[inglor_cz]

"Not all nations became colonizers though, war and annexation of some neighborhood land is not "colonization"."

I happen to think otherwise, being from a nation that was targeted by both German and Russian imperialism.

Whether the invaders roll in in chariots, tanks or ships is an irrelevant technical detail for me. The goal is the same, domination over somebody weaker than you, usually supported by resettlements of foreigners to your territory.

Ask, e.g. the Baltic nations whether what Stalin did to them was not "colonialism". The USSR in general engaged in forced russification of everyone.

[whynotminot]

It's always been strange to me that it's seen as a worse crime if the guy who takes over your village is a European who arrived on a boat rather than the neighboring warlord who arrived on a horse.

[coldtea]

Perhaps because this a strawman formulation of the difference, as if it's roads vs boats.

Countries have disputes and go to wars with their neighbors, and neighboring areas are historically mixed populations, which drives tensions as to who owns what, and such, often resolved in wars (which are seldom one sided: historically the offending sides alternate). And usually those countries are of the same or similar development stage, plus they have to live close together, as populations, so enslavement is rarely if ever the case, nor is it made about racial inferiority.

So, yeah, "the neighboring warlord who arriving on a horse" is not some 10-100x stronger and richer global power coming to the other side of the world to make your people slaves, considers you racially inferior, displays you in human zoos, and even declares open season and hunts you like animals, while they steal your resources...

So there's that.

[whynotminot]

> And usually those countries are of the same or similar development stage, plus they have to live close together, as populations, so enslavement is rarely if ever the case, nor is it made about racial inferiority.

This is just demonstrably untrue. Plenty of neighboring warfare is still waged on the basis of race. Look at the history of the Middle East. The history of Europe itself. Look at Israel and Palestine. Look at Japan and Korea's history of warfare... or really Japan vs any of its neighboring Asian countries. Han nationalism, if we want a Chinese example since that's what this topic started with. All of these examples also involve slavery at various levels.

Being neighbors does not in any way shape or form make for "better" or "gentler" war as far I can tell from history. Your point just doesn't hold up to obvious historical data.

Bear in mind, I don't say any of this to absolve the evils of colonial powers. It's just strange to me that in the modern day it's treated so differently when it doesn't really look like a deviation at all from man's "usual" cruelty.

[inglor_cz]

The people who advocate for such double standards may have their own agenda.

E.g. occupying a position of a "decolonization" officer somewhere (some institution of higher learning?) and having a secure job with no performance reviews + power over others until they retire.

[coldtea]

>Ask, e.g. the Baltic nations whether what Stalin did to them was not "colonialism".

I could ask them, but I would get diverging opinions, especially if I go back to the generations that actually lived under that (and who often expressed how they find it "better" in several ways, in published post-1991 polls).

Not to mention the civil tension even at the start of this, pre- and post-WWII, between pro-communists and pro-USSR at the time (which had sizable popular support among European peoples, from Italians, Spanish, Greeks, Portuguese and so on, including sizable numbers in France and Germany) and also much more remote parts of the world, and which was squashed with quite a lot of blood and far right terrorism. Czechoslovakia itself had quite a strong communist party, way before 1948.