History Major. Cripple. Vaguely Left-Wing. In pain and constantly irritable.
So that is a “yes” you are going to pretend that I said something I did not because you are too stupid to figure out how to disagree with what I actually said.
What irony, considering this exchange.
Past atrocities are not a license for today’s crimes. Set an example rather than following the missteps of others.
The flaw in your reasoning is the racist and Eurocentric view that people in other countries need license from the west to commit atrocities in their own countries.
Are you under the belief that other countries DON’T give as shit about atrocities?
I see you’ve forgotten how this conversation started. Don’t worry, I seem to talk to many people on here who can’t keep their own words straight when it becomes apparent that their argument is dogshit. Let me help you remember:
This is part of why a lot of countries don’t really give a shit about Europeans telling them about “human rights” and “conservation”. A bunch of poachers and slave owners who think they are allowed to tell their former slaves how to treat each other on land they already plundered.
Is there anyone who could tell them that they would give a shit about, under that reasoning?
The flaw in your reasoning is the racist and Eurocentric view that people in other countries need license from the west to commit atrocities in their own countries.
“The West is why they don’t give a shit about atrocities.”
“Morally, they should give a shit about atrocities regardless of the West.”
“Oh, so you’re saying they NEED the approval of the West to commit atrocities?”
…
Is there anyone who could tell them that they would give a shit about, under that reasoning?
The more intuitive answer is that human rights and conservation are hard sells even when there’s no bad blood or cultural distance involved. Fuck, look at every country in existence today, including European countries involved in domestic political disputes over human rights and conservation.
It’s not some deep matter, no matter how much elites try to sell history or bigotry as a smokescreen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V's_1911_hunting_trip_in_Nepal
What an immensely stupid, wasteful, and horrific endeavor.
Not much, just his name, rank, and deed!
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire, who, though he had never received any favour from Galba, yet out of bravery and allegiance endeavoured to defend the litter. First, lifting up his switch of vine, with which the centurions correct the soldiers when disorderly, he called aloud to the aggressors, charging them not to touch their emperor. And when they came upon him hand-to-hand, he drew his sword, and made a defence for a long time, until at last he was cut under the knees and brought to the ground.
Explanation: The Praetorian Guard were the main bodyguard of the Emperors of the Roman Empire. They had a… nasty tendency to turn on the Emperors they were supposed to be protecting, either overthrowing them or extorting them for more bribes.
The short-lived Emperor Galba failed to provide the Praetorian Guard with the appropriate ‘appreciation’ for their ‘services’ when he became Emperor, and for that reason, most of the Praetorians deserted him (save one loyal soul, who fought to the death to protect his Emperor) when a better-paying assassination/coup presented itself a few short months after Galba’s rise to power.
Explanation: The Roman Emperor was called, amongst other titles, “Princeps” - “First”, sometimes translated as “First Citizen.”
This was supposed to be because the Emperor was ‘only’ an ordinary magistrate of the Republic, but in reality, the position the Emperors held was autocratic from the start.
“Princeps” has the same word ending as the names of several muscle groups. That’s it. That’s the joke.
Go for the eyes, Boo!
That’s just what happens when one of the little blighters finds a piece of jewelry they really like, magic’s got nothing to do with it!
Just an artist’s imaginings, displaying common features of towns in each architectural/planning tradition.
Explanation: In the Siege of Alesia during the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar (of conqueror and dictator fame), Caesar, with a force of about 50,000 Roman and allied troops encircled a slightly largely force under Vercingetorix in the fortified city of Alesia. Caesar, in order to ensure none of the Gauls could escape to regroup, built a wall around the fortified town. Vercingetorix was a charismatic and skilled Gallic warlord who sought to expel the Roman intruders from Gaul, after several years of the Romans increasingly intervening in inter-tribal wars and making themselves increasingly ‘at home’ as overlords of Gallic polities.
