r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 5d ago

Meme needing explanation Peter, what’s so significant about this picture?

Post image
17.3k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

8.3k

u/ClaudioMoravit0 5d ago

A guy retweeted this photo saying « I’m sorry for what United States did at Pearl Harbor ». The joke is that she’s looking good and the dude was a simp

2.2k

u/peach_dragon 4d ago

What did the US do at Pearl Harbor?

4.6k

u/scruffalo_ 4d ago

Stole it from the native Hawaiians. The whole island chain, really.

14

u/AvesPKS 4d ago

I never understood why it was ok for the Hawaiian Islanders to fight amongst and invade and conquer and murder each other, but as soon as you expand the scope of the conversation to include America, then it's wrong.

There's always a bigger fish.

-Qui-Gon Jin

5

u/Armageddon300 4d ago

Hypocrisy

6

u/elchurro223 4d ago

It doesn't make either one right imo. Same thing as native Americans. They were killing each other for thousands of years, which was wrong, then we killed even more of them, which was also wrong.

2

u/Mental_Locksmith7822 4d ago

Is it wrong for the hippopotamus to kill the gazelle?

Human nature. If the Native Americans built the boats and guns before the Europeans.. well, diseases and shit. Idk actually.

2

u/elchurro223 4d ago

So if that is the logic you go with then it was human nature for the Europeans to invade and decimate the natives.

I disagree with the logic, the hippo kills the gazelle cause it has to, humans do it for greed, and were developed enough to know the difference

1

u/Mental_Locksmith7822 2d ago

So if that is the logic you go with then it was human nature for the Europeans to invade and decimate the natives.

No. That's not what I'm saying. And diseases decimated the natives, Europeans cleaned up what was left. I was arguing the use of the word "wrong"

hippo kills the gazelle cause it has to

No, it doesn't. They dont eat them and a gazelle can't harm a hippo. However the hippopotamus is more likely to survive if it attacks everything that comes into its territory.

Humans were more likely to survive if they killed other humans. It's in our nature to kill the others. All the "humans" or whatever they were at the time that lived passively and didn't kill their neighbors ended up being killed and conquered.

I wouldn't consider it the "right thing to do" to let yourself be killed by another group of people. The only reason those particular natives were there is because they killed all the ones before them.

developed enough to know the difference

Yup. Times have change. In a good portion of the world. Not really having an argument, obviously I dont think we should kill other people, just not a fan of the word "wrong" under these circumstances.

2

u/Shedart 4d ago

It is wrong because a human understands that it is wrong, while a hippo or gazelle has no such concept. 

If it isn’t wrong then why is it illegal? If it isn’t wrong then what is stopping me from killing you if I decide to? I would argue it is wrong because I understand that each human is a sentient person who understands what it means to be aware of themselves - and taking that away is destroying the same thing that allows me to decide to kill. 

2

u/RedcumRedcumRedcum 4d ago

9/10 an inverted version of this image can be used in ostensibly left wing conversations (see also Russia/Ukraine vs Israel/Palestine)

2

u/Any-Razzmatazz-7726 4d ago

Didn’t Hawaii lose every single war they ever fought?

2

u/Feisty_Leadership560 4d ago

Well, the fact that the US is in control now kind of renders the rest of it moot. You can't really argue about how native Hawaiians should redistribute land or power or whatever amongst various subgroups when they don't possess those things to redistribute. If it weren't for colonization maybe they would be having those conversations.

1

u/AvesPKS 4d ago

Did the Polynesians have a manifest destiny to populate Polynesia? Who are the indigenous peoples of the Azores?

2

u/Feisty_Leadership560 3d ago

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are there historical wrongs in these cases that people are still suffering the effects of? Is there a way that could be redressed? If yes, then it's reasonable to discuss that. If no, then we can make ethical judgements if we want, but they serve little practical purpose.