There's a side-by-side photo I saw some years ago, showing the Turkey-Syria border and the Belgium-Netherlands border. One is a double row of barbed wire patrolled by armed guards, the other is a brick line on the pavement with a cafe built over it. Once again, we see how the violence of modern states is visited on different people differently - borders are only hard when one side is richer than the other.
And I mean I think the real comparison here should be with how the EU treats it's borders with Non-Member States. The Mediterranean is effectively militarized and the EU actually had many treaties with North African states to stop migrants, the "migrant crisis" was to a large degree caused by the collapse of those states which opened up routes to the EU. The Turkish border is actually like that because of treaties with the EU where Turkey is supposed to stop migrants before they reach the EU.
I am Greek and what you say about the militarization of our borders is true, it is insane. Also, I currently live in France, less than 3km from the border with Switzerland. I have never seen customs stops for people coming from Switzerland, but Swiss custims authorities search cars etc. Even if the afforementioned wealth difference is not that great, what you said is still true :p
You've figured it out!!! Borders are in people's material interests and since competition is the law of nature - there will always be winners and losers.
@@niceguy2527 It concerns me that this was your takeaway here. Borders are in a *nation's* best interests. They are in direct opposition to people's interests. Also competition is not the law of nature - I don't know if you know this, but there aren't any laws in nature. Some species compete, some species co-operate. Humans (indeed all major primates) are social animals who co-operate, that's *our* nature.
@@krannok which people? People get into conflict over finite resources. Borders help secure and defend said resources. Cooperation is a survival strategy due to said conflict/competition over finite resources. Political identity is forged out of negation. The only way a "human" political identity will come about is either through alien Invasion (due to greater identity negation vs inter human negation) or infinite resources removing the need for competition
It's so rare to see a Trinidadian in my recommended. Even rarer to see someone so compassionate to my people (I'm Venezuelan) . I'm moving to the States because immigration in Trinidad is so disorganized that even though I have done SEA, CSEC and CAPE in Trinidad, if I applied to UWI I would be applying as a foreigner. Not to say the U.S. is easy on its immigrants, but with the constant abuse by immigration officers who made getting student permits so incredibly difficult and the constant insults I would get on the street, maybe it won't be as stressful. It saddens me because I consider Trinidad as more of a home than Venezuela, but what do you do when the country you love doesn't love you back ? If you're comfortable with it, I would love to talk to you personally on these topics❗ my friends are not usually interested in listening to my long winded rants on politics and climate change 😂 if not, that's okay, I will always be checking to see what you talk about next , keep up the amazing work!❤❤❤
Yeah the immigration situation is truly a mess, and it pisses me off to see how Venezuelans are often treated here. I'd love to chat about it more though. you can reach out on Twitter if you'd like, or through my Discord: discord.gg/apegmVYY
I shared your solarpunk video with my wife. She liked it and finds your voice soothing. Coincidentally, she mentioned she wishes people had the freedom to just move around a while ago, so I'll be sharing this video as well. 👍
I've never cared for patriotism. Are you supposed to be proud of invisible lines drawn without anyone's consent. There's no pride in which side of a border you happened to be born on.
Yeah, like you literally had no input on what arbitrary border you were born within. Why would you be proud of that? Patriotism is really weird (and dangerous)
Nationalism is a survival strategy in order to better to secure your material interests in a world with finite resources. Blows my mind the leftists don't understand this given how much they harp on material circumstances and such.
@@niceguy2527 I'm fairly certain most leftisms actually consider "protecting your material interests" to be a shitty reason to excuse all the other impacts of enforcing borders. It's not humane to deny people the right to exist and the right to run away from violent places just because you're scared of losing resources that weren't yours to begin with. Also, finite resources is how it is for the ENTIRE planet, not just individual arbitrarily-drawn countries. One mouth to feed in Syria is still a mouth to feed on Earth. Letting another country deplete its resources because you're too scared of giving people a humane existence is not gonna actually gonna save any resources in the long run. In fact, refugees actually get to become more educated or join modern production lines that are overall more resource-efficient (sometimes), so they actually make it easier to handle extra mouths to feed. They're workers just like anyone. They're not leeches. They wanna live. You wanna be selfish. Your position isn't morally comparable to theirs and your justifications for the harm they go through is inhumane.
