you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Historically, almost all social progress has come from stopping before you kill your oppressor and making him reorganize the system in a way that works better. Just killing the oppressor usually only gives you another one a short while later.

Also historically, a small minority of oppressors ever accepted a truce where they reorganize the system. And killing the ones that didn't let people run the dice again with a new one.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Historically, Europeans aren't very interested in reorganizing their slave colonies until you start beheading them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Just to note, but that one didn't end in a great society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Not that Haiti was necessarily at fault for that, though. It was either brace for further conquest, or submit to incredibly harsh terms of peace that would still see the country stripped of all its wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    They could not have a series of civil wars, though. And the people on that revolt specifically using a more complex system to judge the civilians than "what is your skin color?" would have contributed a lot to help the country improve some decades after the revolt.

    Of course, it's not really something they could just stop and choose to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What historical events ended the way you say? None seem to come to mind. Unless the corruption is systemic, like the Romans and Spartans, removing the problem typically solves the problem for a few generations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)