• @mwguy
      link
      English
      08 months ago

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

        • @mwguy
          link
          English
          -18 months 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
              link
              English
              08 months ago

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

              • @TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                8 months 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
                  link
                  English
                  -18 months 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.