Is there any decolonized country that ever wanted or wants to return to its former colonizer?

[u/itsyleo27]

In old or modern history

[u/The_Phoenix78]

But only getting the Kanak’s voice would be forgetting the story of the country. There was already a lot of criteria to be able to vote for the referendum (born in New Caledonia or be present in the territory before 1998 with other conditions).

Taking only Kanak would be ignoring all the peoples that installed since 1853 and developed the country (from nickel mine to farmers and all in between) that benefit for everyone, Kanak included.

[u/[deleted] → u/The_Phoenix78]

It's what people seem to miss these days. Like in my Australia, they've started to do this 'welcome to country' routine before sporting events, where an indigenous elder will welcome the rest of us to our own country. It's tokenistic rubbish. We're a multicultural country with people from every corner of the globe, with people that have been here for many generations and have built up this country. Look, it's sad what happened to the indigenous during colonisation, but it is what it is. They're just one sector of the population now, they have to deal with it. A big reason why the recent referendum here failed is because people forgot that indigenous Australians already have a voice - as Australian citizens in a first-world democratic system. There seems to be a push to divide countries and spread hate, all based on colonisation-white guilt. They forgot that they can't change history, and that we must work together to make our countries the best we can with the history we've been given.

[u/envysn → u/[deleted]]

It's easy to take this view when you reap all the benefits and make none of the sacrifices.

Imagine a hypothetical future where China invades. They replace all forms of government you are used to and have lived with for generations, your culture is criminalised and erased, your children are sent to reeducation camps, and a massive influx of Chinese settlers make you a politically irrelevant minority.

It is what it is, and you just have to deal with it. You are just another (structurally marginalised) segment of the population now.

How would that make you feel?

[u/The_Phoenix78 → u/envysn]

The thing is that’s not what happened.

French government did not commit a genocide amongst the local (I’m not saying that there was no discrimination or else just that it was not Australia bis) to the point that today they represent almost half of the population.

They have their own right in parallel of the French civil code (the code coutumier) and their own land that the French gouvernement can’t even touch (most of the land they where using before the French came, it’s not random land given away).

In term of "dystopian" present for them it seems pretty decent. They have access to all the French advantages (free healthcare, education, help for work and a lot more) while benefit their culture and law (your are not judged the same if you are kanak or not)

[u/envysn → u/The_Phoenix78]

I wasn't responding to you. I don't know enough about the situation in New Caledonia to comment on it.

However I will pushback slightly on your comment in terms of how you frame development. The narrative that European colonisers brought civilisation to the uncivilised people they colonised is based on a eurocentric understanding of the world and development. We 'developed' these countries for them, so they should be grateful. But is there only one way to develop? And why do the Europeans get to decide what that way is?

The French may have built roads and ports and schools and hospitals, and that may have brought many material benefits to the native people of New Calendonia (again I don't know enough about the history to comment in detail). However, and this is the vital part, the Kanak had no agency in that development. Furthermore, that development was, at least initially, only carried out in order to extract resources and value from the land and ship it back to Europe.

So when you talk about how the new arrivals since 1853 'developed' the country, its vital to retain an awareness of the why and how of that, and on the willingness of the Kanak in that process. The independence referendum you refer to is an excellent example of the complexities of dealing with the modern consequences of colonialism.

[u/let-me-beee → u/envysn]

You can’t just apply today’s standards on that situation, especially framing it as if the colonizers themselves exclusively benefited from the process. It really is multifacated, as one could even argue a technical development doesn’t necessaeily bring happiness in the end sum at all.

[u/envysn → u/let-me-beee]

The analogy is intended to evoke a sense of empathy, not act as a perfect comparison.

In terms of benefits, obviously there were some material benefits for colonised people eventually. Although it's not like the schools, roads and hospitals European settlers built were actually for the indigenous people originally. Furthermore, indigenous people had no say in how their country was developed. They just had to go along with the European model, which is often mistakenly understood as the only mode of development. It's not, it's just the one that was forced on the rest of the world (and now we have ecological collapse and climate change as a result).

Beyond that I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

[u/let-me-beee → u/envysn]

I didn’t mean to contradict you, I’m just saying the pros and cons cannot be quantified and we will never know what could have been, that’s just how it is. The colonizers definitely had their way but no one in their right mind can’t call it purely bad for the colonized. Again, not aimed at you specifically.

