But it's still not racism per se, though it is similar to racism.
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
But it's still not racism per se, though it is similar to racism.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Not to that degree, no. It's a weird mish mash of clan and religion system.
Yinko
Well-known member
Kurds, Yazidis are the main internal groups. You also have their neighbors, migrant labor pools like Indonesians and Pakistanis, Africans due to the classic Arab racial hierarchy, and (in some places) Caucasians as well. I wanted to work in Mosul, but a friend of mine said the only way I could do that and live is if I got a lot of backing from a local big shot, and even then it'd be a bit iffy.
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
I'd argue that's incorrect. It seems like our history is extremely bloody because you read histories that summarizes massacres and wars one after another, but these events are are localized to certain areas, not the entire world, and there are long times of peace in between them that the histories do not touch upon.
Yinko
Well-known member
Whenever people who had writing encountered tribal groups those groups regularly engaged in war. However, they were usually about as bad at it as the local gang of kids that hang out on the corner. The more hunter-gatherer the worse they were. There is footage of a 'war' in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, it's embarrassing, no coordination and nobody want's to get hurt. But it's still an active conflict with real stakes for the combatants. Then, when people start to get more pastoral or agrarian, start gettting better weapons, then they get more violent, but also tend to have fewer wars than the tribal would have.
That's true, but there is little de facto difference between, "Sociocultural groups divided by rival religious faiths" and "sociocultural groups divided by ethnicity".
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I think you are not totally wrong on this. I admit I likely have a "grimdark" vision of human history. Though I disagree with the localization you speak of.
Another thing that has changed over time has been how the losing side got treated by the winners. Depending on the time and place, the policy could be any of:
- Chase them away so that your own people can use that land.
- Kill them all, men, women and children alike, then populate that land with your own people.
- Kill all their males, and take the females as slave-wives, the offspring from these unions becoming low-caste members of your own tribe.
- Kill or simply depose their leaders, but spare the ordinary people, as long as they pay the taxes you demand of them and give you no further trouble.
- Forcibly assimilate the conquered population into your own culture, making them all change their language, religion, traditions, laws, etc etc to yours.
- Make their leaders pay tribute to you, but having defeated them, leave them be unless they cause further trouble.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
That actually rather depended. Romans had very strict rules of warfare: for example, a besieged city could surrender so long as no siege engine (siege tower or battering ram) has yet touched the city wall. If they did so, they were generally treated very mildly and honorably, and could keep most of their self-governance in exchange for paying tribute and providing troops. If they didn't, however, then it became prerogative of the commander and the troops of how they would treat the city... which could range from normal sack to complete extermination.
Nevertheless, once a city had been conquered and looting stopped, it was now part of the Roman state and thus granted all the benefits that came with it. As a result, long-term prospects of people conquered by Romans were generally speaking far better than those conquered by, say, Ottoman Empire, British Empire or the like.
Last edited:
Simonbob
Well-known member
Contraversial takes, huh.
Being a Colony was generally better than what they had before.
African slaves were captured by Africans, and traded by arabs, long before they were anywhere near a white.
When Rome fell, that's because it had degenerated so far, the barbarians were better than their own leaders.
Being a Colony was generally better than what they had before.
African slaves were captured by Africans, and traded by arabs, long before they were anywhere near a white.
When Rome fell, that's because it had degenerated so far, the barbarians were better than their own leaders.
Cambodia was certainly better under French colonialism than it was under the Khmer Rouge. But it was probably the best of all under its monarchy.
My take on a different topic: The US should not have entered WWI at all if it was not going to subsequently be willing to actually enforce the post-WWI peace settlement. Ditto for Britain. And Russia's decision to enter WWI for Serbia was especially stupid, IMHO. Even without hindsight, Russia had little to gain in such a war and a lot to lose--specifically the lives of a couple million of its young men. Much easier and cheaper to let Austria-Hungary do regime change in Serbia while allowing Russia to accept any pro-Russian Serbian elements as refugees. Serbia was only pro-Russian since 1903 anyway, so it wouldn't really be a huge loss for Russia.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
The British Empire, birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and much of modern medicine, bringer of parliaments and common law to distant corners of the globe, and master of BTFOing the French, was the greatest in history.
Seriously, we invented the bloody steam engine and had a prominent role in the discovery of germ theory. The world owes us for that and we have a lot to be proud of.
Seriously, we invented the bloody steam engine and had a prominent role in the discovery of germ theory. The world owes us for that and we have a lot to be proud of.
you guys also destroyed slavery as an insitution.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Yes, there was a time when the white ensign of our mighty Royal Navy was the most feared sight for any slave ship. To add to that, the British Empire also destroyed itself to defeat Nazi Germany, one of the most horrific regimes in history.
We done good.
Until recently, I'm not sure when things went to hell for you was it directly after thatcher or during blare or what, but things have defiantly gone very wrong.
What prominent role, pray tell? The key figures in germ theory were Pasteur and Koch.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
John Snow and Joseph Lister in particular, although it might be said they came up with serious practical applications of it. The former played a significant role in figuring out how Cholera worked, came up with the idea of boiling water before use, and discerned the source of a particularly horrific outbreak in 1854 (it was a contaminated water pump). The latter meanwhile was instrumental in developing sanitation in hospital and aseptic surgery techniques.
Oh yes, Britain's made quite a contribution to medicine. And that's without bringing up the invention of vaccination.
Yep.
Joseph Lister?
And defeated both the German Kaiser and the Nazis! And also made eating curry actually cool for white people!
If you don't mind me asking, what's your own ancestry?
Also, this is a sort-of historical take, but I find it interesting how open borders libertarians tend to ignore that throughout history a lot of human groups have exhibited a strong aversion to outsiders. AFAIK, it's possible for this aversion to have become so strong to have even become evolutionarily ingrained over the centuries and millenniums in various populations. Trying to rapidly change this is unlikely to succeed. Pushing open borders onto tribalistic populations isn't necessarily going to end very well.