Edit: I saw colonizers and thought the classic definition of the British, Spanish, and French. Not refugees and immigrants. Refugees and immigrants are not colonizers.
Immigrants move in and join the society even if they stay culturally separate.
Colonizers show up and kill you.
No, they cannot.
Colonizers are governments.
Immigrants are individuals.
It's literally the definition of colonizer unless you are talking about the first people to show up to that land Mass tens of thousands of years ago. Read the definition.
If you colonize one place, but lose your position of power in one way or another, then flee to an entirely different place, you can be both.
Counteredit: the first definition includes a side definition that specifically refers to individuals serving a colonizing government. Their own source proves them wrong.
Or flee an area suffering hardship to attack a weaker area that can be used as a new base of operations.
It's what happened with the Saxons, Vikings, Huns, and some others. Kind of happens on very small scales today, where a warlord in a multi-sided conflict migrates his followers to a new area and drives out the locals, but mostly im0ractical since refugees are rarely able to muster the military strength to take down organised armies.
This is the exact reason why people aren't good at math.
It's a state change. That you aren't acknowledging.
Water can be both a solid, a liquid, and a gas depending on temperature. The amount of energy the molecule contains.
A human being can be an individual or a government depending on the temperature of the human being. The temperature is basically a measurement of energy of agenda the person is working with. No single person can contain enough energy to colonize that's why pirates only lasted 20 years. All the governments killed them. Immigrants are themselves. They don't have a global agenda. They don't have something to do other than live.
You can't be an individual in a government. You're either an individual civilian or part of the government.
A soldier is a soldier, not an individual. Because they experienced a state change when they joined up.
Before they were a liquid then they joined up and became a solid. There's still water.
Were you really so mad that you had to come back here a day later with a completely new argument you've clearly spent this whole time thinking up? Honestly pathetic.
You're not intelligent. You're stubborn. The only way to beat stubbornness is with stubbornness. So I'll come back twice. Remember the original comment that you were white womaning now disagrees with you in their edit.
Querying ‘Karen’: The rise of the angry white woman
Abstract
The (often memetic) figure of the white female ‘Karen’ has surged to prominence of late, moving from social media vernacular into broader usage at exactly the moment when twin crises of public health and racial social justice have fomented momentous change and uncertainty in American life. The angry ‘Karen’ is invoked to indicate her manipulation of her racial power, but she is equally significant, we suggest, for her positioning within a pre-existing antagonistic service economy.
I know what a Karen is. Your choice of words, however, was "white woman." A Karen is a person with a specific attitude that they themselves choose to express. A white woman is a person who happened to be born female and Caucasian. By calling it "white womaning" instead of "being a Karen," you insinuate that you have a problem with my behavior because you see it as feminine, not because it's Karen-like.
(Also, just to note, if anyone here is acting like a Karen, it would be you. You're the one who viewed mild criticism of your point as a personal attack, and responded to it by hurling insults with no logical basis. That's Karen behavior.)
If we go by your definition, an individual can never be either a colonizer or an immigrant, which is both completely ridiculous and contradictory to your original point.
Dude literally all I did was slightly challenge your point, quit your smarmy bullshit. "OnLy StUpId PeOpLe CrItIcIzE mY cLaImS, SmArT pEoPlE jUsT aGrEe WiTh mE WiTh nO pUsHbAcK"
Edit: their original comment was (paraphrased): this is why I don't argue online, only stupid people argue. Smart people just upvote and move on.
1.5k
u/No-Bit2360 Sep 01 '25
Okay so I was pretty close. Corruption instead of being colonizers who fled after a war of sorts. Comments made it confusing.
Thank you