Thread:Eureka Enderborn/@comment-27097330-20170312034719/@comment-26347028-20170313022952

ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Argali1 wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Argali1 wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Argali1 wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: I have one question; the Tauredain have an economy that isn't feudal? Yes. Tauredain is just a blanket term used by those of Numenorean descent and elves to refer to the people of the jungles. That extends from small nomadic tribes to port cities. Cities which, again, don't exist. Says who? Says reality. Oh boy, the queen of Eurocentrism strikes again. Do me a favor and look up the reconstructions of Tenochtitlan, Tikal or Teotihuacan. We're talking about jungles, here, Argali. Tikal and Teotihuacan are the only examples (of those given), and bad examples, due to how little being actually known. While, yes, there are some fancy ruins there that are classed as "ancient cities" we're talking about the mediaeval era here. That would not be a city. Teotihuacan fell in about the 8th century, and Tikal in the (late) 9th. We're well after that in LotR. I find it funny how you didn't say anything about Tenochtitlan. And for your information, Tikal was a huge and thriving metropolis.

It's really interesting that you have the nerve to call me racist because I identify as Jewish, yet you assume that anyone who's brown can't do jack-shit. You're doing your culture proud, Jody. You're continuing the age old British practice of being blatantly racist and then shunting the blame off on one of your targets. "We're talking about jungles" (or, in this case, rainforests) seems pretty clear. Tenochtitlan wasn't exactly in such an environment. Tikal fell, and for the information we have, a "thriving metropolis" could mean literally anything.

I don't feel proud that what you attribute as "my country" has been powerful, and abusing that power, throughout history, Argali. The fact remains that, comparatively, yes, everyone else was very weak. Hence why, for many years, they were abused, and tortured. When we speak of horrible tyrants, we shouldn't speak of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao - we should speak of Leopold II, but we don't. I don't take any pride in the fact that Europe repeatedly brutalised natives. Yet, all the same, I'm not a fool. The main reason people are powerful is because they abuse those without power - and that is generally how they stay in power. The Europeans, throughout history, had the power, and abused those without. If, to you, that statement is incredibly racist, then, by all means, throw around your meaningless labels. But, may I reiterate they are indeed meaningless. The Roman Empire also fell and yet you would you argue it was a great empire? The fact Tikal fell has little to do with it's size or thrivingness. Thrivingness? Thrivocity? Thrivocation?

The problem with that thinking is that it indirectly promotes the idea that the Europeans won that power. "They abused less powerful people," can easily be interpreted as, "They looked out for themselves and took the power they needed," when in reality that's not true. It's that kind of thinking that encourages might makes right as a whole. The moment it fell, it stopped being a powerful Empire. That's how power works.

They did win that power, Chaz, they won it by force. Does that make it theirs to take? Certainly not, but to claim that they took it by anything other than force is... ludicrous, really. They didn't take what they needed, they took what they wanted. And others suffered for it. That's how the world works. One person profits off of another's misery, ad infinitum.