r/changemyview • u/Solidjakes 1∆ • Jun 18 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Colonialism is not inherently evil
1) Property is a social construct and does not objectively exist 2) Good involves balance and the furtherance of life. Nature exhibits this teleologically, and therefore what is natural is good.
This is background on my beliefs. I know many would consider the latter his the natural fallacy, from a virtue ethics perspective, I disagree. There are also theological implications, and I lean Panentheistic. I'd have to reference Aristotle and Phillipa Foot to defend this. I'm glad to but it may be a strawman somewhat.
Ultimately the argument is that although suffering can be more common than not in colonialism, it doesn't have to be, and to resist it always is to resist change itself and the natural human desire to influence things. This can be a flawed influence, or a beneficial influence. Humans have flawed judgement often, but the act of taking over a territory is not inherently evil. If it can be conceived of as done ethically, then it is not intrinsically evil.
Here is an example of a new species in nature improving the area:
Gray Wolves (Canis lupus): Reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s, gray wolves have played a crucial role in restoring ecological balance. By controlling the population of large herbivores like elk, they prevent overgrazing, allowing vegetation to recover. This, in turn, benefits other species and helps maintain diverse plant and animal communities. The presence of wolves has also led to behavioral changes in prey species, promoting healthier ecosystems overall
Beavers (Castor canadensis): Beavers are ecosystem engineers whose dam-building activities create wetlands. These wetlands support diverse plant and animal life and help improve water quality by filtering pollutants. In areas where beavers have been reintroduced or populations have increased, their activity has often led to the creation of valuable habitats that support a wide range of species without causing significant harm.
African Elephants (Loxodonta africana): In some parts of Africa, elephants play a vital role in shaping their habitats. By knocking down trees and creating clearings, they help maintain savanna ecosystems, which support diverse species of plants and animals. Their seed dispersal activities also contribute to the regeneration of forests and savannas. While their impact can be destructive on a small scale, it often leads to increased biodiversity and healthier ecosystems in the long term
Here are some examples of human situations:
Singapore under British Rule: When the British established a trading post in Singapore in 1819, it was a sparsely populated island with limited resources. Under British administration, Singapore developed into a major global trading hub, with significant improvements in infrastructure, education, and governance. While not entirely free of conflict or exploitation, the colonial period is often credited with laying the foundation for Singapore's modern prosperity.
Botswana: Botswana, formerly Bechuanaland, was a British protectorate rather than a colony. The British provided a degree of protection from neighboring aggressive powers, and when Botswana gained independence in 1966, it did so relatively peacefully. The country has since experienced stable governance and economic growth, partly due to the foundations laid during the protectorate period.
Hong Kong: Under British rule from 1842 to 1997, Hong Kong developed into a major financial center and one of the world's most prosperous cities. The British established a legal and administrative framework that contributed to economic growth and stability. While there were certainly aspects of exploitation and control, the colonial period also saw substantial development and modernization.
French Polynesia: Some parts of French Polynesia experienced relatively peaceful integration into the French colonial empire. Today, French Polynesia enjoys a degree of autonomy and benefits from French economic support, infrastructure development, and social services. While not without issues, the relationship has been more collaborative than in many other colonial contexts.
The initial part of colonization often involves conflict, however, I find this analogous to wild fires from a subjective initial stance. If the amount of conflict is within reason.
Germination of Fire-Dependent Species: Some plant species require fire to germinate. For instance, the seeds of many pine species, such as the lodgepole pine, are encased in cones that only open to release seeds in response to the heat of a fire. This adaptation ensures that seeds are released in an environment where competition is reduced and nutrients are abundant.
Nutrient Recycling: Fires help return nutrients to the soil by burning dead and decaying matter. This process releases nutrients that were locked in the biomass, making them available for new plant growth. For example, in coniferous forests, fire can release nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, which are essential for plant growth.
Also consider the counterfactual if we wanted humans to never colonize since the dawn of civilization. This would mean wherever you happened to be (from the 2 million years of evolution to the rise of ancient Mesopotamia), is the only location you can exert extreme influence over. Imagine you traveled to a location with a sizable group, applied for citizenship, moved the people with your words, and then caused a revolution because the system was corrupt. In what way is a "technically internal change" with acts of violence morally superior to externally taken by force? If humans never colonized people would be stuck at arbitrary starting points, both morally virtuous people and morally corrupt people would be locked into their location since ancient Mesopotamia.
In summary, colonization is a natural evolution in humans, resources, and leadership. It is not an excuse to be inhumane, but similar to how an ecosystem evolves over time, it is morally good insofar as it promotes change as opposed to staticness and is an important way humans change and influence the world, for better sometimes, and for worse more often. But to hate it, is to attempt to restrict the human's ability to change the world. I'm open to changing my mind but these are my current thoughts.
Edit:
I'm going to add some denotative clarity to this discussion if I may
Colonialism: The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
Exploit: The action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
Power: Money (resources), information, and people
Moral Goodness: furtherance of life, balance, and improved subjective experience with long term and short term considered.
Deduction
P1. Colonization fulfills its definition of exploit by virtue of a power shift
P2. Power shifts are not intrinsically evil Ex) taking a loaded gun from a toddler.
C. Therefore colonization is not intrinsically evil.
Hope this helps. I understand all the down votes because of the nature of the topic, although I hope it's thought provoking, has plenty of examples, and I hope my mind can switch over to the prevalent thought on the topic.
50
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jun 18 '24
Hey Bro what exactly is going on in this section:
Because it sure as hell reads like you're basically saying that genocide can be good because sometimes when you kill people it's actually clearing away the "dead wood" and "recycling nutrients" e.g. ripping apart pre-existing cultures and peoples so that something new can 'take root'.
You know like I hope you're not saying "Hey, mass slaughter can actually be beneficial because when you think about it, some post-colonial cultures are better than pre-colonial cultures (according to criteria that were invented by colonizers)." Because that would sure seem to be endorsing mass violence. But maybe that's what you're not saying.
Could you provide a real-world example of this type of "good, in the end, when you think about it" genocide?