/siberia/ - Off-topic

Nelson Mandela was a nice man.

>>798146
Dude, he literally was like one dude out fucking what? Dozens of other major African leaders most of which werent advocating for letting the boer population off easy or wanting integration compared to explicit culling?

Zimbabwe actually did allow the whites to stay. Most fled but there are still plenty of whites in Zimbabwe including landowners (cringe). You're repeating Rh*desian propaganda.

>>798148
“Allow”
Yeah on paper. Im pretty sure any indigenous African that had to live through that shit isnt going to have the patience or even unreasonable to want the population that just made their lives legit shit and their dignity dragged either or dead or removed

Besides, Mugabe men were literally deporting people and shooting stragglers (mainly over civilian killings given that the Rhodesian light infantry was notorious for that shit but not much media attention is given to that)

>Zimbabwe, Zanzibar, Haiti, Angola, like a fuck ton of miscellaneous other African countries didnt grant the right of letting their invaders live.
Yes they did. Most of them left of their own accord since they lost their privileged status and a lot of their property was redistributed. They weren't forced out as a matter of policy.

Please god, be a false flag instead of being a leftist this dumb. You do realize Africans aren't soulless goblins who just want to kill everything for fun or revenge right? Also like >>798165 said, most of those countries DIDN'T just mass murder white people after they won like you are trying to imply. As for why, there was no reason to kill them all, most of them left on afterwards and the ones who stayed had little influence on on the country afterwards anyways leaving the morality issue aside, I guess you could try to argue the revolutionary leadership becoming a new comprador class was possibly related to them getting connections through the settlers but I can't see how thats the case.

>>798174
Never did. It just doesn’t make any sense given historical context for a government with as many atrocities on its list as the apartheid era government to not end up in the state Israel is today. Ironically your idea that somehow peace and cooexistence after all that evil shit from shooting children in broad daylight to denying people rights to basic dignity and standards of living over race theory makes any fucking sense
>>798165
The way you right makes you think that this was done out of mercy and not out of pragmatism to conserve military forces and extract whatever was gained from those that didnt die in the fallout
The majority of the invaders werent left to live because that’s fucking stupid on a conceptual level to late the same asshole that just terrorized your population off the hook for no reason beyond morals

>>798175
>The majority of the invaders werent left to live because that’s fucking stupid on a conceptual level to late the same asshole that just terrorized your population off the hook for no reason beyond morals
What's the reason to persecute them beyond morals? I've never understood the mentality of Westoids who rage and seethe that actual third world national liberation movements aren't carrying out their ethnic cleansing fantasies. Anyways, whatever you do don't read articles 16 and 17 of the Hamas charter or the PFLP's plans for a one state solution.

>>798175
Also
No, they didnt just “decide to leave”, if it wasn’t just the fact that there political power was explicitly stripped openly from them, plenty were straight up forced into deportation with accounts from interviews. I wouldn’t even say that’s unreasonable. Like fuck

If Palestinians today forced the IDF out of power, do you think anyone there would have the patience to let Israelis stay in the country and just “let them leave on their own”? Especially in mass numbers?

>>798178
>plenty were straight up forced into deportation with accounts from interviews
Yeah and if you read accounts from Ukrainians in the 1930s Stalin arrived with the Big Spoon and ate all the grain. You realize this is literally just settler propaganda that you're trying to convince us is actually good right?

>>798177
Western? That shit actually happens pretty consistently

Ignoring African examples, there’s plenty of real documented cases of indigenous peoples seizing their dignity and privacy back by force because it the best decision to make. Vietnam against France, North Korea against the Americans, Cuba against the Americans also, a lot of random violence with the British empire in the Middle East I could keep going.
That assumption thag a real person isnt tolerating their life being put to shit over morality or “being the better person” is more dehumanizing and stripping of agency since it can buu into the belief that such oppression goes consequence free. Like fuck, you know how much myth is in the USA are promoted to believe that slaves werent actively sabotaging and sometimes actively killing their captors so other governments would keep funding slave traffickers?

