Follow up to socialist question: What is anti-colonialism?

[Anonymous]

Same OP who started the socialist thread here.

I was listening to CSPAN on my way to work and a caller started rambling on about the 2016 Obama movie and mentioned that Obama is an anti-colonialist.

As with my socialist question, define anti-colonialism first and then explain how that definition applies to obama?

again, i am not trying to start a fight. part of the reason i ask the question is that i tune so many of you out the second you throw around your "buzz words" that i really dont take the time to ask myself if you really know what the hell you are really saying. do you truly know what you mean when you call obama an anti-colonialist? if you do great. break it down for me. we may still disagree but at least i can walk away knowing you are applying the word in a context that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Big liberal dem here. To me "anti colonialism" is the same as disagreeing with "American Exceptionalism". It is synonymous with anti-imperialism. It means we don't get to be the boss of other countries. It means other nations should be independent and free, should self-determine, are not mere resources for America to use and abuse.

To conservatives, not controlling the "other" - the poor, brown, possibly non-christian masses - is scary and a threat. Just like Obama, brown and (they like to pretend) non-christian is a threat. Basically to conservatives it means "Obama would let other nations do what ever they want, walk all over us, to the detriment of the United State and all its citizens.

[Anonymous]

Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

[Anonymous]

Isn't "anti-colonialist" a Fox News buzzword for "He's an anti-American Kenyan"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

We're rabidly against giving Puerto Rico independence or DC representation, so I'd say we're still a colonialist nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

We're rabidly against giving Puerto Rico independence or DC representation, so I'd say we're still a colonialist nation.[/quote]

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

The English
The Falklands war, would not have happened without brittish business interests. A lot of englands history would be different without British business interests

[Anonymous]

I'm an academic, and I use the term in the context of postcolonial theory. "Anti-colonialist" basically means opposed to oppression in all its forms (racism, class-based discrimination, sexism, economic injustice, etc.) To say someone is anti-colonialist would imply that they understand that injustice exists today as the legacy of centuries of colonizing activities. Of course, the exact definitions and the implications of the term are contested, as are all things in the academic realm.

I hadn't realized that the term had crossed over into the mainstream. It really doesn't belong there, imo.

[Anonymous]

To many Marxist political scientists, "colonialism" is a whole ball of things. But in an economic sense, it refers to how the colonial powers (the "center", think U.K. or France or even Portugal in the 1950s) suck economic resources from the colonized countries (the "periphery", think pre-independence India, Kenya, Algeria or Angola). In short, the rich countries exploit the poor countries in order to get even richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To many Marxist political scientists, "colonialism" is a whole ball of things. But in an economic sense, it refers to how the colonial powers (the "center", think U.K. or France or even Portugal in the 1950s) suck economic resources from the colonized countries (the "periphery", think pre-independence India, Kenya, Algeria or Angola). In short, the rich countries exploit the poor countries in order to get even richer.

exactly
like the diamond trade in Sierra Leone
And the diamond trade in Zimbabwe
And the BP in the Niger delta and the pollution it causes
And the cholocate companies who buy cocoa beans that have been harvested by children

Basically riches from distant shores carried over to your country. Behind every great fortune there is a crime.

[Anonymous]

So an anti-colonialism person should be admired by the tea party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

We may not paint as bald a face on it as "annexing territory". But I'd say our interference in the middle east is an example of our manipulating and exploiting foreigners for our own gain, thus, "colonialist".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?

We may not paint as bald a face on it as "annexing territory". But I'd say our interference in the middle east is an example of our manipulating and exploiting foreigners for our own gain, thus, "colonialist".

And if you put the opposite spin on the latter statement, you get the tea party view that we are the good guys trying to bring democracy to the middle east while Obama apologizes about it. I don't agree with that spin, but I can where it comes from.

[Anonymous]

The fight for the resources in the north pole? Why does Hillary think we have any claim to that?

[Anonymous]

It's hard to say we're rabidly against independence for PR when there's not that much evidence PR wants independence. I suppose if they vote for independence, or even statehood, this year you can come back and complain then. Even so the obstacle to statehood for DC and PR is pretty much political-- everyone expect those are D areas-- more than colonialism.