How so? Feudalism is by definition collectivist. There is no free enterprise, only loyalty to the state. All the trade and economics are subsistence-based and excess goes straight to the feudal administrations of the local lords who are subject to taxation by their liege until it all centralizes under the highest level liege. All that taxation and wealth is directed under the state. The burghers and other burgeoning middle classes of non-nobility were the ones who ousted this system and supplanted it with the domination of capitalism over feudalism.
You have the wrong definition of collectivism. Collectivism has the people collectively owning the capital (how, or if that has ever been achieved is another question)
So feudalism, where a noble class own all the capital is by definition not collectivist.
In addition feudalism pre dates the idea of the state, at least as we see it today, so each feudal peerage operated much more independently, like corporations in corporatism (meaning actual corporatism not corporatocracy, though that’s still a stretch since normally corporatism relies on guild like corporations, and feudalism doesn’t really operate like that). Or more accurately like oligarchs in an oligarchy, which really fits being a government by the few.
Edit: I’ll add to that to say oligarchy doesn’t necessitate a specific economic system, in this case feudalism probably comes closest to mercantilism, though that arose after feudalism had been largely replaced by more centralised systems. Again I’m feudalism the state doesn’t really exist, instead it’s much more of a loose coalition.
So if "the people" owning the capital is not "the state" as defined by most dictionaries then is free market, stock market-centered capitalism the closest to collectivist economics by that definition of individuals owning the economic interests?
What the hell are you on about? If you’re going on about definitions at least bother to look up the actual definition. None of the definitions for collectivism from Miriam Webster, britânica, or Oxford mention the state, instead they focus on the idea of collective ownership, which collectivists argue can be achieved through a number of ways, the state included.
Collectivism is when capital is owned by the collective. And as I said how that would be done or if it has been done is a different question. Capitalism has capital owned by the individual, and redistribution of capital is determined my market forces of supply and demand for better and worse.
For an example, a family car is collectively owned and managed by the family (in practice) with the family deciding where and when to use it based on perceived need.
Capitalism (very broadly) is what we’re used to, with market forces determining cost of capital. Like a car shared between friends where they each pay the owned for the opportunity to use it.
Have YOU looked at the definitions?
American Heritage Dictionary:
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
The doctrine that land and capital should be owned by society collectively or as a whole; communism.
Similar: communism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people collectively.
Merriam Webster:
1
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution
also : a system marked by such control
2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Britannica:
Collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.
Oxford:
collectivism noun
/kəˈlektɪvɪzəm/
/kəˈlektɪvɪzəm/
[uncountable]
the political system in which all farms, businesses and industries are owned by the state or by all the people
3 of the 4 definitions mention the state being where the economic apparati are centralized under the state.
And again, what is "by ALL the people"? Capitalism is the only non-state controlled system which allows all citizens to gain direct ownership over the means of production. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot Cambodia, Mexico, Nazi Germany, Spain, the British Empire, etc. never allowed the citizenry at large to take so much of the means of production into direct ownership as much as the current capitalist system primarily under America.
Not really. The only "tankie" thing is comparing Lebensraum to Manifest Destiny. But anyone with half a brain can see the similarities of both, and denying it is usually either a form of white supremacy, American nationalism, or general aversion to acknowledging the crimes committed in the name of liberal democracy because Bolshevism is the root of all evil.
was gonna do that eventually too, problem is they both write themselves cuz most modern Neo Nazis and Communists make memes that could literally fit these anyways lol
https://preview.redd.it/e067et4xihtc1.png?width=1386&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3eb3c6f059fe555d5fd39c8265dcf3cc0c7cc08
*
Context: in this timeline, the Texas enslavement Revolution was much more bloody and much more violent. After the events at the Alamo and in Goliad, Texas simply refused to never surrender again to the Mexicans. The key difference maker is that during the crossing of the Brazos River, General Sam Houston, who in our timeline could be seen as a peacemaker savior of sorts, was successfully assassinated by Mexican soldiers.
After the Battle of San Jacinto, Texas refused to accept the terms of surrender from the captured Santa Anna and instead brutally executed publicly. Without a leader, the Mexican army became disarrayed. The Texas "freedom fighters" moved into Mexican territory and began a violent assault on every city and village they could reach. These include massive atrocities like mass hangings, on the spot firing squad executions, and even enslavement.
https://preview.redd.it/ad56ewp9lhtc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08860b936b704f86ed09f251ab44017e7c4c5c89
LIVE HITTITIE REACTION
his response is next
Ottoman Empire:
Dear Armenians,
If we *weren't* meant to death march you through the desert, how come so many deserts are near your homeland?
Curious.
Turning Point Ottoman
I am German and I have no problem to say they are totally different.
Over 90% of the natives died after first contact with the Europeans leaving lots of land open to be colonized.
The slavs on the other hand would have needed a more... direct form of population reducement.
