On ethnic cleansing

Ethnic cleansing is pretty rare for a variety of reasons. For example, by the time Europeans widely colonized Africa, they recognized they could use Africans as a labor force they could pay cheaply. (if at all) This was far more efficient than attempting to settle the land which would be costly and a huge population drainage to set up any meaningful colony.

Another example would be the Ottomans Empire, which taxed minorities heavier than Muslims which encouraged assimilation, and even if they did not it allowed for higher revenue so they had an incentive to continue that behavior. Obviously ofc we know they did not last forever as eventually the t*rk attempted several genocide by the 20th century

I agree, and for America, which is world superpower, nuclear superpower, industrual superpower etc this shouldnt be a problem. And yet it is not done, the removing from the source or simply ethnic cleansing as I call it. I dont understand why.

This is why you send the re-settlers, colonists, caravan populations of your own language, your own looks, your own religion, your own everything.
That way, no conflict.

We were at war with the Indians up until the end of the 1800s. There just wasn't a lot of them because of smallpox.

But with invention of tractor and combine, this argument is no longer viable. Everyone knew slaves were shit workers, and that even the most professional, the most disciplined and the most motivated agricultural workers cant compete with agricultural mechanization.

I get the labor/manpower argument from before mechanization, but in the recent times I dont think it is any good.

Really wish we had nuked you back in the 90’s. Would’ve done the whole world a favor.

What is the Manifest Destiny? What is the Trail of Tears? What are reservations? What is the numerous times we paid LatAm countries to genocide their native populations so we could use the land?

>Everyone knows slaves were shit workers
Except they weren’t. If they were, why would people bother with slavery? The whole point was a more efficient use of labor, if they can’t do that one job then slaves wouldn’t have been so widespread. Africans also have resistance to Malaria which would be vital in Sub-Saharan Africa. Not to mention by this time a genocide of all African people would certainly have been viewed with extreme negativity, despite their perceived inferiority at the time.

>Not to mention by this time a genocide of all African people would certainly have been viewed with extreme negativity
I honestly doubt it. They were (and we still are) perfectly fine with chopping off all their limbs if they failed to meet a daily quota. Or for fun.

Why am I not surprised that a serb wrote a post like this?

That’s not genocide, those are massacres. Genocide is specific intent to wipe out every individual of an ethnic group, which despite our horrid treatment of the natives is not what we did. It’s like calling the Bataan death march a genocide of white people. Also, calling reservations a genocide is a joke, it’s a cultural “genocide” at the worst.

Ok but what about today? Wouldnt it increase marketshares, satisfy shareholders, improve quarterlies, check all the buzzword boxes for corporations today to ethnically cleanse large swathes of land for profits?

I mean even 1950s Rhodesia was 1st world African major food exporter when Brit colonists ran the place, while Zimbabwe (modern country on the same geographical location) is a 3rd world starving nation. We have vaccines and tractors now. We do not need any ethnic Africans for anything.
It makes total and perfect sense for ANY European government to resettle those lands and ethnically cleanse Africans.

Its what the Chinese are doing. Chinese are ethnically cleansing east Africa and building Chinese cities.

Attached: 18ecbb9c928ac593d4e659201d60298c72a8eaba6e77267f15c9c949b9430302.png (1022x731, 639K)

Yeah, and King Leopold got his colonies seized for that specific reason. The Congo Reform Association was literally founded and made up of Europeans and Americans just because of the atrocities being reported in the colony We don’t “need” anyone of a particular ethnicity, but you already know why people don’t genocide each other in the modern day.

>Chinese are ethnically cleansing east Africa and building Chinese cities.
No they’re not. They’re debt trapping them and stealing port cities. They haven’t killed people. Yet.

Chinese are imprisoning their own people and executing prisoners in order to sell their organs. Chinese organ trade is the biggest in the world currently. I severely doubt that they arent ethnically cleansing Africans out of the regions they occupied in east Africa to build their ports and cities.

Anyway if I was a big corporation or a national government of some major developed nation, it would make absolute sense to do what Chinese are doing. Colonization makes perfect sense.

Why are only Chinese colonizing Africa? China is the only growing economy too, all thanks to their colonization.

Smallpox blankets sounds like a fucking meme to me. Did these niggers even know what a germ was?
You make it sound like an unmotivated negro is going to work harder than someone who needs to earn a living wage, that just isn't the case. The reality was that buying a hundred slaves was cheaper than paying a hundred men's wages.

Just think about it, one day you're a warrior, the next day you're being sold to someone who you can't even communicate with, shipped off to some shithole to do shitwork all day and live as a serf with miscellaneous tribesman on a shitter bin plantation. Or maybe you get "lucky" and you're sold to some farmer who saved up enough money to get some help. Even then, it's not exactly a good time being ripped from your home and put in some random ass place plowing fields.

Anyway, we should put niggers back into the fields. I don't know why they're allowed to nig it up in cities when they could be picking strawberries.

brits attempted ethnic cleansing in india and failed

3 major reasons
1) the effect in india was reverse of the americas, the native population had a much stronger immunity than brits, also india had guns and canons so while the indian armies were busy fighting each other and were completely devastated from civil wars between Mughals and Marathas, they could still offer considerable resistance

2) there were too many Indians unlike Amerindians. The population under the Mughal Empire outnumbered Europe by 2x in 1700 (and the Mughal Empire did not include the densely populated areas of the South)

3) brits got a huge market to sell their shit. resources from India would go to London for cheap, industrialized goods would come back to India and the brits would sell it to the native Indians at much higher prices, and Indians paid tax to Britain.

