• GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Religion has not done a lot of good in the world lately. Turns out the “my way or the highway” approach creates nothing but death and violence.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a Brit I’m always shocked people focus on us so much. Like yeah we fucked up a lot of places and did awful things, but basically every country in Europe has committed atrocities that are as bad if not worse, like the French in Vietnam or Belgium in Africa, or mother fucking Spain basically wiping put the entire south American continent.

        • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most of the current day border conflicts are related to the past century’s British policy, both due to the extent of the British Empire and its little interest in preventing trouble in their way out. You see similar issues with French ex-colonies, but since they weren’t as many they don’t appear as much in the news. Border conflicts in old Spanish colonies mostly took place during the 19th century, and they’ve been independent for long enough for their current issues not to have as much to do with Spain anymore. In contrast, there are British people alive today who were kicking around when the victors of WWII decided to split Palestine in half without asking Palestinians for their opinion, and afterwards chose to ignore the ethnic cleansings of Palestinians.

          In any case, you shouldn’t take of this personally, unless you actually hold any position of relative power.

          • V H@lemmy.stad.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You see similar issues with French ex-colonies, but since they weren’t as many they don’t appear as much in the news.

            Or people aren’t as aware of them. E.g. notably their mandates in Syria and Lebanon after World War 1 where they intentionally stirred divisions on the basis of a theory of wanting to keep it so France as a mediator was needed in order to keep them stable. And then they fucked off and left chaos behind.

            • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair enough. Also, English speaking people will be relatively less exposed to conversations in French, which should be more oriented towards French colonies than English colonies.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Palestinians were in fact asked for their opinion before the UN voted to split it in half…

            There’s a shituation very comparable to Palestine happening today in Western Sahara. A former colony of Spain.

            • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Palestinians were in fact asked for their opinion before the UN voted to split it in half…

              Do you have a source for this?

              There’s a shituation very comparable to Palestine happening today in Western Sahara. A former colony of Spain.

              Fair enough. Spain had an UN mandate that ordered them to oversee the process of decolonization, and instead they just gave it up to Morocco against the wishes of the Saharawi people themselves. The contemporary attitude of both the US and Spain is disgusting in this issue.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If he’s referring to what I’m thinking about it was the Arab league that was asked. They said “no” and the UN said “we don’t care”

                • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I replied to a post that claimed they weren’t asked for their opinion. Instead of working with the UN to decide on how the territory should be split they just said “we don’t care”. It’s like refusing to go to your divorce or custody hearing because you think it’ll be unfair

                  Their plan was to get the neighbouring countries to invade and capture the entire territory

                • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So the majority of Palestinians just flat out refused to discuss splitting their country apart, just like it would happen everywhere. The way in which you presented facts is disturbingly misleading.

                  • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m just replying to the statement they were never asked about their opinion. How is that misleading?

        • V H@lemmy.stad.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Three things: Scale, recency and contrition or perceived lack thereof.

          The British Empire is the largest empire there has ever been. At its greatest extent, in 1920, it covered about 1/4 of the entire world, long after having lost many holdings like the US. The second largest, the Mongol Empire, reached almost the same size, but hundreds of years earlier.

          In the same time period as the British, the Russian empire covered <20% in 1895, but its proportion of colonial lands to their own was much smaller than for the British Empire and the proportion of the current world population living in those areas is also much smaller. The French colonial empire covered less than 1/10th of the world at its peak in 1920, and was by far the other largest recent holding of colonies geographically and culturally outside of the immediate sphere of the holding country.

          Spain is rarely brought up, I think, in large part because the Spanish empire reached its peak in the early 1800’s and so is “history”. Belgium doesn’t get discussed at much because 98% of their colonial holdings was Leopold II’s personal ownership of the Congo Free State. And then we get to the last bit: Contritition.

          Nobody goes around saying the massive scale of gross abuse that happened under Leopold II’s rule of the Congo Free State was a good thing. Few people I’ve met ever defend France’s atrocities in Vietnam. Even the defence of their ownership of Algeria, which was special enough to trigger an attempted coup against Charles de Gaulle when he wanted to let it have independence because many saw it as part of France itself, is relatively muted.

          But there’s still mainstream support for the British Empire in the UK. There are still people who insist the British Empire was awesome for the colonies that were exploited because they got English and rails and British legal systems and that somehow outweighs the mass murder and brutal exploitation and erasure of local cultures.

          E.g. this survey from 2019, where 32% were proud of the British Empire, 37% were neutral, and only 19% considered it “more something to be ashamed of”. 32% were proud of their country’s history of colonialism and oppression. Critically this was significantly higher than for other colonial powers other than the Dutch. At the same time 33% thought it left the colonies better off vs. only 17% who thought they were worse off.

