If we trace the origin, this problem may still be traced back to the Romans. Guo Kang felt that it was precisely because the Romans themselves were so reluctant that this series of problems followed.
This is why he particularly hopes that the Purple Horde Khanate can fill in the various deficiencies in the narrative of legitimacy. Because here in Europe, other people really can’t count on it. If they themselves can’t succeed, they’ll be doomed.
Guo Kang did not dare to use the theories of later generations. Because careful analysis will reveal that these theories are also full of strong Protestant flavor.
For example, Guo Kang needs to convince everyone to provide start-up capital for Weaver Woman. At this time, if he followed the logic of the promoters of women's rights in his time, he should first discuss the long-term oppression of women by men, and then ask men to provide various compensations to women.
People of that era should be familiar with this logic. However, if you know more about the history of religion, you will be able to discover at a glance that this is a rhetoric full of religious connotations.
Its foundation lies in "original sin" and "atonement".
Men as a whole were seen as sinners because their male ancestors were thought to have oppressed women at the time. In the eyes of the Central Plains people, this accusation would inevitably seem strange.
Because what really determines oppression is power, wealth, etc. Gender is only one of the factors and cannot play a leading role. There is no clear comparability between men and women of different classes: a male noble can persecute a large number of women, and a noblewoman can also exploit a large number of male dependent people. How does this count?
Theoretically, this relationship is very complex. Even if you have to calculate it, the result will definitely be a complicated number that cannot be characterized in one sentence.
Again, this is not about fairness. Different eras have different measurement standards. If we follow the universal principle of equality of power and responsibility, male nobles have more reasons to explain: I bear feudal obligations and military responsibilities, and work hard for the territory. Why can't I have power? If we talk about this, we won’t be able to finish it for days and nights.
Therefore, this male original sin is not a theory, but a belief - only belief can be determined in one sentence.
Again, because it is original sin, it is communicable. This is probably what the Seris people don’t understand the most. When others accuse him of being guilty and should atone for his sins, his first reaction is often "I didn't do it?"
——This is the most troublesome part. Due to different civilizational backgrounds, members of the Seris civilization generally cannot understand the concept of "original sin"...
The inheritance of original sin is an important setting of monotheism. For example, St. Augustine and others wrote books specifically to state this concept and tell everyone how the sins of Adam, the first ancestor, were passed down.
Likewise, according to doctrine, original sin is "infected," not "offended." People can be in communion with each other, and crimes will be passed from generation to generation. Even if you don't make a mistake, you are still guilty of original sin.
The combination of the two tells believers that original sin is collective and inevitable. It is a sin that is carried by every member of the entire group. It is innate and deeply rooted in nature. It has nothing to do with whether or not one has done any bad things. Therefore, even good people have original sin and must seek atonement for it.
However, there is no such thing in Seris culture. You ask him to atone for his sins, but he doesn't know why he insists on saying that his ancestors are guilty; nor does he know why it is his turn to make compensation when unrelated people make mistakes. In this case, he will naturally feel resistant.
In fact, this resistance is far more than just this one aspect. Ordinary Chinese people almost always have this attitude towards a series of "political correctness". Because they cannot understand how they suddenly and inexplicably have to introspect, reflect, recite sutras, and apologize after having done nothing for these "vulnerable" and "minority" groups...
On the other hand, there is the issue of "pledge to rebel". As part of Protestantism, women's rights advocates also needed a target to "defy". But at this stage, theoretical bugs also appeared
Because the oath of rebellion requires a goal. If there is no goal, it itself loses its meaning. What this means here is that there must first be a male right, and only then can women's rights organizations be established and women's rights activities be carried out by rebelling against it.
However, Seris is different from Rome. The etiquette system here is very complicated, and it is not the same patriarchal system that applies everywhere in the Romans. If you reverse one, and there are a lot more, it will be the same as the previous discussion of original sin. You can’t intuitively explain why...
And, more importantly, the behavior of swearing against is used to distinguish from the "old religion" and to divide inside and outside.
Only by swearing to rebel and opposing the "majority" or "strong" party can we achieve this goal, establish the boundaries of our own group, form centripetal force, and then establish a stable organization. Only then can we obtain various benefits.
But in Seris, who can you rebel against?
Unlike Europe, the women's movement in Serris occurred simultaneously with the overthrow of the monarchy and the overthrow of the great powers. To describe this period of history and use it to declare rebellion will miss the mark.
For example, the representatives of patriarchal conservative forces in Europe are modern churches and other organizations. In modern Seris, who are the conservative forces holding divine authority?
It's the Qing Dynasty...
Can we swear against the "Qing Dynasty"? of course. But the question is not whether it is possible, but whether it is possible.
Because no matter at that time or in later generations, anti-Qing was originally a "mainstream" level of political correctness. Through this behavior, there is no way to draw a clear line with others.
To intuitively understand its extent, just look at a set of numbers: between 1836 and 1911, there were 5,387 civil commotions recorded in the "Records" of the Qing Dynasty alone - that is to say, in these 75 years, the influence and scale of It has become so huge that local governments cannot suppress it and must report it to the central government for assistance and disposal, on average once every five days.
From 1856 to 1865, the rebellion reached its peak. There have been 2,332 incidents in the past ten years, which is equivalent to a large-scale rebellion every 1.5 days, just like daily life...
As for the smaller scale, the government did not bother to record it. Because if you take care of them all, even if you can suppress them, the gentlemen in the mansion will die of overwork...
Under this circumstance, saying that one is against feudal patriarchy and swearing to rebel against the Qing Dynasty will of course not be able to establish a feminist organization with a clear stance - there are too many people who are against the Qing Dynasty, and everyone comes in and says, "What a coincidence, I do too." opposite". So how can we tell the difference?
Therefore, even if there are indeed heroines who fought against the Qing Dynasty in history, and they really opposed monarchy and patriarchy, they cannot be used as the cohesion point of modern organizations. The reason is this embarrassing situation.
Isn’t the Carthage chapter too hateful? It was working fine before, but suddenly the card review started...
(End of chapter)
