No, I don't think it has changed much.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../romanisation_article_01.shtml
There are examples of Collaboration as well as resistance.
Cases of collaboration are equivalent to cooperation between
native and explorers.
To occupy a territory does not necessarily imply obliteration of
the indigenous people, at any point in history I don't think.
Unless I'm missing something. They may have had an inferior
morality Philip Galanter but it's because the the occupiers had
the attitude of assholes taking over.
The proper morality most certainly existed at that time.
They just chose not to use it. If you remember history, Columbus
was deposed after a smear campaign against him, and the smearer
got to run the place for a few years. He's the reason why we
have the negative account of Columbus at all.
Unfortunately, because he was politically motivated to smear
Columbus, his historical account must also be taken with a grain
of salt - with skepticism. It's more than likely there were
gross exaggerations in his account against Columbus.
Nevertheless, where there's smoke, there's likely no Sainthood
waiting for him. I doubt Columbus was a great governor at the
time and likely was a prick.
Still, he brought the Americas to the attention of Western
Europe, eventually leading to the point where I'm sitting here,
in Florida, in Spanish--> English --> Spanish --> American
territory and for that, I have no qualms with him having a day.
