this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
776 points (98.1% liked)

memes

22505 readers
2932 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (38 children)

No tribes totally wiping another out before then? History is not that kind. I doubt it was a utopic land before someone else arrived.

[–] Phantaloons@piefed.zip 7 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Historically speaking, it heavily depended on where you were. Supposedly many East-Cast tribes, especially the Cherokee were already conglomerates of several other tribes.

Horses were also a new element in the world of Native Americans, and surely had a good bit to do with leveling the playing field between warring tribes.

source: old man wisdom, dyor

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (12 children)

All i'm saying is there's no violence that westerners have done that wasn't already done at some other time before they arrived. The difference is the distance, the scale and of course the cultural and ethnic differences. I've found that the more different the dominating group is from the victim group the more well atrocities are remembered. It's still ethnically visible for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today. It's all a wash. Their people and the people they tormented are hard to tell apart now in contrast to people of Spanish dissent and of course to this day there's a white preference in the region. It's just easier to see and draw lines when people look more visibly different.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

It wasn't really a small group of conquistadors that took down the Aztecs. It was the conquistadors along with a bunch of tribes that were willing to ally themselves with some strange men that spoke a different language and had a completely different culture. The conquistadors were able to find allies because of how horrible the Aztecs were.

European history is full of examples of tribes invading from somewhere else. Those invaders were doing so because they had to leave where they lived was invaded by someone else. It's similar in pre-Columbian America.

It's only when cities started having strong walls and organized militaries that the ethnic cleansing and genocide became less commonplace, enough so these atrocities became noteworthy and better documented. Humans are tribalistic and violent, there's no special ethnicities that were above being that way.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)