>>798180
“Good guys”
Dude, only already established pro americans are going to feel the slightest of pity for an active and known invader with a comedically long list of crimes against humanity. The proof is there, that doesnt fucking mean anyone has to or did necessarily feel shit for the people that werent killed or deported violently over settler violence.

>>798182
>Vietnam against France, North Korea against the Americans, Cuba against the Americans also, a lot of random violence with the British empire
None of those were settler colonies. They didn't have large, permanent civilian populations of people descended from the colonizing countries. Obviously throw out the colonial administrators, the foreign soldiers, the capitalists, etc. That's not the same thing as rounding up random people with no direct connection to the colonial state apparatus just because they share an ethnic origin with the occupiers.
>Like fuck, you know how much myth is in the USA are promoted to believe that slaves werent actively sabotaging and sometimes actively killing their captors so other governments would keep funding slave traffickers?
I know that "if we give the natives equality they'll kill us all" has been the basic propaganda narrative of every apartheid and settler colonial system in history. Idk why any supposed socialist or anti-imperialist would want to spread this narrative instead of exposing how it's always been a lie.

Most of these decolonial movements werent actually vengeful toward their non-indigenous managerial population. That narrative is a retcon from the butthurt people that left because they didnt wanted to be ruled by the indigenous majority or narcissistic diasporas living in the old colonist home country trying to aura farm. Though it is true many whites/indians that chose to remain got caught in violent political crossfires and instability like in Zimbabwe or Zair. There is also the fact that these delocolonial figures were cultivated man very well versed in western european ideals and culture due to being students of western institutions, oftentime raised by catholic/anglican authorities, even a tryhard reactionary revivalist like Mobutu was all about western culture personally.

>>798194
[everything above the second quotation]
Sure, I can believe that a person just gaining freedom that’s never been in independence wars obviously doesnt have the time to want their occupiers dead instead of just trying to live. What I do doubt is someone that was in that violence and had to deal with their friends being killed to gain control over their lives will have absolute zero contempt for the invading populace.

“if we give the natives equality they'll kill us all”

Well I’ve heard of this shit so you’ll have to explain this to me. Never heard of an idea this stupid. Pretty sure slave owners and invaders would be regardless of what the law says *for being slave owners and invaders*

“ it's always been a lie.”
There was a fucking book written by frantz fanon, explicitly who fought for Algerian independence on the idea that people under occupation obviously want their freedom back and will fight for the sake of it which was explicitly against narratives of docility and compliance with the western system promoted by NATO throughout the book. It was “the wretched of the earth”, it’s a pretty good read and had a bunch of good points on troubles post colonization governments go through

>>798200
>What I do doubt is someone that was in that violence and had to deal with their friends being killed to gain control over their lives will have absolute zero contempt for the invading populace.
Then your doubts are misplaced because this is very often exactly what happens. The entire complicating factor in settler colonialism is that eventually it becomes impossible to really call the settler population "invaders" anymore since they may have been established there for multiple generations. They essentially become part of the fabric of the whole population and the only way you can reject this is by resorting to blood and soil nationalism that could be used in any number of absurd ways. Should the English go back to Germany so the Welsh can take over? The Turks back to Central Asia so the Greeks can take back Anatolia? This way of thinking rapidly descends into incoherent nonsense, which is why third world revolutionary movements consistently reject it.
>Well I’ve heard of this shit so you’ll have to explain this to me. Never heard of an idea this stupid.
It's pretty much everywhere you see settler colonialism. Israelis say they can't have a one state solution wherein they coexist with Palestinians on an equal footing because if they do, the Palestinians will kill them all. American slavers used to say that if the slaves were emancipated, they would rise up in a race war and kill all the whites. The same was said of Black people in Rhodesia and South Africa. Its the oldest colonial propaganda trope in the book.
>the idea that people under occupation obviously want their freedom back and will fight for the sake of it which was explicitly against narratives of docility and compliance
He's talking about the legitimacy of violence in the course of a national liberation struggle, i.e. as a tool to smash the colonial military and administrative apparatus. He wasn't talking about generalized violence against a civilian settler population that amounted to ethnic cleansing. Algeria actually offered citizenship to the Pieds Noirs but most rejected it and chose to go to France instead.

