6 ms·

The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative techno

The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people were more advanced, and the permanent loss of that knowledge is a tragedy for the world.

tux1968 8y ago
For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now.
- cmurf 8y ago
  Back then? Hawaii was made a state in 1959. There was still quite a lot of colonization related conflict happening in the 20th century.
  - soperj 8y ago
    The people of Hawaii actively campaigned for statehood in 1959. Not quite understanding the context of your argument here.
    - eropple 8y ago
      They did, yes. Have you ever looked into how they got there? The Republic of Hawaii, founded at the very end of the 19th century led to annexation by the United States (one since admitted to and apologized for, as it happens) and it wasn't until the fifties that largely non-native plantation owners were sufficiently pushed back to have those little things like "democracy" actually mean much of anything. Outside of this specific example, the Scramble for Africa is generally not considered to have ended until 1914, with the results of it and similar Middle Eastern colonial efforts not really shaking out until after the Second World War.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Before that. When the U.S. ambassador conspired with U.S. citizens in Hawaii to overthrow the existing monarchy.[1] Accounts I've heard explain it as U.S. businessmen (or their proxies) stormed the palace and held the monarchy hostage until a a document dissolving the current nation was signed (under duress). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893_%E2%80%93_Republic_of_Hawaii_(1894%E2%80%931898) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893_%E2%8...
- staplers 8y ago
  our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality You are justifying colonialism through "the world sucks get over it". First Nations have been attacked and their land stolen within the LAST DECADE. The Tar Sands battle is a recent popular example. You couldn't be more ignorant to the facts.
  - tux1968 8y ago
    I admit to being ignorant of the details in the Tar Sands case, but I don't think that it's relevant to what I was trying to say really. If an injustice is being visited upon a Native population, i'm all for them prevailing in a fight to restore fairness. But human history is what it is, regardless of our modern sensibilities and desire to do better moving forward. Out in the raw brutal nature that existed for most of human history, strong men conquered and weaker men perished, that's just the way it was. Nature was trying to kill us all, and everyone was trying to survive the best they could to pass their genes on. Even at the expense of their neighbors. That is the script for most of history, and we can't go back and change it. It is what has helped us get to this point today where we're talking to each other over incredible technologies and enjoying a much easier life than Kings of old. It's not nice, it's not picturesque, it's just the simple reality of it.
    - staplers 8y ago
      It is what has helped us get to this point today where we're talking to each other over incredible technologies and enjoying a much easier life Now you're saying genocide is the reason we have good technologies.. Also, spare me the 3rd-grade-level humanities lecture.
      - tux1968 8y ago
        I'm saying that nature set up the octagon, and our ancestors fought it out. If you believe in evolution / natural selection being a force to hone the most well adapted creatures possible, then as unsavory as it is, all that mayhem and loss of life did play a role in getting us here today. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
- lsiebert 8y ago
  "But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans." An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring. "There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today." And yet people wrote extensively about their justifications for such behavior back then, and there were those whose sensibilities were offended in the past. For example, this 1550 debate on native captivity and rights, "http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/essay/" http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/e... Here's more about Las Casas's defense of native rights, "https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" If the question could be considered in the 1500's, I see no reason why we can't talk about it now. "We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now." Compassion and justice aren't some new innovation from this century, but have been a concern of human beings for millennia in a variety of cultures. As well, the idea that we are morally superior to the past, in my personal view, a recipe for moral turpitude, and cultural torpor. It suggests that things are all good now. Anyway, I feel like papering over the past by saying that we were primitive brutes is a little rich, given that that was the very justification used by so many Europeans for enslavement and genocide; that is, that the civilizing influence of their culture was needed.
  - staplers 8y ago
    Refreshing to see another historically educated mind in this thread.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    History is rife with debate on the morality of conquest, this probably goes back to the dawn of civilisation. If there is one thing which can be learned from history it is that homo sapiens is a querulous and aggressive species which is more than eager to use might to force its will on others, whether they be other humans or other species. As to whether a given group, tribe, people or nation ends up in the history books as conquerors or conquered depends amongst others on where those moral discussions took them. Those who saw themselves as conquerors ended up conquering others until they themselves were defeated, conquered and sometimes annihilated by other conquerors. One thing is clear though: when two people meet and one of them has a club or sword or gun and is willing to use it that person gets to force his - or possibly her - will on the other. This goes for individuals just as much as it goes for groups, tribes, people or nations. This is a simple statement of fact, not a defence of the ideologies which leads some to pick up arms to conquer. It is also the reason why the history books are full of conquest and why some cultures which are generally seen as 'advanced' succumbed to 'less advanced' cultures.