In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn’t completely fall into shit.
This strikes me as a touch revanchist.
Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in.
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.
The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.
I don’t think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
I stand corrected on a lot of stuff. But I was referring to the imperial core of those people’s rule. Like without the United States most billionaires would not exist, but they are doing less nothing. They are stripping everything for parts. That is what stands different. The British build Britain up (even if it was socialist leaning policies that elevated most poor out of poverty) at the expense of everyone else, they didn’t simply have niche enclaves where they had everything but left the rest of the country/cities into as much shit as is happening now.
Like without the United States most billionaires would not exist
I mean… maybe? The US is ground zero for this aggressive wealth aggregation. But Russia and Germany and India and the Kingdom of Saud and Qatar and even the Evil CCP have a fair share of billionaires. It certainly isn’t impossible to do wealth aggregation outside the US. Hong Kong alone has 67 of them.
The British build Britain up
I gotta say, I disagree. Balkinize Britain. It had 500 years to fuck around. Maybe time to do a bit of Finding Out. Liberate Ireland. Independence for Scotland and Wales. Let London become one of those dystopian Charter Cities, like what they did in Singapore and Hong Kong and Panama and what they’re planning for Gaza, and allow the rest of England to wither on the vine.
Then British refugees can flee to Spain and France, where they can reintegrate with the mainland and rejoin modern Europe when they’re ready.
looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
It’s worse today
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Same today
Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close
Correct, that’s what made it better
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
More than a century, it’s called scorched earth because you would literally light a fire. And in the same vein is salt the Earth
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
Same thing goes on today
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
Yes the lack of technology made it better, though you’re covering a wide time period
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real (not that it ever mattered: see Catholic ban on ranged weaponry) and no one is going to remember you so bloodline/country doesn’t matter
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real
The proletariat realized religion isn’t real. Or, at least, the religious demagogues realized there’s no longer a point to evangelizing to the impoverished. Bourgeois still cling to it, though. The ranks of Opus Dei and the Mormon Church are thick with mega-millionaires. Religious indoctrination is one of the ways you get “in” with the upper echelons of the western oligarchy, whether its through Focus on the Family or some Silicon Valley AI cult.
Based on answers in the 2021 census, 53.3% of the Canadian population identify as Christians. That means over 19.3 million Canadians reported belonging to a Christian religion. However, the proportion of Christians is falling rapidly in Canada. In 2011, 67.3% of Canadians identified as Christians, while in 2001, the percentage of Christians was 77.1% of the population.
…
The number of Canadians who say they have no religious affiliation has more than doubled since 2001 when 16.5% of the population had no religious affiliation. By 2011, the percentage had risen to 23.9% and in 2021, 34.6% of Canadians had no religious affiliation. 34.6% is approximately 12.6 million Canadians.
Perhaps the existing Christian base is getting louder, but the raw number of Christians is falling. Meanwhile, no affiliation seems to be filling in the gap. Canada isn’t filling up with Muslims or Satanists or whatever the current ForwardsFromGrandma email chain might suggest.
Based on answers in the 2021 census, 53.3% of the Canadian population identify as Christians. That means over 19.3 million Canadians reported belonging to a Christian religion. However, the proportion of Christians is falling rapidly in Canada. In 2011, 67.3% of Canadians identified as Christians, while in 2001, the percentage of Christians was 77.1% of the population.
Crazy we had 2-3 maybe 3 people out of 200 in my grade that were publicly religious (as in not publicly atheist) everyone I’ve talked to in uni and beyond say the same thing
My grandparents moved here (on both sides) to get away from religion
It wasn’t until adulthood that churches started being built and it taking off
But I did grow up in a very conservative farming town. The 3 things you couldn’t be were black, gay, and religious
Perhaps the existing Christian base is getting louder, but the raw number of Christians is falling. Meanwhile, no affiliation seems to be filling in the gap. Canada isn’t filling up with Muslims or Satanists or whatever the current ForwardsFromGrandma email chain might suggest.
This strikes me as a touch revanchist.
Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.
The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
I stand corrected on a lot of stuff. But I was referring to the imperial core of those people’s rule. Like without the United States most billionaires would not exist, but they are doing less nothing. They are stripping everything for parts. That is what stands different. The British build Britain up (even if it was socialist leaning policies that elevated most poor out of poverty) at the expense of everyone else, they didn’t simply have niche enclaves where they had everything but left the rest of the country/cities into as much shit as is happening now.
I mean… maybe? The US is ground zero for this aggressive wealth aggregation. But Russia and Germany and India and the Kingdom of Saud and Qatar and even the Evil CCP have a fair share of billionaires. It certainly isn’t impossible to do wealth aggregation outside the US. Hong Kong alone has 67 of them.
I gotta say, I disagree. Balkinize Britain. It had 500 years to fuck around. Maybe time to do a bit of Finding Out. Liberate Ireland. Independence for Scotland and Wales. Let London become one of those dystopian Charter Cities, like what they did in Singapore and Hong Kong and Panama and what they’re planning for Gaza, and allow the rest of England to wither on the vine.
Then British refugees can flee to Spain and France, where they can reintegrate with the mainland and rejoin modern Europe when they’re ready.
It’s worse today
Same today
Correct, that’s what made it better
More than a century, it’s called scorched earth because you would literally light a fire. And in the same vein is salt the Earth
Brief reference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
Same thing goes on today
Yes the lack of technology made it better, though you’re covering a wide time period
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real (not that it ever mattered: see Catholic ban on ranged weaponry) and no one is going to remember you so bloodline/country doesn’t matter
The proletariat realized religion isn’t real. Or, at least, the religious demagogues realized there’s no longer a point to evangelizing to the impoverished. Bourgeois still cling to it, though. The ranks of Opus Dei and the Mormon Church are thick with mega-millionaires. Religious indoctrination is one of the ways you get “in” with the upper echelons of the western oligarchy, whether its through Focus on the Family or some Silicon Valley AI cult.
Idk, Canada is a lot more religious now than in the 20th century
It’s takes a second to differentiate someone telling you they have a religion and they aren’t saying they’re gay
It’s prejudice and I try not to hold it against them but a life of being raised prejudice makes me think for a moment
https://madeinca.ca/religion-statistics-canada/
…
Perhaps the existing Christian base is getting louder, but the raw number of Christians is falling. Meanwhile, no affiliation seems to be filling in the gap. Canada isn’t filling up with Muslims or Satanists or whatever the current ForwardsFromGrandma email chain might suggest.
Crazy we had 2-3 maybe 3 people out of 200 in my grade that were publicly religious (as in not publicly atheist) everyone I’ve talked to in uni and beyond say the same thing
My grandparents moved here (on both sides) to get away from religion
It wasn’t until adulthood that churches started being built and it taking off
But I did grow up in a very conservative farming town. The 3 things you couldn’t be were black, gay, and religious
It’s Christians in my experience