The last time you spoke to me on the subject, you were pretty clear that colonization was bad by definition. I am not going to go dig up the post.
I agree with myself, so no need. It's always going to be bad by definition. Yes, there are benefits, but it's not worth it. It's not too far off from a regular conquest.
But feel free to go there and tell them to give the Palestinians more cuddles. That might just be what they need.
I don't even disagree with your assessment on 'Palestine'. But that's just the thing: it's a Bronze Age fight. Both parties want demographic displacement whether I like it or not. Best I can do is ask my tax money not to fund it.
Did you know that the tribal leader of Ghana asked for the British to colonize the country? They were going to refuse, but his impassioned plea changed their mind. He could see that there were real benefits to European rule and their investment in the land and its people.
Even today Ghana is a much better place to live than the surrounding countries.
Even conquest is not necessarily bad. It depends on the peace after the invasion. The Romans, for better or worse, were a stabilizing and unifying influence that allowed Europe to become civilized. Without them I am sure they would still be petty, squabbling tribes enjoying 'multiculturalism' until the Muslims took the whole of Europe. I would much rather live under Roman rule than Islamic rule.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not arguing consequentialism. My problem is with the act itself. In the same way, although it is true that Caesar's genocide of the gaul's created Romanic-Gaul, whose development basically led to the creation of France and their wealth and power for over a thousand years. That doesn't make the genocide good. I'm not willing to accept that his genocide was good because hundreds of years later there was a benefit to the survivor's great x5 grand-children. The genocide was still bad. The consequences could have gone worse, and things could have turned out worse for France. It still doesn't justify the murders.
Similarly, Colonization isn't good either. Yes, Ghana did benefit from being colonized, so did Zimbabwe. One of those isn't grateful, and now "cOlOnIzAtIoN iN rEvErSe" is being treated almost as if Africa is civilizing Europe because somehow colonization was so bad, racial vengeance is the correct answer. I don't think so. I don't really care which colonization has more long term benefits, you have a mass of foreigners coming into someone else's home and doing what they want with it, regardless of what the indigenous people think.
I'd rather we just not. I have no "White Man's Burden" to uplift Africa. That's their thing. They can deal with it. I don't even have that thought over sovereign Native American states in the US. They can simply choose to be outside of civilization if they so desire because they will be over there. (The ones on federal reservations and other US territories just need to be freed of socialist management).
I agree with myself, so no need. It's always going to be bad by definition. Yes, there are benefits, but it's not worth it. It's not too far off from a regular conquest.
I don't even disagree with your assessment on 'Palestine'. But that's just the thing: it's a Bronze Age fight. Both parties want demographic displacement whether I like it or not. Best I can do is ask my tax money not to fund it.
Did you know that the tribal leader of Ghana asked for the British to colonize the country? They were going to refuse, but his impassioned plea changed their mind. He could see that there were real benefits to European rule and their investment in the land and its people.
Even today Ghana is a much better place to live than the surrounding countries.
Even conquest is not necessarily bad. It depends on the peace after the invasion. The Romans, for better or worse, were a stabilizing and unifying influence that allowed Europe to become civilized. Without them I am sure they would still be petty, squabbling tribes enjoying 'multiculturalism' until the Muslims took the whole of Europe. I would much rather live under Roman rule than Islamic rule.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not arguing consequentialism. My problem is with the act itself. In the same way, although it is true that Caesar's genocide of the gaul's created Romanic-Gaul, whose development basically led to the creation of France and their wealth and power for over a thousand years. That doesn't make the genocide good. I'm not willing to accept that his genocide was good because hundreds of years later there was a benefit to the survivor's great x5 grand-children. The genocide was still bad. The consequences could have gone worse, and things could have turned out worse for France. It still doesn't justify the murders.
Similarly, Colonization isn't good either. Yes, Ghana did benefit from being colonized, so did Zimbabwe. One of those isn't grateful, and now "cOlOnIzAtIoN iN rEvErSe" is being treated almost as if Africa is civilizing Europe because somehow colonization was so bad, racial vengeance is the correct answer. I don't think so. I don't really care which colonization has more long term benefits, you have a mass of foreigners coming into someone else's home and doing what they want with it, regardless of what the indigenous people think.
I'd rather we just not. I have no "White Man's Burden" to uplift Africa. That's their thing. They can deal with it. I don't even have that thought over sovereign Native American states in the US. They can simply choose to be outside of civilization if they so desire because they will be over there. (The ones on federal reservations and other US territories just need to be freed of socialist management).