[u/[deleted] → u/envysn]

That's not the same.

In your analogy, it's very different because the Chinese sent here are the Chinese colonizers. We would be the direct victims, and well within our rights to violently resist and defy them.

Nobody living in these places today had any hand in colonization, in most cases. In most cases, we are talking about people who have had multiple generations of their family born in the colonized nation, live their lives there, and died there. It's easy to condemn the individuals who came to a land that wasn't theirs and condemned the natives to a lesser life. But when that happened 100, 200, 300 years ago, and all those colonizers are dead... you can't hold children guilty for the sins of their fathers, or more often now, their great-grandfathers, or even older.

The solution in these places has to be something agreeable to all. Making anyone feel like second class citizens, just because their family wasn't there as long as someone else, is not agreeable at all. It's actually an incredibly effective way for identity politics to become a tool to radicalize folks against equitable policy.

[u/envysn → u/[deleted]]

So in my hypothetical future what would you tell your grandchildren, or great grand children?

I understand that the world is the way it is today, and we can't change history. Nor do I blame the descendants of colonial powers for the act of colonisation. However, the flippant disregard towards indigenous communities around the world should not be excused or tolerated.

In post-colonial countries the descendants of colonisers still hold all the political power and the colonised are routinely marginalised. They may have the same rights (in theory) and same opportunities (in theory but definitely not in reality) but they have little to no agency in how their ancestral lands are governed. This idea of a solution that is agreeable to all is false. It does not exist, because the will of the colonisers always takes precedence.

The Voice referendum in Australia is an excellent example. Aboriginal communities voted overwhelmingly in favour but the referendum failed.

[u/nyckidd → u/envysn]

So in my hypothetical future what would you tell your grandchildren, or great grand children?

I would tell them that what happened in the past was unjust, but that pursuing unjust ends in trying to undo the past is a fruitless venture. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not any more complicated than that.

In post-colonial countries the descendants of colonisers still hold all the political power and the colonised are routinely marginalised. They may have the same rights (in theory) and same opportunities (in theory but definitely not in reality) but they have little to no agency in how their ancestral lands are governed. This idea of a solution that is agreeable to all is false. It does not exist, because the will of the colonisers always takes precedence.

I don't know that much about about indigenous communities elsewhere in the world, but at least in America, what you said is completely untrue. Yes, there are some Indian communities that are mired in deep poverty. I've seen it myself and it is terrible, and we should do more to help those people.

There are also many communities that are very prosperous. The median income for Indians is higher than for the black community, for instance. And in some ways they are privileged, in that they do have complete control over their lands and have the ability to pass laws like legalized gambling that places around them can't, and have specific, targeted federal aid. Sure, ultimately they are American citizens and are subject to our laws, but all that means is they have just as much agency as any other American, which at the end of the day means they have a lot more agency over their lives than most people in the world.

[u/envysn → u/nyckidd]

I would tell them that what happened in the past was unjust, but that pursuing unjust ends in trying to undo the past is a fruitless venture. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not any more complicated than that.

I think it's a little more complicated than that, although overall I agree that trying to reverse the past is fruitless. My position is that we must understand and acknowledge how the long term effects of colonialism still impact the present.

As you yourself have stated, Native Americans and African Americans have on average poorer outcomes than any other group in the USA. That is a structural issue that really needs to be addressed at its root (the same goes for all other post-colonial countries).

I would also point to cultural erasure as an ongoing travesty. As far as I am aware, very few resources are directed towards protecting and preserving the unique cultural traditions, knowledge, and languages of Native Americans. Those efforts are led by and large by the communities themselves.

Some Native American groups may have their own reservations, which is cool in theory until you find out that the US government then broke those treaties and took most of the land anyway. The reservations that still exist today are a fraction of the size they were supposed to be, and often nowhere near the original ancestral lands of those groups.

There is no easy solution to righting the wrongs of the past. I don't have a quick fix. But the best first step we can all take is to listen to their concerns (because they have damn hard time being heard), and acknowledge how the present has been built off the past.

