Can somebody explain to me why colonisation was not a demonstrably immoral act?

Can somebody explain to me why colonisation was not a demonstrably immoral act?
>Inb4 muh white race

>immoral
define this

Please op, explain.

Violating popular moral principles

they weren't popular moral principles at the time obviously, stupid ausfailian

>popular moral principles
like what

No one ever said that conquering other peoples is morally correct or a "nice thing to do", but it is what people do nonetheless. White people get way too much shit for "colonisation" despite the fact all other races ALSO conquered foreign nations, took tribute by force or went on raids (this included taking slaves), or at the very least fought brutal tribal wars. War is a part of the human condition, unfortunately.

those poor peaceful stone age savages who dindu nuffin should have been left alone to practice their daily blood sacrifice. Damn Europeans & their civility!

its only immoral if you believe that people do not have the right to self determinism.
god given rights are a myth, they only exist if a structure exists to enforce them.
without a cohesive system to govern it becomes the law of the jungle.
the strongest/most capable takes what it wants.

not to mention that every nation colonized saw a massive spike in economic growth and huge decline in disease and death due to unclean conditions and famine and lack of clean water.
railways connecting dark corners of the world to the markets of the developed world which would not be practical by foot.
despite all these positive things once the colonizers left the area most often these peoples slipped back into their primitive ways and destroyed the railways and waterways to build more make-shift homes and melting metal into weapons to wage tribal wars like they have for centuries.

Can somebody explain to me why we should give a shit about natives who's only achievement was building fucking teepees?

>immoral

It's no different than war.

Niggers are mad that they lost.

The lives of the natives were better post colonization than before.

You shouldn't

War is discrete from colonisation, they are not the same thing. Although colonisation may cause war it doesn't have to, thats why i have macdonalds in my country and we suck USA dick when it comes to policy, forfeiting our sovereignty in the process

Is evolution wrong?

Because most countries were better off under colonialism. The white man improves every dark and slanted corner of the globe he touches.

Spanish people had to run away from the Islamic colonists

Are you unable to think about morality abstractly or is it always defined by other people for you?

As an ex SJW, I hate to concede it, but...
(He's right, you know)

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test. A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views. His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view. The willingness of the principals to forgo further argument as the triviality which it in fact is and to petition directly the chambers of the historical absolute clearly indicates of how little moment are the opinions and of what great moment the divergences thereof. For the argument is indeed trivial, but not so the separate wills thereby made manifest. Man’s vanity may well approach the infinite in capacity but his knowledge remains imperfect and howevermuch he comes to value his judgements ultimately he must submit them before a higher court. Here there can be no special pleading. Here are considerations of equity and rectitude and moral right rendered void and without warrant and here are the views of the litigants despised. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right. In elections of these magnitudes are all lesser ones subsumed, moral, spiritual, natural.

Immoral principles of colonisation where constructed by the government in order to justify immoral acts and make profit of the suffering of others, most people were not colonialists
now go and eat a cheese burger you fat cunt

>5499▶
> (OP)
>>immoral
>define this

You just lost the game.

>All Muslim Conquests in one picture (Rashidun to Ottomans)

compared to

>196 years of Crusades in the Middle Ages

Kill yourself unironically.

The Crusades were the only Christian "offensive" (reclamation) though

Arguments of moral intents are viewed and judged by a jury in a court room regularly, this is why there is a difference between manslaughter and murder.
The law of a state reflects the popular moral code of the people in all avenues but business, which has been subverted by corporate interest.
If a person is acting immoral they will be tried by popular opinion of morality, in a democratic government, and sentenced.
If you want to mope around about your shitty arguments for defunct and discarded moral virtues that other people don't recognise perhaps consider the validity of them and their present failure

who are you to say they're immoral, you stupid sheep fucking cunt?

Africa legitimately was better under colonization.

Some are even wanting it back.

Didn't even include Muslim conquests in the east there guy.

being this cucked
you must be a native kiwi?
your people were primitives that got swept under the rug because your assbackwards custums and values did not allow you to progress at an equivalent rate.
get more butthurt im sure it will make a difference.

if its not too much trouble could you please indicate the missing Christian offenses?

Bringing civilization to savages is actually a noble act.

It didn't at the time, then. Right of conquest was a thing until fairly recently (and should still be a thing, IMO).

>The law of a state reflects the popular moral code of the people in all avenues but business

Colonialism funded by the govt. is, thus, moral -- as they see it is aligned with their laws and just.

