this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
24 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1333 readers
182 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's just not true man
Is Netherlands a settler colony? Is Malaysia a settler colony? Is Korea a settler colony? Is Mozambique a settler colony? Is India a settler colony? I could go on
Malaysia absolutely is if Taiwan is. And I'm pretty sure there were Celtics or Picts in the Netherlands before Germanic/Frankish tribes moved in.
"I’m pretty sure there were Celtics or Picts in the Netherlands before Germanic/Frankish tribes" I think we might just have a completely different view of settler colonialism here if you think settler colonialism predated capitalism. Settler colonialism is not mere demographic change though settler colonialism always leads to demographic change, thinking that can lead to some dangerous conclusions.
Malaysia was a bad example, so my bad on that. I think I need to study that topic further. I was under the impression that though it does have internal settler colonies, it as a whole isn't a settler colony, but the comment below makes me think twice on that.
Several of the countries you mentioned are funnily enough settler colonies. However, while I wouldn't agree that every modern state is the product of settler colonialism, which is a very specific realization of colonial efforts; the vast majority of modern states are the product of a continuous process of disparate groups displacing, integrating, overwhelming other peoples.
Malaysia has a storied history of exploiting, enslaving, and subjugating the native Negrito and Orang Asli peoples, who were displaced in favour of Indian and Indonesian Muslim settlers who became the Malay. The vast majority of these groups were eventually integrated into Malay society or fled into the hinterland, to the point that only 0.7% of the Malay peninsula is indigenous.
Orang Asli and Orang Asal land is frequently stolen from various tribes, and the indigenous peoples are largely considered second class citizens. Malaysia is absolutely a settler colonial state, its colonization is simply lesser known as the efforts are ongoing for centuries.
The Netherlands is an interesting case as there were simply no people present to colonize, as Roman brutality, various natural disasters and local climate change caused many of the region's original inhabitants to abandon large swathes of the modern Netherlands. Then, major resettlement efforts didn't begin until after the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Korea, much like Greece, is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet so Korea and Greece would largely be the only two modern states that didn't really have colonial histories that defined their nations since they are largely indigenous nations.
Mozambique was largely the creation of European powers as prior to the Portuguese arrival and consolidation, the area worked as a loose confederation of autonomous cities and ports ruled by Arab sultans. The state is a product of colonial efforts by the Arabs and Europeans.
India also absolutely engages in settler colonialism, and Kashmir is in all but name an internal settler colony.
I'm well aware that India and Malaysia (as well as many many other countries) have oppressed nations under them, I'm just making the claim that they aren't Settler Colonies themselves. Like Indonesia has settlers on West Papua, but Indonesia isn't a settler colony itself even despite its transmigration program. Please don't take this as me downplaying the oppression of oppressed nations, not my intention at all. Settler Colonies are a specific thing.
That point about Mozambique is moot, the creation of the nation is the result of colonial efforts and the reaction to it but the people are most certainly indigenous making it not a settler colony.
Its not true that 0.7% of Malaysia's population is native. 70% of the Malaysian population are Bumiputera ("natives"), though its good to keep in mind that Indonesians ethnicities are also counted as Bumiputera in the form of Anak Dagang. Anak Jati ethnic Malays though are most certainly native to the peninsula and have been there for a long time, though I can't get a good figure of their numbers since they're lumped in with Anak Dagang as ethnic Malays, they aren't a small part of the Malaysian population and do outnumber Anak Dagang Malays. Anak Jati also aren't just a product of shipping Indonesians and Indians to Malaysia in colonial times. Indians aren't even counted as Bumiputera. Orang Asli are indeed an oppressed group which has their indigenous lands taken, and I don't mean to downplay that.
As for India, Kashmir is a settler colony, but India as a whole isn't.
Bumiputera is a largely meaningless term since foreign Malays are included in the number, and Malay is also a meaningless term itself for determining indigeneity as someone is considered constitutionally Malay if they are, "Born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs, and is domiciled in Malaysia, Singapore or Brunei".
That also ignores the history that all "Malays" were settlers except for the Negritos and Orang Asli who were displaced and enslaved. Just because the settler colonialism happened centuries ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.