• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    The Indians didn’t initiate that war. The French and British did by their colonizing presence.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        To be clear though, there is no war without the British and the French meddling with Indian affairs.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That’s a pretty ignorant assertion.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            There can be no split without colonization. It’s amazing that you work so hard to be so ignorant.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There can be no SPLIT without colonization.

                We’re talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let’s do that.

                In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  That’s such a simplification of human interaction that I’m not sure there’s a single conflict I’m human history that fully fits that definition.