>>798207
>your doubts are misplaced because this is very often exactly what happens
Either you’re telling me freedom fighters committed to fighting an organized force larger than themselves have the most enslaved mentality ever towards winning or youre making shit up not just about the soldiers but how people work in general.
The average person isnt a saint when it comes to dealing with people that actually fuck them over in life and I think that’s a fine and fair trait.

>>798211
>>798207
Also, how the hell is that colonial propaganda you brought up supposed to make me feel bad about the occupied populations. If anything, it would make me feel relieved that they wouldn’t tolerate that shit from the invading force and would drive them out if they had the capacity too instead of letting such oppression continue without consequence.

>>798211
>Either you’re telling me freedom fighters committed to fighting an organized force larger than themselves have the most enslaved mentality ever towards winning
Those fighters are part of revolutionary armies with military discipline and political leadership. That's who ultimately decides the policies, not random soldiers, and they have the good sense to understand why generalized ethnic persecution is a bad idea.
>The average person isnt a saint when it comes to dealing with people that actually fuck them over in life and I think that’s a fine and fair trait
So if you're wronged by a person then you think it's acceptable to take it out on everybody who shares their ethnicity?

> Those fighters are part of revolutionary armies with military discipline and political leadership. That's who ultimately decides the policies, not random soldiers, and they have the good sense to understand why generalized ethnic persecution is a bad idea.

Fair enough of an idea. It actually makes sense

> So if you're wronged by a person then you think it's acceptable to take it out on everybody who shares their ethnicity?
When said ethnicity writes actual laws to fuck over me and everyone related to me while forming an explicit ethnically driven class while gaslighting the shit out of the occupied population

At that point mass deportation and explicit revolutionary violence is fair game. Israelis, boers, rhodesians, and any other force of settler oppression genuinely had it coming.

>>798145
>Zimbabwe, Zanzibar, Haiti, Angola, like a fuck ton of miscellaneous other African countries didnt grant the right of letting their invaders live.
The peacuful solution was military integration of black population.
>Werent there like multiple countries directly bordering apartheid South Africa preparing to invade that place?
Even post-mandela military could destroy anything aimed at them.

>>798222
>When said ethnicity writes actual laws to fuck over me and everyone related to me
"That ethnicity"? Did they all do it? Do workers write laws in bourgeois states?

>>798223
>Even post-mandela military could destroy anything aimed at them.
The Cubans BTFO the apartheid military thoughever.

>>798224
Are workers living in settler colonies thousands of kilometers from the imperial core?

>>798226
Not necessarily because some settler colonies are part of the imperial core lol.

>>798227
Youre failing to make a coherent argument

Im going to cut this conversation short
Occupied civilians dont have to feel an ounce of pity for invaders and slave owners and they’re completely justified in having those pieces of shit killed or deported and stripped of any political power if it means gaining back dignity and autonomy
Whoever the fuck said such populations are docile is ignorant of history (ffs, there’s a song called kill the boer sung by South African soldiers), and genuinely less in touch with how actual people respond to imperialist violence than some actual colonial invaders
South Africa not being ripped to shreds doesnt follow the same historical pattern much of the world under NATO occupation during the Cold War did and there aren’t a lot of clear reasons on why

What would have been the point of that? They lost all political power and were a tiny irrelevant minority these states had much more numerous and bigger problems to deal with.

>>798231
>Occupied civilians dont have to feel an ounce of pity for invaders and slave owners
After apartheid ended they werent invaders or slave ownerd any longer just ordinary citizens.

