This seems unfair or at least simplified? The Mongols didn’t come close to clearing three continents, but that was a skill issue. In absolute numbers or geographical extent you can make the argument that Europe was very successful at expansion, but this isn’t a specifically European hobby—this is what humanity has been doing as far back as can be seen. Europe was very good at it because they had a decisive edge (guns and disease, mainly). Previous attempts stopped earlier for technological reasons (hard to hold an empire if it takes months to communicate with the provinces). Most of history is different cultures trying to do the same thing, with varying levels of success and brutality. The Yamnaya expansion had similar results, but without the smallpox, which suggests that if anything it was worse, because intentional.
To be clear, I’m not saying that colonialism was good. More something like “European colonialism was the largest in absolute numbers instance of a recurring human pattern” or something? That most high culture is based on enormous suffering and exploitation? British colonialism at least pretended at trying to help the natives. They also stopped the slave trade at large cost—this doesn’t absolve them of anything, of course, but I can’t imagine e.g. the Aztecs of even dreaming of such absurdities.
Believe it or not, I’m not against all conquest or imperialism. The main factor to me is that many (most?) empires in history were content to conquer and rule the natives. But European colonialism, on a huge part of territory it affected, went for extermination or mass enslavement instead. This unusual aspect, combined with the scale, is what makes it the worst atrocity to me.
I mean not all of it—British colonialism e.g. seems a lot more like Roman conquest (in fact a bit softer). At the other end of the spectrum is whatever the fuck was going on in King Leopold II’s rotten brain when he conceived of the Free Congo.
This seems unfair or at least simplified? The Mongols didn’t come close to clearing three continents, but that was a skill issue. In absolute numbers or geographical extent you can make the argument that Europe was very successful at expansion, but this isn’t a specifically European hobby—this is what humanity has been doing as far back as can be seen. Europe was very good at it because they had a decisive edge (guns and disease, mainly). Previous attempts stopped earlier for technological reasons (hard to hold an empire if it takes months to communicate with the provinces). Most of history is different cultures trying to do the same thing, with varying levels of success and brutality. The Yamnaya expansion had similar results, but without the smallpox, which suggests that if anything it was worse, because intentional.
To be clear, I’m not saying that colonialism was good. More something like “European colonialism was the largest in absolute numbers instance of a recurring human pattern” or something? That most high culture is based on enormous suffering and exploitation? British colonialism at least pretended at trying to help the natives. They also stopped the slave trade at large cost—this doesn’t absolve them of anything, of course, but I can’t imagine e.g. the Aztecs of even dreaming of such absurdities.
Believe it or not, I’m not against all conquest or imperialism. The main factor to me is that many (most?) empires in history were content to conquer and rule the natives. But European colonialism, on a huge part of territory it affected, went for extermination or mass enslavement instead. This unusual aspect, combined with the scale, is what makes it the worst atrocity to me.
I mean not all of it—British colonialism e.g. seems a lot more like Roman conquest (in fact a bit softer). At the other end of the spectrum is whatever the fuck was going on in King Leopold II’s rotten brain when he conceived of the Free Congo.
And yet Congo is now inhabited by its natives, while Australia after British “soft colonialism” isn’t.