>>1841089Iād say it developed methods that would later be used by settler colonial states with some success, kind of like a trial run along the lines of Englandās treatment of Ireland, but functionally was not a settler colonial project in itself.
>>1841062I mean the movement itself is a dead end in America. My family has been in America for nearly 250 years, we arenāt going anywhereāthereās not gonna be any situation where all the white people go back to Europe and a few thousand natives inherit whatās left.
>>1841102See whatās shallow about the ādecolonialā argument in regards to the reconquista is the history of it. The Islamic Caliphate invaded the place, killed those who opposed them, melted down holy artifacts to assert their superiorityāthe bells of Santiago were melted into slag and carried to the Mosque of Cordoba on the backs of enslaved Christiansāand would raid Christian settlements. Bear in mind the Visigoths had been residing in Spain for ~300 years at that point. Theyād been pushed back to the northern tip of Iberia and it was no small miracle that they retained their independence. The reconquista was ultimately them pushing back an invading force that displaced them from a land theyād been residing in for hundreds of years, enslaved their people, and attempted to impose a foreign religion on them.
That I saw Leftists decrying the reconquista as āsettler colonialismā reinforces my view that outside of Israel-Palestine the whole fucking concept is a joke. Because if these people had any intellectual integrity they could make the case that, if anything, the reconquista was a successful anti-colonial struggle. If Iām still a āsettlerā despite my family residing here for 250 years, the Moores were just as much settlers in Iberia. Shit, BadEmpanada made the case that Crimea had no right to secede because the land was taken from the Crimean tatars hundreds of years ago, and they should be the ones to decide itās fate despite being a tiny minority. The truth that some on the Left will laugh at or alternatively pretend isnāt obvious, is that the Iberians were Christian Europeans and the Moores were African Muslims, so they get a pass.
>āItās just making up for decades of western chauvinism in Academia!āBy being chauvinist in the other direction.
>āBut the moores mixed with the local population.āYou can find way too many white people claiming Cherokee or other indigenous ancestry
>āBut conversions were voluntary!āYou were forced to pay extra taxes just for practicing your faith, and when youāre a subsistence farmer that can mean the difference between life and death in some cases.
>āBut the Moores were heckinā tolerant and metropolitans while the Christians were savage religious zealots.āAnd the British ended wife-burning in India.
>āThe caliphate was advanced! They built cities!āThe British built railroads and, yes, in some cases, cities.
>āBut what about all the violence the Spanish Inquisition did afterwards?āThe Left doesnāt give a fuck about all the violence that happened to Rhodesian Settlers. Chanting āKill the Boerā is often defended by the Left. We hear again and again that decolonization is a bloody and violent thing, but in the case of Iberia itās ācomplicated.ā
The only truth is the āsettler-colonialā narrative specifically in the context of Iberia is just the telltale sign of what swathes of the Western Left is: Oikophobia. Itās not a mass movement, in fact it has open contempt for the masses. It wants to be a few intellectuals sniffing their farts and asserting theyāre so much better than the rubes that make up 90% of a country.