@@Nathouuuutheone vague appeals humanism aren't going to work. People are always going to prioritise their own needs over others because resources are finite. I think you'll prove the point given your life style and what you spend your money on.
@@niceguy2527 I was replying to you claiming that leftism loves borders. I get that the position I present is shaky, but my goal wasn't to justify it, just to state it. I don't think I can convince anyone of getting rid of borders, especially not in a RU-vid comment. I just know for a fact that leftism is not inherently pro-borders and that assuming leftists are afraid of immigrants stealing their resources is hella weird.
Bless up my Caribbean bredren 🙏🏾 with the advent of technology and the internet bringing people closer (and simultaneously further), borders seem so silly. The political scientist side of me cautions the lost of national culture at the hand of globalism (very polemic take given the subject matter) but I'm of the opinion of finding a healthy balance here
I don't think there really is any conflict here. National cultures were often themselves responsible for erasing local cultures and were enforced with borders, they're often really just the culture of the upper class in the capital and were enforced on everyone. That's why they often ended up becoming reduced to like a checklist of things, y'know a national anthem, a national dance, a national costume, a national bird and so on. Very few people relate to that because it's usually dead culture with no connection to what people actually did before the national culture was established, culture isn't just the "theme" of a country it's how people actually live so you can see why people quickly stopped caring about these artifacts while instead just establishing new cultures. Getting rid of the borders and states will allow diverse cultures to actually flourish once again because there's no demand that people in this specific place have to have the same culture as people in another place because of an arbitrary line. I think the slow erosion of national cultures we are seeing now is due to this, with media becoming global the mass media that used to enforce national cultures no longer have much power and when the national culture have little meaning to the people living there it's just going to be slowly abandoned. The Hollywood version of American culture is always going to look better than whatever you have right now because it's literally propaganda and so people will slowly switch to it.
The "imaginary lines" have been a key part of human civilisation since the dawn of man, from tribes to nations we have always had borders because it is basic sense
Once again you laid all the cards on the table. Every video is so great. If ever, I look forward to world without borders and thanks for the tips on how we can get closer to that.
You actually agree with his videos? How is open borders going to do anything but overpopulate the entire world and force indigenous inhabitants off their land
I just recently discovered your channel and you have quickly risen to becoming one of my favourite leftist creators. I really appreciate your perspective on things and your focus on praxis and actually making a difference. Your videos are so good!
Leftist.. everything has to be either left or right. Black or white. Good or bad. Part of the problem in society nowadays imo. Why cant he just be a intuitive creator. What he says simple makes sense. Doesnt have to be left or right.
I'd love to send this to Priti Patel or the editorial team of the Daily Mail for all the good it would do. This perspective on the subject of migration and borders is rarely heard in legacy media, thank you for this important analysis.
As someone how has been an immigrant it was easy for me to support the idea of abolishing borders; but it really feels much better having a greater scope of understanding of what is at stake.
This was very helpful information for my play I'm writing (about three brothers to try to cross the Mexican-American border for resources, and other political topics). Thanks!
I think borders are equivalent to private property. Arbitrary, hard to justify (especially if we try to based it off morals of any kind), overall damaging to people's ability to live humane lives, and consistently used as an excuse to promote violence against minorities and innocents of all sorts. And like private property, there are alternatives. Private property is about make-believing "objective" property. Personal property is about your needs and your active use of resources and space around you. Matched with concepts of public resources or common property, it makes infinitely more sense than private property ever will. Border can be like that. People and communities should be independent by default. Their land should be descriptive, not prescriptive (as in, I live in Montreal, but I do not own Montreal. I grow food in a garden but I don't own the top layer of soil nor do I own the individual atoms of carbon and nitrogen and whatnot in my food. The air in my lungs is mine, not because a notary said so and will enforce it, no. The air in my lungs in mine because it's in my lungs. It won't be mine the second it leaves, because private property is nonsense. Private property is the enemy of the people.
that point about how borders as we know them weren't even really a Thing until the 20th century after Centuries of evolving efforts+methods to control people just hits All the notes, it's like when people realize for the first time that the dhs wasn't even established until 2002.
Is Homeland Security really such a monolith to people? Damn. I remember when that went up, and I thought at the time "That's gonna change the world in a big way.", but I didn't realise it would become so entrenched so quickly!