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. When was the time justification started to be required? Because people knew it was bad in 15th century already. When it suited them :) This guy was trying to persuade pope that forcibly converting pagans was a bad idea and that Teutonic Order shouldn't be conquering and ruling over them just cause they are pagans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic Of course, he only had an opportunity to say so because Poland had an interest in preventing Teutonic Order from growing. But still. Also - fighting wars isn't something we only did "back then". If you live in a "developed world" odds are - your country fought a war in last 2 decades. We still do it, right now. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed parts of it a few years ago and there's still a war going on there as we speak, with hundreds people killed each year. Israel just bombed Syrian army forces last week and repeatedly pushes Palestinians out of their territory. USA is fighting a war somewhere almost each year for the last 100 years or so (admitedly - there's little conquering, it's mostly "sphere of influence" stuff). Iraq and Afghanistan is obvious, and half of NATO participated, including my country. This is not something we grew out of. It's just that when the system works - it happens far away from the "important" countries, so we can pretend we grew wise and don't do this shit anymore. It was the same in the late 19th century - you were supposed to fight your wars far away, so you can have your European parts comfy and peaceful. Only when the system fails and you have wars in "important" countries - people suddenly get back to reality.
TomMckenny 8y ago
Also, somehow "Terra Nullius" only gets applied after the fact. I imagine violently chasing off the owner of a deer lease to convert it to more efficient use would not be smiled upon. Even though deer hunting is exactly what Native Americans were doing with the land originally. And building housing on someone else's golf-course or occupying and building on a long empty city lot you don't own are both unimaginably illegal.
- devoply 8y ago
  Fact is might makes right and then you make up bullshit to justify it. See human rights. It's not like any of this is over, it's just convenient to talk about stuff that we've already done than talk about the stuff that we're doing so as to seem as we've progressed and are so much better than we used to be. Most of our culture and technology is not sustainable... The way primitive people were living would allow them to live on the planet until an asteroid came and wiped them out, which could be millions of years. The way we're living will probably see us go extinct in the next 10,000 years.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    The Myth of the noble savage is also propagated by our culture. Its just that, a myth. If you look at truly historical documents, such as Lewis and Clark's expedition, you'd learn that Native Americans killed Buffalo to an incredible degree. Read May 29, 1805: https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1805-05-29 https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1805-05-29 > [T]oday we passed on the Stard. side the remains of a vast many mangled carcases of Buffalow which had been driven over a precipice of 120 feet by the Indians and perished; the water appeared to have washed away a part of this immence pile of slaughter and still their remained the fragments of at least a hundred carcases they created a most horrid stench The natives would slaughter the ENTIRE HERD at a time, in this case by scaring them off a 120-foot cliff. The natives wouldn't eat all of them, it was more important to kill all the buffalo so that no survivor could teach their friends how to avoid the kill move. The journal entry above describes how the natives managed to trick entire herds into jumping over a cliff. It involved dressing up in buffalo skins, and trying to start the stampede in the direction of the cliff. > The way primitive people were living would allow them to live on the planet until an asteroid came and wiped them out, which could be millions of years. On the contrary. We at least take the bad parts of bulls / cows and turn it into hamburgers and/or spam. The natives would slaughter many Bison and then leave them to rot in the river. ---------- In any case, the ills of our society are certainly great. But don't assume that the natives were better than us just because they were more primitive. In many ways, their ways were savage and wasteful. It requires a keen eye and a careful understanding of history to fully make a judgement upon a society, especially a society which has been basically wiped out of the modern era.
flukus 8y ago
> The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. That is debatable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#History), the term/concept may not have even existed during the land grabbing periods of colonialism.
- eropple 8y ago
  Regardless, it's a common retroactive justification. The idea that the Americas were "empty" when Europeans arrived was taught to me in the late nineties. (Never was it stated why, and my teachers got very uncomfortable when I pointed it out.)
pseudolus 8y ago
I believe "Terra Nullius" was used primarily with respect to aboriginal lands in Australia. Relative to North America and New Zealand the pattern was usually to maintain the pretext of legality by signing treaties and then violating them to the point where they became meaningless. Coursera is offering a course on "Indigenous Canada" that starts on January 23 and offers a great overview on the history of the relationship between First Nations/Metis and Canada [0]. [0] https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada

tux1968 8y ago

For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now.

