Like I said earlier in the thread, I believe imperialism is inevitable as people need more resources for progress than are available within thier borders. Populations grow with no end in sight, and resources shrink.
In the past it was done primarily through military means, today it is primarily done through economical conquest (much more subtle and effective.)
It also beats the alternative, which is seperate classes of people within a world that 'gets along' where powerful upper classes within the society live at the expense of rights freedoms and quality of life of the people below them, instead of at the expense of foriegn entities. If you think you can get rid of both you don't understand economics or human nature.
The borders we know today were defined by conquest. None were set in stone, and they changed constantly over time. Nations came to exist that never did and some populations have no borders that actualy define them (even some that once did in history.)
The concept of unchanging borders is only a modern thing.
That does not make imperialism right, nor the actions of the men helping thier peoples' success and quality of life at the expense of others.
If they do it in military uniform is does not mean when they are killed they are 'victims'. It just is the way it is.
It also does not make the soldiers themselves evil for being pawns and having loyalty to eachother and thier rulers over the people that they dominate.
It does mean when they are killed though that they were killed justifiably by the people that did so.
So I would not use the term "massacre" when describing the killing of such armed soldiers. Instead they are soldiers that died in battle, overwhelmed by the 'enemy'.
In the past it was done primarily through military means, today it is primarily done through economical conquest (much more subtle and effective.)
It also beats the alternative, which is seperate classes of people within a world that 'gets along' where powerful upper classes within the society live at the expense of rights freedoms and quality of life of the people below them, instead of at the expense of foriegn entities. If you think you can get rid of both you don't understand economics or human nature.
The borders we know today were defined by conquest. None were set in stone, and they changed constantly over time. Nations came to exist that never did and some populations have no borders that actualy define them (even some that once did in history.)
The concept of unchanging borders is only a modern thing.
That does not make imperialism right, nor the actions of the men helping thier peoples' success and quality of life at the expense of others.
If they do it in military uniform is does not mean when they are killed they are 'victims'. It just is the way it is.
It also does not make the soldiers themselves evil for being pawns and having loyalty to eachother and thier rulers over the people that they dominate.
It does mean when they are killed though that they were killed justifiably by the people that did so.
So I would not use the term "massacre" when describing the killing of such armed soldiers. Instead they are soldiers that died in battle, overwhelmed by the 'enemy'.
Conquered people throughout history have fought on the side of thier conquerers and in many instances valiantly. Military service in a powerful nation provides many new opportunities to the individual regardless of thier personal beliefs. It can also provide political leverage and credibility with the more powerful conquerers of the conquered people.Indians fought in Europe, believe it or not, Zulus fought in South East Asia. Frequently, various Afghan tribes fought with the British against their neighbors. During the Indian Mutiny the Sikhs remained loyal to the British against their countrymen. The Ghurkas fought for the British in many wars.