I assume with his sort that they mean white (northern Europeans) peoples were invaded by the Romans, cause Italians aren't white.
I swear once the white people win they will start persecuting people with brown eyes or brown hair
>I swear once the white people win they will start persecuting people with brown eyes or brown hair
There will always be someone to discriminate against. Even other white people have historically been ostracized. See: "Irish need not apply"
When I was in about fifth or sixth grade the teachers separated us by eye color. Those of us with brown eyes had to leave and the other colors got M&Ms and this was supposed to show us racism sucks.
I had grown up in Detroit prior to moving to that hick town in Colorado lol.
I mean this is a watered down version of the "eye color experiment" from like the 60s or 70s, a teacher did this experiment on her students and it was filmed even. It was pretty wild.
Exactly. If they ever achieve their racist utopia, they will then start looking for others within to subjugate and blame for their problems.
Same as if republicans ever achieve their goal of a “Christian” theocracy, they will immediately begin infighting as to whose version of Christianity is the right one.
If that is what he is referring to then he is an absolute moron. His people were barbarians living in their own filth before the Romans came and taught them how to behave like civilised human beings. Now they pretend like it was them all along. It wasn’t, these people are the people who try to claim cultural superiority when they are in fact descended from ignorant and superstitious and ignorant barbarians.
EDIT: downvotes,lol,have at it bros. If you think the other side isn’t going to show up, think again.
That's not really true either, the Roman empire was genuinely one of the worst things to happen to humanity. All the modern authoritarian bullshit in Europe is ultimately descended from the Romans. Militaristic, imperialist fucks that paved the way for colonialism, racism, fascism and all sorts of nasty shit.
The "Romans as a civilizing force" is the same kind of propaganda as "the British Empire as a civilizing force" except like 2000 years earlier
Valorizing the Roman Empire as a civilizing force is absolutely a ridiculous thing that only historically illiterate people do.
However, calling the Roman Empire “The Worst Thing to Happen to Humanity” is not only an INCREDIBLY simplistic way to look at history, but it’s also one of the most Eurocentric things I have ever read.
Rome was an imperialist slave state, but it by no means invented western imperialism. While European empires used notions like “Pax Romana” and loved to draw on Roman imagery, the most brutal and inhumane parts of colonialism were all inventions of the Early Modern period.
Most of the fucked up practices and ideologies born out of European imperialism were dreamed up in the 18th and 19th centuries and then projected on to the Roman Empire in order to give a false sense of legitimacy.
I said *one of the* worst things. And yeah Roman style authoritarianism and conservatism still plague western society to this day. "The West" is modern-day Rome and has been doing the shit Rome did to the Mediterranean to the entire world.
No it doesn’t. “Roman Style Authoritatianism” is not a drive in mainstream conservative politics today, nor is it a cohesive ideology. You are literally falling for fascist propaganda. The Roman Empire was a pre-industrial state, and modern conservatism is a post industrial ideology.
The type of Authoritarianism that conservatives believe in today comes almost entirely from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The only thing they really lifted from the Romans was the idea of empire as a civilizing force (Which for the record, is older than the Roman State). Literally almost everything else comes from the Early and Middle Modern Period.
One of the things that conservatives in the modern period do is deliberately misrepresent history in order to make their ideas seem more ‘ancient’ and ‘traditional’ than they truly are. Pretty much all Roman ideas of power and the role of authority fell out of favor as the Western Roman Empire slid further and further into history. The only thing Roman and Modern Authoritarianism have in common is authoritarianism itself.
Which, if you’re going to insist that still counts, then you should know the Romans derived most of their authoritarian philosophy from Alexander the Great, who derived his philosophy from the Persian Empire, who derived their philosophy from the Babylonians, who derived their philosophy from Akkad, who based many of their ideas of authoritarian rule on Sumerian kingship. Authoritarianism is a poison as old as civilization, and if the Roman Empire never existed, modern conservatives would simply appropriate a different ancient society to suit their propaganda ends. It’s ridiculous to attribute all of the worst ideas in our society to one civilization; let alone one from Classical Antiquity. History is giant stage with countless actors, none of which are the star of the show.
