Why don't history classes ever show the full picture?

Why don't history classes ever show the full picture?

democracy is hay and aristotle expalins that with his concept of philia. Because friendship is anti-competition and promotes stagnation and shit-tier societies like contemporary Europe.

There are many societies within contemporary Europe, and they're not all shitty.

>not all Euros!
Europe has fallen. They had hundreds of years of hsitory and they threw it all away to jump on the egalite bandwagon and became socailists. Thus losing their Empires.

You should have put 'Europe has fallen' at the end of your post if you wanted me to read all of it. Go back to /pol/ if you want your bigoted views to be taken seriously.

...

But what Aristotle doesn't say is that if everybody is the same and has a universally agreed upon set of ideals then there is no need for democracy and what would be considered democracy would devolve into authoritarianism. The people won't see the need for such a system and grow comfortable and expecting of oppression as long as it's "their" guy. The United States has come close to falling into such a stink hole when the population was homogeneously European, but because of the way the system is set up it is harder for such a power grab to take place. What really needs to happen if we're going to argue semantics (which is what you always do in philosophy) is that democracy leads to analyzing world views threw trail and error, it's just in that authoritarianism is a strong sentiment for many people who don't car about finding a better way/ making things better. To many they think they have the world figured out and would only feel comfortable in their own system and as long as they feel taken care of much else is needed. I figure this would go back to hierarchical needs with many not wanting to carry on to the next step once taken care of, I question left for psychologists honestly. So to be blunt, the problem is safe spaces and echo chambers which plays a part, anti-xenophobia is a must to have a functioning human democracy.

Good thing we dont live in anything like a greek democracy then

The ideals of a greek city state dont translate very well to modern nation states

>Invading Europe twice because it wanted to keep its history.
>Thus letting the door open for communists (both the soldiers and the intellectuals).
>Still having armed forces in most countries of Europe.
>Still having institutional power over Germany until 2099.
>Putting in place puppet governments and imposing more democracy.
>Coming with a "reconstruction program" only favourable to the US.
>Creating a gutter culture and forcing it onto the rest of the world.
>Still committing war crimes every other day.
The US killed Europe.

No, the Jews killed Europe

The US and the Jews is literally the same people.

Interestingly enough, Switzerland is a multi ethnic democracy and likely one of the most stable and successful nations ever.

>Switzerland is a multi ethnic democracy
It's not multi-ethnic, only "multi-cultural" because of the different languages but still very similar.
And Switzerland stays united because of its geography and because every canton is almost fully autonomous making Switzerland several small democracies (as in the old times) and not a modern "democracy".

there is not a single socialist country in europe

europe is doing fine

keep screaming redneck trumptard

Isn't Belarus technically socialist?
>Yeah I know, not a real argument

So Italians and Germans have the same ethnicity then? And being divided by the Alps keeps them together?

You know your post reeks of Amerimutt oil

>French, Germans, Italians and Swiss in the same state
>Not multi-ethnic
It is in this statement that you are just like the far left that says that huwites have no diversity and they are all the same.

Social Democrats have held power in multiple European nations for the majority of the time since WWII. Certainly Europe has tended to the left of the US.

This wasn't a problem until recently. While per capita GDP and disposable income has continued to lag the US, this was made up for by better social services and a more equal distribution in wealth.

Socialists began to buy into neo-liberal ideals, most importantly mass migration. This killed socialism.

It seemed like a win/win. Right wingers got cheap new labor and ethnic divisions drew lines across economic classes weakening the power of class politics as a unifying force. The left got to embrace valued of diversity and inclusion and, as the parties more open to migrant culture, got guaranteed voted from the new arrivals. Importantly, new arrivals we're seen as a way to offset the effects of declining birth rates and save the welfare states that leftists had spent two centuries fighting for.

What they failed to realize was:
1. Offshoring, the rise of East Asian economies, and mechanization would drastically reduce the demand for unskilled labor.
2. There is a definite problem that shows up when you try to pay for pensions and benefits for a mass of older natives by using unassimilated workers who have their own interests they can vote for.
3. Demographic change happens exponentially not linearly. The majority of Western European nations will be majority non-European by 2100. The most rapid shifts will come in the second half of the century. Even if assimilation went fine to 8% (it hasn't) it might run into problems in the jump from 8-30%.

As is, migrant unemployment levels are incredibly high in many areas and assimilation isn't happening. Natives are getting angry about replacement and swinging towards Far-Right politics. The Far-Right is so idealogical that they embrace shit policy. It's also unprofessional, having never had to rule before.

