Would pro-colonialists support this?

[crescent]

Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.

That's not how it happened.

The Spanish worked with tribes that opposed the Aztec in their conquest of Mexico. They worked with neighboring tribes and with divisions within Inca society to overthrow the Inca. Mayan society was already pretty well collapsed, there was no functional government to challenge the Spanish in that area.

Further north, the English and French colonists routinely took sides in wars and conflicts between tribes, pretty much from the day they landed.

The British conquest of India would be a good example of how alien societies could overthrow us.

Start with a trading post. Make friends. Guard the trading post. Guard some of the friends because they help make the trading post work, sell them weapons while you are at it. Guard some of the supply routes and more of the area around the trading post. Make more friends. Help friends in conflicts, because you'll win and that makes the trading post more successful. Let some of the friends hire some of your officers to train their men for fights with people who are not your friends, train them to fight with the advanced weaponry you give them. Let them hire out entire units from your guards if they want, they'll certainly win conflicts that way.

Pretty soon, it gets to the point that the only way to gain power and influence is to be friends with you, and to make use of the military/security services you offer.

Just keep going like that.

By the time your friends don't want to be friends anymore, you already have significant military forces in the area, and control of the better parts of their military. Just look at the events leading up to the 1857 War. The British were not the only ones to follow that example, the the Russians did it throughout central Asia, the French did it in Africa and North America.

One could argue that the U.S. and U.S.S.R did it during the Cold War, and that the U.S. is still doing it.

 

[theprestige]

So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?

Rule of So.

 

[Giz]

So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?

Are you auditioning for Cathy Newman's job? That's quite a "So".
(No, I don't have an opinion on lobsters).

I'm criticizing the idea that, for example, it is necessarily worse for a region of India to be part of the British Empire rather than the Mughal Empire. (Personally, I'd try and compare the application/protection of law, economic growth, individual freedoms etc for the populace in each case and make an informed comparison... I wouldn't just assume that the more distant one was axiomatically worse)

 

[Mycroft]

So I think you have a very inflated view of European "superiority".

I'm not making any assertions of European superiority, I'm trying to discuss hypothetical alien colonization of the Earth.

Why so confrontational? Have I offended you?

 

[Craig B]

Rule of So.

What are you on about? Address my point or remain silent.

By 1900 almost the whole of the world was ruled by a handful of countries. You're saying that's nothing noteworthy. It's just like locals squabbling and fighting among themselves, which they had been doing. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

 

[theprestige]

What are you on about? Address my point or remain silent.

Your point was a blatant and irrelevant strawman. I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why so confrontational? Have I offended you?

Not at all, but your view of "colonialism" is coloured by a perception of the Europeans being able to do whatever because "they had gunpowder". That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas. In land empires there is usually (but not always!) the desire to incorporate conquered territory and peoples into the existing administration, not just treat them as a resource basket to be exploited.

Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Not at all, but your view of "colonialism" is coloured by a perception of the Europeans being able to do whatever because "they had gunpowder". That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas. In land empires there is usually (but not always!) the desire to incorporate conquered territory and peoples into the existing administration, not just treat them as a resource basket to be exploited.

Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.

I don't think any group of Homo Sapiens colonising the world back in the day set out to genocide as an aim. It happened because of course, they encountered great hostility when stepping onto a strange land, already inhabited. This was also true of Europe (cf story today about 300 Viking 'Great Northern Heathens' who met a sticky end by the hands of Anglo-Saxons in Repton, England circa 845 AD). And then there were illnesses introduced, that also wiped out whole populations.

I think it is more helpful to look at world history from an Economics POV. The early European/British settlers on the US East Coast (Virginia) were there as venturers they called themselves 'companies', not 'colonialists'.

There were a lot of 'younger sons' who with no hope of land in England, got land in America instead.

The Vikings came to The UK for economic reasons also.

Slavery made entrepreneurs rich.

When the Industrial Revolution came along, we had a new economic system and slavery - although abolished under humanitarian grounds - died a natural death as it now became more economically viable to get your workforce to buy their own food and housing in exchange for a wage.

The next stage will be AI and already large numbers of the workforce are being laid off to give way to the robots.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't think any group of Homo Sapiens colonising the world back in the day set out to genocide as an aim. It happened because of course, they encountered great hostility when stepping onto a strange land, already inhabited.

Uh... it happened, starting with Columbus (a true epitome of the petty tyrant) himself, because they preferred to enslave and rob natives to enrich themselves. Not because they "encountered hostility".

 

[Craig B]

Your point was a blatant and irrelevant strawman. I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

You have made nothing clear, and you know that perfectly well. Be specific.

 

[Mycroft]

Start with a trading post. Make friends. Guard the trading post. Guard some of the friends because they help make the trading post work, sell them weapons while you are at it. Guard some of the supply routes and more of the area around the trading post. Make more friends. Help friends in conflicts, because you'll win and that makes the trading post more successful. Let some of the friends hire some of your officers to train their men for fights with people who are not your friends, train them to fight with the advanced weaponry you give them. Let them hire out entire units from your guards if they want, they'll certainly win conflicts that way.

