For 2 it seems like he's doing the opposite, which I see from a lot of political keyboard warriors, in trying to keep his moral rationales internally consistent. To that end he has determined that both what the pilgrims did and what "refugee" migrants are doing are forms of colonization, and colonization = bad so he must condemn it. This can help convince others who are thinking within a liberal framework that they are being hypocritical, but sounds foreign and forced to anyone not of that mindset.
I mean maybe, but it's a bit like saying retarded shit flinging is difficult to understand to any non-afficianados.
Like if you cannot objectively recognize the difference bewtween fraudulent useless foreigners and people who made everything out of nothing, then your ideology isn't worth much, since it only exists after other people did all the work.
Congrats on consitenting yourself into an early grave.
Colonization is a bad idea all on it's own. I don't need to associate it with mass migration, that's just what mass migration happens to be. Colonization, like all imperial endeavors, is almost never worth it in the long run to the colonizers. It's never a good thing for the colonized.
Who's wilderness was that again?
Nobody's. They settled on uninhabited land. Because they weren't idiots.
Best thing to do right after landing in new territory? Surely it's to pick a fight with the natives.
Try again. You might take the claims of the locals seriously, but hey, neither to any of the Boat Migrants.
I see you are unaware of the Vikings, the Spanish, and again: the boat people.
Yeah, because raiding parties and settlements are exactly the same thing.
I mean for fuck's sake, this is a stretch, even for you.
Again, you don't know anything about the Vikings or Spanish.
The Vikings set up colonies in Newfoundland and Dane Law in England. The Spanish... well, there's a reason we call them "hispanic".
Nobody's.
Indians didn't conceptualize land ownership.
Even if they did, what's your point? "Ooooo you justify your own people conquring others but don't want to be conqured yourself oooooo"
For 2 it seems like he's doing the opposite, which I see from a lot of political keyboard warriors, in trying to keep his moral rationales internally consistent. To that end he has determined that both what the pilgrims did and what "refugee" migrants are doing are forms of colonization, and colonization = bad so he must condemn it. This can help convince others who are thinking within a liberal framework that they are being hypocritical, but sounds foreign and forced to anyone not of that mindset.
I mean maybe, but it's a bit like saying retarded shit flinging is difficult to understand to any non-afficianados.
Like if you cannot objectively recognize the difference bewtween fraudulent useless foreigners and people who made everything out of nothing, then your ideology isn't worth much, since it only exists after other people did all the work.
Congrats on consitenting yourself into an early grave.
Colonization is a bad idea all on it's own. I don't need to associate it with mass migration, that's just what mass migration happens to be. Colonization, like all imperial endeavors, is almost never worth it in the long run to the colonizers. It's never a good thing for the colonized.
Leftist garbage. Yes, all people understand ownership. That's what happens when they say "Get off my land".
Don't steal other people's shit.
Your ignorance of history isn't my fault.
Womp to the womp. Cause AGAIN even if you were right it wouldnt be relevent.