cmurf 8y ago
Back then? Hawaii was made a state in 1959. There was still quite a lot of colonization related conflict happening in the 20th century.
- soperj 8y ago
  The people of Hawaii actively campaigned for statehood in 1959. Not quite understanding the context of your argument here.
  - eropple 8y ago
    They did, yes. Have you ever looked into how they got there? The Republic of Hawaii, founded at the very end of the 19th century led to annexation by the United States (one since admitted to and apologized for, as it happens) and it wasn't until the fifties that largely non-native plantation owners were sufficiently pushed back to have those little things like "democracy" actually mean much of anything. Outside of this specific example, the Scramble for Africa is generally not considered to have ended until 1914, with the results of it and similar Middle Eastern colonial efforts not really shaking out until after the Second World War.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Before that. When the U.S. ambassador conspired with U.S. citizens in Hawaii to overthrow the existing monarchy.[1] Accounts I've heard explain it as U.S. businessmen (or their proxies) stormed the palace and held the monarchy hostage until a a document dissolving the current nation was signed (under duress). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893_%E2%80%93_Republic_of_Hawaii_(1894%E2%80%931898) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893_%E2%8...
staplers 8y ago
our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality You are justifying colonialism through "the world sucks get over it". First Nations have been attacked and their land stolen within the LAST DECADE. The Tar Sands battle is a recent popular example. You couldn't be more ignorant to the facts.
- tux1968 8y ago
  I admit to being ignorant of the details in the Tar Sands case, but I don't think that it's relevant to what I was trying to say really. If an injustice is being visited upon a Native population, i'm all for them prevailing in a fight to restore fairness. But human history is what it is, regardless of our modern sensibilities and desire to do better moving forward. Out in the raw brutal nature that existed for most of human history, strong men conquered and weaker men perished, that's just the way it was. Nature was trying to kill us all, and everyone was trying to survive the best they could to pass their genes on. Even at the expense of their neighbors. That is the script for most of history, and we can't go back and change it. It is what has helped us get to this point today where we're talking to each other over incredible technologies and enjoying a much easier life than Kings of old. It's not nice, it's not picturesque, it's just the simple reality of it.
  - staplers 8y ago
    It is what has helped us get to this point today where we're talking to each other over incredible technologies and enjoying a much easier life Now you're saying genocide is the reason we have good technologies.. Also, spare me the 3rd-grade-level humanities lecture.
    - tux1968 8y ago
      I'm saying that nature set up the octagon, and our ancestors fought it out. If you believe in evolution / natural selection being a force to hone the most well adapted creatures possible, then as unsavory as it is, all that mayhem and loss of life did play a role in getting us here today. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
lsiebert 8y ago
"But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans." An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring. "There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today." And yet people wrote extensively about their justifications for such behavior back then, and there were those whose sensibilities were offended in the past. For example, this 1550 debate on native captivity and rights, "http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/essay/" http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/e... Here's more about Las Casas's defense of native rights, "https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" If the question could be considered in the 1500's, I see no reason why we can't talk about it now. "We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now." Compassion and justice aren't some new innovation from this century, but have been a concern of human beings for millennia in a variety of cultures. As well, the idea that we are morally superior to the past, in my personal view, a recipe for moral turpitude, and cultural torpor. It suggests that things are all good now. Anyway, I feel like papering over the past by saying that we were primitive brutes is a little rich, given that that was the very justification used by so many Europeans for enslavement and genocide; that is, that the civilizing influence of their culture was needed.
- staplers 8y ago
  Refreshing to see another historically educated mind in this thread.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  History is rife with debate on the morality of conquest, this probably goes back to the dawn of civilisation. If there is one thing which can be learned from history it is that homo sapiens is a querulous and aggressive species which is more than eager to use might to force its will on others, whether they be other humans or other species. As to whether a given group, tribe, people or nation ends up in the history books as conquerors or conquered depends amongst others on where those moral discussions took them. Those who saw themselves as conquerors ended up conquering others until they themselves were defeated, conquered and sometimes annihilated by other conquerors. One thing is clear though: when two people meet and one of them has a club or sword or gun and is willing to use it that person gets to force his - or possibly her - will on the other. This goes for individuals just as much as it goes for groups, tribes, people or nations. This is a simple statement of fact, not a defence of the ideologies which leads some to pick up arms to conquer. It is also the reason why the history books are full of conquest and why some cultures which are generally seen as 'advanced' succumbed to 'less advanced' cultures.
ajuc 8y ago
> There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. When was the time justification started to be required? Because people knew it was bad in 15th century already. When it suited them :) This guy was trying to persuade pope that forcibly converting pagans was a bad idea and that Teutonic Order shouldn't be conquering and ruling over them just cause they are pagans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic Of course, he only had an opportunity to say so because Poland had an interest in preventing Teutonic Order from growing. But still. Also - fighting wars isn't something we only did "back then". If you live in a "developed world" odds are - your country fought a war in last 2 decades. We still do it, right now. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed parts of it a few years ago and there's still a war going on there as we speak, with hundreds people killed each year. Israel just bombed Syrian army forces last week and repeatedly pushes Palestinians out of their territory. USA is fighting a war somewhere almost each year for the last 100 years or so (admitedly - there's little conquering, it's mostly "sphere of influence" stuff). Iraq and Afghanistan is obvious, and half of NATO participated, including my country. This is not something we grew out of. It's just that when the system works - it happens far away from the "important" countries, so we can pretend we grew wise and don't do this shit anymore. It was the same in the late 19th century - you were supposed to fight your wars far away, so you can have your European parts comfy and peaceful. Only when the system fails and you have wars in "important" countries - people suddenly get back to reality.

