Right, I’m glad we agree. Ask the Khans how well raping and pillaging worked out for their long-term prospects.

>That’s what conquering nations do.

“Savagery”

Did or did the Romans not “conquer” vast swaths of the Old World by walking up to a new area, installing a “governor”, and otherwise leaving the existing sociopolitical regime intact? You want to believe that a facile “might makes right” paradigm is the truth because it gives you a moderately-sized white American…

Maybe learn your history and stop relying on shitty, flawed memes to do your talking for you.

Hey, now. I’m a dude, he’s a dude, she’s a dude, cuz we’re all dudes.

How Rome dealt with an existential threat at the beginning of its existence != how it dealt with the rest of its conquests (or else it would never have been a empire). Or, they made a choice with Carthage that they didn’t replicate, because it was a choice. Take your pick.

Because Japan isn’t America and Japanese isn’t the world’s lingua franca. The number of non-ethnically Japanese actors in Japan is small, and the number of fluent Japanese speakers in the world is small. Compare to America, with an abundance of actors of all races (and many ethnicities) - and no small number of…

.

The end of Europe’s paradigm. The rest of the world did not adhere to that way of doing things. In fact, your original memepost is wrong: the Romans did a lot less massacring than subsequent European powers. Much of their “conquering” was relatively non-violent expansions of their hegemony that involved little more…

The Chinese had plenty of opportunities to sack Japan and didn’t. Meanwhile, after Japan did those things you mentioned, America came in, gave the Chinese land back to the Chinese, and... gave Japanese land back to the Japanese. It’s almost as if raping and pillaging is a choice made by depraved psychopaths drunk on…

Y’all need to stop bumping old articles like they’re new.

Of course, election law and threats of violence that effectively restricted the right to vote to whites in localities where federal law ostensibly extended it to blacks means that most black people didn’t get the ability to vote until well after white women.

I disagree. The amount of space he’s devoted to describing the role of disease downplays the influence and significance of direct human action on the suffering of Native Americans. It’s the equivalent of devoting most of a description of the impetus for the Civil War to economic concerns. It gives short shrift to the…

This is a very Eurocentric view that Chinese history tends to put a lie to.

>Why

He presented those points as a way to soften the colonist’s culpability. That’s a type of justification.

“Well, of course the colonists brutalized the natives in horrible ways that are almost never reflected in media set in that time period, but that’s okay because of the context of, ‘They did this to people who had just survived a series of plagues that had all but wiped out their society’.”

I didn’t think you would be able to resist a rebuttal (as opposed to reflection), though I can’t say I’m happy to see that I was right.

This is a complicated statement. An officer isn’t allowed to end a life, they are allowed to defend themselves with force, which carries the risk of the death of the person they are defending themselves from. The same is true for most people in the USA; anywhere with stand your ground legislation for certain.