Overseas colonization vs adjacent land conquest

Post Reply New Topic

Which is actually worse, the colonization of distant lands or the conquest of adjacent or otherwise nearby lands? I'm certain some will say that both are equally bad, but if so then how come colonization is portrayed in such a far worse manner than warfare between nearby nations?

I figure it has a lot to do with how many people you have to kill and/or oppress to acheive it.

Colonization is in some ways a form of indirect conquest. It may or may not (but usually does) involve military action. The general distinction I think is that colonial acquisition is usually done against people barely capable of fighting back, and often through dishonest land sales or just total disregard for native propriety. Further however there are subdivisions within the concept of colonialism. There are colonies that are acquired with no intent to settle the colonial nations population there, thus it could be considered a 'profit/resource' colony. Then you have colonial efforts that involve emigrating people to the colony in a way that may usurp the land from the native population. There are many who see the waves of Muslim immigrants to the West as a 'colonization' for example, though that is up for individual interpretation I suppose

Conquest of adjacent lands is different in a few ways. Annexation often involves setting up a puppet government to exercise the new foreign power's authority over the acquired lands. A logical route would be to use propaganda and magnanimity towards the population to ensure they will support the new government and essentially become the subjects of the aggressive nation's hegemony. However there can be parallels with colonization. For example, in the Second World War, the Germans had the intent of using the East as 'Lebensraum' or 'Living Space', displacing the native Slav populations and encouraging Germans to homestead. So in a sense that was a colonization following regional conquest.

Conquest - Military victory of one nation over another nation. The two nations are usually fairly equal in terms of technological advancement and societal structure.
Colonization - Takeover of one nation by another nation. Less likely to involve warfare, as the colonizing nation usually has a clear technologic advantage.
(These are my own definitions, not Webster's)

Conquest is more likely between neighboring countries, who often have similar societies. Colonization usually involves traveling some distance until you come upon a substantially weaker country, and then declaring it part of your own in order to exploit it.

I think colonization is generally worse from a moral standpoint, as it implies exploitation.