When I've had the conversation in the image, it's never had a chance to go anywhere near policy talk. They bring up "But the scary brown people will do a revenge," as soon as you point out that the European colonial project was evil from its inception and remains so
They think morality has something to do with geopolitics, and as soon as you point out the contradiction that "your story's heroes are actually villains" they experience dissonance and try to resolve it by applying their beloved moral symmetry
If that's true, then we should be annihilated balanced against we haven't been annihilated, so that must not be the whole truth. This returns their minds to placidity
When I've had the conversation in the image, it's never had a chance to go anywhere near policy talk.
That's weird because in real life and online, when I've had these conversations, I've tried to immediately ask about policy, but nobody can give me a straight answer.
I just get vague notions like "give the land back" (to who exactly, and how is that decided?) Or allowing indigenous people to have a say in what happens to their land (like, does it become a special autonomous political area in the US? A separate entity all together?)
When I ask these questions, they go to the line from the meme "lol you just think they're gonna genocide you." I don't even live in the US. I'm not JAQing off--I actually want to know, but I have yet to hear one concrete example of what this transition would look like.
Well I'm normally having the conversation with US conservatives in the context of responding to them moralizing against a non-US country or a domestic minority, and I'm normally doing it to get them to shut up and feel weird about it. Those conversations are framed in terms of morality for that reason, so what that looks like is the dissolution of every nation whose legal legitimacy depends on the doctrine of Christian discovery
But I frame those conversations morally because our present is so starkly different from any idea of how things ought to be, except for a liberal one. This makes liberals, including conservatives, easy to disorient for a few minutes by disrupting their feeling that things are more or less as they should be
Since you're actually asking, though, I don't know much about decolonial theory. I'm just a white southern-US baby leftist. The best I can do is point you toward Fanon for an examination of colonialism's structure and phenomena
They bring up "But the scary brown people will do a revenge," as soon as you point out that the European colonial project was evil from its inception and remains so
I would assume they think that giving the land back means they have to get off it and they don't have somewhere else to be
Yeah, a lot of times that's what they mean, though I've also heard more "they will exterminate us" fear-fantasies from chuds than I would have expected. In general, they think that decolonization means getting colonized in the same way they assume that black nationalists are white-nationalists-but-black or that feminists want a matriarchy
When I've had the conversation in the image, it's never had a chance to go anywhere near policy talk. They bring up "But the scary brown people will do a revenge," as soon as you point out that the European colonial project was evil from its inception and remains so
They think morality has something to do with geopolitics, and as soon as you point out the contradiction that "your story's heroes are actually villains" they experience dissonance and try to resolve it by applying their beloved moral symmetry
If that's true, then we should be annihilated balanced against we haven't been annihilated, so that must not be the whole truth. This returns their minds to placidity
That's weird because in real life and online, when I've had these conversations, I've tried to immediately ask about policy, but nobody can give me a straight answer.
I just get vague notions like "give the land back" (to who exactly, and how is that decided?) Or allowing indigenous people to have a say in what happens to their land (like, does it become a special autonomous political area in the US? A separate entity all together?)
When I ask these questions, they go to the line from the meme "lol you just think they're gonna genocide you." I don't even live in the US. I'm not JAQing off--I actually want to know, but I have yet to hear one concrete example of what this transition would look like.
Well I'm normally having the conversation with US conservatives in the context of responding to them moralizing against a non-US country or a domestic minority, and I'm normally doing it to get them to shut up and feel weird about it. Those conversations are framed in terms of morality for that reason, so what that looks like is the dissolution of every nation whose legal legitimacy depends on the doctrine of Christian discovery
But I frame those conversations morally because our present is so starkly different from any idea of how things ought to be, except for a liberal one. This makes liberals, including conservatives, easy to disorient for a few minutes by disrupting their feeling that things are more or less as they should be
Since you're actually asking, though, I don't know much about decolonial theory. I'm just a white southern-US baby leftist. The best I can do is point you toward Fanon for an examination of colonialism's structure and phenomena
that is...some... kind of reasoning you've got there
Just world fallacy is a hell of a drug
I would assume they think that giving the land back means they have to get off it and they don't have somewhere else to be
Yeah, a lot of times that's what they mean, though I've also heard more "they will exterminate us" fear-fantasies from chuds than I would have expected. In general, they think that decolonization means getting colonized in the same way they assume that black nationalists are white-nationalists-but-black or that feminists want a matriarchy