>>798231
>Occupied civilians dont have to feel an ounce of pity for invaders and slave owners and they’re completely justified in having those pieces of shit killed or deported and stripped of any political power
Sure, but you're conflating things here. "Slaver" is a class position, i.e. a person who owns slaves. As such it can't be extended to an entire population on the basis of race. "Invader" is an incoherent term to refer to a settler population because it necessarily comes to rely on ethnonationalism and blood and soil thinking. Again, are the English "invaders" in England because they came over from Germany 1500 years ago and drove the native Britons into Wales and Scotland? This line of thinking either forces you into absurd positions like claiming the English are not native to their own country, or else creating random arbitrary cutoffs after which point invaders become natives. I'd go for a simple and rationalist position which is that if you are born and raised in a country then you should have the right to live there.
>Whoever the fuck said such populations are docile is ignorant of history
I never said they were docile, but it's simply a fact that as a rule, such liberation movements didn't seek to ethnically cleanse the settler population.
>>798232
This. Colonialism is a socioeconomic relationship, and the struggle against it is the struggle to dismantle that relationship (i.e. a class struggle). It isn't a clash of civilizations or a race war.

>>798232
Fair enough

>>798174
>You do realize Africans aren't soulless goblins who just want to kill everything for fun or revenge right?
There’s nothing wrong with killing colonizers and that’s just your framing of it. If they had stayed then they should have been slaughtered in mass.

>>798232
>What would have been the point of that?
Punishment. Of course it eludes the whitoid why people would hate those who dehumanized and humiliated them because you aren’t on the other end of it.

>>798237
>There’s nothing wrong with killing colonizers
If you dismantle the colonial apparatus and economic relationship then they cease to be colonizers.
>>798238
>Of course it eludes the whitoid why people would hate those who dehumanized and humiliated them because you aren’t on the other end of it.
You keep saying this and yet fail to grasp that in virtually every case, the revolutionaries didn't actually take revenge on the settler population, at least not as a policy. You seem to want colonized people to be more bloodthirsty than they actually are.

>>798238
Punishment for what? 90% of them were just regular people.
>ofcourse it eludes the whitoid why people would hate those who dehumanized and humiliated them
You dont actually care about racism inequality or opression do you? You just want to be the opresser instead of the opressed.

>>798239
> If you dismantle the colonial apparatus and economic relationship then they cease to be colonizers.
That doesn’t invalidate their crimes or their effects of their crimes

>>798241
>That doesn’t invalidate their crimes or their effects of their crimes
Then you can prosecute the individuals responsible and judge them accordingly?

>>798241
If any of them are actually guilty of crimes relating to specific acts of colonial oppression then let them be arrested and punished, if they are found guilty in a fair trial. If they served in the colonial military or administrative apparatus etc. However, sharing the ethnicity of the colonizing country isn't a crime.

>>798245

>>798244
You think the fighters didnt realize ts. That’s what the fuck they did. That’s why I even went to clarify that invaders and other agents of imperialist violence explicitly are fair game. Hell, actually getting that vengeance wouldn’t be possible if they didn’t have to data to know who to target

>>798256
But again the white government surrended so there was no point or need to do that

>>798239
>If you dismantle the colonial apparatus and economic relationship then they cease to be colonizers.
Well, isn't that a nice technicality? So all the rape, murder and theft of material goods that they shouldn't have had is left unpunished. I should become a colonizer, because once the settler-colonial project fails, I'm just a small bean and you can't hurt me now, nuuu >.<

>You keep saying this and yet fail to grasp that in virtually every case, the revolutionaries didn't actually take revenge on the settler population
I never disputed that and I don't care. It's a testament to their weakness and most of these formerly colonized nations get bullied by the first world to date. They did not and do not have the right attitude.

>>798240
>90% of them were just regular people.
They are maintaining a settler-colonial state by living there, conducting labor, and therefore keeping it economically alive. This makes the guilty.

>You just want to be the opresser instead of the opressed.
Hahaha, this line of reasoning is so ridiculous. You must think Germans who settled in Eastern Europe during General Plan Ost where oppressed once they were sent back and killed if they resisted. Or you will come up with some flimsy loophole.

