Workers at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) removed the Tiananmen Massacre monument late on Wednesday night, months after the university said the statue must go. UPDATE: HKU cites ‘safety’ and ‘co…
No matter what i think of a specific Nation-State, i think separatism should always be supported uncritically. That’s like Consent 101. In the name of what would you impose on people to be part of something they don’t want to be part of?!
Who cares if it’s China? In France many people aim for autonomy, too, in the colonized regions from Guadeloupe to Corse or Bretagne/Kanaky. If you pretend to support freedom for people/communities, then you should probably support these anti-colonial struggles too.
That’s a really naive view of the world. A small place like Hong Kong is never going to be independent in practice. So, it’s not a question of whether they’re independent from China, but rather whether they’re going to be under Chinese or western influence.
Meanwhile, it’s also absurd to homogenize people. The reality is that majority of people in HK aren’t exactly against China. There is also a long documented history of US being involved in the drive for separatism.
Depends what you call “independant”. Of course they’re not gonna be 100% resource-sufficient and that’s OK. But why would you have to choose under whose umbrella to hide? Can’t an independent nation conduct partnership and trade with “both” sides (or more)? I mean if in your view humanity requires choosing a side between different colonial Empires, i’d rather not live in this world.
I’m talking about politics. Most countries in the world have to deal with US in terms of funding politicians, spreading propaganda in the media, and economic coercion. Ultimately, when US doesn’t get what it wants then they will fund protests, civil unrest, death squads, and coups in your country. Many books have been written on this subject. The Jakarta Method is a very good read on what happens to countries that try to be independent.
There is no such animal as an independent nation in the real world that we live in. Whether you choose to engage with reality or not is of course your choice.
There’s a few semi-independent nations, although i agree colonial sabotage and psyops is definitely a thing. Whether you choose to continue with this imperialist status quo or not is of course your choice.
All nations fall under some larger umbrella in practice. Meanwhile, whether large nations are going act the way they act is not my choice at all actually. The only choice an individual has is to engage with the facts.
OK so if we agree there’s some things we’re powerless in regards to, can we agree we should live our lives regardless of their positions and not try to accommodate their tyrannical desires in the name of defending the lesser evil?
Power. Do you think China’s “Belt and Road” or USA’s USAID is a humanitarian project? Historical colonization was also presented as a humanitarian project to civilize the “lower people”. These empires are trying to get their hands on all the resources they can.
I think the argument was rather that even if separatism would lead to objectively worse outcomes, forcing someone to stay together as one country would still be (morally) wrong.
And it is highly questionable if it leads to objectively worse outcomes at least when cooperation is still possible. The problem is usually that one side tries to force the issue and that leads to bitterness on both sides and thus cooperation becomes impossible.
Borders are arbitrary. People might as well say the best outcome would be a capitalist world government. So those separatist Chinese that insist on having their own flavor of Capitalism should really just think more of the prosperity of the people ( /s obviously).
In the end the prosperity of the people does indeed matter more, but arbitrary lines on a map only become an issue for that when people make them so. There is nothing inherently problematic in having decentralized means of administration under different flags as long as everyone cooperates.
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.
“In this case, your uncritical support for refusing sex is indistinguishable from uncritical support of rape”
Do you realize how horrible what you’re saying is? If my community doesn’t want to be part of your colonial Empire, just kill us already but don’t pretend we have a moral obligation to live by your rules.
So what? Did you read me defending western Empires? No. But i do read you defending the Chinese empire, and that worries me. If you want to build communism, the first step is to abolish all Nation States for they are bourgeois constructs controlling the people.
No matter what i think of a specific Nation-State, i think separatism should always be supported uncritically. That’s like Consent 101. In the name of what would you impose on people to be part of something they don’t want to be part of?!
Who cares if it’s China? In France many people aim for autonomy, too, in the colonized regions from Guadeloupe to Corse or Bretagne/Kanaky. If you pretend to support freedom for people/communities, then you should probably support these anti-colonial struggles too.
That’s a really naive view of the world. A small place like Hong Kong is never going to be independent in practice. So, it’s not a question of whether they’re independent from China, but rather whether they’re going to be under Chinese or western influence.
Meanwhile, it’s also absurd to homogenize people. The reality is that majority of people in HK aren’t exactly against China. There is also a long documented history of US being involved in the drive for separatism.
Depends what you call “independant”. Of course they’re not gonna be 100% resource-sufficient and that’s OK. But why would you have to choose under whose umbrella to hide? Can’t an independent nation conduct partnership and trade with “both” sides (or more)? I mean if in your view humanity requires choosing a side between different colonial Empires, i’d rather not live in this world.
I’m talking about politics. Most countries in the world have to deal with US in terms of funding politicians, spreading propaganda in the media, and economic coercion. Ultimately, when US doesn’t get what it wants then they will fund protests, civil unrest, death squads, and coups in your country. Many books have been written on this subject. The Jakarta Method is a very good read on what happens to countries that try to be independent.
There is no such animal as an independent nation in the real world that we live in. Whether you choose to engage with reality or not is of course your choice.
edit: spelling
There’s a few semi-independent nations, although i agree colonial sabotage and psyops is definitely a thing. Whether you choose to continue with this imperialist status quo or not is of course your choice.
All nations fall under some larger umbrella in practice. Meanwhile, whether large nations are going act the way they act is not my choice at all actually. The only choice an individual has is to engage with the facts.
OK so if we agree there’s some things we’re powerless in regards to, can we agree we should live our lives regardless of their positions and not try to accommodate their tyrannical desires in the name of defending the lesser evil?
Could you be specific what these tyrannical desires you’re referring to are?
Power. Do you think China’s “Belt and Road” or USA’s USAID is a humanitarian project? Historical colonization was also presented as a humanitarian project to civilize the “lower people”. These empires are trying to get their hands on all the resources they can.
Removed by mod
I think the argument was rather that even if separatism would lead to objectively worse outcomes, forcing someone to stay together as one country would still be (morally) wrong.
And it is highly questionable if it leads to objectively worse outcomes at least when cooperation is still possible. The problem is usually that one side tries to force the issue and that leads to bitterness on both sides and thus cooperation becomes impossible.
Removed by mod
Borders are arbitrary. People might as well say the best outcome would be a capitalist world government. So those separatist Chinese that insist on having their own flavor of Capitalism should really just think more of the prosperity of the people ( /s obviously).
In the end the prosperity of the people does indeed matter more, but arbitrary lines on a map only become an issue for that when people make them so. There is nothing inherently problematic in having decentralized means of administration under different flags as long as everyone cooperates.
Removed by mod
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
Removed by mod
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
Removed by mod
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.
In this case, your uncritical support for separatism is indistinguishable from uncritical support for Anglo colonialism.
Uncritical support for repatriation from settler colonists and their collaborators.
“In this case, your uncritical support for refusing sex is indistinguishable from uncritical support of rape”
Do you realize how horrible what you’re saying is? If my community doesn’t want to be part of your colonial Empire, just kill us already but don’t pretend we have a moral obligation to live by your rules.
Do you realize pee pee poo poo?
The colonizers in this case are Anglo. You’re participating in an anglophone forum. Idgaf what you have to say about colonial empires.
So what? Did you read me defending western Empires? No. But i do read you defending the Chinese empire, and that worries me. If you want to build communism, the first step is to abolish all Nation States for they are bourgeois constructs controlling the people.