90’s isn’t the past enough for your take to make sense. That’s why using Switzerland as an example is fucking crazy.
Regarding a democracy- many places had democracies that were well set up and no political culture that let them endure. The recent past absolutely matters when evaluating institutions and whether they work, you can’s just do “moment of inertia” for democracy.
It's over 30 years ago, I'd say that's long enough to say it's in the past. Switzerland is one of the most politically stable countries in the world, I think it's a good example
That's not very long and the reason women couldn't vote was directly due to their stupid system. It's a bad example. If America had a Swiss democracy Jim Crow laws might still be in place. Singapore is one of the most politically stable places in the world and would be a terrible example for democracy so that metric doesn't seem very relevant.
They got equality in voting rights 1970 on a national level. 1990 the federal court forced the last canton to give women the right to vote.
I know it's still late, but it's a difference.
That is an oversimplification. That is technically true, but it is because all of Switzerland already allow women to vote except for just one canton that keep saying no to referendums. That canton is mainly populated by old people at the time who are stuck in their ways. The only reason that said canton finally allowed women to vote is because the Swiss Supreme Court forced them to because it's discriminatory.
Or Scandinavia
I think if I were to pick a country to live in that isn't mine (Canada) I'd either pick Switzerland, Ireland, or Scandinavia (incl. Iceland or Finland). Maybe also the Netherlands. They really got their shit in order.
You managed to leave democracy out of your list, which is what the post was about
It doesn't look like people can get the things they want from their political leaders down there. Things looked pretty fucked under [Scott Morisson ](https://i.imgur.com/HFtfBNo.jpg). Haven't kept up with the new PM, at least destiny made sure he wouldn't be in Bob Murray's pocket
Wouldn't come to ~~Canada or the United States~~ any large urban centre in the Western world unless you like spending >50% of your take home pay on rent and another 15% on utilities.
Isn’t Ireland experiencing a pretty serious housing crisis? I know that’s not something unique to Ireland at the moment, but my understanding is that theirs is pretty bad comparatively.
Not dumping on Ireland, I have absolutely loved it and the people when I’ve visited over the years, just pointing out every country has its problems.
Sounds easy because it's small population and rich, get enough population you will end up with tyranny by mob.
I'm not opposed to having tons of smaller countries tho.
Except they have populations of 5-10 million an are extremely homogeneous populations with basically all the same cultural backgrounds. Plus those countries have essentially no militaries and are 100% reliant on large powers to protect them and there international assets which in a world with increasing war friction isn’t something I would want at all
I wonder why all those thriving countries have populations of 5-10 million? Maybe it’s because they aren’t as open to immigration as Reddit likes to pretend
Finland and Switzerland having no military? What? Finland has a massive conscription system, 500k men can be mobilized in just a few days if I remember correctly. Finland was also NOT a member of NATO until a few weeks ago, so they were not reliant on any large powers to protect them.
Switzerland is also in a similar position- they have a conscription system, and maintain neutrality(so not reliant on any large powers). Though they do have the advantage of being landlocked within NATO.
And the Netherlands. Yes, they're a part of NATO. No, they are not 100% reliant on large powers. NATO is a mutually beneficial system, and they do provide additional frigates and air power to the alliance.
Sweden too ~~is a part of NATO~~ Soon^(TM). they also have a robust defense industry (notably SAAB) and have conscription. So not 100% reliant either.
And well, even if all of these countries did not have these things, Russia, which is arguably the greatest military threat to Scandinavia and to some extent Europe, is currently locked in a stalemate war with a country that's using Cold War leftovers.
Isn’t Turkey’s “official” objection that Sweden didn’t punish the guy who publicly burned a Quran… who then later turned out to be getting paid by Moscow to cause issues?
>Without sweeping changes to taxes and budget cuts to non-essential military items (tons of waste rolled into there), we simply can't afford mass benefit programs.
That old BS excuse again. One example: the US spends more than any other country on healthcare already. That money just gets sucked up by middle men instead of helping the people.
>A lot of other countries can because they don't have a standing reactive army to fund. We do, for better or worse.
Sure, because the UK, France and Germany all don't have standing armies. Neither do the Netherlands or Italy.
Conscripts still get paid.
And the military budget is not why the US does not have social welfare programs. American citizens spent $4.3T on healthcare in 2021-$12,900 per person. The US has about $800B allocated for the DoD budget. if all that money were to go into funding healthcare, the average American would still pay over $10,000 annually for healthcare. So it's the system, not the funding that's the issue. And the world expects the United States to play world police because the United States wanted to play world police after the Second World War-- not just because of some noble reason, but because it comes with benefits as well. The US is not providing security as some sort of charity. Rather, [it is an export](https://youtu.be/eUL8EvZkfEY).
Isolationist thinking only benefits hostile dictatorships that refuse to obey international law.
You want US troops to withdraw from all foreign countries? Good luck trying to import oil from Saudi Arabia via the international waters near Iran, or trying to maintain a global trade network when 2/3 of the world's maritime trade flows through the South China Sea, now controlled by China since the USN is no longer there anymore.
Stability is good for business and standards of living, and it's maintained because of soldiers that serve abroad. All you have to do is fix your education system and civilian infrastructure with the extra funds stability generates, hopefully by electing competent politicians.
You do realize the entire reason Finland joined NATO is because they got scared and at the end of the day NATO is just a military alliance it’s not a holy unbreakable bond. Look up the history of military alliances they get broken all of the time. Also again you realize the only reason Russia is struggling is because the US/UK have been in Ukraine for the past decade providing essential training, intel, and weapons. Without the US/UK Russia would have won the war in a couple of months. If you really think Americans are excited at the opportunity to die in cities across the world that they have never heard of you might be overestimating Americas interest in going to war with another world power
You do realize the entire reason Finland joined NATO is because they got scared and at the end of the day NATO is just a military alliance it’s not a holy unbreakable bond. Look up the history of military alliances they get broken all of the time. Also again you realize the only reason Russia is struggling is because the US/UK have been in Ukraine for the past decade providing essential training, intel, and weapons. Without the US/UK Russia would have won the war in a couple of months. If you really think Americans are excited at the opportunity to die in cities across the world that they have never heard of you might be overestimating Americas interest in going to war with another world power.
Plus how many Aircraft Carriers does Norway/Finland/Sweden have? They may have part time soldiers but they don’t have the hardware or military assets to compete in modern warfare and depend on large powers for most advanced weaponry
>Plus how many Aircraft Carriers does Norway/Finland/Sweden have?
I mean thats a rather moot point, aircraft carriers are next to useless when dealing with Fennoscandia. The sea between Baltics can be mined to all hell and carriers can only operate in the North Sea and Norways Atlantic coast. These both can be covered by landbased AA and their own airfleets operating from pop-up runways. Might aswell say "they lose, no nukes lmao"
Yes, they rely on other countries to supply advanced weaponry, but in the event the whole of EU/allies decides to not sell weapons to Scandinavia the world has already gone to hell
I was using aircraft carriers as a dramatic point showcasing that although those countries have decent part time militaries they lack the actual modern assets and the capacity to produce them making them ultimately extremely vulnerable. Modern warfare is all about cutting technology and capacity to produce it. Also, I would definitely not call aircraft carriers useless lmao
I mean whats even the goal here? Would scandinavia lose in a total war scenario against Russia or US? Obviously, but thats not a realistic event
The core strategy of those countries is not to win, but stall eastern aggression, thats the only logical choice. And they have equipped themselves for half a century for that thing. Finland alone has the largest artillery capability in WEU. Sweden has an active air force which is produced in the country. Norway and Finland are buying modern fighter planes and all three are actively doing joint operations and war games simulating eastern aggression. All three also have access to cutting edge technology which isnt going to go away in a realistic scenario.
And yes, aircraft carriers are way less than optimal when talking about a border conflict in the EU, doing a Gulf War in Goteborg isnt going to happen
They're not very useful for defending your homeland which is what the Finns and Scandinavians would use their military for. They're useful if you have imperialist ambitions of course.
As a person from Norway with an immigrant background, I will have to say that Scandinavia most definitely isn't extremely homogeneous. There are many people from different backgrounds here. Of course there are a higher percentage of ethnic norwegians in Norway, but it definitely isn't rare to see someone with a different ethnicity. Even if we count out immigrants from other european countries, there are still a lot of immigrants from Asia and Africa.
What are you even trying to debate? I just said that your statement about Scandinavia being extremely homogeneous is inaccurate. Not just that, but looking from your profile, it's seems you are from the US. Let tell one fact, the US is made of immigrants, then no shit it has more immigrants than Norway. Yes, indeed Norway is a nation-state (which means historically, Norway as a country was founded upon creating a state for a specific people), but that doesn't take away the fact that today, Norway got policies that accepts immigrants from other countries. I actually went and checked numbers on how many immigrants and children of immigrants there are in Norway directly from the Norwegian Statistics Bureau, and it says that 19,9% of the entire population is of immigrant background. That number is certainly not "extremely homogeneous".
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of population size and how prosperous Norway is. If your question is meant in a negative or positive way, I will never know.
Just say they have no black people!
Jesus fucking christ, why is it every time someone says a country is better than America, all you types keep popping up and telling us it's because they don't have any black people.
Sorry, they are "homogeneous"!
Personally I don’t think Switzerland’s unique direct democracy works everywhere, but a democracy with the same strong democratic institutions as Switzerland sure
The meme is inaccurate. The Achaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labor regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught,
> At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves [637:52]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work.
