When can the West begin colonizing again?

[Cooky]

Didn't we send all the work overseas when we chased industry out of this country?

That is a trend that is growing in this country and many are paying more attention to how we use resources. It is a trend in the right direction, even if sometimes we take silly steps.

Yes, we sent all the industry to where the standards are low... But Trumps tariffs solve that. Now with more U.S. territory, we can remain not only entirely self sufficient, but set the global standard.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, we sent all the industry to where the standards are low... But Trumps tariffs solve that. Now with more U.S. territory, we can remain not only entirely self sufficient, but set the global standard.

I would not go so far as to say that tariffs are solving much. Now we have huge subsidies going to agriculture that we didn't.

I see your point. Go in. Dilute the culture. Keep that up until the solute is the major component of the solution. Then set things right.

 

[Shad]

Why have we stopped colonizing when so many of our immigrant neighbors are leaving their lands and joining us. Is this not a sign that they need us to come govern them?

No. Some nations have far more problems than merely being governed. Goals for one. Some nations will not meet first world standards due to geography for example. It does not matter who governs.

...Also, can we focus for a minute on how colonization can be a positive rather than a negative, and explore that possibility?

This is just going to become an ends justifies the means debate. Just watch.

I mean for both us and them... Not like it used to be... I mean a *new* kind of colonialism, one more modern and progressive.

It is called immigration.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Who said anything about changing their culture?

But anyways, they expect us to take in their overflow, because the conditions they provide are terrible... Yet we're supposed to *pretend* like their economy or "culture" is equal to ours.

...That's politically correct (PC) nonsense.

That is usually the focus, as well as to plunder and take profits, leaving the colonized with nothing, except worthless religion. Not equal, but just a good as, sometimes worse, sometimes better.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why have we stopped colonizing when so many of our immigrant neighbors are leaving their lands and joining us. Is this not a sign that they need us to come govern them?

...Also, can we focus for a minute on how colonization can be a positive rather than a negative, and explore that possibility? I mean for both us and them... Not like it used to be... I mean a *new* kind of colonialism, one more modern and progressive.

Give some examples of past colonization that were good for the people who lived there at the time.....

 

[Cooky]

Give some examples of past colonization that were good for the people who lived there at the time.....

My understanding is that during the Roman Empire's expansion, many villages and tribes were glad to join Rome, because men who went into the Roman military were payed very well, and their families prospered, under the ability to go to Rome and get an education. Which is what many of the village men's sons did.

...So most didn't resist, but rather were excited about the prospect. Though, not all.

 

[Milton Platt]

My understanding is that during the Roman Empire's expansion, many villages and tribes were glad to join Rome, because men who went into the Roman military were payed very well, and their families prospered, under the ability to go to Rome and get an education. Which is what many of the village men's sons did.

...So most didn't resist, but rather were excited about the prospect. Though, not all.

My reading suggests that most if not all expansion was due to wars against other nations or peoples. Do you have links to academic sources to substantiate that Roman occupation was primarily.voluntary?

perhaps the “villages and tribes” were not part of a recognized nation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My understanding is that during the Roman Empire's expansion, many villages and tribes were glad to join Rome, because men who went into the Roman military were payed very well, and their families prospered, under the ability to go to Rome and get an education. Which is what many of the village men's sons did.

...So most didn't resist, but rather were excited about the prospect. Though, not all.

Total bs. Rome was always at war with people and the Northern tribes forced them out of the British isles and what is now Germany. Hadrian built his famous wall in Britain because the Picts and others kept attacking. The Romans treated their enemies horribly and committed genocide more than once. Eventually the Northern tribes got their revenge for being treated so badly by destroying Rome more than once.

Genocide in the Ancient World

There's a good reason why Fascism models itself on the Roman Empire.

 

[Cooky]

That is usually the focus, as well as to plunder and take profits, leaving the colonized with nothing, except worthless religion. Not equal, but just a good as, sometimes worse, sometimes better.

I can agree, with people like Ghengis Kahn, and Mohammad of Islam, and even the West in general toward indigenous peoples, but there are exceptions too...

With Greece and Italy, we see hundreds and even thousands of villages and tribes coming together and uniting because of the advantages of it -with protection and potential prosperity as the main motivating factors. Something thousands of refugees are seeking today.