@@krannok i can't speak for people older than me but i was still in elementary school when that shit got set up, it feels like a lifetime ago. i do remember people on the news criticizing it but i didn't personally see that many people talking about how authoritarian it all is until relatively recently.
@@princeofbohemia I guess it's all about perspective. I was in my mid 20s on 9/11, and the last two decades have felt like a giant backwards step into the Cold War again (which I also remember - just). Fear makes us into the worst version of ourselves.
BRUH I WAS JUST TALKING ABT THIS IN MY FIRST PEIOD CLASS (we were making like perfect societies for a project and i told my partner that borders wouldn’t have a purpose and all that)
>borders are just a social construct!!! >but... gender n race n shit is cool though dude. think of how to actually help humanity instead of trying to look optically special. theres a reason why this guy can pump out multiple videos on giant topics monthly. he does it for revenue, not for actual profound thought, moreso psuedophilosophy and repeating what other people say on reddit.
This isnt related to this video: but could you direct me towards some reading about anarchism and technological progress? How does humanity progress technologically in a stateless/ market free/ post capitalist society? For example, how do we invent better solar technology and reverse climate change in a stateless society?
This is a subject that requires a multi pronged approach. Anarchists, even those who don't consider themselves "primitivists" (I think primitivism is pretty reductionist and also quite racist) tend not to have strongly positive views of the idea of technological progress as a necessity for a better life. It's important to note that the vast majority of human existance, and thus the vast majority of human's historical innovations, have been within the framework of a stateless, market free world. Also consider how many millions of people are unable to develop technology further due to things like IP/copyright laws, a lack of funding for research, inability to pay for school, lack of investment in technologies that could more easily democratize innovation, reducing the opportunity for corporations to make profit etc etc. as our technology has "progressed" it has started to contend more and more with the rest of nature, causing the obviously devastating effects of climate change, the collapse of indigenous ecosystems, the perpetuation of exploitative extraction from the earth. So I think a lot of anarchists are skeptical when it comes to an unapologetically positive view of technology. That being said, the idea that innovation would be impeded, to me, doesn't hold much weight, since obviously things like the internet would still exist, and without the profit motive, without the opportunity for power, there would be no reason to hoard valuable resources or innovative ideas through property laws, beyond their immediate necessity (through use) within a given community. Ideas would be democratized, tinkered with, iterated upon far more easily than they are today, and all of this can be done in a cooperative system with mutual aid as a goal. Would this mean that some good technologies may not spread to everyone everywhere? Probably, but it also means that good ideas would spread more easily, online, or through mutual aid networks, and that bad ideas, like planned obsolescence, forced incompatability etc, would be disincentivized and largely ignored. Scienctists, mathematicians, historians, engineers, architects, musicians, artists, authors and the like rarely choose their professions to be better competitors on the market, or to aid the state within which they live. They choose these things because they are human beings who are curious, and often motivated by the desire to help others. People would continue to innovate (and that includes solar tech), often with far less risk involved. There might therefore not be one single solution which works everywhere but thousands, or even millions, which work for particular local environments. That being said, one of the major aspects of anarchist thought related to climate change has to do with the need to create more sustainable human ecosystems, develop less exploitative, and more environmentally positive forms of food cultivation (polycultural farms and food forests being two examples) that may mot be necessarily profitable, may be more localized and illegible to states, but could help humans (and the planet) in the long term. These are just my thoughts as someone new to these ideas. I'd suggest reading Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott, and pretty much anything by Murray Bookchin, including post-scarcity anarchism and the ecology of freedom for much more detailed analyses of both the critique of capitalist innovation and the potentially transformative application of technology within an anarchist society.
Ironically we are light years ahead of where we think we are in terms of technology, but because of capitalism, money is in favor over humanity's progression: we already have the technology we think is science fiction. I read an article once criticizing renewable energy, and the biggest issue the author had was that if you started putting solar panels in the empty deserts in the USA, it would produce so much energy that energy would become "worthless". As in, companies couldn't charge for it because there would be so much, and it wouldn't be an "investment". There are empty deserts around the world that could power the whole planet, which could completely end energy poverty on a planetary level. Having actually good technology is literally a threat to our current society. If you removed the profit motive, what you'd be left with are people who have the passion and inventiveness (and resources and free time) to be able to create a utopia. People act like that's a bad word, but it's not even optimistic, it's perfectly realistic if you put the puzzle pieces together. We have the technology, the drive, the people to create the stuff, the resources to create the stuff, ect, it's literally being held back at this point by monetary profit. The diseases you could cure if you stopped trying to sell people pills, the devices that could cure sickness with one swipe, free energy, sustainability, ect, all witheld because of profit. When the systems collapse completely like they are right now, and the idea of profit is taken away as we're faced with our own morality, then we'll see what our values as a species really are. The push for the new is greater then the desire for the old. The old obviously didn't work, so what's next? Keep thinking and keep dreaming, because ideas today become realities tomorrow.
