Colonialism vs Immigration
7th October 2025, Kathmandu
Elon Musk, owner of the X platform, has triggered widespread fury after engaging with a highly controversial post that attempted to deny British rule in India.
Colonialism vs Immigration
The tech billionaire’s response—a single “thinking face” emoji ()—was a simple action that amplified a historically distorted view, drawing immediate and harsh criticism from users globally, particularly in India.
The initial post by X user Stefan Molyneux asserted: “If Indians set foot in England and become English… Then the English who set foot in India became Indian. Therefore, the English did not rule India.
There is no such thing as ‘colonization’.” Musk’s emoji amplified this post, which has now garnered millions of views, placing the owner of X at the heart of a heated online debate over historical legitimacy.
The Flawed Analogy: Conquest is Not Consent
The core of the backlash revolves around the flawed equivalence drawn between colonisation vs immigration.
Critics were quick to point out the stark, fundamental difference between a modern citizen legally migrating to another country and an imperial power conquering a sovereign land by force.
Rule by Force: British administrators did not “become Indian”; they imposed a foreign government backed by military might. They legislated from Westminster, extracted enormous wealth, and established a racial hierarchy that treated Indians as subjects.
Legal Migration: Today’s Indian immigrants to the UK, in contrast, enter under existing law, integrate into society, and live under the rule of the British Parliament. They do not arrive with an army to overthrow the host government or loot national resources.
Historical Context: Users emphasized that colonization resulted in systemic extraction, subjugation, and tragedy, including engineered famines like the Bengal Famine of 1943. These events starkly differentiate colonial rule from voluntary, legal immigration.
The Weight of the Emoji on a Global Platform
Musk’s decision to react with a ‘thinking face’ emoji, though not an explicit endorsement, was interpreted by many as lending credibility to a racially charged and historically revisionist argument.
The amplification effect of the world’s richest man commenting on an X post meant the controversial idea immediately gained massive, global visibility.
A key criticism centered on the platform’s responsibility. When the owner of a major social media platform engages with a conspiracy theory or a historical distortion, the act carries significant interpretive weight.
For many, the emoji became a symbol of indifference to the violence and lasting trauma of colonial history.
Users questioned why a figure actively pushing for his businesses like Tesla and Starlink in global markets would appear to trivialize a sensitive historical trauma.
Colonial Memory as Political Currency
The strong reaction highlights that the memory of colonialism is not a distant, academic subject; it remains an active political and emotional currency in former colonies.
Demand for Clarity: The outrage was not simply patriotic; it was a demand for historical clarity and justice.
Contemporary Relevance: Commenters drew direct links between the imperial “drain of wealth” and current debates on economic restitution and global respect.
They argued that equating empire with “cultural blending” is a profound insult to centuries of suffering and lost sovereignty.
The incident underscores the profound impact an influential individual’s digital footprint can have on global discourse, especially when touching upon deeply sensitive historical wounds.
Musk’s single emoji managed to reopen a centuries-old wound, proving that in the age of platform titans, ambiguity is often interpreted as calculated provocation.
The intense debate firmly drew the line between the coercive imposition of colonialism vs immigration based on consent.
For more : Colonialism vs Immigration