Is engaging in or tacitly supporting colonialism a Good, Evil, or Neutral act?

Colonialism is far to broad a subject with far too many factors and players involved to really quantify in an alignment kind of way.

>Depends. Are the natives literal savages? Then who cares.
I'm afraid that your dismissal of "savages" has nothing to do iwht the D&D alignment chart's valuation of conscious lives.

Would you rather be in Somalia or America?

Somalia would be just as advanced if white "people" hadn't systematically raped, pillaged, plundered, and disenfranchised Africa the way they do to everything else.

Stop replying to yourself.

In general I would say nuetral leaning towards evil, but depends on how the natives are treated like other people say. I think the only really good way to go about it is to leave if the natives want you to

The alignment chart doesn't draw that distinction. LG Paladins kill an awful lot of conscious beings over the course of their lifetimes.

Epic falseflag bro ;^) Fuck having a sincere discussion amirite XD

The Native Americans were raping nine-year-olds and genociding each other before the colonists civilized them. Leaving because the natives wanted them to would have allowed an Evil state of affairs to continue.

The 5e SRD in particular has a lot of emphasis on alignment being in tune with the society it is in:

dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Alignment

Ahahahahaha

>when you realize you said something retarded and reply to yourself in an effort to pass it off as a falseflag.

You might want to scurry back to tumblr, I think your bull is calling you.

So bayoneting the Zulu to spread Christianity would be LG because British society at the time considers it that way?

>Implying every native tribe was constantly raping 9 year olds
>Implying the colonists dindu nuffin

The colonists really dindu nuffin, unless you think smallpox was spread deliberately before germ theory was even understood.

How were Colonel Chivington's attempts to be helpful so grossly misunderstood?

It's evil.
get out /pol/

>implying the colonialists don't use rape, slavery and extreme forms of violence as a tactic to "pacify" any place they want

It's just boring, user. You have a whole board for political bitchfests, use it and not here.

>Waging wars to drive people off their lands aren't bad

I'm sure people of Kongo really enjoyed the enlighted Belgian rule.

The Zulu were themselves an empire the conquered their neighbors, so Brits vs Zulu doesn't have much to do with evil colonists beating up poor natives.

"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." — Jeffery Amherst, Commander-in-Chief of the British forces

It's not like the death toll magically shrunk when the Brits invaded.

Assume we're talking about Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

Except in both of those instances (and in the case of pretty much every empire that ever existed, colonial or otherwise) treatment differed depending on who was involved.

>Rome
>The Greeks were greatly admired and in the later stages took over the entire empire from the inside
>Carthago delenda est

>Britain
>In India they basically took over the administration, meaning the locals got the same shit treatment as before
>The Abo's were driven to extinction

>Germany
>Togoland had the best education system accessible to natives on the planet
>Hereroland was genocided

>France
>The Eight Communes of Senegal were given representation in the National Assembly
>Algeria was a borderline apartheid state

>Greater Kebabistan
>It's better to be a Balkan Christian than an Egyptian Christian

I could go on if I cared enough to research literally every empire that ever existed but I won't. Anyway, I'd say the entire institution is amoral unless you're trying to preach some reductionist pacifist morality (and pacifism is a self-defeating system). It all depends on the folks in charge, who can be good or evil depending on all kinds of shit and that will be reflected in how a specific colony, province or satrapy is run.

He's false flaging for (you)s

Oh for fucks sake, another SJW post.

...

more like /pol/ falseflag
desu I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to really believe it

Fun fact, the Belgians WERE enlightened rulers who gave the natives a lot of rights. The problem was, the Congo was the sole property of King Leopold, who was an absolute monster and used mercenaries to carry out his will. When the Belgian parliament found out what was going on they put a stop to it.

It's not like white people conquering their neighbors is worse than black or red people conquering their neighbors.

Oh! Undeniably Good, then. Palestinians have better health outcomes, longer life expectancy, and higher GDP than they did before the occupation. If hey were sane, Palestinians would be taking the opportunity to gain Israeli citizenship rather than periodically stabbing pregnant women.

You missed a spot with that eraser tool.

This, especially the bit about pacifism.

...

It's not like two wrongs make a right, either.

It's not like conquest isn't a natural part of human behavior and pacifism is somehow morally good.

It's not like appeals to nature are logical fallacies.

Hue hue hue. British colonies were the best at everything in their areas. Until the din do nuffins took over them. History you cuck, go read.