16:42 referencing the Diggers. Yaaaaaass. I relate to them so much. By theft and murder They took the land. Now everywhere the walls Spring up at their command.
I have the belief that putting a direct value on something in a way devalues it. I think that states/boarders kind of ruin the enhairent charm and beauty of community which is what ideally they would protect.
I don't remember, have you made a video on religion before? A lot of the things you and other leftists point out are unfair are seen as "earned" in the eyes of my parent, as something God puts in your life on purpose to either reward your faith or test it. Therefore, the many forms of oppression and abuse I see and experience are reasonable according to them. I just wanted your thoughts on how religion and oppressive systems go hand-in-hand or cause one another, and, if you happen to be religious, your point of view (any ideas you had to grapple with, if you had to reconcile some things, etc)
Next month's first video is on the psychology of authoritarianism. I had to cut a section on religious conservativism because it was getting long, but I intend to discuss it in the future. You'll likely be able to gain a deeper understanding of your parents with the auth psych video though. Stay tuned!
In Australia, we had the White Australia Policy, which restricted immigration to white Europeans. My great great grandmother was a Black South African woman who married into my white English coloniser family. They moved to Australia in the early 1900s and had to pretend she was Spanish in order for her to get into the country. She had to completely erase her cultural heritage in order to live here. Being connected to my white coloniser family with a bevy of mixed race kids probably helped as well..... I'm so angry at my family for hiding her existence from me for most of my life. They were ashamed of her, even though she ended up getting screwed over and divorced in the end. I wish I knew who her family was. All I have is her marriage, immigration documents and the birth certificates of her children.
Great video and needed to revisit. I just returned to my home, which is a border city after decades of living away. Our dual cities are so intertwined and interconnected, and the militarization of the border is oppressive to us and nature. Happy to be home and hope for a future where one people is not divided
"A future where one people is not divided." How will people be unified who people can not agree of what is ethical, what is productive, who will make rules, what those rules are, and everything else that there is? If Israel did not build a giant wall, which is maintained via military force, then they would be overrun with Arabs and Palestinians. Those people would then loot their cities, rape their women, and murder its people.
Love the channel, but confused by this one. If you just make borders unenforceable without also somehow abolishing states/citizenship, aren't you making a bunch of the current issues of immigration just way worse? For example, human capital flight is a problem that is bleeding middle to low strength economies and that benefits the most powerful nations. Rich countries stealing the rewards of the investments (and debts, probably) of poorer countries. How do you prevent this from accelerating if you give everyone the right of movement and residence? And even if you somehow abolish countries, which is already an utopia, how do you prevent stuff like native language speakers only wanting to work with people who are bilingual in their language? The English tax, so to say. I hope y'all believe that I'm doing this in good faith, and hoping to be educated if there's something I'm not seeing.
To the point about human capital flight. How is it ethical to stop a worker from going to the place where they make the most for their labor? I don't care about the "country", I care about the life of actual humans. Countries/States don't have the capacity to thrive or suffer, people do!
@@Humza_3.14 What kinda logic is that? If a certain place has higher wages, and you allow any of the 7 billion people on earth to go there, it will quickly bring down wages because of the constant supply of labour, workers that demand better conditions can simply be fired and replaced by someone willing to work for less.