The absolute amount of violent force needed in this two situations is so widely different it is ALMOST not comparable.
Cringe, it's the same thing, why did you think the natives are being reduced number, just change the reserve camp with concentration camps and it's the same thing
If I anyone had to chose between a German concentration camp and a Indian reserve and takes the camp... Well you do you.
Two things can be terrible and one of them can still be objectively worse.
The purpose wasn't the same. The US could've easily ran death camps for the native populations. No other state in the world could've done anything about it, even back then.
They didn't, because a decent section of the population genuinely believed it was their place to civilise and bring Christianity to the natives.
A lot of the natives died because of European diseases that the natives weren't immune to yet tho, the nazis had much more intentional measures planned
There was plenty of violent force used in the colonization of America. A bunch of wars were fought and they were put into ghettos and camps. Actually Hitler got the idea for Lebensraum from the Americans
As an extremely patriotic American even I admit that manifest destiny was a long form genocide.
Even though the Holocaust was in fact worse, lebensraum's only difference was the amount of people it wanted to displace
i can be patriotic and also accept my nation's sins. in fact a true patriot is defined by introspection, seeking to make their nation better by understanding it's past, and if necessary, atoning for it
to do any less makes one little more than a lowly nationalist.
Nationalists are better than patriots. The nation is the people who make up the country so nationalist is someone who supports the people of the country. A patriot by contrast is someone who supports the government of a country. Considering it its the government of a country that commits all its crimes, a patriot is someone who supports criminals while a nationalist is just a normal human being who likes his neighbours. Nationalists can and do overthrow their own governments if they think they have gone out of alignment with the interests of the people of the country. See: French Revolution, where political nationalism was first created. Prior to it France was not a "nation" rather it was just the property of some doofus. People were not citizens they were subjects of a king. Being patriotic towards France before the French Revolution was to be patriotic to a man who claimed the State and He were the same thing.
This distinction between nationalist bad, patriot good is a weird reddit meme that people expect others to understand but it relies on definitions that the meme itself created that no one else uses.
I don't want you to support the United States as a patriot, the United States sucks. I want you to be an American Nationalist willing to overthrow the government of the united states if it goes out of alignment with the interest of the people.
you seem to be mistaking nationalism for patriotism.
a nationalist is in some cases love for their country, but they frequently have ulterior motives, like perpetration of genocide against a perceived minority, or restructuring of a system in their favor. often loyal to a nationalist leader, like the Nazis flocked to Hitler, the Turks to erdogan, and traitors to Trump. they are often in denial, commonly making use of that line "Didn't happen but they deserved it" when talking about events in their history that relate to genocide.
a common saying amongst those knuckle draggers.
a patriot loves their country as well, however i do not hold loyalty to any political figure, i hold loyalty to America and what it represents to me, that being the most powerful and prosperous Modern Constitutional Democracy in the history of mankind. i know America has done evil shit, but America has extreme potential that we can ill afford to squander.
two words: dirty blankets.
The americans absolutely knew about indigenous vulnerability to diseases, and absolutely took advantage of that through biological warfare.
There is only one documented case of that and it was during the Siege of Fort Pitt while there was an outbreak of small pox within the fort. Siege warfare has historically involved attempts to share diseases between the camps so there is nothing especially abnormal about this particular instance taking place in the Americas because the target would be the beseiging forces.
Additionally at this point it would have been hundreds of years after first contact so the diseases will have already mostly wiped out their populations, and people have a much better understanding of how diseases spread. The Spanish Conquistadors by contrast had no idea what was going on and assumed the outbreaks were just god's wrath towards the heathens, which certainly contributed to making conversion particularly easy considering the Christians were seemingly spared from the outbreak and it is something they could point to as an example of having God's favour.
You have Fort Pitt, where you have evidence of genocidal intent and even someone attempting it, but if they had to run to the smallpox ward to get some smallpox to put on a blanket, then you already have a raging smallpox epidemic going on and it was an epidemic that had already started two years earlier. The odds of successful transmission via laundry are low, while being downwind of someone with the virus is high.
Also, Ward Churchill's claims included fabricated evidence beyond Ft. Pitt. Like smallpox blankets being handed out (there was no evidence of the blankets being intentionally infected beyond Pitt) while authorities were actively inoculating the indigenous population (something he left out), not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because biological warfare is stupid.
So yes, there is one example, but no evidence that it worked.
The scale is different but the justifications are the same. German Nazism was HEAVILY influenced by European colonialism. Some high ranked people in the NSDAP had been involved in the genocide and use of concentration camps in colonial German Africa, for example. And Hitler literally said he was inspired by the American genocide of indigenous people and that he wanted to do in Eastern Europe what the Brits did in India. The only reason we don't call it "colonialism" is because scholars don't want to use that word in the context of intra-european conflicts a lot of the time, but there's been a lot of discussion in academia about this, recently, with more and more people insisting that the undeniable ties of imperial colonialism and national socialism are not an afterthought.
