• @[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.