• mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                • TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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.