This was a very informative article, but I have to admit I don’t agree with it’s framing of the problem.
No doubt, migration has enforced ethnocentric tendencies, and this is reflected in elections. Migration is a problem created by capitalism in a two ways.
People are fleeing their countries because of war, environmental catastrophies or to find a better job and life, among other reasons. Problems that have been created by capitalism.
The most popular receiving countries in europe are former colonialist powers, so good-old racism comes back to the picture since it was not really addressed in the first place. Also in these countries neoliberalism has hijacked governments through legal lobbying, so relevant policies are being implemented that favor of the rich, definitely not the people, even less immigrants.
Briefly I could say, capitalism has destroyed democracy, or at least any reminiscence of democracy that representative democracy had, so the road has been cleared for quite some time now, for neo-fascist tendencies to be represented in local and EU parliaments.
I think talking about migration without mentioning capitalism or neoliberalism, gives a distorted picture of what’s been happening in Europe, during the last decades.
There is also a large analysis around migration that plays various roles in this. Like they mention that services are unmaintainable with no immigration to those areas. But also, who is emmigrating to cities? People seeking higher education, often from more well off families, predominatly women. This leaves a lot of working class men, who is often the main target of the far right. In Sweden, about 25% of men vote for the far right. This is just one example, I imagine there can be a lot of related reasons to this emmigration observation.
The most popular receiving countries in europe are former colonialist powers
Germany and Sweden received one of the highest refugee per Capita, were not part of the colonist movement. The Ottomans were colonizing the entirety of the current problematic areas where refugees are coming from (Syria, Libya, North Africa etc …) yet, you’re blaming the West?
Completely forgotten that you wanted to talk about Sweden and Germany in particular, did you?
As to size comparisons, you could, for example, dunno, look at maps. Hint: Sweden’s only notable colony has been Finland. Germany was a bigger player but came very late to the game.
Completely forgotten that you wanted to talk about Sweden and Germany in particular, did you?
Not at all. You maid a claim, I asked for links. Then I provided 2 that are in relation to the way I see meaningful approaching european colonialism, as a whole since the basis is the same: white supremacy.
As to size comparisons, you could, for example, dunno, look at maps.
There are many criteria on colonial varieties and impact, borders is just one of them. For many more, please see relevant link above (Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization).
Sweden’s only notable colony has been Finland.
Because you say so? Also, this statement undervalues the many Swedish overseas colonies (see relevant link above - Swedish overseas colonies) as well as the swedish participation in slave trade, both legal and illegal. A couple of examples among many.
Germany was a bigger player but came very late to the game.
Germany was a big player, not a bigger player, since late 1800. (see relevant link above - German colonial empire)
several military and genocidal campaigns by the Germans
Also, you talk about big powers, big players, bigger players so vaguely that I find it hard to follow.
You maid a claim, I asked for links. Then I provided 2 that are in relation to the way I see meaningful approaching european colonialism,
Wasn’t me who made that claim. You provided one link that showed Sweden’s colonial empire, tiny in comparison to the big powers (UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia), and one to DDG.
There are many criteria on colonial varieties and impact, borders is just one of them.
You might have an argument with Belgium, there. Sweden, ehhh not really. Germany is a bit of a mixed bag, let’s just say be sure to also ask Samoans. The Herero and Nama was a genocide, yes. Not something you could single Germany out for, though.
participation in slave trade, both legal and illegal
By that account Nigeria has been the primary colonial power. Or better put native-run empires in the rough area.
The Herero and Nama was a genocide, yes. Not something you could single Germany out for, though.
I don’t have someone else in mind? Any relevant link? (Yep, I like links a lot) I only know of the Herero and Nama genocide that was waged by the German Empire.
For the rest you mention about Nigeria, and since the article posted here is about Europe, I will kinda stick to the point I mentioned previously: It is important to be able to approach european colonialism as a whole, since it has the common ground of white supremacy.
To the, what I called, big powers of colonization.
The Dutch While they’re in terms of territory best comparable to Germany, they had their colonial possessions for several hundred years compared to the, not even, 40 years of German control.
Summing up the conversation that took place here before your comment, I’d say the following and copy-paste a couple of things.
Of course there have been different levels of colonization coming from Europe. But in some cases, saying for example Sweden has little colonial involvement is like saying Sweden was a little Nazi in WW2. Should we applaud Sweden then?
So, it is also important to be able to approach european colonialism as a whole, since it has the common ground that whites are superior to everybody else.
