So let’s say your an empire looking to take some lane from some natives. What’s the best worst reason to do so? 1) Believing you have a divine right to bring civilization and progress to a savage land and teach them the errors of their ways. Destructive benevolent belief. 3) Pragmatic aggressive attitude where in you are stronger and they are weaker so what is theirs should belong to you because they can’t stop you. Cold Indifferent Logic. 88) Desperate need of the resources/land/creatures/slave labor in order to fix a problem that threatens the existence of your nation where people will die wholesale if you don’t. No other choice. 2.333333) Destructive hate or antipathy towards the natives with a wish to kill, steal, destroy, and replace with your own. Irrationality Add in your own reasons in the comments if I left out a possible reason. Keep in mind, in all these scenarios resources will be exploited to to fullest degree. The only thing this is debating is justification. The thing that you tell yourself to convince yourself this is OK.
Cuz I can? I mean, you can doesn't mean you should, but there's no stopping the rumbling, I supposed. Being evil doesn't need a meaning, "just do it" is good enough a reason. If doing it has no reprecussion like stomping on ants, then "cuz I can" is a good enough reason.
Some nation did it to spread the name of their deities, another did it for power, another onr for profit. Meanwhile some principalities and kingdoms did it because all their neighbors also did it and when they see their neighbors swim in gold and glory ofcourse they also want the same.
Hmmm… A villainous reason to conquer that hasn’t been suggested yet.. 1. Jealous of them. Because they have such a better supposedly life. 2. Wanting what they have. Women, land or etc. 3. In order to control the military because it has grown beyond control. They need war. 4. Just to conquer. So they can keep a buffer between them and their enemies. So they don’t want the land or anything to do with it. Nor care about its people. They just don’t want to incur any loss on their own land. 5. Because I don’t like you. Racism, Beliefs or etc. 6.That’s all they know how to do. Is to fight. 7. Misunderstanding. 8. …
What's "I just found empty land that doesn't have people, let's fill it up with our people! Since it's so far away, we can use it as a prison for our petty criminals, too!", possibly while ignoring/not noticing the locals who live in a nomadic or tribal society, and thus don't build towns and ports? Because that's what public perception says happened in Australia (note, based on general "knowledge", and not actually looking up history). North America, looking at it in a similar "this is what public perception & white-washed media tell is", was colonized due to "X bought some land to make a port town with small tools and feathers, which they accepted because they didn't have a concept of land ownership & development, then went back home while letting others develop their port. At which point the people in the port/managing the port decided to expand while ignoring or attacking the local populace". I'm not sure what this one is, either.
"Conquest is simply our way of life. What has not been conquered yet, is merely waiting to be. All that remains is to decide whose name shall be remembered as the conqueror in history, and I, the current emperor of xyz, have decided it shall be mine!"
A mercantile company is selling a popular fruit/commodity and wants to save an extra 10 cents in labour costs in said country but their labour laws are too robust and need "renegotiation" thus they've bribed the ruling class of the country to start a war that will place a new government that will be open to exploitation of the population by foreigners.
Hm, I agree with "divine right" being one of the iffy-est, One of my favorite justifications for things is usually "For the Greater Good." Which is pretty much the same thing if you squint a little. And by favorite I mean I want to throttle characters the minute they utter this line no matter how much I liked them 2 seconds ago. or 2) Blood for the Blood Gods kill your way across the world cause your big bad needs sacrifices and you'd rather it not be you or the ones you love, or as I like to call it "For the Badest Bad"
Is that still true if that line's added onto? Like when it was used in the Candy Convention Episode of the Simpsons (where the Simpsons kids agreed for Marge to go to the Candy Convention so that she could carry more free candy home "For the greater good") or some characters agree to do something with the agreed upon line of "For the Greater Good": Char 1 (Merchant): "For the Greater Good" (of my Wallet, getting to do trading with lessened tariffs) Char 2 (General): "For the Greater Good" (of my Authority as a leader of the military) Char 3 (Religious Leader): "For the Greater Good" (of my Standing in my religion's hierarchy) Char 4 (Emperor): "For the Greater Good" (of my Empire's size & taxes)
European when they colonized my country 400 years ago is "For Gold, God, and Glory" Gold - Wealth (Exploitation of our natural resources ) God - Religion (Spreading Christianity as the one and only true religion) Glory - Power (To increase their influence and control over the eastern islands and archipelago)
I'm sure it's been mentioned but you should allow your story to dictate which reason is used to justify colonizing new territories. A struggle between bordering nations with similar levels of scientific/military development can't be described as colonization. Usually "colonizing" can only take place in an area that is either sparsely populated and/or less technologically advanced, particularly in armaments (or in a fantasy setting magic/spiritual cultivation). However, although you may create a fictional world where colonizing is necessary, if you want to reference real world history, you'll find little to nothing. The struggle for resources between peoples has gone on long before "colonization" was a concept. If the "Age of Discovery" kicked off in the 15th century is what you want to emulate, then Midnost's post pretty much sums it up. Although some colonizers established colonies in NA for religious, political, and economic freedom, these things obviously came at the expense of the natives there and the slaves they imported. The bottom line of this unnecessary post of mine is that in fiction anything is possible. I'd favor a cross-dimensional/world colonizer, whose justification would be their self-destructive magical/scientific exploitation of the universe/world caused them to seek a new land to consume.
Because you have too much stuff and need them to use their [insert currency here] to fix your export problems and keep your economy chugging. Because the government is too benevolent and giving the people in your empire ideas about what freedom and safety really means. Because your [insert politicalleader here] fell in love with one of their married princesses or queens Because a political ally who is neighbours with you need you to do it for them for some reason.
I think, all colonization starts with 3. When you're powerful and strong. You believe your country is the most perfect of anything, from religion, tribe, skin color, food, cloth, culture, etc. Maybe you want others to experience this sense of satisfaction. Maybe you just want to take everything as yours. Maybe you're just naive. Or if your country is not strong but you believe yourself to be like that. You might go and poison those strong powerful countries to do stuff for you.
-They mistakenly believe they need to takeover in order to manage some resource, like a medicinal plant, so they colonize before the natives can destroy the resource But its actually self-manageable and the whole colonization was pointless But if the colonization destroyed the resource, then is just preachy