By "modern" I'll interpret that to mean "a nation generally participating in the global community":
I'd say, they have every right to defend their borders from invaders. But they also have knowledge that these islanders don't have. They have an understanding that outsiders are not all belligerent and to be feared or non-entities to be killed (though some will act counter to that knowledge, see the stoked fear in the US about the migrant caravan, or the way North Korea treats many outsiders). So it's easier to cast judgment on "modern" nations and cultures who kill on sight, because they really should know better and be better able to discern true threats from mere nuisances.
On whether they "know" better -- the first time someone who looked like that intruder showed up, it was a British guy in 1880 who kidnapped 6 people, only 4 of whom came back alive. Not exactly a great first impression of the outside world.
This wasn't a "kill on sight" situation, though: he was driven off with warning shots first, and was only killed after several attempts over two days to step foot on the island. That's much more patience than I'd expect from, say, North Korean border guards.
Good for you? The homeless, penniless child should never steal the loaf of bread when all other, apparent, options are exhausted.
> They don’t get a pass for not knowing better.
They get a pass because it was already decided a long time ago that they were too dangerous for outsiders to be allowed near. They're contained, and by the survey numbers their population is dwindling. In another century the island could well be uninhabited. A small speck of isolated land that no one has any need to go to is easy enough to leave alone.
> Just as their victims didn’t get a pass for not knowing better.
Except their victim (in this case) certainly did know better. They even chased him off multiple times before finally killing him.
> The homeless, penniless child should never steal the loaf of bread when all other, apparent, options are exhausted.
'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' - Anatole France
I don’t see how a single homeless child is comparable. This is more like justifying North Korea’s methods because the poor country is just trying to survive.
The victim should have known they were murderous savages but gave them the benefit of the doubt anyway.
How is calling them murderous savages racist? It makes no generalisations of their race. Even if one interperts it as a generalisation of their race, how is it prejudice or discrimination when it is an accurate description (given the previous murders commited by them)? Genuinely curious.
It's an obvious trope of racist discourse. Maybe the most obvious of all time. Therefore it's flamebait, in addition to whatever else it is, and the fire department needs to turn a hose on it.
I'd say, they have every right to defend their borders from invaders. But they also have knowledge that these islanders don't have. They have an understanding that outsiders are not all belligerent and to be feared or non-entities to be killed (though some will act counter to that knowledge, see the stoked fear in the US about the migrant caravan, or the way North Korea treats many outsiders). So it's easier to cast judgment on "modern" nations and cultures who kill on sight, because they really should know better and be better able to discern true threats from mere nuisances.