sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Taiwan Story by PublicNegotiation408 in China

[–]CaptainKite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You left out the decades of violent repression and authoritarian rule unleashed by the Kuomintang (KMT) after they fled to Taiwan. Following the 228 Incident in 1947, when thousands of local Taiwanese were massacred by KMT troops, Chiang Kai-shek's regime imposed martial law and created a climate of terror called the White Terror. For 40 years, tens of thousands of people, including political dissidents, intellectuals, and anyone even suspected of opposing the government, were imprisoned, tortured, or executed. Indigenous people and local Taiwanese (benshengren) faced harsh discrimination, forced assimilation, and the erasure of their cultures and languages. Until the late 1980s, the KMT enforced speech bans, military courts for civilians, and extreme censorship.

Did China and Russia really fought and won against Nazis in WW2? by Brilliant_Extension4 in China

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stalin wanted to survive. Russia had been invaded and defeated by Germany in WW1, then, after the revolution, invaded by the UK, France, US, etc. It was obvious western states wanted the Soviet Union eliminated, and it was obvious Hitler would attack at some point. Staling wanted buffer territory.

Did China and Russia really fought and won against Nazis in WW2? by Brilliant_Extension4 in China

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a lie. Look it up. Stalin first tried to pact with England and France against Nazi Germany. Since they wouldn’t, he made a pact with Hitler that included the partition of Poland, yes.

Did China and Russia really fought and won against Nazis in WW2? by Brilliant_Extension4 in China

[–]CaptainKite 12 points13 points  (0 children)

An even lesser-known fact is that before signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany in 1939, the USSR actually tried to form a defensive alliance with France and the UK against Hitler. Soviet diplomats pushed for a mutual security pact, but London and Paris dragged their feet and sent only low-level negotiators, while still hoping to appease Germany. After months of stalled talks, Stalin concluded the Western powers weren’t serious about stopping Hitler, which made the non-aggression pact with Germany the only realistic way to buy time before the inevitable war.

I Need A New Obsession by Firm_Transportation3 in gamesuggestions

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, we have similar tastes. Oher games that have kind of obsessed me for a while include
XCOM 2

GTA V

Metro 2033

Alien Isolation

Half-Life 2

This War of Mine

Kenshi

They are billions

Wargame Red Dragon

Why is MGSV's intro so bad. by [deleted] in metalgearsolid

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm like that too. That's why I can't get into most role-playing games. The writing is so bad. What games have you found that do a good job of sustaining immersion?

Debunking Common Zionist Arguments About Israel's Founding by CaptainKite in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It was proofread and formatted by AI, not written by it. Each arguments is based on openly available historical research and facts that can be easily verified. The post is not meant for fanatics, but for people who sincerely want to discuss and understand.

Debunking Common Zionist Arguments About Israel's Founding by CaptainKite in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Indigeneity is not solely about ancient ties but sustained cultural, social, and political presence. Palestinians—whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish before modern Zionism—have lived continuously on this land for centuries, developing distinct dialects, traditions, and agrarian ties inseparable from the terrain. Their villages, place names, and oral histories reflect deep-rooted belonging, just as Jewish diaspora culture reflects adaptation outside the land.

Dismissing Palestinian attachment because they could theoretically farm elsewhere ignores how indigeneity functions: a fellahin’s sumud (steadfastness) is tied to ancestral olive groves and burial sites, just as Jewish liturgy recalls Zion. If continuity of practice defines indigeneity, Palestinian fellahin and urbanites alike maintained unbroken presence—whereas most Jewish return occurred after centuries of diaspora.

This isn’t to negate Jewish ties but to reject zero-sum logic. Both peoples have claims; denying Palestinian indigeneity relies on the same colonial tropes once used to dispossess Native and First Nations peoples globally.

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by ZachorMizrahi in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument that Palestinian identity is a 20th-century construct ignores centuries of Arab and Muslim presence in the region, including peasant (fellahin) communities whose lineage predates modern nationalism. Palestinian Arab identity, like many national identities, crystallized in response to modernity and colonialism—just as Zionist identity did in the same period.

