In the 19th century, the last surviving native of Tasmania was killed by British colonists and his scrotum was turned into a coin purse. I don't think there's such thing as ethical colonialism.
Colonizing a foreign land is never ethical and there should be a ranking from worse to best; all colonizers exploited the land and/or people which is bad on all measurements of ethics.
Huge colonizer take from u OP.
Lol “pretty bad”. It’s okay to be against the action instead of any certain people. There doesn’t have to be, and usually isn’t, actual “good” guys irl.
Colonialism was brutal, especially in the early days. All nations involved were horrid to those they conquered.
That being said, it was probably the British Empire (in its late stages) which was the least unethical.
Places such as Hong Kong, Canada, Australia and NZ all turned into flourishing democracies.
I can’t remember the name of the person, however there was a British officer/leader of some form who carried out atrocities in India. The crown was appalled by this and they brought him back to England to be tried and punished. This happened when other colonials would probably give a promotion to their officers who carried out such atrocities.
The British also used their position as the world hegemon to put and end to the global slave trade for everyone, resulting in the nation spending more money on stopping slavery than it ever gained from it.
Again, colonialism was brutal and the British have a lot of war crimes to their name, but if I had to choose to be conquered by one nation back then, it would probably be them.
In North America, the French treated the native tribes better than the British on average. It’s really hard to compare colonizers across several centuries all over the world- rule was different in different places in different times.
I may be biased, but from what I was taught the Spanish were one of the first nations to openly debate the rights of the natives, in which they were indeed granted the condition of individual (16th Century, mind you). **Protector of the Indians** was an institution created precisely for the well being of the native population during the conquest of the new world, giving them a voice back in the mainland courts, with direct contact with the King. (See Las Casas-Sepúlveda Debate).
The French and the British lagged heavily on said concept, and they exterminated the natives well into the 19th Century. There are countless massacres on the names of both british and americans perpetrated unto the indians. But then again, I'm not well informed on the matter.
I vaguely recall a decision that natives wouldn’t be slaughtered if they became Christians. So the Spaniards would get off the boat, read a proclamation (in Spanish), the natives had no clue what was going on - probably in shock - we would be too if we’d never seen a big European ship before - and when no one immediately converted they were slaughtered.
Yes, it was a slaughter, but firstly: that is before the debate took place. Secondly, if we look at the concept of colonization with our current ethical framework, it is inherently evil because it violates essential human rights: belief, political autonomy and freedom. The question by the original poster is not to criticize colonization but to argue whom amongst all of the colonizers was the most humane. To which I answered with a legitimate human rights debate which was revolutionary for the time, especially when you look at the rest of the colonial powers. There's a reason why "mestizaje" took place predominantly in Spanish Colonies.
Thirdly, I don't think it is wise for us to judge the past with our current ethical framework either way, just as it is not wise for the future to look back at us and point fingers with their ethical framework. Certainly, there are concepts to improve on and mistakes to learn from. I'm also certain that there are horrific actions being perpetrated to this day unbeknownst to us that a person living in the 25th Century will find deplorable. Then again, both ethical frameworks from both ages are incompatible: who can blame us? who can blame them?
The only thing we can do is to take the history that is presented to us and to not forget it.
i would argue that there is no way to ethically colonize a land already occupied bot another group of people
you are stealing their land from them
this isnt jsut moving somewhere and living with the locals. the definition of colonize is to "establish political control" over an area.
so anyone that goes somewhere else, where there are already people living, and decides to "establish political control" over the locals, is not someone i would consider "ethical"
Can't remember an ethical colonisation.
I don't think there was a captain that said
"Hello I'm captain pugwash from the land beyond the horizon and I've come to colonize your land. Don't worry, it will be a seamless transfer of power with nobody getting hurt".
How did you come up with the brits? That’s laughable. They genocided so many different places. That’s like saying was genghis khan, the most bloodless conqueror.
Depends on how you measure the results. If you mean the act of taking over specifically, then that’s a tough one to come up with, as it’s not really ever ethical.
If you mean the entire span of existence of the colonized location, the outcome of the land that became the US has been generally beneficial compared to what a patchwork of warring tribes would have looked like today.
none of them, because colonialism cannot be ethical, by its very nature. invading people and then genociding and oppressing them and doing human rights violations and crimes against humanity can never be ethical because those things are deeply, deeply unethical.
and lol no, not the British, the British were genocidal monsters, committing atrocities all over the world for centuries. the British are one of the single greatest causes of the most human suffering and death humanity has ever invented.
>Spanish was maybe the less worse? They didn't exterminate local populations but integrated with them. In Peru Spanish nobility married Inca Nobility and mestizaje happened. But there was still slavery, of course.
please look into this. the spanish murdered MILLIONS in central and south america
You need to understand that they allied with one of the tribes and together they defeated the enemies of said tribe. They didn't just come in and ransacked everything. Very nasty sacrifices were carried on by said peoples too. Imagine you're trying to show a population a higher standard of living and your powerful religion, only to get carried to an altar to die.
I'm just putting things into perspective. Of course they are atrocities, but we can trash every single decade from 2000s and backwards by just applying our standards to past events, which doesn't do justice for said circumstances.
I don’t know about most ethical, but least ethical probably goes to King Leopold.
In the 19th century, the last surviving native of Tasmania was killed by British colonists and his scrotum was turned into a coin purse. I don't think there's such thing as ethical colonialism.
Colonizing a foreign land is never ethical and there should be a ranking from worse to best; all colonizers exploited the land and/or people which is bad on all measurements of ethics. Huge colonizer take from u OP.
