> Usually oppressing a major marginalized group with blunt, heavy-handed approaches only serves to intensify local support. I think that is at best fragile as

> Usually oppressing a major marginalized group with blunt, heavy-handed approaches only serves to intensify local support. I think that is at best fragile as a general statement. I would argue that increases in local support are dependent on other factors besides heavy-handedness or harshness, and that these vary on a case by case basis. For a plethora of counter-examples see: The history of the Jewish people, Native Americans during colonialism, the anabaptists or the calvinists in European history, the Muslim populations after the conquest of Granada.