>>798280
>Well, isn't that a nice technicality? So all the rape, murder and theft of material goods that they shouldn't have had is left unpunished. I should become a colonizer, because once the settler-colonial project fails, I'm just a small bean and you can't hurt me now, nuuu >.<
Stolen land and and material possesions can be returned and and those who did harm can be judged and punished accordingly.
>I never disputed that and I don't care. It's a testament to their weakness and most of these formerly colonized nations get bullied by the first world to date. They did not and do not have the right attitude.
Your attitude is nothing more than a pathetic racist revenge fantasy thats only purpose would've been to satiate your psychotic bloodlust.
>They are maintaining a settler-colonial state by living there, conducting labor, and therefore keeping it economically alive. This makes the guilty.
No one has any say or choice in the situation or class they're born in and again the settler colonial state can and was dismantled so again what purpose of the punishment would be other than sadism?

>>798286
>Stolen land and and material possesions can be returned and and those who did harm can be judged and punished accordingly.
This must be news to you, but thieves are punished beyond the stolen goods being returned. With your line of reasoning there would be no downsides to attempt to steal something, because the worst case scenario is just that the stolen good will be returned. In this case you can attempt to steal indefinitely.

>Your attitude is nothing more than a pathetic racist revenge fantasy thats only purpose would've been to satiate your psychotic bloodlust.
Nothing is disproven by ridiculing a standpoint.

>No one has any say or choice in the situation or class they're born in
They can emigrate out of the settler-colonial state, but chose to stay.

>so again what purpose of the punishment would be other than sadism?
Discouraging the West from doing it again by enacting a punishment that equals the death and suffering the West has bestowed upon 90% of the rest of the world?

Muh morally occupied or morally liberated land is completely meaningless. Only morality is from a weapon aimed at its victim.

>>798293
>Discouraging the West from doing it again by enacting a punishment that equals the death and suffering the West has bestowed upon 90% of the rest of the world?
Isn't this the exact line of thinking settler nations had on punishing the natives if they got too "uppity"? You do realize this almost never works right?

>>798293
>This must be news to you, but thieves are punished beyond the stolen goods being returned. With your line of reasoning there would be no downsides to attempt to steal something, because the worst case scenario is just that the stolen good will be returned. In this case you can attempt to steal indefinitely.
Are you retarded if they tried stealing again they would be punished ofcourse.
>Nothing is disproven by ridiculing a standpoint.
Im not ridiculing you its just your point if acted upon would serve no purpose other than affirming any psycopathic tendenci tendencies.
>They can emigrate out of the settler-colonial state, but chose to stay.
Yeah just leve your family life job property and everything behind. Its a hard choice and basically nobody in their position would've done the same.
>Discouraging the West from doing it again by enacting a punishment that equals the death and suffering the West has bestowed upon 90% of the rest of the world?
Again this would not affect or change anything regarding any potential or active plans regarding settler-colonialism by "the west" this would just be to affirm your sadistic revenge fantasies.

>>798280
>Well, isn't that a nice technicality?
It isn't a technicality, it's the core of what colonialism is.
>So all the rape, murder and theft of material goods that they shouldn't have had is left unpunished.
Who said that? Dismantling the colonial relationship means abolishing their special privileges and very often conducting land reform or other property redistribution. As we have seen this is very often more than they can handle and enough to make them leave on their own. If there are actual specific crimes you're talking about (being the wrong ethnicity isn't a crime) then obviously they should be tried and punished if found guilty. If they raped or killed or stole then they will be punished. If their only crime is being born the wrong colour then they won't be. Simple as.
>It's a testament to their weakness and most of these formerly colonized nations get bullied by the first world to date.
Do you think if the ANC had murdered all the white people it would've magically developed their productive forces, provided access to capital, or made the IMF disappear? Would the dollar have ceased to be the world's reserve currency, and the Pentagon spontaneously combusted? Haiti is the only country where something like this happened, and it's arguably the biggest failure of all the anti-colonial projects. The reason why national liberation movements typically don't do ethnic cleansing is precisely because they know it would be completely pointless and accomplish nothing apart from prolonging their country's internal strife and isolating them internationally.

