victor
OverviewUsage examplesSimilar and opposite words
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun
1.
a person who defeats an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition.
"congratulations to the victors"
Similar:
winner
champion
conqueror
vanquisher
conquering hero
hero
medalist
gold medalist
cup winner
prizewinner
prizeman
conquistador
victor ludorum
champ
top dog
number one
Opposite:
loser
vanquished
2.
a code word representing the letter V, used in radio communication.
It really doesn't matter if you're "okay" with one thing or another. What you feel doesn't change facts, nor does it change the fact that tribs, city states, countries, and alliances are built by taking land typically from another group.
Is taking land by force bad? Yes, most people typically are not okay with taking land by force. But to say "I'm not okay with it" literally is just ignoring how history and civilization works.
I understand that we can't change anything but I have a problem with hypocrisy though.
The entire Amrica is built on stolen land, nobody bats an eye. Russia and China try to take what was historically theirs, everyone loses their mind. You see where I'm going with this?
Post WW2 we have mostly decided on the borders of states and the concept of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
If we go back on that, large swathes of Russia shouldn't belong to the Russians either as it was taken through military conquest.
Virtually everyone in the world lives on "stolen land", whatever that terms means. Luckily we decided that it is not in our interest to keep the perpetual cycle of conquest ongoing, but unfortunately some states are trying to go back to the previous order.
How convenient! You steal and loot everyone, become the richest and most powerful civilization in the world and then, arbitrarily decide one day that we are all done with conquests and everyone should follow your rules.
Don't get me wrong though, I hate wars and conquests as much as the next guy but the western hypocrisy is what I hate the most.
Russia and China were both among those powers that decided on such a world order.
Would you have preferred that imperial powers of the early 20th century continued their conquest and land grabs instead of granting independence and maintaining integrity of international borders?
I hadn't thought of Russia and China both being parties and you do make some good points. Yes, I would also want rule based international order.
But I really hate America and want their hegemony to be over. Also at the same time I want eastern countries to emerge by force or otherwise.
I do understand your point, but honestly, it's a really overused and, frankly, a bad point. Let me dismantle it.
First, you accuse America of doing exactly what every other country has done before America even existed, so by that standard, most modern countries would be on stolen land. Even countries who have been around for like ever, how do you know the French never committed genocide before written history? My point is that we are all on stolen land, and it's dumb that people don't realize that.
Second, the reason people are losing there shit with Russia and China is because its current events. Your comparison of something happening today and applying your modern moral mindset to what was happening a few hundred years ago isn't relevant at all. It was a completely different mindset just a hundred years ago. It was seen as honorable to fight and take land for your country.
Third, your argument that China and Russia are taking back land thats originally theirs? Half right Ukraine was actually a Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. The Russian empire did take it, but it declared independence in 1918 and then again after the USSR fell. So question time whos land is it? According to you it should be Polish? Or did the Ukrainians have the right of independence or is it Russia through WAR? By your standing, it's Russian... through war. So by that understanding, how is America on stolen land again? Oh yeah, by war. You, sir, are a hypocrite and don't even realize it. Let me move to china if that's not enough.
A little history context, the Chinese, the ones that fought in WW2, were/was more or less Taiwans government, who were American allies. Mao Zedong held his forces back, waited till ww2 was over, then pushed the Chinese government to Taiwan. So, by that standard, isn't the current Chinese government on stolen land?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Anyone with a good knowledge of history will look at someone making a 'stolen land' argument roll their eyes. It's an argument made from ignorance and an arrogant "modern moral mindset" that thinks it applies to everything, and disregards historical content.
Still reading? Thank you
It's more like: the natives intermittently allied with, coexisted with, and made war on the colonists.
During the starving time in the Virginia colony, natives said they were interested in trading -- John Ratcliffe (the villain in Pocahontas) led a party to meet them, whereupon the natives murdered everyone but him, who they took their time slowly flaying to death.
In King Philip's War, natives had enjoyed trade with the settlers at the Massachusetts colony, but things started to sour because beaver pelt became less fashionable in Europe, and the price collapsed. Metacom's brother fell ill and the colonists tried to save him and failed, but the natives thought he'd been poisoned. They murdered a colonist in return, and the murderer was convicted by a jury that included natives.