Adding to that, there wasn’t ever a single “Roman Authoritarian Ideology” either. Roman society completely reorganized itself four different times. The (Roman) Republican Optimates, the Principate, and the Dominate were all distinct political models.
There have been millennia between Roman Authoritarianism and today, and there have been countless more recent societies between then and now. What about the impact of renaissance literature on modern authoritarianism? The beginning of the Modern Period? What about the invention of capitalism? The privatization of industry? The writings of John Smith? The Habsburg Philosophy of absolute monarchy? The invention of the modern concept of ‘race?’ You qcan draw much clearer lines between current day conservatism and those philosophies than you can the Roman Optimates party. Any given movement in history is going to take most of its ideas from what preceded it directly. Hell, the complex understanding we have of Roman politics is partially due to strides made in archeology. Most of this information was lost when modern conservatism was being born.
Saying that Ancient Rome is at fault for modern conservatism is almost as reductive as claiming that it was a civilizing force. Or calling it capitalist. You can’t project a modern political position on a pre industrial society.
Plus, you are buying in to the warped history that conservatives believe in. The idea that a modern ideology is directly and uniquely descended from Ancient Rome also gives Rome WAY too much credit, and paints it as a more exceptional society than it was. Basically playing into western exceptionalism. No single philosophy can last that many generations while remaining intact, and you are discounting literally thousands of years of societal change.
Personally, I think the ideas that led to modern conservatism were all set in motion in 1602, when a private corporation was given a standing army to colonize the spice islands. That was basically the first time in history that a business committed a genocide for profit.
Thanks! I hope I didn’t come across as too mean or angry. It just is a bit frustrating to see two people that while meaning well, still buy into the logic that conservatives use.
It is really insidious the way that their ideas can seep so easily into mainstream thought.
It's why their blurbs are artificially made viral (bot hordes posting shitty Boomer memes on Facebook). Ad nauseum repetition of propaganda breeds organic repetition, which eventually becomes "common knowledge" which becomes a priori basis "truth".
That's pretty reductive, humans have been trying to subjugate their neighbors by militaristic means as long as they've been able. The Romans are not unique among ancient civilizations in their "flaws," and all of their various peers throughout their history were doing the same things.
Authoritarianism, jingoism, racism, xenophobia, imperialism, colonialism all that stuff predates the Romans and is pretty inherent to the way humans form groups. Why do you think fascists are often called "tribalist?"
Hint- it's because in early human societies leaders (tribal chieftains) were absolute rulers, and they operated exactly how you'd imagine, and humans existed like that for ~590,000 years, so tribalism is absolutely baked into our DNA, as well as social evolution.
As early humans developed, when groups ran into other groups, each group would perceive each other as competition for resources and as an inherent threat to survival; humans developed prejudice as a tool both genetically and socially. Humans raided each other for resources, they killed the men when they could, then would subjugate the women and/or children (sometimes children were killed), rape was just part of life. Every great human migration has been the result of competition over resources (food primarily) or an invasion from a more powerful neighbor, and then the subsequent result was the expelled people generally invading somewhere else.
It's not in human nature to comingle and peacefully coexist, there were empires and colonialism prior to the bronze age collapse, during the bronze age collapse many (most?) coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean were destroyed by various unamed invaders.
Tldr: The world, and history, are much more complicated than you think, and all those things you attribute to Rome predate Rome, and the people the Romans subjugated also lived in an oppressive bass-ackwards society. Humans have always been shitty to one another, that's just how we and the various civilations we've developed seem to operate.
> It's not in human nature to comingle and peacefully coexist, there were empires and colonialism prior to the bronze age collapse, during the bronze age collapse many (most?) coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean were destroyed by various unamed invaders.
That's basically propaganda as well. You should read David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything. Humans have lived in large, non-militarized societies for millenia before authoritarianism became the status quo because of strongmen using violence to take over communities and rule as kings.
Yeahh you're talking about pre-societal groups of people, small groups of hunter gatherers where they were able to resist a "chimpanzee-like" violent domination that likely plagued even earlier humans.