>>798300
And the only reason haiti killed its white population was because they knew france would be coming back to try to invade the island and the white population could potentially side with them against haiti and if they succeded be put into positions of power again. This wasnt really the case for the settler minorities in south africa or zimbabwe they werent a security threat or a potential future risk.

>>798296
>Isn't this the exact line of thinking settler nations had on punishing the natives if they got too "uppity"?
Oh wow… yeah, you totally flipped the script here… /s

>You do realize this almost never works right?
You must live in some parallel universe if you think punishment doesn't diminish the likelihood of repeat offenses, but you will probably cite outliers now that ignore generalities.

>>798297
>Are you retarded if they tried stealing again they would be punished ofcourse.
Why wait? Also, the West is already a repeat offender in colonialism. Both back then and even now with neocolonialism.

>Im not ridiculing you
You did.

>its just your point if acted upon would serve no purpose other than affirming any psycopathic tendenci tendencies.
I actually did state the pragmatic purpose of repeat offenders. Plus, it neglects the psychological satisfaction of vanquishing your oppressor who has humiliated and destroyed your innocent population. It's not psychopathic, it's a basic human sentiment that is framed as vulgar once white chickens have to come home to roost.

>Again this would not affect or change anything regarding any potential or active plans regarding settler-colonialism by "the west"
It does actually and Third World docility is the reason why it continued to happen again. Not only don't they fight back but they worship whites. With that attitude you are sitting ducks for an unpunished civilization (the West).

>>798300
>It isn't a technicality, it's the core of what colonialism is.
I know, but it's a silly argument of yours nontheless. I already explained that your logic leads to being able to infinitely retry because the worst consequence is just losing what didn't belong to you to begin with.

>Who said that? Dismantling the colonial relationship means abolishing their special privileges and very often conducting land reform or other property redistribution.
That isn't punishment, it's merely returning what you shouldn't have had.

>If their only crime is being born the wrong colour
Whites really love this reductive framing as if the only factor is their skin color. They are a settler-colonial population that has committed hanious crimes against an innocent population. Every ordinary settler who isn't a soldier or politician at the very least helped to keep the settler-colony alive by conducting labour which maintains it economically, as opposed to economically collapsing. That is what makes ordinary settlers guilty. Them being white is just a fabrication colonizers came up with to justify their atrocities, but this construct itself is not the reason why they will be punished, but their status and subsequent actions as colonizers. Them being white merely makes them easily identifiable as colonists in such a context.

>Do you think if the ANC had murdered all the white people it would've magically developed their productive forces, provided access to capital, or made the IMF disappear?
Nice straw man. It fulfills other purposes.

>Haiti is the only country where something like this happened, and it's arguably the biggest failure of all the anti-colonial projects.
You just made a white supremacist argument. Killing white settlers (which is the correct action) was retroactively punished by the West to make it *seem* like it was the wrong choice, because it's exactly what the West doesn't want. Being held accountable. That doesn't make it wrong to do so, and the failure doesn't stem from killing white settlers in itself.

>The reason why national liberation movements typically don't do ethnic cleansing is precisely because they know it would be completely pointless
False. They didn't do it because they were successfully mentally raped by whites, which stripped them of a common sensical response arising out of a backbone, pride and dignity.

Just screenshot your posts so you can go post them on /pol/ to say
>LEFTISTS WANT SHITSKINS TO KILL US ALL IF THEY TAKE OVER
and end this charade already

