Look at the parts of the world that don’t have empires, don’t have kings. The Native Americans have Coyote. The aboriginal australians have the Rainbow Serpent. The Polynesians have Maui. Not tyrants.

Now look at the parts of the world that do have human tyrants. The Greeks have Zeus. The Egyptians have Ramses. The Mayans had Kukulkan. People worship gods that resemble their own leaders and their own natural environment.

The only exception to drag’s theory is Asia. China had huge empires, but Buddha isn’t a tyrant. Maybe the Jade Emperor is; drag doesn’t know as much about Tao as drag would like. Anyone got reading suggestions for getting into Taoist mythology? (Other than Journey To The West. Already love that story)

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    There was rampant cannibalism in Polynesia along with all kinds of infighting. Maori gods have plenty of murder and war in the mythology.

    War in Asia goes far wider than just one empire. Imperial Japan were thoroughly tyrannical during WW2, as well as many other conflicts.

    Any civilisation that could spare, mobilise, and feed enough people to form an army basically did so, sooner or later. It’s a supply lines and population problem. Small populations can’t raise large armies and send them long distances.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      You know, given that information, it would have made a lot of sense for drag to specify “tyranny” rather than general badness, put the Mayans in the “oppressive gods, oppressive society” category, and point out that Asia is home to plenty of tyranny despite the presence of Buddhism. It sure is a lucky thing that drag did all three of those things. Thanks for looking out.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        None of the definitions of tyranny I see have a restriction on scale. You can be a tyrant ruling a hundred people or a billion. It’s technology (transport, food storage, writing/communication) and geography that limit the size of a tyranny. I’d argue lots of small tribal societies wander into tyranny; it’s just hard to rule over multiple islands when you don’t have writing or metals.

        There’s religions in Asia other than Buddhism.

          • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Two religions is not more statistically significant than one.

            Referring to yourself in the third person and acting like this comes off as extremely condescending.