Is Colonialism Bad

[Intaglio]

Oh, yeah, colonialism is great.......for the people who do the colonizing. For the people who are colonized? No such much; you become a second class citizen on your own land, subject to laws, customs and culture you don't understand while your own culture is suppressed, your natural resources are stolen, etc. Yeah, colonialism is terrible and we should be glad it's not really a thing anymore.

[Nea Skotia]

When all involved are rational actors, cooperation tends to yield better results than force.

Or, in other words, trade and friendship > colonies.

[Kubra]

Oh, yeah, colonialism is great.......for the people who do the colonizing. For the people who are colonized? No such much; you become a second class citizen on your own land, subject to laws, customs and culture you don't understand while your own culture is suppressed, your natural resources are stolen, etc. Yeah, colonialism is terrible and we should be glad it's not really a thing anymore.

You know I'm not even sure it was great for the coloniser, at least the rank-and-file, since you read "colonial" literature and it's all about how fucking miserable colonial life was and how the only reason half of them were there was because the pay was better than the metropole.

Y'know, sure you've got some big cities here and there functioning as outposts of the metropole but everyone else was just doing middle management in the middle of bumfuck nowhere to facilitate the flow of resources from bumfuck nowhere to bumfuck somewhere else until London.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

When all involved are rational actors, cooperation tends to yield better results than force.

Or, in other words, trade and friendship > colonies.

Colonization is often if not always about suppression and demise of the cultures of the people they’re trying to colonize.

[Lusitanic]

Oh, yeah, colonialism is great.......for the people who do the colonizing. For the people who are colonized? No such much; you become a second class citizen on your own land, subject to laws, customs and culture you don't understand while your own culture is suppressed, your natural resources are stolen, etc. Yeah, colonialism is terrible and we should be glad it's not really a thing anymore.

After ww2 because of the rise of globalism and nationalism colonialism is actually losing the colonizers money.

[Washington-Columbia]

Oh, yeah, colonialism is great.......for the people who do the colonizing. For the people who are colonized? No such much; you become a second class citizen on your own land, subject to laws, customs and culture you don't understand while your own culture is suppressed, your natural resources are stolen, etc. Yeah, colonialism is terrible and we should be glad it's not really a thing anymore.

The good effects of colonialism didn't even last long in the UK. They had the world's largest empire, and were even prosperous in the 2000s, but they squandered it all on their own way for their own profit.

[Herador]

Oh, yeah, colonialism is great.......for the people who do the colonizing. For the people who are colonized? No such much; you become a second class citizen on your own land, subject to laws, customs and culture you don't understand while your own culture is suppressed, your natural resources are stolen, etc. Yeah, colonialism is terrible and we should be glad it's not really a thing anymore.

You know I'm not even sure it was great for the coloniser, at least the rank-and-file, since you read "colonial" literature and it's all about how fucking miserable colonial life was and how the only reason half of them were there was because the pay was better than the metropole.

Y'know, sure you've got some big cities here and there functioning as outposts of the metropole but everyone else was just doing middle management in the middle of bumfuck nowhere to facilitate the flow of resources from bumfuck nowhere to bumfuck somewhere else until London.

Colonies were, by and large, scams.

People were led to believe that they would be doing good work and living an exciting life only to find out that the work they were doing was the same shit they were doing back home and the "exciting" life they were living was by and large more miserable than the one they left behind.

They were profit mills for an upper class that played such a genius long con that weirdo's still simp for their rug pull decades after the last actual colonial holdings died.

[Hirota]

I’d say colonialism was overwhelmingly harmful, particularly in how it subjugated peoples, exploited resources, and dismantled existing cultures and power structures. It violated the dignity and autonomy of millions – often through actions that, while not labelled as such at the time, would today be recognised as serious human rights abuses. Even during that era, many critics condemned colonialism on moral or ethical grounds.

