Colonialism is objectively bad. It's the same reason I oppose mass migration. I'm not going to suddenly support migration because my benighted people need civilizing. It's my home, and they're my retards. The weirdo foreigners can get out.
The fact that you ended it with a statement of mass murder is why the foreigners can get out. Don't think for a second that the Islamists raping your kids aren't also of the opinion that it is corrective rape to a kufar that is finally experiencing morality from a Muslim man.
Colonialism had benefits for both the indigenous and the settlers, but if we're arguing some kind of objective standard (not just what's good for my people - which is a fine standard on its own), how do you define colonization? Doesn't peacefully settling a largely unsettled land count?
If we're talking about a reasonable standard of claiming property, I'm sorry but a tribe of 1000 people doesn't get to say "we own all the land from the mountains to the sea". Just no. (I'm less knowledgeable about Africa but also care less)
People invading and occupying already densely populated nations and leeching from them like parasites isn't the same thing. I don't care what the Islamists opinion is.
I define colonization as taking foregin populations and settling them into an area that is already part of a land claimed by an indigenous people, and then eventually displacing that indigenous population. Normally, there are economic, political, and military forces at work to foster the depopulation of the indigenous, or the removal thereof.
I don't disagree with the idea of a thousand people claiming all available living space, but we do have to accept that there is some limiting factor. If there was no UK government, I wouldn't consider it depopulated enough to re-settle people simply because it's not as dense as Shenzen. Some places do need to be recognized as part of an indigenous people's territorial claims (even to the point of highly mobile people), but, as you say, it can't be everything.
People invading and occupying already densely populated nations and leeching from them like parasites isn't the same thing.
It's precisely the same thing. Colonization isn't just in the form that the British Empire used.
colonialism was objectively good, their only mistake was letting your ancestors live out of the kindness of their hearts.
Colonialism is objectively bad. It's the same reason I oppose mass migration. I'm not going to suddenly support migration because my benighted people need civilizing. It's my home, and they're my retards. The weirdo foreigners can get out.
The fact that you ended it with a statement of mass murder is why the foreigners can get out. Don't think for a second that the Islamists raping your kids aren't also of the opinion that it is corrective rape to a kufar that is finally experiencing morality from a Muslim man.
Colonialism had benefits for both the indigenous and the settlers, but if we're arguing some kind of objective standard (not just what's good for my people - which is a fine standard on its own), how do you define colonization? Doesn't peacefully settling a largely unsettled land count?
If we're talking about a reasonable standard of claiming property, I'm sorry but a tribe of 1000 people doesn't get to say "we own all the land from the mountains to the sea". Just no. (I'm less knowledgeable about Africa but also care less)
People invading and occupying already densely populated nations and leeching from them like parasites isn't the same thing. I don't care what the Islamists opinion is.
I define colonization as taking foregin populations and settling them into an area that is already part of a land claimed by an indigenous people, and then eventually displacing that indigenous population. Normally, there are economic, political, and military forces at work to foster the depopulation of the indigenous, or the removal thereof.
I don't disagree with the idea of a thousand people claiming all available living space, but we do have to accept that there is some limiting factor. If there was no UK government, I wouldn't consider it depopulated enough to re-settle people simply because it's not as dense as Shenzen. Some places do need to be recognized as part of an indigenous people's territorial claims (even to the point of highly mobile people), but, as you say, it can't be everything.
It's precisely the same thing. Colonization isn't just in the form that the British Empire used.