Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if world history is violent, bloody, and not PC. Wait until the OP learns about the Arab slave trade from Africa, Native Americans with African slaves, Ghengis Kahn, the Japanese.Empire, the Assyrians, or what the Ottaman empire did.

The thing in common is that most of this violence was carried out by males.

And makes are more likely to be the victims of violence by other males. What’s your point?

I guess I'm sick of male school shooters, male invaders, mmale rapists, male NRA execs and on and on and on. There may be the occasional female doing this, but numbers pale in comparison. Why? Because we know how much effort it takes to create a person and don't feel as much need to mark our territory?

It's got nothing to do with superior knowledge or empathy on the part of women. Male involvement in violent activities starts with testosterone which is then exacerbated by socialization in which dominance over females and over other males is valued (by both men and women.) Assuming you're a woman, you can feel superior if you want, but men being the primary perpetrators and victims of atrocities doesn't have a lot to do with personal virtue on the part of individual women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if world history is violent, bloody, and not PC. Wait until the OP learns about the Arab slave trade from Africa, Native Americans with African slaves, Ghengis Kahn, the Japanese.Empire, the Assyrians, or what the Ottaman empire did.

The thing in common is that most of this violence was carried out by males.

And makes are more likely to be the victims of violence by other males. What’s your point?

I guess I'm sick of male school shooters, male invaders, mmale rapists, male NRA execs and on and on and on. There may be the occasional female doing this, but numbers pale in comparison. Why? Because we know how much effort it takes to create a person and don't feel as much need to mark our territory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if world history is violent, bloody, and not PC. Wait until the OP learns about the Arab slave trade from Africa, Native Americans with African slaves, Ghengis Kahn, the Japanese.Empire, the Assyrians, or what the Ottaman empire did.

The thing in common is that most of this violence was carried out by males.

And makes are more likely to be the victims of violence by other males. What’s your point?

Anonymous wrote:This is an open question and might be limited to those with some knowledge of Russian history, but I have been wondering this myself throughout the Ukraine conflict and actually do not have my own conclusion.

Both countries exist territorially because of colonialism. Both countries are guilty of bloodshed and genocide. Both countries have systemic racism.

When I think about it, America has been worse in past centuries, whereas Russia has been more brutal in modern history. Native Americans have faced more in terms of cultural and linguistic erasure than indigenous peoples in Russia (meaning non-Russian people that have been conquered or co-opted into the Russian Empire, preceding the Soviet Union). Many languages such as Chechen are still widely spoken in their nominal republics, for example. However, Russia is more overtly brutal in recent decades and has been across the board worse on human rights. In my opinion, Russia cannot be considered a modern country and very much adheres to old-word imperialist tendencies. On the flip side, compared with the US at the time, the Soviet Union was quite adept at finding a place and elevating all different nationalities - although it was generally in a performative sort of way, to show an artificial diversity of the Communist Party.

Does anyone with a history background have any thoughts on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if world history is violent, bloody, and not PC. Wait until the OP learns about the Arab slave trade from Africa, Native Americans with African slaves, Ghengis Kahn, the Japanese.Empire, the Assyrians, or what the Ottaman empire did.

The thing in common is that most of this violence was carried out by males.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You compare any European or semi European countries history to the US and the US comes off a lot better. Look at France in Haiti. The British looted India for generations and straight up stole South Africa wealth. Any country with an empire.

Darwin wins every time.

Too bad those little groups didn’t canoe over and take over Europe or Africa. But they were too busy fighting other tribes and not advancing their civilization much.

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if world history is violent, bloody, and not PC. Wait until the OP learns about the Arab slave trade from Africa, Native Americans with African slaves, Ghengis Kahn, the Japanese.Empire, the Assyrians, or what the Ottaman empire did.

Anonymous wrote:Russia deported most of the Tatars out of Crimea, kicked indigenous people out of pretty much anyplace "desirable" in their holdings, to be replaced with ethnic Russians. They completely leveled Grozny and much of Chechnya, they continue to oppress indigenous folk all throughout the country and now they are sending mostly indigenous people from rural territories to Ukraine as cannon fodder while Muscovites sit on their asses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You compare any European or semi European countries history to the US and the US comes off a lot better. Look at France in Haiti. The British looted India for generations and straight up stole South Africa wealth. Any country with an empire.

Darwin wins every time.

Too bad those little groups didn’t canoe over and take over Europe or Africa. But they were too busy fighting other tribes and not advancing their civilization much.

Anonymous wrote:This is an open question and might be limited to those with some knowledge of Russian history, but I have been wondering this myself throughout the Ukraine conflict and actually do not have my own conclusion.

Both countries exist territorially because of colonialism. Both countries are guilty of bloodshed and genocide. Both countries have systemic racism.

When I think about it, America has been worse in past centuries, whereas Russia has been more brutal in modern history. Native Americans have faced more in terms of cultural and linguistic erasure than indigenous peoples in Russia (meaning non-Russian people that have been conquered or co-opted into the Russian Empire, preceding the Soviet Union). Many languages such as Chechen are still widely spoken in their nominal republics, for example. However, Russia is more overtly brutal in recent decades and has been across the board worse on human rights. In my opinion, Russia cannot be considered a modern country and very much adheres to old-word imperialist tendencies. On the flip side, compared with the US at the time, the Soviet Union was quite adept at finding a place and elevating all different nationalities - although it was generally in a performative sort of way, to show an artificial diversity of the Communist Party.

Does anyone with a history background have any thoughts on this?

Anonymous wrote:You compare any European or semi European countries history to the US and the US comes off a lot better. Look at France in Haiti. The British looted India for generations and straight up stole South Africa wealth. Any country with an empire.