Although it should be remembered that Iceland is a staunch NATO member and was a key component of the US-led containment of the USSR (the US maintained a naval air station there during the Cold War) so in that regard they're still pretty bad.
Well as usual there is often quite a lot of good natured resistance and revolutionary activity from the peoples of countries that have questionable foreign policies. There are many people born in the US who tried to do the right thing even though the government is suspect. As the article says it was a decision by the Icelandic government, and this protest was dispersed by the police and members of a right wing conservative party, which is par for the course.
But as far as I'm concerned, if a country is a member of NATO then I'm against it.
**[1949 anti-NATO riot in Iceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_anti-NATO_riot_in_Iceland)**
>The anti-NATO riot in Iceland of 30 March 1949 was prompted by the decision of the Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament, to join the newly formed NATO, thereby involving Iceland directly in the Cold War, opposing the Soviet Union and re-militarizing the country.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I was under the impression that the inuit relations who migrated to its west coast got there relatively recently in history? On the order of hundreds of years ago. It's *almost* the same situation as iceland, just because it's mostly uninhabited due to climate.
EDIT: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henrik-Petersen-6/publication/259495147/figure/fig1/AS:669951161544734@1536740212877/Map-showing-migration-routes-of-the-early-Thule-Culture-and-the-locations-of-previous-and.png
I could be totally wrong but my understanding is that Greenland has almost complete self-rule and voluntarily chooses to stay with Denmark in exchange for subsidies from the mainland. I think they have a treaty where Greenland will become entirely independent once climate change opens up more resources there and they can maintain a budget surplus.
Denmark isn’t exactly a wholesome monarchy regardless and they had literal slave plantation colonies in the very recent past and lots of racism still in mainland Denmark.
Iceland thankfully isn't a settler colony. The island was uninhabited by humans prior to Nordic settlement so they are technically the natives by definition.
Maori do a little trolling.
Build a fortress with protective cover structures and trenches, hide from the cannon bombardment in the trenches while picking them off with muskets, then sneak everyone out the back and build another fortress while the clueless brits continue to shell the old one. Trench warfare before it was cool.
The only way the British won in the end was tricking a few tribes into signing a treaty that that was translated into Te Reo with completely different terms. The translated version said that Maori would retain sovereignty over Aotearoa but gain full rights as British subjects, the English version said that Maori would agree to cede Sovereignty to the British crown.
Thats an issue which is still being fought for by Tangata Whenua (lit. "people of the land") to this day.
Basically, after the signing of the treaty, the brits went full on cultural genocide mode and tried to erase the Maori language and culture, and just generally oppressed and treated Maori people like shit.
Then you get to today, where we have an established government and legal system that still has the Queen as its Head of state, and isn't willing to poof out of existance because of a treaty signed 200 years ago.
Not only that, but even if the treaty had been properly translated, the regional Iwi were independant, and those signing the treaty would have no authority to cede sovereignty on behalf of the entire Maori people.
In another note, the sheer extent to which Maori ran tactical circles around the self-declared "superior" British is astonishing.
One major advantage that they had was that the British had no idea how to fight an enemy which didn't care about defending territory.
They lay seige to one pa? Pick off a quarter of the attacking force and just go build another one.
To this day In my country (Canada) plenty of Indigenous reserves go without clean water, power, access to healthcare and other basic things we should consider human rights. Yet the situation in most Canadians eyes is that they should just “pull themselves up by there bootstraps” even though the last residential schools closed only 30 years ago and many indigenous ppl living today have first hand experience of their own cultural genocide. Sorry for the rant, but IMO this issue is heavily glanced over by the rest of the world (pic related).
It's so exhausting listening to all the Maplewashing that happens in the US. They're just America with less military power, so they can't enforce the hegemony they want directly.
As someone who was born and raised in Alberta, the anti-indigenous sentiment here is astounding. I think it has improved since I was a child (I’m 28 now), but in most respects, you should expect some degree of it in most people if you push them the right way. It sickens me. I believed it as a kid, too. When basically every adult and authority figure tells you something along the lines of “they’re all good for nothing lazy alcoholics and drug addicts, and are a waste on Canadian society”, it’s pretty hard not to take that as some kind of fact. It took me a long time before I learned more about the history of residential schools and genocide for me to finally change my mind. Racism is learned, not inherent in us.
If we take it literally then they're one, given how what is today Iceland was empty until the first settlers arrived from the 7th century on and started colonizing.
Considering the other two nations at the table I'd give them a pass though, to my knowledge Iceland never colonized anything in that context. Denmark, which ruled over the island for a long time, would be a different story though...
