Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on ""Cobalt Red": Smartphones & Electric Cars Rely on Toxic Mineral Mined in Congo by Children" video.

@ronsanchez6992 Right. But "colonialist" is conflated with "white racist oppressor" class and so forth.
4
@ZaniinaN3690 "After colonialist left back to europe, they also installed a caucasoid type of oppressive classes to make them at ease." Caucasoid class? What determines "classifications" of various humans? If you're talking about a "class system" there has to be distinctions between "classes" that have some discernible real world effect. African Apartheid had two legal classes. In India they have cultural "tribal" class distinctions. German Nazis created a fake "Aryan" class as well as "Jewish" and several other classes that were encoded by law. In the European monarchies you had 3 possible "classes" distinguished by your relationship with the monarchy, the institutional church and whether or not you owned land (under the monarch's land grants). Another class emerged of people that were able to make profits from trade but those people also had close relationships with the monarch and were also "landed". Some also acquired wealth through military service and did not fit in to any of the other classes. Finally you had the "peasant" class that simply didn't have access to any of those above mentioned things. "Caucasian" theory is closely related to the German "Aryan race" theory. It's a reference to the Caucasus region and perhaps to the Turks or some other imagined tribe from the past. It's not always easy to figure out what pseudoscientific racialist persons are trying to promote.
4
@olliemck60 But you're wrong. You don't know anything about history. The history of "colonialism" is mostly about trade. What happened generally is that the locals that benefitted first and most from this foreign trade and foreign enterprises is taht they didn't understand why it wasn't "shared" according to Jacobin Marxist "common sense". There have of course been legitimate objections to these deals that occurred mostly between local and foreign "power". Power is not innately oppressive. Corrupt power is. All of this conflation is pretty stupid because why accept solutions form totalitarian leftists that posit all power is innately oppressive? It's like you're admitting that you have no solutions. Just that you're going to make all of the nonruling class equal peasants again. And a "racist" colonialist is just someone that doesn't "include" the local people en masse as Communists promise to do. The legitimate grievances come from land use and how traditional property rights were parsed out everywhere but in the USA. The British monarch presumed the same sovereignty over the USA but never managed to claim and hold land as property. The threat that he would try that was a major reason for the war. The taxes were the easier method and so that is nominally what they fought over. But they didn't want any trace of a traditional monarchy in the USA and they managed to achieve that. All of these legitimate grievances can not simply be filed under "Colonialist = Oppressor".
2
@olliemck60 If you want to reduce it to a simple binary, the only real question is whether sovereign "rulers" value human development over material exploitation. Marx was seen as a defender of "laborer" when he really just hypothesized the laborers would revolt and seize all of the wealth of the world and then create a "just" society based on "From each according to ability, to each according to need". There's also his "false (class) consciousness" theory that suggests anyone going against the Marxist "equity" prophecies has cognitive dissonance. He's also quoted as saying "Man is nothing, time is everything." Using his form of analysis to conflate all issues to "good or evil" Manichean analysis or simply that all of human history is reduced to "Will to Power" actually overlooks all of the things that exist in reality that you binary-thinking critics envy but fail to understand. And protections for humans either comes from "rule of law" nationalism or does not exist at all. Those are the only choices from history proved to work. Nationalism itself as a paradigm comes from "The Peace of Westphalia". Can there ever be an "international rule of law" that protects all humans in accordance with "the rule of law" paradigm? In theory, yes. But that means you need a globally enforceable and single interpretation of a "bill of rights" so that every human has the same standing in whatever courts are used to protect the rights of the accused and the petitioners. It's frustrating to me that anyone can attend US schools and not understand this. Perhaps just as bad is going to European schools where the USA came to fight for the freedoms of the allied nations during WWII and nobody teaches about the true history of "democracy" and protected freedoms AKA "the rule of law". When you use terms like "colonialists" as a clear "thing" that is understood by "experts" what it show is that you've never, ever thought about what the choices and and the possibility that some "colonialism" is part of "good" history and that whatever controversies exist as a nation strived to become an independent sovereign might or might not be the fault of the "colonialists" and the same goes for the "born there" natives. Our schools and now our so called "intellectuals" talk about these topics as if reviewing a primate study where behavioral labels are viewed as 'rules' that explain all "experts" need to know.
1
@olliemck60 LOL. What? "EV's are progress" is an ignorant, dogmatic slogan. "You can have EVs without exploitation, EVs are not the problem greed is! It would be the same thing with bananas." Your sloganeering comes directly from dogmatic Marxist Critical Theory ignorance. All of Marx's dogmas are easily debunked but you're not even aware of what is alluded to under "science denier" versus "settled science". BTW, if 'EVs' are so "progressive" then hybrid vehicles would be even more so. Why didn't your heroes put in a smooth transition plan going back to when the first successful hybrid vehicles were produced? As battery tech evolved and cars became lighter we would have already been ahead today of the supposed "progressive" goals. The "progressive" goals are to take away a free middle class. Even in Europe they simply tax TF out of cars and have been for decades so that only the "rich" can afford cars. And "Progressives" have been nagging about having "social justice" trains and whatnot for decades. If they have actual replacements that make economic sense why don't they build them? the most sensible transition vehicle would involve hybrids and would have started decades ago. Suddenly, to overcome "populism" they all decided that they should outlaw gasoline and diesel engines because it's harder to control use of those vehicles moment to moment the next time they want to call out some kind of "emergency" and lock you in your home. If not something worse. And don't get my started with your "greed" comment. Study a little more about Freudian projection and envy. The root problem is, around the world, people that take power and lie in order to destroy individual freedoms in favor of "fascist" totalitarian control under supposedly "liberal" aka "Progressive" policies.
1