Borders do matter cause of identity and culture. Whats inside is protected from other values, believes and ideologies... if there werent any borders, anybody on this earth could go anywhere in this world to do whatever they wanted and you couldnt send them to jail cause the jail would be a border itself, seperating and keeping the people with wrong ideologies from the ones who want to live there lives and do right. If you dont appreciate borders i'd like you to leave your doors open anytime and let anybody in the house no matter what they want and if they misbehave, dont confine them to a room because its walls would be a border aswell. If you wouldnt be willing to leave your doors open 24/7 because somebody bad could come in, even though not everybody is bad, i congratulate you to having understood the concept of borders. If you wouldnt want the taliban to run around your country cause they could harm you, you just accepted the concept of borders. Without borders no border patrol, drugs would be everywhere, no culture conservation, no trust and a lot of other issues. There is borders everywhere in our lives and if you dont accept them you just built a wall in your mind... peace
I totally agree with your message, this channel is pathetic to even say we shouldn't have no borders. Typical immigration identity crisis. We'd have millions of African hordes swarming the western world. This dude forgot about how demographics will forever effect the population of certain cultures.
My ancestors came to America in the early 1900s from (primarily) Ireland and Eastern Europe. When they arrived, there was no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" immigration; they just had to show up. And it should be that way today. I should be able and free to move back to Europe where my ancestors came from and seek a (MUCH) better life for myself - exactly what my ancestors did, but in the other direction. But the United States actually charges upwards of several thousands of dollars to renounce one's citizenship. Humanity is more imprisoned than ever.
Even worse, europe is already filled up with people coming from entirely different cultures, having no ancestral ties but only resentiment and ambitions.
"there was no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" immigration" multiple things have had different names in the past. imagine thinking nations were more accessible back then, lol.
1) Why the borders got stricter with the arise of the EU when with it's declaration all the member states could travel, work and ship the goods without any control? Or did the borders outside of it get stricter (Frontex)? 2) 20:09 And what is wrong with the state?
You are using the right to freedom of speech, which Jeff Bezos has too. Instead of focusing on things you neither have nor need, you should pursue something that is within the realm of reason. Also, how exactly is every human being in a society supposed to have access to rockets to go into outer space? Where will such tremendous amounts of resources come from?
Thanks for this video :) I've long considered myself anti nationalist, and I believe we should end national rule and division. I feel like the ultimate goal is small states with local governance, but within a framework of peace and human/earth rights, so we don't degenerate back into feudalism. I think the EU offers potential for this (although maybe with some reform)... but as countries like the UK, Spain and Italy break apart, if Scotland, Basque country and Sardegna join the EU we could start a trend to move towards this. And maybe it could spread beyond the EU and become a global coalition aiming for peace, and dealing with global issues like telecoms and transport.
Slight correction, North Korea does allow a few people to leave for work purposes, and most of em do so in China. But it's absolutely terrible that they aren't able to move freely around the world.
Thanks for your reply! I'm still learning more about Anarchy, especially from POC perspectives and I really appreciated your reading recommendations. Good luck to the growth of your channel!
Yes. We do. We destroy every tyranny, even those painted in red. Leninists, maoists, worthless lapdogs of despots that they are, are our enemies. They will go down, just like the rest.
oh honey, she's openly said in multiple videos that her content is straight up propaganda. please take everything she says with the grain of salt you take for cable news.
@@toppersundquist lol I mean a global corporate and imperialist hegemony of capital would certainly pick that route. But the libertarian movement seeks decentralized federation, exchange, trade, and solidarity. A world without States Considering Fascists were all about Nation-States they hated internationalism. The only way they would support a borderless world would be if they wanted to conquer the world and be the only power and ethnic State. In others words racist fantasy
@@blackflagsnroses6013 Oh, I'm not saying the argument made a lick of sense. Most conservatives seem to only ever associate authoritarianism with THE LEFT, which is... confusing.
Loved this. a couple years ago, i think after paying a hefty income tax bill under some financial strain...i dreamed of living tax free. I realized there is almost no place or way to live without being taxed...the exception being homeless or squatting of course. Free camping (boondocking) is not allowed virtually everywhere...not even on crown land here in Canada.
Most people do not want to have to pay taxes. That is why the people who support tax increases want to increase the rates for OTHER PEOPLE, so that they themselves do not have to pay them. Taxes are a necessary evil. They are required to allow a government to function. Hence the expression, "There are two certainties in life; Death and taxes." Exactly how is the government going to pay for universal health care without taxes?
Developed societies with public health systems and a complex social security system/ welfare state couldn't survive if anyone dropping in to claim their benefit was immediately allowed the same status as a person paying into the system throughout their lives. The country would collapse under the weight of demand for funds, taxes would rise and rise again necessarily. There would be social unrest.