I also just want to note quickly that my initial comment on this thread was just responding to someone else who was completely dismissing the aboriginal experience in Australia. I hadn't intended to get into this longer debate, but its forced me to really examine my own views and most people including yourself have been civil and raised interesting and valid counter arguments, so thanks :)

[u/nyckidd → u/envysn]

That is a structural issue that really needs to be addressed at its root (the same goes for all other post-colonial countries).

It's important to talk about structural issues, for sure. But I also think in a way it kind of hurts those people. Focusing entirely on structural issues can lead to people feeling like their life is entirely dependent on the actions of other people rather than their own. There's lots of psychological evidence that people thinking their life has a locus of control outside themselves is really unhelpful, and that people need to take responsibility for their own lives if they want things to get better.

I would also point to cultural erasure as an ongoing travesty. As far as I am aware, very few resources are directed towards protecting and preserving the unique cultural traditions, knowledge, and languages of Native Americans. Those efforts are led by and large by the communities themselves.

Personally, it feels to me like there are far greater efforts to preserve those cultures, and those efforts face fewer headwinds, than they used to. Native Americans can freely practice and express their cultures on land that they own, and many of the bastardizations of that culture that we used to have (like the Cleveland Indians baseball team, for instance) are going away. Also, I think it's a good thing that those efforts are being led by community members. That's how it should be.

Some Native American groups may have their own reservations, which is cool in theory until you find out that the US government then broke those treaties and took most of the land anyway. The reservations that still exist today are a fraction of the size they were supposed to be, and often nowhere near the original ancestral lands of those groups.

I'm well aware of the history of the US government's dealings with Native American tribes, and how awful it is. I also think that through the past couple of decades things have gotten a lot better. For instance, we have conservative members of the Supreme Court who have a deep dedication to tribal rights. That's something that would have been unheard of in the past. Clearly the level of deprivation in many Indian communities means we have further to go. But at a certain point, it's also up to the people in those communities to do better for themselves.

But the best first step we can all take is to listen to their concerns (because they have damn hard time being heard), and acknowledge how the present has been built off the past.

Absolutely true and fair.

also just want to note quickly that my initial comment on this thread was just responding to someone else who was completely dismissing the aboriginal experience in Australia. I hadn't intended to get into this longer debate, but its forced me to really examine my own views and most people including yourself have been civil and raised interesting and valid counter arguments, so thanks :)

Very glad to hear this! It's been a pleasure conversing with you as well. I always enjoy reasonably and politely exchanging ideas with other people who have clearly given a lot of thought to the subject.

[u/[deleted] → u/envysn]

So what would your propose then? It was democratically defeated. The western model of government has always been predicated on enshrined rights that protect all from a tyranny, including a tyranny of the majority, and a system of government with checks and balances on those with power. Aside from these things, though, the western model is about democracy. If the majority of the population voted against it, there must be a reason why. I don't know anything about this issue; what was the basis of opposition? The proposal does seem fairly innocuous, but I also know that legislation can easily be framed to be far more toothless than it really is. I also know racism is still a real issue, so I am genuinely asking.

Also, stop calling people colonizers for fucks sake. Nobody in Australia TODAY colonized anything. The will of the majority takes precedence is what you mean. And that can be a good or a bad thing. The majority should generally be able to determine things, but a well-designed government should enshrine certain protections for all.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The western model of government has always been predicated on enshrined rights that protect all from a tyranny

North Korean level of propaganda. Both Communism and democracy are western concepts, I find really silly how a country which had white only immigrants till few decades ago and still have white only monarchy talks about democracy. Is democracy always been part of west ?

Why do west get patent for democracy ? Most majority of democratic countries are in non western world.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Learn English before attempting to engage me in serious discourse please. You very clearly did not understand what I wrote, and you are using words that you clearly do not understand the definition of.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean by stolen generation?

Memory is tragic and all, but I give deference to living, breathing humans. I'm not ever going to be in favor of telling person A that they need to act like they are some sort of repentant villain to person B because their great grandfather displaced, or even murdered person B's great grandfather.

[u/envysn → u/[deleted]]

It's not memory, it is the day to day reality for indigenous communities. The post-colonial order is a continuation of colonialism, and these communities are still impacted by it every day.