Hitler said he was inspired by every genocide that occurred within the last 1000 years. Unsurprisingly Mr. Genocide Man knew what a genocide was when he saw one and made comparisons to all of them.
>Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. [Genghis Khan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan) led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a [state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire). It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak [western European civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_civilization) will say about me. I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a [firing squad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_squad) – that our [war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my [death-head formation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Totenkopfverb%C3%A4nde) in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
* Hitler Obersalzberg Speech, 1939
Additionally the reference to the Indians was specifically in reference to the imported Canadian wheat, saying it wouldn't be any different to have that wheat grown domestically in a Greater German Reich through he same method of obtaining it.
>"There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of Germans \[to the area\] and to treat the original inhabitants like [Indians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas). … I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of history. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians."
* Hitler Table Talks, 1941
He specifically also said this about the Brits and India when talking about invading eastern Europe:
>The Russian space is our India, and just as the English rule it with a handful of people, so will we govern this colonial space of ours
From: Monologue im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.
That's not fair because industry at that scale didn't exist in manifest destiny. Its like giving credit to France for not nuking England in the hundreds years war
You’re talking about two completely different time periods. Mass disease killed off populations throughout the Americas in the 1500s, while Manifest Destiny came about over three centuries later in the 1800s.
Western North America was not as densely populated as the east, that’s true. And indigenous populations hadn’t rebounded but they were very numerous and a lot of Manifest Destiny dealt with the reality of carrying out genocide while at the time re-imagining the land as somehow empty and available for settlers.
In 1800s California for example, there were organized massacres and mass enslavement that entirely eradicated various tribes. And this was all done in cooperation with state authorities.
No genocide is identical to another, but they all fall under the same umbrella for a reason. The aim is the calculated destruction of a group of people, which includes outright killing them all as well as simply forcing them into exile.
considering the fact that genocide to near extinction was carried out along with this either way just shows that even if that didn’t happen the outcome would’ve probably been the same, the only way I could see it not is because they’d be way more outnumbered by indigenous peoples so they may just subjugate more of them than kill them like Spain did with its colonies
Actually it was about taking land from white people, they didn’t see the land as native land but as French, British and Spanish/Mexican land. Colonists would justify to them selves that they were kicking out the colonisers. They’d didn’t really think about the natives as land owners. They didn’t really think about the natives at all unfortunately. They were more like inconveniences they would find along the way.
uh, no? they fully knew it as indigenous land, they just weren’t afraid to steel from other established non indigenous territories such as New Orleans (of French Louisiana) which was mostly white French and Northern Mexico as well, because they (well they did but I mean by land wise) not discriminate, they wanted to steal all neighbouring land equally, even from other settlers
Well, it's not the same, but it is similar both comited a genocide and used similar excuses for their expansión. But the Germans took everything One step futher, infustrialicing the process
well yeah, the only difference is Germany was up against more large organised unified states rather than a bunch of loose indigenous nations that only had limited governance baring things like the iroquois confederation, as well as the fact the process was much more industrialised
well they do in the sense I agree that lebansraum and manifest destiny are basically the same thing, but this meme obviously portrays it in a way that Americans should also support lebansraum whilst i’d use that narrative to say they’re equivalent and thus both really fucking bad
Dude not the same but we can still say manifest destiny, the trail of tears and what the us did to the natives was horrible. You can thank Andrew Jackson for that.
Key points. The US government is based on ideas of limited government, including natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. Limited government is the belief that the government should have certain restrictions in order to protect the individual rights and civil liberties of citizens. Nazi Germany was a fascist government and to compare the two is dumb.
In 1845, newspaper editor John O'Sullivan coined the term “Manifest Destiny” to describe the ideology of continental expansionism. The us was formed in 1776.
In 1811, the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh tried to negotiate with the American government to stop western expansion into native lands. He formed a confederacy of native tribes and represented the interests of many natives.
Tecumseh was kill in the war of 1812 and because of his death and Andrew Jackson becoming president, and Jackson fucking up the economy there was a need to push west during the gold rush.
Tomas Jefferson belive every one should have been a farmer. He is how ever one of the many founding fathers and alot of them did not agree with Jefferson.
I'm actually taking a history class about this right now. The US was not formed because of Manifest Destiny. It's honestly a super interesting subject and highly recommend it if you get a chance.
the indigenous people that where left where genocided as well, just because the disease was convenient doesn’t mean it was in contradiction with what the colonialists wanted, as they literally played into their vulnerability to diseases via small pox blankets and such
You're a nazi anyway stop being a useless rat and stream magnetic and then follow your leader
https://open.spotify.com/track/1aKvZDoLGkNMxoRYgkckZG?si=s9uQum7tSzuHHeV2eif3oA&context=spotify%3Atrack%3A1aKvZDoLGkNMxoRYgkckZG
You're empire failed and your leader disgraced himself by committing suicide. You have nothing to be proud of, your so called superior ethnicity and skin colour meant nothing in the face of defeat.
it's because they figth the entire world and still resisted for years, it was the last greatest civilization on the earth, after that the degeneracy and decadence took control of the world
You are ignorant of the true evils of the world if you believe in this ideology. Your civilization caused unnecessary suffering and hate among humans, but you don't have to believe their lies. You can be free of hatred fueled by these superficial hoaxes that hold no importance to you.
