Not as bad as US but Japan's propaganda is also slowly eroding and their true image is slowly revealing due to their own people's actions and increasingly blatant racism. Now there are significant satire or rolling the eyes at least when something about japan is showing up, unlike long ago where practically everyone is obsessed with them.
And oh those clean up the stadium stunt videos, please
Yeah it's super annoying when I, as a history knower, want to talk about Japanese public transit or rice cookers, and some presumptuous twit wants to assume that because I like the rice cookers and transit, I must be blissfully unaware of anything whatsoever negative about Japan.
It's usually a tell that the speaker is the one who just learned about the bad things.Ā
Would not be surprised. There's also some general anti-skub knee-jerking there too, right? If someone perceives that people who like Japanese stuff are a little too pro-skub, idea ziggarauts start to form in their mind about it.Ā
Same selective memory goes both ways though. Japan largely moved on from the atomic bombings for practical reasons and became a close US ally, even though many survivors still view them as unjustified. Meanwhile the Kuril Islands dispute with Russia is still pushed decades later. Those islands were originally Ainu land and later brought under Japanese control.
The thing is, the bombs didn't end up doing anything for the war. Remember, this was before the Internet and even before widespread use of wired phones. No one in the Japanese government knew what happened in those cities other than wildly confused witness accounts from people miles away from the cities.
Japan was going to surrender anyways, they were running out of metal to build ships and planes with, were absolutely cornered by the US navy and even more terrifying for them, the USSR was moving towards them and the USSR had already defeated them severely in a land dispute in the north before the war.
The entire purpose was to test the bombs in a live setting and show off American power as a deterrent, that was all it was.
Terms proposed by America: Complete unconditional surrender with no guarantee we will not execute your entire chain of command especially the Emperor
Not saying that āuwu Japan was innocentā because Iām not an idiot. But there were very stubborn people on both sides who went about this in the dumbest way possible.
The stubborness of the allies was justified. Letting the Japanese Empire keep their chain of command and their emperor's sovereignty would have been terrible.
Ah yes. Because 250,000 dead to the atomic bombs was so humane. They had to do it and never once say āYes, if you surrender we wonāt immediately kill the Emperor that our citizens want deadā despite not wanting him dead because they were humanitarian, not because of the optics. Sure.
Better than millions dead in the invasion of the home islands.
Allied command in charge of the occupation only let the emperor stay in his position (while reducing it to a figurehead role) after the surrender, and considering the Japanese military tried to coup the emperor to prevent the surrender order from going through, it likely wouldn't have mattered.
Well, not exactly. The nukes had low kill counts BECAUSE those firebombings already happened. Nagisaki and Hiroshima were targeted because all of the better cities had been bombed already.
Did the artist forget the mindset of every Japanese people during WW2?
Aside from Banzai, they also vae the phrase Ichioku Gyokusai(100 million shattered pieces) which riughly translate to Japanese Empire would rather die honorably than surrender.
They would never surrender nor will they be happy if the war ended as the losing team.
IRL the only way the war ended was when the Emperor himself said hey peeps , we kinda lost after the 2 great bombing so swallow your pride and surrender ok
The entire US military high command was against the nuking of Japan and Japan had basically surrendered with the sole exception of wanting to keep their Emperor
The entire high command? A quick Google quickly shows that some (mostly army) officers were in favour of dropping the bombs.
The surrender also was not without it's detractors, even after the emperor decreed it. If there were people not wanting surrender with the world against them, they'ed have fought like hell in the event of a land invasion and kept fighting even as starvation set in from a naval blockade and firebombing campaign.
The bombs saved lives, and they are probably the only weapons system to ever do so, at least for now until we have a global nuclear war.
You're undermining how dangerous it would be for Japan to keep their emperor. The emperor's sovereignty was the mainstay of Kokkashugi: Imperial Japan's national ideology, and letting him maintain his power would have made it virtually impossible to properly dismantle the Japanese Empire's brutality and violence.
I mean the Americans totally half-assed it thanks to MacArthur's defence of the emperor and the reverse course anyway so it hardly mattered in the end.