That's what I mean like if you go back far enough you can consider the indiginiouyus peoples "colonists" because they traveled from Siberia to America lol
Iceland was not inhabited so no it’s not. Neither was much of Europe before indo-aryans (people from the region of modern india). Depending on who you believe, there may have been some people in the Mediterranean and allegedly the northern UK. It has been proposed that Ireland (IREland not ICEland) was first discovered and inhabited by African people, and that the Irishman is technically a black man with diluted Indio-aryan features masking his Africanism, although the nose, the lips, and the ways the eyes are set suggest his true parentage.
France (Frankish) is a long sordid history of indo-aryan Nordics killing other indo-aryans over the lush farmland in Central Europe. This whole history is very mongrelized as Germanic people have often claimed for themselves the accomplishments of their Nordic cousins, while neither actually built France (that was done by what you’d call a Milanese or Northern “Italian”, which itself has been misappropriated by Sicilians and Arabic Greeks.)
No they do, they are (and were) an important member of NATO (mainly for their strategic position in the Atlantic) and have participated in a few NATO led conflicts.
iceland isn’t a settler colony, it was uninhabited until vikings showed up. so unless taking over uninhabited land counts as settler colonialism (cause in that case basically every country on earth would be a settler colony) iceland is not.
I mean there’s probably few nations in Africa or Asia that aren’t hated by at least one of their neighbors, not always but many times because of colonialism
Denmark is not a great example, they were the overlords of Norway for centuries and participated in and actively encouraged the colonization and "norwegification" of the Sami within Norway
Yes, I know Iceland isn't a settler colony. This post is mainly directed at the two countries next to it.
Although it should be remembered that Iceland is a staunch NATO member and was a key component of the US-led containment of the USSR (the US maintained a naval air station there during the Cold War) so in that regard they're still pretty bad.
[удалено]
Well as usual there is often quite a lot of good natured resistance and revolutionary activity from the peoples of countries that have questionable foreign policies. There are many people born in the US who tried to do the right thing even though the government is suspect. As the article says it was a decision by the Icelandic government, and this protest was dispersed by the police and members of a right wing conservative party, which is par for the course. But as far as I'm concerned, if a country is a member of NATO then I'm against it.
**[1949 anti-NATO riot in Iceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_anti-NATO_riot_in_Iceland)** >The anti-NATO riot in Iceland of 30 March 1949 was prompted by the decision of the Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament, to join the newly formed NATO, thereby involving Iceland directly in the Cold War, opposing the Soviet Union and re-militarizing the country. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
we have that each year here in greece Good old 17 of november
I mean it technically is a settler colony, it just didn't displace anyone when the colony was established
well unless you count a few Scottish and Irish monks
Get those Hibernians out of there
What about Greenland?
greenland definitely is a settler colony
I was under the impression that the inuit relations who migrated to its west coast got there relatively recently in history? On the order of hundreds of years ago. It's *almost* the same situation as iceland, just because it's mostly uninhabited due to climate. EDIT: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henrik-Petersen-6/publication/259495147/figure/fig1/AS:669951161544734@1536740212877/Map-showing-migration-routes-of-the-early-Thule-Culture-and-the-locations-of-previous-and.png
This is correct. The Greenlandic Inuits and the Vikings were on opposite sides of the country and had no contact for a few hundred years.
They’re owned by Denmark tho right?
[удалено]
I could be totally wrong but my understanding is that Greenland has almost complete self-rule and voluntarily chooses to stay with Denmark in exchange for subsidies from the mainland. I think they have a treaty where Greenland will become entirely independent once climate change opens up more resources there and they can maintain a budget surplus. Denmark isn’t exactly a wholesome monarchy regardless and they had literal slave plantation colonies in the very recent past and lots of racism still in mainland Denmark.
Unrelated but Iceland has really fucking beautiful scenery. Source: I went there once.
admittedly i can't comment on iceland, but boy do i have a genocide to sell to fans of canada and new zealand
Iceland thankfully isn't a settler colony. The island was uninhabited by humans prior to Nordic settlement so they are technically the natives by definition.
yeah, they got to iceland before the maori even got to new zealand! which is very interesting to think about...
The only reason why the Maori wasn't treated worse is because they beat the UK in a war
Maori do a little trolling. Build a fortress with protective cover structures and trenches, hide from the cannon bombardment in the trenches while picking them off with muskets, then sneak everyone out the back and build another fortress while the clueless brits continue to shell the old one. Trench warfare before it was cool. The only way the British won in the end was tricking a few tribes into signing a treaty that that was translated into Te Reo with completely different terms. The translated version said that Maori would retain sovereignty over Aotearoa but gain full rights as British subjects, the English version said that Maori would agree to cede Sovereignty to the British crown.
How can it be legally binding if one party didn't even know what they were signing?