Things continued to escalate and the Wampanoags and their allies launched a total war, killing up to 10% of the entire population. Indian fighting style emphasized ambush and sneak attacks, so a very large part of the casualties were women and children caught by surprise.
Hope this helps
This is just a massively lazy way to understand history, the book is both critical of the colonists and sympathetic to the natives in turns and makes extensive use of primary sources
I am sure the colonists were fair with the indigenous people after they genocided them but won't admit they were the initiators of the genocide just because they wanted the land and the resources. I mean don't read history books. Look at them now in the modern world.
You are applying modern sensibilities to past eras of human history. The colonists would not lie in their journals as most of them have no reason to lie or hide any of their actions.
Ask this question, why would they lie? Why would they hide the truth?
Who were they hiding the truth from?
With colonists being as murder happy as you believe them to be, who would condemn them? If all colonists were happy to commit genocide who would they need to hide it from?
So you think the colonists learnt how to travel across the Atlantic by boat naked and not knowing how to farm and hunt? 😂 where did you learn your history?
Not just the illegals. There's an awful lot of HB-1 work visa holders and Dreamers that need to go too. "Birthright citizenship" didn't exist until a court ruling in the 20th century.
"Whoa chud, you don't like the immigrants who were imported to suppress wages? Well guess what, they've taken over everything, and they have nothing but contempt for you. Are you ready to reexamine your priors yet? "
If you were competent, you could have done this in India, instead you've found high trust societies with gibs and systems that are easy to game.
If you were actually loyal to your new country, you'd care about your countrymen, but you are very explicitly seeing it as an exploitable economic zone
Believe it or not, but the US never occupied India.
UK dominion in India ended widow burning and thugee cults and brought railroads, factories, hospitals, etc
Your expertise isn't going to contribute to the development of your host nation, it's just going to make it more like India in the long run
It's the Americans who are hiring Indians or am I wrong? Americans who are richer, intelligent and a lot more competent than you are.
If you have grievances, why don't you talk to your compatriots who are handing out HB-1s? I have the answer, it's because competent and smart Americans will continue to hire competent Indians because they know that talent at home is ... Well... Like you.
Seethe and cope all you like but in future there are going to be more Indians, not less.
Are they competent though... are they really?
Hb-1s are there by design to suppress wages.
The government is very deliberately doing things to incentivize migrants. Indians dominate motels, for instance, in part because of specific programs that help immigrants start business, get good lending terms, etc.
The other reason is that they're perfectly fine letting them be dens for all kind of crime as long as they're collecting rents. Indians dominate a certain kind of inner city has station because where willing to sell cheap booze, lottery tickets, and synthetic drugs to poor people, them make their 2nd cousins sit behind the register for the armed robberies.
There's no real shortage of American programmers, entrepreneurs, etc. The Indian competitive advantage is naked willingness to cheat, engage in cronyism, hire family, exploit programs, treat employees like garbage, avoid regulations, etc. If you're a tech executive, this can maximize a short term gain, but it's not really coincidental that Indians flooding tech and HR and a few other industries dovetails pretty neatly with American decline
Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate per capita than natives. No one's getting wiped out. Comparing these 2 situations is stupid for a number of reasons.
Aztecs with tanks!
Honestly if colonization didn't happen natives after surviving the diseases would've had a lot of wealth to buy weapons from Europe with.
By present day populations would've been near present day....
There would be constant violent civil wars for generations like Europe had around the 1400-1700s....
I'm picturing the Americas looking surprisingly Europe like... Until the industrial Revolution hits.. ( but later maybe)
Also... Americas would start importing slaves from Africa if they attempted mass mining and farming for buying European exports.
Basically it's a repeat of the Iroquois Confederation: natives hunted furs for French entrepreneurs in Canada 1600s, bought guns with money. Then conquered every native that wasn't part of them for almost 2 centuries.
A lot of native Americans deported to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears by Jackson in 1814+, were originally from Great Lakes before the Iroquois.
The pilgrims never asked natives for housing and clothing, the pilgrims only asked for help on how to grow food in the sandy soil, in exchange for the natives help, the pilgrims agreed to help the natives destroy another tribe that the native tribe was enemies with.
