You’re talking about power and territory, not borders.
Roman, persian, egyptian frontiers were zones of influence, not fixed borders. Some of their frontiers contained fortifications ( like the Roman limes), but they were aimed at stopping armies of invaders, not individual migrants. A peasant or merchant could move across countries without having to go through border control or anything resembling a border. They were not able to join the local ruling class in most cases, due to being an outsider, but were still welcomed for their labor or money in the territory they had entered.
Ages ago, for some political history courses, I had to read CR Whittaker’s book called “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. As the title implies it touches on this very topic. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, it’s quite dull. Anyway, one of the first things it touches on is that trying to understand history requires shedding modern concepts. Borders are the first one he asks the reader to shed.
Once again, you have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history. I don’t think you should be talking so confidently about a topic you are completely out of your depth in. It makes you look like a dunce.
The Great Wall and Hadrian’s Wall both served the same purposes:
Deterring raids and armed incursions, a purely military role
Marking the end of military control (eg. on the other side of this line you’re on your own)
Signaling than anything within those walls would be subject to taxation (the price of military protection)
Enabling signaling (chains of beacons/towers to warn in case of military invasions)
They were not designed to stop individual peasants or merchants. Those walls all had gates to let them in and out. In Frontiers of the Roman Empire, CR Whittaker goes through archaeological records to better understand Hadrian’s Wall and its role, and did not find any form of deterrence against migrants or any historical record showing any individual border control.
I am being condescending because you are being stubborn. I see no reason to be nice when you are speaking confidently about a topic you very clearly know nothing about, which happens to be one of my fields of expertise. You’d probably do the same if you were in my shoes, it is very frustrating to see misinformation spread on something you have academic knowledge of. If you are unwilling to learn and want to cling to your modern preconceptions of what a border is, then I must ask you to get the fuck out off radical leftist spaces and stop spreading your racist propaganda. You will never be welcome there as long as you hold those views.
People will stop calling you a racist when you stop acting like one by repeating racist talking points. It’s in your hands.
We have the means to feed everyone on the planet. We decided not to. You are this close to understanding imperialism and capitalism, but I’m afraid that from what we’ve witnessed so far, you don’t have the ability to work both of your neurons hard enough to understand it.
Is it that important to you that we ourselves live to see it?
Your previous comment here also mentioned “it won’t be anytime soon” somehow assuming that that means we can neglect to express the ideals of it?
Either humanity gets there, or we won’t. Some people will do whatever they can to make sure we get a closer. Because if we don’t ever get there, why even continue the species at all?
Is it that important to you that we ourselves live to see it?
Is to me.
The potential exists to sublimate to it in the duration of an afternoon or so.
And I do mean in a healthy way… not a tyrannical terrorising totalitarian way of “united”. No more of the divide-and-conquer ploys necessary, once sublimating to an egalitarian emancipation paradigm of abundance.
Whether it’s soon, later, or never, may depend on how many (and who) of us who cease seeing this as a spectator sport just washing over them. We can still mend this.
Existential tautologies make for uncompelling fallacies, contrary to the confidence with which you swing that cudgel to try win your argument. Self fulfilling prophecies too… more than just fallacious, are farcical. A lot of tragedy there. I hope we each and all get the healthy distance to see the comedy in that, rather than perpetrate and suffer it.
[Thanks to everybody putting in the effort dealing with this. It’s too steep a Brandolini’s Law charge for my spoons stock to diligently take on thoroughly… So I continue here more as a general commentary stepped back from getting tangled up in all the…]
Strawman, moving goal posts, redherring, non-sequitur, ad-hominems, false dilemma, appeal to antiquity, appeal to novelty, circular reasoning, appeal to ridicule (ironically), appeal to authority, loaded language, ignoring counter-examples, conflation, equivocation, … on and on it goes.
You seem to have decided you’re right, and keep doubling down, despite the cogent arguments and corrections offered your way, contorting your position to prevent entertaining1 an idea from outside the world view that you seem to identify with, and fight to protect like your life depends on it.
It does not.
The ignorance that dies is not you.
I hope you find a healthier peace of mind in this.
I expect you’ll more likely continue to reject1 any idea not conforming to the naive-realist world-view you subconsciously perceive as you.