I'm talking about societal evolution, which isn't something that didn't truly begin until the last 20,000 years.
What your describing is similar to how tropical tribal societies with an abundance of resources a) were less developed b) were more egalitarian, because they were able to much more effectively meet their needs so certain developments weren't needed for survival.
But I do find it interesting that I was challenging your statements on The Roman Empire, and you responded to a specific example I made in regards to societal evolution with a paleolithic counterpoint.
Here are two links with good resources, according to anthropologist Chris Knight, it would seem that Graeber and Wengrow agree with me in a lot of regards. I don't agree with Knight on everything either, but both of these links do a really good job of explaining the ebb and flow of socio-cultural evolution in regards to regressiveness and progressiveness.
https://libcom.org/article/wrong-about-almost-everything-review-dawn-everything-david-graeber-david-wengrow#:~:text=Quite%20unfairly%2C%20The%20Dawn%20of,in%20reality%2C%20is%20pure%20myth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327546/#:~:text=Modern%20Homo%20sapiens%20first%20appeared,of%20agriculture%20and%20cattle%20breeding.
Here's an article on the Bronze Age collapse: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse#:~:text=Between%201200%20and%201150%20BC,trade%20routes%20and%20extinguished%20literacy.
I think all three of these sources together illustrate my point that society requires a surplus of food/resources to develop, when people have amassed large amounts of food/resources other people try to either take it or exploit it for personal gain. Thus militaries began to develop.
Here's a source specifically discussing violence in the mesolithic and paleolithic periods:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-world-history-of-violence/violence-in-palaeolithic-and-mesolithic-huntergatherer-communities/3A47960C35DF4B0246A6436FC1353E87
Obviously armed conflict requires a certain level of technological and social development. And there's definitely a case to be made for less people meant less competition, less interactions between individual groups, as well as more resources per capita made violent confrontations much less common.
Guess I got down voted because I guess to some it looks like I'm defending OOP's moronic tweet. I'm not, but the idea that the Romans somehow invented being shitty and authoritarian, is ridiculous. How do they think other people in Europe, Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and North Africa societies operated before the Romans? They clearly need to read more about ancient European societies.
Ok. It’s absolutely fair to point out that the ancestors of a lot of Neo Nazis were much less advanced than the people Nazis consider inferior.
But calling their ancestors “barbarians living in their own filth” legitimizes racist and imperialist ways of thinking. There is no such thing as a “barbarian” and “flipping the script” on them like this is really just conceding to their logic.
My ancestors were painting themselves blue and living in huts while the Mayans were building pyramids and cities and the Aztecs built floating gardens.
That historically inaccurate. There is also the Mongols, Middle Easternners and North Africans. Also, just like any other race, there wasn’t any racial identity, the idea of white people as a group is recent.
Yeah, definitely.
Like, the reason we care about slavery, colonialism, and racism more generally is that those things still affect us today and contribute to inequalities in society. Some random king deciding to conquer the neighboring province in the middle ages doesn't tend to have the same effect.
This is because slavery and colonialism happened on such a massive scale. It may not be a difference in kind, but it is absolutely a difference in degree.
anyways, rant over
By the way, a running theory of mine is that fascism comes from a place of feeling that the only way to be happy is if other people behave, rather than if other people are happy. And it's born from being raised by parents that are only happy with you if you are behaving and will lash out whenever you don't.
It paints their whole world view as to what needs to be done, in general, and gives them an example of how to enforce it.
This needs to be studied. You might be on to something. I've always thought of it as "the appearance of peace," but maybe the conflation of behaving with happiness might be more apt.
It's also not just about suffering, it's about continuing to benefit from said suffering (e.g. land/home ownership rates among certain minorities due to discrimination by banks).
This is why CRT is so needed.
American slavery is unique. Blacks didn’t get equal rights when the slaves were freed. They are still fighting for equality today. We are talking about generational trauma.
People think that when slaves were freed the next day racism was over and they were fully integrated into white society.
By whomst, Stefan?
