3 ms·

Ok, in historical context, killing and enslaving was pretty much accepted, and respected, behaviour. Back in ancient times that is, up to, I'd say, early 16th c

by hef19898 3y ago

Ok, in historical context, killing and enslaving was pretty much accepted, and respected, behaviour. Back in ancient times that is, up to, I'd say, early 16th century? Killing, depending on the contexr, still is today. Rape and enslaving isn't anymore, thank god.

llm_trw 3y ago
Both us and the ancients agree that murder, rape and slavery are bad when it happens to them. The Germans from then and us today would agree that destroying that Roman army was _a good thing_ because it stopped a lot of murder, rape and slavery from happening. I'm not sure what you're arguing against.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Basically all your points? Because the "Germans" didn't exist at the time. It was a mix of various tribes, some loosly allied with Rome. Heck, the German leader even was a former Roman officer. So it was much less about "Freedom" as it was about indovidual tribal leaders power. Painting the Romans of the time the way you do, is pretty much en vogue today, where people view everything from the perspective we have today on colonialism (especially the latter day variant of colonialism).
  - watwut 3y ago
    Basically, Romans intentions are pure and valid even if they are acting from pure self interest, even if they manage to kill and rape a whole lot of people. But, their victims are not pure enough nor entitled to have opinion about being killed or raped, because they are not as pure in motivation. See, they need to organize themselves into larger nation without anyone having any self interest in the process. Very obviously, Roman politics was self interest based - both on the individual scale and societal one. What you ask for is not objective history, you ask for historians to take a side and ignore all but one viewpoint.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Where exactly did I say Roman interests were pure and valid? They were interests, empire building and such. Not sure if rape was a stated goal... Never heard that.
      - watwut 3y ago
        They attacked pretty often happened because someone wanted an office or become more powerful locally. Nothing to do with any larger goals. "Empire building" however itself amounts to "stealing from others".
Log_out_ 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War It was pretty much globally till far into the 1800 and still is under a different decorations in many countries.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Slavery is a difficult topic in that regard, and not kust because it is slavery. My yard stick was contemporary poeple and movements seeing the thing as universally bad, not just some rare individuals here and there. With slavery, we have a movement against it as far back as the 17th century (might be wrong here, didn't read it up again). You are absolutely right so, what is acceotable or not is highly context and culture driven. And even in the Western world, we replaced slavery with exploitive employment methods as early as the industrial revolution and do so to this day.

llm_trw 3y ago

Both us and the ancients agree that murder, rape and slavery are bad when it happens to them. The Germans from then and us today would agree that destroying that Roman army was _a good thing_ because it stopped a lot of murder, rape and slavery from happening. I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

hef19898 3y ago
Basically all your points? Because the "Germans" didn't exist at the time. It was a mix of various tribes, some loosly allied with Rome. Heck, the German leader even was a former Roman officer. So it was much less about "Freedom" as it was about indovidual tribal leaders power. Painting the Romans of the time the way you do, is pretty much en vogue today, where people view everything from the perspective we have today on colonialism (especially the latter day variant of colonialism).
- watwut 3y ago
  Basically, Romans intentions are pure and valid even if they are acting from pure self interest, even if they manage to kill and rape a whole lot of people. But, their victims are not pure enough nor entitled to have opinion about being killed or raped, because they are not as pure in motivation. See, they need to organize themselves into larger nation without anyone having any self interest in the process. Very obviously, Roman politics was self interest based - both on the individual scale and societal one. What you ask for is not objective history, you ask for historians to take a side and ignore all but one viewpoint.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Where exactly did I say Roman interests were pure and valid? They were interests, empire building and such. Not sure if rape was a stated goal... Never heard that.
    - watwut 3y ago
      They attacked pretty often happened because someone wanted an office or become more powerful locally. Nothing to do with any larger goals. "Empire building" however itself amounts to "stealing from others".

Log_out_ 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War It was pretty much globally till far into the 1800 and still is under a different decorations in many countries.

hef19898 3y ago
Slavery is a difficult topic in that regard, and not kust because it is slavery. My yard stick was contemporary poeple and movements seeing the thing as universally bad, not just some rare individuals here and there. With slavery, we have a movement against it as far back as the 17th century (might be wrong here, didn't read it up again). You are absolutely right so, what is acceotable or not is highly context and culture driven. And even in the Western world, we replaced slavery with exploitive employment methods as early as the industrial revolution and do so to this day.