Anyone else who doesn't feel like we as the West shouldn't be ashamed of the fact that we "killed and colonized millions of people"? I honestly can't sympathize with that shit. The only thing we can do is make things better, but to go on and apologize for every single encounter between us and others that ended up in a bloodbath seems the biggest waste of time...
I just don't get why we should feel guilty for winning while everyone else would've taken the same shot if they had the opportunity.
I thought of this too. What I found was that conquered peoples COULD have been worthless sacks of shit.
Namely because they did real horrid things. Like all is a slave and sometimes someone gets his heart cut out while being alive. (South America)
Or constant bloody barbaric war that will probably never end. (the indians, though not entirely sure)
Lots of own baby killing without reason and going to war too much without this being necessary for self preservation. (the Phoenicians, Africans)
Is there anyone that knows more about this?
Preach to the choir: the thread
>>1313292
It comes down to whether you see conquering other lands and people as something glorious or evil
>>1313292
It's interesting because the success of the west and development of our society has allowed for a greater consideration for human rights due to the recognition of the freedoms of individuals. Should our society still be in a fight for survival this idea of benevolence towards other peoples and cultures wouldn't even exist in the first place.
>>1313555
Or is has always been this consideration that led to success. It should have been done right away.
People had to work hard or be poor. But as is proven, this would become better in the future.
And yes bloodshed everywhere too at occasions. But not of a nature that could be maintained forever? Like by the Christian institution...
And compared to how the other folks that were conquered had this
