/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It seems like a product of the rejection of class analysis tbh. At least in US academics, class is rejected and race used in its place. So something like slavery is treated as a White People vs Black People thing, in spite of a much less clear cut history. Same goes for colonial expansion in the Americas, where indigenous groups were more than happy to invite settlers in if it meant giving them leverage over other indigenous groups, and so on.

That, and the politics of victimhood is another facet, where you assign one group or another "victim" status, and then can't attribute responsibility for outcomes without "victim blaming."

>>2872497
>where indigenous groups were more than happy to invite settlers in if it meant giving them leverage over other indigenous groups.
It makes sense when viewed in the context of feudal politics, something that neither white nationalists nor postcolonialists want to acknowledge. In a feudal political system the chiefs and kings of many city-states often found it more beneficial to submit to a foreign Emperor than to face the immediate local threat posed by the Aztecs.

>>2872519
There's literally a chronicle written by an Andean noble just a generation after the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, at a time when the colonial relationship was becoming increasingly extractive. What's interesting is that throughout the work, he portrays the Spanish king as God's appointed ruler, with a duty to govern justly and protect all his subjects, including Indigenous peoples. He argues that the king was being deceived by corrupt colonial officials and local administrators in Peru and should rule directly. In fact, a large part of his argument is that Spaniards who claimed to be Christians were exploiting their fellow Christians. That's the feudal mindset, where God's authority, hereditary nobility and divine kingship are treated as genuine political principles.

>>2872519
>It makes sense when viewed in the context of feudal politics, something that neither white nationalists nor postcolonialists want to acknowledge. In a feudal political system the chiefs and kings of many city-states often found it more beneficial to submit to a foreign Emperor than to face the immediate local threat posed by the Aztecs.

Yeah, I agree. There used to be extracts from the book 1491 on the booru talking about the Inca, and memes about INCAN SOCIALISM aside it sounds like there was plenty of motivation for non-Inca groups to side with the Spaniards. I can't really blame them for not knowing what they were getting themselves in to.

This shows up in pretty much any Indian movie about the colonial era, historical or semi-historical figures effortlessly beating scores of Englishmen (most of whom are played by Eastern Europeans or even MENA extras). RRR was probably the worst. It's basically a sad Indian (more specifically, Hindu) power fantasy, with the two heroes, based on real life people, mowing down hordes of British soldiers. and again historically, neither of their rebellions never fought the British directly.

Alluri Sitarama Raju spent most of his rebellion fighting the local Malabar Police. When the colonial authorities decided the police couldn't handle it anymore, they brought in the Assam Rifles and the rebellion was crushed. Not exactly a glorious parade of redcoats getting obliterated.
As for Komaram Bheem, his rebellion wasn't even technically against the British. It was against the Nizam of Hyderabad and his landowners, whose state was under British suzerainty. The forces he fought were largely drawn from the Hyderabad's South-Asian Muslim minority.

>>2872126
>>2872564
History becomes legend. Legend becomes Myth. How can Marxists top this two-step decay from real historical understanding into oversimplified quasi-religious mythology? RRR example is good because it literally feels like a vedic myth mapped onto the British colonial period. And it's meant to. Right deviationists claim this kind of Sorelian mythmaking is necessary to rally the normiecattle… but I think it's a lazy excuse for just not putting in the work of educating the masses.

>>2872578
If only there was some kind of process at work that could be examined and analyzed.

But alas, history just becomes legend!

>>2872584
Alas

>>2872126
Scotland is the funniest (if perhaps most boring) case of this because it basically lacks a "national bourgeoisie" (Scottish-not-British bourgeoisie are like 3 guys, the rest all became British bourgeoisie and moved to England because of course you'd choose the market of 70 million over the market of 5 million) while retaining other local elites. (Scotland has a separate systems for law, education, healthcare, transport, and most other day-to-day government functions, so Scotland's upper-strata are mostly administrative rather than commercial, which is reflected in the structure of Scotland's devolved parliament.)
This has evolved into the fun idea that Scotland is not so much oppressed by the English (contra anti-Scottish-nationalist cliche which holds that they blame the Scot-on-Scot, or really British-Scot-on-Scottish-Scot highland clearances on the English.) as by Westminster or London via the abstractions of the Scottish National Party. Scotland oppressed not so much by England as by the union of Scotland and England that Scottish elites signed up for (against the will of the working class) centuries ago.

Which is groping at the underlying idea that basically, the biggest enemies of Scotland as a nation have always been other Scots, which is quite obvious yet rarely articulated explicitly. e.g. this is not the standard Scottish Nationalist understanding, even though Scotland's national poet doing one of his most famous works about the parcel of rogues who were bribed into joining a union with England, because Scottish nationalists obviously like Scottishness and are quite willing to conceptualise it quite broadly and accept anyone who wants to consider themselves Scottish whether they're muh-heritage Americans, new immigrants, or Anglo-Scots who've moved down to England. (The new immigrants are the least odd of these three, because another oddity of modern Scottish nationalism is that rather than being ethnic or cultural, it is primarily geographic, based basically on the idea that Scotland is this set of defined borders and that they should be governed as a normal country, rather than as part of Britain's weird multinational union and failed nationbuilding project.)

>>2872695
Again, it mostly comes down to not taking feudal dynamics into account. The Scottish Jacobite rebellions were largely supported by feudal Highland landowners, most of whom were Protestant Episcopalians. They opposed the dominance of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and preferred the restoration of an episcopal church governed by bishops, as it had been during the Stuart era. There was also the appeal of the Stuart claimant himself, because he had never ruled, he carried none of the negative baggage associated with previous monarchs, while also still benefiting from the prestige and positive legacy of his ancestors.
But the majority of Lowland Scots opposed the Jacobites though.