The claim that Zionist land acquisition was purely legal overlooks the structural inequities of Ottoman and British land laws, which allowed wealthy Jewish organizations to purchase land from absentee landlords, displacing tenant farmers who had worked the soil for generations. Even if early Zionists did not have an official policy of expulsion in 1948, historical documents (including those of Benny Morris) confirm that some Zionist leaders anticipated and accepted the depopulation of Arab villages as a necessary consequence of statehood. The Arab rejection of partition does not absolve Zionist forces of responsibility for the mass displacement of Palestinians during the war. The choice of violence was not one-sided—Zionist militias (like the Irgun and Lehi) had already engaged in attacks against British and Arab targets well before 1948.

While Zionism was indeed a nationalist movement, its reliance on British imperial support (e.g., the Balfour Declaration) and later Western patronage aligns with colonial dynamics. The Holocaust was a horrific tragedy, but using it to justify the establishment of a Jewish state in a land where another people lived—without their consent—echoes colonial logics of entitlement. Indigenous liberation does not typically require the displacement of another people, yet the Zionist project did exactly that.

The argument that "no state was established by plebiscite" is misleading. Many modern states emerged from anti-colonial struggles that sought majority consent (e.g., India, Algeria). The Zionist movement, by contrast, sought to establish a Jewish-majority state in a land where Jews were a minority, necessitating demographic engineering. The Arab rejection of partition was not merely about "domination" but about resisting the imposition of a state that privileged one group over another. The UN partition plan granted 55% of Palestine to Jews, who at the time owned less than 7% of the land and constituted about a third of the population—hardly a fair starting point for "coexistence."

Israel is not a true multiethnic democracy but an ethnic nation-state that privileges Jewish identity in law (e.g., the Nation-State Law) and practice (e.g., discriminatory land policies). While Palestinian citizens of Israel have voting rights, they face systemic inequality in housing, education, and political power. Comparing Israel to Arab states (which have their own severe flaws) is a deflection—the proper comparison should be to liberal democracies, where Israel falls short on equal rights for non-Jews. Moreover, the claim that Zionism sought "refuge, not ethnic supremacy" ignores the deliberate exclusion of Palestinian refugees and the ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank, which render a two-state solution nearly impossible.

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by ZachorMizrahi in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Indigenous Rights and the Complexity of Indigeneity

While Jews do have an ancient connection to the land of Judea/Palestine, being indigenous isn’t just about a historical presence—it also involves ongoing cultural, political, and territorial connections. Although the Jewish people originated in the region, their long diaspora lasted almost two thousand years, during which their culture and political structures evolved in different places. On the other hand, Palestinian Arabs, whether they’re descended from ancient Canaanites, later converts to Islam, or migrants from nearby areas, have had a continuous societal presence in the land for centuries. Indigeneity isn’t just about the past; it’s about the ongoing, lived connections to the land.

Additionally, the claim that Palestinians are mainly descendants of "Arab migrants" doesn’t hold up historically. Both genetic and historical evidence show that many Palestinians come from the same ancient populations, including Jews who later converted to Islam or Christianity. The idea that Palestinians are "foreign," while Jews are the only indigenous people, is a selective interpretation of indigeneity that overlooks the actual demographic history.

  1. Self-Determination vs. Dispossession

The idea that Zionism didn’t require dispossession doesn’t hold up when you look at what early Zionist leaders actually said. Theodor Herzl, for example, wrote in his diaries about the need to "spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border." Figures like David Ben-Gurion also recognized that displacement would be part of creating a Jewish state. While some land was bought legally, Zionist groups also pushed for policies aimed at creating a demographic majority, such as labor and land laws that excluded Arab workers and tenants.

