108
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by refolde@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

I don't usually use 'evil' to describe things but I don't know any other word to describe settler states and their tendency to massacre and torment people they stole their land from and gleefully brag about all the horrific atrocities they've committed/want to commit. Never before have I seen a group people that take more joy in the suffering of others than the kinds of people that want to wipe out entire societies and claim their land for their own.

This is the kinda shit where if you write villains that act exactly like this people will slam you for bad or unrealistic writing, but no, it would actually be perfectly in line with reality all things considered.

EDIT: ps I know me not good at writing things. Wish I can write my thoughts on this better, but I can't really get it into right now

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 34 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

in other forms of colonialism you can profit from the natives being robbed. Settler colonials however require the natives to die so the claim to their land can be fully realised.

actually they need the natives to have never existed in the first place but the first step to that is to kill them

this was one of the sources of conflict between Britain and America in the run up to the American revolution

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 19 points 10 months ago

this was one of the sources of conflict between Britain and America in the run up to the American revolution

This is an extremely important point, and one that is usually swept under the rug in the USian telling of history

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

to be clear it's not that the British morally objected it's just that the natives were more profitable for Britain than the settlers and Britain did not want the settlers who were a bad investment comparatively to destroy the natives who were profitably exploited in the fur trade

Also the natives were a source of local armies that allowed Britain to relatively cheaply fend of Indian and Spanish claims in America if they were kept on side and very expensive to fight if they weren't. It's was no small expense to train an army in native suppression in London, equip them and then ship them thousands of miles.

source

For the settlers however the natives were simply in the way

this led to a conflict of interest in the two colonial groups

[-] captcha@hexbear.net 13 points 10 months ago

Bacon's Rebellion is such highlight of how deep this runs. Literally all lower classes, including slaves, united against the Virginia planter class, just because the Governor wouldn't genocide the Natives.

The private ownership of land is always the material cause. The lower classes of settler colonials always wants to flee their own society because of consolidated land ownership. Same as when early Virginian colonists wanted to run their own tabacco farm instead of share crop. Same as now with Israelis moving to cheaper rents in the West Bank.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
108 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13447 readers
940 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS