Why do people use "they were uncivilized" or "we gave them electricity" as a justification for invasion of native...

Why do people use "they were uncivilized" or "we gave them electricity" as a justification for invasion of native people's lands?

Did they have electricity?

Maybe the white man was uncivilized as well but at least he had electricity.

Too pussy to admit they did it just cause. When you argue with these people and break down their points they get mad, give up, and show their true feelings: might makes right. All these justifications are made to make themselves feel better. If they did not feel bad about it they would simply admit to it and not bother arguing.

People who use the might makes right argument still get butthurt when it gets done the other way, though.

IE people who use the argument for European imperialism but get monumentally butthurt at "muslim aggression" with the arab invasions/ottoman empire.

I dunno

How would you feel if someone broke into your house, raped your wife & children, but left a new Ferrari in your garage?

Not necessarily might makes right, but that's the way it was back then for everyone.

What I protest to personally is being made to feel guilty for something any people would have done, not the actual morals of it. Which of course was bad. War isn't new.

You don't cheer for the other team, do you? I can be perfectly logical being happy at the spread of my culture but being sad at mine being dominated.

Not that I would order the invasion if I had the choice, but it's not being buttmad at all.

It's the same thing with progressives/SJWs who say "haha oh wow, white man conquers the world then gets mad when his muslims take over his country". Like yeah, for sure, I'm not happy about that. And that's normal.

people need an excuse. the greatest monstrosities were always justified morally in the eyes of the perpetrators, because people are moral. including hitler. including stalin

don't worry, the remaining of them will survive us when we destroy civilization, because they actually have survival skills and know how to live together. shouldn't be that long. may they repopulate the earth

If no state owns the territory, it's not an invasion.

>it's like that because I just made up that rule

Because the approach of building trade relations and creating native settlements based around trade posts and missions is a much more honorable way of settling the frontier, so they pretend that was never an option and say land-grabbing was the only option, when it wasn't.

You guys are so distanced from reality.

Did the Russians invade Siberia when they expanded eastward?

No one is making you feel guilty. You make yourself feel guilty and to soothe youself you make justifications.

Yes that's true.

Let's be real, non-state actors aren't capable of maintaining their own sovereignty, and there's no force on earth that will prevent state actors from gobbling that shit up.

We have the chance to moralize and naval-gaze because our ancestors already took all the land.

When a cheetah tackles a gazelle, it isn't morally good or morally evil, it just is. It's an inevitable part of life.

What if they just bought electricity without being invaded?

>No one is making you feel guilty.
Are you for real?

White man's burden is absolutely everywhere.

they invaded every land that had any people there. what's so hard to understand?

Firstly, nothing needs justification.

Secondly, people ignorant of this fact will try and justify for and against constantly but will forever be running in circles in a pointless debate.

Explain New France.

That was mostly just trade posts, Church missions, and friendly native alliance building, with most of the actual French settlements being in Quebec.

The English were just a lot more ruthless and greedy than the French. Clearly the French were superior Christians.

please, don't say why

White man's burden is made up by white people and for white people. It is entirely Eurocentric.

Simply false.

They invaded the land, and had the same intentions. Le evil anglo is not the worst race to exist, nor are they the worse Christians.

Not on this thread.

>Le evil anglo is not the worst race to exist, nor are they the worse Christians.
Who could be behind this post?

Because they're trying to convince themselves that the atrocities they did somehow cancel out since they improved the area's infrastructure. Sure, the Congo didn't have electricity when Belgium took over, but they had way more people and way more hands before.

This very thread is literally a thinly veiled white man's burden post.

No, it's not. It's talking about the moral justification only. It doesn't matter if you're white or arab.

The thing is they portray the "bad guys" making use of might makes right as illegitimate. If they were just like "well that fucking sucks but fair cop, might makes right" that's one thing, but the same people who go "yeah fuck you Europa strong rule of the mighty bitch!' muster an incredible moral indignance when subjected to the same thing.