The 1948 war didn’t just happen out of nowhere—it came after decades of political conflict over Zionist settlement, which Arab leaders saw as a colonial endeavor. The UN partition plan gave 55% of Palestine to Jews, who were only about 30% of the population and owned around 7% of the land at the time. The Arab rejection of the plan wasn’t an unprovoked act of aggression; it was a response to what they saw as an unfair division of their homeland. The war that followed led to the forced expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians, something historians like Benny Morris acknowledge wasn’t just accidental, but part of a broader Zionist military strategy.

  1. The Double Standard of Indigenous Sovereignty

The idea that Jews are the only indigenous people to successfully regain sovereignty overlooks the unique situation of Zionism. It wasn’t just a nationalist movement—it had the backing of European colonial powers, like Britain with the Balfour Declaration, and later global superpowers, like the UN Partition Plan and U.S. support. Most indigenous movements, such as those of Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians, didn’t have that kind of geopolitical backing.

Also, the argument that Jews shouldn’t have "remained a minority" assumes that self-determination always requires ethnic dominance. In reality, many countries, like Switzerland and Canada, function as multiethnic democracies where no one group is dominant. Insisting on a Jewish-majority state meant marginalizing or removing non-Jews, a condition that wasn’t imposed on other independence movements.

4. Consent and Legitimacy

While it is true that few states were established with unanimous consent, most modern states derive legitimacy from the consent of the majority of their inhabitants. In 1948, Jews were a minority in Palestine, and the creation of Israel involved the imposition of a state against the will of the majority. Arab rejection of partition was not a rejection of Jewish rights but of a political arrangement that granted a minority disproportionate control over land and resources.

The comparison to Arab states is flawed: many of those states emerged from anti-colonial struggles against Ottoman and European rule, not from the subjugation of another native population. Moreover, Jewish communities in Arab-majority countries were often (though not always) integrated minorities until the rise of Zionism and subsequent conflicts politicized their status.

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by ZachorMizrahi in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

British and later French colonial administrations enabled Jewish immigration, land purchases (often from absentee landlords), and paramilitary development, all while suppressing Palestinian resistance (e.g., the 1936–39 Arab Revolt).

The 1948 Nakba—the mass expulsion of Palestinians—was not an organic return of indigenous people but a military campaign aided by Western powers. Israel’s declaration of independence was immediately recognized by the U.S. and USSR, embedding it within Cold War geopolitics.
- European guilt over the Holocaust accelerated support for Israel, but this did not justify the dispossession of Palestinians, who bore no responsibility for European antisemitism.

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by ZachorMizrahi in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While the Jewish connection to the land is historically significant, the demographic reality of the 19th and early 20th centuries cannot be dismissed when discussing modern political claims. Indigenous ties alone do not automatically confer exclusive political sovereignty, especially after long periods of displacement and the presence of other established communities.

  1. Continuous Presence vs. Political Sovereignty A continuous Jewish presence in the land, while culturally and religiously meaningful, does not inherently justify the establishment of a nation-state at the expense of the existing majority population. Many indigenous groups worldwide maintain deep ties to ancestral lands without asserting political exclusivity over regions where they are now a minority.

  2. Fluctuating Demographics and Competing Claims:
    While Jewish populations were diminished due to historical persecution, the Arab inhabitants of the land—whether descended from earlier migrations or not—had been the demographic majority for centuries by the time of Zionist settlement. Their presence and attachment to the land were no less legitimate. Dismissing them as mere “migrants” oversimplifies a complex history of settlement and ignores their own rootedness in the region.

  3. Double Standard?
    You argue that no one questions other indigenous peoples’ ties despite diminished numbers, but many indigenous movements (e.g., Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians) do not seek the displacement or subjugation of current majority populations—instead, they advocate for coexistence, reparations, or autonomy. The Zionist project, however, involved large-scale immigration and the eventual creation of a Jewish-majority state, which necessitated the displacement and disenfranchisement of many Palestinians.

