If France wants to reimburse Haiti for the independence debt, it’s welcome to start at any time; I’d hardly begin to say that colonialism isn’t relevant – even in the modern age –, for Europe.
You’d be correct; a country which suffered from colonialism by a European country; the effects of which continue today. Therefore, the effects of colonialism by at least one European country is still relevant.
You said colonialism by Europe isn’t relevant in the modern age.
Is there a definition of relevant that, for you, doesn’t include the impacts and effects of the thing in question?
Are you going to argue to me with a straight face that the only relevant aspects we should be concerned about with colonialism is whether ownership is current and active?
If you strip the land of resources when you owned it such that people can no longer use it, your colonization of that land – while in the past – is still relevant to the people now trying to eke out an existence on that land.
Playing prescriptivist with definitions isn’t going to absolve Europe of the still ongoing effects that their colonization has caused.
Colonization was not specific to Europe, nor is it even relevant to it in the modern age.
If France wants to reimburse Haiti for the independence debt, it’s welcome to start at any time; I’d hardly begin to say that colonialism isn’t relevant – even in the modern age –, for Europe.
Haiti looks like a country to me.
You’d be correct; a country which suffered from colonialism by a European country; the effects of which continue today. Therefore, the effects of colonialism by at least one European country is still relevant.
You said colonialism by Europe isn’t relevant in the modern age.
So you’re claiming France currently owns Haiti?
Is there a definition of relevant that, for you, doesn’t include the impacts and effects of the thing in question?
Are you going to argue to me with a straight face that the only relevant aspects we should be concerned about with colonialism is whether ownership is current and active?
Now you’re asking me how I might agree that not having any colonies can still count as colonization?
If you strip the land of resources when you owned it such that people can no longer use it, your colonization of that land – while in the past – is still relevant to the people now trying to eke out an existence on that land.
Playing prescriptivist with definitions isn’t going to absolve Europe of the still ongoing effects that their colonization has caused.
Also…Europe still has colonies/territories (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1er0god/european_overseas_territories_outside_europe/); so your entire argument doesn’t even hold up, to begin with. Europe’s still colonizing.
It’s interesting that you spent so much time defending your racism rather than trying to dismiss the allegation.