Colonization was how slavery was justified, commercialized and gone global, and colonial subjects were treated as an abundant work force for their colonial masters (when they were not hunted for fun, treated as animals, or displayed on "human zoos").
But even if I was "conflating" the too, that would at best a mistake in the use of words, not a "horribly" (sic) thing to do. Slavery and/or colonization themselves would be actual examples of horrible things to do.
Sadly, by taking this step he leaves the field for dogmatic ideologues, which can have a severe negative effect on education as a whole. I understand the decision of course.
Ironically the main issue with colonization was forcing people to accept a certain way of life. But self-reflection doesn't seem to be a strong suit of academia these days, on the contrary. Nevermind that learning from your errors may also include to acknowledge that you cannot take them back.
People trying to decolonize something are often delusional in my opinion.
> Despite that they don't get as much attention in contemporary discussion (at least, in the US), were European powers' continental African genocides morally worse, or not morally worse, than the New World's (institution of) slavery
That's like comparing Ebola to the plague, both were terrible. If presses, I'd say that European colonisation was slightly less bad from a moral standpoint, because there was usually at least some improvements in infrastructure, schools, there were some efforts around medicine, vaccination, healing, etc. and oftentimes traditional power structures were kept, just under the European colonial hierarchy. And colonial subjects usually had at least some limited rights ( mostly after the initial very bloody years/decades with genocides and atrocities which resulted in a backlash so things were scaled down). Compared to New World slavery where slaves had no rights, and were initially uprooted from where they lived to be shipped overseas for labour. And their descendants were subjected to the equally terrible "born into slavery" practice.
It’s as stupid a take as saying that colonising Mars is wrong because it’s colonialism, and that’s bad. Colonialism wasn’t bad because it was colonialism, it was bad because it had a negative impact on the native populations.
Slavery also wasn’t bad because it was controlling other things, it was bad because it harmed human beings with emotions.
You may as well argue that the problem with Nazi Germany was that they had the Nazi-like habit of wearing black and red, and therefore wearing black and red is evil.
Bad argument, not even comparable. Colonization of Africa, Asia and Americas was orders of magnitude worse, and more importantly, incredibly recent. Which is why the lingering effects are still there.
Colonization, was brutal, self-serving, and its economic consequences are still felt to this day (especially when neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments is still a thing).
Tell me you know nothing of colonization without telling me you know nothing about colonization. Massive massacres of unarmed people across the entire expanse of the empire, raping of children ‘round the world, deliberately slow torture as punishment before death, the whole gamut of sick and depraved actions, every bit as cruel and barbaric as anything you can claim against the aborigine, carried out by your “rescuing” white saviour-invaders. Your justification for destroying the aboriginal culture is built on a mountain of pain and torture and your own abysmal ignorance of history.
reply