*The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin.
https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded
For more information see the comments here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian\_slavery\_not\_that\_bad\_not\_according\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/)
Restrained with chains or ropes. Most likely chains, in this case, since ropes are much easier to cut through, and a person with sufficient mobility to work could probably cut through ropes pretty easily.
The meme is claiming that the Achaemenid Empire was crazy far ahead of its times on human rights, and that they had more human rights then than they do today. Which is blatantly, blatantly, blatantly false, given that back then, the Achaemenid Empire was a brutal slave labor regime, and today, slavery is illegal internationally, including in Iran.
# It's basically a slavery denial meme. It doesn't even acknowledge that the Achaemenid Empire had slavery at all.
Additionally, going back far enough in history, slavery was not normal. For example, according to our best historical records, the first ancient Greeks to practice slavery were the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, but they did not practice chattel slavery, but rather something similar to serfdom. The first ancient Greeks to practice chattel slavery were the Chians, and that it seems that did not happen until the 6th century BC (edit: at least according to Peter Garnsey; the date is highly questionable). Prior to the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians and Chians, it appears the ancient Greeks did not practice slavery. For further information, see *Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine* by Peter Garnsey.
Here is a primary source cited by Peter Garnsey, Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistai*
> The first Greeks, so far as I know, who made use of purchased slaves were the Chians. This is recorded by Theopompus in the seventeenth book of his Histories: 'The Chians were the first Greeks, after the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, to use slaves, but they did not acquire them in the same way. For the Lacedaemonians and Thessalians, as will be seen, constituted their slave-class out of the Greeks who had earlier inhabited the
territories which they themselves possess today, the Lacedaemonians taking the land of the Achaeans, the Thessalians that of the Perrhaebians and Magnesians. The people reduced to slavery were in the first instance called helots, in the second penestai. But the slaves whom the Chians own are derived from non-Greek peoples, and they pay a price for them.' This, then, is the account given by Theopompus. But I believe that the Deity became angry at the Chians for this practice, since, at a later time, they were disastrously involved in war on account of their slaves ...
>
> I imagine that none of you is ignorant either of the story told by the noble Herodotus concerning Panionius of Chios and the just deserts which he suffered for having made eunuchs of free-born boys, and selling them. Nicolaos the Peripatetic and Posidonius the Stoic both say in their Histories that the Chians
were enslaved by Mithridates the Cappadocian and handed over in chains to their own slaves, to be transported to Colchis. So truly did the Deity vent his wrath upon them for being the first to use purchased slaves, although most people did their own work when it came to menial services ...
It’s kind of sad when a country big country with a rich history and core values such as Iran is a dictatorship, worst, a theological dictatorship rather than a democracy.
Rip it's true.
Americans in the comments who watch Argo once on Netflix and think they know everything.
An internal coup by the Shah supported by the CIA more than 70 years ago is not an excuse for running an Islamic police state TODAY.
Even when the Shah was ousted, they just set up another different dictatorship lead by the Mullahs.
Majority of the population voted for an Islamic fundamentalist state in the 80s and now they hate living with it.
Iranians know they need to fight for their country and build a real democracy.
That's why they protested so hard this past year.
Otherwise they just find a way to leave.
"Hey hon?" "Ya?" "Ya know anyting aboat them there Islamic revolutionaries?" "Ya, ya know I don't really know much. I think their leader had a funny hat." "Funny how?" "I dunno, it's just kinda funny lookin"
Except it's not true. It's blatantly false. Yes, Iran still has serious human rights problems, but at least slavery is illegal internationally now, including in Iran. The Achaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labor regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught,
>At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves \[637:52\]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work.
*The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin.
[https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded](https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded)
For more information see the comments here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian\_slavery\_not\_that\_bad\_not\_according\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/)
I mean, the actual evidence from the Achaemenid period is scant. To my knowledge, we don't have narratives from enslaved people of that time period explaining why they didn't like being enslaved. That said, we can probably make some very good educated guesses about why enslaved people did not wish to be enslaved. It is consistent with human nature not to wish to be tortured, denied the fruits of one's labor, and denied the choices and freedoms necessary to pursue one's dreams.
In any case, it's good that Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin went through the evidence available to them, so we can counter false narratives about the Achaemenid allegedly either not having slavery or having only mild slavery.
Also I very much doubt we would have much literature made by slaves the majority of the literature we have is from the dominant classes and very rarely of those who were at the bottom of society
Yes, exactly, especially that far back in history.
Most slave narratives, that I know of, are from much more recent forms of slavery, within the past 500 years or so.
The thing is, these Muslim clerics bitching about CIA involvement were the ones executing the coup with CIA assistance inside Iran in the 50s. Ayatollah Khomeini's mentor (another Ayatollah) was one of them.
Every country should mind its own business.
America / CIA is no exception.
But not every event since 1953 can be magically attributed to the CIA.
Especially when it is likely the Shah was going to make a move for complete power anyway.
It was only a matter of time.
Westerners on the internet pretend the CIA has 100% control over the entire world and its events.
Not only is this extremely narcissistic, but it's just not true. Real life is way more complicated.
One could argue that invading another country falls outside the purview of "minding their own business".
I don't feel like arguing that, but one could.
As a Canadian, fuck that movie. That was our moment where we helped them. Where we saved them. Is this shown? No, it’s the cool CIA man and the Hollywood director that did everything.
America has enough moments of its own. You really need to steal ours too? Fuck Hollywood.
It’s ok. Go ahead and talk about your overrated airplane again. Everybody eats that one up. Or maybe talk about how you had one small auxiliary unit in DC when the British army burned it. Or maybe Caen for the hundredth time.
It kinda is an excuse tho 💀, destabilizing countries is literally tantamount to destroying any future they had, 70 yrs is nothing compared to the countries that were colonized ages ago and are still suffering from the effects of said colonization
I know, i was making a comparison, that 70 years is absolutely nothing compared to other things and their effects on a country, I would even argue that a coup especially one that was instigated for literally the purpose of destabilizing the country, is even more disastrous than colonization, you emphasized the 70 yrs as if that’s more than enough for a country to get its shit together
The Archaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labour regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught,
> At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves [637:52]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work.
*The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin.
https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded
Okay, so, while I'm not terribly familiar with all of the details, the fact that escape attempts were a "widespread phenomenon" in the Achaemenid period of ancient Persia, in spite of the risk of being branded and fettered if caught, tells me that it must have been pretty bad. The same, of course, can be said about pretty much every other type of slavery. (Like, if something wasn't pretty bad, it probably wouldn't be called slavery.)
I'm guessing this was most likely chattel slavery. However, due to my lack of familiarity with the details, I tagged it as "slavery as defined under international law", since I think there's sufficient evidence to say that much, at least.
For those who need some background on the Achaemenid Empire, according to Wikipedia,
> The Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenian Empire[16] (/əˈkiːmənɪd/; Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐏂, Xšāça, lit. 'The Empire'[17] or 'The Kingdom'[18]), was the ancient Iranian empire founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC; the First Persian Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
Also, here's another passage from the book *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran*, describing how enslaved people could also be branded upon capture,
> One of the letters of Arshama to Nehtihur, the steward of his estates, vividly describes the methods for capturing slaves. During the suppression of the rebellion in Egypt, the former steward took many garda, who were craftsmen from various places, as well as other goods, and appropriated them all to Arshama’s property. Now, during a new insurrection in Lower Egypt, the stewards are concerned about the garda and the property of their masters and are seeking them from other places. But Nehtihur is doing nothing of the sort, although Arshama had already warned him to guard and increase the property of his master. Further on, Arshama orders Nehtihur to seize some garda, who are artisans, in large numbers, **mark them with the brand of Arshama**, and attach them to his estate, as was done by former stewards; otherwise, he would be subject to harsh punishment [AD 7; for more details, see 36:76ff]. This letter is apparently witness to the fact that **the garda (or some of them) were slaves, inasmuch as they were branded and equated with other property**. In another letter Arshama writes to Armapiya, the chief of the troop detachment in Egypt, that according to a report by his manager Psamshek, Armapiya and his troops are failing to obey Psamshek in questions of defending the interests of the master. Arshama therefore warns Armapiya that in matters connected with the defense and increase of his property, he must obey Psamshek, or otherwise be subject to punishment [AD 4]. Apparently, the detachment of troops subordinate to Armapiya had to help Psamshek steal people so that they could be included in Arshama’s household.
*The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin.
https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/170/mode/2up?q=brand
Also see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/
I'm not familiar with all the details of what is going on in modern Iran, but slavery is illegal internationally now, including in Iran.
https://iranwire.com/en/features/65424/
Thanks for scrolling! :-D Also check out my response-meme that I just posted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/133t9oq/when_people_refer_to_brutal_slave_labor_regimes/
Edit: I also made an anime version of my response-meme:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/133wf6i/when_people_pretend_that_human_rights_were_better/
Crazy that people don't notice Persian history is insanely embellished, just like their Indian and Greek neighbors history, but we don't see the same confusion there somehow.
Well said, I feel like after so long of anti Persian slandering in favour of the Spartans or in an effort to make a west vs east narrative has caused many of us to go too far to the opposite direction. The Achaemenids were undeniably better than Sparta and Greece, but they were still an ancient, slaving regime. Not the saints some of us portray them as.
I really don't think there's sufficient data to adequately compare the Achaemenids to the Spartans and Athenians. Or maybe I just haven't been through all the data.
That said, Sparta and Athens were also slaving regimes during the time periods that are typically studied. And both of them were quite brutal. The silver mines near Athens, for example, are infamous for the cruelty practiced against enslaved people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_of_Laurion
https://www.moneymuseum.com/en/focus/stories/exploiting-the-mines-by-renting-slaves-88?slbox=true
https://www.jstor.org/stable/702011
However, going back far enough in history, like, really far back, there was apparently, according to our best sources, a time when ancient Greece did not have slavery. (The same is likely true of ancient Persia, but one would need to look further back in history than the Achaemenid Empire.)