>colonization was immoral
>africans are literally begging for it to return

not a zero sum game

subhumans have always benefited from white involvement, technology, law, etc.

Morals are relative to context so its an anachronistic argument first of all. Secondly, is improving the standard of living dramatically in the long term really such a bad thing??

This. People want to bitch and moan about "muh natives" but bringing technology, civilization, and shit like "Not killing your neighbor cause he killed that elk you were eyeing" general do more good than bad.

Read this
And try not to shoot up a school while your at it you obese virgin

lol woops

Mugabe isnt a good argument for colonisation bud

The crimes of the colonialist where never tried before the people, illegitimate murder and the conditions of slavery were not reported to the public for this reason

Zimbabwe isn't the only example of colonialism being desired in Africa, but tell me why it's not a good example.

because get out normies

Mugabe is a despot dictator who starves his own people and sabotages Zimbabwe economy to keep the people powerless
He defies democracy at every turn and is guilty of numerous war crimes
Anything he says is circumspect and guilty by association to his own defunct country which he controls with indifference to its problems, not to mention he orchestrated a genocide against whites, whos relatives acquired power through colonisation. in an attempt to overthought the ruling class
Now give me further evidence of Africa desire to revert to colonialist countries

implying any african leader would do better than mugabe.
africa is africa for a reason you faggot

If your going to assume shit about me then i will assume that you are a leaf faggot who wishes he was american so he wouldn't have to drink gallons of maple syrup through is anus to survive the winter
As is the custom of the people of Canada

300 years of islamic crusades in Europe.

actually you are pretty spot on.
our current PM is Fidel Castro's illegitimate son.
i hope trump annexes us because the cultural marxists have such a strangle hold on this country that even our conservative party has a heavy liberal leaning bias...

Conquering weaker tribes and taking advantage of their resources is something every society in every race did. Failure to do so meant going extinct at the hands of your neighbors that did.

The only thing that distinguishes colonialism from any other form is that it was much more successful at doing this than previous institutions. It was actually this uncontested superiority that eventually led to the idea that colonial powers had a moral responsibility to their conquered territories.

The superiority of the colonial powers to the rest of the world was so absolute that it made them reasonably believe that they were a superior race.

Over time, this paternal relationship to the rest of the world led to the passing of institutions from the conquering race to the conquered races, including their moral system.

Fast forward to today, cuckolds like OP are using this moral system passed from whites to non-whites to use white morality to argue that whites are immoral because whites did not always follow the modern moral code they follow now. Mostly because it had not been invented yet.

These shitty presentist arguments can be spotted easily because they ignore the vastly more primitive and savage moral systems being used by every other race contemporary with whites during the colonial period. Amusingly, most non-white races still do not follow these modern moral codes that white people get flak for not following a long time ago.

i do not need help surviving winter though most canadians are scotsmen built to tolerate the cold through pure manliness.

>immoral

You wouldn't exist without colonialism kiwi.

You wouldn't exist if a fat wop didn't """""""discover""""""""" your country by accident
I dont know what point your tying to make

>Can somebody explain to me why colonisation was not a demonstrably immoral act?
well lad we try to enslave and pillage but the Pope said, stop spaniards! just enslave negroes! that's enough! give Catholicism and smallpox to the indians and let's see if god loves them. We take all the hot women that we can drag from the trees, 20% of the gold and silver 4 the kangz and 10% 4 the church, and that's basically the history of the spanish colonisation

>spics are wops now

Morality is subjective

There was next to no africans in south africa when the boers first arrived. Couple of bush tribes. Then the niggers from the north migrated down for gibs.

I hate that fucking meme so much. Its completely innacurate on the basis that it ignore the SACKING OF CHRISTIAN CONSTANINOPLE REEEEEEE FUCKING DEUS VULT LARPERS

>Can somebody explain to me why human societies behaving as human societies - indeed, behaving as all species do - always do was not a demonstrably immoral act?

Made your question a bit more honest.

>Inb4 muh white race

You're only asking the question because you think - for some reason - the White race must be held to a higher standard than all other branches of humanity you utter racist.

You realize that the reason we have the fucking migrant crisis in the first place is because we kept feeding the animals (niggers)? Somebody post some Rhodesia memes.

...

at no time in the past until around 150 years ago was conquest ever considered "immoral"

To the entire non white population of the world conquest is still considered "badass" and entirely legitimate.