          I’m not British, but I’ve lived in the UK for 23 years, and I’ve experienced this attitude firsthand from even relatively young British people (ok, so all of them have been Tories) - a refusal to accept that the fact that a substantial number of these former colonies had to take up arms to get rid of British rule might perhaps be a little bit of a hint that the colonial rule was resented and wrong.

          No other modern empire has left behind such a substantial proportion of the world population living in countries that have either a historical identity tied up to rebelling against British rule, and/or have relatively recently rebelled against British rule, and/or still have substantial reminders, such as Commonwealth membership or the British monarch as their monarch. When a proportion of the British population then keeps insisting this was great, actually, there you have a big part of it.

        • jhulten@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          We aren’t giving the others a pass, but this shitshow has a certain Etonian stench. It’s like the British Empire looked at Zionist and saw a shared colonial heart…

        • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the general focus comes from the particular reach of the British empire controlling ~ a quarter of the world, but I agree every major power has done it

          That said, in this particular conflict, it’s more about how right after WWII , around the time when the United nations was founded. The world powers knew they basically owned the world at this point with nuclear tech, but justified it by arguing they should use this power to preserve countries borders.

          Around the same time when the world powers are saying this, land that Britain colonized in Palestine was given to create Israel. Which is hypocritical.

          I can understand machiavellianism in the context of pre 1950 geopolitics, but there will never be peace because of the decision making of Western powers doing something they have acknowledged is unethical

          • V H@lemmy.stad.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            1/4 yes, but also worth mentioning that today far more than 1/4 of the present-day population live in that quarter of the world that has a history of being under British rule in recent history.

            Couple that with the UK population being far more likely to be proud of the empire, wish Britain still had an empire, and insist the colonies wee left better off for having been oppressed, the British Empire has a certain stench about it many of the others haven’t, or haven’t anymore because of either age, a greater willingness to admit it was a bad thing, or lack of scale.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not to be an imperial apologist, but there was one colony that was actually better off under British rule and that was Hong Kong.

              • V H@lemmy.stad.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think Hong Kong is the rare exception that’s at least possible to reasonably argue, since the alternative was never independence but being ruled by someone granting even fewer freedoms.

          • TanakaAsuka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s because you can trace at least some of this specific problem directly back to British imperial rule in the middle east.

            • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, they intentionally drew national boarders to split ethnic populations and ensure infighting amongst country.

              The aim was to keep the region destabalized and unable to strike at their former oppressors.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Traditionally, churches and other religious institutions, have been good at building community and programs that benefit the less fortunate among us. You know, the whole “love your neighbor as yourself” thing.

        More and more, though, it has devolved into not much more than political extremism and often hateful rhetoric and even calls to physical violence.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think that is new. It’s true that it helps. But religions have always been involved in war. Up until 200 years ago the Pope was the most powerful person on the planet for at least 1000 years.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In all seriousness, community is the biggest benefit of religion, and the reason I’m ok with it existing in modern society. The idealized church (and these do still exist in smaller churches) is a safe place for people to come, not be judged, and find acceptance and support.

        A friend of mine goes to a church like this, and honestly sometimes I’m jealous. I’m as atheist as they come in my personal beliefs, but hearing all the actually cool stuff they do to support their members is really cool. I don’t agree with their religion, but they’re practicing it right as far as I’m concerned.

        Religion should absolutely be either personal or small community, though. As soon as you have states using it as justification for violence, that religion has stopped being useful or acceptable.

        • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed, it’s mostly community as far as personal benefits. We had a friend group through it that fell apart recently and my wife wants to go back to church only for the community.

          Outreach is mostly a guise in my opinion, a show that’s put on to make the congregation think their money is being used wisely. I have a lot of disdain for organized religion though, having grown up in it and painfully “deconstructing” a couple years ago. I can’t step foot in a church ever again (minus a wedding).

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, for sure there’s some scummy stuff churches can do with money. Again, that’s not EVERY church, and the bigger it gets, the more likely the preacher has a supercar. Some have actual accountability, and actually spend the money helping congregation, but it can take some looking to find them, and unfortunately they’re overshadowed by the Joel Olstein style mega churches.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religion is a plague. It’s the reason we’re going to destroy ourselves. How many of the people who deny climate change (and every other batshit insane position taken by lunatics) are religious right-wingers? By far, most.

      • protovack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        the communist elite in china don’t give AF about climate change and they’re nothing close to “right wing” or religious. you’re just cherry picking to make a (very weak) point.

        • kboy101222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not religion, but it is strict adherence to an ideology and refusing to acknowledge facts that contradict the ideology or make it inconvenient

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religion or not, it sure would be nice if we could not killing civilians and not genocide.