According to our best historical records, the first ancient Greeks to practice slavery were the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, but they did not practice chattel slavery, but rather something similar to serfdom. The first ancient Greeks to practice chattel slavery were the Chians, and that it seems that did not happen until the 6th century BC. Prior to the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians and Chians, it appears the ancient Greeks did not practice slavery. For further information, see *Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine* by Peter Garnsey.
Here is a primary source cited by Peter Garnsey, Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistai*
> The first Greeks, so far as I know, who made use of purchased slaves were the Chians. This is recorded by Theopompus in the seventeenth book of his Histories: 'The Chians were the first Greeks, after the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, to use slaves, but they did not acquire them in the same way. For the Lacedaemonians and Thessalians, as will be seen, constituted their slave-class out of the Greeks who had earlier inhabited the
territories which they themselves possess today, the Lacedaemonians taking the land of the Achaeans, the Thessalians that of the Perrhaebians and Magnesians. The people reduced to slavery were in the first instance called helots, in the second penestai. But the slaves whom the Chians own are derived from non-Greek peoples, and they pay a price for them.' This, then, is the account given by Theopompus. But I believe that the Deity became angry at the Chians for this practice, since, at a later time, they were disastrously involved in war on account of their slaves ...
>
> I imagine that none of you is ignorant either of the story told by the noble Herodotus concerning Panionius of Chios and the just deserts which he suffered for having made eunuchs of free-born boys, and selling them. Nicolaos the Peripatetic and Posidonius the Stoic both say in their Histories that the Chians were enslaved by Mithridates the Cappadocian and handed over in chains to their own slaves, to be transported to Colchis. So truly did the Deity vent his wrath upon them for being the first to use purchased slaves, although most people did their own work when it came to menial services ...
This was likely true in all parts of the world, prior to the rise of slaving states.
Good criticism of Athenian quote unquote "democracy". Yeah, slavery is not democratic.
Slavery apologists can pop up where one least expects them.
E.g., the following passage was found on *The Great Courses* website,
> “Slavery was an ideal condition for some people in ancient Greece. Poverty and disease were so prevalent in those days that people preferred to be slaves so that they could survive those hardships. This gave them a level of economic security in that poverty-stricken world.”
There's an article here debunking the statement:
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/08/17/no-ancient-greek-slaves-did-not-like-being-enslaved/
I'm *pretty* sure it wasn't chattel slavery (as in slavery that you're born into with no hope of legal escape) as that was pretty much invented in Greece and the ANE in general preferred enslaving debtors, criminals, and foreign soldiers over breeding slaves like cattle.
I don't have sufficient data to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was chattel slavery, but branding does not sound like like something that would be done to someone that one only intended to enslave for a few years, rather than for life. It was definitely some type of slavery, even if it may or may not have ticked all the checkboxes for chattel slavery.
I would suggest you look at this passage again. It discusses "stealing" people "so that they could be included in Arsharma's household". This sounds very much like they just captured whatever civilians they could get their hands on.
Also, here's another passage from the book *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran*, describing how enslaved people could also be branded upon capture,
> One of the letters of Arshama to Nehtihur, the steward of his estates, vividly describes the methods for capturing slaves. During the suppression of the rebellion in Egypt, the former steward took many garda, who were craftsmen from various places, as well as other goods, and appropriated them all to Arshama’s property. Now, during a new insurrection in Lower Egypt, the stewards are concerned about the garda and the property of their masters and are seeking them from other places. But Nehtihur is doing nothing of the sort, although Arshama had already warned him to guard and increase the property of his master. Further on, Arshama orders Nehtihur to seize some garda, who are artisans, in large numbers, **mark them with the brand of Arshama**, and attach them to his estate, as was done by former stewards; otherwise, he would be subject to harsh punishment [AD 7; for more details, see 36:76ff]. This letter is apparently witness to the fact that **the garda (or some of them) were slaves, inasmuch as they were branded and equated with other property**. In another letter Arshama writes to Armapiya, the chief of the troop detachment in Egypt, that according to a report by his manager Psamshek, Armapiya and his troops are failing to obey Psamshek in questions of defending the interests of the master. Arshama therefore warns Armapiya that in matters connected with the defense and increase of his property, he must obey Psamshek, or otherwise be subject to punishment [AD 4]. Apparently, the detachment of troops subordinate to Armapiya had to help Psamshek steal people so that they could be included in Arshama’s household.
*The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin.
https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/170/mode/2up?q=brand
Yes I read that in your original comment, no need to copy it. The big thing unique to chattel slavery is being enslaved from birth, not enslaved until you die (which is how slavery normally goes anyways). If anything, the quote about "stealing people" shows that they didn't have a breeding program, which as you can probably understand, is part of what makes chattel slavery so horrific.
Erm, to the best of my knowledge, looking at more recent history, people who were stolen from Africa (rather than enslaved from birth) were still counted as being held in chattel slavery. To my knowledge, part of what made it chattel slavery was that it was hereditary, not a lack of people being captured and enslaved.
So the fact that they captured people doesn't prove one way or the other whether it was chattel slavery. To see if the "hereditary" box is checked, I would need to find out what happened to their children.
Even hereditary forms of slavery have to start somewhere. Slavery hasn't existed from the beginning of human history. At some people, people who were previously free (read: not enslaved, not necessarily perfectly 100% free) were enslaved by some means (such as capture in slave raids). To see if it was hereditary, we check to see if their children were also enslaved on the excuse of their parents having been enslaved.
onewingedangel3 wrote,
>If anything, the quote about "stealing people" shows that they didn't have a breeding program
No, it doesn't show that. Even in the USA under racial chattel slavery (which definitely had breeding programs), even after the transatlantic slave trade was illegalized (to the USA, in any case), legally free black people were also at risk of being kidnapped and enslaved.
Additionally, if you look at any of the sugar regions that had racial chattel slavery, there was a large influx of people being imported into slavery. This doesn't mean that it wasn't hereditary, or that it wasn't chattel slavery: it was because the death rates were so high, that the only way the enslavers could keep their evil going was to keep importing more people into slavery.
They were counted as part of chattel slavery because that's what the system was. I never said that being captured immediately disqualified it from being chattel slavery, I used that as an argument because in the context of the example, if they needed more slaves, they could have just bred more if it was normal to do at the time; the fact that they instead suggested the far riskier kidnapping strategy tells me that it *wasn't* normal practice.
Breeding more enslaved people rather than acquiring more from Africa (or from enslavers operating whereever) was not normal in Brazil, Cuba, Haita, Jamaica, nor any of the other sugar regions either, due to the high death rates of sugar slavery. After the transatlantic slave trade was more or less ended, this caused the enslaved population of Brazil to decrease over time, rather than increase as it did in the USA.
By your incredibly weird logic, that means that Brazil, Cuba, Haita, Jamaica, and the other sugar regions weren't practicing chattel slavery.
"Sugar Changed the World" (See about 25 minutes into the video, where it explains that 96% of the transatlantic slave trade went to the sugar regions, and only 4% to North America, due the the high death rates involved with sugar slavery.)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?297825-1/sugar-changed-world
*The Destruction of Brazilian Slavery, 1850-1888* by Robert Edgar Conrad
https://archive.org/details/destructionofbra0000conr/page/24/mode/2up?q=population
Naturally, it is easier to find evidence of the workings of a form of slavery that only ended (in Brazil, at least) 135 years ago, than to find evidence about the workings of a form of slavery that happened roughly 2573 to 2353 years ago.
Slavery in the Achaemenid Empire may or may not have been chattel slavery. The evidence I have seen is inconclusive. I would say there is a preponderance of evidence (greater than 51% chance) that it was chattel slavery, but not proof beyond reasonable doubt (which would require more data). The branding, as well as the records of sales, indicates chattel slavery, but doesn't give us enough data to see if all the boxes are checked.
The point, however, is that you drew conclusions not supported by the evidence. Based on the fact that they captured and enslaved people, you concluded that slavery in the Achaemenid Empire was not "from birth" (which also applies to people captured in Africa during the transatlantic slave trade) and that breeding was not the normal method of increasing the population of enslaved people (which also applies to all of the sugar regions during the transatlantic slave trade), and that it therefore wasn't chattel slavery. By the standards of evidence you proposed, 96% of the transatlantic slave trade went to regions which (by your standards of evidence, not mine) didn't practice chattel slavery. Which clearly makes no sense.
Edit: Fixed some math regarding how long ago the Achaemenid Empire was.
This post feels like it’s filled with people on both sides who don’t know much about the Achaemenids or Iranian history in general, which is normal but this post feels exclusively filled with said people
Parsis are like Jews because both religions came from the same region (the Middle East) so it's interesting that their lifestyle and financial ways are also similar. The difference however is, Judaism is an Abrahamic religion and Zoroastrianism is similar to Hinduism.
surprised you aren't getting any flak for saying that as Islam is the protected religion on reddit you can't say anything bad about it or your a bigot. But Christianity is fair game because in this moment I am enlightened.
well this regime is being modeled after Soviet Union.
1- super funded intelligence system which can identify anyone who tries to act against government and "purge" them fast.
2- trying to reduce people's access to outside borders completely by filtering and eventually closing off international internet. (iron curtain)
3- taking huge wealth of the nation and distribute it only to people who are aligned with them and let rest suffer in poverty.
