RetroFedSome 'results' of the 10-day hunting expedition of King George V of the British Empire, Nepal, 1911
submitted by
PugJesus
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsAppANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
Seems like nearly a local extinction event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V%27s_1911_hunting_trip_in_Nepal
What an immensely stupid, wasteful, and horrific endeavor.
I count 40 in the upper route, so let’s say roughly 100 in total. That’s 10 per day. 2 per hour if you spend 5 hours per day hunting. The fuck…? Impossible.
I would think they are taking credit for the work of many soldiers.
This is part of why a lot of countries don’t really give a shit about Europeans telling them about “human rights” and “conservation”. A bunch of poachers and slave owners who think they are allowed to tell their former slaves how to treat each other on land they already plundered.
Past atrocities are not a license for today’s crimes. Set an example rather than following the missteps of others.
It’s that it’s just one more instance precedence-setting hypocrisy.
When the British come through and say “you’re wrong, this all wrong, nope, we’re here now and everything we do is right.” it’s a matter of time until the second part changes, and your colonial power is telling you that you’re twice as wrong for doing the thing they told you to do before. Often within a generation or two. Definitely within a single lifetime is expected.
By the 1970s, Western countries pushed the CITES treaty on the world (which is actually a relative net good) which regulated wildlife products and made it hard/impossible to sell things like….tiger skins, or elephant ivory. Well who exactly was it that crashed populations of those things over-hunting them? Too bad there’s no photos - OH WAIT, look at who it is. The same dicks that are telling you “you’re wrong, this is all wrong, nope, we’re here now and you need to stop killing all these elephants and letting people ship the ivory other places, which we don’t do.”
And the whole colonized country says, “you mean don’t do…..anymore? Bro, your guys were here literally 2 years ago killing all the elephants they could find.”
There’s tons of examples of this kind of behavior. Tobacco use, slavery, fossil fuel use, and baby formula are 3 more examples off the top of my head. So it’s hard to take any colonial power seriously when this is how they have operated for centuries.
The flaw in your reasoning is the racist and Eurocentric view that people in other countries need license from the west to commit atrocities in their own countries.
I am not saying that this makes it OK to commit atrocities, although I am not surprised that you are pretending that I did because that is a typical response from people like you. What I said is that this is why THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE OPINION OF EUROPEANS regarding human rights or conservation. Are you able to respond to what I actually said or will you continue to pretend that I took a position that is easier to disagree with?
“The West is why they don’t give a shit about atrocities.”
“Morally, they should give a shit about atrocities regardless of the West.”
“Oh, so you’re saying they NEED the approval of the West to commit atrocities?”
…
So that is a “yes” you are going to pretend that I said something I did not because you are too stupid to figure out how to disagree with what I actually said.
What irony, considering this exchange.
You don’t need to keep convincing me that you are too stupid to understand what you are talking about. Believe me I get it.
Is there anyone who could tell them that they would give a shit about, under that reasoning?
The more intuitive answer is that human rights and conservation are hard sells even when there’s no bad blood or cultural distance involved. Fuck, look at every country in existence today, including European countries involved in domestic political disputes over human rights and conservation.
It’s not some deep matter, no matter how much elites try to sell history or bigotry as a smokescreen.
Are you under the belief that other countries DON’T give as shit about atrocities?
I see you’ve forgotten how this conversation started. Don’t worry, I seem to talk to many people on here who can’t keep their own words straight when it becomes apparent that their argument is dogshit. Let me help you remember:
FWIW when I first read @UnspecificGravity@piefed.social’s comment which said in part:
I read them as saying something completely compatible with what you later said:
i.e. when UnspecificGravity put quotation marks around the terms human rights and conservation, they were indicating a rejection not of those concepts themselves, but those concepts when promoted by former colonizing nations, with whom there may indeed be bad blood and cultural distance.
I didn’t read it as that those countries rejected human rights or conservation entirely. But I did ask - if that reasoning about not listening to Europeans was true, who would those countries listen to?
My point, then, was not about rejection or acceptance of those ideas so much as that I don’t think “Europeans violated human rights and conservation in the past, therefore, they won’t be listened to by others” has much validity considering the universality of human rights violations by major cultures, and the lack of serious conservation efforts by modern countries.
Applying that logic evenly raises the question: why would those countries not have listened to their neighbors on human rights and conservation? To Asia? To Latin America? To Africa? To the Middle East? To Oceania?
You could take it all the way to its logical conclusion, that only folk from a few cultures that have never engaged in large scale industrialization could get the message across to non-European countries - and even then, only on conservation. But even that I would find extremely doubtful, considering many indigenous speakers from non-industrialized cultures have spoke out quite prominently, eloquently, and often on the matter.
The core of it, then, is not that Europeans who talk about human rights and conservationism are being ignored because Europeans did bad things. It’s that human rights activists and conservationists are ignored, because it is convenient in every country for them to do so. As I pointed out, Europeans don’t listen to Europeans who talk about human rights and conservationism half the damn time.
Another response to the original commenter mentioned that human rights and conservation were to be valued on their own merits, and that the history of European colonialism and brutality shouldn’t matter to that basic fact, to which the original commenter accused them of racism and Eurocentrism for asserting that the non-European world in some way ’needed’ permission from Europe to commit atrocities(??????????). That very much colored my second response.
Yes, if Euro-American colonialism hadn’t happened, those countries would still have problems with human rights violations and lack of conservation efforts. Yes, the contrary argument has little validity from an academic perspective.
But from a diplomatic, commercial, or activist perspective, it’s essential to recognize that Euro-American colonialism did happen, and that in many countries blaming problems on us is a rhetorical strategy that still resonates among many populations, and thus must be managed during interactions.
you said:
what @UnspecificGravity@piefed.social said was this:
I think UnspecificGravity is actually agreeing with your position, and is saying that non-western countries would indeed commit atrocities even if European influence were nonexistent. (i.e. it’s a flaw to think that European license is needed.) Their language is not very diplomatic, but these are highly emotional subjects. In fact UnspecificGravity is not even blaming Europeans for human rights or conservation problems, but rather they are stating why non-Europeans often do not care about the opinions of Europeans regarding these topics.
UnspecificGravity seems to be approaching the problem from something like a diplomatic, commercial, or activist perspective, and from such a perspective I think their comments make sense.