It is evil. Bringing civilized medicines, agriculture, and other tech to the savage nations just lets those inferior cultures sustain a higher population. Manifest Destiny is only good if you wipe out the weaker groups first. Otherwise you are spitting in the face of natural selection and the will of God

t. Druid

...

>Degenerate "Briton" calling anyone a cuck

To be fair, he has a point. Ghandi was arguably the worst thing to ever happen to India, and as much as the Europeans divided shit up a long tribal lines, the Africans and Arabs are ultimately responsible for their actions as thinking beings and getting children addicted to drugs and raping them before sending them into battle and massacring people based on their tribal affiliation is the height of "filthy savage".

>Ghandi was arguably the worst thing to ever happen to India
I don't see how you can argue that's worse than Churchill deliberately starving the Indians to feed the home islands even though the Americans offered food shipments.

Lawful good. Bring the light of civilization to blood drinking savages. I’d do it anyday

Because all of the colonies were a nature reserve for bunny rabbits before the evil British came! Read a history book. It's not evil if the country ends up better off in the long run.

For some reason people tend not to bring this up. Native Americans were brutalizing each other for centuries before the first white man set foot in the new world. They committed acts on each other that would make hardened ISIS members be like "Hey bro, maybe tone it down a bit." This doesn't excuse some of the nasty shit the settlers did, but the Native Americans didn't shy away from continuing the cycle of violence themselves. It was really only through overwhelming force that the Native tribes were pacified and why you can go hiking in Arizona without worrying about getting tortured, robbed, and killed by an Apache warband.
Now, does this make the treatment of the Natives morally "right"? Hard to say, For many natives, especially those that leave the reservations, their standard of living is much higher than it would have been had the old system been left in place. However, this comes at the cost of the loss of some quite intricate culture, most of which was passed on orally.
Frankly, it doesn't actually matter because it's not like you can change the past. Both sides generally get along now and smashing rival family members heads in with rocks is pretty much universally frowned upon now.

So to answer OP's question, colonialism in of itself is not an inherently moral or immoral act. The individual actions that take place under colonialism are what you should be judging. Massacring a village because some Injun from an unrelated tribe killed a settler and you've got a raging murderboner? Probably Evil. Raising a sick and starving family's standard of living and offering them education. Probably Good.

Remember Cawnpore. That's all I'm saying.

The standards of living for the common man in African colonies were never good, but the real issue was enforcing democracy and specific borders upon nations without regards for actual cultural or religious groups. Many African peoples had very limited contact with western technology, then less than a century of contact with western technology and ideas before being given independence in arbitrary states with enforced democracy. European colonialism would be like if aliens colonized Europe during the Bronze age, gave them modern technology, enforced borders with no regards for cultures or religion (eg. Celts, Germans, and Italians all living in the same nation) and enforced democracy resulting in a doomed tyranny of the majority. Of course conflict and strife would develop, nobody should have expected anything different.

Have you been to India recently?

>Ghandi was arguably the worst thing to ever happen to India
lmao

>Nations are either pure or irredeemably evil

>Now, does this make the treatment of the Natives morally "right"?
No. If it does than you could justify anything as long as standards of living increase.
>Hey we revoked your right to vote, destroyed your culture, and outlawed your religion, but your average lifespan increased by 4 years
>Hey we refuse to let you leave this specific area and actively destroy any independence movements but at least your literacy rate is 15% higher
>Your people can't freely assemble in public and cannot own property but the infant mortality rate is half what it used to be

>Now, does this make the treatment of the Natives morally "right"? Hard to say
It's not even remotely hard to say: no, it doesn't.
>Raising a sick and starving family's standard of living and offering them education. Probably Good.
Of course that's good, but if it happens in a colonial situation, then it was most likely preceded by massacres. Were there people who, through opportunities offered by colonialism, did good? Absolutely- Does that make colonialism good? No. Can you introduce new ideas to people without brutally destroying their independence and killing those who aren't subservient? Yes. Is this latest scenario something that could have happened at any relevant scale at the time when most European colonialism was going on? No, it would've defeated the actual reasons to engage in it and been a huge cost drain, and then someone more aggressive would have swooped in. Does being the early worm and not being worse than the other worm would've been make it less immoral? No. It just means that immorality was commonplace due to the intellectual, communicational and moral development of Europe at the time. Those different circumstances are necessary for understanding why it happened the way it did and why it couldn't have happened the way we in the modern age may like it to have happened, but that doesn't mean any less unjustified suffering was inflicted on the victims by people and systems that were responsible for their own actions.

