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 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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