Including the Shawnee people. So it makes this stance just a tad hypocritical.
My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines.
Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back.
Does that make them any different? My ancestors were nearly wiped out several times before, although much earlier in the history.
The same applies pretty much to any group of humans.
> My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines.
"Trillions looted" is another example of hypocrisy.
> Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back.
And the notion of "generational sin" is another example of hypocrisy.
Like which ones? Sure, the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others.
The principal thing I wonder is doesn't get boring to not move forward? If you live in squalor, what does it matter if you blame yourself or blame somebody else? You're still stuck there in the dirt.
Barbados, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, Botswana...
the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others.
Ah so the poorer ex-colonies are simply too moral to develop. How noble of them.
The TLDR; is that the countries where colonizers moved in to settle are doing better than the countries where colonizers moved in to exploit the natural resources.
It’s uncomfortable if you’re on the benefactor side but it is the truth.
There are levels to it and some oppressive acts of the past were magnitudes worse than others. I mean literal genocide.