they didn't

and that's the right thing

genocide is bad, but it does mean that you don't have white countries in africa

I'm pro imperialism

I'm not, I believe that all people should have a right to self determination.

even those that are statistically worse then mine

even when we could run their countries better.

But I acknowledge that humans are tribal beings and will kill each other given enough proximity and time

This is obvious

So, with that in mind

I want my group to survive

And the best way the British did that was having the White dominions

ok whats the debate

Imperialism

fun

"white colonies wouldn't create white countries without some form of genocide"

I'd like to introduce you to Australia

tell me, what happened to a good portion of the abo's?

they died of disease, hardly a genocide

ignoring tas.

fuck tas

I dont care for aboriginals

Tasmanian "genocide"

They can have reservations

because deporting convicts to a island and letting them do what they want is genocide apparently

I think the term genocide I've been using is not broad enough.

an ethnic cleansing is a better term.

Yeah it's obviously ethnic cleansing

genocide implies mass murder, ethnic cleansing isn't always.

ethnic cleansing isn't inherently bad, since ethnic cleansing can mean something as simple as deportation of foreigners

example, the soviets ethnically cleansed large parts of germany after the war.

They did yes

Oh yea. There is one part that Germany doesn’t want because it’s all been replaced by Russians

few deaths occurred (relative), but many millions were moved

and like, a third of poland

buy https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/home-owners-18-per-month-000100228.html

I dont get your point, deadbravo?

It's what happens to the defeated

It's not a thing that should be objectively moralised

Because that creates autistic precedents to go by

why is it an autistic precedent to not ethnically cleans your defeated enemies?

unless I'm just miss understanding.