1 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.”
Removed by mod
You’re talking about power and territory, not borders.
Roman, persian, egyptian frontiers were zones of influence, not fixed borders. Some of their frontiers contained fortifications ( like the Roman limes), but they were aimed at stopping armies of invaders, not individual migrants. A peasant or merchant could move across countries without having to go through border control or anything resembling a border. They were not able to join the local ruling class in most cases, due to being an outsider, but were still welcomed for their labor or money in the territory they had entered.
Ages ago, for some political history courses, I had to read CR Whittaker’s book called “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. As the title implies it touches on this very topic. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, it’s quite dull. Anyway, one of the first things it touches on is that trying to understand history requires shedding modern concepts. Borders are the first one he asks the reader to shed.
Once again, you have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history. I don’t think you should be talking so confidently about a topic you are completely out of your depth in. It makes you look like a dunce.
Removed by mod
The Great Wall and Hadrian’s Wall both served the same purposes:
They were not designed to stop individual peasants or merchants. Those walls all had gates to let them in and out. In Frontiers of the Roman Empire, CR Whittaker goes through archaeological records to better understand Hadrian’s Wall and its role, and did not find any form of deterrence against migrants or any historical record showing any individual border control.
I am being condescending because you are being stubborn. I see no reason to be nice when you are speaking confidently about a topic you very clearly know nothing about, which happens to be one of my fields of expertise. You’d probably do the same if you were in my shoes, it is very frustrating to see misinformation spread on something you have academic knowledge of. If you are unwilling to learn and want to cling to your modern preconceptions of what a border is, then I must ask you to get the fuck out off radical leftist spaces and stop spreading your racist propaganda. You will never be welcome there as long as you hold those views.
Random thing but thanks for writing all this. The other person is probably beyond saving, but the history trivia is nice.
Removed by mod
People will stop calling you a racist when you stop acting like one by repeating racist talking points. It’s in your hands.
We have the means to feed everyone on the planet. We decided not to. You are this close to understanding imperialism and capitalism, but I’m afraid that from what we’ve witnessed so far, you don’t have the ability to work both of your neurons hard enough to understand it.
Removed by mod
Is it that important to you that we ourselves live to see it?
Your previous comment here also mentioned “it won’t be anytime soon” somehow assuming that that means we can neglect to express the ideals of it?
Either humanity gets there, or we won’t. Some people will do whatever they can to make sure we get a closer. Because if we don’t ever get there, why even continue the species at all?
Is to me.
The potential exists to sublimate to it in the duration of an afternoon or so.
And I do mean in a healthy way… not a tyrannical terrorising totalitarian way of “united”. No more of the divide-and-conquer ploys necessary, once sublimating to an egalitarian emancipation paradigm of abundance.
Whether it’s soon, later, or never, may depend on how many (and who) of us who cease seeing this as a spectator sport just washing over them. We can still mend this.
Removed by mod
Existential tautologies make for uncompelling fallacies, contrary to the confidence with which you swing that cudgel to try win your argument. Self fulfilling prophecies too… more than just fallacious, are farcical. A lot of tragedy there. I hope we each and all get the healthy distance to see the comedy in that, rather than perpetrate and suffer it.
[Thanks to everybody putting in the effort dealing with this. It’s too steep a Brandolini’s Law charge for my spoons stock to diligently take on thoroughly… So I continue here more as a general commentary stepped back from getting tangled up in all the…]
Strawman, moving goal posts, redherring, non-sequitur, ad-hominems, false dilemma, appeal to antiquity, appeal to novelty, circular reasoning, appeal to ridicule (ironically), appeal to authority, loaded language, ignoring counter-examples, conflation, equivocation, … on and on it goes.
You seem to have decided you’re right, and keep doubling down, despite the cogent arguments and corrections offered your way, contorting your position to prevent entertaining1 an idea from outside the world view that you seem to identify with, and fight to protect like your life depends on it.
It does not.
The ignorance that dies is not you.
I hope you find a healthier peace of mind in this.
I expect you’ll more likely continue to reject1 any idea not conforming to the naive-realist world-view you subconsciously perceive as you.
1 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.”