Conquest and colonialism immoral?

>>3395186
>At what point in history did it become immoral to conquer and colonize and why?
Never really. The colonial powers were broke after WW2 so they were going to give up their territories willingly or unwillingly. A lot of them (barring Portugal and France) went the first route.

>That acting in your own self interest or the self interest of your tribe is somehow a bad thing for anyone else than the conquered doesn't fall naturally to me. Is it an abrahamic concept?
Yes. Brutal slavery was never really a concept within human physique post-Abrahamics. All three of them spoke about treating your conquered fairly so it was obviously only the next step to emancipate them.

Who said it was immoral besides leftists with racial biases?

If the British bring a bunch of warring tribes to heel and stop them fighting and only expect them to let their traders collect ivory and prospect for gold and diamonds it is of course a good thing.

On the other hand if the Belgians set up rubber quotas and instigate violence and the hacking off of hands then it is not so good.

>>3395186
When the Marxists took over the international system.

>>3395286
>"look mom i posted my strawman again"

>>3395295
>reality is a strawman
Stirner plz go

>>3395286

Marxists are in control? They look a lot like global free market capitalists to me.

>>3395339
Capitalism is a presupposition for socialism and later communism to kick in so in order to spread world-wide communism they first have to spread world-wide capitalism. You even Marx?

File: IMG_0657.png (374KB, 710x564px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 710x564px

>>3395345