Hacker News Reader

Comment by kkjjkgjjgg | Hacker News Reader

That's bullshit - everybody can read and write what they like. Nobody is forced to read a "neo-colonialist" book, and that is the difference to colonialism, which was forced upon people.

If people are unhappy with existing books, they should simply create better books.

And even if they are cliche, I suspect the issues mentioned in the article also do exists. Kids with genital mutilation, starving people, elephants being hunted to extinction and so on, they also exist in Africa.

So everybody should also be allowed to write what they want. Of course you are also allowed to call it "neo-colonialism". Whatever.

View on HN

> If people are unhappy with existing books, they should simply create better books.

> If you dont like Google you should create your own Google.

> If you dont like Peppa the Pig, tough luck, create your own.

Who else should do it for you? It seems strange that of all the people creating books, none seem to create them to the satisfaction of activists?

Because this a very naive (intended or not) view of the book publishing industry. Yes! everybody can write a book, at least in theory, but that is just 5% of the task. How about distribution, editing, advertising, shelf space in the bookstores, reviews, etc. A book who cannot reach potential readers may as well not exist.

And somehow only the bad writers get through with that, because everybody conspires against the good writers? Give me a break.

It's also not even true anymore. Most of the things you listed you can get for free or almost nothing these days.

In threads like this, you should then also be able to point out the really good books that failed because they couldn't find a publisher? Where are they?

When there is a platform, or critical infra as an obstruction then this is unreasonable.

Arguable a DIY search engine is impossible on the scale of google because, aside from CPU power and storage, goog gets privileged indexing access.

Everything else seems reasonable to DIY.

Your argument sounds like "if the men harass women why can not the women harass the men."

To be fair women do harass men, only because the law is written in favour of women.

We are talking about power assymetry and continuing hold on institutions like universities, media and bureaucracy.

I am not finger pointing but people should be aware that these are just a continuing colonial mindset.

Unlike the Nazi party which was disbanded at the end of ww2, a lot of colonialists and colonial institutions like the church got rewarded with vast deposits and land holdings.

Everybody can write a book, so there is no power asymmetry in that regard. There are powerful media outlets with agendas, but nobody is forced to watch their stuff, either.

And as for your harassment example, the analogy is more like "men are being harassed because all books are only about men harassing women". The complaint is "Africa is being harassed because all books are only about things that are bad in Africa".

The issues exist in Africa, so it should be possible to write about them.

I have written in favour of the post. I have written in favour of the people accused in the post, because it is the ecosystem and not their personal character.

My post being downvoted proves precisely the point, people get triggered by the mention of neo-colonialism.

People on both sides both the colonised and colonisers are programmed to protect the colonisers by all means.

People go to Africa to see wildlife is because they have hunted down every bear, bison and wolf in their own homeland. So you can be the wolf preaching vegetarianism to the sheep.

People get triggered by unsubstantiated bullshit claims.

To frame the modern world in terms of "colonizers" is misleading bullshit.

As for wildlife, what do you want, the right to drive your wildlife to extinction, too? Really? And you would prefer if no tourists come to Africa? Are you sure those are good ideas?

Who is forcing you to tolerate tourists to see African wildlife? Will the "colonizers" come with tanks and airplanes to force the "colonized" to open up their parks for tourists, if people in Africa should decide to shut them down?

In reality, with the lost income from tourism, people would probably resort to eating the wildlife until it is gone, like in other parts of the world. And then you'd be left with nothing.

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/why-43-of-british-sti...

This a far cry from the constant guilt laid on the shoulders of Germans.

The Germans paid a heavy price but the treasury of the colonies held in British banks went on to pay the pensions of the colonisers.

> As for wildlife, what do you want, the right to drive your wildlife to extinction, too?

If that is how you understood it, you probably need to improve your reading and critical thinking skills.

What I meant is that Europeans whose national boundaries are marked by language, religious denomination, and have (very recent) history of wiping out both wildlife and civilisations should stop being preachy.

"the treasury of the colonies held in British banks went on to pay the pensions of the colonisers."

