If we trace the root cause, this problem may still be traced back to the Romans. Guo Kang felt that it was precisely because the Romans themselves were reluctant that it led to this series of follow-up problems.

That's why, in particular, he wanted the Purple Horde to fill in the gaps in the narrative of legitimacy. Because on the European side, other people really can't count on it, and if they can't succeed themselves, it's doomed.

Guo Kang did not dare to use the theories of later generations. Because a careful analysis will show that these theories are also full of strong Protestant atmosphere.

For example, Guo Kang needs to convince everyone to provide start-up capital to the weaver woman. At this time, if we follow the logic of the promoters of women's rights in his time, then he should first discuss the long-term oppression of women by men, and then ask men to give women all kinds of compensation.

People of that era should be familiar with this logic. However, if you know more about the history of religion, you can see at a glance that this is a statement full of religious connotations.

Its foundation lies in "original sin" and "atonement".

Men, as a whole, were seen as sinners – because the male ancestors of these men were believed to have oppressed the women of their time. In the eyes of the people of the Central Plains, this accusation inevitably seems strange.

Because what really determines oppression is power, wealth, etc., and gender is only one of the factors, and it cannot play a leading role. There is no clear comparison between men and women of different classes: a male aristocrat can persecute a large number of women, and a noblewoman is equally exploiting a large number of male dependents. How is this calculated?

Carefully theoretical, this interrelationship is very complex. Even if you have to do the calculations, the result is definitely a complex number that cannot be qualitatively defined in a single sentence.

Again, it's not about fairness. Different eras themselves have different standards, and if we follow the general principle of reciprocity of rights and responsibilities, the male aristocracy has more reason to explain: I bear feudal obligations and military duties, and I work hard for the territory, why can't I have power? If this is pulled, it will not be able to be said for days and nights.

Therefore, this kind of male original sin is not a theory, but a kind of belief - only faith can be defined in such a sentence.

Again, because it is original sin, it is transferable. Probably the least understood thing about the Seris is here. When others accuse him of guilt and should atone for his sins, his first reaction is often "I haven't done it?" ”

- That's where the trouble comes in. Due to the different civilizational backgrounds, the members of the Seris civilization generally do not understand the concept of "original sin......

The inheritance of original sin is an important premise of monotheism. For example, St. Augustine and others have written books and theories that state this concept and tell everyone how the sins of the first Adam were transmitted.

In the same way, according to doctrine, original sin is "infected," not "transgressed." People can be communed with each other, and crimes will be passed on from generation to generation, even if they don't make mistakes, they all have the same original sin.

Combined, the two tell believers that original sin is communal and inevitable. It is a sin that is borne by every member of the whole group, it is innate, deeply rooted in nature, and has nothing to do with whether or not one has done anything bad. Therefore, even good people have original sins, and they have to seek atonement for them.

However, there are no such things in the Seris culture. You let him atone for his sins, and he doesn't know why he has to say that his ancestors are guilty. I don't know why it was his turn to compensate for the mistakes made by unrelated people. In this case, he will naturally be resistant.

In fact, this sense of resistance is far more than this. Ordinary Central Plains people almost all have this attitude towards a series of "political correctness". Because they can't understand that they have not done anything for these "disadvantaged" and "minority" groups, why they suddenly and inexplicably, they have to introspect, reflect, recite scriptures, and make amends......

On the other hand, there is the issue of "swearing". As part of Protestantism, women rights advocates also need a goal to "rebel." But at this stage, there are also theoretical bugs

Because the oath requires a goal, and if there is no goal, it loses its meaning in itself. This means that there must first be a male right, and then through the oath against it, a feminist organization can be established and feminist activities can be carried out.

However, Seris is not the same as Rome, and the ritual system here is complex, and it is not the same patriarchy that the Romans used everywhere. On the other hand, there is a lot more, and it is the same as the previous discussion of original sin, and it is impossible to explain why it is intuitive......

And, more importantly, the act of swearing against this kind of behavior is used to distinguish it from the "old religion" and to divide the inside and outside.

Only by swearing against the "majority" or the "strong" side can we achieve this goal, establish the boundaries of our own group, form a centripetal force, and then build a stable organization. Then, you can reap various benefits from it.

But in Seris, who can be opposed?

Unlike in Europe, the women's movement in Seris took place at the same time as the overthrow of the monarchy and the overthrow of the great powers. Describing this history and swearing against it is a crooked goal.

For example, the representatives of patriarchal conservative forces in Europe are modern churches and other organizations. And in modern Seris, who are the conservative forces that hold the divine right?

It's the Qing Dynasty......

Can you swear against the "Great Qing Dynasty"? Absolutely. But the question is not whether it is possible, but too much.

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 line with others.

If you want to intuitively understand its extent, you only need to look at a set of figures: in 1836~1911, there were 5,387 civil uprisings recorded in the Qing Dynasty's "Actual Records" alone - that is to say, in the past 75 years, the influence and scale have been very huge, resulting in the local government cannot be suppressed, and must be reported to the central court for assistance and disposal, on average, once every five days.

In 1856~1865, the rebellion reached its peak. There have been 2,332 rebellions in the past ten years, which is equivalent to a large-scale rebellion every 1.5 days......

And on a smaller scale, the government is too lazy to record. Because if you take care of it, even if you can suppress it, the old men in the house will have to die of overwork......

In this case, he said that he was against feudal male rights and swore against the Qing Dynasty, but of course he could not establish a feminist organization with a clear position - there were too many people who opposed the Qing Dynasty, and everyone poured in, saying "It's a coincidence, I am also against it". So how can you tell the difference?

Therefore, even if there are indeed anti-Qing heroines in history, and people are really opposing monarchy and patriarchy, they cannot be taken out as the cohesion point of modern organizations. The reason for this is this embarrassing situation.

The chapter on Carthage is not too hateful. Before it was good, suddenly the card review began......

(End of chapter)