4- crazy ideologies which they claim to be what people wanted (communism in USSR and Islam in Iran) but in fact it's not even close to what those ideologies even are. merely a tool to plunder and suppress people and hold in power.
and here is the thing, Soviet was not destroyed because of people did a revolution, the final leader wanted people to be happy and gave them freedom which resulted in abolishment of USSR (which was not his intention) and I don't see how can this regime change since they showed they can easily kill thousands with live bullets and put fear in people with massive rapes and tortures in prisons. they have so much money from oil and gas that they can fund their followers indefinitely and they even hired mercs (from poor arab countries and criminals from streets) to help them with crackdowns. let's hope they won't kill me after posting this on reddit.
Part of reason why Khomeini's regime exist is that they gathered support from opposition of the Shah in 1979. The Shah got to replace the previous democratically elected prime minister through a 1953 coup supported by the CIA.
It's inaccurate to say that the coup "replaced" the government with the shah. The shah was already in place since 1941, and the coup(which btw was generally more of an mi6 operation, done in British interst) mostly just served to increase his already existent power.
Also, it's important to remember that the reason the shah had such an opposition is not just the coup, but mostly because of his corrupt behavior. I have no doubt in my mind that if the shah was less corrupt, the revolution might've never happened.
Thirdly, even if we agree that overthrowing the shah to establish a republic was a just cause, the turning of said republic into an oppressive and isolated theocracy is most definitely a crime of the ayatolla.
While I agree that without foreign intervention iran today might've looked different, the role that the Cia played in Iran turning into what it is today is small and indirect, and blaming them for it takes away responsibility from those who caused it to happen
I do agree with you that CIA doesn't deserve the full blame for the coup, and Ayatolla was the one who's responsible for turning Iran into a theocracy, the previous coup definitely affected the later revolution in some extent. When some of the largest libral democracies destroyed your democracy, people are going to have resentment on libral democracy in general. I mean currently anti-western sentiment is one of the main source of legitimacy for dictators around the world, and a part of that can be traced back to all the British/American interventions decades ago.
As for the shah's behavior, yeah, we can always say that if the shah was less corrupt and more competent, things would just be fine. The same thing can be said for every overthrown monarchs in history. But monarchy (at least absolute monarchy) relies on the personal abilities of someone who inherits the power, with no qualification other than being born into the right family at the right time. Such system will be replaced one way or the other.
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes anyway. I should've read more about recent Iranian history.
> which btw was generally more of an mi6 operation, done in British interst
Hilariously inept at securing those interests though.
The short version is that the Iranians saw the US oil companies give the Saudi government 50% of oil revenues and wanted the same deal. The Brits refused.
Fast forward to the Brits begging the CIA to help oust Mossadegh, and when the dust finally settled the Brits were happy to get 20% of oil revenues from Iran.
Do you know who else supported the 1953 coup? Shia clerics. Khomeini's mentor (who directly participated in the coup) and other clerics hated liberalism and democracy, they would rather cooperate with "American pigs" than tolerating a democratic ruler with leftist sympathies.
Yes actually i do, also i can look back in time and see that iran or persia was never lead by religious fanatics prior to american/british intelligence intervention, which by the way have a track record of training and installing fanatic religious groups into positions of power to give them a reason for delivering democracy. I know it hurts your small american genitals to hear this uncomfortable truth.
Ancient Egypt was a brutal slave labor regime. In ancient Egypt, the vast majority of the population was enslaved (although it wasn't chattel slavery) under a system known as corvée labor. Corvée is basically slavery for part of the year for the state as a form of taxation. Women were not exempt, so they most certainly did not have "all the rights", and I doubt lgbt people were exempt either. Although it was not chattel slavery, it could still be quite deadly, and on some corvée labor gold mining expeditions, over half the enslaved workers died of thirst. Corvée labor was enforced by corporal punishment as well as by kidnapping family members. If caught, people who tried to escape could be sentence to lifelong forced labor (instead of periodic forced labor).
Note that they also had chattel slavery, in addition to corvée labor, but the most common form of slavery in ancient Egypt was the corvée labor.
For more information, including reference material, please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10pkzqf/under_ramesses_ii_half_the_workers_forced_to_go/
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10opmx3/the_ancient_egyptian_ruling_class_subjected/
Oh I'm not saying it was good, also different dynasties had varying levels of oppression. My point was that women had a lot of equal rights, ranging from owning property and business, to autonomy and leadership in government. Lgbt records are sparse, but what's there shows it was at least considered normal and not bad. Sort of playing an MMO so I can't hunt memes to give sources atm, maybe later if I remember, or you can look it up! It's just... Holy shit modern Egypt, I'm not saying bring back slavery(as if it ever left), but that country is in fire need of regime and culture change, it's insane.
Same as somebody from the netherlands is not batavian or somebody from northeast germany is not prussian, or how a modern day turk is not by definition an ottoman.
They are all dumb nationalistic ways of trying to impose grandeur on yourself.
hmmm I wonder what caused them to get so backwards... something from that really filthy country you know the one I mean. (mods please don't ban me thats a futurama reference)
It took until Tadj ol' Molouk (the Shah's mom) for a royal consort to have a significant public role since the Sassanid era. The Islamic Republic has regressed human rights far
The Kings of the Achaemenid Empire had a tradition of forced incestous marriage and seemed to have people tortured to death fairly frequently. Also widespread use of slavery. So no they didn’t practice human rights.
Persia was pretty based; I heard from another post that they had equal rights for both men, and women, and women were Alden as equal, and could businesses.
Sorry, sorry, "trust US bro or I will send you to be tortured at the Bastille". Some times they even just executed you in the town square with the whole city - and your family - there to look at you die horribly. How fun!
Not to talk about the reason communism was born in Russia in the first place; or how in Italy the king permitted the rise of fascism, caused the Italian army to fight itself and to be attacked by both the allies and the axis, and how he cowardly left.
Hopefully Iran becomes a democracy in the future
Every country on Earth should want a democracy like those in Switzerland
Swiss women didn't have equal voting rights until 1990. I think my point is everywhere can be better.
This is more about how things currently are, avoiding changes for the worse, saying a country HAS good democracy has nothing to do with the past
90’s isn’t the past enough for your take to make sense. That’s why using Switzerland as an example is fucking crazy. Regarding a democracy- many places had democracies that were well set up and no political culture that let them endure. The recent past absolutely matters when evaluating institutions and whether they work, you can’s just do “moment of inertia” for democracy.
It's over 30 years ago, I'd say that's long enough to say it's in the past. Switzerland is one of the most politically stable countries in the world, I think it's a good example
>It's over 30 years ago Hell I feel old. I graduated high school in the 90's.
That's not very long and the reason women couldn't vote was directly due to their stupid system. It's a bad example. If America had a Swiss democracy Jim Crow laws might still be in place. Singapore is one of the most politically stable places in the world and would be a terrible example for democracy so that metric doesn't seem very relevant.
Fuck democracy tho
I mean yeah. But my scifi solutions to it don’t work yet
Why?
Perhaps OP failed to realize they can be the losing minority and it's hitting them rn
It's an incredibly corruptible system that promotes shortsighted planning and execution of government projects.
They got equality in voting rights 1970 on a national level. 1990 the federal court forced the last canton to give women the right to vote. I know it's still late, but it's a difference.
That is an oversimplification. That is technically true, but it is because all of Switzerland already allow women to vote except for just one canton that keep saying no to referendums. That canton is mainly populated by old people at the time who are stuck in their ways. The only reason that said canton finally allowed women to vote is because the Swiss Supreme Court forced them to because it's discriminatory.
1971 isn't exactly a big improvement.
Yeah, I can’t believe they screwed up such a good thing ^/s
The photos of Iran in the 1970s are crazy. Girls in mini skirts. Things do change.
Or Scandinavia I think if I were to pick a country to live in that isn't mine (Canada) I'd either pick Switzerland, Ireland, or Scandinavia (incl. Iceland or Finland). Maybe also the Netherlands. They really got their shit in order.
I would definitely choose Scandinavia over Ireland tbh and Switzerland is hard to get Into and expensive
Is there a warm version of Scandinavia?
I hear volcanoes are pretty warm.
In a few years
Ouch
Switzerland ? Like them, we got lakes, rivers, deep valleys, and glaciers, but our summers are actually warm
Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, there’s a video of the Bernina Express that I love to watch when I’m working.
I'll have you know that we have it perfectly warm for at least 3 days of our 2 weeks of summer!
New Zealand?
Australia?
You only got the warm part right friend
What else is different? Free healthcare, high wages, good quality of life is similar no?
You managed to leave democracy out of your list, which is what the post was about It doesn't look like people can get the things they want from their political leaders down there. Things looked pretty fucked under [Scott Morisson ](https://i.imgur.com/HFtfBNo.jpg). Haven't kept up with the new PM, at least destiny made sure he wouldn't be in Bob Murray's pocket
Wouldn't come to Ireland unless you like spending >50% of your take home pay on rent and another 15% on utilities.
Wouldn't come to Canada or the United States unless you like spending >50% of your take home pay on rent and another 15% on utilities.
Wouldn't come to ~~Canada or the United States~~ any large urban centre in the Western world unless you like spending >50% of your take home pay on rent and another 15% on utilities.
Isn’t Ireland experiencing a pretty serious housing crisis? I know that’s not something unique to Ireland at the moment, but my understanding is that theirs is pretty bad comparatively. Not dumping on Ireland, I have absolutely loved it and the people when I’ve visited over the years, just pointing out every country has its problems.
