The morality of conquering territory for living space?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,413
Republika Srpska
#42
What about the Han Chinese moving into Manchuria?
I don't think this counts as an example of a new group conquering and displacing another group. The Han settlement of Manchuria mostly happened during the rule of the MANCHU Qing dynasty. So, in a way, the Manchu authorities allowed Han Chinese to move into Manchuria which of course led to Manchuria eventually becoming a Han-majority area.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,131
SoCal
#43
I don't think this counts as an example of a new group conquering and displacing another group. The Han settlement of Manchuria mostly happened during the rule of the MANCHU Qing dynasty. So, in a way, the Manchu authorities allowed Han Chinese to move into Manchuria which of course led to Manchuria eventually becoming a Han-majority area.
Were the local Manchus (as opposed to the Manchu Chinese leadership) in favor of mass Chinese migration into Manchuria, though?
 
Jun 2013
6,395
USA
#44
It's natural ...

It's natural selection. When a growing population of wolves look for new territories it will have to fight other packs of wolves. It happened also to us, human being, when we had a demographic positive moment and we endangered the sphere of influence of the Neanthertalians. We won ... And we caused the extinction of an other intelligent species who lived on this planet. Do we feel guilty for that? No we don't ...
I feel guilty for extinct animal species we’re killing off. As for past removals of peoples, obviously not being there of course there’s no guilt. But I do feel sorrow. It’s not something to view positively.
 
Likes: Futurist

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#46
Correct. Humanity does indeed have a history of being rather awful and no culture or civ was/is perfect. So I’m fine with that.
I suppose what I am not exactly comfortable with, is the notion that we're acting perfectly in accordance with human nature, yet that same behavior (human nature) is cruel or immoral. I think there's a perversion at work here.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2013
6,395
USA
#47
I suppose what I am not exactly comfortable with, is the notion that we're acting perfectly in accordance with human nature, yet that same behavior (human nature) is cruel or immoral. I think there's a perversion at work here.
Not when you consider humans can and do evolve. It’s also technically human nature to spread genes as far as possible, and thus sometimes humans who can’t control that nature end up raping. Human nature includes competition to the point of potentially killing someone if we don’t control that nature. Same with addictions, stealing, etc..

Going against human nature isn’t inherently perversion but can be rather better many times.
 
Likes: Futurist

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#48
Not when you consider humans can and do evolve. It’s also technically human nature to spread genes as far as possible, and thus sometimes humans who can’t control that nature end up raping. Human nature includes competition to the point of potentially killing someone if we don’t control that nature. Same with addictions, stealing, etc..

Going against human nature isn’t inherently perversion but can be rather better many times.
Good points. Many of the things that helped us evolve and survive 50,000 years ago may not be as conducive to living our lives in the 21st century. Having said that, I think a better way to look at all of this is not in terms of bad vs good or moral vs immoral. Rather, I think we should look at it as something that just "is," or "was." I infer that what's being implied at times, is that we, modern man, is morally superior to our ancestors, I reject such notions.


You start off your paragraph saying humans can and do evolve. Agreed. But then you say it's better at times to go against human nature. Well, maybe it isn't necessary to go against human nature, if we're evolving....it's not going against human nature at all, no, we're simply acting in accordance with our current evolution.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2013
6,395
USA
#49
Good points. Many of the things that helped us evolve and survive 50,000 years ago may not be as conducive to living our lives in the 21st century. Having said that, I think a better way to look at all of this is not in terms of bad vs good or moral vs immoral. Rather, I think we should look at it as something that just "is," or "was." I infer that what's being implied at times, is that we, modern man, is morally superior to our ancestors, I reject such notions.


You start off your paragraph saying humans can and do evolve. Agreed. But then you say it's better at times to go against human nature. Well, maybe it isn't necessary to go against human nature, if we're evolving....it's not going against human nature at all, no, we're simply acting in accordance with our current evolution.
Perhaps replace human nature with leftover animal instincts then.
While I do understand morality evolves over time, some things have always been considered bad. For example murder being wrong has gone back millenia despite how much it still happened at a homocidal or genocidal level. So for something like genociding or enslaving a group living in their land just to populate it yourself, I'll still judge that as morally wrong since many others did then too.
 
Likes: Futurist
Feb 2016
4,440
Japan
#50
We will have double standards.
I’m English, my ancestors, or at least some of them would have come to England from Denmark/Germany to take land from Romano-British/Celts.
Morally, with a modern eye, this was not particularly nice. But I’m glad they did so that my country exists. I’m sure some Welsh might wish they hadn’t but that’s by the by now.

And I doubt their are many populations on the planet that are living on a patch of earth that only their people have ever lived on, nations and cultures are not fixed or arbitrary but fluid and they morph and meld over time. ... we humans are one of 5 types of human that once lived on the earth, but we are the only ones left.

So the taking over of land and population replacement has been going on forever. It happens “naturally”(see grey squirrels vs red in uk). The morally repungence to it comes from our modern sensibilities to killing and the empathy to the victim.

How is Hitler’s attempt to take living space morally abhorrent to most, but “Israeli” lebenstraum taken from Palastinians only to a few.
Why is it that the US conquest of America is good, but I’d venture to guess most people who support THAT would be against Anglo-Scottish colonisation of Ireland ... and those same people against that probably have no issue with the Irish invasion and settlement of Pictish land in highlands of Scotland.

I guess it’s ok to do it if it’s part of our national quest and story, or to people who are unsympathetic in your view. But it’s morally reprehensible to take land from people you like...

Maybe the method can also effect the perception of it. In any seizure of land for living space their will be a certain amount of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic Cleansing can be achieved numerous ways and is not necessarily evil. It might not always be intentional.
So ... one way is genocide. Which I think we all agree is bad, you kill the previous inhabitants deliberately so that they are weak we or even non existent.
But some times the previous population will Be rounded up and transported to a designated area for them to live.
Some times they will be bred out of existence or into insignificance, this can be deliberate (Ainu) or accidental (various small tribal groups)
Sometimes they can have their language and culture replaced so they just merge into the identity of the new dominant group.

It’s happening constantly but in some cases the process is so slow that we don’t notice.
 
Likes: Futurist