If you're willing to accept a rationale of "I really don't care what's justified or moral, I just want my side to win" that's one thing, but that's not what many of these people do. These people create this fantasy that it's justified when they do it but utterly despicable when others do it with basically identical justification.

OP here. I don't think that current white people are to blame for the action of their ancestors. That would be dumb. I'm talking about people who justify it by saying that it was ok because "we gave them technology"

Yet it is only ever asked of whites.

Yes, but I sympathise with their undeveloped position, white males are incessantly attacked in the media, and some snap and go full "fuck you" mode.

Because they don't want to admit that they like destruction and chaos.

The point is that they dont hate they game but the enemy players

For me personally, I wouldn't say I hate the "enemy players", that's a strong word, I think it is morally justifiable and in fact perfectly normal to want to advance your own nations interests. I wouldn't declare outright war, but I'd "play the game" as much as possible.

I think this is perfectly natural.

>i don't know what white mans burden means

>he seriously thinks the pity party isn't entirely generated by white SJWs

white SJW spotted

They killed each other for those lands for centuries, big whoop

Not that guy, but it isn't. There are SJWs of all stripes who shit on 'white privilege'.

>There were uncivilized therefore it's ok if were uncivlized too

Everyone keeps forgetting the same monumental fucking reason the white man overtook the natives.

Disease. I'd say 9 out of 10 Native American deaths were caused by some old world disease. The Natives had no foundation of medicine to prevent them from happening except taking cold baths or burning special herbs.

The red man's subjugation under the white man could have only been possible if 90% of their population were killed off.

Yes, white men launched genocidal campaigns, and yes, white men shoved natives into stiflingly small reservations away from their homes, I'm not denying that. But if old world diseases simply did not exist when European settlers came to the New World, an entire genocide against any and all opposing would have been both immensely expensive and virtually impossible.

People get conquered all the time.

>you will never live in a timeline where a red man gets lost and sea and brings new world diseases to the old world and causes another plague upon europe

Sounds good to me. Why would we be held to a high moral standard?

Atleast we're exploring space n' shiet.

Going in /pol/ context:
I thought that only non-whites were violent and white people were rational, scientific, philosophic people.

Arabs ARE white, they are both caucasian.

2nd white SJW spotted. niggers don't give a flying fuck. stop bathing in pity.

Black Lives Matter is a thing, user.

>90% white people and the occasional butthurt darkie makes my case for me

lol no. go to into barber shop on MLK and see how hard they really give a fuck.

European medicine in 1500 was hardly any better at preventing disease.

kek

I don't think you understand what "white man's burden" refers to.

It was justified.

It is the lawless frontier and 100 settlers enter a patch of land only periodically visited by half a dozen hunter gatherers, the majority are convinced it is uninhabited or unowned. In an acre where natives occasionally felled a deer, the settlers now grow grain to feed a family. Their society isn't a utopia but they believe in the liberties and rights set forth by the constitution and the men of the town agree to uphold the law, even for an old lady who can't defend herself or the natives who come occasionally to trade pelts for steel. For the first time in this area people's property is decided, fenced, recorded and written up.

Then one day you are transported back in time, they are surprised by the new visitor with your strange clothes and iphone and gather at the town hall to hear what you have to say. You tell them their land is not the property of free US citizens but that of Chief Poombah, that he has power of life and death over everyone on the land his tribe took from another tribe 20 years ago as per his tribe's traditions and they need to leave and go starve somewhere so 4 native boys can trap bunnies in the ruins of their town.

Does that sound right to you?

He's not saying they won because of their superior medicine, just that this narrative of the white man "conquering" and "genociding" the natives isn't really true.

In North America the settlers were expanding into a substantially depopulated continent, and its population density (in most areas) had never been that high to begin with. In South America they were "conquering" areas where civilization had already broken down. The epidemics that caused this were nobody's fault and couldn't have been prevented, but people still often try to blame them on the Europeans.