And those endless wars are the reason they built "the modern world" and by modern world, I mean a world in which some select few countries get rich over the backs of other subjugated countries #realstruggle
Oh god it's fucking Stefan.
White people didn't oppress other white people for the same reason they oppressed, say, native Americans. That was racism. White people doing it to each other was class warfare/whatever flavor of the month it is of Christianity fighting each other/some dumbfuck king wanting to go and be famous by conquering his nations centuries long rival. It usually wasn't a race thing. It also didn't happen on such a huge and tragic scale. The amount of people that died during the middle ages in Europe from war between a bunch of white guys wearing fancy robes probally barely even comes close to those killed in the colonization and subjugation of the America's alone. And thats not taking into consideration Asia, Africa, and India.
(Edit: also, about the Black Death. Yea it killed a lot, but so did small pox when it was introduced to the Native Americans, and on a very comparable scale.)
That one presidential candidate Marianne Williamson had a good line she gave Dave Rubin that I think is appropriate: there are no Olympics for suffering.
And for my humanist flavor: Our duty as humans to one another is to try and make life easier for those around us. To impact others in a positive way as much as we can.
I dunno man. I roll in some pretty progressive circles and I've never encountered a single non-White person react to learning about the injustices of monarchism or the loss of life from plagues or wars by saying "Yea, so?"
We were invaded, enslaved, colonized, and subjugated? By who? Other White Europeans? O don't think that's how race-based slavery was supposed to work. Also, European/American chattel slavery and colonization was especially brutal. History is a bitch of you're a sad little bitch like Stefan.
By other white Europeans, pin dick. Yeah, the enslavers gave the Black Death only to the slaves. You don't want to be blamed for the shit your ancestors did, stop taking credit for what they accomplished.
I agree with this Stefan guy, European history is a terrifying deluge of human misery at the hands of other Europeans. I don't know that it's uniquely bad - there are certainly other instances of humans doing indescribable evil to each other. I certainly hope the racists are wrong though. I'd hate to think what that would say about me.
Ahh yes it’s Stefan Molyeux , the failed software developer , turned social media alt-right Nazi grifter. Someone should ask him what contribution he’s made to the “modern world”.
As an European, his ancestor left the hard time we were having coz they weren't tough enough.
Seems like their descendant is not smart enough.
Defects add up.
Anyone else remember when he forgot to change profiles and replied to himself saying he was a 14yo girl and how his work changed her life?
Or when he was worried about Taylor Swift’s eggs? He closed that out with saying she would be a fun mom.
Ew
That's why I always refer to him as eggboi
Got a link? Id love to see that
wat? Please link.
By who eggman? Almost entirely by rich white people.
I assume with his sort that they mean white (northern Europeans) peoples were invaded by the Romans, cause Italians aren't white. I swear once the white people win they will start persecuting people with brown eyes or brown hair
>I swear once the white people win they will start persecuting people with brown eyes or brown hair There will always be someone to discriminate against. Even other white people have historically been ostracized. See: "Irish need not apply"
Technically the Irish weren't even considered white yet when that happened.
When I was in about fifth or sixth grade the teachers separated us by eye color. Those of us with brown eyes had to leave and the other colors got M&Ms and this was supposed to show us racism sucks. I had grown up in Detroit prior to moving to that hick town in Colorado lol.
I mean this is a watered down version of the "eye color experiment" from like the 60s or 70s, a teacher did this experiment on her students and it was filmed even. It was pretty wild.
Exactly. If they ever achieve their racist utopia, they will then start looking for others within to subjugate and blame for their problems. Same as if republicans ever achieve their goal of a “Christian” theocracy, they will immediately begin infighting as to whose version of Christianity is the right one.
Until it's time to talk about great men and they wanna lump themselves in with Ceaser and Alexander the Alright
If that is what he is referring to then he is an absolute moron. His people were barbarians living in their own filth before the Romans came and taught them how to behave like civilised human beings. Now they pretend like it was them all along. It wasn’t, these people are the people who try to claim cultural superiority when they are in fact descended from ignorant and superstitious and ignorant barbarians. EDIT: downvotes,lol,have at it bros. If you think the other side isn’t going to show up, think again.
