At least 347 and up to 504 civilians, almost all women, children and elderly men, were murdered by U.S. Army soldiers. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated, and some soldiers mutilated and raped children as young as 12.
only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., the leader of 1st Platoon in C Company, was convicted. He was found guilty of murdering 22 villagers and originally given a life sentence, but served three-and-a-half years under house arrest after his sentence was commuted.
Research has highlighted that the My Lai Massacre was not an isolated war crime. Nick Turse places it within a larger pattern of American atrocities enabled by deliberate policies from commanders, such as “free-fire zones” and “body counts”, as well as widespread racism amongst American military personnel. Many other atrocities were also covered up by commanders.
Why you should know about this: It is important to know about history so that we can learn from it, avoid the mistakes and atrocities of the past, and know which institutions have a history of performing atrocities, trying to cover them up, etc. and what that looks like.
While there are plenty of cultures on the planet, they all seem to trend towards authoritative leaders. There are probably some very small cultures that are exceptions. But it seems to me if you get a group big enough, it goes that way.
As for you personally. I mentioned mutations. You had some differences that allowed you to escape the societal pressure to be a conservative. And likely without that pressure, you wouldn’t have come so far to the other side. The issue is that not enough people are born able to do that. And often they end up persecuted for even trying. So the mutation doesn’t propagate as much as those without it.
No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong about this.
It’s not an issue of biology, it’s an issue of society. Humans have constantly resisted and struggled against unjust rule. The drive for freedom is innate, and nearly impossible to fully quench.
The major issue is that the systems of oppression we are in are so complex that their true nature is hard to grasp, and it feels nearly impossible to fight against. That’s the problem - not that humans somehow “evolved” over maybe a hundred generations to be subserviant - and it can be solved through education and by building an optimistic movement focused on growth and incremental achievable goals.
Humans did not evolve to form hierarchical societies, that’s completely and absolutely ridiculous, I’m sorry. The structures of society we have now are very modern and would be completely unrecognizable (and much, much less free) to someone even a short thousand years ago. Evolution does not happen over that kind of a timespan.
Not to mention that evolutionary psychology is a bullshit quack discipline almost exclusively practiced by extremely racist people to justify their eugenics and race science.
You are very confident about things that are easy to prove wrong.
Hierarchical societies have been around a long time. A very large variety of animals today have hierarchical concepts in their socialization. So you can use your inflamatory statements to try and hide how little basis the things you say have in facts. But it doesn’t make them any less false.
The more "I’m sorry"s, “ridiculous”, “bullshit quack…”, and association of the opposing view with racists and such you do. The more obvious you have no real logical arguments. Just like the people who talk louder to get noticed because they have nothing to say that people are interested in.
I have literally studied ancient human civilizations. Please, I am begging you, go educate yourself about early human societies, how they were structured, what the average daily life of someone living in those societies was like, what their relationship to authority, power and hierarchy were, and the history of nation states. I can’t provide an education to you over the Internet, but you can at least learn for yourself instead of repeating whatever brainwashing has been instilled in you.
I’d recommend the book “A History of World Societies”, it’s kind of written as a textbook for students, but it’s pretty engaging and I’m sure you’d learn a lot from it.
I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is up to you.
Look back at your own comment history, then look at the comment with all the drama. It stands out a lot. Normally you are level and making logical points, but in the one with ridiculous and such, you aren’t.
Can’t seem to find that book available on libby, so will have to do some extra digging. My info comes from mainly articles, not books. So I will take a look, as sometimes articles can misrepresent the people they are quoting or the work those experts have done. But usually that is done to sensationalize things. Not much of that happening in the area of ancient societies.
Sorry for the slow reply, I’ve been meaning to get back to you for nearly two weeks now, but I wanted to wait to collect my thoughts and to be in the right kind of head space to address your comment.
At the end of the day, I’m a flawed human, I have all sorts of feelings and emotions. Sometimes, I get upset, or angry. I try to avoid engaging with people when I’m feeling that way, but again, I’m not always successful at the things I attempt. I can only try my best, and apologize when I’m not doing my best, so I’m sorry about that.
Now, to be fair, I’m sure you would agree that there are some things which are just absurdly wrong - for example, if someone was arguing that the earth is flat, for example, I might just dismiss that argument as ridiculous - not necessarily because I can’t disprove it, but because it’s not in my interests to engage with that argument in good faith - maybe because I’d see it as a waste of time, or because I know that it’s a topic that I find personally distressing and want to avoid so that I don’t get too worked up.
I agree that dismissing claims as absurd is very unconvincing, but sometimes people just believe different things from us, and that we can’t always convince people to change their minds. That’s just something that we all need to accept to remain sane in this world, especially if we’re inclined towards arguing with others on the Internet.
The truth is, I was raised by someone who held extremely racist, white supremacist beliefs, and that person would regularly use evolutionary psychology and similar arguments to justify their beliefs. It was also a very abusive environment, as you can probably imagine. So this is a really tender area for me, which is why you saw the reaction you got.
