Sure, but that's the way it's been done since the dawn of humanity. I'm surprised to hear this coming from someone purporting to be educated in these things.Bob Butler wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 6:07 amIf you start out a relationship with slavery, colonial imperialism or exploitation, you don't expect resentment? Do you think hatred, oppression and killing are a great way to make friends and influence people?
The Romans and Genghis Khan gave their "oppressees" a chance to join them and pay tribute, if they refused then only then did they kill them. The American Indians didn't even do that, they killed or enslaved their captives, likely because in their stone age society the land could only support so many people.
The West has done something no other conquoring people ever has - it's kicked everyone's asses so completely that it has lost its desire to conquer, and has realized tht humanity would be better off if we could all just get along. Understandably, the less advanced people who were conquered aren't all jumping to join their erstwhile oppressors, but this does not make the West's overtures any less admirable.Bob Butler wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 6:07 amIt is just that many other groups were treated badly by the West and have a resentment which will soon be returned.
Yes, I said "admirable." We have already established that conquest is the norm since the dawn of time. When after conquest the alternatives are keeping a conquered people in perpetual subjugation, or simply killing them all, a belated extending of the olive branch is an "admirable" experiment.
Yes, I said "experiment." An experiment that doesn't appear to be working, at least not all the time. In fact, it's looking like a disaster in some areas. What is the proper course when it becomes obvious that the experiment is a disaster? Cancel the experiment, and preserve the dominant culture, or lose all to those who were welcomed? That's the question the West has to answer. It appears that opinions among Westerners differ on which course to follow.