>>6047995>colonization is wrongDepends on the version you read/believe.
I understand the truth is probably a mid between the two, but there's solid proof that most of the settlements were set in non-populated areas (natives didn't have full control of the land like most people think) or treaties were signed willingly (and this is where some people argue that the tribes were scammed which is somewhat irrelevant since they found value at the time in the treaty).
Then, like ever before, there were fights for territory the same way the natives had disputes for hunting areas and resources among theirselves. Only this time they fucked with a much more advanced civilization.
Now, the "colonized" enjoy sovereign reserves and plenty of free gibs and resources as a form of "compensation" so, considering that no alive "native" has ever suffered the far gone colonization, you can objectively say that the colonized benefit from it.
The difference now is the context. Not only we're not explorers anymore, we have a global agreement to recognize people's land and sovereignty (except for some politicians and bankers who do what they please) and also the uncertainty that other colonizers will be as kind as to improve the white people's QoL specially considering the daily beratings these "new colonizers" submit them to.