I am not accusing you of believing in any of those things, I’m sure you don’t, I’m sure you’re a very kind person who cares about rationality and doing the right thing, so please don’t misunderstand me - what I’m trying to explain is that the topic is kind of triggering for me, and that there are lots of people who use similar arguments for, what I’d consider to be, evil ends.
Actually, it happens all the time, that’s one of the reasons I got a bit upset with you - I see it all the time and not only do I find it extremely frustrating as someone with a lot of knowledge of ancient human civilization but it’s very often some far-right crank nonsense. The paleo diet is probably the best known example of this, but a lot of scientific racists use ancient human civilizations to justify their racism, western chauvinism, white supremacy, and so on. Heck, there’s a reason fascists always seem so obsessed with the Roman Empire. Carl Benjamin calls himself Sargon of Akkad for a reason.
Anyways, with all of that said, I’d like to share a link to a section on an anarchist FAQ - Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice? - I think it’s pretty interesting and demonstrates a historical example of a functional anarchist society. For a functioning anarchist society today, you could look into the Zapatista movement in Mexico, too.
So a few ideas. Saying agree to disagree is an easy way out if a subject is triggering. They say a broken clock (analog lol) is right twice a day. Even a flat earther could say something that is true in their argument, or even have an interesting idea that might lead somewhere. So while dismissing themmis the easy way out, and it is okay to take the easy way sometimes, it still isn’t the best way. And yes, we are all flawed, I have no shortage of flaws myself.
On the topic of justifying. I’m not trying to justify actions. I am trying to say we should expect them and not be surprised by them. We shouldn’t assume the person is just completely evil, but that they are too weak to do better, to do what is right, and they have succumb to ancient instincts that are no longer needed, but still exist nonetheless. Humans are mostly driven by chemicals they can’t control.
Ass for spain. I agree that if a group manages to hit critical mass, it can for a time operate as under anarchist ideals. But one of the ways it was accomplished in spain was that those who didn’t share those ideals could leave. And many of such people were also the ones dieing in the civil war. So it is almost like selecting a group by eliminating those of a certain opinion, and allowing any left to leave if they want. In the end, those of that differing opinion are simply outnumbered. And humans are known to go with the flow. That is why too many put up with dictators they don’t believe in. It can work in a small cut out of society. But to do it for the whole of society would require getting rid of a significant amount of the capitalist. Which is why I say, not enough of us have evolved past that drive for power and influence yet, for it to work. And I wish I knew how to speed it up. But progress will slow down when it happens. And thats okay. The overhead of communication and such is just much highed when organized by committee versus a single leader. Ifeally we find a way to elevate leaders who aren’t in it for the power and influence. But that is very hard.
It’s the best way for me. I’m guessing you don’t have experience with PTSD, but if I get into an argument with someone about a topic which is triggering, for the next day or so, I won’t be able to sleep, I’ll have hallucinations of terrifying things which aren’t there, panic attacks that come out of nowhere, cold sweats, flashbacks… I could go on. I don’t care if someone might possibly have one good idea amongst all of their bad ones if that is the cost.
Yes, of course, that is absolutely a foundation stone of anarchism: voluntary association. Everyone must always be free to associate, or not, as they see fit.
True capitalists who actually own capital are vanishingly few compared to the working class. They’re a rounding error. We do not need to get them on side to succeed. They can go off and do their own thing if they want to, have a real Atlas Shrugged society in a mountain. In reality, they need us, so once there is a critical mass, they will either join our society, or learn to work for themselves, rather than by exploiting others.
If you’re talking about self-serving behavior, I understand what you mean, but anarchism is actually completely compatible with self-serving behavior. In fact, one of the major traditions of anarchism, egoist anarchism is entirely centered around that concept.
Finally, the “drive for power and influence” isn’t in our nature, but it is rather a response to environmental conditions. Do you see an elephant at the circus and assume that juggling balls must be in an elephant’s nature? If we change the system of incentives which govern our society, human behaviors will change and adapt to match.
This can never, ever work. Even if you find people who aren’t in it for that, they will almost definitely always be corrupted. Power corrupts. That is one of the founding principles of anarchism.
I do understand your ptsd comment, though I have not experienced anything that severe.
I don’t think that a capitalist has to actually own capital to contribute to the problem. So I think there are a lot more people that will keep it going hoping to become someone who owns the capital. I believe the phrase is “power abhors a vacuum”
And I do agree that power corrupts. Maybe not 100% of the time, but a lot. The idea though is that is we elect people who are in it for the people, when they do get corrupted, it will be far more likely they can be removed. Kind of a checks and balances thing.
Overall, I do like the idea of enclaves. Give people a choice of how they want to live. But the problem is that the capitalist can’t resist finding a way to exploit all the rest.