• mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indians fought on both sides of that war, often against one another.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 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.

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What? Pre-European Natives fought one another. Warfare predates colonization.

              • TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                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.

                • mwguy@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 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.