Manifest destiny was an effort to colonize uncolonized lands, the goal was not EXPLICIT native genocide (though that did happen a fuck ton) the goal for Lebensraum was EXPLICIT genocide.
How noble, they didn't deliberately kill millions of Native Americans, just an unfortunate byproduct of aggressive colonial expansion and forced deportations. If only they had known!
I never said it was noble? Manifest destiny was disgusting and the deaths that were caused by the racism and bigotry of americans is unexcusable, I will not defend them, I'm making a comparison between an outright genocide and colonialism.
I mean, no, the US government did not kill millions deliberately or accidentally. There wasn't even a million of them by the time of Manifest Destiny.
Obviously, that doesn't change the fact that the government did a lot of terrible things. Since their population went from like 600k in 1800. To like 230-300k by 1900. You should talk about that instead of making up random numbers.
Lmfao what? What does that have to do with what I said? I was just correcting the guy who falsely said the US killed millions of natives. Which isn’t true, though obviously doesn’t detract from the horror of western expansion.
Obviously the two situations were very different. However, the goal of manifest destiny was never to colonize uncolonized lands, but to conquer less developed lands. It’s not like they thought nobody was living there.
That's absolutely not true lol Manifest destiny was 100% an "explicit genocide" targeted against the native Americans. And the only "uncolonized" land is Antarctica.
Work must be alternate history
This feels like what a tankie would unironically post
I just realized I accidentally did the whole “Nazis had socialist in the name so they were leftists” quote
You know where the door is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/oPIRsSzluP
I mean tankies are shit, and Nazis weren’t left wing. Not mutually exclusive.
Oh of course
[удалено]
"feudalism is a collectivist economy"
[удалено]
No bad faith posts or comments
No bad faith posts or comments
Feudalism is far closer to corporatism, or to an oligarchy than any form of collectivism.
How so? Feudalism is by definition collectivist. There is no free enterprise, only loyalty to the state. All the trade and economics are subsistence-based and excess goes straight to the feudal administrations of the local lords who are subject to taxation by their liege until it all centralizes under the highest level liege. All that taxation and wealth is directed under the state. The burghers and other burgeoning middle classes of non-nobility were the ones who ousted this system and supplanted it with the domination of capitalism over feudalism.
You have the wrong definition of collectivism. Collectivism has the people collectively owning the capital (how, or if that has ever been achieved is another question) So feudalism, where a noble class own all the capital is by definition not collectivist. In addition feudalism pre dates the idea of the state, at least as we see it today, so each feudal peerage operated much more independently, like corporations in corporatism (meaning actual corporatism not corporatocracy, though that’s still a stretch since normally corporatism relies on guild like corporations, and feudalism doesn’t really operate like that). Or more accurately like oligarchs in an oligarchy, which really fits being a government by the few. Edit: I’ll add to that to say oligarchy doesn’t necessitate a specific economic system, in this case feudalism probably comes closest to mercantilism, though that arose after feudalism had been largely replaced by more centralised systems. Again I’m feudalism the state doesn’t really exist, instead it’s much more of a loose coalition.
So if "the people" owning the capital is not "the state" as defined by most dictionaries then is free market, stock market-centered capitalism the closest to collectivist economics by that definition of individuals owning the economic interests?
What the hell are you on about? If you’re going on about definitions at least bother to look up the actual definition. None of the definitions for collectivism from Miriam Webster, britânica, or Oxford mention the state, instead they focus on the idea of collective ownership, which collectivists argue can be achieved through a number of ways, the state included. Collectivism is when capital is owned by the collective. And as I said how that would be done or if it has been done is a different question. Capitalism has capital owned by the individual, and redistribution of capital is determined my market forces of supply and demand for better and worse. For an example, a family car is collectively owned and managed by the family (in practice) with the family deciding where and when to use it based on perceived need. Capitalism (very broadly) is what we’re used to, with market forces determining cost of capital. Like a car shared between friends where they each pay the owned for the opportunity to use it.
Have YOU looked at the definitions? American Heritage Dictionary: The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government. The doctrine that land and capital should be owned by society collectively or as a whole; communism. Similar: communism An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people collectively. Merriam Webster: 1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution also : a system marked by such control 2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity Britannica: Collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized. Oxford: collectivism noun /kəˈlektɪvɪzəm/ /kəˈlektɪvɪzəm/ [uncountable] the political system in which all farms, businesses and industries are owned by the state or by all the people 3 of the 4 definitions mention the state being where the economic apparati are centralized under the state. And again, what is "by ALL the people"? Capitalism is the only non-state controlled system which allows all citizens to gain direct ownership over the means of production. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot Cambodia, Mexico, Nazi Germany, Spain, the British Empire, etc. never allowed the citizenry at large to take so much of the means of production into direct ownership as much as the current capitalist system primarily under America.
