Comments by "Angry Kittens" (@AngryKittens) on "Asian Boss" channel.

  1. 4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16.  @ninttoz3698  But they are not Han, are they? Mongolia is still a separate country. Does that mean THEY own you then, by historical rights? Does Imperial Japan still have that right as well? It's convenient how you claim other ethnicities are the same as you when you're claiming your right to your own sovereignty, but don't do the same when claiming the sovereignty of other nations. Next you'll be claiming all of us Southeast Asians are just really brown Chinese, and you are actually our masters and we should bow down to you and submit to your authority. In fact that's already what you're claiming by saying we are your "tributaries". LOL. Doesn't matter if it was merely a diplomatic mission in the past, we were automatically "tributaries" even when you had zero political influence or control with any of our kingdoms. Zheng He also brought gifts to our rulers when he visited our trade routes and drew those maps. Does that mean the Ming is our "tributary" too? You've already done that to the Aboriginal Taiwanese, whom you either exterminated or forced to assimilate when you invaded Taiwan at the heels of the Dutch in the 1600s. Even today, they have almost zero voice in the sovereignty of their ancestral lands that they've lived in for thousands of years. Instead they're just barbarians to you who have no rights. Same with kingdoms like Tibet. Or yeah, Mongolia, whom you subjugated with a puppet government during the height of the USSR days. So we know what we can expect if you ever gain dominance in our regions. Don't blame us if we don't trust you or welcome you with open arms. You have a very very long history of invading other people.
    4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. ​ @hiphipjorge5755  Yes, you could say it was classism. But it wasn't racism. There was a caste system in the Spanish Philippines with the Spanish-born whites at the top (the peninsulares), then the Philippine-born whites (the criollos), then the mestizos (mixed-white), the natives ("Indios") who comprised much of the peasant class, and finally the Chinese migrants who were the merchant class. But it wasn't rigid. The Filipino aristocratic class (the Principalia) itself was partly composed of former native chieftains who were granted Spanish titles and offices (the "dons") under the colonial government. Mixed marriages were pretty common. Neither were there African slaves. During the early days when Portugal still answered to Spain, there were a few instances of slavery (mostly Papuans). The Portuguese were expert slavers. Like the Dutch, Belgians, and the Sultanate of Zanzibar, the economy of the Portuguese Empire depended heavily on the slave trade. But after the split and the subsequent hostile relations with Spain, there was zero African slavery, or any kind of real slavery in the Philippines, period. You have to understand that Spain was very different from other colonial powers during the colonial era. While other countries focused only in acquiring wealth, Spain had a very different mission at the forefront: religion. Once you are converted to Christianity, you automatically become subjects of the Spanish crown. Complete with human rights, one of which was that you can not be enslaved. While in practice, you could still work in slave-like conditions under the encomienda system, again, this was generally mitigated by the Leyes Nuevas. Filipino natives were in essence, "citizens" of the Spanish Empire, on the same footing (theoretically at least) as commoner white Spaniards (although of course, both were always below the nobility). Further enhancing the difference is the fact that the Spanish East Indies was too far from Spanish America (Nueva España) to be much affected by it. Even though it was technically under their jurisdiction. There was a unique native Spanish-Filipino culture different from that of other subregions of Nueva España. The most obvious difference is that there were far more native Filipinos than there were Spanish colonists. The result of a simple fact: the Philippines was part of the Old World, and thus were immune to the diseases that killed off most Native Americans. The conquest of the Philippines was also largely through diplomacy and conversion, not through bloody wars. Laslty, the Philippines implemented Leyes Nuevas (followed by the more comprehensive Leyes de Indias) more or less fully, unlike Latin America where powerful local colonial factions abused it and still continued virtually enslaving the Native Americans. While yes, Filipinos generally acquired their reverence for Spanish features from the fact that the whites comprised most of the ruling classes during the Spanish period, it really didn't factor in much when it comes to the reverence of fair skin. Because here's the thing: there was also already a caste system in Filipino societies before the arrival of the Spanish. Composed of the royal families and nobility (tumao/maginoo), the warrior class (timawa/maharlika), and the peasant/serf class (alipin). Very fair skin was a sign of nobility. Princesses of native noble lineages (the binokot, literally "veiled ones"; or dayang, "lady") did not even so much as touch the ground. They were always carried in palanquins and shielded by parasols at all times. Having very fair skin was the symbol of being of high birth or at least of being rich. This was the same all throughout eastern Asia, and the modern-day obsession with fair skin is merely a continuation of it.
    4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4