@JLevendia I mean, it sort of does.
The moral quality depends on the purpose and means. It's one thing to colonize in the name of spreading Christianity, civilization, commerce, ending the slave trade.
Quite another to do it for the sake of getting tax funded government benefits.
@JLevendia I am trying to think of a territory that any European power colonized or conquered that had definitively never conquered anyone else before. Was it the Canaries? They might count I think.
@Hethl15021@FortySacks Yes, which is why I need to examine how that could have been, practically, addressed by a true Tory policy, to bulwark the aristocracy, without resorting to hamfisted things such as simply giving tax breaks, or other simple solutions.
@Hethl15021@FortySacks They were very influential and maintained a significant role in leadership until basically the People's Budget and then the war.
We're lesser for it.
@Hethl15021@FortySacks For sure, but I guess I don't see why the agrarian aristocrats couldn't easily have moved into the role of the larger farms that became a thing as we moved away from subsistence farming.
I mostly think it's useful from the perspective of keeping your elite grounded though.
@ill_Scholar You shouldn't, of course, and I haven't remarked on that at all.
Imo the proper argument you should make is that English history is American history and is thus equally as ancient.
It's the one I make when people tell me Canada is only 159 years, or imply it's only 44.
@ill_Scholar But that wasn't your original point. You said there was no England, but there was English and they lived in... the land of the English.
And anyway, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the most developed areas in Europe at the time, and were not nearly replaced by my people (Normans).