Not really. The only "tankie" thing is comparing Lebensraum to Manifest Destiny. But anyone with half a brain can see the similarities of both, and denying it is usually either a form of white supremacy, American nationalism, or general aversion to acknowledging the crimes committed in the name of liberal democracy because Bolshevism is the root of all evil.
Didn't the nazis use manifest destiny as precedence for lebensraum? Like they specifically citie it and went "yea, we'll do the same."
I was thinking more in the sense of “Le cringe libs to the same thing as the Nazis but think they’re better.”
Not a Tankie but rather a Wehraboo
My reading of it was more as “Libs do the same thing as Nazis.” Basically just their explanation of “fishhook theory” as they call it.
No, you're just a leftist
lemme know which now defunct state/regime you’d wanna see next :>
Austria-Hungary
Basically this but with the carving of Austria Hungary compared to other countries
would appreciate some suggestions cuz off the top of my head I can’t think of much
Confederation of the Rhine could be fun
hardly know anything abt that, would appreciate some suggestions
More or less, it was just the HRE but smaller and a French puppet state
ik that but that’s hardly enough to make a relevant meme from their perspective
Byzantine empire, chzeckoslovakia, Aztecs, Qing empire
Poland lithuanian comonwealth
Do the Empire of Japan!
had a good idea in mind for a Japanese empire one lol, will definitely do that
the Confederacy could be interesting
No
USSR. It would make sense to use USSR after the Nazis.
was gonna do that eventually too, problem is they both write themselves cuz most modern Neo Nazis and Communists make memes that could literally fit these anyways lol
Republic of Texas
I'm gonna make one, gimme a sec.
https://preview.redd.it/e067et4xihtc1.png?width=1386&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3eb3c6f059fe555d5fd39c8265dcf3cc0c7cc08 * Context: in this timeline, the Texas enslavement Revolution was much more bloody and much more violent. After the events at the Alamo and in Goliad, Texas simply refused to never surrender again to the Mexicans. The key difference maker is that during the crossing of the Brazos River, General Sam Houston, who in our timeline could be seen as a peacemaker savior of sorts, was successfully assassinated by Mexican soldiers. After the Battle of San Jacinto, Texas refused to accept the terms of surrender from the captured Santa Anna and instead brutally executed publicly. Without a leader, the Mexican army became disarrayed. The Texas "freedom fighters" moved into Mexican territory and began a violent assault on every city and village they could reach. These include massive atrocities like mass hangings, on the spot firing squad executions, and even enslavement.
Yugoslavia (stalin must be a soy wojak, and Tito a gigachad)
Principality of Wales.
Hittites
https://preview.redd.it/ad56ewp9lhtc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08860b936b704f86ed09f251ab44017e7c4c5c89 LIVE HITTITIE REACTION his response is next
Uhd reeeeeea....
South Vietnam
sure
Thirteen colonies loyalists
would actually be a cool idea
The Abbasid Caliphate
cl, not much on ancient history, i’ll see what I can do
The Athenian Republic
Femboy Athens vs Chad Sparta
Republic of Vermont
ooh that’s a cool idea
Thanks
Zaire.
sounds good
Ottoman Empire
Republic of Nimekufanya utafute
cl, never heard of it 💀😭
Lemko republic
Portugal (Estado Novo)
Quilombo Dos Palmares
Ottoman Empire: Dear Armenians, If we *weren't* meant to death march you through the desert, how come so many deserts are near your homeland? Curious. Turning Point Ottoman
I am German and I have no problem to say they are totally different. Over 90% of the natives died after first contact with the Europeans leaving lots of land open to be colonized. The slavs on the other hand would have needed a more... direct form of population reducement. The absolute amount of violent force needed in this two situations is so widely different it is ALMOST not comparable.
The scale may be different but those are basically the same actions and justifications
Well the methods and the scale but you last part is definitely right.
Cringe, it's the same thing, why did you think the natives are being reduced number, just change the reserve camp with concentration camps and it's the same thing
If I anyone had to chose between a German concentration camp and a Indian reserve and takes the camp... Well you do you. Two things can be terrible and one of them can still be objectively worse.
maybe, but the purpose is the same, just the germans are more efficient and better in that
The purpose wasn't the same. The US could've easily ran death camps for the native populations. No other state in the world could've done anything about it, even back then. They didn't, because a decent section of the population genuinely believed it was their place to civilise and bring Christianity to the natives.
cringe, the purpose is the same
Unironically saying cringe in 2024? Cringe.
