this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
775 points (98.1% liked)
memes
22110 readers
2627 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You mean before the genocide? It's a pretty good guess.
No tribes totally wiping another out before then? History is not that kind. I doubt it was a utopic land before someone else arrived.
"those dirty savages were killing each other before they were invaded and killed by noble ~~white people~~ Europeans who brought civilization and peace? I'm just asking questions here I'm definitely not making excuses or trying to diminish what happened"
Humans are pretty horrifically violent across time. For example before the Spanish arrived there were the Aztecs who were wiping out entire tribes, enslaving them, and torturing them quite gruesomely. I'm not saying the Spanish are good guys or that the Aztecs are bad guys. I'm specifically saying humans are violent and metal as fuck essentially regardless of circumstance.
People been enslaving, genociding, torturing, raping one another long before anyone even lived in Europe.
And then the Europeans did it even harder.
Yes they did, so far. It's kinda a function of the fact that there were just more people. It's hard to genocide 2 million people when the global human population is only 10,000 for instance. Now back to the actual point I was making, these behaviors aren't new, not even new to homo sapiens much less whites or westerners.
There was 100 million Native Americans before the Europeans showed up bucko, lol. Learn some history before you spout off. It was the largest genocide in human history.
I picked 2 million arbitrarily as an example. The general point was that its hard to kill a lot of people when there isn't any. That is humans and likely our ancestors have been doing these things for a long time but at a smaller scale because there were just fewer people. Humans and early hominids are violent AF. Just check out our closest living relatives, chimps. War, murder, rape, torture, completely eradicating another tribe is nothing new. What is new very recently in the hominid story is the absolutely massive increase in population.
Right, and our species knows it's wrong, and yet continue to murder, rape, torture, and genocide. That's what sets us apart from other animals, we know what we're doing causes anguish, yet we do it anyway.
Now we're getting to my point this entire time. These behaviors aren't a western or even a homo sapien thing. Of course humanity has the ability for peace but over all known history that really hasn't been the case. People want what they want and they unfortunately are willing to use force to get it. In the case of genocide it can be two groups who mutually believe they are not safe so long as the other exists so the fight never ends until one is wiped out fully. As they say, until your enemy becomes your friend the war is never over. Although honestly at the end of the day it's about power and genetic propagation. Arguably everything is about genetic propagation for organisms.
π
Historically speaking, it heavily depended on where you were. Supposedly many East-Cast tribes, especially the Cherokee were already conglomerates of several other tribes.
Horses were also a new element in the world of Native Americans, and surely had a good bit to do with leveling the playing field between warring tribes.
source: old man wisdom, dyor
All i'm saying is there's no violence that westerners have done that wasn't already done at some other time before they arrived. The difference is the distance, the scale and of course the cultural and ethnic differences. I've found that the more different the dominating group is from the victim group the more well atrocities are remembered. It's still ethnically visible for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today. It's all a wash. Their people and the people they tormented are hard to tell apart now in contrast to people of Spanish dissent and of course to this day there's a white preference in the region. It's just easier to see and draw lines when people look more visibly different.
I see. There is no difference except for the differences.
In contrast to the Aztecs the colonial powers are still in power and are still enacting violence and genocide.
If you want to argue a point I did not make then that changes the discussion. My point was, and still is that these acts are not unique to westerners. There have been lands controlled by others much longer than 500 years. There's been rape, genocide, enslavement, and torture long before a human set foot in Europe. These behaviors aren't unique to white or European people or honestly even homo sapiens.
I was directly replying to a statement you made. Did I misunderstand that statement?
The main point is that genocide, rape, torture, war, murder, slavery and so on isn't unique to western people or even homo sapiens. These are things humans and likely our ancestors have been doing before we ever left Africa.
Okay but that's not what I replying to.
It's kinda been my one and only point this entire time that I keep just repeating, maybe with more verbosity which has spawned a lot of discussion not about the point I'm making.
So what, your point that these types of problems existed in some form before colonization and that they exist in other places means that there is no way colonization made things worse? Both things can't be true?
And I guess you weren't actually asking why people don't harp on the Aztecs because you don't actually care to learn?
Never said that. All atrocities are bad and for sure western powers have committed the most harm by number to themselves and others, by percentage I'm actually not sure. It's partly a function of recent growth of the global human population. These things were happening since forever but there were many fewer people. I'm not saying that's the only factor. Technology to sail and use guns as well as mainly zoonotic diseases played a massive role as well. Once again, all atrocities are bad and shouldn't have happened. People should work together for their mutual benefit.
It wasn't really a small group of conquistadors that took down the Aztecs. It was the conquistadors along with a bunch of tribes that were willing to ally themselves with some strange men that spoke a different language and had a completely different culture. The conquistadors were able to find allies because of how horrible the Aztecs were.
European history is full of examples of tribes invading from somewhere else. Those invaders were doing so because they had to leave where they lived was invaded by someone else. It's similar in pre-Columbian America.
It's only when cities started having strong walls and organized militaries that the ethnic cleansing and genocide became less commonplace, enough so these atrocities became noteworthy and better documented. Humans are tribalistic and violent, there's no special ethnicities that were above being that way.
No, the difference is the level of violence. They also brought germ warfare and gunpowder.
That isn't really what I was arguing but if you want to change the discussion then I'm open to it.
?
there were wars yes. "totally wiping another out" tho? that was a european import.
even if it was the case that First Nations were genociding each other (which again, itβs not), that still doesnβt justify european colonialism in any way.
Are you sure about that? Killing off an entire tribe, enslaving the women, not a new concept in the slightest.
I didn't say it was a utopia. When people refer to a genocide of Native Americans, people usually know which one.
I mean yeah the difference was that westerners came from further away, had a very different culture, ethnicity, language and so on, and most notably subjugated people on a much larger scale.
In other words, the Europeans did it harder.
So far, yes. Although other regions and people have had their own atrocities not to be ignored by history or awareness. My point still stands that these behaviors are not and have never been uniquely western or even uniquely homo sapien. Nature is fucked and so far, the more intelligent an organism becomes the more fucked it gets.
So the point of your statement is to minimize the atrocities committed by the Europeans on the natives, got it.
Not really, someone was saying these were uniquely western behaviors. Unfortunately they aren't. It's more so a recognition of reality as it is than a denial or diminishing of anything. To argue it is a western only thing would be diminishing the atrocities not committed by western powers.
No they weren't. Literally nobody in this thread has said that.
I am paraphrasing, no one wrote it like that letter for letter but read around. There are more than a few moments of people arguing it's a western specific thing. That nothing like this happened before western countries started colonialism or western expansion.
Lol. So you're responding to a vibe you got. Good work dude, you sure showed that vague feeling you manifested what's what.
That's not what paraphrasing means but whatever you prefer.
Paraphrasing is when you shorten a person's statement in order to simplify it. Literally nobody said what your "paraphrasing", so you're literally just making shit up. Hope I helped clear that up for you.
Was it perfect? No. Did they kill literally 90% of the population on their own before Columbus showed up? Also no.
Haven't argued that point in the slightest. In fact I've said as much myself in this thread alone.
He was the genocider before he became the genocidee