I see we agree on most points except the final point which is ok because I was not arguing whether or not the British empire supplanted a culture that had violence - that topic of discussion would is incredibly complex and I wouldn't be able to make sweeping statements on it. But I can see that you have proven that perhaps some indigenous nation's in North America had a culture of violence.
But this thread is not about other people, I haven't said that it was ok if Spanish or some indigenous people's were carrying out violence or just the British carried out violence.
I have made a statement that the British Empire is absolutely / objectively bad - what's the comparison aiming to do?
Ok, firstly I am unsure how any of the above refutes my statements about the British Empire.
You have decided to get into the semantics of conquest vs land theft. My reading of your reply is that conquest is an excusable activity?
My understanding of your argument rests on that everyone does it (conquest) so what the British Empire did was only unique in its scale.
I think your question and argument takes on more a personal morality question and I will present you with the way I think about it.
A couple of questions, if you have different answers to me then we just have different personal belief systems and we can leave it at that.
Do you excuse murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery in your current life as just being something people and chimpanzees do?
If the answer is no (I am sure it is) then why do you say conquest is excusable? Which by my definition is just larger groups of people engaging in the above mentioned crimes?
I do not want to be celebrating an organisation which is responsible for those crimes.
Finally, indigenous people's violence (and remembering there are 1000s of nations across the world which is kind of ridiculous to be saying them all at once) does not culturally define them in the same way mass violence defined the British Empire.
Violence, oppression and misery was the modus operandi of the British Empire.
I totally agree - and just wanted to point it out as people always reach for the what about those other people when discussing these topics.
I had my awakening on this subject in my 30s, I started to read academic writing on colonialism. Having grown up in Australia and knowing colonial history having been learnt from the British perspective I was just shocked at my ignorance on British Empire and it's colonies was.
A private corporation committing atrocities is still the country or empire that sets the rules. It's still British people carrying out / orchestrating the violence.
British equally carried out similar atrocities there is so much evidence of this. But none of it is taught in British or Australian schools, I also was brought up with the myth of "British weren't as bad as so and so"
Here is the map of British massacres in Australia that have written evidence (so you can double, triple the actual number). They have this right across their empire.
If detail accounts I recommend reading "Conspiracy of Silence" a detailed account of massacres throughout colonial Queensland in Australia, the accounts and actions and just as horrifying.
You are forgetting enslavement and genocide of indigenous populations they encountered, the Atlantic slave trade, mass land theft all in the pursuit of profit.
No indigenous population was left better off - as much wealth and resources as possible were looted.
To say that it was anything but utterly disgusting is an understatement.
This is precisely what I have realised is my special skill as well!
I can read the manual / docs and I can cast an eye over third party packages to see how it works it astounds me that so few people take these simple steps.
Yes but this is my point is there are great reasons why concorde failed but equally it's technology was not enough of progress to overcome the fact that 747s could do things at much greater scale and more economically.
The reach of aeroplane travel is far more impressive now than flying under a 100 people at supersonic speeds.
I also dispute that there was mass transport plans - the total passenger load was tiny.
Not to take away that the plane itself is an amazing piece of technology.
Having a total of 20 supersonic airlines wasn't exactly common place.
And spending 1.5% of your GDP to send like ten people to the moon probably isn't that great an achievement from a cost benefit analysis (I know there will be fierce disagreement).
Not taking away from how amazing those things are but we have billions of computers that connect most people in the world together which in my opinion just insanely amazing.
I see we agree on most points except the final point which is ok because I was not arguing whether or not the British empire supplanted a culture that had violence - that topic of discussion would is incredibly complex and I wouldn't be able to make sweeping statements on it. But I can see that you have proven that perhaps some indigenous nation's in North America had a culture of violence.