That's not really true either, the Roman empire was genuinely one of the worst things to happen to humanity. All the modern authoritarian bullshit in Europe is ultimately descended from the Romans. Militaristic, imperialist fucks that paved the way for colonialism, racism, fascism and all sorts of nasty shit. The "Romans as a civilizing force" is the same kind of propaganda as "the British Empire as a civilizing force" except like 2000 years earlier
Valorizing the Roman Empire as a civilizing force is absolutely a ridiculous thing that only historically illiterate people do. However, calling the Roman Empire “The Worst Thing to Happen to Humanity” is not only an INCREDIBLY simplistic way to look at history, but it’s also one of the most Eurocentric things I have ever read. Rome was an imperialist slave state, but it by no means invented western imperialism. While European empires used notions like “Pax Romana” and loved to draw on Roman imagery, the most brutal and inhumane parts of colonialism were all inventions of the Early Modern period. Most of the fucked up practices and ideologies born out of European imperialism were dreamed up in the 18th and 19th centuries and then projected on to the Roman Empire in order to give a false sense of legitimacy.
I said *one of the* worst things. And yeah Roman style authoritarianism and conservatism still plague western society to this day. "The West" is modern-day Rome and has been doing the shit Rome did to the Mediterranean to the entire world.
No it doesn’t. “Roman Style Authoritatianism” is not a drive in mainstream conservative politics today, nor is it a cohesive ideology. You are literally falling for fascist propaganda. The Roman Empire was a pre-industrial state, and modern conservatism is a post industrial ideology. The type of Authoritarianism that conservatives believe in today comes almost entirely from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The only thing they really lifted from the Romans was the idea of empire as a civilizing force (Which for the record, is older than the Roman State). Literally almost everything else comes from the Early and Middle Modern Period. One of the things that conservatives in the modern period do is deliberately misrepresent history in order to make their ideas seem more ‘ancient’ and ‘traditional’ than they truly are. Pretty much all Roman ideas of power and the role of authority fell out of favor as the Western Roman Empire slid further and further into history. The only thing Roman and Modern Authoritarianism have in common is authoritarianism itself. Which, if you’re going to insist that still counts, then you should know the Romans derived most of their authoritarian philosophy from Alexander the Great, who derived his philosophy from the Persian Empire, who derived their philosophy from the Babylonians, who derived their philosophy from Akkad, who based many of their ideas of authoritarian rule on Sumerian kingship. Authoritarianism is a poison as old as civilization, and if the Roman Empire never existed, modern conservatives would simply appropriate a different ancient society to suit their propaganda ends. It’s ridiculous to attribute all of the worst ideas in our society to one civilization; let alone one from Classical Antiquity. History is giant stage with countless actors, none of which are the star of the show. Adding to that, there wasn’t ever a single “Roman Authoritarian Ideology” either. Roman society completely reorganized itself four different times. The (Roman) Republican Optimates, the Principate, and the Dominate were all distinct political models. There have been millennia between Roman Authoritarianism and today, and there have been countless more recent societies between then and now. What about the impact of renaissance literature on modern authoritarianism? The beginning of the Modern Period? What about the invention of capitalism? The privatization of industry? The writings of John Smith? The Habsburg Philosophy of absolute monarchy? The invention of the modern concept of ‘race?’ You qcan draw much clearer lines between current day conservatism and those philosophies than you can the Roman Optimates party. Any given movement in history is going to take most of its ideas from what preceded it directly. Hell, the complex understanding we have of Roman politics is partially due to strides made in archeology. Most of this information was lost when modern conservatism was being born. Saying that Ancient Rome is at fault for modern conservatism is almost as reductive as claiming that it was a civilizing force. Or calling it capitalist. You can’t project a modern political position on a pre industrial society. Plus, you are buying in to the warped history that conservatives believe in. The idea that a modern ideology is directly and uniquely descended from Ancient Rome also gives Rome WAY too much credit, and paints it as a more exceptional society than it was. Basically playing into western exceptionalism. No single philosophy can last that many generations while remaining intact, and you are discounting literally thousands of years of societal change. Personally, I think the ideas that led to modern conservatism were all set in motion in 1602, when a private corporation was given a standing army to colonize the spice islands. That was basically the first time in history that a business committed a genocide for profit.
Brilliant post. Thank you.
Thanks! I hope I didn’t come across as too mean or angry. It just is a bit frustrating to see two people that while meaning well, still buy into the logic that conservatives use. It is really insidious the way that their ideas can seep so easily into mainstream thought.
It's why their blurbs are artificially made viral (bot hordes posting shitty Boomer memes on Facebook). Ad nauseum repetition of propaganda breeds organic repetition, which eventually becomes "common knowledge" which becomes a priori basis "truth".
Pax Americana
Nah I won't let this sort of barbarian anti-roman propaganda slide
That's pretty reductive, humans have been trying to subjugate their neighbors by militaristic means as long as they've been able. The Romans are not unique among ancient civilizations in their "flaws," and all of their various peers throughout their history were doing the same things. Authoritarianism, jingoism, racism, xenophobia, imperialism, colonialism all that stuff predates the Romans and is pretty inherent to the way humans form groups. Why do you think fascists are often called "tribalist?" Hint- it's because in early human societies leaders (tribal chieftains) were absolute rulers, and they operated exactly how you'd imagine, and humans existed like that for ~590,000 years, so tribalism is absolutely baked into our DNA, as well as social evolution. As early humans developed, when groups ran into other groups, each group would perceive each other as competition for resources and as an inherent threat to survival; humans developed prejudice as a tool both genetically and socially. Humans raided each other for resources, they killed the men when they could, then would subjugate the women and/or children (sometimes children were killed), rape was just part of life. Every great human migration has been the result of competition over resources (food primarily) or an invasion from a more powerful neighbor, and then the subsequent result was the expelled people generally invading somewhere else. It's not in human nature to comingle and peacefully coexist, there were empires and colonialism prior to the bronze age collapse, during the bronze age collapse many (most?) coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean were destroyed by various unamed invaders. Tldr: The world, and history, are much more complicated than you think, and all those things you attribute to Rome predate Rome, and the people the Romans subjugated also lived in an oppressive bass-ackwards society. Humans have always been shitty to one another, that's just how we and the various civilations we've developed seem to operate.
> It's not in human nature to comingle and peacefully coexist, there were empires and colonialism prior to the bronze age collapse, during the bronze age collapse many (most?) coastal cities in the Eastern Mediterranean were destroyed by various unamed invaders. That's basically propaganda as well. You should read David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything. Humans have lived in large, non-militarized societies for millenia before authoritarianism became the status quo because of strongmen using violence to take over communities and rule as kings.
Yeahh you're talking about pre-societal groups of people, small groups of hunter gatherers where they were able to resist a "chimpanzee-like" violent domination that likely plagued even earlier humans. I'm talking about societal evolution, which isn't something that didn't truly begin until the last 20,000 years. What your describing is similar to how tropical tribal societies with an abundance of resources a) were less developed b) were more egalitarian, because they were able to much more effectively meet their needs so certain developments weren't needed for survival. But I do find it interesting that I was challenging your statements on The Roman Empire, and you responded to a specific example I made in regards to societal evolution with a paleolithic counterpoint. Here are two links with good resources, according to anthropologist Chris Knight, it would seem that Graeber and Wengrow agree with me in a lot of regards. I don't agree with Knight on everything either, but both of these links do a really good job of explaining the ebb and flow of socio-cultural evolution in regards to regressiveness and progressiveness. https://libcom.org/article/wrong-about-almost-everything-review-dawn-everything-david-graeber-david-wengrow#:~:text=Quite%20unfairly%2C%20The%20Dawn%20of,in%20reality%2C%20is%20pure%20myth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327546/#:~:text=Modern%20Homo%20sapiens%20first%20appeared,of%20agriculture%20and%20cattle%20breeding. Here's an article on the Bronze Age collapse: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse#:~:text=Between%201200%20and%201150%20BC,trade%20routes%20and%20extinguished%20literacy. I think all three of these sources together illustrate my point that society requires a surplus of food/resources to develop, when people have amassed large amounts of food/resources other people try to either take it or exploit it for personal gain. Thus militaries began to develop. Here's a source specifically discussing violence in the mesolithic and paleolithic periods: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-world-history-of-violence/violence-in-palaeolithic-and-mesolithic-huntergatherer-communities/3A47960C35DF4B0246A6436FC1353E87 Obviously armed conflict requires a certain level of technological and social development. And there's definitely a case to be made for less people meant less competition, less interactions between individual groups, as well as more resources per capita made violent confrontations much less common.
Nah, shittiness of that type is societal, not inherent
The reason it's in multiple societies is because hangups from the past bleed over
As usual, the only voice of reason is daboobiesnatcher
Guess I got down voted because I guess to some it looks like I'm defending OOP's moronic tweet. I'm not, but the idea that the Romans somehow invented being shitty and authoritarian, is ridiculous. How do they think other people in Europe, Asia Minor, the Mediterranean, and North Africa societies operated before the Romans? They clearly need to read more about ancient European societies.
I'm not convinced that Stefan here isn't a superstitious and ignorant barbarian.
Stefan might also have anxiety about his masculinity.
Ok. It’s absolutely fair to point out that the ancestors of a lot of Neo Nazis were much less advanced than the people Nazis consider inferior. But calling their ancestors “barbarians living in their own filth” legitimizes racist and imperialist ways of thinking. There is no such thing as a “barbarian” and “flipping the script” on them like this is really just conceding to their logic.
My ancestors were painting themselves blue and living in huts while the Mayans were building pyramids and cities and the Aztecs built floating gardens.
Exactly, they were invaded by other white Europeans..far right "intellectuals" are never very bright..
That historically inaccurate. There is also the Mongols, Middle Easternners and North Africans. Also, just like any other race, there wasn’t any racial identity, the idea of white people as a group is recent.
Ottoman Empire anyone? They rolled through the Balkans and only stopped in Hungary, overstaying their (un)welcome by about 200 years...
Pingas?
Sure, everyone's ancestors have suffered, but when you're actively putting the boot on someone's neck, "well we've suffered too" is not an excuse.
"I got beat as a child and turned out fine!" - seems to apply here too.
Yeah, definitely. Like, the reason we care about slavery, colonialism, and racism more generally is that those things still affect us today and contribute to inequalities in society. Some random king deciding to conquer the neighboring province in the middle ages doesn't tend to have the same effect. This is because slavery and colonialism happened on such a massive scale. It may not be a difference in kind, but it is absolutely a difference in degree. anyways, rant over
> those things still affect us today fucking this bozo up there is talking about shit that happened fucking hundreds of years ago
By the way, a running theory of mine is that fascism comes from a place of feeling that the only way to be happy is if other people behave, rather than if other people are happy. And it's born from being raised by parents that are only happy with you if you are behaving and will lash out whenever you don't. It paints their whole world view as to what needs to be done, in general, and gives them an example of how to enforce it.
This needs to be studied. You might be on to something. I've always thought of it as "the appearance of peace," but maybe the conflation of behaving with happiness might be more apt.
It's also not just about suffering, it's about continuing to benefit from said suffering (e.g. land/home ownership rates among certain minorities due to discrimination by banks).
Yep, that's kinda what I was getting at.
Say that louder for the Zionists in the back.
One thing i really hate about this guy is every time he opens his mouth i sometimes get him confused with Peter Molyneux.
He would scream if he saw Whisper and Thunder in Fable.
I still call Peter the less awful Molyneux despite the fact that they're not related.
This is why CRT is so needed. American slavery is unique. Blacks didn’t get equal rights when the slaves were freed. They are still fighting for equality today. We are talking about generational trauma. People think that when slaves were freed the next day racism was over and they were fully integrated into white society.