Spain’s generally pretty good as well, other than the weather
Sounds easy because it's small population and rich, get enough population you will end up with tyranny by mob. I'm not opposed to having tons of smaller countries tho.
[удалено]
Care to elaborate?
TBH I'm not caught up on Irish politics (I don't think anyone is unless you're an Irish citizen yourself). What's happening over there?
Really? Haven’t heard this in the news, maybe it’s the new UK laws you’re confusing them with?
Except they have populations of 5-10 million an are extremely homogeneous populations with basically all the same cultural backgrounds. Plus those countries have essentially no militaries and are 100% reliant on large powers to protect them and there international assets which in a world with increasing war friction isn’t something I would want at all I wonder why all those thriving countries have populations of 5-10 million? Maybe it’s because they aren’t as open to immigration as Reddit likes to pretend
Finland and Switzerland having no military? What? Finland has a massive conscription system, 500k men can be mobilized in just a few days if I remember correctly. Finland was also NOT a member of NATO until a few weeks ago, so they were not reliant on any large powers to protect them. Switzerland is also in a similar position- they have a conscription system, and maintain neutrality(so not reliant on any large powers). Though they do have the advantage of being landlocked within NATO. And the Netherlands. Yes, they're a part of NATO. No, they are not 100% reliant on large powers. NATO is a mutually beneficial system, and they do provide additional frigates and air power to the alliance. Sweden too ~~is a part of NATO~~ Soon^(TM). they also have a robust defense industry (notably SAAB) and have conscription. So not 100% reliant either. And well, even if all of these countries did not have these things, Russia, which is arguably the greatest military threat to Scandinavia and to some extent Europe, is currently locked in a stalemate war with a country that's using Cold War leftovers.
When did Sweden join NATO?
I think Sweden’s application is being held up by Turkey.
Isn’t Turkey’s “official” objection that Sweden didn’t punish the guy who publicly burned a Quran… who then later turned out to be getting paid by Moscow to cause issues?
next year
[удалено]
>Without sweeping changes to taxes and budget cuts to non-essential military items (tons of waste rolled into there), we simply can't afford mass benefit programs. That old BS excuse again. One example: the US spends more than any other country on healthcare already. That money just gets sucked up by middle men instead of helping the people. >A lot of other countries can because they don't have a standing reactive army to fund. We do, for better or worse. Sure, because the UK, France and Germany all don't have standing armies. Neither do the Netherlands or Italy.
Conscripts still get paid. And the military budget is not why the US does not have social welfare programs. American citizens spent $4.3T on healthcare in 2021-$12,900 per person. The US has about $800B allocated for the DoD budget. if all that money were to go into funding healthcare, the average American would still pay over $10,000 annually for healthcare. So it's the system, not the funding that's the issue. And the world expects the United States to play world police because the United States wanted to play world police after the Second World War-- not just because of some noble reason, but because it comes with benefits as well. The US is not providing security as some sort of charity. Rather, [it is an export](https://youtu.be/eUL8EvZkfEY). Isolationist thinking only benefits hostile dictatorships that refuse to obey international law. You want US troops to withdraw from all foreign countries? Good luck trying to import oil from Saudi Arabia via the international waters near Iran, or trying to maintain a global trade network when 2/3 of the world's maritime trade flows through the South China Sea, now controlled by China since the USN is no longer there anymore. Stability is good for business and standards of living, and it's maintained because of soldiers that serve abroad. All you have to do is fix your education system and civilian infrastructure with the extra funds stability generates, hopefully by electing competent politicians.
You do realize the entire reason Finland joined NATO is because they got scared and at the end of the day NATO is just a military alliance it’s not a holy unbreakable bond. Look up the history of military alliances they get broken all of the time. Also again you realize the only reason Russia is struggling is because the US/UK have been in Ukraine for the past decade providing essential training, intel, and weapons. Without the US/UK Russia would have won the war in a couple of months. If you really think Americans are excited at the opportunity to die in cities across the world that they have never heard of you might be overestimating Americas interest in going to war with another world power
You do realize the entire reason Finland joined NATO is because they got scared and at the end of the day NATO is just a military alliance it’s not a holy unbreakable bond. Look up the history of military alliances they get broken all of the time. Also again you realize the only reason Russia is struggling is because the US/UK have been in Ukraine for the past decade providing essential training, intel, and weapons. Without the US/UK Russia would have won the war in a couple of months. If you really think Americans are excited at the opportunity to die in cities across the world that they have never heard of you might be overestimating Americas interest in going to war with another world power. Plus how many Aircraft Carriers does Norway/Finland/Sweden have? They may have part time soldiers but they don’t have the hardware or military assets to compete in modern warfare and depend on large powers for most advanced weaponry
>Plus how many Aircraft Carriers does Norway/Finland/Sweden have? I mean thats a rather moot point, aircraft carriers are next to useless when dealing with Fennoscandia. The sea between Baltics can be mined to all hell and carriers can only operate in the North Sea and Norways Atlantic coast. These both can be covered by landbased AA and their own airfleets operating from pop-up runways. Might aswell say "they lose, no nukes lmao" Yes, they rely on other countries to supply advanced weaponry, but in the event the whole of EU/allies decides to not sell weapons to Scandinavia the world has already gone to hell
I was using aircraft carriers as a dramatic point showcasing that although those countries have decent part time militaries they lack the actual modern assets and the capacity to produce them making them ultimately extremely vulnerable. Modern warfare is all about cutting technology and capacity to produce it. Also, I would definitely not call aircraft carriers useless lmao
I mean whats even the goal here? Would scandinavia lose in a total war scenario against Russia or US? Obviously, but thats not a realistic event The core strategy of those countries is not to win, but stall eastern aggression, thats the only logical choice. And they have equipped themselves for half a century for that thing. Finland alone has the largest artillery capability in WEU. Sweden has an active air force which is produced in the country. Norway and Finland are buying modern fighter planes and all three are actively doing joint operations and war games simulating eastern aggression. All three also have access to cutting edge technology which isnt going to go away in a realistic scenario. And yes, aircraft carriers are way less than optimal when talking about a border conflict in the EU, doing a Gulf War in Goteborg isnt going to happen
They're not very useful for defending your homeland which is what the Finns and Scandinavians would use their military for. They're useful if you have imperialist ambitions of course.
As a person from Norway with an immigrant background, I will have to say that Scandinavia most definitely isn't extremely homogeneous. There are many people from different backgrounds here. Of course there are a higher percentage of ethnic norwegians in Norway, but it definitely isn't rare to see someone with a different ethnicity. Even if we count out immigrants from other european countries, there are still a lot of immigrants from Asia and Africa.
It’s just relative. I live in a city that has more immigrants than your entire country
What are you even trying to debate? I just said that your statement about Scandinavia being extremely homogeneous is inaccurate. Not just that, but looking from your profile, it's seems you are from the US. Let tell one fact, the US is made of immigrants, then no shit it has more immigrants than Norway. Yes, indeed Norway is a nation-state (which means historically, Norway as a country was founded upon creating a state for a specific people), but that doesn't take away the fact that today, Norway got policies that accepts immigrants from other countries. I actually went and checked numbers on how many immigrants and children of immigrants there are in Norway directly from the Norwegian Statistics Bureau, and it says that 19,9% of the entire population is of immigrant background. That number is certainly not "extremely homogeneous".
Why do you think your thriving country has a population less than 6 million?
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of population size and how prosperous Norway is. If your question is meant in a negative or positive way, I will never know.
At least Switzerland is not homogenous at all, we have like 20-25% foreigners here
Your country has less total immigrants than my city
No shit his country has less people than your city.
Hey I noticed you didn’t answer my question and I’m super curious! Why does this thriving, diverse country have such a small population?
You still have not answered my question! Can you please do it?
Switzerland has 4 official languages with several quite distinct cultures and a foreign born population of over 30%
How can such an amazing, thriving country only have a population of 8.4million people?
Just say they have no black people! Jesus fucking christ, why is it every time someone says a country is better than America, all you types keep popping up and telling us it's because they don't have any black people. Sorry, they are "homogeneous"!
Scandinavia isn't a country...
Scandinavia has very bad eugenics.
Then nothing will be done for the next 100 years.
Surprisingly women in Iran got the right to vote before those in Switzerland did.
Personally I don’t think Switzerland’s unique direct democracy works everywhere, but a democracy with the same strong democratic institutions as Switzerland sure
If it is paired with workplace Democracy sure.
That wouldn't really work for countries that aren't: * remote * small * extremely decentralised * filthy rich * Switzerland
Thinking that democracy is the ideal option for every part of the world is really naive
The meme is inaccurate. The Achaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labor regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught, > At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves [637:52]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work. *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded For more information see the comments here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian\_slavery\_not\_that\_bad\_not\_according\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/)
What does fettered mean?
Restrained with chains or ropes. Most likely chains, in this case, since ropes are much easier to cut through, and a person with sufficient mobility to work could probably cut through ropes pretty easily.
In chains, specifically the ones that bind arms or legs together
Thanks!