I understand the situation where you cant ethnically cleanse the region, but what about situations where you can cleanse the region without any doubt?

China isn’t killing Africans on a wide enough scale to be counted as genocide, it would be obviously if they did. The Chinese aren’t the only ones investing in Africa, the United States is as well. The problem is China isn’t afraid of sullying their reputation with manipulative deals and borderline breaking international law.
They were beaten if they didn’t work, they didn’t have days off, and they had little to no breaks. They worked quite literally as hard as humanly possible. Sugar production in the Caribbean was even worse for slaves due to how dangerous it was to make. Slaves worked with boiling water, and lost limbs getting caught in machinery was so common they had other slaves armed with machetes just to cut off the arms off those who got caught. They may not have been motivated by money, but they were certainly motivated just to survive.

>Sugar
Let me stop you there, nigga. Those are the worst of the worst plantations and the faggotry contained there led to multiple slave revolts. Not exactly the definitive slave lifestyle.

Doesn’t make cotton production fun, especially in the humidity of southern swamps. Besides, American slaves only made up around 4% of the total amount of slaves with most going to the Caribbean or Brazil. So our slaves aren’t the standard either. Less so than sugar plantations.

Why are Serbs so obsessed with killing innocent people?

>tf
>tp

Being innocent is a social construct? Also because of the economic, military, political and diplomatic implications. For example we live like shit today because NATO stopped us from building ethnically homogenous, politically stable greater Serbia with sea access that could negotiate with EU for market access, instead of tiny shitty Serbia surrounded by NATO bases that cant negotiate for access to EU markets.

because you get trianoned for you stupid serb, wasnt losing slovenia croatia macedonia crna gora bosna and kosovo not enough?

the more ppl you piss off they will eventually find you and pay you back

Well, nowadays you'll have the international morality police on your back in 20 seconds. But yes, the smartest long-term strategy is to exterminate, then repopulate. Of course that takes longer than enslavement, but the acquired territories are thereby fully consolidated. However, few governments will be willing to commit to this kind of multi-generational undertaking.

>tf
>tp
Your country tried ethnic cleansing but got BTFO by the civilized world

Right now they're replacing whites in the U.S with spics and Europoors with camel jockeys to eliminate competition. Except it isn't jews, it's chinks.

How can you piss anyone off, if they are dead?

But Austro-Hungarian empire was the most ethnically diverse empire in human history, and also the most wrecked empire for that very reason. Why didnt Austrians wipe out these annoying 21st century countries such as Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Rep, etc?

Austrians would run half of Europe if they simply cleansed the regions they conquered and resettled them with Austrians.

That is beyond the point. Your masters are ethnically cleansing Palestine. Your masters dictate what is and isnt civilized to you. Your post makes no sense.

They tried to germanize croatia and slovenia though
Even hungarians tried to magyarize us but they failed too

Well learn from the kikes and apply the knowledge to kebab.

it's rare for an outside group to move in and not need local manpower, which you'd lose from genocide
it only happens when they move into a place hospitable enough like new zealand, or neighbouring, but neighbouring countries are usually technologically equal

we didn't kill of the quebecers even though we'd be better off, being nicer to natives than americans has come back to be a real problem too

Refer to your own post then.

That obviously wasn't me, nigger. Instead of battling 4chandroids, be the change you want to see and start culturally enriching your enemies.

But why would you need outdated agricultural equipment aka undeveloped natives today?
The world was colonial until like the 60s, and you had agricultural and mining mechanization in those times. And yet instead of securing their position in the region, colonial powers let the colonized people arm themselves with modern weapons they couldnt possibly develop themselves for at least 50 years or more.

No South African currently ethnically cleaning Dutch and British farmers can manufacture gas pistons for automatic weapons.

>Why didnt Austrians wipe out these annoying 21st century countries such as Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Rep, etc?
Well, they'd have had moral qualms, and it just wouldn't be feasible numbers-wise, particularly without modern technological methods. Also, resettling that kind of territory would have taken forever.

All of Europe was ethnically cleansed by Indo-European steppe invaders.

The most extreme example was neolithic Britain, where 90% of the population was exterminated.

Attached: 250px-594px-MaskeAgamemnon-MOD.jpg (250x254, 22K)

STOP MAKING AMERICAN THREADS

>The world was colonial until like the 60s,
soviets would fund any anticolonial revolution

there's a lot of friedman 'economic liberty = personal liberty' so western companies can go profit in these areas and leave the domestics in charge

better steppe nigger than brown thick haired arab looking proto-european

Yes, and this is why Europe is so full of blue eyed people too I think.
Another argument for ethnic cleansing. Without it, Europe would still be full of proto arab farmers who are all brown haired and brown eyed.

Then why bite more than you can swallow? Couldnt imperial high command incentivise citizenry with lands and tax exemptions to overpopulate and join the army?

You could have a propaganda period in which you prepare the natality, warplans and the industry, after which you could have the invasion and conquest period in which you wipe out the native armed force, resettle the civilian population out of claimed lands, and physically remove those not convinced by terror campaign to leave.

I think imperial Japan had those plans for Manchuria and nazi Germany had those plans for west-Ural Russia.

Indo-Europeans were swarthy though. It's the indigenous hunter gatherers who carried the light genes.

That's bullshit, Proto European DNA is still dominant in Balkans and Basque region and they're all swarthy brown thick haired mongrels

Thanks for the compliment whiteoid
I am a descendant of mammoth hunters

"Rare"
Spain used to be fully European and now 80% of it is afro asiatic its a gradual procesw by initiators that have a will and recepients that have no defense.