 

[Cooky]

My reading suggests that most if not all expansion was due to wars against other nations or peoples. Do you have links to academic sources to substantiate that Roman occupation was primarily.voluntary?

perhaps the “villages and tribes” were not part of a recognized nation.

Of course. This is not something I made up, but was shown to me. I'll dig up some sources when I can.

 

[Shad]

My understanding is that during the Roman Empire's expansion, many villages and tribes were glad to join Rome, because men who went into the Roman military were payed very well, and their families prospered, under the ability to go to Rome and get an education. Which is what many of the village men's sons did.

That was assimilation, social and military requirements. Before the Marian Reforms Rome's armies were based on social class thus wealth. Soldiers bought their own equipment which dictates their position in the legions. The poor were only used in emergencies. As Rome expanded this system could no longer supply the manpower and quality of arms to hold 2nd to 1st century BCE Republic territory. Marius removed the wealth requirement and provided standardized gear by the state. These are the iconic Legions of Rome. Social status dictate who was a soldier and who was a mercenary. Marius remove the social requirement thus anyone could join the Legions. Mercenaries were those that never signed a contract typically cavalry. Terms of service was 25 years. After service was complete the legionnaire was granted Roman citizenship which put that solider above Italians, freemen, foreigners, slaves, etc, everyone that was not Roman. Roman citizenship was to be part of the elite even if one didn't have a lot of money. The status alone opened a lot of door typically in politics. At that point the Legions were professional armies. Pay, and looting rights, was high due to be state sponsored instead of based on loyalty/patronage bonds. It was one of the best paying jobs an average able-bodied male could find.

Flash forward a few centuries the Romans were destroyed by tribes that knew Roman tactics, fought in Roman armies, were leaders of those armies. No bonds of loyalty between various tribes and Rome last long. The same people were willing to destroy anything just to get the prize of Rome even if they destroyed it along the way. The legions became loyal to the generals not the state. The system backfired.

Colonization is a dead method. Humans filled to many areas of the world now. Colonization in my view is only to be used in relation to interplanetary travel and the solar system. Immigration works fine on Earth. It provided the ME with the technology, training, expertise, etc for it's oil industry.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whah. You aren't entitled to the lands held by other people, especially those in other countries. That's not called freedom, it's called oppression.

Well if the citizenry is running away from those same damn countries in droves, I would call it liberation.

 

[Shad]

Seeing as the UK probably has a more humane legal system than the USA's, why not just incorporate the USA into the UK, instead? We could also include some Latin American countries, if they were into it.

Get rid of the Queen maybe.

 

[Kirran]

Get rid of the Queen maybe.

I think she is a nice lady. But the institution, yeah.

 

[Milton Platt]

Of course. This is not something I made up, but was shown to me. I'll dig up some sources when I can.

Thanks. Although I'm not convinced you are correct, my reason for probing is because it is interesting, and not that I have to prove you wrong.
Perhaps this should be considered in the light of probability. Given the number of times colonization had negative effects overall, and given the scope and severity of those negative effects, what are the odds that attempting colonization under current geopolitical circumstances will prove to be overwhelmingly positive in effect. And why would colonization be only by the West?

Another thing that comes to mind, is where are we getting information about the expansion of Rome? Is it mostly from the Romans who would naturally write themselves into history in a flattering way?

 

[Enoch07]

That's not the Ameristanian way.
Ever since we conquered Hawaii, we now only go in to bomb or corrupt other countries.
I don't think our politicians know how to do anything else.

We bout to colonize the p00p out of Greenland.

Soon as those icecaps finish melting and all those pesky polar bears die off!

 

[Estro Felino]

I am against colonization.

 

[Glaurung]

I think we should just conquer the entire world. That would solve a lot of problems.

Conquering the world would be an administrative nightmare. If I were glorious leader of the U.S. having abolished democracy and intent on empire, I would annex Canada and Mexico. Turn Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand into direct vassals and then set up a Ming type tributary system with the E.U.

Anything bigger would be overextension and unwieldy.

 

[Revoltingest]

We bout to colonize the p00p out of Greenland.

Soon as those icecaps finish melting and all those pesky polar bears die off!

We could make the whole island a polar bear exhibit.

 

[Enoch07]

We could make the whole island a polar bear exhibit.

Oooh oooh we could have a whack a mole game, but instead of moles, its baby seals!