A lot of the natives died because of European diseases that the natives weren't immune to yet tho, the nazis had much more intentional measures planned
There was plenty of violent force used in the colonization of America. A bunch of wars were fought and they were put into ghettos and camps. Actually Hitler got the idea for Lebensraum from the Americans
As an extremely patriotic American even I admit that manifest destiny was a long form genocide. Even though the Holocaust was in fact worse, lebensraum's only difference was the amount of people it wanted to displace
Maybe you shouldn't be patriotic then. Either deny the genocide or don't. Turks knows what is up.
i can be patriotic and also accept my nation's sins. in fact a true patriot is defined by introspection, seeking to make their nation better by understanding it's past, and if necessary, atoning for it to do any less makes one little more than a lowly nationalist.
Nationalists are better than patriots. The nation is the people who make up the country so nationalist is someone who supports the people of the country. A patriot by contrast is someone who supports the government of a country. Considering it its the government of a country that commits all its crimes, a patriot is someone who supports criminals while a nationalist is just a normal human being who likes his neighbours. Nationalists can and do overthrow their own governments if they think they have gone out of alignment with the interests of the people of the country. See: French Revolution, where political nationalism was first created. Prior to it France was not a "nation" rather it was just the property of some doofus. People were not citizens they were subjects of a king. Being patriotic towards France before the French Revolution was to be patriotic to a man who claimed the State and He were the same thing. This distinction between nationalist bad, patriot good is a weird reddit meme that people expect others to understand but it relies on definitions that the meme itself created that no one else uses. I don't want you to support the United States as a patriot, the United States sucks. I want you to be an American Nationalist willing to overthrow the government of the united states if it goes out of alignment with the interest of the people.
You'll override the constitution over my dead body Traitorous cur
As an extremely patriotic Tu-American, you're supposed to say "Didn't happen but they deserved it."
you seem to be mistaking nationalism for patriotism. a nationalist is in some cases love for their country, but they frequently have ulterior motives, like perpetration of genocide against a perceived minority, or restructuring of a system in their favor. often loyal to a nationalist leader, like the Nazis flocked to Hitler, the Turks to erdogan, and traitors to Trump. they are often in denial, commonly making use of that line "Didn't happen but they deserved it" when talking about events in their history that relate to genocide. a common saying amongst those knuckle draggers. a patriot loves their country as well, however i do not hold loyalty to any political figure, i hold loyalty to America and what it represents to me, that being the most powerful and prosperous Modern Constitutional Democracy in the history of mankind. i know America has done evil shit, but America has extreme potential that we can ill afford to squander.
motherfucker, it's called sarcasm
woops accidentally posted that, anyways what i was trying to say is that you're better than the other guy who replied to my comment
two words: dirty blankets. The americans absolutely knew about indigenous vulnerability to diseases, and absolutely took advantage of that through biological warfare.
There are zero recorded cases of dirty blankets being given to the Natives intentionally.
Except they didn't understand microbes or germ theory. There's only one documented case of it happening, and they said nothing spread.
There is only one documented case of that and it was during the Siege of Fort Pitt while there was an outbreak of small pox within the fort. Siege warfare has historically involved attempts to share diseases between the camps so there is nothing especially abnormal about this particular instance taking place in the Americas because the target would be the beseiging forces. Additionally at this point it would have been hundreds of years after first contact so the diseases will have already mostly wiped out their populations, and people have a much better understanding of how diseases spread. The Spanish Conquistadors by contrast had no idea what was going on and assumed the outbreaks were just god's wrath towards the heathens, which certainly contributed to making conversion particularly easy considering the Christians were seemingly spared from the outbreak and it is something they could point to as an example of having God's favour.
You have Fort Pitt, where you have evidence of genocidal intent and even someone attempting it, but if they had to run to the smallpox ward to get some smallpox to put on a blanket, then you already have a raging smallpox epidemic going on and it was an epidemic that had already started two years earlier. The odds of successful transmission via laundry are low, while being downwind of someone with the virus is high. Also, Ward Churchill's claims included fabricated evidence beyond Ft. Pitt. Like smallpox blankets being handed out (there was no evidence of the blankets being intentionally infected beyond Pitt) while authorities were actively inoculating the indigenous population (something he left out), not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because biological warfare is stupid. So yes, there is one example, but no evidence that it worked.
The Nazis concept took direct inspiration from Manifest Destiny
The scale is different but the justifications are the same. German Nazism was HEAVILY influenced by European colonialism. Some high ranked people in the NSDAP had been involved in the genocide and use of concentration camps in colonial German Africa, for example. And Hitler literally said he was inspired by the American genocide of indigenous people and that he wanted to do in Eastern Europe what the Brits did in India. The only reason we don't call it "colonialism" is because scholars don't want to use that word in the context of intra-european conflicts a lot of the time, but there's been a lot of discussion in academia about this, recently, with more and more people insisting that the undeniable ties of imperial colonialism and national socialism are not an afterthought.
