IMO, whether a settler colony is legitimate depends on the position and opinions of the surviving indigenous people; in Amerika’s case, it should also depend on the former slaves and their descendants (I’m sure they can find a good solution/compromise together with the indigenous people). I’m reasonably confident that most of the people in the aforementioned groups are not particularly satisfied with Amerika in its current state, so I would say that Amerika is not a legitimate country.
If no indigenous people have been there for a very long time (for whatever reason, even if it’s because they were killed by the settlers), it might be considered legitimate. It also depends on whether the original inhabitants were forced off the land
To clarify, I’m saying that a) my opinion isn’t important (but I do consider it illegitimate, for what it’s worth), and b) that last paragraph is more relevant for territory changing hands through war or other means across centuries (e.g. I consider China a legitimate country despite the claims made by various separatists).
I’ve always wondered how South American countries can be viewed. They’re part of the Global South but the Spanish and Portugese speaking people took the land from indegenous people as well.
IMO, whether a settler colony is legitimate depends on the position and opinions of the surviving indigenous people; in Amerika’s case, it should also depend on the former slaves and their descendants (I’m sure they can find a good solution/compromise together with the indigenous people). I’m reasonably confident that most of the people in the aforementioned groups are not particularly satisfied with Amerika in its current state, so I would say that Amerika is not a legitimate country.
If no indigenous people have been there for a very long time (for whatever reason, even if it’s because they were killed by the settlers), it might be considered legitimate. It also depends on whether the original inhabitants were forced off the land
It will never be considered legitimate because the removal of the native population was by force and genocide.
To clarify, I’m saying that a) my opinion isn’t important (but I do consider it illegitimate, for what it’s worth), and b) that last paragraph is more relevant for territory changing hands through war or other means across centuries (e.g. I consider China a legitimate country despite the claims made by various separatists).
I’ve always wondered how South American countries can be viewed. They’re part of the Global South but the Spanish and Portugese speaking people took the land from indegenous people as well.
Edit: it’s discussed below lol