A lot of things went in in the past. Didn't humans evolve in Afrika? So I guess the ancestors of todays Africans somehow drove my ancestors away, presumably by stealing their land. Am I owed reparations by Africa now?

"What I meant is that Europeans whose national boundaries are marked by language, religious denomination, and have (very recent) history of wiping out both wildlife and civilisations should stop being preachy."

They are preachy about not killing off your wildlife, so if you say they shouldn't preach about that, it follows logically that you think killing off the wildlife should be OK.

And sorry, but everybody is free to preach about whatever they want. You are free not to listen.

I am not talking about reparations. No one is looking for charity or concessions from Europeans anyway.

I do not think very many people hold a grudge either. You are just firing all over the place.

My statement is simple, Europeans are used to seeing their colonies as a poorer and miserable mirror image of themselves.

As much as a white evangelist see their recent converts, as a white man's burden.

Except for political independence, colonial institutions and traditions remain the same on both sides. Whether it is the BBC, the labour party, the royalty or the universities their mindset remains in the colonial Era.

There is a clear repulsion to intellectual independence or the ex-colonies developing independent institutions. This revulsion is similar to the one a white evangelist feels when native traditions or religions make a come back and he/she is loosing his/her flock.

Why do people in Africa care what BBC or whoever thinks?

And where is the great come back that people are supposedly revulsed by?

I really don't know what point you are trying to make or what your goals are.

Last I heard China is buying up Africa anyway, maybe you'll be more happy with that future.

I must apologize, I realize that when you are stepping on someone else's feet of course you do not feel the pain.

Explain how for example the BBC from your mentions, which broadcasts more than 1000km away from Africa, steps on the toes of people in Africa?

Maybe just concentrate on feeling less like a victim, and you'll realize your toe is actually finde.

What does the distance of media from Africa have to do with how Africans would feel about it? Are you unaware that a huge number of Africans listen to and watch the BBC?

I've been watching you make all sorts of nonsensical arguments in the discussion about TFA, and I wonder what your motivations are?

The discussion was about ongoing colonization. Any Africans listening to BBC do so voluntarily, so they are not being colonized and also not hit on the toe. Or rather, if it hurts them, why are they listening?

My goal is simply to counter bad logic and harmful ideologies.

Criminals in western countries use fake stories to manufacture consent then mass murder and ruin the lives of innocent people around the world on a regular basis.

Do you have some specific examples? I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are unaware of the propaganda campaigns that precede military engagements (most recently Iraq & Syria)? I find it hard to believe.

The mis/disinformation is distributed across most English media when enough interests are aligned.

All wars come with propaganda, from all sides. Iraq was questionable, Syria appears to be mostly a civil war with some foreign powers meddling. I don't think you can reasonably assume that all would be well in those regions without foreign interference.

Only a small specific group of people on this planet have stolen enough and are perversely incentivized to engage in forever wars. Both sidesing this issue is silly.

>I don't think you can reasonably assume that all would be well in those regions without foreign interference.

1-2 million innocent civilians would be alive and millions of refugees would be home. Objectively better than the current state.

Humans have always warred, your claim of "only a small specific group" is completely false.

"1-2 million innocent civilians would be alive and millions of refugees would be home."

How do you know there would have been no war without foreign interference? And people are being murdered and displaced by their fellow countrymen, not simply by foreign powers.

>Only a small specific group of people on this planet have stolen enough and are perversely incentivized to engage in forever wars. Both sidesing this issue is silly.

100% true and I qualified that statement. Re-read it perhaps.

I think Reparations from both the US and Europe are a great idea. The value stolen by each state can be quantified.

》the treasury of the colonies held in British banks went on to pay the pensions of the colonisers.

I meant post independence, which is the definition of neo-colonisation.

What is "post independence" - is it independence or not? If it is independence, I don's see how it can be "neo-colonisation" at the same time.

I know that you know what I mean, nit-picking language is the last resort of a looser.

Let us say post-"independence" (political)

Anyway, we from the ex-colonies have a clear understanding of "neo-colonisation"

For sure your mind seems occupied, or "colonialized", by harmful ideologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com