Vercingetorix, however, had planned to be surrounded - he had sent out the call for a much larger force to gather and surround Caesar while he was surrounding Vercingetorix!
Caesar played the Uno Reverse card, and built a wall around the wall he was using to surround the walled city of Alesia. That’s three (3) walls in total, for those counting, two by Caesar, one by the Gauls. So when the massive Gallic relief force arrived, they found out that there was no fair fight to be had - they had to siege out Caesar’s own besieging force to rescue Vercingetorix! To make matters worse for them, Caesar had his men ransack the countryside for all available food, burning what they couldn’t take - meaning the relief force couldn’t linger for long without starving.
By Caesar’s counting, he faced nearly ~350,000 Gallic warriors in total. It was likely significantly less than this, with the number exaggerated for both practical (hard to count an enemy hemming you in while you hem them in) and propaganda (big numbers = big victory) reasons. Modern figures range from ~80,000-200,000 enemy troops against Caesar.
Forced into several costly assaults on the Roman walls by their circumstances, the Gauls, even coordinating between the besieging and besieged forces to time their attacks, were driven back, and Vercingetorix eventually surrendered for lack of supplies (and lack of ability to break out of Caesar’s siege), ending the Gallic Wars with one of Caesar’s greatest victories.
Explanation: In the Siege of Alesia during the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar (of conqueror and dictator fame), Caesar, with a force of about 50,000 Roman and allied troops encircled a slightly largely force under Vercingetorix in the fortified city of Alesia. Caesar, in order to ensure none of the Gauls could escape to regroup, built a wall around the fortified town. Vercingetorix was a charismatic and skilled Gallic warlord who sought to expel the Roman intruders from Gaul, after several years of the Romans increasingly intervening in inter-tribal wars and making themselves increasingly ‘at home’ as overlords of Gallic polities.
Vercingetorix, however, had planned to be surrounded - he had sent out the call for a much larger force to gather and surround Caesar while he was surrounding Vercingetorix!
Caesar played the Uno Reverse card, and built a wall around the wall he was using to surround the walled city of Alesia. That’s three (3) walls in total, for those counting, two by Caesar, one by the Gauls. So when the massive Gallic relief force arrived, they found out that there was no fair fight to be had - they had to siege out Caesar’s own besieging force to rescue Vercingetorix! To make matters worse for them, Caesar had his men ransack the countryside for all available food, burning what they couldn’t take - meaning the relief force couldn’t linger for long without starving.
By Caesar’s counting, he faced nearly ~350,000 Gallic warriors in total. It was likely significantly less than this, with the number exaggerated for both practical (hard to count an enemy hemming you in while you hem them in) and propaganda (big numbers = big victory) reasons. Modern figures range from ~80,000-200,000 enemy troops against Caesar.
Forced into several costly assaults on the Roman walls by their circumstances, the Gauls, even coordinating between the besieging and besieged forces to time their attacks, were driven back, and Vercingetorix eventually surrendered for lack of supplies (and lack of ability to break out of Caesar’s siege), ending the Gallic Wars with one of Caesar’s greatest victories.
You sound like some populare radical, like Julius Caesar! What, do you want to let PROVINCIAL families into the SENATE or something? 🤢
The same dozen families or so being continually elected to all positions of power in the Republic were good enough for my forefathers, and by Jupiter, it’s good enough for me!
Explanation: The Germanic warlord Arminius (sometimes known as Hermann in German), initially an ally of Rome, would turn on Rome in seeking the unification of the Germanic tribes (under him) against Roman expansion. In a stunning ambush of a Roman commander who (foolishly) trusted Arminius, Arminius managed to wipe out some three Legions of the Empire - nearly 10% of the Empire’s military forces - in a single battle!
(or for the even goofier version of this 19th century student’s song)
… however, Arminius, despite being familiar with Romans, apparently forgot one of the defining features of their foreign policy towards enemies. Relentless grudge-bearing brutality. After licking their wounds, the Roman Empire would launch multiple ‘punitive’ campaigns against the rebellious Germanic tribes in general and Arminius in particular. Arminius’s own brother would remain aligned with the Roman forces, as would numerous Germanic tribes who felt Roman overlords were a better deal than a ‘King Arminius’, leading to an effective civil war accompanying the Roman punitive campaigns.