This was a very informative article, but I have to admit I don’t agree with it’s framing of the problem.
No doubt, migration has enforced ethnocentric tendencies, and this is reflected in elections. Migration is a problem created by capitalism in a two ways.
Briefly I could say, capitalism has destroyed democracy, or at least any reminiscence of democracy that representative democracy had, so the road has been cleared for quite some time now, for neo-fascist tendencies to be represented in local and EU parliaments.
I think talking about migration without mentioning capitalism or neoliberalism, gives a distorted picture of what’s been happening in Europe, during the last decades.
There is also a large analysis around migration that plays various roles in this. Like they mention that services are unmaintainable with no immigration to those areas. But also, who is emmigrating to cities? People seeking higher education, often from more well off families, predominatly women. This leaves a lot of working class men, who is often the main target of the far right. In Sweden, about 25% of men vote for the far right. This is just one example, I imagine there can be a lot of related reasons to this emmigration observation.
Both war and environmental catastrophes existed prior to capitalism…
Indeed as capitalism and democracy have risen, war deaths have dropped precipitously.
Don’t be purposely obtuse. They very obviously weren’t saying capitalism created the concept of war or environmental catastrophe.
It’s literally right there.
Yes, those specific problems. Not the concept of problems genius.
Germany and Sweden received one of the highest refugee per Capita, were not part of the colonist movement. The Ottomans were colonizing the entirety of the current problematic areas where refugees are coming from (Syria, Libya, North Africa etc …) yet, you’re blaming the West?
Was this a joke?
German colonial empire - wiki
Swedish overseas colonies - wiki
It’s definitely accurate to say that they had very little colonial involvement compared to the big powers.
I wonder how you could back this claim. Any link in mind?
Please take a look at the following articles and maps:
Map: European colonialism conquered every country in the world but these five
Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization - wiki
Completely forgotten that you wanted to talk about Sweden and Germany in particular, did you?
As to size comparisons, you could, for example, dunno, look at maps. Hint: Sweden’s only notable colony has been Finland. Germany was a bigger player but came very late to the game.
I’ll try replying differently.
Not at all. You maid a claim, I asked for links. Then I provided 2 that are in relation to the way I see meaningful approaching european colonialism, as a whole since the basis is the same: white supremacy.
There are many criteria on colonial varieties and impact, borders is just one of them. For many more, please see relevant link above (Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization).
Because you say so? Also, this statement undervalues the many Swedish overseas colonies (see relevant link above - Swedish overseas colonies) as well as the swedish participation in slave trade, both legal and illegal. A couple of examples among many.
Germany was a big player, not a bigger player, since late 1800. (see relevant link above - German colonial empire)
Also, you talk about big powers, big players, bigger players so vaguely that I find it hard to follow.
Wasn’t me who made that claim. You provided one link that showed Sweden’s colonial empire, tiny in comparison to the big powers (UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia), and one to DDG.
You might have an argument with Belgium, there. Sweden, ehhh not really. Germany is a bit of a mixed bag, let’s just say be sure to also ask Samoans. The Herero and Nama was a genocide, yes. Not something you could single Germany out for, though.
By that account Nigeria has been the primary colonial power. Or better put native-run empires in the rough area.
You are so right about that, my bad.
I don’t have someone else in mind? Any relevant link? (Yep, I like links a lot) I only know of the Herero and Nama genocide that was waged by the German Empire.
For the rest you mention about Nigeria, and since the article posted here is about Europe, I will kinda stick to the point I mentioned previously: It is important to be able to approach european colonialism as a whole, since it has the common ground of white supremacy.
deleted by creator
Sure man.
Compare for example the extent and duration of the Swedish and German colonies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies#/media/File:SwedishColonialEmpire(FIX).png Wtf is that even, you have to zoom in to properly see most of it lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire#/media/File:German_colonial.PNG
To the, what I called, big powers of colonization.
The Dutch While they’re in terms of territory best comparable to Germany, they had their colonial possessions for several hundred years compared to the, not even, 40 years of German control.
For the others, it’s not even close:
Spain
Portugal
France
Britain
Always happy to help out!
Summing up the conversation that took place here before your comment, I’d say the following and copy-paste a couple of things.
Of course there have been different levels of colonization coming from Europe. But in some cases, saying for example Sweden has little colonial involvement is like saying Sweden was a little Nazi in WW2. Should we applaud Sweden then?
So, it is also important to be able to approach european colonialism as a whole, since it has the common ground that whites are superior to everybody else.