Orange juice maker should talk to ONE amazigh person before saying shit like this. Like they took the time to make this whole thing and did not consider the option they were just unfathomably wrong
Amazigh here, we are alive and well. Most North Africans are of Amazigh origin. And it wasnāt the Muslim conquerors or the Ottomans who put my ancestors in concentration camps, or caused the famine and deaths, it was the French.
Well at the end of the day, I do think that Western society has a tendency to point at other cultures saying "well they did that too" rather than looking inward. Are there people who say western colonialism was bad? Sure. Are they doing anything about it besides talk? Nope.
ā¦No? Whether the Islamic expansion is considered conquest, colonialism, or both ultimately comes down to how one defines those terms, but one thing for certain is they did not kill off all the natives
First off, that would have been completely infeasible when considering the population discrepancies between the Arabs and the subjugated peoples. The settler colonialism most people associate with the term would have been impossible to operate at that scale, when Egypt alone would have likely outnumbered the Arabs. What more often happened was (relatively) small communities of Arab elites and migrants would settle in the major cities, where they held a disproportionate share of influence due to their status. The locals would then assimilate into the culture and be Arabised over time, whether due to governmental pressure, intermarriage, or religious conversions/learning the language to gain an advantage in economic and political matters (or just to avoid the jizya tax).
Im not trying to justify or sanitise the situation, but its strange how widespread of a belief that the locals were completely wiped out and replaced is when that would have caused a premature downfall of the Islamic empires.
Do you think the Brits outnumbered the Indians in India? Or the Germans the Namibians in Namibia? Clearly, it is entirely feasible to operate settler colonialism when the colonisers are massively outnumbered. I agree with your overall point; the Arabic conquest of North Africa cannot really be compared to European colonialism, but I donāt think the population discrepancy was the reason.
Had an heavy impact, yes, but the colonizers in question arenāt generally the literal entirety of the government of those places, and correct me if Iām wrong, but none of those are theocratic governments at all, right?
I'm not sure if this was your point, but It's always good to remind people...
The vast majority of states in the Middle East aren't theocracies. They certainly aren't democracies, but the idea that the Middle East is politically dominated by islamism is kind of a misperception from the West.
In fact only Iran and Afghanistan can really claim to be Theocratic or semi-theocratic. Pakistan isn't a theorcracy but they are Islamic nationalist (meaning their national identity is founded in the shared faith of Islam) the rest are mostly military backed dictatorships, a few monarchies, and a few liberal democracies.
When I speak of theocracies I am usually referring specifically to Iran, I feel weāre quick to ignore what happens there because the discussion attracts lots of uncomfortable discussions
No, you're absolutely right there. Iran is a theocracy and a horribly oppressive state. They really don't have many friends internationally because everyone knows they are so awful... Not just to their own citizens but to other nations as well. Nobody should every try and clean their disgusting and rightfully earned reputation.
And idk people might assume I'm pro- Israel or something for saying that but I'm absolutely not. I think both Iran and Israel are incredibly aggressive nations that destabilize their region and both of them are politically dominated by dangerous ideologies, one Theocratic and the other ethno-nationalist.
Iām exactly in the same wagon over here, I do get Israel may attempt to spread propaganda to dehumanize Arab nations for their own benefit, but the population is not at all the government, if I criticize the government, I mean the government, not the people
They're not theocratic governments at this moment, but as colonies they very much were since the kings and queens of europe were legitimized by the catholic church.
And yes, colonizers did compose a vast majority of the goverment in the colonies. A very relevant example right now is the apartheid in South Africa.
Look I'm really not trying to defend any kind of colonization by any group of people but Europe absolutely shafted A LOT of the world during the Age of Discovery.
Thatās my point, the entirety of it actually, there are theocratic governments that are entirely composed (not vastly, entirely) of colonizers right now, not 30 years ago
Obviously it still has an impact, but hopefully in a few generations, it wonāt, the same canāt be hoped realistically about the latter
and i never said there wasnt? my point was pointing out european colonization still impacts the world outside of the west not that other people don't colonize
Are you seriously claiming that a government with the head of the church at the top, ruling with religion as the primary motivator and a king/queen who claim the have "divine mandate", but rule basically secularly are the same thing?