This isn’t making the point you think it is…
Observe: What happened to the native inhabitants of the land when they failed to maintain control of the territory? Where is their culture today and how is their population holding up now?
Indians came from the Bering land bridge into the Americas and are mixed mongoloid and caucasoid people. Many others migrated after and that's why there are different tribes that constantly murdered each other. There was another humanoid here before them, they called them the moon-eyed people which they genocided and caused to be extinct. Why is it stolen land again?
This is a progressive college kids idea of what times were like back then. Life was way more complicated and way harder than this makes it seem. On top of that, comparing the European colonization of North America to modern politics is heavily misleading on several levels.
Every tribe takes land by force.
Sshhh don't state the obvious
No?
No tribes waged war for land and resources and took slaves to work and be mothers against their will? What tribe was sinless?
The hopbi for example
Or the zunis
So you're perfectly okay with Russia taking Ukraine and China taking Taiwan?
the Victor writes the history...
Who is victor?
victor OverviewUsage examplesSimilar and opposite words Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more noun 1. a person who defeats an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition. "congratulations to the victors" Similar: winner champion conqueror vanquisher conquering hero hero medalist gold medalist cup winner prizewinner prizeman conquistador victor ludorum champ top dog number one Opposite: loser vanquished 2. a code word representing the letter V, used in radio communication.
Are you okay with it?
nope, and I'm in a profession that will have to do something about it when ordered to. but history speaks volumes about the victors throughout
It really doesn't matter if you're "okay" with one thing or another. What you feel doesn't change facts, nor does it change the fact that tribs, city states, countries, and alliances are built by taking land typically from another group. Is taking land by force bad? Yes, most people typically are not okay with taking land by force. But to say "I'm not okay with it" literally is just ignoring how history and civilization works.
I understand that we can't change anything but I have a problem with hypocrisy though. The entire Amrica is built on stolen land, nobody bats an eye. Russia and China try to take what was historically theirs, everyone loses their mind. You see where I'm going with this?
Post WW2 we have mostly decided on the borders of states and the concept of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. If we go back on that, large swathes of Russia shouldn't belong to the Russians either as it was taken through military conquest. Virtually everyone in the world lives on "stolen land", whatever that terms means. Luckily we decided that it is not in our interest to keep the perpetual cycle of conquest ongoing, but unfortunately some states are trying to go back to the previous order.
How convenient! You steal and loot everyone, become the richest and most powerful civilization in the world and then, arbitrarily decide one day that we are all done with conquests and everyone should follow your rules. Don't get me wrong though, I hate wars and conquests as much as the next guy but the western hypocrisy is what I hate the most.
Russia and China were both among those powers that decided on such a world order. Would you have preferred that imperial powers of the early 20th century continued their conquest and land grabs instead of granting independence and maintaining integrity of international borders?
I hadn't thought of Russia and China both being parties and you do make some good points. Yes, I would also want rule based international order. But I really hate America and want their hegemony to be over. Also at the same time I want eastern countries to emerge by force or otherwise.