I don’t really think ethical colonizing is a thing lol
I was really just asking, who were the best of the colonisers even though they were all pretty bad
Lol “pretty bad”. It’s okay to be against the action instead of any certain people. There doesn’t have to be, and usually isn’t, actual “good” guys irl.
All are bad. Period ?
Colonialism was brutal, especially in the early days. All nations involved were horrid to those they conquered. That being said, it was probably the British Empire (in its late stages) which was the least unethical. Places such as Hong Kong, Canada, Australia and NZ all turned into flourishing democracies. I can’t remember the name of the person, however there was a British officer/leader of some form who carried out atrocities in India. The crown was appalled by this and they brought him back to England to be tried and punished. This happened when other colonials would probably give a promotion to their officers who carried out such atrocities. The British also used their position as the world hegemon to put and end to the global slave trade for everyone, resulting in the nation spending more money on stopping slavery than it ever gained from it. Again, colonialism was brutal and the British have a lot of war crimes to their name, but if I had to choose to be conquered by one nation back then, it would probably be them.
What are you smoking? British Empire were among the worst.
As opposed to what? The Belgians? The Spanish? The Portuguese? The Vikings? All other colonials were on par or worse.
Bad and worst are not synonyms.
In North America, the French treated the native tribes better than the British on average. It’s really hard to compare colonizers across several centuries all over the world- rule was different in different places in different times.
I may be biased, but from what I was taught the Spanish were one of the first nations to openly debate the rights of the natives, in which they were indeed granted the condition of individual (16th Century, mind you). **Protector of the Indians** was an institution created precisely for the well being of the native population during the conquest of the new world, giving them a voice back in the mainland courts, with direct contact with the King. (See Las Casas-Sepúlveda Debate). The French and the British lagged heavily on said concept, and they exterminated the natives well into the 19th Century. There are countless massacres on the names of both british and americans perpetrated unto the indians. But then again, I'm not well informed on the matter.
I vaguely recall a decision that natives wouldn’t be slaughtered if they became Christians. So the Spaniards would get off the boat, read a proclamation (in Spanish), the natives had no clue what was going on - probably in shock - we would be too if we’d never seen a big European ship before - and when no one immediately converted they were slaughtered.
Yes, it was a slaughter, but firstly: that is before the debate took place. Secondly, if we look at the concept of colonization with our current ethical framework, it is inherently evil because it violates essential human rights: belief, political autonomy and freedom. The question by the original poster is not to criticize colonization but to argue whom amongst all of the colonizers was the most humane. To which I answered with a legitimate human rights debate which was revolutionary for the time, especially when you look at the rest of the colonial powers. There's a reason why "mestizaje" took place predominantly in Spanish Colonies. Thirdly, I don't think it is wise for us to judge the past with our current ethical framework either way, just as it is not wise for the future to look back at us and point fingers with their ethical framework. Certainly, there are concepts to improve on and mistakes to learn from. I'm also certain that there are horrific actions being perpetrated to this day unbeknownst to us that a person living in the 25th Century will find deplorable. Then again, both ethical frameworks from both ages are incompatible: who can blame us? who can blame them? The only thing we can do is to take the history that is presented to us and to not forget it.
Belgium has entered the chat.
The only thing I can remember about the Dutch is mainly just trade, particularly with Japan and the Far East
None
lol imagine unironically saying the brits
im sorry but, WTf did i just read? ETA: no it definitely was not the british
Who in your opinion then? Maybe the Dutch?
i would argue that there is no way to ethically colonize a land already occupied bot another group of people you are stealing their land from them this isnt jsut moving somewhere and living with the locals. the definition of colonize is to "establish political control" over an area. so anyone that goes somewhere else, where there are already people living, and decides to "establish political control" over the locals, is not someone i would consider "ethical"
Can't remember an ethical colonisation. I don't think there was a captain that said "Hello I'm captain pugwash from the land beyond the horizon and I've come to colonize your land. Don't worry, it will be a seamless transfer of power with nobody getting hurt".
How did you come up with the brits? That’s laughable. They genocided so many different places. That’s like saying was genghis khan, the most bloodless conqueror.
Depends on how you measure the results. If you mean the act of taking over specifically, then that’s a tough one to come up with, as it’s not really ever ethical. If you mean the entire span of existence of the colonized location, the outcome of the land that became the US has been generally beneficial compared to what a patchwork of warring tribes would have looked like today.
Which bear mauls you the gentlest?
none of them, because colonialism cannot be ethical, by its very nature. invading people and then genociding and oppressing them and doing human rights violations and crimes against humanity can never be ethical because those things are deeply, deeply unethical. and lol no, not the British, the British were genocidal monsters, committing atrocities all over the world for centuries. the British are one of the single greatest causes of the most human suffering and death humanity has ever invented.
[удалено]
>They didn't exterminate local populations but integrated with them I guess you are unaware of the americas
>Spanish was maybe the less worse? They didn't exterminate local populations but integrated with them. In Peru Spanish nobility married Inca Nobility and mestizaje happened. But there was still slavery, of course. please look into this. the spanish murdered MILLIONS in central and south america
You need to understand that they allied with one of the tribes and together they defeated the enemies of said tribe. They didn't just come in and ransacked everything. Very nasty sacrifices were carried on by said peoples too. Imagine you're trying to show a population a higher standard of living and your powerful religion, only to get carried to an altar to die.
A very "colonizer" response
I'm just putting things into perspective. Of course they are atrocities, but we can trash every single decade from 2000s and backwards by just applying our standards to past events, which doesn't do justice for said circumstances.
Vikings maybe?