That said, an argument can be made for recognising certain benefits. Some colonial regimes introduced developments such as railways, legal systems, educational institutions, and modern medicine – elements that became foundational in various regions. These developments weren’t altruistic; they primarily served the interests of the colonial powers. Regardless, they left behind frameworks that postcolonial states were able to build upon.

The issue, however, is that any "benefit" came packaged with coercion, systemic inequality, and widespread violence. While we can acknowledge those developments, they do not justify or outweigh the immense human and cultural costs. It’s more accurate to say that colonialism brought about certain forms of modernisation – but at a severe price.

Understanding the full legacy of colonialism means engaging with both its brutality and its complexity.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Yes, but it’s the instinct of civilisation. People don’t like being contained in one space. That means a small amount of resources, and a small pool of food/water. Via expanding outwards, the pool increases. The only reason we haven’t continued to conquer is that every bit of land has been conquered.

Literally self contradictory nonsense.

Some of the happiest nations on earth are small countries. The modern world has working class residents going to bars and restaurants to eat for fun and going to waterparks to splash around.

The majority of people are plenty content to stay in place in their community if their needs are met.

[Kasdados]

Yes, but it’s the instinct of civilisation. People don’t like being contained in one space. That means a small amount of resources, and a small pool of food/water. Via expanding outwards, the pool increases. The only reason we haven’t continued to conquer is that every bit of land has been conquered.

Literally self contradictory nonsense.

Some of the happiest nations on earth are small countries. The modern world has working class residents going to bars and restaurants to eat for fun and going to waterparks to splash around.

The majority of people are plenty content to stay in place in their community if their needs are met.

Well, imagine yourself as an early human. You’re starving. You’re thirsty. Staying in the same place means certain death. Nowadays, we can afford to stay in the same place. Back then, not so much.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Another thing to mention is that, especially in the case of the Middle East, they had intelligent and prosperous civilization for quite some time. The Europeans were in no way smarter.

Again what does "intelligent and prosperous" mean?

If it means "A people with a strong and dynamic culture who's needs are met" then the New World natives were no worse off than anyone else.

If it means "With the means of subjugating others with powerful armies" then sure. Intelligent and prosperous indeed.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Literally self contradictory nonsense.

Some of the happiest nations on earth are small countries. The modern world has working class residents going to bars and restaurants to eat for fun and going to waterparks to splash around.

The majority of people are plenty content to stay in place in their community if their needs are met.

Well, imagine yourself as an early human. You’re starving. You’re thirsty. Staying in the same place means certain death. Nowadays, we can afford to stay in the same place. Back then, not so much.

We aren't that. Almost no one on earth is that anymore.

People want their needs met. If we have to move to meet our needs, then we move. If we don't have to, then we don't.

[Untecna]

Literally self contradictory nonsense.

Some of the happiest nations on earth are small countries. The modern world has working class residents going to bars and restaurants to eat for fun and going to waterparks to splash around.

The majority of people are plenty content to stay in place in their community if their needs are met.

Well, imagine yourself as an early human. You’re starving. You’re thirsty. Staying in the same place means certain death. Nowadays, we can afford to stay in the same place. Back then, not so much.

And what, exactly, does early human exploration have to do with colonialism?

[Kasdados]

Well, imagine yourself as an early human. You’re starving. You’re thirsty. Staying in the same place means certain death. Nowadays, we can afford to stay in the same place. Back then, not so much.

And what, exactly, does early human exploration have to do with colonialism?

Because that’s colonialism. Colonialism means taking a piece of land, and claiming it as your own.

Well, imagine yourself as an early human. You’re starving. You’re thirsty. Staying in the same place means certain death. Nowadays, we can afford to stay in the same place. Back then, not so much.

We aren't that. Almost no one on earth is that anymore.

People want their needs met. If we have to move to meet our needs, then we move. If we don't have to, then we don't.

Exactly. But back then, most people had to be that. So, they colonised.

[Untecna]

And what, exactly, does early human exploration have to do with colonialism?

