I hate… this line of thinking that’s like “imagine a world without Europe and what bliss it would be and how perfectly everyone would get along,” I really think it’s reductive
YES what Europe has done has been unique and on a scale that was unprecedented and white supremacy has wreaked global devastation etc. etc. However…. nonwhite / indigenous peoples around the world were not uniformly living in peace with each other like some noble s*vage-type fantasy would have you believe. and I feel like this is the same line of thinking that leads people to act like “poc countries” or whatever cannot be imperialist or carry out genocides or have systems of ethnic supremacy in the modern day.
the fact that unspeakable violence has been committed against a people or culture does not automatically mean that that culture is not or cannot have been violent in any way, just like (on the other side of this) a people or culture being violent does not mean that it deserved to be colonised or was improved by colonisation. this is a level of nuance that we should be capable of sustaining.
has white supremacy wreaked global devastation? serious question.
like it’s a good post obvs, albeit only necessary because people are idiots who never open history books.
Changing the question a little:
Has global devastation been caused in the name of white supremacy?
Yes. I mean obviously yes and I have no doubt you agree with me.
But in the original form, the answer is less clear. Would the British East Indian Company have been as terrible if they didn’t believe in British supremacy?
I feel like Mad Profits is probably sufficient motive to subjugate India if you can get away with it unless you are an exceedingly moral person. They didn’t go to India because Indians weren’t white, they went to India because India was rich and too fractured to defend their borders against the sustained Divide and Conquer strategy employed by B. EIC.