4:13 Didn't the Arab slave trade traffic more people? Admittedly, it existed for a much longer period of time, thousands of years rather than just a few centuries.
What if there were no political borders between countries? What would it look like? Is this scenario possible? If so, what conditions would be required for the elimination of borders? Are we currently seeing the emergence of any of It is one thing to ask for a free movement of labour and goods, and another to say we have to wipe out borders of all kinds. When you wipe borders you are asking for a common world government. Whose laws will you follow? Any kind of authority needs a boundary. Think of this simple scenario. A guy commits murder and runs off to a distant country. Without political boundaries how will you bring that guy to justice? Some of you would attempt to say, we will have an international police [a bigger Interpol] and have anyone committing crimes anywhere can be arrested anywhere. There in lies the problem. What a crime is depends on a particular legal system. A crime in one place would not be a crime elsewhere. In Saudi Arabia being a gay is a crime, while marrying multiple women is not. If you don’t have any boundary with Saudi Arabia, what kind of laws will you have - yours or theirs? How about having a world government that can manage? A world without open borders will need a single world government. That government will follow the laws of the majority. Who is the majority in the world? Is it the liberals of Sweden or the communists of China? What economic system? Will you follow capitalism, communism, socialism or some such combination? Economic systems are more like cuisines. Not everyone will like a particular combination. Will it be labour friendly or business friendly? Will it allow equal rights for women? Will it keep religion from the workplaces and Parliaments? What options do you have if you don’t like? Let’s say the whole world comes under the control of an Asian government [in a democracy that will be the case and same in a dictatorship]. What if you don’t like their laws and execution? Where will you immigrate to? How will you escape such a government? What if someone like Assad is the President of the World Republic and is casual about the use of poison gas on dissidents? We need nations - a group of people who aspire for a particular legal system/political system/economic system/cultural system. Just as not everyone likes the same cuisine, not all of us like a common system. For nations to exist, there needs to be political boundaries. Otherwise, the authority enforcing the legal/economic/political system cannot do anything.
I don’t have the time to explain the answers to all your questions but if you want to find answers to them then I recommend reading more into anarchism. Saint Andrewisms channel is a good starting point imo
although I don't think borders are the problem in themselves, they make it easier for restriction of movement by having potential barriers already in place. However, even without them, restrictive countries could put them in place quickly. It's a point but a minor one.
I would say it is less one-sided. Altho I agree that countries like the US uses its borders in a suppressive way, there are big issues wich comes with a global open border system. My own homeland, for example, have taken in more people than we can handle properly. I dont blame my government for this, it was done out of compassion, but the cultural conflicts needs to be handled. It is not acceptable that groups that had conflicts in their own homelands to continue their war here. It is not acceptable that that large groups of individuals disrespect our laws. It is not acceptable that men (from extremely gender unequal societies) to treat women as property and lesser beings here. Many immigrants are good, decent human beings who are willing to adapt, and them I welcome. But far from everyone is, and open borders would likely turn the situation from difficult to a systematic collapse. So let us be caring, but not naive. Yes, the way things are now needs to change, but if we are to drop, or atleast loosen, the border system, alot of big issues must be addressed and solved first.
I think half these videos assume we've unlocked a global decentralised consciousness, everyone gets the same UBI with the same purchasing power parity, HDI is 1 everywhere and batshit crazy religions (pretty much everyone) are a relic of the past. With that assumption out of the way I'm also in favour of having no borders in 3021 at earliest.
Borders are just a method of protecting one human being from another's violence. Eliminating borders is an idea that is born from those who do not see that removing borders does not remove violence.
Borders are also a method of violence. They prevent people willing to contribute their work from getting places where their work can be both of benefit to others and rewarded. It contributes to impoverishing people who would, by their contribution help all be wealthier.
Historically, us Jews have been indispensable to both the Anarchist and larger Socialist movements. It’s because of our experiences with thousands of years of Antisemitism. Due to worldwide Antisemitism, I don’t feel comfortable moving to most countries. The US is rice with Antisemitism but I was born here and all my family is here. Borders affect me because Antisemitism makes moving incredibly hard since most places are rife with Antisemitism.
@@appleslover Jews chose not to fight back for some odd reason. They were so attached to the physical plane of reality that they preferred to live as encaged objects instead of saying no to their oppressors and meeting their creator with honor.
