• Chipthemonk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many natives welcomed the colonizers because they could trade with the them and advance their own cultures. It wasn’t purely about oppressors and oppressed. That binary view is simply removed from reality.

      • #WikiParty@campaign.openworlds.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Chipthemonk What if the real false binary is between “natives” & “colonisers?” If each of those contained classes with different interests? Indeed some “natives” were willing to ally with some colonisers, where indigenous elites were exploitative. Likewise some “colonisers” (e.g. indentured servants from Europe) allied themselves with indigenous people because they themselves were exploited by settler elites. #ClassAnalysis

        • Chipthemonk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would agree that colonizers and natives is a false binary, or more an oversimplification.

          I do notice, however, that your language often evokes the ideas of exploitation, where one party is always exploiting another. It’s similar to the idea that one group is always oppressing another. It’s a binary view. The world cannot be divided solely into oppressors and oppressed. It’s far more complicated.

          Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue.