this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
228 points (100.0% liked)
196
16573 readers
1900 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The native Americans were not seen as citizens at that time. They were driven out. This was reprehensible.
Fyi this is how all territory, on the planet, was acquired.
Remember ghengis Khan? The whole shape of China is the result of MASSIVE imperialism and conquest. Neither ghengis (or the many other conquesting leaders of China, including mao) or Jackson are alive now, so their actions are historical in nature.
The difference is china did that to their own people, through incompetence, not though land acquisition.
Be clear: I'm not advocating imperialism, but there is a certain difference between killing millions of people through displacement, and killing millions of YOUR OWN PEOPLE through idiocy.
Especially since the four pests campaign occurred less than 100 years ago.
Also great whataboutism, I never claimed america was the gold standard, only that china and the Soviet union certainly don't own the crown.
https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/a-soviet-scientist-on-the-four-pests-campaign-1964/
Edit: "lol ghengis Khan old" yeah, he's dead and so are his "voters". So is Andrew Jackson and his "voters".
Edit edit: don't decry me for being "jingoistic" in a thread where I called a guy out for simping for a nation state in the first place.
The prioritization of the importance of "their own people" is transparently jingoistic thinking that you are just glossing over
I replied to someone simping for a nation state. Pot, kettle.
Do you not understand a difference between evaluating the merit of a national project in general and, within the context of evaluating one such project, prioritizing the moral importance of that country's own people over humanity in general?
Put another way, giving moral priority to citizens and considering the butchering of "non-citizens" a lesser crime (even when those people were citizens who had their citizenship stripped away from them) is reactionary. Practical priority is a little different because logistical limitations are real, but these people are just excusing literal ethnic cleansing.
Actions China undertook as well. Arguably still undertaking.
Point being they aren't a paragon of social justice or elevating the masses.
Which is why I replied in the first place.
Used as a retort to a "Soviet Russia and china saved the world" comment.
Yes, and then you did apologetics for a genocide by claiming it wasn't as bad because the victims weren't citizens of the state doing the genocide, which is:
No, I indicated that conquest happened. I never ever supported it.
Conquest happened on every square meter of land on this planet.
I also indicated an own-goal is fucking embarrassing,
And if you don't care about that, an own goal of that magnitude takes one out of the running for "elevating the world" or whatever.
No one is a hero, no one is forgiven. All nation states are trash, some just do trash special.
The only way this makes sense is if you believe in the concept of the nation-state.
Obviously I believe in nation states, have you looked out the window? The earth is covered with them holy shit. Doesn't mean I think america is "clean" or something.
First, yeah, sure, Mongolians saw things through modern Euro-centric racism to say "we are all the same, there are no Mongolians or Chinese, only backwards Asians". Second, your defense of Native American genocide basically boils down to "your honor, we didn't consider them human when we genocided them"
I don't understand your first point. Are you suggesting the ghengis khan's conquest was informed by "euro-centric" learnings or influence? I'll need a source on that.
Re the second point I wasn't claiming anyone was or wasn't human, I was indicating that expansionist conquest occured in an era of expansionist conquest. A trait not solely owned by Europeans/Americans. China has a massive history of conflict along ethnic and tribal lines, and a massive history of conquest too.
Conquest, war and "dehumanization" is evidenced by their borders, everyone's borders, everywhere. Throughout history.
No one is clean, and no one is a hero.
The post was very clearly saying that Ghengis Khan and the post-Mongolian Chinese state is a worse form of conquest and murder because they were conquering and killing their own people.
But the US was killing Native Americans which weren't citizens, so it is not as bad as killing your own people like the Mongolian/Chinese/Mao.
Uh, ghengis Khan certainly killed a lot of non mongols. He pretty strongly justified the conquest on such terms. (that, and loyalty/fealty). Many leaders through time did.
All that said, consider football. A point is a point, but an own goal stings worse. Not because the opposing players are subhuman, but you were supposed to do best by your own.