Who Are "Wrong" to Colonize and Take Land from Other People?

I think the subject is sometimes discussed, though probably in more refined and academic places. I’m not sure it’s specifically relevant to the question of European colonisation since that spread to the entirety of the New World regardless of which native groups occupied the land at the time or which had done in the past. It’s also worth noting that a lot of the interaction between Europeans and Native Americans was cordial, even friendly, especially early on. It was the violent actions of some on both sides and later pressures as more immigrants came in that triggered the major conflicts.

I’d say that was morally wrong, as was the similar raiding and regional conflicts across the rest of the world. I think the main differences you’re seeing in modern perceptions is that the people speaking are generally still the beneficiaries of European colonisation whereas the victors in the previous examples are either long gone or no longer benefiting.

 

Actually, my family moved us out of Los Angeles when I was a kid. I think my old neighborhood has reverted back to the savages (gangs).

 

I try to be a fair historian. I sit like God on his throne and judge ALL people in past as if they were some Western people in 21st Century America.

 

Tribal connections exist, whether in LA or Carlsbad, CA, or East Texas.

 

Gasp... you mean, Islam?

 

Lessons for modern day Europe....

 

Look, by 21st Cent standards the Spanish and the Aztec were both terrible, however the Aztec much much worse human beings.

Definition of fascism
: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

Montezuma was a pathetic dictator. He fits the definition perfectly.

 

The point is that brainwashed Libs like yourself can't imagine any other people group "stealing land" or mistreating others. Only evil Whitey could do this.

 

The current perception among the ignorant public is that the Native Americans came over here long ago, then they all formed tribes and settled into the same territories they had from 18,000 years ago to 1492. The Natives just rarely ever fought each other, and most of the time they were just smoking their peace pipes and "being one with nature." Evil Whitey then stole their land, exterminating most of them for fun.

 

Greataxe, ah . . . uhm . . . no, that is not what people think. Native Americans were every bit as violent as Europeans or Asians or Africans or Polynesians. What's your point?

 

Yes our elites gave them 30 percent of the price per barrel. May have changed later on though, not sure.

 

Colonialism was not limited to Europeans and Imperial Japan also colonized Taiwan and Korea, making them first-class industrialized states by building factories and railways. As along as these former colonies came out to be more prosperous after European or Japanese colonization, there is nothing wrong with colonialism as an older form of development aid. Taiwan was Imperial Japan’s first colony and many Taiwanese have a surprisingly positive take on Japan’s colonial legacy. Bent on presenting itself as apt colonizers on par with the West, Japan made Taiwan its model colony, modernizing the island and offering access to modern education and services.

 

I've posted this same question in other discussions, and by and large, my sarcastic analysis is spot-on about what people believe happened.

Just look at the very few people who have NOT posted an opinion on the survey.

 

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you can't condemn people of the 16th century with 21th criterion. Violence was everywhere the norm around the globe.

Conquistadors weren't that well considered, many monks wrotte to the pope to denounce their acts.

 

I'm just doing what most people do, playing God with people from the past. However, I'm aware of what I'm doing.

 

Uhm, guy . . . no, you are not playing God. Your statements are silly.

 

If I had to give a comparison, I think that the brutal behaviour of Conquistadors toward native in south america was like global warming (for the one who believe in it, I do), the condition of life of animals in intensive farms, the fate of homeless people. Almost everybody agree to says it's wrong, but very few people are ready to take actions. The worst ennemy of humanity is not evil itself, it's our apathy (I'm not better than anyone on that) when evil we could stop occure.

 

It is not a cultural fact it is merely a political idea.

 

Not a chance. The native americans died mainly from disease and the whites moved into mostly depopulated areas. In any case the natives were outgunned.

 

Just off the top of my head, the Arabs, the Turks, the Mongolians, the Han Chinese, the Zulus.

 

...the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Goths, the Visigoths....

 

Judging them as God---figuratively.

 

..., Huns, Persians, Scythians, ...

(this is fun)

 

There is no right and wrong on mass levels like you're talking about. There are only winners and losers. Right and wrong have more to do with the kind of society that takes over rather than the taking. The Moors took over the greater part of Spain for 700 years. Were they right or wrong? Who knows. But as a society, it was as repressive or more than any of the European ethnic groups of 800 AD. 700 years later, the Spanish finally drove the Moors out of Spain. Were they right or wrong? Who knows. But as a society, Spain in 1492 was definitely more repressive than the Moors had become, because of the Inquisition. Taking a bath on a Saturday night was used as evidence of crypto-Jewishness, justifying torture, seizure of assets, and possibly death. Might does not make right. If Germany had won WWII, they would still have been wrong. Their society was repressive, unjust, and deadly, and not just to the Jews.

 

The OPer's poll is a complete diversion from the real ethical question. Many countries and other people have migrated into or even militarily overrun other countries, but treated the population humanely and fought wars by some sense of rules of war. NONE of that existed in regards to NAs. The tactics and their treatment upon defeat makes ISIS and the Taliban true humanitarians by comparison.