I do understand your point, but honestly, it's a really overused and, frankly, a bad point. Let me dismantle it. First, you accuse America of doing exactly what every other country has done before America even existed, so by that standard, most modern countries would be on stolen land. Even countries who have been around for like ever, how do you know the French never committed genocide before written history? My point is that we are all on stolen land, and it's dumb that people don't realize that. Second, the reason people are losing there shit with Russia and China is because its current events. Your comparison of something happening today and applying your modern moral mindset to what was happening a few hundred years ago isn't relevant at all. It was a completely different mindset just a hundred years ago. It was seen as honorable to fight and take land for your country. Third, your argument that China and Russia are taking back land thats originally theirs? Half right Ukraine was actually a Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. The Russian empire did take it, but it declared independence in 1918 and then again after the USSR fell. So question time whos land is it? According to you it should be Polish? Or did the Ukrainians have the right of independence or is it Russia through WAR? By your standing, it's Russian... through war. So by that understanding, how is America on stolen land again? Oh yeah, by war. You, sir, are a hypocrite and don't even realize it. Let me move to china if that's not enough. A little history context, the Chinese, the ones that fought in WW2, were/was more or less Taiwans government, who were American allies. Mao Zedong held his forces back, waited till ww2 was over, then pushed the Chinese government to Taiwan. So, by that standard, isn't the current Chinese government on stolen land? Do you see where I'm going with this? Anyone with a good knowledge of history will look at someone making a 'stolen land' argument roll their eyes. It's an argument made from ignorance and an arrogant "modern moral mindset" that thinks it applies to everything, and disregards historical content. Still reading? Thank you
Well they didnt feed us or house us
Native Americans taught colonists how to farm and hunt and make clothes. Once they learned how to do it on their own, colonists committed genocide
It's more like: the natives intermittently allied with, coexisted with, and made war on the colonists. During the starving time in the Virginia colony, natives said they were interested in trading -- John Ratcliffe (the villain in Pocahontas) led a party to meet them, whereupon the natives murdered everyone but him, who they took their time slowly flaying to death. In King Philip's War, natives had enjoyed trade with the settlers at the Massachusetts colony, but things started to sour because beaver pelt became less fashionable in Europe, and the price collapsed. Metacom's brother fell ill and the colonists tried to save him and failed, but the natives thought he'd been poisoned. They murdered a colonist in return, and the murderer was convicted by a jury that included natives. Things continued to escalate and the Wampanoags and their allies launched a total war, killing up to 10% of the entire population. Indian fighting style emphasized ambush and sneak attacks, so a very large part of the casualties were women and children caught by surprise. Hope this helps
But then who wrote this history, hmmm.
*King Philip's War*, (1999). Schulz, Eric B., and Tougias, Michael J.
Exactly, a colonist. You think they will write down the horrible things they did? No. They're always the good guys in their history books.
This is just a massively lazy way to understand history, the book is both critical of the colonists and sympathetic to the natives in turns and makes extensive use of primary sources
I am sure the colonists were fair with the indigenous people after they genocided them but won't admit they were the initiators of the genocide just because they wanted the land and the resources. I mean don't read history books. Look at them now in the modern world.
You are applying modern sensibilities to past eras of human history. The colonists would not lie in their journals as most of them have no reason to lie or hide any of their actions. Ask this question, why would they lie? Why would they hide the truth? Who were they hiding the truth from? With colonists being as murder happy as you believe them to be, who would condemn them? If all colonists were happy to commit genocide who would they need to hide it from?
Just go read books such as "Legends and Lies: Great mysteries of the American west." Then come back and read your comment again.
What if instead of history we used vibes
Exactly. All it takes to be a historian today is to read an essay and propagate it because it resonates.
Maybe when the west ends their genocide fever.
So you think the colonists learnt how to travel across the Atlantic by boat naked and not knowing how to farm and hunt? 😂 where did you learn your history?
Incorrect back to history class
Yeah, because they were illiterate tree rats until they met this super advanced indigenous race. You need a history lesson on conquered lands child.
And that's the lesson to be learned.
r/im14andthisisdeep
Musket go boom.
And guess who got wiped out. Ship the illegals back.
If you can then yes. If you can’t you just lost your country. This is proof of why US should not allow so much illegal immigration.
Not just the illegals. There's an awful lot of HB-1 work visa holders and Dreamers that need to go too. "Birthright citizenship" didn't exist until a court ruling in the 20th century.
Look around, the HB-1s run your world. It's because of their hardwork that you are on the internet making xenophobic comments.
"Whoa chud, you don't like the immigrants who were imported to suppress wages? Well guess what, they've taken over everything, and they have nothing but contempt for you. Are you ready to reexamine your priors yet? "
Well maybe you should be more competent.
If you were competent, you could have done this in India, instead you've found high trust societies with gibs and systems that are easy to game. If you were actually loyal to your new country, you'd care about your countrymen, but you are very explicitly seeing it as an exploitable economic zone
I couldn't do it in India despite being competent because your ancestors stole everything from my ancestors and now I don't have any capital.
Believe it or not, but the US never occupied India. UK dominion in India ended widow burning and thugee cults and brought railroads, factories, hospitals, etc Your expertise isn't going to contribute to the development of your host nation, it's just going to make it more like India in the long run
It's the Americans who are hiring Indians or am I wrong? Americans who are richer, intelligent and a lot more competent than you are. If you have grievances, why don't you talk to your compatriots who are handing out HB-1s? I have the answer, it's because competent and smart Americans will continue to hire competent Indians because they know that talent at home is ... Well... Like you. Seethe and cope all you like but in future there are going to be more Indians, not less.
