VehiclesFashionRecipesBlogsHuntTravelsSportFunHandmadeITEducation
Mini-Games
x

x
zakruti.com » Knowledge, science, education » Whatifalthist
The 6 Most Extreme Societies Ever(Were One.

The 6 Most Extreme Societies Ever(Were One.

FBTwitterReddit

video description

Rating: 4.0; Vote: 1
The 6 Most Extreme Societies Ever(Were One. Xavier2291: The video maker has some really out there takes on Icelandic being libertarian culture, then he borders on a bias lens against societies that foster equality. He seems to have a fanatical view against Civil Rights groups and equity w/ his remarks on social justice and this belief that humans are naturally hierarchal forgets that for thousands of years humans lived in hunter gatherer cultures where tribes weren't led by one single uniformed system and more likely elders and chiefs, but not with a concentration of absolute hierarchy just deference to experience. Like for example, my ancestors the Tainos had a kasike system where deference went to a chief, but he was more like experienced leader who wasn't a king just someone people respected and when they disagreed, they did their own thing, he didn't enforce his will by violence. Those were Caribs who were far more violent prone. My ancestors were known as the Happy People. They didn't wage war, they didn't conquer, they had high social equality among the genders and didn't really have a structured law system or even warriors. We fostered the idea of just do good, be good, and help where you can. We chilled in our Bohios and when Christopher Columbus came, we helped him without thinking twice. He proceeded to kill just about every person he could and the Spanish raped Boricua and destroyed our culture. The assumption that humans are hierarchal or even violent is not true, it just depends on where and when. Also, I do agree island cultures tend to become more extreme in any one direction without competition from neighbors. My ancestors the Boricua Arawak Tainos were also islanders.
Date: 2022-07-15

Comments and reviews: 9


14: 25 France didnt leave Algeria because they lost the will to fight, they left because Algeria was too hard to keep. France had failed to assimilate or integrate Algeria enough, and as such they were faced with either giving full citizenship to all Algerian or keeping the status quo of only Pier Noirs being citizens. The first option was unthinkable for De Galle because it would have meant allowing a large Muslim population have free transit in France proper, while the second option meant continuing to fight a guerilla war which France could not afford both blood wise and monetary wise. So they gave them independence through a referendum. Honestly the only thing France could have done to keep any part of Algeria is to concentrate the Pier Noirs in a specific area around Oran and annex that.
reply

England had a hard enough time of feeding itself half the time during the industrial transition, so honestly did they really have the kind capacity to help people elsewhere like we do today? No. Militarily and economically dominating another nation is not the same as having the capacity to actually subsidize or care for that nation, which Britain did anyway since they left places like India with miles of rail lines for example. Food has only been truly plentiful really since about 1900, maybe even WW2.
I think their seemingly cruel rationalizations are just that, post facto rationalizations for situations they couldn't really control on a class or individual level. Society is much more organic than intentional since any one individual only has so much power.

reply

to be clear what marx said was that revolution will occur spontaneously when the people self-organize out of economic desperation, are repressed by the government, and defend themselves. marxist/leninist stuff is meant to be a guide for those who manage to come into power after this, to give the people what they wanted. if a revolution comes from the top or from a small group then of course it's not going to be pretty
reply

16: 18 ok about that the thing is that if the british wanted gandhi dead they had no limitations of power in that. They did not not kill him because they felt it was morally wrong they did not not kill him they were afraid that a repeat of 1857 would happen which would have been a huge blow to UK's economy. You think india was window dressing but Britain got a lot of money from india they just could not leave.
reply

Not only do Amish live in 19th century style, Amish live like 19th century dorks, they could be super swagalicious by building Greek revival homes, riding in Victorian-esque horse carriages, wear three piece suits, and eat cattle drive-quality food but noooo instead they choose to live in boring boxes, ride in boring boxes, dress like nerdy farmers, and eat bland baked goods
reply

Kids not playing outside without supervision and miles of paperwork for fear of being sued when someone gets hurt, are both American things, not western things. In Europe it's still common for children to play outside without supervision and if someone gets hurt, then it's mostly determent by law who is responsible and contracts can't change that.
reply

The thing about IQ is that its grossly misused. IQ tests were intended to test for retardation. That is what its good at. Its not good at measuring actual intelligence, that is pretty much impossible. Yet it continues to be used as a measurement for intelligence, especially in the USA. Its an extremely flawed test for those purposes.
reply

Rappers rap about their environment. Country/Rock and Pop can't fabricate lyrics of a lifestyle they don't know anything about. Plus you left out white rappers like Eminem in the photos. FYI. Although Kane Brown would never be canceled
reply

Your definitions of fairness is a bit weird. Its more like just world fallacy or Calvinism. Its easier to accept unfairness and injustice to some degree than it is to be lied to and told meritocracy exists where it doesnt.
reply
Add a review, comment






Other channel videos