Because of the recent attack on Israel, some have been talking about decolonization more frequently. I was reading Holly’s Substack yesterday and she wrote about the following quote: “A pro-Palestine student from George Mason University wrote this: ‘As university students, it is crucial to have a genuine understanding of the true nature of decolonization. Decolonization is not just a term studied within the confines of a classroom, and it is not just a term analyzed through political theory and social literature. Rather, it is a term that entails resistance in the face of a colonizer. Decolonization entails
Good analysis. I like the model you use to explain why people become trapped in victimhood. It is very helpful.
The video of the black fellow was a great illustration. He is blind to the opportunities America gives him and he will spend his life fighting an oppressor that doesn't exist. Absolutely tragic.
He doesn't have to spend his life fighting a ghost. If he truly wants help, he'll figure it out. When people are properly motivated they find all the help they need to get what they've been desiring.
Thanks for this wonderfully creative twist on the concept of colonization, Barbara. Could an open southern border that invites millions of illegal immigrants be a deliberate act of colinization?
Don't know if the illegal immigrants crossing the border are trying to change our government. But the ones who opened the border for them certainly are...
I do think Spaceman Spiff is correct that the migrants are just pawns. Yes, you could say there is a faction of Democrat-Communists who are trying to colonize the US away from being a republic, this is why they talk about "our democracy." Sure, their desire for the migrants may be part of that.
The immigrants are just pawns in my view. But there is a palpable sense among Democrats that most Hispanics will vote for them. Therefore if there are more they stay in power etc. I don't think the Hispanic immigrants are doing anything other than trying to improve their lives.
That said, this kind of large scale cultural shift is usually fatal. It often takes centuries to amalgamate new peoples. So the tension that arise can be dangerous. Israel and Palestine are an example. If we ignore the origins of the recent conflict, of who belongs where and who has the right to the land, what we actually have are two different cultures trying to exist on the same territory. It doesn't usually work.
I”If you view yourself as a “victim” and see the culture as a “persecutor” and desire more power through rioting (as opposed to lawful pursuits) then you’re likely stuck in the drama triangle. That usually means your emotions (and not logic) are your guides.”
So by this logic, the British citizens who were colonists in North America were in a drama triangle because they felt (were) persecuted and desired more power/freedom and obtained independence through rioting rather than lawful pursuits”?
I’m trying to understand when do you think it is okay for a people to rebel against “a long train of abuses....”
That's an excellent question. First I think the British colonists in the US were not rioting, per se.
But, let's say there were. I think it would be very difficult to know the exact time when it switches, but a general rule would be if not a lot of people are upset and rioting, the reasons for the riots are probably emotional rather than logical.
If there is a real reason to try to overthrow an authoritarian government a lot of people would be very upset on principles. If it's just like a party or rave, just a handful of people, then it's probably not based on principles but emotion.
But it's going to be difficult to agree on when that is, partly because of motivated reasoning (people don't want to accept their reasons are based in emotions and not on actual injustice). Because some want to play "victim" they will make up reasons that sound like an injustice was done, even if it wasn't.
If you're new to this Substack, also note the difference between playing victim and actually being a victim is whether or not you take personal responsibility to clean up your life (even if you were actually victimized). So if people are not taking any responsibility, they're likely playing victim, rather than being an actual victim and in need of a new situation/government, etc.
A riot is not taking personal responsibility, it's throwing a tantrum and hoping it will help (which it won't). A war (in this case) is taking personal responsibility to free yourself from authoritarians.
Does this clear it up a bit better? Thanks for the question I had to think about how to best answer it. It's nice to have actual discussions on things like this.
Good analysis. I like the model you use to explain why people become trapped in victimhood. It is very helpful.
The video of the black fellow was a great illustration. He is blind to the opportunities America gives him and he will spend his life fighting an oppressor that doesn't exist. Absolutely tragic.
He doesn't have to spend his life fighting a ghost. If he truly wants help, he'll figure it out. When people are properly motivated they find all the help they need to get what they've been desiring.
Thanks for this wonderfully creative twist on the concept of colonization, Barbara. Could an open southern border that invites millions of illegal immigrants be a deliberate act of colinization?
If they're trying to change our government, yes, probably.
Don't know if the illegal immigrants crossing the border are trying to change our government. But the ones who opened the border for them certainly are...
I do think Spaceman Spiff is correct that the migrants are just pawns. Yes, you could say there is a faction of Democrat-Communists who are trying to colonize the US away from being a republic, this is why they talk about "our democracy." Sure, their desire for the migrants may be part of that.
The immigrants are just pawns in my view. But there is a palpable sense among Democrats that most Hispanics will vote for them. Therefore if there are more they stay in power etc. I don't think the Hispanic immigrants are doing anything other than trying to improve their lives.
That said, this kind of large scale cultural shift is usually fatal. It often takes centuries to amalgamate new peoples. So the tension that arise can be dangerous. Israel and Palestine are an example. If we ignore the origins of the recent conflict, of who belongs where and who has the right to the land, what we actually have are two different cultures trying to exist on the same territory. It doesn't usually work.
I recently read the 100 Year War on Palestine… it gave me Deja vu to what’s been occurring in America..
I”If you view yourself as a “victim” and see the culture as a “persecutor” and desire more power through rioting (as opposed to lawful pursuits) then you’re likely stuck in the drama triangle. That usually means your emotions (and not logic) are your guides.”
So by this logic, the British citizens who were colonists in North America were in a drama triangle because they felt (were) persecuted and desired more power/freedom and obtained independence through rioting rather than lawful pursuits”?
I’m trying to understand when do you think it is okay for a people to rebel against “a long train of abuses....”
That's an excellent question. First I think the British colonists in the US were not rioting, per se.
But, let's say there were. I think it would be very difficult to know the exact time when it switches, but a general rule would be if not a lot of people are upset and rioting, the reasons for the riots are probably emotional rather than logical.
If there is a real reason to try to overthrow an authoritarian government a lot of people would be very upset on principles. If it's just like a party or rave, just a handful of people, then it's probably not based on principles but emotion.
But it's going to be difficult to agree on when that is, partly because of motivated reasoning (people don't want to accept their reasons are based in emotions and not on actual injustice). Because some want to play "victim" they will make up reasons that sound like an injustice was done, even if it wasn't.
If you're new to this Substack, also note the difference between playing victim and actually being a victim is whether or not you take personal responsibility to clean up your life (even if you were actually victimized). So if people are not taking any responsibility, they're likely playing victim, rather than being an actual victim and in need of a new situation/government, etc.
A riot is not taking personal responsibility, it's throwing a tantrum and hoping it will help (which it won't). A war (in this case) is taking personal responsibility to free yourself from authoritarians.
Does this clear it up a bit better? Thanks for the question I had to think about how to best answer it. It's nice to have actual discussions on things like this.