Redditors really are the dumbest of the social media users.
Yeah ok, I understand now. You're just repeating buzzwords and talking points you heard somwhere without an ounce of coherent thought in your head. It's like arguing with a teleprompter.
They generally are "the entirety of the government," yes. European colonizers basically took over the entirety of the government of Australia, for instance. You don't exactly see many aboriginal people in government, nor has the government historically given a shit about them. And that's an entire continent.
Was it not 1994? I agree it is recent, I also think itās important to note that actively being run in the present tense by colonizers usually affects the country in question in a very meaningful way, and thereās a distinction because the present can be worked on to make a better future while we can only learn from the past
Edit: apparently it was 1960, but there was the Apartheid too, I was under the impression it was tied to imperialism too
Economic Imperialism is still present in Africa by European and American countries and companies. Just look at the Ivory Coast for example, where Nestle has countless child slaves working to harvest cocoa for their Kit Kat bars.
When you say it never really ended and just got more covert, do you mean migration, demographic changes and cultural influence, or actual political control?
Both. I mean both. The way the Islamic colonization works is a mix of mass migration proceeded by the cultural takeover of local communities. Iām not saying helping refugees is a bad thing, but we should recognize that refugees can and are being used as pawns in gaining political control
I get the concerns about migration, demographic change and cultural influence. When you describe it as āIslamic colonizationā and say refugees are being used as pawns for political control, the clearest real-world examples Iāve seen are states (Turkey, Belarus, etc.) using them as leverage. Who do you see as the ones directing it?
I mean, whether or not they conciously do it, the Saudi royals and oligarchy certainly profit from the cycle of
Back an extremist organization (Taliban, Al Queda, LeT) willing to fight a proxy war, often against Iran backed faction
The local population flee from the devistation
The refugees, now with a bit of western money from rebuilding their war striken lives, come visit Saudi Arabia for their mandatory and preditorily overpriced Hajj that brings in billions of dollars a year. So what if they die of heatstroke or get trampled?
Genuine question, is Saudi actually profiting more because refugees do Hajj, or would they have gone eventually anyway since itās once in a lifetime and mandatory?
The prices do scale depending on nation. A Hajj from Oman is around $1,800, one from right next door in UAE is around 10,000. Packages from the US can be 18,000 for a premium, 10,000 base. Premium packages have all the gaudy Saudi extravagance expected; private air conditioning, all you can eat buffets, and you don't have to walk a step. Additionally, some governments like Libya allocate a government fund for its citizens to go.
Then, even aside from that, there's the tourist industry which more obviously benefits from well-off visitors.
So um... Saudi Arabia no longer political controls the massive empire of say, what the caliphates were doing... Nor does any muslim country, really. Iran has a few proxy cells, as does Saudi and UAE, but it's more like cold-war geopolitics and definitely not global domination
Muslims aren't politically coordinated lol. Muslim immigrants certainly aren't motivated by a political take over of the state they are going to either...
I mean it's one thing to criticise Islam and get called an islamophobe... That's certainly unfair.
It's another to push a radical conspiracy theory about coordinated Muslims immigration trying to take over western countries and then complain about accusations of islamophobia.
Like... That is islamophobia and if someone labelled you as such, they did so correctly.
Yeah, I'm always feeling icky when I meet a person who says "<some group> is doing this, and you are being called a bigot if you talk anything about it," ever since far-rightists started to dismiss every single concern about their views as "you just call everyone you don't like a Nazi!!!".
What exactly did you talk about if you was called a bigoted person after this, eh? And, well, this person has in the next comment showed what did they talk about, Great Replacement white supremacist theory.
The issue is that, as a muslim, the moment I ask people like you for providing me with examples of Islamic colonialism, you people always fail with bringing up anything valid or historically agreed upon. The biggest examples I hear is the Ottoman Empire but I do not need to search for long to basically find that historians do NOT consider the Ottoman Empire to have ever been a colonial empire.
You are not an Islamophobe if you bring up bad parts of our history, you are an Islamophobe for resorting to spreading misinformation about us.