Only sheltered white goyim in the west who spend all day watching the kike box unironically think smashing your enemies is a "bad thing"

...

good post

>yfw the modern blacks (Bantu) wiped out almost every other race in Sub-Saharan Africa
>but we wuz peaceful n shieeeeeeeeeeeet

Actually they were. The Spanish royalty were horrified to hear of what Cristobal colon did.

They kept doing it because it made them so much money

The white race part was written to discourage claims of racial superiority (A can of worms i would rather not open since it is almost impossible to argue with this level of irrationality)
Once again i don't actually care about race, pretty sure the Persians were colonialists, same with the Egyptians and so on.
Cultures should be held to higher standards, not races of people which are extremely variable.
Now go and eat a crumpet and brush your teeth you utter Limey cunt

>hurr ancient India was so peaceful

oh wait no it wasn't

kek no

the Black legend is a farcical myth that only ever had legs because the Brits and Spanish hate each other so much

meant for this guy

pic related is what you prbly believe

Whose higher standards, yours? You are complaining about people not holding to moral standards they probably would not have been aware of or recognised. "Cultures should be held to higher standards", well, they are in today's world, though not really because of higher moral standards but just because a lot of nations are on more equal geopolitical ground and aren't interested in fucking shit up for themselves and others needlessly. Colonisation, on the other hand, is a rather low-risk, relatively peaceful endeavour.
What are you trying to achieve by making this thread? You have no epistemological grounds for your moral beliefs and have refused to try and explain them.

>Higher Standards
The objective moral standards of humanity measured by a minimum of suffering, sustainability, and basic human rights which have promoted superior civilisations throughout time.
>Nations are on more equal geopolitical ground
This is true of only a small handful of nations
>Colonisation is peaceful and low risk
You serious?
>Making this thread
To have a discussion about something i find interesting
>Epistemological grounds for moral beliefs
You are the first person to ask me this

>Can somebody explain to me why colonisation was not a demonstrably immoral act?
Yes. Do you want to hear why? The answer is only 2 words long.

.

.

.

.


>intraspecific competition

>what is smallpox

Leaf education lmao

polynesian please

As if you didn't colonize Aoteraoa from previous inhabitants

>The objective moral standards of humanity measured by a minimum of suffering, sustainability, and basic human rights which have promoted superior civilisations throughout time.
>objective moral standards
>minimum of suffering
>basic human rights
>superior civilisations
Talk about begging the fucking question.
For one, your supposedly objective moral standards which have 'promoted' superior civilisations throughout time, whatever that means, seem remarkably modern. Speaking of 'minimising suffering' is utilitarian language, which only became a serious, systemised school of philosophical thought like 2 or 3 centuries ago, human rights are hard to define, justified in different ways and categorised and used differently depending on time and place, only becoming anything close to 'objective' in the wake of globalism and international courts etc.

Most 'superior' civilisations (which you don't seem to define, but instead say that adhering to your standards of objective morality seems to 'promote' them), relied on slavery, warfare and acquisition of resources and a mish-mash of unique, ethnic/nation/empire-specific values which are often not directly translatable to anything we have today. Pederasty was a cornerstone of Athenian education that was considered virtuous and noble, but to us it is a completely foreign and detestable idea. If two 'superior' civilisations can be so divided on such things, if one 'superior' civilisation's noble good is another 'superior' civilisation's worst evil, then how do you define your objective morality?

It's a continuation of the activity carried on between competing cultures including those that were in the new world before the arrival of Europeans, Europeans just had a vast technological advantage.
So the real question is why did other people stop developing technologically at a certain point or not even start in some cases?

Objective morality would be defined as the underlying values that are present in successful civilisations.
Successful civilisations create grand works of art and technology as well as philosophical thought and scientific advancement, one of the many values that allow this to happen is freedom of speech, this would then be an objectively good moral value.
Colonialism, for example, would be an objectively bad moral value, since it does not promote any of the aforementioned successes and is at the heart of the fall of many civilisations, such as the British empire.
If we take the initiative to surpass the philosophical scepticism surrounding morality (similar to the philosophical scepticism surrounding physics in the inductive / deductive dilemma of empirical evidence) we can define good and bad moral values in a measurable and scientific manor.
The time at which these philosophical thoughts came about is irrelevant to their legitimacy.

>can you prove my negative assertion?
>this isn't bait I swear