425

Trtworld.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed.

That may be the most historically inaccurate statement I've ever heard.

Like what was the French and Indian war then? This statement could excuse the initiation of violence of any group in history, including the Nazis.

[-] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The Indians didn't initiate that war. The French and British did by their colonizing presence.

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Indians fought on both sides of that war, often against one another.

[-] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

To be clear though, there is no war without the British and the French meddling with Indian affairs.

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That's a pretty ignorant assertion.

[-] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

There can be no split without colonization. It's amazing that you work so hard to be so ignorant.

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

What? Pre-European Natives fought one another. Warfare predates colonization.

[-] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There can be no SPLIT without colonization.

We're talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let's do that.

In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

That's such a simplification of human interaction that I'm not sure there's a single conflict I'm human history that fully fits that definition.

[-] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

There's not a single conflict in human history that doesn't fit that description.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
425 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
1859 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS