> This whole need to create a narrative about all western history evil You are building a strawman here. Nobody is saying all western history is bad ( as if th

> This whole need to create a narrative about all western history evil You are building a strawman here. Nobody is saying all western history is bad ( as if there is such a thing really - there isn't ), but the west has been the source of most evil in the past few hundred years. > human empires behave exactly the same no matter origin or creed is dishonest at best and malicious at worst. No they have not. The greeks, japanese, romans, mongols, etc never had racial extermination campaigns like the british empire, the us empire, nazi germany, etc. That is a fairly new and uniquely western "ideal". That entire races had to be exterminated because they were native, aborigine, jewish, etc is something new. Sure cities were destroyed, people were persecuted, enslaved, etc in the past but you won't find many empires in the past that committed the atrocities that britain, nazis and we have. And the most evil singular acts in human history is easily hiroshima and nagasaki. And who committed those evil acts? You can argue that others would have been just as evil as the west if they had the power and I'd probably agree with that. But that isn't history, it's conjecture. And even if it was true, then it just shows we are no better than everyone else. Which runs counter to the dominant narrative that the west is "all good, perfect, civilized, etc". The narrative that the west is evil is needed because it's fundamentally true and we need to counter the dominant false narrative that the west is all good. How many millions have we butchered in iraq, vietnam, syria, central/south america, africa, etc all in the name of "western good"? Your sentiments are correct but you are misguided in your anger. You shouldn't be mad at the "west is evil" narrative. You should really be angry at the dominant "west is good" narrative.