>>798304
>They are a settler-colonial population that has committed hanious crimes against an innocent population
I already said anybody who is actually guilty of such crimes should be tried and punished. So what exactly is your issue here? Are you going to tell me that just being born an Afrikaaner is worthy of punishment? If so then you should admit that it is about skin colour, ethnic hatred, and collective punishment. If the colonial apparatus is dismantled, and the individuals responsible for specific crimes have been identified, tried, and sentenced, then what other justification could there be for attacking other members of the group?
>Every ordinary settler who isn't a soldier or politician at the very least helped to keep the settler-colony alive by conducting labour which maintains it economically
Black South African workers helped sustain the apartheid government with their labour. A lot of them even served in the army. Why don't we just kill everybody then since they all contributed? You're making these posts on a device which you presumably bought, thus sustaining the trade in rare minerals harvested with slave labour in service of neo-colonialism! You should be killed too I guess. Truly we are all sinners.
>It fulfills other purposes.
What purpose?
>Killing white settlers (which is the correct action) was retroactively punished by the West to make it *seem* like it was the wrong choice, because it's exactly what the West doesn't want.
The point is that killing the white settlers didn't overturn the material conditions either in Haiti or internationally, hence it had nothing to do with the continued subjugation of Haiti via neo-colonial means. In other words, it didn't accomplish anything or improve their situation in any way.

>>798304
>Why wait? Also, the West is already a repeat offender in colonialism. Both back then and even now with neocolonialism.
Again just showing your psychopathic racist tendencies here and also we're talking specifically about settler population of south africans not your geopolitical concept of "le west"
>You did.
Well im sorry then but you are retarded and im just calling you out on it
> it neglects the psychological satisfaction of vanquishing your oppressor who has humiliated and destroyed your innocent population. It's not psychopathic, it's a basic human sentiment that is framed as vulgar once white chickens have to come home to roost.
So again no purpose other than to satiate psychopathic and sadistic tendencies.
>It does actually and Third World docility is the reason why it continued to happen again. Not only don't they fight back but they worship whites. With that attitude you are sitting ducks for an unpunished civilization (the West).
This completely wrong they get exploited because they dont have the economic productive forces or military forces to resist and often get sold out by their leaders. Killing all the whites wouldnt have affected any plans for future exploitation by "the west"
>Whites really love this reductive framing as if the only factor is their skin color. They are a settler-colonial population that has committed hanious crimes against an innocent population. Every ordinary settler who isn't a soldier or politician at the very least helped to keep the settler-colony alive by conducting labour which maintains it economically, as opposed to economically collapsing. That is what makes ordinary settlers guilty. Them being white is just a fabrication colonizers came up with to justify their atrocities, but this construct itself is not the reason why they will be punished, but their status and subsequent actions as colonizers. Them being white merely makes them easily identifiable as colonists in such a context.
And again they had no choice in the class they were born in and they priviledge they had and basically nobody in their situation wouldve been different.
All stolen land property and goods can be restituted all systematic priviledge can be abolished all people who murdered or wronged othres can be punished too you just think they should've been and wish they had been killed because you're a sadistic resentful racist with revenge fantasies all the reasons above are just excuses for and you trying rationalize your hatred and psychopathy.
>You just made a white supremacist argument. Killing white settlers (which is the correct action) was retroactively punished by the West to make it *seem* like it was the wrong choice, because it's exactly what the West doesn't want. Being held accountable. That doesn't make it wrong to do so, and the failure doesn't stem from killing white settlers in itself.
So again what would be the point of the killing if south africa and zimbabwe killed all the whites if they were going to face retribution for it?
You asked a question in the op as to why the settlers werent all killed well the answer is.
1.it was never the leaders of the anti-colonial movements goal

1. They thought it wouldve ben immoral and didnt believe in it collective punishment based on race and class like you did
   
2. There was no material benefit in killing them when all property and stolen land could be returned or paid back and their priviledged abolished and the guilty individalus that fought to maintain apartheid or abused people during it punished
   

>False. They didn't do it because they were successfully mentally raped by whites, which stripped them of a common sensical response arising out of a backbone, pride and dignity.
They actually did it because they werent mentally raped by whites and became racist psychopaths like you.

>>798313
>This completely wrong they get exploited because they dont have the economic productive forces or military forces to resist and often get sold out by their leaders
Didn't Idi Amin expel all the Indians on the basis that they were colonial collaborators while simultaneously being one of the most important pro-Western proxies in Africa?

>>798315
Well yeah that was just an excuse so he could appropriate all their property and he was also racist against them.

And after this, leftists wonder why no one wants to support them.

DEATH TO ALL WHITES

SIEG OBAMA