this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
408 points (86.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

150 readers
1209 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Omg, I recently started playing an retired MMO on some emulated servers and this was totally the vibe. With no economy or large influx of new players all your old stuff just piles up and you keep it, hoping someone will someday show up who can use it. Things had value but not in the sense you could even start an economy. For me, I loved getting end game weapons, which are an absolute grind, then gifting them. I had a few but it was always more satisfying to give them away.

I was also told the most profound thing while playing. Someone said, "you're hogging yourself." Since I really like playing solo. I still haven't reconciled it. Like I don't want to hog myself but at the same time it doesn't seem like others want to play with me. I try to be inviting but I guess the only thing I don't really do is make myself vulnerable. Like truly vulnerable. I'm scared to though.

[–] feedum_sneedson 2 points 1 hour ago

damn, these savages noble af

[–] [email protected] 13 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Imagine being able to successfully convince yourself that the existence of defences, and conflict, between neighbouring indigenous nations, is equivalent, to the point of nullifying, sailing around the globe genociding and enslaving its population as you go, for profit.

White supremacy is a hell of a drug.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 7 points 2 hours ago

The OP paints native culture as Utopian, when even some cursory historical knowledge of the Aztecs and Incas would refute.

But its upsetting to think three centuries of ruthless pogroms and genocidal wars can be so easily justified by announcing "Native life wasn't perfect".

White supremacy is a hell of a drug.

The White Man's Burden

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 63 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

There’s no way humans didn’t have human problems. This seems like an extension of the “good ol’ days” that views the past with rose tinted glasses. There absolutely would have been theft, murder, laziness, have-nots…whatever. People are people.

Ninja edit: found this.

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/9753/8729.02.conn.1991.punishment-precolonial-indigenous.ch.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Banishment, execution, murder, and theft among other things were absolutely a thing.

[–] WelcomeBear 34 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I would go so far as to say this is some classic “noble savage” bullshit that only serves to dehumanize people.

[–] PugJesus 14 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, in a big way. The European colonists committing genocide on the Native Americans does not have to have the Native Americans as inhuman angels to be a massive atrocity and grievous wrong, and trying to take the position that the Native American societies were is nothing more than a xenophilic form of cultural conservatism and chauvinism.

Native American peoples were people, like any other, with human problems common to any society, unlike what this quote implies. They do not have a 'magic' history for outsiders to aspire to become 'as good as', they do not have the secrets to the elimination of the dastardly social ills of 'civilization'. They're people. They're people who deserved better than the atrocious treatment that they got, but the 'Noble Savage' stereotype is no more humanizing or acceptable than the 'Ecological Indian' stereotype.

[–] Donkter 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It kind of goes both ways. Just because "people are people" doesn't mean any comparison of the savagery of two cultures is suddenly invalid. Native Americans had war, rape, disease etc. but then they got colonized by one of the most brutal, violent cultures in the world at the time.

If I lived with a spouse and kids in the suburbs and a murderer came in and killed my family. It would be pretty silly for my friend to say "stop trying to paint your old life as perfect. You and your wife were people. You fought often and you were hiding a gambling addiction. I swear this "noble domestic bliss" stuff is really not helping your cause."

[–] PugJesus 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

but then they got colonized by one of the most brutal, violent cultures in the world at the time.

The past is filled with cultures which commit genocide, mass mutilations, torture, systemic rape, etc. The Europeans are only notable because they had unusual success, because that success came at the same time as philosophical development which began to make that treatment towards other Europeans taboo, and because that success eventually was leveraged into a system of strict hereditary privilege we're still dealing with today.

The Europeans were not more torture-happy than the Natchez, not more murderous than the Aztecs, not more mutilatory than the Sioux.

What the Europeans were was hypocrites. At a time when humanist notions of basic dignity and universal brotherhood were being preached by scholars and theologians, European soldiers were murdering and enslaving Mesoamerican peoples en masse. In an era when tolerance was quickly becoming the watchword of the day, European priests burned ancient texts in the Americas for the suspicion of pagan notions. In an era when 'all men are created equal', American colonists denied not only the right of the Native American tribes to be equal polities, but even denied them the ability to be equal citizens.

It's less jarring when a culture which believes that incorrect ritualism will doom the universe murders people for religious reasons, or when a culture admits that it finds the murder of women and children to be an honorable deed to slay civilians, or that a chauvinistic culture extols itself above all inferiors; compared to one that preaches one value and acts according to another entirely. Not even in a selfish manner, but in a manner suggesting a total reversal of their claimed principles.

When American colonists murdered American tribes from the youngest to the oldest, saying 'nits make lice', that was not some exceptional deed that had never happened before in the history of the world; a scant few generations ago Europeans were doing just that to one another; American tribes had done the same to each other since times immemorial; same with every other suitably wide collection of cultures on the planet. The difference was that we were supposedly 'civilized' enough to recognize the basic dignity of one color of our fellow man, but none of the others.

THAT is what makes European colonialism repulsive beyond the 'normal' passage of history, the butchering of Saxons by Franks, or of Pawnee by Sioux, or of Chinese by Mongols. We claimed to know better - we demonstrated an understanding of the values that should have prevented such action - we demonstrated the ability to restrain ourselves in dealings with fierce (European) foes - and yet we proceeded to indulge in the worst impulses of man that we claimed we had left behind anyway. We were not ignorant, we were not running on fundamentally different values that made murder somehow okay like Bronze Age fanatics - we made a deliberate choice to exclude subsections of our fellow man from the 'enlightened' values we were redefining our civilizations by.