But the Far Right gets votes in spite of this because no centrists or leftists will abandon mass migration.

Migration has failed in its policy objectives and is killing the EU and social democracy.

Bunch of retards.
All the people of Switzerland are Germanic and belong to the germanic reich.
Himmler himself was in charge of the researches to determine who is Germanic and who isn't. The language doesn't matter, Danes are Germanic, Dutch are Germanic. Even Wallonia, the northeast of France, Switzerland and a very small part of Italy are Germanic.
French and Italian speaking Swiss are "romanised teutons" according to Himmler.

Kek. Muh insectional Germanicism.

At least we had somewhere to fall from you plastic human.

>The majority of Western European nations will be majority non-European by 2100
>Natives are getting angry about replacement and swinging towards Far-Right politics. The Far-Right is so idealogical that they embrace shit policy. It's also unprofessional, having never had to rule before.
Do you feel like these two factors are going to lead to some major convulsions in the next few decades? Any predictions?

*intersectional

Look up the definition of bigot, then kill yourself for thinking that using a buzzword leads any credence to your statements.

>But what Aristotle doesn't say is that if everybody is the same and has a universally agreed upon set of ideals then there is no need for democracy and what would be considered democracy would devolve into authoritarianism.
That is an absolutely unhinged statement to make, stating that "oh, but what if everyone was the same" has absolutely no bearing on reality.
Any logic leading from that statement is flawed, everything after that is suspect, especially the:
>anti-xenophobia is a must to have a functioning human democracy.
The entire post reads like you're fellating Marx, or one of those cunts.

>reddit spacing
>no socialism in europe
>muh dumb southerner meme
>hurr Drumpf
>europe is doing fine
This was designed for maximum shitposting potential, wasn't it?

How the fuck do you not know the difference between ethnicity and culture.

How the fuck do you not know that these groups of people are different ethnicities and cultures? Plus calm the fuck down.

You just conflated the two.
They're not, they're ethnically German and culturally French/Italian etc.

>But what Aristotle doesn't say is that if everybody is the same and has a universally agreed upon set of ideals then there is no need for democracy and what would be considered democracy would devolve into authoritarianism
Yes, all the authoritarianism that went on in iceland and norway. Unbearable.

Now I finally see it

>All of Central Europe's Jews immigrate to the USA
>WTF IT"S ALL AMERICANS FAULT
Maybe Euros should have kept them?

OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEEEEEEEE

DELET THIS!

>



>3827404
>all this euro butthurt

lol I love it

I'm not European mutt

>making population projections based on current trends
Well for starters what you’re saying will happen won’t happen, or won’t happen when you think it will happen.

o-oh no...

>according to Himmler
Wow, what a legit source.

>America invites them in and lets them take over their finance, their media and their fucking government
>this is clearly Europe's fault

Because muh multiculti egalitarianism and nigger gibs

>zero (0) quotes
This is a red flag that the author is twisting something to fit his political agenda.

Every single "multicultural" democracy on earth has the different ethnicities voting disproportionately for one party over others. Different ethnicities with different interests will result in politicians and whole parties basing policy around those specific needs. This results in elections becoming about appealing to certain certain interests rather than a battle of ideas. The truth is the absolute opposite of what you are saying.

Daily reminder French, Italians and Germans are indeed different ethnicites.

Aristotle isn't the law of what can and cannot be.

>0 in-text citations

I've never seen a source for this.

And did anyone ever test Lazio?

>South Italians are closer to the Jews than they are to North Italians
Color me shocked.

goblino goblano

>Every single "multicultural" democracy on earth
Save for the Swiss, the seem to be non partisan when it comes to politics.

Except white males on the American west coast who actively vote to fuck over their own race.

But that's because they're genetically a mix of Middle Eastern and Northern Italian, with some ancestry from other parts of Europe thrown in. It would be like saying a half-Ethiopian, half-Swede is most closely related to Gulf Arabs because his genetic profile puts him halfway between Europe and Africa.

>It would be like saying a half-Ethiopian, half-Swede is most closely related to Gulf Arabs because his genetic profile puts him halfway between Europe and Africa.
>he thinks FST distance is measured in kilometers

>be on Veeky Forums
>post something this historically illiterate

That would take forever.

>Invading Europe twice because it wanted to keep its history.
Money. The word you were looking for was "money."

>Still having armed forces in most countries of Europe.
And German paratroopers are still stationed in Tennessee at a skydiving range to train at the facility. Your point is?

