If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.
:rofl:
Priceless.
If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.
If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.
You say it's never good for the colony? Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem to get along just fine.
But the fact remains, let the savages run the country themselves, without educating them properly, everything goes to the dogs. Therefore, maintaining colonial rule, whilst curbing the more excessive elements of repression, is the way forward.
Well, if they want to break free, then violence may have to be used against them. If it's Ghandi like peaceful protest, then fine, they should be rewarded for using civilised means. If they start the shooting, then it's perfectly acceptable to use violence back.
Racism? I really don't see how that comes into it?
Well, if they want to break free, then violence may have to be used against them. If it's Ghandi like peaceful protest, then fine, they should be rewarded for using civilised means. If they start the shooting, then it's perfectly acceptable to use violence back.
As for having the whole world a colony, that's just ridiculous and not at all contributing to the discussion.
This applys to both sides hunbut then you realise that most people don't have the capability to choose the path that is best for them.
Ehm, you seem to misunderstand. I'm not advocating the use of violence, it is far from my preferred method. Best case scenario, the savages (I really don't see the racism here) cooperate, learn and then get to have a better future. Violence is used only in the worst case scenario, when they resist with armed force, something that, whilst I can understand them doing, is both ill advised and generally disruptive to their betterment.
As for not forcing change upon people, that's nice in an ideal world, but then you realise that most people don't have the capability to choose the path that is best for them.
savage (comparative more savage, superlative most savage)
wild; not cultivated
barbaric; not civilized
fierce and ferocious
brutal, vicious or merciless
As for not forcing change upon people, that's nice in an ideal world, but then you realise that most people don't have the capability to choose the path that is best for them.
Yah, I'd be inclined to follow that line of thought if my few short years on this earth hadn't proven to me that many people need to be actively turned away from making stupid decisions.
Nice trolling. Welcome to my ignore list.I am to decide it. It may seem an arrogant choice, and indeed, it is.
I think I understand your question very well. You asked, what kind of decisions could have been made in the past, so that over the course of history from that point onward the world would have evolved in a better way, where "evolve in a better way" means something along the lines of "less starvation", "less fatalities from conflict", "higher living standards" or "more people adopting this or that first language and culture".If there are worse outcomes than what we live in today then there are also better. If it's possible for the Cold War to have heated up and July 2012 exists in a post-apocalyptic society then it's possible for somewhere down the line, humans could have done something differently that resulted in the quality of life being significantly higher than on their July 2012 than ours.
You misunderstand the question entirely. Either that, or you're so caught up that humans are destructive creatures that you think it's impossible for us to have achieved anything better than what we have.
Nice trolling. Welcome to my ignore list.