Originally posted by flower123 on November 09, 2025 11:17
Throughout history, major tragedies have a tendency of mirroring each other. I think this is purely logical. For genocides and other instances of mass destruction, the situation needs to meet certain criteria to have an end result of that magnitude. However, I think each aftermath is different which affects both the narrative of the tragedy and how we think about the event in current day. Declaring a war legally requires a certain elevation of a problem. This is because the emotional and physical impact of the majority need to match for it to be justified. Only certain circumstances can evoke such strong emotions. This is why so many wars are declared over land. Land is a prime example of, if messed with, an aggressor. It has always been a symbol of strength and power within government, when neighboring nations attempt to take land, it causes extreme emotion which can only be expressed at the extreme level of violence. In Weimar Germany, we observed this when they suffered immense inflation. In Zimbabwe in 2008, their government was unreliable, similar to Weimar. They suffered inflation of similar proportions because their government was overprinting money. Prices were doubling every 24 hours and their government even printed a $100 trillion bill. The ratio between the two nations at their peak, are the only prime examples that are comparable to that extent. The root of the problem was the same as not having a stable government, but the outcome and result was completely different. These situations prove that although “cause” tends to mirror itself throughout time, “effect” is always going to look different. All in all, I think the roots of major events mirror each other in past history. However, no exact event had the same outcome or expression of effect. This makes sense given social patterns and logical thinking.
I definitely agree with the idea that all major tragedies throughout history repeat because they have the same root causes. I also agree that human emotion is the main driver of violent actions throughout history, and that a certain amount of emotional turmoil will fester into physical violence because we don't yet have a better way to deal with it. However, I disagree that extreme emotion can only be expressed through extreme violence. Human beings have logical thought and empathy, and we are capable of talking problems out if we are given the incentive to do so. However, violence is often the easiest answer, and our governments push us towards irrationality and dehumanizing and blaming minorities for our problems instead of doing this. Additionally, there's the matter of proportionality. If there's an unstable government and the people are upset about inflation, does that warrant protests? Riots? Revolutions? Genocide? Where do we draw the line where the extreme violence extreme emotion leads to is inevitable?
Your post was a little confusing. I know I'm not one to talk because I also write using big words, but I had trouble understanding what you were saying at points. For example, how can land be an aggressor? It's not sentient. And what happened due to the inflation in Zimbabwe? I don't know that history. There were a lot of parts where the wording could have been clearer or the dots could have been connected for me a little better. But the ideas were very good!