Is their government deliberately starving them? If not, I'd say that's an improvement. Unless you mean to say designated shitting streets didn't exist under the British.

>Africans and Arabs are ultimately responsible for their actions as thinking beings and getting children addicted to drugs and raping them before sending them into battle and massacring people based on their tribal affiliation
The Europeans gave them widespread access to technology to facilitate that killing and enforced borders and governments upon the peoples that made conflicts inevitable. Africa is like a continent wide Yugoslavia except they had no real introduction to modern culture or technology before they split up. Just like the Serbs tried to genocide the Bosniaks, the Muslim Sudanese simply fought the Christians to defend land that they saw as their own.

India is more of a mixed bag then you're making it sound. British mismanagement lead to a series of awful famines that killed tens of millions.

>When the Belgian parliament found out what was going on they put a stop to it.
Actually, they ceased the Belgian Congo intending to put a stop to it, but when they realized the money that was formerly going to the king's personal treasury was now becoming national revenue, they more or less kept going with what Leopold was doing. All about the money.

You arent wrong besides china

Yes because Europeans are totally responsible for Africans killing Africans.

>King Leopold
THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>Give a child a gun
>Never teach him proper gun safety
>Leave him in a room with a kid he hates and only one toy which is his favourite
>OMG how did this happen, who could have guessed this evil kid would shoot another kid?
If the Europeans actually cared about Africans they should have fucked off, traded with them, and let them change their culture over time to fit changing technology or actively educated them and divided their territory in such a way that conflict would be less likely to arise.

What board is this from?

>Blue board
>No flags
>No ID tags
My bet would be Veeky Forums. Maybe Veeky Forums (specifically the /gsg/ threads) because of the obsession with maps meaning he's /theirguy/. Yeah, probably /gsg/ now that I think about it.

They also wouldn't have stradled the new African states with colonial debt and a massive interest rate, making it impossible for them to pay it back while continually being drained of money by the IMF

Never said the Europeans actually cared about Africans. To be fair, the only people who care about Africans are rich white-guilt plagued sjw-cuckwaffles. Even Africans don't care about Africans.

> than they did before the occupation
There are very few places anywhere in the world that DON'T have higher GDP, better health outcomes and longer life expectancy than they did prior to 1948.

Lawful good unless Belgian.

However they are still responsible for the situation even if they didn't directly partake in the situation (which they frequently did).

>create new ethnically (yes, ethnically, not ethically) inappropriate areas of governance (which is ethically inappropriate too, by the way (yes, ethically))
>leave, putting one tribe, which doesn't hany any kind of more advanced social structure to deal with benevolent or efficient rulership over so many other ethnicities
>leave a ton of modern weaponry which they don't have the moral framework to socially govern the use of and keep selling them more since they're still letting you drain the country of riches under the guise of "trade" but mostly at the expense of the other tribes who aren't backed by the former (current) masters
Of course this, along with a bunch of other destabilizing factors, is gonna lead to a clusterfuck of some of the most inane violence and governance the world has ever seen, the fuck did anyone expect?

They certainly didn't have a concept of "Africa" for example as a whole. They knew their tribe and probably hated the neighbouring tribes as rivals for survival or possibly allies occasionally. Of course this is properly shown by the fact that most slaves were sold to European or American slavers by either other tribes or their own tribe as prisoners and traded. Largely for shitty old firearms and moonshine. There was no identity politics and no concept of a United group of "black people"

>Is their government deliberately starving them?
It's hard to say if it's deliberate, but the next drought in India is going to kill millions. The politicians certainly behave as if the problem doesn't exist.

Even my wife, who grew up in Iraq, finds India endearingly backward outside of the major metropols.

>Multiculturalism is bad for Africa
>Which is why we need to accept these mutually incompatible Africans into our homeland that's also incompatible with their cultures
That REALLY activates my almonds.

To Africans there's very little in the ways of a "African identity". You know why? Because Africa is fucking huge and historically divided far beyond what Europe ever was. Of course, there were some with other ideas, who wanted to strengthen Africa as a continent. Gadaffi, for one. Who was it that killed him, now again?

Two issues.
1. Where did he claim multiculturalism was good for Europe?
2. Europeans haven't waged endemic warfare or religious wars in hundreds of years

You say that like a united Africa is not arguably the worst possible outcome for literally the rest of the world. Because, in all honesty, the best thing for the rest of the world is for Africa to remain divided and fighting each other.

