I want to be clear here: there's a difference between colonization and just immigration. Colonialism is the deliberate practice of suppressing, supplanting, and ultimately eradicating the culture of the people living in an area that another culture immigrates to. Its pretty rare for the colonizer to see what they're doing as bad; typically they think the displaced culture is too primitive to do "what's best", and the colonizer is only acting in the displaced's best interests. That those best interests lead to massive profits for the colonizer and the total dissolution of the displaced, millenia-old culture rarely causes any cognitive dissonance in the colonizer.
Obviously I feel pretty strongly about this. But I don't know how to convince you that colonialism is bad. But on the off-chance you're willing to be convinced, read on.
The unification of Hawaii was a military conquest by the natives from one Hawaiian island onto the other Hawaiian islands. Those islands were settled by Polynesians about 1000 years previously, and the culture was pretty uniform, even as it was a collection of kingdoms. This is less "Norway conquers England" and more "unification of England".
Moreover, the unification of Hawaii happened 17 years after first contact with Europeans, and the kingdom era basically coincided with the era of whalers, foreign plantations, and foreign immigration. Which makes the "unification of England" metaphor more apt, when you consider the role Scandinavian immigrants/colonists played in the unification of England.
To be super clear, the issue with colonization has never EVER been "we should let less advanced cultures develop at their own rate". The issue is that whatever development occurs does not happen in collaboration with the "less advanced" culture. Its always "I have guns, so therefore I have superior moral knowledge in all things". Its barring natives from voting, because they don't own enough property, when the concept of property ownership is less than a century old in the "less advanced" culture (and was forced on them by the "more advanced" culture). Its forcibly removing children from their families and even barring them from speaking the language of their parents [0].
Obviously I feel pretty strongly about this. But I don't know how to convince you that colonialism is bad. But on the off-chance you're willing to be convinced, read on.
The unification of Hawaii was a military conquest by the natives from one Hawaiian island onto the other Hawaiian islands. Those islands were settled by Polynesians about 1000 years previously, and the culture was pretty uniform, even as it was a collection of kingdoms. This is less "Norway conquers England" and more "unification of England".
Moreover, the unification of Hawaii happened 17 years after first contact with Europeans, and the kingdom era basically coincided with the era of whalers, foreign plantations, and foreign immigration. Which makes the "unification of England" metaphor more apt, when you consider the role Scandinavian immigrants/colonists played in the unification of England.
To be super clear, the issue with colonization has never EVER been "we should let less advanced cultures develop at their own rate". The issue is that whatever development occurs does not happen in collaboration with the "less advanced" culture. Its always "I have guns, so therefore I have superior moral knowledge in all things". Its barring natives from voting, because they don't own enough property, when the concept of property ownership is less than a century old in the "less advanced" culture (and was forced on them by the "more advanced" culture). Its forcibly removing children from their families and even barring them from speaking the language of their parents [0].
0. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/06/23/congressional-heari...