True to form, first under the cautious Tiberius, then under the more-aggressive and daring Roman commander Germanicus (meaning ‘Conqueror of Germania’, rather than anything nice and relatable), Rome would drag in eight Legions, plus assisting forces, to carry out the next five campaigns against Germania, putting much of the country to the sword and burning rebel villages. This would define Roman policy towards Germania for the next ~300 years. The initial campaigns would drive the defeated Arminius to take refuge amongst Germanic tribes deeper in the interior - resulting in a particularly unfriendly (but also un-Roman) Germanic tribesman assassinating Arminius for attempting to become king over Germania. Many gods, no masters?
Interesting enough, the loss of the three Legions would arrest the Roman Empire’s expansion into Germania. The Roman Empire was much more cautious about expansion than the Roman Republic was - failed wars end political careers. When your term of office is “One or two years,” the incentive is to roll the fucking dice - if you lose, it’s not that much worse for your political career than doing nothing of interest the whole time. Better to be infamous than unknown!
However, when the power to start a war or not rested with an autocrat with a life-term, with both term and life ending if you lose power… suddenly, only sure things seem worth fighting. By making Germania seem politically expensive and uncertain, the Roman expansion into Germania was arrested entirely for the life-terms of at least two Emperors (Augustus, who suffered the loss, and Tiberius, whose career was shaped by it), at which point the momentum of Rome’s expansion into Germania was largely lost.
This, though fortuitous for Arminius’s broader cause (if not necessarily his aspirations to kingship), was unlikely to be Arminius’s thinking, as the change was not really even fully understood by the Romans themselves at the time. Augustus was, at the time, the first Emperor, and did not make the position of ‘Emperor’ wholly clear anyway. Many Romans would have regarded the position of ‘Emperor’ as a strange and unique cluttering of titles. It probably won’t last! Just another fad in our ever-chaotic Republic, right?
… right…?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_(enslaved_man)
In this transcript Peter mentions “salt brine, which Overseer put in my back”.[8] This practice, sometimes called salting, was attested in many accounts of slave torture reported over many decades.[16] Other substances, including turpentine, hot-pepper juice, and dripping candle wax, were also used.[
I didn’t read it as that those countries rejected human rights or conservation entirely. But I did ask - if that reasoning about not listening to Europeans was true, who would those countries listen to?
My point, then, was not about rejection or acceptance of those ideas so much as that I don’t think “Europeans violated human rights and conservation in the past, therefore, they won’t be listened to by others” has much validity considering the universality of human rights violations by major cultures, and the lack of serious conservation efforts by modern countries.
Applying that logic evenly raises the question: why would those countries not have listened to their neighbors on human rights and conservation? To Asia? To Latin America? To Africa? To the Middle East? To Oceania?
You could take it all the way to its logical conclusion, that only folk from a few cultures that have never engaged in large scale industrialization could get the message across to non-European countries - and even then, only on conservation. But even that I would find extremely doubtful, considering many indigenous speakers from non-industrialized cultures have spoke out quite prominently, eloquently, and often on the matter.
The core of it, then, is not that Europeans who talk about human rights and conservationism are being ignored because Europeans did bad things. It’s that human rights activists and conservationists are ignored, because it is convenient in every country for them to do so. As I pointed out, Europeans don’t listen to Europeans who talk about human rights and conservationism half the damn time.
Another response to the original commenter mentioned that human rights and conservation were to be valued on their own merits, and that the history of European colonialism and brutality shouldn’t matter to that basic fact, to which the original commenter accused them of racism and Eurocentrism for asserting that the non-European world in some way ‘needed’ permission from Europe to commit atrocities(???). That very much colored my second response.