I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies.
It's true for the UK and France. Less so for those other countries. And Germany (effectively) didn't have any colonies. Historical ties and language probably helped a lot more than 'guilt' in letting them in (besides, guilt is for the people and not for the governments that make policy), as there is almost none of that in my experience.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
It would have been possible, but it is not the case. Colonialism is not a salient issue, and many Europeans remain proud of their colonial history. WW2 plays a much bigger role, even though we were the victims!
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into.
It is, and it actually is something I do. But mostly online. It's so much easier to talk to people in real life, because you know them, they know you, you like each other. People in real life don't call me an FSB agent or a Jew or a black (or a white for that matter).
Also, when you can't get through to people no matter how good your arguments, then it's easy to think the other side is just stupid or think or insane.
Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
People who believe in one 'conspiracy' are more likely to believe in others as well, but I think something that so called 'conspiracy theorists' tend to do poorly is judge the likelihood or feasibility of 'conspiracies'. It's as if their default mode of explanation is a conspiracy, as it is in the Middle East.
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
It's true for the UK and France. Less so for those other countries. And Germany (effectively) didn't have any colonies. Historical ties and language probably helped a lot more than 'guilt' in letting them in (besides, guilt is for the people and not for the governments that make policy), as there is almost none of that in my experience.
It would have been possible, but it is not the case. Colonialism is not a salient issue, and many Europeans remain proud of their colonial history. WW2 plays a much bigger role, even though we were the victims!
It is, and it actually is something I do. But mostly online. It's so much easier to talk to people in real life, because you know them, they know you, you like each other. People in real life don't call me an FSB agent or a Jew or a black (or a white for that matter).
Also, when you can't get through to people no matter how good your arguments, then it's easy to think the other side is just stupid or think or insane.
People who believe in one 'conspiracy' are more likely to believe in others as well, but I think something that so called 'conspiracy theorists' tend to do poorly is judge the likelihood or feasibility of 'conspiracies'. It's as if their default mode of explanation is a conspiracy, as it is in the Middle East.