Pros and cons of Colonialism?

[SteelCurtain]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

The ultimate in ironic disrespect is that you spelled 3/4 of those tribal names incorrectly. It also reveals that you know next to nothing about what went on in America. Revisionist history and American "exceptionalism" are truly awful things. (ETA: also the Sioux had next to no contact with the Cherokee.)

I'd ask you to read about Andrew Jackson, the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the "Indian Problem," and the Trail of Tears, but I doubt you will. It might upset your "Gone with the Wind" version of American history.

There is a difference between tribal disputes and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, where it was believed that God had made the entire continent of America for the express consumption of white American settlers, and that anything and anyone in their way was by definition against God. Especially those savages that just wouldn't listen and abandon their culture and way of life for the white god and his measles and diseases that killed their children.

There is a difference between tribal disputes and European colonization and the genocide and veritable extinction of some of the most advanced civilizations in the Mexica and Inca.

To wipe out the genocide of more than 20 million people by saying they would have done it to us if they could is sheer foolishness. The chattel slavery of tens of millions of Africans can be tacked onto that number. All defended until no longer convenient to do so by Bible thumpers.