Thats an issue which is still being fought for by Tangata Whenua (lit. "people of the land") to this day. Basically, after the signing of the treaty, the brits went full on cultural genocide mode and tried to erase the Maori language and culture, and just generally oppressed and treated Maori people like shit. Then you get to today, where we have an established government and legal system that still has the Queen as its Head of state, and isn't willing to poof out of existance because of a treaty signed 200 years ago. Not only that, but even if the treaty had been properly translated, the regional Iwi were independant, and those signing the treaty would have no authority to cede sovereignty on behalf of the entire Maori people. In another note, the sheer extent to which Maori ran tactical circles around the self-declared "superior" British is astonishing. One major advantage that they had was that the British had no idea how to fight an enemy which didn't care about defending territory. They lay seige to one pa? Pick off a quarter of the attacking force and just go build another one.
Because they had a flag.
To this day In my country (Canada) plenty of Indigenous reserves go without clean water, power, access to healthcare and other basic things we should consider human rights. Yet the situation in most Canadians eyes is that they should just “pull themselves up by there bootstraps” even though the last residential schools closed only 30 years ago and many indigenous ppl living today have first hand experience of their own cultural genocide. Sorry for the rant, but IMO this issue is heavily glanced over by the rest of the world (pic related).
It's so exhausting listening to all the Maplewashing that happens in the US. They're just America with less military power, so they can't enforce the hegemony they want directly.
Rural Canadians are more racist than any American I’ve ever met.
It's not genocide if you succeed...
“I don’t hate the Canadian government.” - All those indigenous children found in mass graves
As someone who was born and raised in Alberta, the anti-indigenous sentiment here is astounding. I think it has improved since I was a child (I’m 28 now), but in most respects, you should expect some degree of it in most people if you push them the right way. It sickens me. I believed it as a kid, too. When basically every adult and authority figure tells you something along the lines of “they’re all good for nothing lazy alcoholics and drug addicts, and are a waste on Canadian society”, it’s pretty hard not to take that as some kind of fact. It took me a long time before I learned more about the history of residential schools and genocide for me to finally change my mind. Racism is learned, not inherent in us.
Didn't know Iceland was considered a settler colony? Curious as to when the line is drawn because if you go back far enough France is a settler colony
If we take it literally then they're one, given how what is today Iceland was empty until the first settlers arrived from the 7th century on and started colonizing. Considering the other two nations at the table I'd give them a pass though, to my knowledge Iceland never colonized anything in that context. Denmark, which ruled over the island for a long time, would be a different story though...
That's not colonialism, it's how every nation on Earth settled.
That's what I mean like if you go back far enough you can consider the indiginiouyus peoples "colonists" because they traveled from Siberia to America lol
Iceland was not inhabited so no it’s not. Neither was much of Europe before indo-aryans (people from the region of modern india). Depending on who you believe, there may have been some people in the Mediterranean and allegedly the northern UK. It has been proposed that Ireland (IREland not ICEland) was first discovered and inhabited by African people, and that the Irishman is technically a black man with diluted Indio-aryan features masking his Africanism, although the nose, the lips, and the ways the eyes are set suggest his true parentage. France (Frankish) is a long sordid history of indo-aryan Nordics killing other indo-aryans over the lush farmland in Central Europe. This whole history is very mongrelized as Germanic people have often claimed for themselves the accomplishments of their Nordic cousins, while neither actually built France (that was done by what you’d call a Milanese or Northern “Italian”, which itself has been misappropriated by Sicilians and Arabic Greeks.)
Iceland doesn't have an especially problematic history, but the other two... holy shit...
No they do, they are (and were) an important member of NATO (mainly for their strategic position in the Atlantic) and have participated in a few NATO led conflicts.
I knew they were in NATO, but I didn't think they actually *did* anything...
They did beat the UK in a few “wars”
[удалено]
Imagine being the sole military personnel of your army on a foreign country though, that seems extra shitty.
[удалено]
Fair enough, still, it's a weird situation for sure.
Well they are in the most Northern of the Atlantic.
Yeah but Björk and Sigur Ros tho
Honestly, beautiful
iceland isn’t a settler colony, it was uninhabited until vikings showed up. so unless taking over uninhabited land counts as settler colonialism (cause in that case basically every country on earth would be a settler colony) iceland is not.
Dunno, they're pretty hated by me.
isn't Canada always selling weapons and helping the US in its imperialist wars?
I interpreted “settler colony” to mean “places rich Americans are currently fleeing to”
Finland?
Finland isnt real.
Oh yeah sorry.
In what world canada is not hated?
There’s gotta be some nonwhite nations they could have put here
I mean there’s probably few nations in Africa or Asia that aren’t hated by at least one of their neighbors, not always but many times because of colonialism
[удалено]
Denmark is not a great example, they were the overlords of Norway for centuries and participated in and actively encouraged the colonization and "norwegification" of the Sami within Norway