• mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Indians fought on both sides of that war, often against one another.

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

        What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That’s a pretty ignorant assertion.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What? Pre-European Natives fought one another. Warfare predates colonization.

            • TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There can be no SPLIT without colonization.

              We’re talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let’s do that.

              In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.

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

                That’s such a simplification of human interaction that I’m not sure there’s a single conflict I’m human history that fully fits that definition.