Garibaldi did nothing wrong. Lincoln did nothing wrong. Ataturk did nothing wrong.
Ataturk was a liberal who wanted to destroy the Turkish identity so as to turn his country into another cosmopolitan European state.
Muy wrongJoohan wrote:1. Didn't the freedmen do quite well for themselves in Roman society?
No.
Such a huge part of the Roman bureaucracy and administration that I think either Claudius or Hadrian had to enact Roman Affirmative Action just to make sure they didn't completely dominate civil service.
Incorrect again. They were barred from certain positions because beforehand, those imperial positions were only open to freedmen, because it was seen as inappropriate for the
Primus Inter Pares to give commands to his fellow citizens not under arms.
I think The only people who could really talk down with authority to them were the more traditional aristocracy.
No.
I wasn't too familiar with the situation of the freedmen in Roman society, but after reading through some sources it seems like they were quite well off - certainly more so than most of the groups on this list at least. An extensive employ within the state, often a specialized workforce, I've seen a couple of the freedmen became quite wealthy and reputable like the playwright Terence, or the brothers of house Vettii. There was supposedly even a play which poked fun at the rising class of wealthy freedmen in the
Satyricon. It just seems like the freedmen of Rome weren't really discriminated against on the level we might associate with say blacks in America prior to civil rights.
2. Poor got massacred, the rich would pay bribes for their protection
First part is correct, second isn't. Remember the massacres on King Richard I's coronation day? I am very sure that the prominent Jewish members of society bringing gifts to Richard's coronation were very poor fellows indeed.
The jews who came to the coronation ceremony knew ahead of time they weren't supposed to be there - it was a ceremonial tradition. The king hadn't gone out of his way to try and persecute them, they just came at a time and place when they knew that they shouldn't have. And that pogroms would often kill rich and poor alike isn't in dispute - but I am saying that the Rich often were often free from any such worries. Again, during the people's crusade, while tens of thousands of soldiers were moving from western Europe through Germany, it was wealthy jews who would bribe these roving armies into continue moving toward the Holy Land - ensuring their security ( for all but the count Emicho ).
For fuck's sake, this is such a ridiculous position to take that I have trouble attributing it solely to ignorance.
Sure, lol
3. were never an affluent group to begin with
lol
10/10, would reply again
.
4. Merchants weren't trusted by the locals... so what? If not respected, merchants were an extremely powerful and influential class throughout the Medieval age
"Weren't trusted by the locals"
That's a very fine way of saying "Completely at the mercy of an aristocracy which hated their guts absent the ability to beat them on the field of battle"
The only reason merchants became powerful and influential was because they created entire fucking parallel societies in the larger cities.
… that's, kind of entirely the point i'm making. It didn't matter if people didn't like the merchants - they were so rich and powerful that they didn't care.
5. Same as their counterparts in Europe.
No, in fact, it was much worse, because China and Japan didn't develop quite the same tradition of decentralized pseudo-city-states that Europe did.
The worst discrimination that the Shang ( merchant class ) ever received was being forbidden to take the scholar entrance exam, and not being able to hold government office. Regardless of this, merchants were still able to acquire vast amounts of wealth, land, and influence within the imperial government - well beyond their supposed social standing. Hell, by the Song dynasty even the conservative scholarly class was working hand in hand with the merchants to secure commercial monopolies and pool their own wealth. I don't see how they were more marginalized than the average peasant because they were barred from becoming officials or because the scholars wrote mean things about them.
6. Again, astoundingly poor. Though, for those who did manage to become rich, their lot in society was quite fantastic: C. J. Walker, Jeremiah Walker had no trouble with being black after becoming millionaires.
Yes, I am sure that her advocacy and donation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in causes against racism was purely an abstract concern.
[/quote]
I'm not following what you mean here. And for whatever CJ Walker did, Jeremiah Hamilton ( my bad first time round in writing Walker ) contributed nothing to help fight racism ( quite the opposite if anything ).
Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 11:24 pm