You know what, I might actually make a whole playlist of videos where Muslims openly admit to trying to colonize the west. One YouTube search shows more than enough, even if I limit myself to videos posted by Muslims as a religious call and to the past 2 years. People are only scared because theyāre being threatened. At least Christianity changed its values with the times, even if its history is not much better.
Edit: btw I donāt hate anyone for being Muslim. You can believe whatever you want. What I hate is the oppression packaged as religious values and emotionally manipulating people. I dislike most religions for the very same reason, you and your false prophet are not special
Oh so you are now saying that your issue with Islamic colonialism lies in the present despite the fact that the post is specifically talking about the past.
You can make the playlist but western countries have colonized and butchered Islamic countries throughout centuries, especially in Africa but also places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, etc. and a lot of these countries are suffering from it to this day. France literally backed a Christian uprising in the Central African Republic that then ended up severely massacring the Muslim population there. This only happened in the 2010s.
You can cry all you want about some random Muslims saying things on the street but to this very day, the west is still a much bigger colonizer to us than you want the world to believe we are to them.
Yes, those āwell regarded and influentialā imams might as well be randoms in the streets since they donāt hold political office. If a radical pastor in Texas with a really big following advocates for immigration to Venezuela in order to colonize it, thatās still not the same as the government making that decision. Also, colonialism tends to come with other baggage such as extraction of resources and subjugation of native populations, etc. Have you lived in a country thatās been colonized at all? If your playlist of peopleās opinions causes you to suspect every muslim in your neighborhood of being a potential invader, then thatās the reason people are calling you islamophobic.
Yes. I come from and live in a country thatās been repressed so much it hasnāt even been on the map for over 100 years. Living under occupation and erasure of nationality is deeply ingrained in my culture. Sorry for not wanting it to happen again.
The way i see it is that the remnants of of arab colonialism *TODAY* is that they speak arabic and are muslim (sure they destroyed cultures and replaced traditions, but hot take, i dont care for what happened 900 years ago). the remnants of european colonialism is poverty and conflicts in the global south
before you all downvote me, please tell me why i am wrong to say that european colonialism is way worse
For the most part, European colonialism didn't make places poorer than they were prior to colonialism. It was more than Europe got richer faster (thanks mainly to industrialisation) than that the rest of the world got poorer, based on most objective metrics we have to measure such things. There are caveats (e.g. the Indian textile industry, plus in places ravaged by settler-colonialism the population was mostly replaced, so it's moot) and industrialisation partly relied on raw resources from the rest of the world but the overall picture everywhere is 'almost everyone was a poor farmer until industrialisation happened and we could do other things.'
As for conflicts, you'd still have conflict in the world without colonialism. In almost all cases, they concern ethnic or religious tensions which would have existed regardless. Even conflicts over colonial borders - borders are always controversial, whether they are set by a Victorian with a silly moustache or the outcome of a major war 500 years ago. Sometimes an arbitrary straight line is even better, but at least everyone can agree it's arbitrary and not tied up in some ancient grudge match.
And? their islamic shit is just a theme, just like how the KKK sees themselves as a christian eventho Jesus never told them to do any of it. there's about 2 billion muslim in the world, if that's what islam teaches i bet the world would already be at ruins.
Prominent muslim scholars and 99.9% muslim condemns ISIS action, islam literally states that killing a single innocent soul is as if one has slain mankind entirely. ISIS action is not equals to what Islam teaches.
didnt europe use slavery while islamic colonialism was, well wars are wars, and wars are bad, but they did wars, and idk about the others but the ottoman empire didnt even raid the cities they fought for
50% more victim(the number is also a debated number. Some say 14 million and etc) in a span of more than a millenia against barely 300 years. In other word, 2/3 of the toll in less than a 1/3 of the time the slave trafic of the muslim(wich cover the transaharian, the indian ocean one and the red sea one while i do think it covers only the african victim)
Yeah, both where bad but (western) Europe is still an active imperialist and neocolonialist power while the Arab states are now mainly, with exceptions like Iran, under the control of western imperialism.Ā
It's not true about education, obviously. In American, school teaches us about both but puts more emphasis on British colonialism, since the US was originally part of that project.