Because that’s colonialism. Colonialism means taking a piece of land, and claiming it as your own.

We aren't that. Almost no one on earth is that anymore.

People want their needs met. If we have to move to meet our needs, then we move. If we don't have to, then we don't.

Exactly. But back then, most people had to be that. So, they colonised.

Early human movement and colonialism are not the same thing.

I'll tap the "there is no nuance" sign again, if need be.

[Kasdados]

Because that’s colonialism. Colonialism means taking a piece of land, and claiming it as your own.

Exactly. But back then, most people had to be that. So, they colonised.

Early human movement and colonialism are not the same thing.

I'll tap the "there is no nuance" sign again, if need be.

Then explain the difference.

[Untecna]

Early human movement and colonialism are not the same thing.

I'll tap the "there is no nuance" sign again, if need be.

Then explain the difference.

Not all human movement is colonialism. Really, this shouldn't be so difficult for you, but I imagine you convinced yourself pretty hard that you needed to "win" by any means.

[Kasdados]

Then explain the difference.

Not all human movement is colonialism. Really, this shouldn't be so difficult for you, but I imagine you convinced yourself pretty hard that you needed to "win" by any means.

No. All I said was that colonialism, IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO AN AREA, AND CLAIMING IT FOR THEMSELVES.

[Untecna]

Not all human movement is colonialism. Really, this shouldn't be so difficult for you, but I imagine you convinced yourself pretty hard that you needed to "win" by any means.

No. All I said was that colonialism, IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO AN AREA, AND CLAIMING IT FOR THEMSELVES.

But it's not.

Colonialism is a process of material exploitation; often, this comes at the expense of native populations, whom are also exploited.

It is not "going somewhere and claiming it". There is no nuance with this topic.

[Kasdados]

No. All I said was that colonialism, IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO AN AREA, AND CLAIMING IT FOR THEMSELVES.

But it's not.

Colonialism is a process of material exploitation; often, this comes at the expense of native populations, whom are also exploited.

It is not "going somewhere and claiming it". There is no nuance with this topic.

What about the Mormons, hmm? What commercial use did Utah have, at all, to anyone? It was simple - they were fleeing the federal government.

[Untecna]

But it's not.

Colonialism is a process of material exploitation; often, this comes at the expense of native populations, whom are also exploited.

It is not "going somewhere and claiming it". There is no nuance with this topic.

What about the Mormons, hmm? What commercial use did Utah have, at all, to anyone? It was simple - they were fleeing the federal government.

American citizens moving into American territory is, in fact, not colonialism.

[Ethel mermania]

What about the Mormons, hmm? What commercial use did Utah have, at all, to anyone? It was simple - they were fleeing the federal government.

American citizens moving into American territory is, in fact, not colonialism.

Tell that to the Cherokee.

America was a colony.

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

No. All I said was that colonialism, IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO AN AREA, AND CLAIMING IT FOR THEMSELVES.

But it's not.

Colonialism is a process of material exploitation; often, this comes at the expense of native populations, whom are also exploited.

It is not "going somewhere and claiming it". There is no nuance with this topic.

Yes, and exploitation is good from the moral standpoint, since it shows your superior strength and ability.

[OklahomanEmpire]

Yes, and exploitation is good from the moral standpoint, since it shows your superior strength and ability.

Oh man, I was so moral murdering someone! Really showed off my superior strength and ability by doing it, didn't I?
Seriously though, how the fuck does that line of logic make any sense at all? So doing wrong is "justified" as long as it shows "superior strength and ability"?

[Untecna]

Yes, and exploitation is good from the moral standpoint, since it shows your superior strength and ability.

Oh man, I was so moral murdering someone! Really showed off my superior strength and ability by doing it, didn't I?
Seriously though, how the fuck does that line of logic make any sense at all? So doing wrong is "justified" as long as it shows "superior strength and ability"?

Because KOI thinks white Europeans are superior to everyone else.