Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over. Perhaps the racist treatment of conquered nations is something especially notable.
Russia is trying to colonise ukraine now. Hitler colonizred a bunch of european countries too but the racial undertone with colonialism is it only applies to when the invaded are non-europeans.
My contention is that while I don't disagree about the invader being ashamed, the invaded/colonized need to also feel shame for being weak and failing to protect their country, culuture and people. Weakness is something to be ashamed of when it is a choice as opposed to a natural weakness. Even now stronger nations indirectly arm-twist weaker nations, instead of focusing on becoming strong at all costs, whether being an ally of the strong or a formidable foe, countries that fail to do that should be ashamed because it is shameful to endanger and allow the subjugation of your people.
> Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over.
China colonised Taiwan, displacing the indigenous Taiwanese, who are an Austronesian people, related to Filipinos, Indonesians, Malays, Melanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians – in fact, Taiwan is believed to be the Austronesian Urheimat, the historical origin of Austronesian language and culture. The earliest Chinese settlers arrived in the 13th century, although Chinese colonisation really took off after failed European colonisation attempts (by the Dutch and Spanish) in the 16th.
Similarly, Yamato Japanese colonised Hokkaido and the northern parts of Honshu, displacing the indigenous Ainu. Even the rest of Japan appears to have been colonised by settlers from mainland East Asia in the first millennium BCE or earlier, who introduced an agrarian culture which displaced the hunter-gatherer cultures of Japanese prehistory. To say nothing of Japanese colonialism in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, China, and elsewhere between 1895 and 1945.
However, many nowadays present colonialism as something essentially "European" – for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Colonialism [0] says "This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement, violent dispossession and political domination over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia" – leaving Chinese and Japanese colonialism out of the scope of its definition, and never grappling with its decision to do so. It seems to me to be – at the very least – rather narrow-minded.
Yes that's what I am saying. Europeans thought their civilization is superior and has a manifest destiny to colonize others, a lie that must be told to get the support of the masses when you do terrible things. Even in Africa or even native americans in north america invaded territory as a means to gain wealth and resources.
Of course this makes none of it acceptable, especially in modern times where resources are so abundant.
It is plain and simple organized theft and murder. These nations chose to be murderers,rapists and thieves. The fact that europe wasn't the first only geographical area does not change that. You can develop resources and trade with others but when thay doesn't work either you find some way to better your society or turn to evil.
The US invading iraq for oil using spreading freedom as a cover is a replay of this ancient playbook. It's easy to say we will not do this as a nation anymore in a time of prosperity but but miss a few meals and then we will see what people think.