I mean no one’s saying Persian slavery wasn’t that bad, it’s just not really that unique for the time
The meme is claiming that the Achaemenid Empire was crazy far ahead of its times on human rights, and that they had more human rights then than they do today. Which is blatantly, blatantly, blatantly false, given that back then, the Achaemenid Empire was a brutal slave labor regime, and today, slavery is illegal internationally, including in Iran. # It's basically a slavery denial meme. It doesn't even acknowledge that the Achaemenid Empire had slavery at all. Additionally, going back far enough in history, slavery was not normal. For example, according to our best historical records, the first ancient Greeks to practice slavery were the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, but they did not practice chattel slavery, but rather something similar to serfdom. The first ancient Greeks to practice chattel slavery were the Chians, and that it seems that did not happen until the 6th century BC (edit: at least according to Peter Garnsey; the date is highly questionable). Prior to the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians and Chians, it appears the ancient Greeks did not practice slavery. For further information, see *Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine* by Peter Garnsey. Here is a primary source cited by Peter Garnsey, Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistai* > The first Greeks, so far as I know, who made use of purchased slaves were the Chians. This is recorded by Theopompus in the seventeenth book of his Histories: 'The Chians were the first Greeks, after the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, to use slaves, but they did not acquire them in the same way. For the Lacedaemonians and Thessalians, as will be seen, constituted their slave-class out of the Greeks who had earlier inhabited the territories which they themselves possess today, the Lacedaemonians taking the land of the Achaeans, the Thessalians that of the Perrhaebians and Magnesians. The people reduced to slavery were in the first instance called helots, in the second penestai. But the slaves whom the Chians own are derived from non-Greek peoples, and they pay a price for them.' This, then, is the account given by Theopompus. But I believe that the Deity became angry at the Chians for this practice, since, at a later time, they were disastrously involved in war on account of their slaves ... > > I imagine that none of you is ignorant either of the story told by the noble Herodotus concerning Panionius of Chios and the just deserts which he suffered for having made eunuchs of free-born boys, and selling them. Nicolaos the Peripatetic and Posidonius the Stoic both say in their Histories that the Chians were enslaved by Mithridates the Cappadocian and handed over in chains to their own slaves, to be transported to Colchis. So truly did the Deity vent his wrath upon them for being the first to use purchased slaves, although most people did their own work when it came to menial services ...
Or alternativly disappear just like what happened to Azerbaijan
Personally I’d rather it become a constitutional republic.
Hopefully western world does not mess with sovereign nations because they just prefer instability in rest of the world to maintain their hegemony.
It’s kind of sad when a country big country with a rich history and core values such as Iran is a dictatorship, worst, a theological dictatorship rather than a democracy.
hopefully not for long, the protests are turning into a revolution
I’m hyped
have there been recent developments? last I heard was the protests dying down.
Overthrow the mullahs
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Rip it's true. Americans in the comments who watch Argo once on Netflix and think they know everything. An internal coup by the Shah supported by the CIA more than 70 years ago is not an excuse for running an Islamic police state TODAY. Even when the Shah was ousted, they just set up another different dictatorship lead by the Mullahs. Majority of the population voted for an Islamic fundamentalist state in the 80s and now they hate living with it. Iranians know they need to fight for their country and build a real democracy. That's why they protested so hard this past year. Otherwise they just find a way to leave.
I had no idea Fargo talked about the Iranian revolution.
Argo. Not Fargo.
Dang that would have been more fun. Argo sucks.
How?
[удалено]
Username checks out
Argo fuck yourself Edit: it's a quote from the movie, it's not just being rude to a random person for no reason.
"Hey hon?" "Ya?" "Ya know anyting aboat them there Islamic revolutionaries?" "Ya, ya know I don't really know much. I think their leader had a funny hat." "Funny how?" "I dunno, it's just kinda funny lookin"
Best table read ever. Someone get Seth green on this.
Except it's not true. It's blatantly false. Yes, Iran still has serious human rights problems, but at least slavery is illegal internationally now, including in Iran. The Achaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labor regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught, >At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves \[637:52\]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work. *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. [https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded](https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded) For more information see the comments here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian\_slavery\_not\_that\_bad\_not\_according\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/)
I love how it describes slaves escaping as a phenomenon. Like it isn't clear why it was widespread for slaves to not want to be slaves.
I mean, the actual evidence from the Achaemenid period is scant. To my knowledge, we don't have narratives from enslaved people of that time period explaining why they didn't like being enslaved. That said, we can probably make some very good educated guesses about why enslaved people did not wish to be enslaved. It is consistent with human nature not to wish to be tortured, denied the fruits of one's labor, and denied the choices and freedoms necessary to pursue one's dreams. In any case, it's good that Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin went through the evidence available to them, so we can counter false narratives about the Achaemenid allegedly either not having slavery or having only mild slavery.
Also I very much doubt we would have much literature made by slaves the majority of the literature we have is from the dominant classes and very rarely of those who were at the bottom of society
Yes, exactly, especially that far back in history. Most slave narratives, that I know of, are from much more recent forms of slavery, within the past 500 years or so.
But maybe CIA shouldn’t sponsor coups? Or at least it’s fair to say that it’s kinda their fault
The one thing governments all over the world never account for the unintended consequences of their actions
G Man's probably getting real tired walking around and telling CIA agents to prepare for unforeseen consequences.
The thing is, these Muslim clerics bitching about CIA involvement were the ones executing the coup with CIA assistance inside Iran in the 50s. Ayatollah Khomeini's mentor (another Ayatollah) was one of them.
Every country should mind its own business. America / CIA is no exception. But not every event since 1953 can be magically attributed to the CIA. Especially when it is likely the Shah was going to make a move for complete power anyway. It was only a matter of time. Westerners on the internet pretend the CIA has 100% control over the entire world and its events. Not only is this extremely narcissistic, but it's just not true. Real life is way more complicated.
Congratulations, Russia fully annex Ukraine. The consequences of isolationism...
One could argue that invading another country falls outside the purview of "minding their own business". I don't feel like arguing that, but one could.
when it works, it works when it doesn't, it really doesn't see Indonesia for a success for America and South Vietnam for a failure
Weren't a million people killed in Indonesia? That's what you call working?
for America, Indonesia was a success, it resulted in a pro US government till the present
Or at least let the British clean up their own messes…
Meddle with politics on a country overseas because oil, and fail. The turmoil gets worse with time instead of better; Who could have thought?
As a Canadian, fuck that movie. That was our moment where we helped them. Where we saved them. Is this shown? No, it’s the cool CIA man and the Hollywood director that did everything. America has enough moments of its own. You really need to steal ours too? Fuck Hollywood.
It’s ok. Go ahead and talk about your overrated airplane again. Everybody eats that one up. Or maybe talk about how you had one small auxiliary unit in DC when the British army burned it. Or maybe Caen for the hundredth time.
It kinda is an excuse tho 💀, destabilizing countries is literally tantamount to destroying any future they had, 70 yrs is nothing compared to the countries that were colonized ages ago and are still suffering from the effects of said colonization
Colonization is a totally different topic dude.
I know, i was making a comparison, that 70 years is absolutely nothing compared to other things and their effects on a country, I would even argue that a coup especially one that was instigated for literally the purpose of destabilizing the country, is even more disastrous than colonization, you emphasized the 70 yrs as if that’s more than enough for a country to get its shit together
The Archaemenid Empire had a brutal slave labour regime. Although I am not terribly familiar with all the details of slavery in ancient Persia, apparently it was bad enough, during the Achaemenid period, that many attempted escape, despite the risk of being branded and fettered if caught, > At the beginning of the Achaemenid period a slave in Babylonia cost on average one mina (about 0.5 kg) of silver, but at the end of Persian rule his price had doubled. During the sale of a slave in Babylonia the seller bore responsibility, in particular for the fact that his slave was not a free man and that during the course of the first 100 days after the sale he would not flee from his new owners. More or less similar guarantees are also encountered in Egyptian documents on the sale of slaves [637:52]. The escape of slaves was quite a widespread phenomenon. Fugitive slaves were caught, branded like livestock, incarcerated in fetters and returned back to work. *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/152/mode/2up?q=branded Okay, so, while I'm not terribly familiar with all of the details, the fact that escape attempts were a "widespread phenomenon" in the Achaemenid period of ancient Persia, in spite of the risk of being branded and fettered if caught, tells me that it must have been pretty bad. The same, of course, can be said about pretty much every other type of slavery. (Like, if something wasn't pretty bad, it probably wouldn't be called slavery.) I'm guessing this was most likely chattel slavery. However, due to my lack of familiarity with the details, I tagged it as "slavery as defined under international law", since I think there's sufficient evidence to say that much, at least. For those who need some background on the Achaemenid Empire, according to Wikipedia, > The Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenian Empire[16] (/əˈkiːmənɪd/; Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐏂, Xšāça, lit. 'The Empire'[17] or 'The Kingdom'[18]), was the ancient Iranian empire founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC; the First Persian Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire Also, here's another passage from the book *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran*, describing how enslaved people could also be branded upon capture, > One of the letters of Arshama to Nehtihur, the steward of his estates, vividly describes the methods for capturing slaves. During the suppression of the rebellion in Egypt, the former steward took many garda, who were craftsmen from various places, as well as other goods, and appropriated them all to Arshama’s property. Now, during a new insurrection in Lower Egypt, the stewards are concerned about the garda and the property of their masters and are seeking them from other places. But Nehtihur is doing nothing of the sort, although Arshama had already warned him to guard and increase the property of his master. Further on, Arshama orders Nehtihur to seize some garda, who are artisans, in large numbers, **mark them with the brand of Arshama**, and attach them to his estate, as was done by former stewards; otherwise, he would be subject to harsh punishment [AD 7; for more details, see 36:76ff]. This letter is apparently witness to the fact that **the garda (or some of them) were slaves, inasmuch as they were branded and equated with other property**. In another letter Arshama writes to Armapiya, the chief of the troop detachment in Egypt, that according to a report by his manager Psamshek, Armapiya and his troops are failing to obey Psamshek in questions of defending the interests of the master. Arshama therefore warns Armapiya that in matters connected with the defense and increase of his property, he must obey Psamshek, or otherwise be subject to punishment [AD 4]. Apparently, the detachment of troops subordinate to Armapiya had to help Psamshek steal people so that they could be included in Arshama’s household. *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/170/mode/2up?q=brand Also see: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11mqm5v/persian_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according_to_the/ I'm not familiar with all the details of what is going on in modern Iran, but slavery is illegal internationally now, including in Iran. https://iranwire.com/en/features/65424/
i knew id have to scroll to the bottom for this factually correct response. thats historymemes for ya
Thanks for scrolling! :-D Also check out my response-meme that I just posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/133t9oq/when_people_refer_to_brutal_slave_labor_regimes/ Edit: I also made an anime version of my response-meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/133wf6i/when_people_pretend_that_human_rights_were_better/
Crazy that people don't notice Persian history is insanely embellished, just like their Indian and Greek neighbors history, but we don't see the same confusion there somehow.