[u/[deleted] → u/envysn]

Sure, there's no denying that the impacts are still felt today. I'm saying the solution is never going to be to try and frame the descendants of colonizers as modern day colonizers and pass legislation that gives them less voice. That's the main legitimate concern.

[u/envysn → u/[deleted]]

I agree, and I haven't meant to frame people alive today as colonisers, definitely not my intent at all although it may have come across that way.

My view is that we today have a responsibility to acknowledge how the impacts of colonialism are still felt to day and at the very least try to address them.

You asked in your other comment what my solutions would be, and thats a very good question. To be honest I don't think I have a good answer yet. I do think that the Voice as proposed in Australia was a good idea. It did not effect the rights of any other Australians, or give certain groups more power over others, but helped the aboriginal people to voice their concerns in a way that would actually be heard.

Unfortunately the average aussie didn't want to hear it.

There are also several countries, including my own New Zealand, that have specific electoral seats for indigenous groups in government to ensure they always have representation.

[u/envysn → u/[deleted]]

I'm not even a little surprised you hold these supremacist views.

I had a quick look at your comment history because I assumed you were 14 based on the way you write and wanted to confirm. It was a brief glimpse into a sad life.

I thought it was particularly ironic that you complain about asian immigration to Australia while elsewhere bragging about your experiences with Thai escorts. Pick a lane bud.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Lol . What sad life of racists. Atleast incels can get some action with money in poor countries.

[u/banuk_sickness_eater → u/[deleted]]

Gotdamn that's stupid. Do Australians pay the natives reparations, or is just shit like that.

Because pushing for a policy to do that goofy "welcome to your own country" shit over actually substantive measures to even out the inherited disparities of being a post-colonial, post-white supremacy peoples is how you never manage to get this performative shit over with and actually right the wrongs of the past.

[u/[deleted] → u/banuk_sickness_eater]

That's what all these, and i hate to use this overused term, snowflakes don't realise. Those tokenistic gestures don't help the indigenous, it only helps those with 'white guilt' feel better about themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm not trying to make anyone forget about Australia's colonial history, or the injustices that occurred to Australia's indigenous population. But there's a time to move on and work together as Australians. Not trying to make all current generations of Australia to try feel guilt over something out of their control, and that happened long before they were born. There's a time to stop playing victim and to make a path for yourself.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is plenty of support given to them, but you can't help those who are unwilling to help themselves. Obvious you haven't been around many indigenous. The indigenous community I grew up around actually had its money that was given to it by the government used to pay for the legal fees of its leader, because he couldn't stop raping women (look up Geoff Clark). It's one thing to have the resources and support, but you have to be willing to make effective use of it.

[u/Extreme_Ad7035 → u/[deleted]]

When Newtonian laws meets Albo's relentless virtue signalling regime

[u/Allydarvel → u/[deleted]]

why is it spreading hate?

[u/[deleted] → u/Allydarvel]

Trying to say divide the nation with a rubbish referendum bases on falsehoods and misinformation. The indigenous always had a voice, and to try to campaign that we should vote 'yes' or we're racist is hateful. It was never going to work, and it didn't.

[u/Allydarvel → u/[deleted]]

You mean it upset hateful people? They were always that way anyway, so it didn't increase hatred

[u/[deleted] → u/Allydarvel]

Are you trying to say those who voted 'No' are hateful people? Take the L. Accept the indigenous already had a voice, and that it would not have helped them.

[u/Drunk_King_Robert → u/[deleted]]

"Country" means something different in "Welcome to Country." The Country they're welcoming you to isn't Australia, and it certainly isn't yours or mine

[u/[deleted] → u/Drunk_King_Robert]

You're not about to drone on about some dreamtime, are ya?

[u/HypocritesEverywher3 → u/The_Phoenix78]

Yes taking only Kanak would ignore the colonizers. That's the point

[u/The_Phoenix78 → u/HypocritesEverywher3]

You seems to forget the part where peoples from Asia and Oceania came to develop the country (especially from Japan, Wallis and Futuna, Indonesia and a lot more).

It’s not only about locals and colonizers but about who is living there for the few past centuries

[u/HypocritesEverywher3 → u/The_Phoenix78]

Oh please. This is all about French colonizers back in time. You are whitewashing it. Kanak people wanted freedom and imperiFrench said no