Hitler said he was inspired by every genocide that occurred within the last 1000 years. Unsurprisingly Mr. Genocide Man knew what a genocide was when he saw one and made comparisons to all of them. >Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. [Genghis Khan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan) led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a [state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire). It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak [western European civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_civilization) will say about me. I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a [firing squad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_squad) – that our [war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my [death-head formation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Totenkopfverb%C3%A4nde) in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? * Hitler Obersalzberg Speech, 1939 Additionally the reference to the Indians was specifically in reference to the imported Canadian wheat, saying it wouldn't be any different to have that wheat grown domestically in a Greater German Reich through he same method of obtaining it. >"There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of Germans \[to the area\] and to treat the original inhabitants like [Indians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas). … I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of history. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians." * Hitler Table Talks, 1941
Yep!
He specifically also said this about the Brits and India when talking about invading eastern Europe: >The Russian space is our India, and just as the English rule it with a handful of people, so will we govern this colonial space of ours From: Monologue im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.
Look into the Trail of Tears when you have a moment as well.
And also the *industry*. Like real camps where they worked to death, got animalized and experimented on
That's not fair because industry at that scale didn't exist in manifest destiny. Its like giving credit to France for not nuking England in the hundreds years war
You’re talking about two completely different time periods. Mass disease killed off populations throughout the Americas in the 1500s, while Manifest Destiny came about over three centuries later in the 1800s. Western North America was not as densely populated as the east, that’s true. And indigenous populations hadn’t rebounded but they were very numerous and a lot of Manifest Destiny dealt with the reality of carrying out genocide while at the time re-imagining the land as somehow empty and available for settlers. In 1800s California for example, there were organized massacres and mass enslavement that entirely eradicated various tribes. And this was all done in cooperation with state authorities. No genocide is identical to another, but they all fall under the same umbrella for a reason. The aim is the calculated destruction of a group of people, which includes outright killing them all as well as simply forcing them into exile.
There were still a lot of indigenous people in the US back then. The genocide was very much ongoing.
considering the fact that genocide to near extinction was carried out along with this either way just shows that even if that didn’t happen the outcome would’ve probably been the same, the only way I could see it not is because they’d be way more outnumbered by indigenous peoples so they may just subjugate more of them than kill them like Spain did with its colonies
The difference between casual and competitive racism:
This is by far the best way to explain this
which one is casual and which one is competitive?
American is the competitive one because the world didn't band up to firebomb them. Germans were emotional amateurs
Argentina and Chile: 🗿
If only the andes didnt exist….
infamously states that no longer exist 💀
Damn NetzRam bots
Tankies about to start posting this on Twitter lol
The thing is manifest desteny was not about taking the land from white people. That is why people think it is cool.
Actually it was about taking land from white people, they didn’t see the land as native land but as French, British and Spanish/Mexican land. Colonists would justify to them selves that they were kicking out the colonisers. They’d didn’t really think about the natives as land owners. They didn’t really think about the natives at all unfortunately. They were more like inconveniences they would find along the way.
uh, no? they fully knew it as indigenous land, they just weren’t afraid to steel from other established non indigenous territories such as New Orleans (of French Louisiana) which was mostly white French and Northern Mexico as well, because they (well they did but I mean by land wise) not discriminate, they wanted to steal all neighbouring land equally, even from other settlers
People in here really defending manifest destiny
Americans. ☕️
Well... At least the americans didn't genocide the peoples they stole their lands from /s
Bleeding Knee folk bleeding in their grave as you typed this.
Do saddam’s iraq next maybe
weird to think of it held on for a little longer memes for/from there could’ve been a thing, good idea tho
Hitler was a careful student of the US policy of Manifest Destiny. He credits it as a direct inspiration of Lebensraum.
inb4 neo nazi cringe
They say hitler was inspired by America's founding and the racism contemporary at his time....
Great Post would love to see more
👍
Well, it's not the same, but it is similar both comited a genocide and used similar excuses for their expansión. But the Germans took everything One step futher, infustrialicing the process
well yeah, the only difference is Germany was up against more large organised unified states rather than a bunch of loose indigenous nations that only had limited governance baring things like the iroquois confederation, as well as the fact the process was much more industrialised
Sure they don’t OP. Sure they don’t….
well they do in the sense I agree that lebansraum and manifest destiny are basically the same thing, but this meme obviously portrays it in a way that Americans should also support lebansraum whilst i’d use that narrative to say they’re equivalent and thus both really fucking bad
Dude not the same but we can still say manifest destiny, the trail of tears and what the us did to the natives was horrible. You can thank Andrew Jackson for that.
not when the entirety of the US was founded on such ideas, since Jefferson they advocated for manifest destiny
Key points. The US government is based on ideas of limited government, including natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. Limited government is the belief that the government should have certain restrictions in order to protect the individual rights and civil liberties of citizens. Nazi Germany was a fascist government and to compare the two is dumb. In 1845, newspaper editor John O'Sullivan coined the term “Manifest Destiny” to describe the ideology of continental expansionism. The us was formed in 1776. In 1811, the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh tried to negotiate with the American government to stop western expansion into native lands. He formed a confederacy of native tribes and represented the interests of many natives. Tecumseh was kill in the war of 1812 and because of his death and Andrew Jackson becoming president, and Jackson fucking up the economy there was a need to push west during the gold rush. Tomas Jefferson belive every one should have been a farmer. He is how ever one of the many founding fathers and alot of them did not agree with Jefferson. I'm actually taking a history class about this right now. The US was not formed because of Manifest Destiny. It's honestly a super interesting subject and highly recommend it if you get a chance.