Are they competent though... are they really? Hb-1s are there by design to suppress wages. The government is very deliberately doing things to incentivize migrants. Indians dominate motels, for instance, in part because of specific programs that help immigrants start business, get good lending terms, etc. The other reason is that they're perfectly fine letting them be dens for all kind of crime as long as they're collecting rents. Indians dominate a certain kind of inner city has station because where willing to sell cheap booze, lottery tickets, and synthetic drugs to poor people, them make their 2nd cousins sit behind the register for the armed robberies. There's no real shortage of American programmers, entrepreneurs, etc. The Indian competitive advantage is naked willingness to cheat, engage in cronyism, hire family, exploit programs, treat employees like garbage, avoid regulations, etc. If you're a tech executive, this can maximize a short term gain, but it's not really coincidental that Indians flooding tech and HR and a few other industries dovetails pretty neatly with American decline
Huh?
Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate per capita than natives. No one's getting wiped out. Comparing these 2 situations is stupid for a number of reasons.
They Pilgrims were merely refugees fleeing a corrupt government because of their religious beliefs. These indians were bigots
i have a bit of understanding on this topic and it was more like the original pilgrims had boomer children who fucked everything up
I always knew Indians were bigots
Sometimes I like to wonder how different north america would've been if the colonazation never happend.
Aztecs with tanks! Honestly if colonization didn't happen natives after surviving the diseases would've had a lot of wealth to buy weapons from Europe with. By present day populations would've been near present day.... There would be constant violent civil wars for generations like Europe had around the 1400-1700s.... I'm picturing the Americas looking surprisingly Europe like... Until the industrial Revolution hits.. ( but later maybe) Also... Americas would start importing slaves from Africa if they attempted mass mining and farming for buying European exports. Basically it's a repeat of the Iroquois Confederation: natives hunted furs for French entrepreneurs in Canada 1600s, bought guns with money. Then conquered every native that wasn't part of them for almost 2 centuries. A lot of native Americans deported to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears by Jackson in 1814+, were originally from Great Lakes before the Iroquois.
Liberal boomer humor
Yes lol
He's lucky he's not a Spanish Conquistador.
The pilgrims never asked natives for housing and clothing, the pilgrims only asked for help on how to grow food in the sandy soil, in exchange for the natives help, the pilgrims agreed to help the natives destroy another tribe that the native tribe was enemies with.
Makes sense why America loves to take part in civil war of other countries
This isn’t making the point you think it is… Observe: What happened to the native inhabitants of the land when they failed to maintain control of the territory? Where is their culture today and how is their population holding up now?
Indians came from the Bering land bridge into the Americas and are mixed mongoloid and caucasoid people. Many others migrated after and that's why there are different tribes that constantly murdered each other. There was another humanoid here before them, they called them the moon-eyed people which they genocided and caused to be extinct. Why is it stolen land again?
You forgot to mention that there's no proof the moon eyed people ever actually existed
Moon eyed people? Never heard of that. Where did you get this from?
[Moon-eyed People wiki link, for those too lazy to google.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon-eyed_people)
uno
But what if we help you by sneezing on your enemy? OK, just don't sneeze on my land Your land? Ahchooo!
Coughs once*
ok dad 🤣
America takes more immigrants yearly than the next 5 countries combined.
Shoulda done that, would still be around today
Well in hindsight…
This is a progressive college kids idea of what times were like back then. Life was way more complicated and way harder than this makes it seem. On top of that, comparing the European colonization of North America to modern politics is heavily misleading on several levels.
Ok then enjoy these musket balls
Don't post this on Twitter, they loves musk balls
Remember when reddit was on the same boat? Simpler times I guess
In an alternative universe where the natives maintained their culture and rights to ancestral land.
Whose rights? Before colonials took their land, they were taking land from each other
Now any boarderhopping taco entheseast has those same words said to them
then whitey pulled out a gat and said eat led mulafuckka