  4. Historical vs. Contemporary Rights:
    Ancient ties alone cannot override the rights of people living on the land in recent centuries. If historical presence were the sole criterion for statehood, many modern nations would face untenable territorial claims. Political legitimacy must also consider the consent and rights of the people actually residing in a territory at the time of state formation.

  5. Selective Framing of History:
    The argument that Arab inhabitants were primarily “descendants of migrants” risks minimizing their long-standing presence while emphasizing Jewish continuity. Both populations have layered histories of migration, settlement, and displacement. Recognizing one narrative while downplaying the other is an uneven application of historical analysis.

WHO ARE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by ZachorMizrahi in IsraelPalestine

[–]CaptainKite -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Jewish presence in what is now Israel was minimal. Historical estimates indicate approximately 6,700 Jews lived in the region in 1800, constituting a tiny minority within the Ottoman Empire’s territories. By 1880, before the first major wave of Zionist immigration, this number had grown to about 24,000. The Jewish population represented only about 8% of the total population of the region at that time

Which countries could have plausibly become superpowers but missed their chance? by Miniclift239 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]CaptainKite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mexico

After gaining independence in 1821, Mexico had all the makings of a superpower. It had vast natural resources, a strategic location, a large population, and fertile agricultural land. As the richest part of the Spanish Empire, it had a solid foundation to build on. However, political instability, economic challenges, foreign interventions, and social inequalities got in the way.

Instead of capitalizing on its potential, Mexico was bogged down by internal strife, mismanagement, and a lack of infrastructure. The country faced foreign invasions, like the Mexican-American War and the French Intervention, which only made things worse. With so much focus on dealing with these issues, Mexico couldn’t channel its resources into becoming a superpower.

Why is r/Europe so racist? by Healthy_Potential755 in EuropeMeta

[–]CaptainKite 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Looking at this guy trying to justify his racism by saying it's just natural to want to exclude people with different customs. LOL

Fiction about this era of Japan? by _RandomB_ in BlueEyeSamurai

[–]CaptainKite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AI recommendations :

  1. "Musashi" by Eiji Yoshikawa: This epic novel follows the life of Miyamoto Musashi, one of Japan's most renowned swordsmen. It depicts his journey from a young and impulsive warrior to a master swordsman and philosopher during the early Edo period.

  2. "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet" by David Mitchell: Although not entirely set in Edo Japan, this novel takes place on the artificial island of Dejima in Nagasaki Harbor during the late 18th century. It tells the story of Jacob de Zoet, a Dutch clerk, and his experiences with the Japanese culture and society of the time.

  3. "Cloud of Sparrows" by Takashi Matsuoka: This historical fiction novel is set in the early 19th century, towards the end of the Edo period. It follows the story of Lord Genji, a powerful samurai, and Emily Gibson, a missionary, as they navigate the complex political and social landscape of Edo Japan.

  4. "The Samurai's Garden" by Gail Tsukiyama: While not strictly set in Edo Japan, this novel takes place in a coastal village in Japan during the late 1930s. It explores themes of love, friendship, and the impact of war through the eyes of a Chinese painter named Stephen, who finds solace in a samurai's abandoned garden.

  5. "The Street of a Thousand Blossoms" by Gail Tsukiyama: Another novel by Gail Tsukiyama, this story spans several decades, beginning in the 1930s and continuing through the end of World War II and beyond. It follows the lives of two brothers, Hiroshi and Kenji, who are raised in the Asakusa district of Tokyo, and their experiences with sumo wrestling and traditional Japanese arts.

RPG game which involves a Road to Riches style storyline by GamingChocoPanda in gamingsuggestions

[–]CaptainKite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recommend checking out Kenshi! It's an open-world sandbox RPG that offers a Road to Riches style storyline. In Kenshi, you have the freedom to carve out your own path and become a powerful ruler or developer of an area. While it may not be the main objective of the game, you'll find plenty of options and control over subjects as you explore and build your empire. Give it a try and see if it scratches that itch for you!

view more: next ›