> But I think most people can easily tell the difference between the widespread colonization that occurred for hundreds of years and whatever historical anomalies you have in mind with that leading question.
I was referring to Ireland, whose colonisation[1][2] during the 16th and 17th centuries served almost as a prototype for future British expansion. Gaelic culture was nearly wiped out due to British policies, and even to this day, Irish is a severely endangered language. It remains the one of the few regions in Europe with a lower population in the present than it had in 1800.
No one ever said there wasn't West-on-West subjugation. There's a rich history of that, too. But that is not what we historically consider to be the multi-hundred year era of colonization than killed untold millions and impacted the lives of almost every non-Western person on the planet.
I'm sorry, but on what basis, other than geographical location, are you differentiating between the colonization of Ireland and other British colonies?
> But that is not what we historically consider to be the multi-hundred year era of colonization than killed untold millions and impacted the lives of almost every non-Western person on the planet.
Ok. So again, I ask: what's the difference? There was a seizure of lands, systematic eradication of culture and language over the course of several hundred years, mass discrimination, and millions killed in conflicts and famine. What part of that makes it distinct from other instances of colonization?
When you say non-Western, you really do mean non-White, correct? I feel as if there's a racial bush being beaten around here that one may as well go and point out.
The point I think you're trying to make is that different rules apply for cultural appropriation for white people than they do for people of color. Would you agree?
> I feel as if there's a racial bush being beaten around here that one may as well go and point out.
Aww, why'd you have to go and point that out? I was having fun beating around that bush...
But more seriously, I would have preferred to hear that from the poster. I specifically avoided putting those words in their mouth, despite being tempted to a few times; and also to avoid getting dragged down into a debate of whatever "white" means.
I was referring to Ireland, whose colonisation[1][2] during the 16th and 17th centuries served almost as a prototype for future British expansion. Gaelic culture was nearly wiped out due to British policies, and even to this day, Irish is a severely endangered language. It remains the one of the few regions in Europe with a lower population in the present than it had in 1800.
But sure, let's call it a historical anomaly.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Irelan...