this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)
AskHistorians
1311 readers
11 users here now
QUESTIONS
- Be civil.
- Be specific.
- Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
- Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.
RESPONSES
- Be civil.
- Provide comprehensive answers.
- Sources are welcome, but not required.
askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see how any of those can be seen as "obvious motives" in themselves. The only obvious motives I see are the economic and strategical ones. Slavery and exploitation are direct consequences of the economic motives, while subjugation and genocide are a further consequence of forcing slavery and exploitation on a population.
I'm not defending colonialism in any way here. I'm saying that I think it's reductionist and counterproductive to understanding colonialists (i.e. answering your question) to think that a primary motivation behind colonialism was "we want to subjugate and genocide populations for the hell of it".
You’re right. As PugJesus explained, the various motives were complex but not a plan for atrocities.
The horrific results are obvious only in retrospect.