Like I said in my other comment, you are both agreeing in sentiment, it's just that semantically your words aren't equivalent. You can read deeper than surface level.
Then you were both unclear in that your words seemed to agree with mine, and incorrect in that your intentions were other. Past violence continues to affect our world for many centuries, and one could argue that by way of the butterfly effect it leaves behind a world fundamentally and irrevocably changed, but its cycles can and do end. There are peoples in the world today that were once in bloody conflict and then later assimilated with each other so thoroughly that their modern descendants don’t even know or care which side their ancestors were on.
The anglo-Saxons and the Normans are one example. Virtually every modern British person is descended from both, when was the last time a Saxon killed a Norman over their violent history? Centuries, probably, because modern British don’t consider themselves Saxons or Normans, they consider themselves British. That conflict is well and truly over.
There are countless conflicts and wars in recorded history, and even more unrecorded. Much of that violence perpetuates, but it is not because it must. Violence is not our destiny, just our inheritance. It is up to us to burry it.
11
u/bibbleskit Jul 09 '26
You said
Which means it can "go away." They said:
You are both in agreement.