TomMckenny 8y ago

Also, somehow "Terra Nullius" only gets applied after the fact. I imagine violently chasing off the owner of a deer lease to convert it to more efficient use would not be smiled upon. Even though deer hunting is exactly what Native Americans were doing with the land originally. And building housing on someone else's golf-course or occupying and building on a long empty city lot you don't own are both unimaginably illegal.

devoply 8y ago
Fact is might makes right and then you make up bullshit to justify it. See human rights. It's not like any of this is over, it's just convenient to talk about stuff that we've already done than talk about the stuff that we're doing so as to seem as we've progressed and are so much better than we used to be. Most of our culture and technology is not sustainable... The way primitive people were living would allow them to live on the planet until an asteroid came and wiped them out, which could be millions of years. The way we're living will probably see us go extinct in the next 10,000 years.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  The Myth of the noble savage is also propagated by our culture. Its just that, a myth. If you look at truly historical documents, such as Lewis and Clark's expedition, you'd learn that Native Americans killed Buffalo to an incredible degree. Read May 29, 1805: https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1805-05-29 https://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/item/lc.jrn.1805-05-29 > [T]oday we passed on the Stard. side the remains of a vast many mangled carcases of Buffalow which had been driven over a precipice of 120 feet by the Indians and perished; the water appeared to have washed away a part of this immence pile of slaughter and still their remained the fragments of at least a hundred carcases they created a most horrid stench The natives would slaughter the ENTIRE HERD at a time, in this case by scaring them off a 120-foot cliff. The natives wouldn't eat all of them, it was more important to kill all the buffalo so that no survivor could teach their friends how to avoid the kill move. The journal entry above describes how the natives managed to trick entire herds into jumping over a cliff. It involved dressing up in buffalo skins, and trying to start the stampede in the direction of the cliff. > The way primitive people were living would allow them to live on the planet until an asteroid came and wiped them out, which could be millions of years. On the contrary. We at least take the bad parts of bulls / cows and turn it into hamburgers and/or spam. The natives would slaughter many Bison and then leave them to rot in the river. ---------- In any case, the ills of our society are certainly great. But don't assume that the natives were better than us just because they were more primitive. In many ways, their ways were savage and wasteful. It requires a keen eye and a careful understanding of history to fully make a judgement upon a society, especially a society which has been basically wiped out of the modern era.

flukus 8y ago

> The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. That is debatable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#History), the term/concept may not have even existed during the land grabbing periods of colonialism.

eropple 8y ago
Regardless, it's a common retroactive justification. The idea that the Americas were "empty" when Europeans arrived was taught to me in the late nineties. (Never was it stated why, and my teachers got very uncomfortable when I pointed it out.)

pseudolus 8y ago

I believe "Terra Nullius" was used primarily with respect to aboriginal lands in Australia. Relative to North America and New Zealand the pattern was usually to maintain the pretext of legality by signing treaties and then violating them to the point where they became meaningless. Coursera is offering a course on "Indigenous Canada" that starts on January 23 and offers a great overview on the history of the relationship between First Nations/Metis and Canada [0]. [0] https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada