There's no doubt this laptop would've been delivered frictionlessly if Uganda was still under rule of the British empire.

No idea who wrote this, especially now that Royal Mail has been privatised. A while ago I sent a book in the post to Finland from Britain. The book got stuck for 4 weeks in LOS ANGELES. Then I had to watch as the tracking bounced it around between depots on the west coast of America. Then somehow it got flown to Finland where it got stuck again due to post-Brexit customs issues. International shipping, even to countries a few kilometres from Dover is now handled by US Postal Service.

So even though you’re almost funny, you’re still taking sh*te.

The fact Royal Mail is privatised seems irrelevant since whoever you shipped with in Finland decides how it will get to the UK.

I order things like band merch from Europe and have never had a problem receiving in the UK.

> since whoever you shipped with in

They used Royal Mail for shipping, on the way out Royal Mail are the ones handing it to the next country. In that case it seems to be a Royal Mail fuckup. It didn't touch the Finland carrier until it reached Finland.

Seems relevant if you actually read the post.

Bold claim given the mail never reached "the wrong kind of native" during either the Mau Mau rebellion / Mau Mau uprising / Kenya Emergency (1952–1960) or the Malayan Emergency / Anti–British National Liberation War (1948–1960).

To be fair war does tend to disrupt the postal service a little.

To be honest, mail rarely reached the natives, right or wrong, outside of the hot times that saw thousands killed.

Just a general note that things didn't generally run well in the colonies for natives under British rule.

I'll concede they ran well enough for a privileged few who were closely aligned with the British .. but that was not a representative slice of the whole.

Ah yes, the "barbarians" couldn't possibly manage delivering a packet by themselves, after having their country looted for centuries (ongoing).

There's no doubt this laptop would've been delivered frictionlessly if Uganda had never suffered under colonial rule :) And who knows what the UK would be like..

>after having their country looted for centuries (ongoing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania

>The town was founded with the goal of creating a white ethnostate for the Afrikaner minority group, the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner culture through the creation of an Afrikaner state known as a Volkstaat.

>All jobs, from management to manual labour, are done by Afrikaners; non-Afrikaner people are not allowed to live or work there.

>The town's monoculturalism and monoethnic philosophy rejects the concept of baasskap, where the White minority exploited Black labour for economic gain, in favour of a model of strict Afrikaner self-sufficiency.

>The town has grown at an annual rate that was estimated at 10% in 2019 — faster than any other town in South Africa.

>The population increased by 55% to 2,500 from 2018 to mid-2022, and to 2,800 in July 2023.

>In 2023, the town council announced plans for the population to grow to 10,000 as soon as possible.

I'm honestly tired of the bullshit anti-colonialism ideology. These people are so "racist" they purposefully tie their hands behind their back to avoid exploiting black people to prove how they are superior that the standard anti-colonialism rethoric is just a thinly veiled self-hate ideology at this point.

Some racists built a village and it's doing well, therefore centuries of colonialism across continents was good? Is that sound logic?

So if Scientologists or some other cult built a potemkin village in Wyoming and pumped it with investment, and the town's balance sheets looked better than surrounding communities that didn't get their investment, you'd endorse the cult ideology too? Or at least denounce its critics?

What your opinion about the reverse colonization - immigration?

In what way could immigration be the reverse of colonization? Colonization is a specific form of immigration, where the immigrants purposefully destroy native ways of life via different forms of warfare, segregation, etc.

I encourage you to question where you read that framing, because that's a racist stance that doesn't stand scrutiny even for a minute.

My opinion is that whoever uses this term is a fash

[flagged]

What the actual fuck

That attitude has been around for a long time, well since the time of colonisation.

With the current Zeitgeist people just feel more confident, expressing it now again.

But imagine you are a colonizer (or your family got rich because if it). I guess you have to believe that, to still feel righteous.

[deleted]

Pretty sure they still to choose to be free people with this situation better than getting their mails frictionlessly and ruled by british barbarians.

America is under colonizers that's why things are delivered. Praise colonization

I certainly disagree with the GP attitude, but also with your counter-example.

America is de facto run by the descendants of colonizers. How much control do Native Americans really have over its governance?