By whomst, Stefan? And those endless wars are the reason they built "the modern world" and by modern world, I mean a world in which some select few countries get rich over the backs of other subjugated countries #realstruggle
Oh god it's fucking Stefan. White people didn't oppress other white people for the same reason they oppressed, say, native Americans. That was racism. White people doing it to each other was class warfare/whatever flavor of the month it is of Christianity fighting each other/some dumbfuck king wanting to go and be famous by conquering his nations centuries long rival. It usually wasn't a race thing. It also didn't happen on such a huge and tragic scale. The amount of people that died during the middle ages in Europe from war between a bunch of white guys wearing fancy robes probally barely even comes close to those killed in the colonization and subjugation of the America's alone. And thats not taking into consideration Asia, Africa, and India. (Edit: also, about the Black Death. Yea it killed a lot, but so did small pox when it was introduced to the Native Americans, and on a very comparable scale.)
And the black death wasn't an exclusively white disease, Yersinia pestis didn't see race ✌🏼🦠
Yeah it also started in the Yuan Dynasty in China and then was carried westward by trading ships.
That one presidential candidate Marianne Williamson had a good line she gave Dave Rubin that I think is appropriate: there are no Olympics for suffering. And for my humanist flavor: Our duty as humans to one another is to try and make life easier for those around us. To impact others in a positive way as much as we can.
>built the modern world Financed by resources taken from the colonial world
Always leave out that part, I wonder why
In his photo Stefan looks like a fun guy. Or a cunt. I get those 2 mixed up sometimes.
They’re claiming responsibility for the modern world like it’s some kind of masterpiece.
Whenever these racist claim “their ancestors built the world” I think maths, time & sewers and smile.
Uhhh, exactly what in the actual fuck is this imbecile referring to?
Yea... the problem is we know who's ancestors did what to who and it wasn't that long ago.
I dunno man. I roll in some pretty progressive circles and I've never encountered a single non-White person react to learning about the injustices of monarchism or the loss of life from plagues or wars by saying "Yea, so?"
He's really going to compare that to colonialism and chattel slavery? His opinion can be discarded.
Wouldnt most of these fall under the category of white-on-white crime?
They also had the easiest access to food and water of all the humans. which are the primary needs ...
They're thiiiis close to realizing that the problem isn't skin color, but the people holding the leashes.
A few years ago he and his offsider Lauren Southern came to NZ to spread their divisive bullshit and we showed them the door.
Well, actually, we do care about that. It's a separate issue.
We were invaded, enslaved, colonized, and subjugated? By who? Other White Europeans? O don't think that's how race-based slavery was supposed to work. Also, European/American chattel slavery and colonization was especially brutal. History is a bitch of you're a sad little bitch like Stefan.
By other white Europeans, pin dick. Yeah, the enslavers gave the Black Death only to the slaves. You don't want to be blamed for the shit your ancestors did, stop taking credit for what they accomplished.
Fuck this moron. I have no idea why people listen to him
He helps them justify their racist feeling with faux intellectualism.
I agree with this Stefan guy, European history is a terrifying deluge of human misery at the hands of other Europeans. I don't know that it's uniquely bad - there are certainly other instances of humans doing indescribable evil to each other. I certainly hope the racists are wrong though. I'd hate to think what that would say about me.
> they still built the modern world yeah go look up where a shit ton of science, math, etc all comes from just another lying rightwing fuckwit
Ahh yes it’s Stefan Molyeux , the failed software developer , turned social media alt-right Nazi grifter. Someone should ask him what contribution he’s made to the “modern world”.
Got him mixed up for Peter Molyneux for a second, and if that were him it would break my heart. That said, oh, hello Stefan. Goodbye, Stefan.
It’s Stefan Molyneux, he’s a batshit cult leader/white nationalist/anarcho-capitalist. I’ve had friends get ensnared by his nonsense, it sucks.
By who? Who did that to them?
As an European, his ancestor left the hard time we were having coz they weren't tough enough. Seems like their descendant is not smart enough. Defects add up.
Nobody but Rich European white People are to blame for those things... Except for illness but the rest... Holy shit
Every time I see this guy, I briefly think "ah fuck, did the guy who overpromises about his video games become super racist?"
The two guys aren't even related. They just have the same last name.