Okay, so my question for you is if you believe those kinds of power-plays were planned from the beginning, or if they happened spontaneously in response to circumstances?

If we were to extrapolate to hypothetical alien visitors, if they were planning from the beginning to divide and conquer, we would expect them to seek out relationships with lesser world powers that they would work with to undermine greater world powers. Do you agree?

 

[BStrong]

Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".

Porno for Pyros got it right:

 

[Mycroft]

Not at all...

I hope that's true. If so, can you dial back the snark by several settings?

That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas.

How is it that societies allow themselves to be undermined? Is it possible that the real advantage is a superior understanding of politics? Are there lessons that could be learned that could help our world if we were to come into contact with an alien civilization?

Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.

You don't seem to understand, though I've said it more than once now, is that I'm not trying to talk about historical colonialism but I'm trying to explore hypothetical "colonization" of the Earth by aliens. Your understanding of historical colonialism could certainly be informative in that discussion, but you seem only interested in telling me how wrong I am about historical colonialism (which again, I’m not trying to discuss) than you are about discussing hypothetical colonialism by aliens.

So…to nudge you in the direction I want to explore…your description of historical colonialism is rather bleak. Should we extrapolate from our own history and assume that any alien visitor that wants to come live here has hostile intent and plans to exploit us in massively destructive, even possibly genocidal ways?

 

[Elagabalus]

Okay, so my question for you is if you believe those kinds of power-plays were planned from the beginning, or if they happened spontaneously in response to circumstances?...

With respect to Cortés - totally spontaneous. He was in no way authorized by the Spanish Court. He went his own way.



Which makes an interesting angle. What if the aliens who arrive here go against their prime directive and try to take over the Earth? Who will stop them?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How is it that societies allow themselves to be undermined? Is it possible that the real advantage is a superior understanding of politics? Are there lessons that could be learned that could help our world if we were to come into contact with an alien civilization?

Politics is incredibly contextual; I don't think there is really such a thing as "superior understanding of politics". The very act of a distant foreign power interfering in your domestic issues can be profoundly destabilizing. That's about as much as can be said in general.

I hope that's true. If so, can you dial back the snark by several settings?



You don't seem to understand, though I've said it more than once now, is that I'm not trying to talk about historical colonialism but I'm trying to explore hypothetical "colonization" of the Earth by aliens. Your understanding of historical colonialism could certainly be informative in that discussion, but you seem only interested in telling me how wrong I am about historical colonialism (which again, I’m not trying to discuss) than you are about discussing hypothetical colonialism by aliens.

So…to nudge you in the direction I want to explore…your description of historical colonialism is rather bleak. Should we extrapolate from our own history and assume that any alien visitor that wants to come live here has hostile intent and plans to exploit us in massively destructive, even possibly genocidal ways?

Perhaps then it will help if I explain where I'm coming from. The thread is directed toward "pro-colonialists". This is "colonialist" as in actual historical colonialism, not hypothetical alien colonialism. (I'm not trying to be patronizing here, just making things clear). Suppose the thread had been directed towards those who were "pro-slavery" or "pro-Holocaust". I would say, "Slavery was absolutely horrible with no redeeming features except the enormous profits slave-owners could reap in certain conditions. If alien overlords enslave us, we're screwed."

What your line of hypothetical inquiry is the equivalent of in this analogy is asking, "But what if the alien overlords give us a 40 hours work week, a fair wage, health insurance, and 9 weeks of vacation?" Then I would be saying, that's not slavery, and if you think any slavery in history was like that, you are profoundly misinformed. "But we are talking about hypothetical alien overlord slavery. What if we remove the vacation, but keep the other boons, would that be slavery? Where's the line?" does not really resolve that issue, because the question is ultimately about whether those who engage in apologetics for historical horrors would themselves mind being subject to those horrors, not if there's a way to modify those conditions that make them nice enough.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

With respect to Cortés - totally spontaneous. He was in no way authorized by the Spanish Court. He went his own way.

Same thing with Columbus. He did the exact opposite of what he was told to do, in fact.

 

[Mycroft]

What your line of hypothetical inquiry is the equivalent of in this analogy is asking, "But what if the alien overlords give us a 40 hours work week...

No, it's not the equivalent. You're interpreting it as the equivalent, and you insist on doing so no matter how many times I tell you those are not my intentions.

It should be possible to look at history and to extrapolate lessons for the future without anyone engaging in apologetics, but you’re so obsessed with the possibility that the conversation might result in apologetics that you can’t stop refuting arguments that haven’t been made long enough to participate in the actual discussion.

So you and I can’t communicate with each other because you can’t look past what you think I might say to listen to what I am saying.

Which is too bad. You seem like a smart guy who might have been interesting to talk to.