>Still having institutional power over Germany until 2099.
Complaining about this when Versailles ended less than thirty years ago, despite being over half a century of payments, decided on by Europeans themselves.

>Putting in place puppet governments and imposing more democracy.
What are: free elections, governments in exile, and transitional governments?

>Coming with a "reconstruction program" only favourable to the US.
Because thirteen billion dollars spent to repair European infrastructure and economies after the most devastating war in human history can only be seen as a selfish, inhumane gesture. I'm sure American tyranny was the absolute worst kind of one-sided, repressive, authoritarian government and security that Europeans had ever seen in their lifetime. Imagine a world where the Marshall Plan doesn't exist and tell me which country in Europe picks up all the pieces of its former self within ten years.

>Creating a gutter culture and forcing it onto the rest of the world.
This I will not argue with. Most American media is either great or disgusting. Not a whole not of stuff between the poles.

>Still committing war crimes every other day.
Also no argument.

>The US killed Europe.
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

And Aristotle was wrong.

What he was saying might have made sense based on the societies he had to observe, but it does not hold today.

Setting aside that, the democracy he was talking about was not the representative, constitutional democracies of today, but the direct democracies of cities like Athens.

wow this guy is much smarter than aristotle

i love multiculturalism now!

Because the full picture is incredibly complex and historians need to focus on the elements of history that they believe to be the most influential.
Inevitably the fallback of some historians on certain theories will overlook many important details, especially outside of their field of study.

That quote isn't really relevant in the West, because Western governments are not democratic. They are popular, moderate oligarchies. Aristotle is actually talking about democracy, wheras for us we don't study democracy so much as use the term to basically WE WUZ Athens, claim their legitimacy and glory, and bully non-western governments.

>invites them
we turned their boats around, mate. America did not "invite" them.

>That quote isn't really relevant in the West, because Western governments are not democratic.
They are representative democracies by any reasonable interpretation of the term.

Quibbles about e.g. the American electoral college aside, the system is one man, one vote. It's not a condition of democracy that every citizen be equally able to influence other people's votes.

"Representative Democracy" is literally oligarchy. Direct election is an oligarchic practice. Read at least one text from the 5th or 5th century, please.

There is no popular assembly in the US, power there is held exclusively by oligarchs who are selected by direct election by a segment of adult "citizenry". Commoners have no roLe of note, they can't vote, they can't move to impeach, they can't even take the floor and be heard.

There are no popular courts in the US, power is held by various elected and appointed oligarchs, such as judges and county prosecutors. Citizens have no right to file and prosecute criminal charges. Judges control the law and what evidence is allowed, jurors are only a subordinate tool to determine certain facts.

Do I need to go on? Lmao "representative democracy", truly a massive propaganda victory. It's a moderate form of oligarchy, deal with it.

You're a metic, paying your tax and being represented by the real citizen, your local oligarchs.

>"Representative Democracy" is literally oligarchy.
No, it isn't. There are plenty of actual historical oligarchies you can study - hell, there're several extant in the world today. They don't look much like western liberal representative democracies.

Maybe you prefer direct democracy to representative democracy. Fair enough, I guess. But "direct democracy" and "democracy" aren't synonymous any more than "representative democracy" and "oligarchy" are. Acting like they are isn't making any sort of intelligent point, it's just being willfully obtuse.

There is no such distinction as "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" in the works of Aristotle or other 5th and 4th century Hellenic authors. You have a quote from the Politics regarding actual democracy, and brainlets are trying to apply it to a totally different system that would be known as a form of moderate oligarchy to Aristotle.

Your modern, western propaganda, or I'll be very polite and cautious and just say "modern, western terminology and definitions", is causing confusion and improper conclusions here. You don't have democracy, your lessons about how you inherited democracy from Ancient Hellenes are just false. You are a commoner in a moderate, popular oligarchy.

Europe tried to create nation-oriented states for a couple hundred years, and rather than it being some utopia, the bloodiest wars in human history happened. The idea that homogeneous societies are automatically less chaotic than heterogeneous societies has not been well supported by history.

>Europe tried to create nation-oriented states for a couple hundred years, and rather than it being some utopia, the bloodiest wars in human history happened
The wars were bloodier because the populations of the states in question were larger.

WWII may have been nasty, but it bears reminding that the 20th century was probably the LEAST bloody century in human history, speaking in relative (and not absolute) terms.

>forcing it on the rest of the world
Europe gleefully accepted the chance to hop on ol' Uncle Sam's dick don't get it twisted Eurotard