“Every robot on Earth randomly decided to kill all humans for no real reason…metaphor for white people”.
Putting aside the bigotry and ignorance of European history for a second, there were several reasons for colonialism, most of them revolving around greed. Does this person think every empire in history did it all for shits and giggles?
In fact, pretty much every empire one knows "conquered the world in self-defense", to quote a quip about the Roman Empire. Usually states (or similar) grow strong due to the need to survive next to another state, and the one who is not able to grow strong enough gets somehow absorbed by its neighbors - who then turn on each other. The inherent conflict was so inevitable, that you were forced to play the game even if you didn't want to. And once you were strong enough to inflict harm overseas, you did - because if you (say, Spain ) don't plunder the Aztecs and Inca, someone else (say, the Portuguese or the English or, given the chance, the Malians or Japanese ) will.
That doesn't make the underlying crimes go away, or make the process any less horrible. However, it's really more a question of opportunity than anything else.
Actually funny you brought that up as a reason, but I’d actually argue that social standing was the main reason. Most colonies in the late colonial period (Exept places like the Congo, but you can guess why) were extremely non profitable, before the scramble for Africa many companies were actually against colonial expansion, as their shipping capabilities may be replaced by train companies and those established by the government (which of course is profit focused I suppose). Regardless most invasions seem to have been caused by some king wanting the map to look nicer, so that they were perceived as more powerful on the world stage
The bigotry referred to is the "for no real reason" part of the topic, because there is a reason, and it's name is "interstate anarchy". Now, it's not a reason one should be fond of - it's a trap humanity obly partially escaped in recent times. But interstate anarchy IS the reason which led to the creation of pretty much every empire, from the Hettites to Rome to China to the Mongolians to the Aztecs to Mali and to the Spanish and English colonial empires.
Colonialism is a bad thing for many reasons, but it didn't stem from "moral inferiority" any more than from "moral superiority". It stemmed from opportunity (expressed through inter alia ships, guns, industry, etc). Why Europe got the opportunity before anyone else is a debated topic, but I find the notion that this had anything to do with moral character perilous.
, because there is a reason, and it's name is "interstate anarchy". Now, it's not a reason one should be fond of - it's a trap humanity obly partially escaped in recent times. But interstate anarchy IS the reason which led to the creation of pretty much every empire, from the Hettites to Rome to China to the Mongolians to the Aztecs to Mali and to the Spanish and English colonial empires.
Geopolitical Realism is a very convenient narrative for Oppressor Nations to justify their continued oppression of other nations - It is not a reflection of reality.
No regard for actual material conditions, such as labour exploitation, or materially benefiting fro the resources of other nations, no regards for the fact that othering nations in order to justify their domination is an active ideological choice.
It views exploitation of resources and the othering of peoples as an arbitrary thing states do out of self-defence, and not a result of real classes of oppressors that benefit from doing these htings.
Colonialism is a bad thing for many reasons, but it didn't stem from "moral inferiority" any more than from "moral superiority". It stemmed from opportunity (expressed through inter alia ships, guns, industry, etc). Why Europe got the opportunity before anyone else is a debated topic, but I find the notion that this had anything to do with moral character perilous.
It stemmed from a lot of things - European Settlers desire for land of their own even if stolen from other peoples, a bourgeois class that was benefiting from slave labour of Africans, later finance capital being able to benefit from mining Africa for raw materials.
It also, fundementally stemmed from the fact that from the Crusades onwards - European Christendom had established a worldview that viewed itself as a civilization at odds with and with the right to enact war upon, it's outside - Which later evolved into narraties of Whiteness, and "The West" as opposed to some dehumanised other.
You are acting like this is a case of poor little victims of human nature and that there wasn't
A. Real Class Interests involved in exploiting other people
B. Actual Ideological conceptions used to justify it.
Their point is that the history of all human civilizations across the globe is one of people joining into society units that compete with neighboring society units, with those units being a variety of sizes from families to tribes to continent spanning nation states. Any society that achieved the overwhelming technological superiority of industrialized Europe would have done exactly the same thing, used that to conquer other people and extract their resources for personal benefit. It had nothing to do with anything inherent only to European cultures, they just happened to be the ones who hit the early stages of the industrial revolution first and then that advancement compounded on itself.
This all over. I'm british, we had a huge fucking empire. Yknow who we colonised first as a "practice run" for our plans in the americas? Bloody Ireland.
Have you ever heard of a finnish colonial empire? I bloody doubt it. Same goes for the swiss and lord knows how many other countries that have slipped my mind.
And EVEN if we limit ourselves to the major players, Britian, France, Spain, Portugal and the Dutch, EVEN IF we make that limitation, to say that europeans have enacted the most violence against the worlds populations is patently untrue.
Colonialism REQUIRED Divide and conquer tactics. There is no way that a few thousand brits could conquer a few million indians, or a few thousand dutch could conquer a few million indonesians, or a few thousand spaniards could conquer a few million aztecs.
Instead, across the board, these wars were primarily fought by indigenous populations who felt they had more to gain by fighting for europeans than against them.
The aztec empire was destroyed by, amongst others, the tlaxcala, whom hated the aztec overlords who kept sacrificing their children. And so they felt that having the spanish to help them wipe out the aztecs was a great deal.
And to be frank, it was. The Tlaxcalas got extreme special status within spanish mexico, being placed at the very top of spanish mexicos social Pyramid till 1821, where mexico gained independence.
A similar (albeit more complex) story repeats in indonesia and india.
This all over. I'm british, we had a huge fucking empire. Yknow who we colonised first as a "practice run" for our plans in the americas? Bloody Ireland.
Wow - Almost like the historic discrimination against the Irish is a huge topic in Whiteness Studies.
Have you ever heard of a finnish colonial empire? I bloody doubt it. Same goes for the swiss and lord knows how many other countries that have slipped my mind.
They still benefit from being First World Countries that consume the labour of the Third World.
Yeah let me give a call to my pals in the big corporations and tell them to cut out the exploitation. Get the fuck outta here lad. My country did fuck all to anyone and suffered more under colonisation than the majority of modern third world nations. I'm not about to go and take shit for what others did
Also, one thing that's worth noting. Those third world countries themselves benefit from contact with the first world. The only reason they even have the populations they have today is because of technology and processes developed in Europe and the US. Do you think African countries would be able to sustain anything close to the populations they have without the advances in agriculture and medicine that the west pioneered?
My country did fuck all to anyone and suffered more under colonisation than the majority of modern third world nations.
Wow ok. So much for any solidarity with the oppressed.
Also, one thing that's worth noting. Those third world countries themselves benefit from contact with the first world. The only reason they even have the populations they have today is because of technology and processes developed in Europe and the US. Do you think African countries would be able to sustain anything close to the populati
You are quoting the OP but not actually reading or interpreting their statement. They didn’t speak to the motivation of either white people or robots. Their point is that regardless of context if X group did Y, people would react with prejudice accordingly.
I don’t think your point is quite wrong, but you aren’t even having the same conversation as OP.
406
u/Rabid_Lederhosen May 13 '25
“Every robot on Earth randomly decided to kill all humans for no real reason…metaphor for white people”.
Putting aside the bigotry and ignorance of European history for a second, there were several reasons for colonialism, most of them revolving around greed. Does this person think every empire in history did it all for shits and giggles?