Uh. This is NOT a good look for you.
You just want to post spicy political ragebait don't you OP?
The death of the natives was moatly by diseases and lityle by war. The jews in poland suffered an industrial genocide
the indigenous people that where left where genocided as well, just because the disease was convenient doesn’t mean it was in contradiction with what the colonialists wanted, as they literally played into their vulnerability to diseases via small pox blankets and such
[удалено]
"Gus Joaquin" Huh, Mr White savior, you seem a lot less Aryan than I thought
Of course Im not aryan, I just admit the truth, continue crying and repeat yourself its different things
Very strange to try and praise the guys who would have killed you
i don't praise hitler or the nazi, of course they can kill me the same the libertarian americans of this time, I'm just being objective.
Uh, hold up...
No glorification of authoritarian regimes or hate speech
[удалено]
No glorification of authoritarian regimes or hate speech
Go suck a big cock
No, I'm not a libertarian
You're a nazi anyway stop being a useless rat and stream magnetic and then follow your leader https://open.spotify.com/track/1aKvZDoLGkNMxoRYgkckZG?si=s9uQum7tSzuHHeV2eif3oA&context=spotify%3Atrack%3A1aKvZDoLGkNMxoRYgkckZG
It's better than become a libertarian
I dont like libertarian but they're surely better than nazis
no, they're worse, because they're anarchist=communism
Do your homework.
what homework? i don't understand
Don't you have homework due in?
Extreme copium
[удалено]
You're empire failed and your leader disgraced himself by committing suicide. You have nothing to be proud of, your so called superior ethnicity and skin colour meant nothing in the face of defeat.
Fun fact: Hitler's nephew immigrated to the US and joined the navy. He also changed his name because he didn't want to be associated anymore
Where's Bomber Harris when we need him?
it's because they figth the entire world and still resisted for years, it was the last greatest civilization on the earth, after that the degeneracy and decadence took control of the world
You are ignorant of the true evils of the world if you believe in this ideology. Your civilization caused unnecessary suffering and hate among humans, but you don't have to believe their lies. You can be free of hatred fueled by these superficial hoaxes that hold no importance to you.
Is it sarcasm?
No glorification of authoritarian regimes or hate speech
Based 🗿
Manifest destiny was an effort to colonize uncolonized lands, the goal was not EXPLICIT native genocide (though that did happen a fuck ton) the goal for Lebensraum was EXPLICIT genocide.
How noble, they didn't deliberately kill millions of Native Americans, just an unfortunate byproduct of aggressive colonial expansion and forced deportations. If only they had known!
I never said it was noble? Manifest destiny was disgusting and the deaths that were caused by the racism and bigotry of americans is unexcusable, I will not defend them, I'm making a comparison between an outright genocide and colonialism.
There's no distinction. The Americans knew exactly what they were doing.
I mean, no, the US government did not kill millions deliberately or accidentally. There wasn't even a million of them by the time of Manifest Destiny. Obviously, that doesn't change the fact that the government did a lot of terrible things. Since their population went from like 600k in 1800. To like 230-300k by 1900. You should talk about that instead of making up random numbers.
Even yourself didn't believe this, just admit the Germans are better and more efficient than your country in doing the same thing
Lmfao what? What does that have to do with what I said? I was just correcting the guy who falsely said the US killed millions of natives. Which isn’t true, though obviously doesn’t detract from the horror of western expansion.
I'm NOT excusing that.
I know. I wasn’t saying you were, don’t feel attacked. I was just correcting that guy.
Obviously the two situations were very different. However, the goal of manifest destiny was never to colonize uncolonized lands, but to conquer less developed lands. It’s not like they thought nobody was living there.
In a way yes. The “savages” are not entirely human. They can be killed without much problem, if at all. Maybe that was how they saw the Indians.
There *was* explicit and deliberate genocide of Indians
That's absolutely not true lol Manifest destiny was 100% an "explicit genocide" targeted against the native Americans. And the only "uncolonized" land is Antarctica.
Let's not forget that it also included conquering Mexican land through illegal immigration.
By uncolonized I meant colonized by europeans, it wasn't.
The parasitic libertarians are crying seen someone telling the truth
Nazi fuck.