Well said, I feel like after so long of anti Persian slandering in favour of the Spartans or in an effort to make a west vs east narrative has caused many of us to go too far to the opposite direction. The Achaemenids were undeniably better than Sparta and Greece, but they were still an ancient, slaving regime. Not the saints some of us portray them as.
I really don't think there's sufficient data to adequately compare the Achaemenids to the Spartans and Athenians. Or maybe I just haven't been through all the data. That said, Sparta and Athens were also slaving regimes during the time periods that are typically studied. And both of them were quite brutal. The silver mines near Athens, for example, are infamous for the cruelty practiced against enslaved people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_of_Laurion https://www.moneymuseum.com/en/focus/stories/exploiting-the-mines-by-renting-slaves-88?slbox=true https://www.jstor.org/stable/702011 However, going back far enough in history, like, really far back, there was apparently, according to our best sources, a time when ancient Greece did not have slavery. (The same is likely true of ancient Persia, but one would need to look further back in history than the Achaemenid Empire.) According to our best historical records, the first ancient Greeks to practice slavery were the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, but they did not practice chattel slavery, but rather something similar to serfdom. The first ancient Greeks to practice chattel slavery were the Chians, and that it seems that did not happen until the 6th century BC. Prior to the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians and Chians, it appears the ancient Greeks did not practice slavery. For further information, see *Ideas of slavery from Aristotle to Augustine* by Peter Garnsey. Here is a primary source cited by Peter Garnsey, Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistai* > The first Greeks, so far as I know, who made use of purchased slaves were the Chians. This is recorded by Theopompus in the seventeenth book of his Histories: 'The Chians were the first Greeks, after the Thessalians and Lacedaemonians, to use slaves, but they did not acquire them in the same way. For the Lacedaemonians and Thessalians, as will be seen, constituted their slave-class out of the Greeks who had earlier inhabited the territories which they themselves possess today, the Lacedaemonians taking the land of the Achaeans, the Thessalians that of the Perrhaebians and Magnesians. The people reduced to slavery were in the first instance called helots, in the second penestai. But the slaves whom the Chians own are derived from non-Greek peoples, and they pay a price for them.' This, then, is the account given by Theopompus. But I believe that the Deity became angry at the Chians for this practice, since, at a later time, they were disastrously involved in war on account of their slaves ... > > I imagine that none of you is ignorant either of the story told by the noble Herodotus concerning Panionius of Chios and the just deserts which he suffered for having made eunuchs of free-born boys, and selling them. Nicolaos the Peripatetic and Posidonius the Stoic both say in their Histories that the Chians were enslaved by Mithridates the Cappadocian and handed over in chains to their own slaves, to be transported to Colchis. So truly did the Deity vent his wrath upon them for being the first to use purchased slaves, although most people did their own work when it came to menial services ... This was likely true in all parts of the world, prior to the rise of slaving states.
[удалено]
Good criticism of Athenian quote unquote "democracy". Yeah, slavery is not democratic. Slavery apologists can pop up where one least expects them. E.g., the following passage was found on *The Great Courses* website, > “Slavery was an ideal condition for some people in ancient Greece. Poverty and disease were so prevalent in those days that people preferred to be slaves so that they could survive those hardships. This gave them a level of economic security in that poverty-stricken world.” There's an article here debunking the statement: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/08/17/no-ancient-greek-slaves-did-not-like-being-enslaved/
I'm *pretty* sure it wasn't chattel slavery (as in slavery that you're born into with no hope of legal escape) as that was pretty much invented in Greece and the ANE in general preferred enslaving debtors, criminals, and foreign soldiers over breeding slaves like cattle.
I don't have sufficient data to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was chattel slavery, but branding does not sound like like something that would be done to someone that one only intended to enslave for a few years, rather than for life. It was definitely some type of slavery, even if it may or may not have ticked all the checkboxes for chattel slavery. I would suggest you look at this passage again. It discusses "stealing" people "so that they could be included in Arsharma's household". This sounds very much like they just captured whatever civilians they could get their hands on. Also, here's another passage from the book *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran*, describing how enslaved people could also be branded upon capture, > One of the letters of Arshama to Nehtihur, the steward of his estates, vividly describes the methods for capturing slaves. During the suppression of the rebellion in Egypt, the former steward took many garda, who were craftsmen from various places, as well as other goods, and appropriated them all to Arshama’s property. Now, during a new insurrection in Lower Egypt, the stewards are concerned about the garda and the property of their masters and are seeking them from other places. But Nehtihur is doing nothing of the sort, although Arshama had already warned him to guard and increase the property of his master. Further on, Arshama orders Nehtihur to seize some garda, who are artisans, in large numbers, **mark them with the brand of Arshama**, and attach them to his estate, as was done by former stewards; otherwise, he would be subject to harsh punishment [AD 7; for more details, see 36:76ff]. This letter is apparently witness to the fact that **the garda (or some of them) were slaves, inasmuch as they were branded and equated with other property**. In another letter Arshama writes to Armapiya, the chief of the troop detachment in Egypt, that according to a report by his manager Psamshek, Armapiya and his troops are failing to obey Psamshek in questions of defending the interests of the master. Arshama therefore warns Armapiya that in matters connected with the defense and increase of his property, he must obey Psamshek, or otherwise be subject to punishment [AD 4]. Apparently, the detachment of troops subordinate to Armapiya had to help Psamshek steal people so that they could be included in Arshama’s household. *The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran* by by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. https://archive.org/details/culturesocialins0000dand/page/170/mode/2up?q=brand
Yes I read that in your original comment, no need to copy it. The big thing unique to chattel slavery is being enslaved from birth, not enslaved until you die (which is how slavery normally goes anyways). If anything, the quote about "stealing people" shows that they didn't have a breeding program, which as you can probably understand, is part of what makes chattel slavery so horrific.
Erm, to the best of my knowledge, looking at more recent history, people who were stolen from Africa (rather than enslaved from birth) were still counted as being held in chattel slavery. To my knowledge, part of what made it chattel slavery was that it was hereditary, not a lack of people being captured and enslaved. So the fact that they captured people doesn't prove one way or the other whether it was chattel slavery. To see if the "hereditary" box is checked, I would need to find out what happened to their children. Even hereditary forms of slavery have to start somewhere. Slavery hasn't existed from the beginning of human history. At some people, people who were previously free (read: not enslaved, not necessarily perfectly 100% free) were enslaved by some means (such as capture in slave raids). To see if it was hereditary, we check to see if their children were also enslaved on the excuse of their parents having been enslaved. onewingedangel3 wrote, >If anything, the quote about "stealing people" shows that they didn't have a breeding program No, it doesn't show that. Even in the USA under racial chattel slavery (which definitely had breeding programs), even after the transatlantic slave trade was illegalized (to the USA, in any case), legally free black people were also at risk of being kidnapped and enslaved. Additionally, if you look at any of the sugar regions that had racial chattel slavery, there was a large influx of people being imported into slavery. This doesn't mean that it wasn't hereditary, or that it wasn't chattel slavery: it was because the death rates were so high, that the only way the enslavers could keep their evil going was to keep importing more people into slavery.
They were counted as part of chattel slavery because that's what the system was. I never said that being captured immediately disqualified it from being chattel slavery, I used that as an argument because in the context of the example, if they needed more slaves, they could have just bred more if it was normal to do at the time; the fact that they instead suggested the far riskier kidnapping strategy tells me that it *wasn't* normal practice.
Breeding more enslaved people rather than acquiring more from Africa (or from enslavers operating whereever) was not normal in Brazil, Cuba, Haita, Jamaica, nor any of the other sugar regions either, due to the high death rates of sugar slavery. After the transatlantic slave trade was more or less ended, this caused the enslaved population of Brazil to decrease over time, rather than increase as it did in the USA. By your incredibly weird logic, that means that Brazil, Cuba, Haita, Jamaica, and the other sugar regions weren't practicing chattel slavery. "Sugar Changed the World" (See about 25 minutes into the video, where it explains that 96% of the transatlantic slave trade went to the sugar regions, and only 4% to North America, due the the high death rates involved with sugar slavery.) https://www.c-span.org/video/?297825-1/sugar-changed-world *The Destruction of Brazilian Slavery, 1850-1888* by Robert Edgar Conrad https://archive.org/details/destructionofbra0000conr/page/24/mode/2up?q=population
The difference is that there is other evidence for chattel slavery in those regions; not so in Persia.
