8 ms·

On the other hand, has any conquering nation ever set aside so much self managed land for the people it conquered?

• scarmig 12y ago
  Do you have an example of this in mind? Thinking of colonizers... South Africa had much more land for the conquered, even during apartheid. Israel has set aside massive amounts of land to its previous inhabitants. Canada certainly has much more land set aside, though I expect it's equally marginal. More generally... Japan-SK Japan-Taiwan UK-India Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.
• locopati 12y ago
  Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.
• judk 12y ago
  Might does not make right. And modern people did not sign off on those conquerings.
  • ry0ohki 12y ago
    When do we decide what is right? The Sioux conquered Crow and took their lands, so who holds the right to South Dakota?