5 ms·

There’s nothing particularly European about what you describe though. These types of events have occurred pretty much everywhere in the world throughout history

There’s nothing particularly European about what you describe though. These types of events have occurred pretty much everywhere in the world throughout history. They aren’t European patterns. They are human ones.

eru 6y ago
The Europeans were just particularly good at it. Much better especially at war than the rest of the world for a while. Many people around the world had the will, but the Europeans also had the means.
- zpeti 6y ago
  Europeans are also good at feeling ashamed of it, and talking publicly about it, and shaming themselves about it. Somehow the fact that the soviets and maoist killed more people each than "europeans" (this is quite the american generalisation) is forgotten, as are japanese atrocities, as are cambodian ones. Also no one seems to talk about the middle east being the centre of the world wide slave trade for a very long time, as opposed to Europeans being at fault for all of it.
  - thecleaner 6y ago
    It takes courage to admit one's dark history. And kudos to Europe for that. Secondly, why the shaming ? Historical facts should be stated as it is and people living in the present shouldnt be shamed for it. That feels wrong. But one cant adjust admit to some glaring faults and say everything else is great. Colonial mindset is still a thing across Europe. Just look at poverty tourism in Africa. Most tourists are Europeans. Its also very much true that European tourists who go to Vietnam or India or Thailand dont go there for experiencing their culture but to feel better about how life is better in Europe as most would very much tell you in private conversations. There is also the mindset of grateful immigrants rampant across Europe. Like somehow if someone makes it here they should sing the praises of their country because it is clearly a one-sided deal.
    - kieckerjan 6y ago
      Extraordinary claims require better evidence than private communication. People travelling to the other side of the world to feel better about their home country? I am pretty sure you overestimate the lengths that people will go to for a little smugness.
      - thecleaner 6y ago
        Sure. Lets remove private communication out of the equation. But poverty tourism is definitely true. The large fraction of tourists are European.
        morsch 6y ago
        What do you mean, it is "true"? It's a thing that exists, sure. But not all tourism to poor countries is sensibly defined as poverty tourism (otherwise the category is worthless). Maybe you can dig up some actual numbers. I'm sure many people visit e.g. Vietnam because it's a convenient way to see a tropical rainforest, or experience the prototypical white sand beach. You might think less of them because they don't care about the culture -- and I think it's a callous waste of resources -- but it's not poverty tourism. Furthermore, I'd naturally assume a large fraction of all long distance travellers to be Europeans, regardless of the motivation. Simply because Europeans make up a large fraction of the world population who can actually afford to do it.
  - mda 6y ago
    Eh, I lived in Europe, never got that feeling of the things you described. Sins of fathers are nigh but forgotten / justified (sometimes with whataboutism).
  - cafard 6y ago
    The Viennese Jewish writer Egon Friedell wrote somewhere that modernity has the advantage of a bad conscience. But weren't most of the Soviets Europeans?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Somehow the fact that the soviets and maoist killed more people each than "europeans" (this is quite the american generalisation) is forgotten, as are japanese atrocities, as are cambodian ones. Also no one seems to talk about the middle east being the centre of the world wide slave trade for a very long time, as opposed to Europeans being at fault for all of it. Until quite recently it was accepted belief in Europe that people from (approximately) east of the Oder and/or south of Constantinople were inferior. "Savages behaving like savages" was generally not paid much attention to (the exceptions being mostly when building a narrative to support conquest and/or religious conversion) by historians and writers because it was written off as them not knowing better. Smart, proper Europeans who should know better killing each other? Well that just can't stand. Even today you still see a lot of this in how events in "less civilized" parts of the world are discussed in the first world. It'll take a couple of centuries for all the spoken and unspoken prejudices of the people who recorded events and studied history in centuries past to filter out.
    - brnt 6y ago
      You are confusing Europeans with Brits here I believe. And while you'll need to speak other languages to capture most of it, us mainlanders have our opinions of them as well. And of course about each other. It's plural place after all, one of the many things that appears to be lost amongst anglosaxons.
    - eru 6y ago
      > Until quite recently it was accepted belief in Europe that people from (approximately) east of the Oder [...] The Oder wasn't a border until fairly recently. For quite a while, it was just Germany on both sides, without too many distinctions. (Of course, if you go even further back, things get more complicated.) Do you have any sources for your assertions?
- seemslegit 6y ago
  Not really, the Mongols did quite well with much larger area and far fewer people by suppressing resistance through sheer terror.
  - ahartmetz 6y ago
    In their time, yes. But in more recent times "Europeans realized that they had become too good at their favorite activity, killing each other, so they decided to put an end to it". (paraphrased from Chomsky)
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      I mean, I fully trust Chomsky to find a way in which trying to end over two millennia of hostility and subjugation is somehow used to discredit the West but...
      - ahartmetz 6y ago
        I actually see it as a kind of ambivalent compliment, even if it wasn't meant that way. You don't want to mess with people who are very good at killing you if they have to. Having an effective army isn't easy at all.

eru 6y ago

The Europeans were just particularly good at it. Much better especially at war than the rest of the world for a while. Many people around the world had the will, but the Europeans also had the means.

zpeti 6y ago
Europeans are also good at feeling ashamed of it, and talking publicly about it, and shaming themselves about it. Somehow the fact that the soviets and maoist killed more people each than "europeans" (this is quite the american generalisation) is forgotten, as are japanese atrocities, as are cambodian ones. Also no one seems to talk about the middle east being the centre of the world wide slave trade for a very long time, as opposed to Europeans being at fault for all of it.
- thecleaner 6y ago
  It takes courage to admit one's dark history. And kudos to Europe for that. Secondly, why the shaming ? Historical facts should be stated as it is and people living in the present shouldnt be shamed for it. That feels wrong. But one cant adjust admit to some glaring faults and say everything else is great. Colonial mindset is still a thing across Europe. Just look at poverty tourism in Africa. Most tourists are Europeans. Its also very much true that European tourists who go to Vietnam or India or Thailand dont go there for experiencing their culture but to feel better about how life is better in Europe as most would very much tell you in private conversations. There is also the mindset of grateful immigrants rampant across Europe. Like somehow if someone makes it here they should sing the praises of their country because it is clearly a one-sided deal.
  - kieckerjan 6y ago
    Extraordinary claims require better evidence than private communication. People travelling to the other side of the world to feel better about their home country? I am pretty sure you overestimate the lengths that people will go to for a little smugness.
    - thecleaner 6y ago
      Sure. Lets remove private communication out of the equation. But poverty tourism is definitely true. The large fraction of tourists are European.
      - morsch 6y ago
        What do you mean, it is "true"? It's a thing that exists, sure. But not all tourism to poor countries is sensibly defined as poverty tourism (otherwise the category is worthless). Maybe you can dig up some actual numbers. I'm sure many people visit e.g. Vietnam because it's a convenient way to see a tropical rainforest, or experience the prototypical white sand beach. You might think less of them because they don't care about the culture -- and I think it's a callous waste of resources -- but it's not poverty tourism. Furthermore, I'd naturally assume a large fraction of all long distance travellers to be Europeans, regardless of the motivation. Simply because Europeans make up a large fraction of the world population who can actually afford to do it.
- mda 6y ago
  Eh, I lived in Europe, never got that feeling of the things you described. Sins of fathers are nigh but forgotten / justified (sometimes with whataboutism).
- cafard 6y ago
  The Viennese Jewish writer Egon Friedell wrote somewhere that modernity has the advantage of a bad conscience. But weren't most of the Soviets Europeans?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Somehow the fact that the soviets and maoist killed more people each than "europeans" (this is quite the american generalisation) is forgotten, as are japanese atrocities, as are cambodian ones. Also no one seems to talk about the middle east being the centre of the world wide slave trade for a very long time, as opposed to Europeans being at fault for all of it. Until quite recently it was accepted belief in Europe that people from (approximately) east of the Oder and/or south of Constantinople were inferior. "Savages behaving like savages" was generally not paid much attention to (the exceptions being mostly when building a narrative to support conquest and/or religious conversion) by historians and writers because it was written off as them not knowing better. Smart, proper Europeans who should know better killing each other? Well that just can't stand. Even today you still see a lot of this in how events in "less civilized" parts of the world are discussed in the first world. It'll take a couple of centuries for all the spoken and unspoken prejudices of the people who recorded events and studied history in centuries past to filter out.
  - brnt 6y ago
    You are confusing Europeans with Brits here I believe. And while you'll need to speak other languages to capture most of it, us mainlanders have our opinions of them as well. And of course about each other. It's plural place after all, one of the many things that appears to be lost amongst anglosaxons.
  - eru 6y ago
    > Until quite recently it was accepted belief in Europe that people from (approximately) east of the Oder [...] The Oder wasn't a border until fairly recently. For quite a while, it was just Germany on both sides, without too many distinctions. (Of course, if you go even further back, things get more complicated.) Do you have any sources for your assertions?
seemslegit 6y ago
Not really, the Mongols did quite well with much larger area and far fewer people by suppressing resistance through sheer terror.
- ahartmetz 6y ago
  In their time, yes. But in more recent times "Europeans realized that they had become too good at their favorite activity, killing each other, so they decided to put an end to it". (paraphrased from Chomsky)
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    I mean, I fully trust Chomsky to find a way in which trying to end over two millennia of hostility and subjugation is somehow used to discredit the West but...
    - ahartmetz 6y ago
      I actually see it as a kind of ambivalent compliment, even if it wasn't meant that way. You don't want to mess with people who are very good at killing you if they have to. Having an effective army isn't easy at all.