And to think that both of these were passed along as bringing civilization, enlightenment, and God to "savages".
Okay selling opium to impoverish Chinese from silver was objectively evil but if you were taught one half of what I was taught about the religion and rituals of mesoamericans... Let's just say that Christianity at its worst was still a legitimate improvement.
And to think that both of these were passed along as bringing civilization, enlightenment, and God to "savages".
And to think people like you have a beyond stereotypical view of what actually happened historically (it's fine though, because it click with your ideological view of the world)
Why are you all getting angry? The drawing is very accurate: the Brits forcefully opened China to trade despite the Emperor imposing an embargo on the silver that British traders would trade in exchange for opium. It was not only a public health issue because opium is addictive, it was also a matter of finances: China losing their silver would mean an inflation. To make an analogy, imagine if the Donald sold the gold from Fort Knock to buy himself coke. You go out one day, and suddenly bread is no longer $1,5 but $15 because the economy is collapsing. One of the British smugglers who was caught by the Chinese got skinned alive, but sadly, the British fleet starting waging war to force China to trade their precious silver for more drugs.
I'm not going to talk about what the Spaniards did, it just makes me angry. I got a replica of the Codex Borgia, and I'm still pissed that it's one of the few surviving codexes from these book-burning morons scared of their own shadows.
FRien said in comment #2619011: China losing their silver would mean an inflation.
But the problem before that was that China refused to sell for anything besides silver, and so Britain eventually started running out of silver (and running into silver inflation itself, I'd imagine), hence why British merchants started selling opium specifically for Chinese silver. And Britain primarily needed the trade and money at the time because they'd just bought every slave free in the empire. That was expensive.
FRien said in comment #2619011: I'm not going to talk about what the Spaniards did, it just makes me angry. [...] book-burning morons
Can we at least say that they had good intentions? That they were just trying to save the souls of the poor savages? Book burning is at least preferable to the people-burning they did to save the Lutherans from themselves.
AlsoSprachOdin said in comment #2619046: Can we at least say that they had good intentions? That they were just trying to save the souls of the poor savages? Book burning is at least preferable to the people-burning they did to save the Lutherans from themselves.
Good intentions of plundering cities of their gold, indoctrinating people with threat of death AND spreading plague + invasive species to endemic inhabitants?
Nope. Not even a sliver of good intentions. They just want to have people bow their heads to them, that's all.
No no no, I was referring to the book burning part. Maybe that's the indoctrination you're referring to. What do you think was the intention of the indoctrination you're talking about? As for the rest, yes they certainly wanted the gold. The diseases and invasive species were incidental, not some nefarious plan, unless there's some evidence otherwise.
Rathurue said in comment #2619048: They just want to have people bow their heads to them, that's all.
You're acting like the Spaniards were all a big evil monolith and not millions of different people. The House of Hapsburg certainly wanted to conquer the world by all appearances, but that's just the incentives of basic realpolitic.
Their real, nefarious plan... was race-mixing, as depicted in this drawing.
No no no, I was referring to the book burning part. Maybe that's the indoctrination you're referring to. What do you think was the intention of the indoctrination you're talking about? As for the rest, yes they certainly wanted the gold. The diseases and invasive species were incidental, not some nefarious plan, unless there's some evidence otherwise.
You're acting like the Spaniards were all a big evil monolith and not millions of different people. The House of Hapsburg certainly wanted to conquer the world by all appearances, but that's just the incentives of basic realpolitic.
Their real, nefarious plan... was race-mixing, as depicted in this drawing.
Land exploitation + land plundering + mass rape (which was one of the main ways diseases were spread) But "they weren't all an evil monolith! They were people too!" haha yeah i'm sure some conquistadors went with big sparkly eyes and big generous hearts to spread peace, prosperity and their semen across the ocean, and it was of course done with consent amirite
What a fucking failure of a civilisation this is..
Mayhem-Chan said in comment #2622818: haha yeah i'm sure some conquistadors
When I referred to "the Spaniards" I meant the Spaniards. Not the conquistadors specifically - I don't think there were "millions" of those, but of course that depends on your (conveniently absent) definition of such. And when I suggested the Spaniards might have had good intentions, I was responding to the matter of book burning that FRien brought up. I was not talking about anything related to land or sex, consensual or not. Framing what I said about good intentions as relating to those subjects is completely disingenuous. ESPECIALLY AFTER I ALREADY CORRECTED Rathurue ON DOING THAT EXACT SAME SHIT IN THE COMMENT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO.
Mayhem-Chan said What a fucking failure of a civilisation this is..
The Spanish Empire was incredibly successful. The failure here is you. We could talk about the merits of #allconquistadors, but I don't trust you to do so with any honesty.
The Spanish Empire was incredibly successful. The failure here is you. We could talk about the merits of #allconquistadors, but I don't trust you to do so with any honesty. -6 Reply
The only honesty we have here is bloodshed and pillaging, that's all I see in history.
The only honesty we have here is bloodshed and pillaging, that's all I see in history.
There's a lot written in the history books about violent conflicts because they tend to shape the course of history, and judging from modern conflicts I don't trust the old ones to have involved much honesty either. But history is also shaped by technological innovation, and I don't expect a great deal of lies involved with pottery shards found in ancient Chinese river valleys or sixteenth-century Dutch windmills. Not everything in life (or history) is shit. Cheer up, you world-weary [nah, I'll try to be politer].
Leave a comment