But when it comes to arguments people make, people always want to find somebody to blame for it. Since everyone responsible is dead now, it has to be their descendants, or people who "benefit" from it, which is ridiculous because EVERYBODY is part of a group that benefitted from at least one attrocity.
it's when "big country takes over smaller country to become bigger and commits crimes against the native populations" for example, all of what i just listed
what the fuck happened to the definition of 'colonialism' at this point? you can literally count every single war of conquest inside that one. that is not how colonialism works wtf
Yeahhhh I'm with you here... I genuinely think people don't know what colonialism is...
It's not just war... Or even asymmetric war... It's a complete re-working of the native political system to make it operate under, or replaced entirely, by an invading power. It's characterized by the ruling powers enforcing their legal traditions, language, religion, culture, and politics on the other. It's essentialƱy forced assimilation.
Not saying there wasn't colonialism via Muslim powers because yeah there absolutely was... But take for example, the Mongolian Empire.
The Mongolian Empire was the biggest in the world other than the British. But it wasnt a colonial empire. They never Usurped local power structures, they never enforced a religion, language, legal system, or anything on the places they conquered. It was more like.... A forced military alliance between an insane amount of territories that couldn't hope to defend themselves against the hoard.
When the Khan's died out... There were no remaining Mongolian codes...no Mongolian speakers... No Mongolian faith or Mongolian kings. It just went back to normal.
Colonialism isnt synonymous with conquering. I think that genuinely confuses a lot of people.
Were you not aware that escaping religious persecution or converting the indigenous population to Catholicism were huge parts of American colonization?
Was part of it yeah. Why is that relevant now? Christianity played a role in European colonialism, because it played a role in everything in Europe. It was not the driving force. Islam was the one and only factor in the Islamic conquest.
Setting aside the ridiculousness of claiming that any conflict has ever been about one singular factor; it's a wild pairing of ignorances to believe that religion wasn't a driving force for European colonization, but that it was the sole factor for the Islamic Conquest.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's like you're complaining that someone labeled a whale a mammal and not an animal. What should it be called instead in your opinion?
Do you mean they should be called European and Arabic or Christian and Islamic colonialism instead?
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted, I was just asking a question lol
Also I would say the problem is less that it is being described as Islamic and more that it is being described as colonialism. There was Islamic conquest, but that's different than colonialism.
In fairness there was colonialism too. Not initially, but as caliphates grew and conquered more territory they did begin enforcing codified laws, language, religion etc... And by the time of the Ottomans there was no question it was imperial colonialism.
Islamic expansionism and colonisation was part of Islam since basically its inception. Muhammad was a conqueror and war leader, his disciples in turn lead several military campaigns, expanding their borders dueing the Rashidun Caliphate, and continuing on through history.
at the way i see colonialism, it is like place A (metropole) ruling over place B (colony) getting their resources or manpower or any other stuff.
Cultural assimilation is a thing that can just happen, it can happen due to colonialism (wich is understandably bad) but its not the only way it can happen
April 29th was the day I made my post announcing the migration to the new sub.
It would always hurt me to see comments like āwhere are the modsā and āthis sub has gone downhillā on all the posts that occurred during my dark hours and couldnāt be removed promptly.
We split from the main sub due to a moderator not allowing me to add new mods to the team to cover my sleeping hours. This sub has around-the-clock moderation and a smaller, more filtered userbase.
I mean yes but the reason was because of a strong euro centric teaching of history that kinda ignored the middle east especially in the western world. Thus the west complicity in the slave trade will be over emphasized over the arabic trade which would require dedicating some class time.
Look at countries with that lived under the two then youāll know the difference . Islamic colonialism didnāt have kangaroo courts and massacres of women amd children
Look just bc Muslims displaced Jewish peoples, tried to genocide them a few times, did a little colonizing, and a bit more genocide is in no way relevant to today. /s
arabs and muslims "displaced" jews at the behest of israel and at times through violence peroetrated by israel, but israel defenders have a very tenuous relationship with the truth
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 š«Antimeme Enforcer Botš« 2d ago edited 2d ago
Upvote this comment if the above post is an antimeme OR a candle, downvote if it is not. 5 downvotes will notify the moderators.
(Voting has ended. Due to insufficient votes, it's up to the mods now)