Obviously they become Europeans once they cross the border.

>we fucked them in the ass so hard that they're now continuing to fuck themselves
>but we shouldn't help them in any way that does the slightest harm to any of us even if it means some of them won't have to be assfucked due to our past actions
>we especially shouldn't introduce them to our culture, which is one that is actually capable of the kind of governance Africa needs, even if it means some of them will in time bring such ideas back to Africa
Does that activate any almonds? I'm gonna go ahdead and admit this right now: I'm a cultural imperialist. I hate what Western nations have done are doing politically and militarily in the Middle East. Do you know what I fucking love? The chance to teach these Muslim refugees some proper secularist values that they can bring back home with them when they go back to visit family and friends. Cultural values and those who possess them must be judged subjectively according to their histories, material abundance, and all other of the many relevant cirumstances. In short, a Muslim can't be judged for the full faults of Islam's teachings, jsut because he was born in a context where it was hammered into him from the start. But here's the thing: That doesn't mean I don't think Islam doesn't teach INFERIOR values to ours, or that they'd be better off adopting more of ours. Or that I think Muslims should be given any more legal leeway in terms of crime and such. Or that I don't think "we're" ("the West" as strongly co-dependent economies) are also to blame for much by fanning conflicts and arming the same fundamental and militant movements which are now killing a comparatively truly insignificant number of Westerns, compared to how many Muslims have been killed due to the West.
Why's that?

You're mostly right, but
>far beyond what Europe ever was
Nigga wat? There was a time when every village practically spoke a different language. The thing is that the idea of republicanism was never really forced on them. The Athenians and Romans did it in their own way, but it only applied to people who actually lived within those cities (for Romans later on it would apply to almost exclusively Italians, and only in the 3rd century AD would Roman citizenship be universal. Even the most recent additions to the empire would've had a good three centuries to be Romanized at that point. Not that it really helped too much, which is one of the reasons why the whole shitshow collapsed). Here's also an interesting quote from the time a bunch of folks in France decided to bring back those Roman based ideas of common rule.

>Federalism and superstition speak low Breton, the Emigration and hatred to the Republic speak German, the counter revolution speaks Italian and fanaticism speaks Basque... it is necessary to popularize the [French] language; it is necessary to stop this linguistic aristocracy that seems to have established a civilized nation in the midst of barbaric ones.

It's not per se the case that rule by the people of the people and for the people doesn't work in Africa because there is no people, it's more the case that Europeans had to invent the fiction of people by force to make their democracies work in the first place. This is why Africa NEEDS competent strongmen to force these identities into existence. This is basically the same thing the Han are doing to their colony called China: enforcing Mandarin as THE Chinese language and even going as far as to revise history to make it appear as if there was always a unified concept of "China".

>in hundreds of years
Except for less than twenty years ago.

no.

Barbarism is always better than civilisation. Civilisation is a tool used by jewish imperialists to control Barbaric peoples.

The reason they wanted to destroy the Native americans is because barbaric, Tribal societies are the antihetsis to the Jewish New World order.

Christianity was designed by (((them))) to enslave Tribal societies.

The Roman empire was controlled by (((them))) to enslave Tribal societies.

I don't care if the Tribal societies were more "violent" (implying violence is bad) because they are sitll the antithesis to the new world order.
Sings We A Dances Of Wolfs, Who Smells Fear And Slays The Coward.
Sings We A Dances Of Mans, Who Smells Gold And Slays His Brother

And the Manfools
Piled rock on rocks
And raised a treesie roof
Hammers saws tear
The skin of goodsie wood
And laughs at the Woodsie Lord
And when learns The Lord of this
He sends his beastesses to the Manfools
Who attacks and hammers saws
Their useless fleshes
And build him a house of they rotting skins

Evil, then.

>when you can no longer assume that the most obvious satire isn't completely honest
Just fuck Veeky Forums shit's up my /pol/.

Okay, Africa too is and has been extremely divided ethnically even between sometimes nearby tribes, but on the other hand I'm gonna admit I pulled the comparison to Europe mostly out of my ass.

Why would this be satire, faggot?
You're civilised, and believe any opinion different from yours is "satire".

HAHAHA

>It's only wrong if a white do it.

>it isn't wrong if a white does it

These threads have gotten really obnoxious.

>Why would this be satire, faggot?
Well, I mean, usually it would be.

If they're literal savages, then cull them all and start anew.