Why do leftists of the postcolonial tradition always criticize Anglos for settler colonialism but never mention the...

Why do leftists of the postcolonial tradition always criticize Anglos for settler colonialism but never mention the fact that Russia colonized and settled Northern Asia?

Attached: IMG_6965.png (349x307, 205K)

i think it has something to do with them not genociding the local populations, i might be wrong though

it wasn't colonization since we just kept moving to the right on map and expanding country

Probably because if a Russian citizen ever criticized the government they get sent to Gulag

>The killings by the Russian Cossacks devastated the native peoples of Kamchatka.[16] In addition to committing genocide the Cossacks also devastated the wildlife by slaughtering massive numbers of animals for fur.[17] 90% of the Kamchadals and half of the Vogules were killed from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries and the rapid genocide of the indigenous population led to entire ethnic groups being entirely wiped out, with around 12 exterminated groups which could be named by Nikolai Iadrintsev as of 1882. Much of the slaughter was brought on by the fur trade.[18]

>The Russian colonization of Siberia and conquest of its indigenous peoples has been compared to European colonization in the United States and its natives, with similar negative impacts on the natives and the appropriation of their land.[21] The Slavic Russians outnumber all of the native peoples in Siberia and its cities except in the Republic of Tuva, with the Slavic Russians making up the majority in the Buriat Republic, and Altai Republics, outnumbering the Buriat, and Altai natives. The Buriat make up only 29,51% of their own Republic, and the Altai only one-third; the Chukchi, Evenk, Khanti, Mansi, and Nenets are outnumbered by non-natives by 90% of the population.

The difference is that you never shared a border with injuns like we shared with cunt-eyed niggers.
Voguls fucking asked for genocide.

Same reason why leftists never criticize any non-Western country.

Because they stick to matter pertianing to them. Also user they probably do but you don't see it which in the American mind means it doesn't exist.

But they do though.

No they don’t
Anyways leftists are weak and the caliphate will use them as target pracice

Attached: 61D6284D-828F-44A3-B6C9-CF40E30E7075.jpg (498x664, 73K)

>leftists
Cause they are conservative here.

Attached: Коффеёк с пивасиком.jpg (750x878, 88K)

Lefties have always avoided criticizing the Russian conquest of Siberia because the USSR was historically the main force assisting the struggle against the Western powers and colonialism generally so it made more sense and was convenient to tactfully ignore it and focus on ideologically better targets like the US and the Western colonial powers

Because if you criticize Russia you are either gulaged or accused of bias against dindunuffinrussia.
Also many post-colonial lefties were funded by USSR.

This never was funny you mutt.

Same reason they criticise Israel for illegal people transfers on occupied land but never do that for Russia doing the same in Baltics. The same reason the so called peace organisations held huge marches to oppose the war in Iraq but never did the same when Russians attacked Ukraine.

So called peace organisations were started by Soviet Union and are still run by FSB.

It blows my mind how successful Russia propaganda is. Somehow they've managed to capture the far left and right totally, and as both are starting to edge out moderates (most spectacularly in the US but also in other Western countries) you have a weird situation where Western people increasingly despise anything that smacks of foreign intervention on the part of their own governments even in the most reasonable cases, but when Russia does the same thing it's "based" and "anti-globalist" or whatever

Everything is pants-on-head retarded

>The difference is that you never shared a border with injuns like we shared with cunt-eyed niggers.
This. The same thing happened with the Sapmi . You can't expect people in those days not to kill and chase them from the lands

It's almost like the horseshoe theory is true...

>successful Russia propaganda
Rare thing which we can do good, another one is cheap and easy-to-use weapon.

Attached: чайёк.jpg (1509x1080, 689K)

Yeah Russians are extremely good at disinformation, psyops and cyber warfare. Both the US far left and far right have lots of Russian ties.

Somehow the alt-Right believes Russia has the right to destroy cultures and replace people but when countries accept immigrants on their terms without tanks, it's bad. Go figure.

Demonizing all overseas interests and activities as "colonialism" and "Jewish globalism" (and to promote extreme nationalism in a way that will cripple superior Western trade networks) is a great way for Russia to hobble the competition.

The Germans did the same thing, and it's why they were so eager to attack their European neighbours: they had largely missed the boat when it came to imperialism in Africa and Asia, so they sought to take revenge for being left out of the party by going full Napoleon on everybody else in Europe

>hey had largely missed the boat when it came to imperialism in Africa and Asia

No they didn't.

AFAIK Germany was only able to acquire a few tiny colonies: South-West Africa, Shantung, and a few tiny islands here and there

They didn't manage to acquire the massive holdings France and Britain did and Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portgual all had much, much larger overseas territories well into the 20th centuries.

One of the reasons why Hitler felt he had a free hand to make a blanket denunciation of European colonialism in places like India and Southeast Asia without suffering any unintended consequences itself was that Germany conveniently had very few such holdings.

>Northern Asia
>empty space

>AFAIK Germany was only able to acquire a few tiny colonies: South-West Africa, Shantung, and a few tiny islands here and there

Wrong!.
South West Africa is huge.

German West Africa: 582,200 km2
German South West Africa: 835,100 km2
German New Guinea
(including German Samoa):247,281 km2
German East Africa :995,000 km2

Here's a map.

Attached: German_colonial.png (1425x625, 41K)

It's not colonization if it's about your neighbours, otherwise literally everyone would be a colonialist

Sounds like Colonization is a poor term in that case.

Lefties also ignore the fact that the Soviet Union engaged in a far more ambitious system of genocide and relocation than the United States had done before.

At least American scholars admit to the atrocities committed by the government and settlers.

Umayyad

>imblying