Where there evr "good" nobles? Like nobles that were still just the patriarchs of their community and invested in its wellbeing the same way a rancher or mexican patron would?I feel like this is the natural way people organize, they have the clusters of family trying to do the best they can and a little bossman family settling disputes and organizing the others with their slightly richer plot of land
>>18454094Early tribes, for example, had them, most likely since the blood ties would still be close enough and it would be like being commanded by your grandfather to go with your cousins to hunt or whatever
>>18454094Celtroons were matriarchal
Ancient Gaul....home..
>>18454094Because a lot of these societies operated on the basis that>I'm a richfag, I get all the good shit>You're a poorfag, you eat rocks and work for mewasn't just some economic view or position, it was a fundamental and crucial part of the societal fabric-often backed by religious justification. That said, there were plenty of decent nobles who were "good" for their time. They usually got fucked over by a relative.
>>18454094The most recent example I can think of comes from the Scottish Highlands, whose clan structure had a more familial tint and focus compared to standard feudal and noble networks elsewhere. Iirc, the story illustrating a good noble comes from the 1700s. A random tenant came to their chief requesting help in finding a new wife, and the chief duly went out of his way to find his tenant a suitable wife. During periods of high migration away from the Highlands, there were chiefs concerned with their tenant’s wellbeing, and they tried to improve their lot. Scottish Highland clans have a lot of romanticism surrounding them, but they were ultimately the same as other noble structures tied to land with a tenant-noble relationship. Their traditions, however, tinted it so that the chiefs were under a lot of pressure to consider everyone’s wellbeing, being considered the patriarch and father figure of everyone under his protection, in the clan either by extended family connections or by pledging allegiance. Of course, this wasn’t always the case. You can find nobles in Highland history that were bastards. However, there are examples of chiefs genuinely caring for the peasants under them, and the myths of their communities reinforced this behavior. Compare that to the Norman conqueror lords of England or something similar where they don’t immediately identify with the peasants under their control.
>>18454195Romanticist LARPHighland Tenants were treated worse than Lowlanders and English were by their lords. Highland tenants were slaves to their lairds.
>>18454094>Mexican patron>GoodI am Mexican and you white retards are so fucking stupid it is laughable. You sincerely have no idea what Mexico and our culture is like, that's why we are conquering your culture and your demographics without firing a single bullet.And no, Mexican patrons aren't good, they are evil and use their mercenaries to murder you for whatever fucking reason. I don't even mean cartels, even "legal and honest" jobs you are coerced through fear, have no legal protections as a worker, they don't care you are a Mexican man or woman for the patrons see themselves as the new whites unironically.Gringos estúpidos, se van a llevar tremendo susto cuando los Mexicanos sean sus jefes y no al revés.
>>18454208I disagree. I know there’s a ton of larp around Highland clans, but the structure of the clans had clear methods to tard wrangle a shitty chief, and it happened more than once. That plus the stories I read disagree. I got my info from pic related, which is not just random BS but goes into a lot of cited detail regarding clan governance. The Highland tenants probably had worse day-to-day lives because they were dirt poor, but I don’t think they were treated poorly or like slaves until the clearances, when they were ruled by detached, absentee chiefs living in London, unless you have counter sources.
>>18454214uh yeah, sure, gimme the I'll have the beef chimichangas, thanks pedro
>>18454094That's not a noble, that's a king. Anyways yes, it's the rule, not the exception. The abandonment of Noblesse Oblige is a consequence of rationalism. Nietzsche warned about this btw.
>>18454214>that's why we are conqueringSure you are, one SNAP enrollment at a time.
>>18454094There are good and bad people in all walks of life, yes even Nazis.
>>18454227Aren't a lot of nietzsche larpers saying that noblesse oblige is evil and that nobles/the elite instead should be egoistical?
>>18454259The few I interact with seem to be more focused on the problems of mass immigration and the lack of an actual elite. That's types on the right who also like Nietzsche seem to be in consistent agreement on. Have you seen any nobles recently? I'm not a neech head but I tend to agree with this perspective.
>>18454163Looks African
>>18454100>>18454163>where are the marble columns and boy brothels o algo
>>18454214Your culture is spanish language, jew religion and what else?Hot peppers?
>>18454438whypeepo hate spices so much they don't even get diabetes before they're 40 LMAO
>>18454195No, >>18454208 is right. Tenants were treated as a disposable resource. By the 18th century, many of the clan chiefs were absentee landlords living it up in London, leaving the management of their lands to stewards, who would travel around every year demanding rents without giving much in return. Then, by the late 18th century, the absentee chiefs had figured out that sheep were more profitable per acre than tenants. The more 'benevolent' chiefs paid their tenants to go to North America or to England's industrial cities, but sometimes they unilaterally vacated the tenancy and removed the roofs from the tenants' former houses to prevent squatting.The whole idea of a unified clan is an early modern/modern invention, first by the likes of Robert Burns and Walter Scott (to deal with the humiliating aftermath of the Jacobite Rebellions and reframe Scotland's identity to be palatable as an aesthetic to the Hanoverian monarchy), and later by the post-1945 Scottish tourist industry that wanted to sell an identity, tartan and fake 'family crest' included, to American tourists. See, it's a lot easier to sell the soft lie that "your ancestors belonged to the great Clan MacLeod" than it is to sell the hard truth that "your ancestors were worked like dogs on behalf of a 'Scottish' clan chief who was born in India, lived in England, worked in Westminster, married an English banker's daughter and didn't know any of his tenants by name" (John Norman MacLeod, 1788-1835).
>>18454215Frank Adam, author of 'What is my Tartan?', was one of the early exponents of the tourism-focused mythology that I describe in my second paragraph of >>18454511. It's pseudo-genealogy, meant to make money off well-off American descendants of serfs who want to "reconnect with our Scottish heritage" but don't want to hear the truth, which is that their ancestors were physically stunted crofters and fishermen on godforsaken little islands and hillsides while the actual members of the clan lived it up at London's banquets and balls. It's little better than more modern grifts like the 'family crest' businesses that sell stolen personal coats of arms as though they belong to a surname.
>>18454259Most people who tout him didn't understand him. Egotism is what slave morality does when robbed of higher principles.
>>18454511I hear what you’re saying and I agree with a good portion of it. But you’re pointing to examples of mistreatment and a change of beliefs after the chiefs and lairds became disconnected and absentee landlords, which I addressed here >>18454215. I know it’s a subject very much mixed with myths for a lot of reasons, but there was a patriarchal tint to the feudalism practiced in the highlands (and even in the lowlands too to a lesser extent) before the clearances. My understanding is that scholars agree it was much more kin-based, even when the kinship links were actually fabricated and someone wasn’t actually a descendant of “the” clan (the ruling, lairdly family). I’m not trying to say it was a utopian system where tenants were never mistreated, but the patriarchal tint in their feudalism led to examples like I described. If I can find the specific passages I’m thinking of, I’ll post them and the supporting citations.>>18454516No, specifically the versions revised by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lord Lyon King of Arms (whose job it was to know the historic laws of Scotland and not just make a buck selling tartan patterns), who notes things Frank Adams got wrong. And going on and on about the tourism industry around this stuff doesn’t actually defeat my point: that the patriarchal tint present in that type of feudalism often resulted in chiefs and lairds feeling an obligation to their tenants BEFORE becoming disconnected, absentee landlords in London. I’m not even trying to argue that every American named MacLean was part of the noble, lairdly family. I acknowledge that actual kinship was often a myth, and that it was even asserted by chiefs for legitimacy. But that went both ways.
