little bit of both?
britain set a largely carte-blanche policy that allowed them to do as they wish so long as the money kept flowing. it was up to the colonies to operate how they chose to, under the guise and leadership of the Empire.
lol. I wouldn’t even know where to start, but a summon must try to fulfill the request so…
I mean, there are a few ways to look at this- over tens of thousands of years- to the best of our knowledge- “human” life didn’t spontaneously emerge all over the globe as parallel species that were somehow basically the same- so there’s really only one place the species is native to, and the rest was migration and displacement. That said, to any one person or group of people- they are “native” to the place they are born or perhaps associate with as “their home,” some people have just been in a place longer than others, or can trace their ancestry back further. The way I see it anyway, the issue is less about “natives,” which almost every group in human history is guilty of exploiting or displacing if they were around long enough, it’s more about taking. “Conquest.” Powerful groups and even, for the most part, ten to gain that status through taking from others. It’s very rare…
.. for one group to say to another: “you want this thing I need? Meh. You can have everything you want, and don’t worry about some sort of mutually agreeable exchange for it. It’s on the house.” So we can say that pretty much every nation is guilty, Canada, the US, UK, Australia, France, Germany, China, Russia, Japan, etc etc etc. Buuut…. We run afoul of all sorts of complications. In a maximum security prison full of murderers, is it ok for inmates to murder each other, guards? For guards to murder each other and inmates? Just because everyone is or was guilty- doesn’t mean it is ok going forward. We know it’s wrong to take and subjugate others, native or not. Independent of what happened in the past, we know it’s wrong in the present and future. And it is true many countries recent histories or traditions of prosperity come from
Taking from others- but that doesn’t influence a discussion of our own wrongs. That is known as classic “what about-ism” Jim hits Joe but Frank hit Bill-
If we are discussing Jim’s punishment, what Frank did is unrelated to that discussion in the moment. Frank needs to be accountable and equal crimes should get equal punishments from the same source, but what an individual country or group decides to do about wrongs tells us about that group. If Country A doesn’t want to try and punish or stop or make some efforts to repair their wrongs, country B can make the same choice or decide to be better. We choose who we want to be.
So there’s a lot of complexity and catches in these issues, but fundamentally it’s simple. Someone took something by force that didn’t belong to them, something we teach every child, something most every law around the world say, is wrong. Where we see wrong, what we do and how we consider that is about us and who we are.
britain set a largely carte-blanche policy that allowed them to do as they wish so long as the money kept flowing. it was up to the colonies to operate how they chose to, under the guise and leadership of the Empire.
I mean, there are a few ways to look at this- over tens of thousands of years- to the best of our knowledge- “human” life didn’t spontaneously emerge all over the globe as parallel species that were somehow basically the same- so there’s really only one place the species is native to, and the rest was migration and displacement. That said, to any one person or group of people- they are “native” to the place they are born or perhaps associate with as “their home,” some people have just been in a place longer than others, or can trace their ancestry back further. The way I see it anyway, the issue is less about “natives,” which almost every group in human history is guilty of exploiting or displacing if they were around long enough, it’s more about taking. “Conquest.” Powerful groups and even, for the most part, ten to gain that status through taking from others. It’s very rare…
Taking from others- but that doesn’t influence a discussion of our own wrongs. That is known as classic “what about-ism” Jim hits Joe but Frank hit Bill-
So there’s a lot of complexity and catches in these issues, but fundamentally it’s simple. Someone took something by force that didn’t belong to them, something we teach every child, something most every law around the world say, is wrong. Where we see wrong, what we do and how we consider that is about us and who we are.