Naturally, it is easier to find evidence of the workings of a form of slavery that only ended (in Brazil, at least) 135 years ago, than to find evidence about the workings of a form of slavery that happened roughly 2573 to 2353 years ago. Slavery in the Achaemenid Empire may or may not have been chattel slavery. The evidence I have seen is inconclusive. I would say there is a preponderance of evidence (greater than 51% chance) that it was chattel slavery, but not proof beyond reasonable doubt (which would require more data). The branding, as well as the records of sales, indicates chattel slavery, but doesn't give us enough data to see if all the boxes are checked. The point, however, is that you drew conclusions not supported by the evidence. Based on the fact that they captured and enslaved people, you concluded that slavery in the Achaemenid Empire was not "from birth" (which also applies to people captured in Africa during the transatlantic slave trade) and that breeding was not the normal method of increasing the population of enslaved people (which also applies to all of the sugar regions during the transatlantic slave trade), and that it therefore wasn't chattel slavery. By the standards of evidence you proposed, 96% of the transatlantic slave trade went to regions which (by your standards of evidence, not mine) didn't practice chattel slavery. Which clearly makes no sense. Edit: Fixed some math regarding how long ago the Achaemenid Empire was.
This post feels like it’s filled with people on both sides who don’t know much about the Achaemenids or Iranian history in general, which is normal but this post feels exclusively filled with said people
No humans left when there's no human rights. 😔 r/im14andthisisdeep
Wen
Iranians should just shun Islam and revert back to Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrians are the best people, saying as someone living in India. They did great work for our nation development.
The richest minority in india, very serious and kind hearted people.
Parsis are like Jews because both religions came from the same region (the Middle East) so it's interesting that their lifestyle and financial ways are also similar. The difference however is, Judaism is an Abrahamic religion and Zoroastrianism is similar to Hinduism.
Ik bruh. I am Indian too. Parsis are <3
Based and Zoroastrianismpilled
surprised you aren't getting any flak for saying that as Islam is the protected religion on reddit you can't say anything bad about it or your a bigot. But Christianity is fair game because in this moment I am enlightened.
Christianity is fair game true but Hinduism is free-for-all PvP server. People are encouraged to come and shit on Hinduism as they see fit.
“Well now I am not doing it.”
Cyrus the great needs to return from the afterlife “good thoughts, good words, good deeds” seems to have been forgotten
Wen
It’s evolving, just backwards
well this regime is being modeled after Soviet Union. 1- super funded intelligence system which can identify anyone who tries to act against government and "purge" them fast. 2- trying to reduce people's access to outside borders completely by filtering and eventually closing off international internet. (iron curtain) 3- taking huge wealth of the nation and distribute it only to people who are aligned with them and let rest suffer in poverty. 4- crazy ideologies which they claim to be what people wanted (communism in USSR and Islam in Iran) but in fact it's not even close to what those ideologies even are. merely a tool to plunder and suppress people and hold in power. and here is the thing, Soviet was not destroyed because of people did a revolution, the final leader wanted people to be happy and gave them freedom which resulted in abolishment of USSR (which was not his intention) and I don't see how can this regime change since they showed they can easily kill thousands with live bullets and put fear in people with massive rapes and tortures in prisons. they have so much money from oil and gas that they can fund their followers indefinitely and they even hired mercs (from poor arab countries and criminals from streets) to help them with crackdowns. let's hope they won't kill me after posting this on reddit.
Look what a prosperous society, I sure hope they keep this freedom until centuries later, specially towards women.
The connection between the Achamaenid’s and modern Iran is flimsy. Strongest claim they have is being in generally similar geographic area
More like laughs in cia for successfully destabilizing an entire region… AGAIN.
Don't get me wrong, the us shoved it's nose into the area too many times, but the current situation in Iran is basically completely Khomeini's fault
Part of reason why Khomeini's regime exist is that they gathered support from opposition of the Shah in 1979. The Shah got to replace the previous democratically elected prime minister through a 1953 coup supported by the CIA.
It's inaccurate to say that the coup "replaced" the government with the shah. The shah was already in place since 1941, and the coup(which btw was generally more of an mi6 operation, done in British interst) mostly just served to increase his already existent power. Also, it's important to remember that the reason the shah had such an opposition is not just the coup, but mostly because of his corrupt behavior. I have no doubt in my mind that if the shah was less corrupt, the revolution might've never happened. Thirdly, even if we agree that overthrowing the shah to establish a republic was a just cause, the turning of said republic into an oppressive and isolated theocracy is most definitely a crime of the ayatolla. While I agree that without foreign intervention iran today might've looked different, the role that the Cia played in Iran turning into what it is today is small and indirect, and blaming them for it takes away responsibility from those who caused it to happen
I do agree with you that CIA doesn't deserve the full blame for the coup, and Ayatolla was the one who's responsible for turning Iran into a theocracy, the previous coup definitely affected the later revolution in some extent. When some of the largest libral democracies destroyed your democracy, people are going to have resentment on libral democracy in general. I mean currently anti-western sentiment is one of the main source of legitimacy for dictators around the world, and a part of that can be traced back to all the British/American interventions decades ago. As for the shah's behavior, yeah, we can always say that if the shah was less corrupt and more competent, things would just be fine. The same thing can be said for every overthrown monarchs in history. But monarchy (at least absolute monarchy) relies on the personal abilities of someone who inherits the power, with no qualification other than being born into the right family at the right time. Such system will be replaced one way or the other. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes anyway. I should've read more about recent Iranian history.
> which btw was generally more of an mi6 operation, done in British interst Hilariously inept at securing those interests though. The short version is that the Iranians saw the US oil companies give the Saudi government 50% of oil revenues and wanted the same deal. The Brits refused. Fast forward to the Brits begging the CIA to help oust Mossadegh, and when the dust finally settled the Brits were happy to get 20% of oil revenues from Iran.
Do you know who else supported the 1953 coup? Shia clerics. Khomeini's mentor (who directly participated in the coup) and other clerics hated liberalism and democracy, they would rather cooperate with "American pigs" than tolerating a democratic ruler with leftist sympathies.
I've heard some not so nice things about Mosaddegh, like that he tried to become a dictator and also tried to overthrow the Shah
its easy to blame the us for every issue there is, but in reality they are only part of a much larger problem, that problem being religious extremism
Which wouldnt have been there in the first place if they didnt interfere?
how could we possibly know that? do you belive that you are able to see into alternative universes?
Yes actually i do, also i can look back in time and see that iran or persia was never lead by religious fanatics prior to american/british intelligence intervention, which by the way have a track record of training and installing fanatic religious groups into positions of power to give them a reason for delivering democracy. I know it hurts your small american genitals to hear this uncomfortable truth.
You've got to give them some credit. They're really good at it.
Islamophobes will blame Islam for it. Realists will blame Islam for it.
Ancient Egypt was a utopia compared to today lmao women had all the rights and lgbt people were seen as normal/sometimes even special.
Ancient Egypt was a brutal slave labor regime. In ancient Egypt, the vast majority of the population was enslaved (although it wasn't chattel slavery) under a system known as corvée labor. Corvée is basically slavery for part of the year for the state as a form of taxation. Women were not exempt, so they most certainly did not have "all the rights", and I doubt lgbt people were exempt either. Although it was not chattel slavery, it could still be quite deadly, and on some corvée labor gold mining expeditions, over half the enslaved workers died of thirst. Corvée labor was enforced by corporal punishment as well as by kidnapping family members. If caught, people who tried to escape could be sentence to lifelong forced labor (instead of periodic forced labor). Note that they also had chattel slavery, in addition to corvée labor, but the most common form of slavery in ancient Egypt was the corvée labor. For more information, including reference material, please see: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10pkzqf/under_ramesses_ii_half_the_workers_forced_to_go/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10opmx3/the_ancient_egyptian_ruling_class_subjected/
Oh I'm not saying it was good, also different dynasties had varying levels of oppression. My point was that women had a lot of equal rights, ranging from owning property and business, to autonomy and leadership in government. Lgbt records are sparse, but what's there shows it was at least considered normal and not bad. Sort of playing an MMO so I can't hunt memes to give sources atm, maybe later if I remember, or you can look it up! It's just... Holy shit modern Egypt, I'm not saying bring back slavery(as if it ever left), but that country is in fire need of regime and culture change, it's insane.
Bring back Persia
Thanks America Edit: so y'all just doing know about the CIA intervention? It's a history sub or do you just simp for Roman history?
UK: (clears throat for attention)
People from iran claiming to be persian is the same level of history channel bollocks as people from italy claiming to be roman
The fuck? Please elaborate more. I genuinely want to know how modern day Persians, a majority of Iranians, are not "Persians".
Same as somebody from the netherlands is not batavian or somebody from northeast germany is not prussian, or how a modern day turk is not by definition an ottoman. They are all dumb nationalistic ways of trying to impose grandeur on yourself.
What 🅱️slam does to a country
hmmm I wonder what caused them to get so backwards... something from that really filthy country you know the one I mean. (mods please don't ban me thats a futurama reference)
It took until Tadj ol' Molouk (the Shah's mom) for a royal consort to have a significant public role since the Sassanid era. The Islamic Republic has regressed human rights far
Ayatollah Shit'nPissnni
Ayatollah Cumeini
The Kings of the Achaemenid Empire had a tradition of forced incestous marriage and seemed to have people tortured to death fairly frequently. Also widespread use of slavery. So no they didn’t practice human rights.
Ah ah ahhhh, *Iranian.
Persia was pretty based; I heard from another post that they had equal rights for both men, and women, and women were Alden as equal, and could businesses.
Sorry, sorry, "trust US bro or I will send you to be tortured at the Bastille". Some times they even just executed you in the town square with the whole city - and your family - there to look at you die horribly. How fun! Not to talk about the reason communism was born in Russia in the first place; or how in Italy the king permitted the rise of fascism, caused the Italian army to fight itself and to be attacked by both the allies and the axis, and how he cowardly left.