I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him.
But (if you mean this idea that he specifically wants to bring back British colonialism) I don't anyone thinks that he meant that. So it seems like a weird charge to defend him against.
If that's not what you meant (by "the assumption people are making"), please clarify.
(It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)
Sorry, I was just trying to simplify your text to make it easier to respond to that what seemed to be the core import of what you were saying.
I understand colonialism perfectly. My country was under British rule for almost 900 years, longer than any other country on earth. I wasn't supporting him in his statement, actually I disagree with at least 80% of what he tweets, however if there is to be a backlash against the likes of Marc Andreessen then it should be for legitimate reasons and not that he endorsed colonialism which he didn't. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be pissed with SV elites who say and act as they wish without making up fake reasons.
I'm sorry but you seem to be ignoring the jist of his comment [0], and entire centuries of arguably genocidal European (in this case Dutch, but every country and their uncle with the means to do so, did to some extent; lest you think I'm singling out the Dutch) colonialism. Emphasis mine:
[0]>"In places that have never threatened him, his family or his people. If not for imperial interests, [...]"
I disagree with this. Here’s what Kipling has to say about colonialism:
“ Take up the White Man's burden —
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.”
Have they (the colonized) profited from colonization? This mans words beat the drums for imperialism, he does not deserve praise.
Having read many of his books, that’s absolutely not the case. His book ‘The Anarchy’ (and the podcast) goes into great detail about the excesses of colonialism.
It isn't. But ignoring the NN aspect of this discussion, the sentiment I got from the tweet was that the "anti-colonial" mindset was to drive out foreign influence, both positive and negative. The idea that the tweet was pro-colonial I believe is incorrect.
Once again, Twitter shows us why it shouldn't be used for nuanced conversation.
reply