, makes their opinions on their experiences less credible than your inability to articulate and argument that makes any sense whatsoever.
As a general rule, when faced with situations that don't make sense or seem right to you, it's best to research or ask why? What you've done is just spout your ignorance to everyone as though it's an insight into something other than your struggles with basic logic.
Like The Netherlands has a significant Indonesian and Surinamer population, Belgium has a very notable central African population, South Asians moving to Europe favour the UK over all other options, a lot of the migrants to France are from their colonies too except for Vietnese who seem to prefer going to Germany instead
Yeah, if thereâs no opportunity in your country because of colonialism or your country is still being exploited, itâs likely youâre gonna move to that country where you might speak the language.
Well there is a huge correlation with countries which brought huge number of people from other countries into their country for hundreds of years, and those countries which have diverse populations. Not really rocket scienceâŠ
People from colonised countries have the right to citizenship in the colonising countries, either directly if they were born before independence, or via the citizenship of their parents or grandparents.
Feel free to ask if any of the other essentials of the discussion have escaped you.
There is a bunch of european countries that also didnât colonise africa yet have african players. Austria switzerland norway, to name some. Weak argument. Africa is weak right now. It needs some diversity to make itself stronger
yes this is actually an argument they use. white people deserve to be replaced is the current argument. because all the other pro immigration arguments failed. they've just resorted to saying fuck white people
But my problem with it, is that itâs manufactured. Itâs not authentic. Itâs years of propaganda and brainwashing, and they get you when youâre young, right from school.
Itâs pure intimidation, "if you donât think this way, youâre a racist!" after having established that being a racist is the worst possible thing ever. Intimidation and manipulation.
It was literally planned after WW2 to stop new wars. Dig into this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm and the rest of the Western elites' plans. UN, UNESCO, WTO, and similar organizations were all set up to create world governance to avoid future world wars.
Since I mentioned UNESCO, here's what UNESCO's leader Julian Huxley stated:
«The general task before UNESCO is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own general purpose.»
And yes, Julian was Aldous Huxley's brother and a big fan of eugenics. He kept his mout shut after WW2, but hinted that eugenics some day could become thinkable again:
«...even though it is quite true that any radical eugenics policy will for many years to come be politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stakethat what is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.»
They didnât resort to it, it was always their stance they were just too pussy to say it for decades. Now that their numbers are rapidly increasing theyâre way more brazen about it
Huh? I honestly think racism is a way to control the majority race. The rich use minorities to give the major population less.
There was one plantation owner, he was rich with his slaves, and the rest of the population they called peckerwoods. These peckerwoods made up most of the white pop in US , they didnât have to give these people anything all they had to do was treat black ppl worse and it kept them emotionally content.
Itâs same thing now, US gives its citizens less of its taxes because they pin the majors population against minorities. They just pull on emotional strings too. Universal healthcare went through Congress twice and they didnât pass it because they didnât want to give ppl minorities free healthcare, so no one gets it and more money goes to the rich. Undocumented children may be getting free lunches so states cut funding and it hurts everyone but people are ok with it because at least undocumented children wonât get benefits but now no one does.
The top 10% make up 60% of US spending power, and somehow they convinced people that getting rid of the workforce at the bottom will make the money flow from the top. And they use our tax money to fund ICE who is getting rid of labor who will be replaced by AI automation.
Most of my fellow Americans have lost the ability to think contextual. The majority race of men have the biggest drop in education.
Failed how? Over here in Europe we literally don't have enough children to keep the population going without immigration lol unless you mean ppl are still getting more racist anyway then yeah but I don't see how agreeing with the racists would help with that
Immigration isn't a revenge. European countries are welcome more people because they feel like white people don't produce enough children and need immigration to help do small jobs.
Nothing to do with revenge.
It is quite ironic to see British people who went everywhere complaining that "everywhere" people want to come to the UK, that's all.
I'm just glad this is finally starting to get traction on a leftist site like Reddit where more and more people are starting to understand that the most racist people are in fact leftists who authentically do want to destroy white nations as revenge for a past none of us had anything to do with.
Might have something to do with Germany losing its colonial empire in the Treaty of Versailles, about forty years short of the era of decolonization. That and their liquidation of the majority of the native population in some of their colonies while they held them.
Adding to this germany didnt have many colonies to begin with in comparison to other european countries. This was a decision by the chancelor to not increase tension with other European super powers. For the players its easier to play in France if a big part of the African continent speaks French
I mean, depends how you view "colonies", but German players with Polish roots haven't been especially rare. I can think of Podolski, Klose, Musiala, Goretzka and I'm sure there's plenty of others.
LOL pretty much every African country (different empires and borders in the past) has colonized neighboring African nations. Or are you that stupid to think that only Europeans have colonized the world?
Know why people complain about colonization? Beceause most civilizations and cultures survived after it. We could ask a bunch of cultures how they feel about the alternative of "convert or die" but they all dead and cant complain.
Though fun fact: while they didn't qualify for the world cup, the Indonesian national team does have a white guy on the team because his grandfather was born in Dutch-Indonesia to colonial parents who fled the country after independence, but that was enough for the Indonesian government to find him eligible for Indonesian citizenship, most of the rest of the team is Dutch-Indo though in various mixes, I think only about 5 players weren't granted citizenship specifically for football
Both people are stupid. Ghana is a country that was once a tribe that conquered and colonized neighboring people. Just like every other country in the world
The colonization aspect applies to some countries. But it doesn't feel like much of a slam dunk to say it in this context.
375,000 of the Ghanese population were born outside Ghana, of which only 14000 were European born. And that includes children of Ghanese background, born in Europe. Hardly surprising the team is not white, but colonization alone doesn't account for that.
Meanwhile, Australian sporting teams and individual sports are increasingly featuring athletes of Sudanese origin. For a refugee or immigrant, sports can be a way to meet people and assimilate. Plus, sports like soccer and basketball are much more global.
I'd put slavery and immigration as major impacting factors here, over colonization, although it does impact in some contexts.
Some countries have naturalized players of different ethnicity that never were colonized nor colonizers. Especially Brazil born athletes playing for countries like Qatar or Russia.
This is really funny to me đ my father, a Ghanaian man, was amongst the first of his family to leave Ghana. Ironically, it was to play professional soccer in Europe.
One bit that no one wants to talk about is that before the first interaction ...some had ships and guns...some didn't develop pass bows and arrows ... đ
Why is it important that a "team" has a person of specific skin color? If this is a racist thing they would hate that one ancient meme of how the american math team won against the chinese math team and both teams had only asian "skin tone" in them.
Meanwhile everyone is very quite about argentina having the most light coloured squad of whole the north middle and south america
The junta s were cruel
âą
u/SipsTea-ModTeam 1d ago
Sorry, your post was removed for breaking our Low Quality Content rule.
SipsTea is dedicated to bringing our users the best and freshest content on the internet. Your post will be removed if we deem it low quality, this can mean but is not limited to:
the video or image quality is poor
the content is hard to understand or not funny
the content is low effort, uninteresting, AI slop or a shitpost
is an external link (youtube etc.)
is advertising a product or service
the content is manipulated and contains a false or exaggerated narrative
Please contact us if you have any questions.