The issue, which is obvious to most people that aren't Euro-American, is that if you view generations of colonial violence as a normal baseline, then calling for "both sides" to "stop fighting" whenever colonial subjects resist isn't actually calling for peace. It's calling for the colonized to submit and go back to being quietly exterminated in an orderly fashion so you can go back to not thinking about it.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Which goes back to the saying "you can't use the masters tools to tear down the masters house." Which I disagree with, you can't use the masters tools to build your own house but you can and should use any and every tool available to you to tear down the masters house.

With that said, us being observers at best, you can just feel bad about the whole thing. It's okay to just feel bad that bad things are happening, you don't need to force that feeling to pick a side. There is no both sides argument, but people on both sides are getting hurt and it's okay to not feel okay about that.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is conquest exclusive to euro-american history?

[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but modern settler colonialism is largely limited to the Euro-American present. White Euro-Americans built the empire they now live in on a centuries long campaign of ongoing brutal extraction against the rest of the world, then turned around and said “This is just the way god made the world. Why would anyone want to disrupt this natural state of peace?”

Peace for a slaver is not peace for a slave.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Brutal extraction isn't unique to colonialism either. Colonialism is just ancient imperialism with boats.

That said, imperialism has never been moral and we shouldn't excuse contemporary imperialists, just like we'd probably be appalled at the exploits of Julius Caesar during the Gallic Wars if we weren't so far removed from them.

[–] ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No but colonizing generally is.

With the exception of Japan.

[–] teichflamme@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, really?

What about the middle eastern empires? Or the turks? Or the Aztecs?

Or literally any other force in history lmao

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you reread they never said those nations didn’t engage in conquest.

[–] teichflamme@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

And they also settled and slaved on the annexed lands, thus engaging in colonization

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think all other borders were agreed upon via a nice arm wrestling match?

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

They already acknowledged that conquest isn’t exclusive to euro-American history so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making right now.