This is a legit question I have and forgive me for being ignorant, but could there ever be such a thing as a benevolent colonist?
the short answer anon? no. the long answer? it’s kinda complicated.
the thing is colonisation is inherently violent in that even if the colonist was benevolent as you say, the colonising group would be changing the land and the way of life of the existing people/s to a point that the indigenous people/s would be forced to assimilate to get by.
like, most of australia’s capital cities are on the coast which coincidentally are prime ground for fishing and hunting, so even if those cities had been established ‘benevolently’ it would still require the indigenous people to either leave or assimilate as their way of life would be functionally destroyed.
however it’s possible to coexist, much the same way indigenous peoples have done for thousands of years with the earth. mostly, i think this would require the new party to, not assimilate, but adopt a lot of the practices of the indigenous peoples and to participate in in-depth discussion of what the indigenous people will and will not allow on their land.
think of it a bit like, you want to camp in like a nature reserve or something, or someone’s backyard. if it were your own backyard you could do whatever you want. you could make a fishpond or cut that tree down or make another building, whatever. but if you were in someone else’s yard, you’d need their express permission to say, build a fire. you’d need permission so you don’t put it on top of their freshly mulched garden bed, or dig up their paving stones to use as a border, or whether that timber there is for fire or they were making a kids cubby house out of it.
i can’t speak for all indigenous peoples obviously but aboriginal australians have an extremely personal and spiritual relationship with the land, like we don’t just live on it we live with it but people’s relationship with the land changes from place to place. much of europe, for example, views land as something inanimate and that you own and have no obligation to respect or care for beyond what you can take.
Like, different cultures have different relationships to the land and especially to their specific territories and for a group trying to co-exist with an indigenous people communication and respect is absolutely vital. The case may even be that the new group has to change some of their views of the land, or learn to respect the land even if they don’t understand why.
Like, basically, the most benevolent form of colonisation would probably involve ignoring the indigenous peoples and causing damages and changes to their way of life, without meaning to, whilst co-existing would involve the settling group to adapt their ways of life so as not to disrespect or disrupt the indigenous peoples. Think of like, you’re invited into someone else’s home and they ask you to remove your shoes. It’s not something you do in your own home but you respect their wishes.
I hope this makes sense anon i’ve kinda lost my train of thought. But basically, colonisation involves forcing an existing way of life onto the indigenous people and their home, whereas coexisting involves adapting the settlers’ way of life to better suit the wishes of the indigenous people, and fundamentally isn’t colonisation.
