Ask Lemmygrad

1334 readers

81 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Is Taiwan a settler colonial state? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I remember when I was first learning about settler colonialism, I thought to myself: “Huh, this sounds like Taiwan and Israel” My instincts were correct on Israel, but I never looked too deeply into Taiwan. The fact that the Kuomintang displaced the Austronesian natives is a pretty strong indicator, but is Taiwan really a settler colonial state or are my intuitions wrong?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] commiewolf@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 16 hours ago

There are literally countless indigineous peoples across the entire subcontinent who are discriminated, oppressed and abused by the Indian government, even legally designated as such. There is a literal people's war largely led by rural indigenous people under the Naxal banner to fight against the Indian government. Not just in Kashmir, India is absolutely a settler nation. Nobody knows because the subcontinent is one of the least talked about places on the western internet.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.