They were not medieval peasants who knew no higher word than their lord's. They were not Aztec warriors brought up in a culture of human sacrifice and flower wars. They were men who were raised reading the works of the humanist enlightenment, whose norms should have excluded many of the actions they took - but when they saw a human being of a different color than them, they turned every last goddamn one of those norms on its head like they were the Hebrews bashing in the skulls of gentile infants in the Bronze Age.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

I really appreciate this perspective (it's something I hadn’t considered before) Standing up for equal rights doesn’t mean we need to glorify or unconditionally defend a group, no matter who they are. For example, opposing police racism doesn’t require me to justify the actions of every Black criminal or attribute every single crime solely to systemic factors. (Though, of course, they often play a significant role.)

People are people. We all have the best and worst human traits somewhere inside of us, and we deserve human rights not despite of that, but because of that.

[–] Hamartia -3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Were there not many different tribes? It stands to reason that there could well have been a range of different lifestyles too. Including that described above.

My point being that other recorded experiences with native americans do not invalidate this rosy reminiscence.

It is in no way a workable solution to the modern maladies of this fractious over-crowded planet but it does help to have a range of idealised utopias to draw from in our discussions of how to proceed.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 0 points 2 hours ago

My point being that other recorded experiences with native americans do not invalidate this rosy reminiscence.

I'd actually point to the excepts from Columbus's own journals, catalogued in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to identify a number of native tribes he initially encountered who were practically childlike in their innocence.

The Caribbean island peoples were documented in sharp contrast to more imperial mainlanders as extraordinarily passive, initially quite friendly, and devoid of the more rigid hierarchies and institutions common in those more technologically advanced societies.

The only bit that doesn't really fit is the horses, which hadn't arrived from Europe yet

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Ok. An unsourced meme is not historical fact. It’s disturbing that it’s even taken as valid with no corroborating information, you arguing as if it were true, and using opinion to manufacture “proof” such a “different tribes” and “lifestyles”. There’s plenty of made up bullshit floating around on the internet in pic/text format, why is this one granted any more believability? Do you have a legitimate source indicating any such “utopias” or do you just want to keep making things up?

[–] Hamartia 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Why does it upset you so much? It is, as you say, a meme. Just a meme. It's not peer reviewed or held to any measurable standard that warrants getting yourself worked up over. It's not taught in schools or repeated on any serious news platform as fact. It's just a meme.

I too doubt if it is real. It's just entertainment. Just like when I watch a tv show, I can choose to momentarily suspend belief when I engage with it.

Is it flat out impossible for some native peoples to have had that quoted experience? I don't think so. I don't also think it would have been common at all. But not impossible.

Are you sure that it is not the sentiment of the meme that you are really objecting to rather than it's credibilty. Why not write a critical analysis of it. It would make for a more interesting conversation.

For one (speaking from my experience reading about the 'wild Irish'), there is often a might makes right in the anarchy of these losely connected groups of people that is often brutal. Those at the bottom of the social ladder probably wouldn't have such a rose tinted overview of it.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 2 points 2 hours ago

So if I disagree with you I’m “upset”? Now it’s just a meme and not the basis for your theories on native peoples?

can choose to momentarily suspend belief when I engage with it.

This is ridiculous. I provided a factual and objective source of information. Now you’re going on about the Irish, grasping at straws, and flat out saying feels before reals. Goddamn no wonder we got trump for president.

Take a hike.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (27 children)

The number of people that want to quote native Americans and talk about how native Americans were screwed over by the white man and how terrible it is all the things that have been done to them divided by the people in that group who are willing to give up their property and their lives and move back to their ancestral homes is the same as any number divided by 0.

And I'm saying this as a Lakota man.

You don't want to actually do anything about the problem with native americans.

You just want to feel Superior to other people.

But don't get off of your high horse because I'm sure the fall will kill you.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho 79 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

"As early as the year 1000, for example, Huron, Neutral, Petun and Iroquois villages were increasingly fortified by a timber palisade that could be nearly 10 metres in height, sometimes villages built a second or even third ring to protect them against attacks by enemy nations."

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was going to say. First Nations did not have some amazing peaceful utopia. They killed each other for resources too.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Almost as if they were human, doing human things

[–] Klear 2 points 10 hours ago

Damn humans. They ruined humanity!

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Kinda weird that everyone had a horse. Considering there where no horses in the Americas before colonialism.

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There were. They just happened to have died out. So, ancient native Americans, potentially horse-knowledgeable, and then they died out 10000 or so years ago.

Which is an even weirder and more fun fact, an addendum fact.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 13 hours ago

There were no horses in America, there were evolutionary ancestors of horses that would not be able to fulfill any horse role.

Just like zebras are not horses and wolves not dogs. They would obviously not be owned by Native Americans nor would the Native Americans have a remarkable body of knowledge about them (like they developed with actual horses).

Horses were bred to be big and strong enough in Central Asia.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] samus12345 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This feels very "noble savage."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown 27 points 1 day ago

This perpetuates an inaccurate stereotype, and separately, it makes no sense. Downvoted.

[–] shalafi 31 points 1 day ago (13 children)

A man's worth was measured by how good he was at killing the other tribe's men. So there's that.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

Native Americans weren't/aren't some monolithic people. Back then they no doubt had a lot of different ideas on measuring a man's worth.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›