Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #1 
I'm a staunch anti-imperialist, who consider decolonization the best thing to happen in the otherwise bleak 20th century, which was marred by republicanism and totalitarianism.
A lot of members of this forum defend the legacy of British colonialism. Defending British colonialism in India, Africa and the Middle East, Spanish colonialism in Latin America, French colonialism in Africa, Syria and Indochina, Belgian colonialism in Congo and Dutch colonialism in Indonesia (except West Papua) is utterly unacceptable to me. We Kurds still suffer from the legacy of British imperialism. I admire heroes like Nelson Mandela, Cyril Ramaphosa, Martin Luther King, Emperor Haile Selassie, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, David Ben-Gurion, Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani, King Sihanouk and King Taufa'ahau Tupou who fought against colonialism, imperialism and racism. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #2 
Who defends the legacy of British colonialism? I know of only one regular poster here who somewhat does that. Please try to be accurate in your description of other posters.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Who defends the legacy of British colonialism? I know of only one regular poster here who somewhat does that. Please try to be accurate in your description of other posters.

Colonialism is rarely condemned on this forum. I suspect, that a lot of members of this forum associates anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism with leftism, but that's wrong. I'm a conservative Kurdish nationalist, and none of the anti-colonialist leaders, who I mentioned, were Communists. Three of them were monarchs, and while Nehru, Ben-Gurion and Jalal Talabani were socialists, they were democrats, who certainly didn't support Communist totalitarianism. Supporting the right of every nation to be independent ought to be supported by the right as well as by the left.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #4 
Lamarckism is rarely condemned here either. So what? I think I suffer from the flaw of being opinionated sometimes myself, but I hardly think of necessary to put out all my opinions, all the time.

Also, even as someone who likes the idea of smaller states, in general, I doubt that there can be a general principle of every nation having the right to rule itself. National and ethnic groups can be very small and take up very small territory. The Cornish are a nation, at least arguably, should they have a right to independence? It's not an easy question to answer. There's also the issue of why only national groups. Why nor villages or individuals? Some answers come to mind, but they seem somewhat ad hoc if we hold to the kind pf absolutist position you gave. We do have to think about stability and come to a common sense, pragmatic balance. I think we Brits have done this well on Scotland. They had their vote, and we would have respected a yes vote (far more than remainers respected the Brexit vote), but Johnson was right they shouldn't get a new one for a long time, as the SNP would like. Once a generation is enough.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Lamarckism is rarely condemned here either. So what? I think I suffer from the flaw of being opinionated sometimes myself, but I hardly think of necessary to put out all my opinions, all the time.

Also, even as someone who likes the idea of smaller states, in general, I doubt that there can be a general principle of every nation having the right to rule itself. National and ethnic groups can be very small and take up very small territory. The Cornish are a nation, at least arguably, should they have a right to independence? It's not an easy question to answer. There's also the issue of why only national groups. Why nor villages or individuals? Some answers come to mind, but they seem somewhat ad hoc if we hold to the kind pf absolutist position you gave. We do have to think about stability and come to a common sense, pragmatic balance. I think we Brits have done this well on Scotland. They had their vote, and we would have respected a yes vote (far more than remainers respected the Brexit vote), but Johnson was right they shouldn't get a new one for a long time, as the SNP would like. Once a generation is enough.

I agree, that common sense ought to be followed concerning separatism. I'm not opposed to the existence of multi-ethnic states, if the ethnic groups of the state share a national identity. The numerous ethnic groups of Russia shares a Russian national identity. What is important is, that states are based on a shared national identity. Most of the Western European independence movements make no sense to me. I supported Scottish independence during the 2014 referendum, because I would like the independent Kingdom of Scotland to be revived, and because Alex Salmond wanted Scotland to become a Commonwealth realm during the 2014 independence referendum. If Alex Salmond had supported a Scottish republic during the 2014 independence referendum, I wouldn't have supported Scottish independence. I have changed my mind on Scottish independence, because the SNP currently supports Scottish independence in order to rejoin the EU. Scotland has far more in common with England than with mainland Europe. The countries and regions, which are most deserving of independence, are Kurdistan, Tibet, Uyghurstan and West Papua. 

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #6 
I don't support a right to secession in order to establish new sovereign states. A sovereign state has a right to try to prevent secession. But I support international recognition of stable de facto independent states, which aren't recognized by the states, from which they seceded. I support territorial disputes between sovereign states being decided according to the principle of national self-determination. 
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 430
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Lamarckism is rarely condemned here either. So what? I think I suffer from the flaw of being opinionated sometimes myself, but I hardly think of necessary to put out all my opinions, all the time.

Also, even as someone who likes the idea of smaller states, in general, I doubt that there can be a general principle of every nation having the right to rule itself. National and ethnic groups can be very small and take up very small territory. The Cornish are a nation, at least arguably, should they have a right to independence? It's not an easy question to answer. There's also the issue of why only national groups. Why nor villages or individuals? Some answers come to mind, but they seem somewhat ad hoc if we hold to the kind pf absolutist position you gave. We do have to think about stability and come to a common sense, pragmatic balance. I think we Brits have done this well on Scotland. They had their vote, and we would have respected a yes vote (far more than remainers respected the Brexit vote), but Johnson was right they shouldn't get a new one for a long time, as the SNP would like. Once a generation is enough.



Lamarckism (the theory of the inheritability of acquired characteristics) was thrown out the window and consigned to the dustbin of science when Darwin's much more plausible theory of Natural Selection came along. Lamarckism became somewhat of a joke in college biology classes, in their 5 minute introduction to history of the theory of Natural Selection. The prime example of Lamarckism  was giraffes acquiring longer necks because they had to stretch higher for leaves, and passing this along to their offspring. College students chuckled to think how something like that could ever have been taken seriously.

However, evolutionary scientists have long been puzzled by why evolution seems to have proceeded at a more rapid pace at certain times in evolutionary history than at other times. A new theory, called epigenetics, has now been hypothesized. It's theorized that, as an individual organism attempts to deal with changes or stresses in its environment, minute changes occur in the biochemical makeup of the amino-acid sequences which constitute its DNA. And that these minute biochemical changes in the DNA are indeed passed on to its offspring. It apparently works in conjunction with Natural Selection. 

Perhaps poor old Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is having a last laugh in his grave, and his theory of Acquired Characteristics may have been valid after all. 



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.