|
Torrannor posted:And I'm pretty sure that it is still illegal to have sex with the dead, disturbing the rest of the dead or something like that? Or are there no such laws in the USA? In most areas. The majority of American laws are by state (I think; if not a majority, it's a large percentage), so asking questions about American laws requires specifying where you're talking about.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Calling the HRE a trouble-ridden clusterfuck is a popular narrative dating back to (invariably Protestant and Prussian) historians of the 19th century. Problem is: it's wrong. The imperial reforms of 1495 tried to create several imperial authorities and offices as well as definitely banning the ancient medieval right of vendetta between feuding states and princes. The centralisation of the Empire didn't really work out, but what remained of this were two imperial legal cours (the Reichskammergericht and the Reichshofrat) which existed until the dissolution of the Empire in 1806 and did a great deal to maintain peace between the religions and ethnicities, especially after 1648. While the Empire was often at war with France, you can't really lay the blame fot that to ethnic dissolution. As The HRE was amazingly stable for a multidenominational and multiethnic Empire, and while it was highly decentralised, there did exist several empire-spanning institutions and hierarchies that for the most part did good work. Especially for the multiple small to tiny principalities, the reality of the imperial authorities was the only thing that ensured their existence, and as a consequence those (mostly found in Upper Swabia and the Rhineland) were the biggest supporters of the imperial idea. And when the Empire finally came to an end in 1806, it wasnst due to its various divisions, but instead because of sort of a cold war breaking out between Prussia and Austria (which was political and not at all about religion) and also due to external pressure by revolutionary France. Claiming that all the denominations were strictly separated isn't entireley correct, either: There were Imperial Cities like Augsburg where Catholics and Protestants lived side by side and were legally on equal footing, other cities like Fürth which were divided between so many various feudal lords that they developed into sort of a neutral zone, Protestant territories like Saxony being governed by a Catholic dynasty and legal oddities like the bishopric of Osnabrück alternating between a Protestant and a Catholic bishop and a nunnery somwhere in the Rhineland (I forgot where) which was populated by sisters from three different deonominations!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Riso posted:Technically the HRE was at war with the French until 1559 about Italy, but disregarding that, 60 years of peace is ridiculously generous even when we apply it only to internal religious wars. System Metternich posted:And when the Empire finally came to an end in 1806, it wasnst due to its various divisions, but instead because of sort of a cold war breaking out between Prussia and Austria (which was political and not at all about religion) and also due to external pressure by revolutionary France. quote:
 Riso posted:Why is it bad to have homogenous nation states? People have different languages, attitudes, mentalities, and there is no reason to put them all into one single country if you can have a reasonable split. Besides, since your idea is newer, I should ask you why it's good to have them. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
You heard it here, folks, we should make Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia into independent countries exclusively for African Americans in order to keep whites and blacks from destroying each other and causing a national collapse! Latinos have a different culture from white America, so now Southern California shall now become the independent Republica de California Sur. Oh yeah, and the New York and San Francisco Chinatowns? Now they're exclaves of Taiwan. 
DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:You heard it here, folks, we should make Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia into independent countries exclusively for African Americans in order to keep whites and blacks from destroying each other and causing a national collapse! Oh yeah, and the New York and San Francisco Chinatowns? Now they're exclaves of Taiwan. Someone post that image of the Nazis at the Black Separatist rally because it sums up this idea perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Someone post that image of the Nazis at the Black Separatist rally because it sums up this idea perfectly. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Blacks are still sitting at the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:You heard it here, folks, we should make Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia into independent countries exclusively for African Americans in order to keep whites and blacks from destroying each other and causing a national collapse! Latinos have a different culture from white America, so now Southern California shall now become the independent Republica de California Sur. Oh yeah, and the New York and San Francisco Chinatowns? Now they're exclaves of Taiwan. I think you are missing the point. Basically all these nations in Europe in which there is ethnic conflict is between different cultures of white people. It's not so much a question of racism, as of different cultures and religions clashing. And I am 100% sure that Blacks and Whites in the USA were culturally much more similar than Croats and Serbs and Bosnians in Yugoslavia. And there is no religious dimension, between they are both mostly Christian in the USA. And of course, European colonization of the Americas started in the 16th century at the earliest, while some of these ethnic conflicts were already centuries old at that time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And I am 100% sure that Blacks and Whites in the USA were culturally much more similar than Croats and Serbs and Bosnians in Yugoslavia. No they weren't, and no they aren't. There's a gulf about 10 miles wide between black and white culture even today, let alone in 60's when the civil rights act was passed, or in the other 60's when most of them were still slaves. The reason it is different is because whites were allowed to create a system where they have unquestioned superiority, not only in law but in number as well. There's no way that 2 races can violently clash when one race has been held down with their hands tied behind their backs since before they were even brought to north america.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:No they weren't, and no they aren't. There's a gulf about 10 miles wide between black and white culture even today, let alone in 60's when the civil rights act was passed, or in the other 60's when most of them were still slaves. The reason it is different is because whites were allowed to create a system where they have unquestioned superiority, not only in law but in number as well. There's no way that 2 races can violently clash when one race has been held down with their hands tied behind their backs since before they were even brought to north america.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
The reason that the USA isn't a true example of multiculturalism isn't 'white supremacy' (what the hell) but the fact that Anglo-American culture is unequivocally dominant across most of North America, despite all the lip service paid to cultural diversity. Sure, there are plenty of ethnic enclaves, but at the end of the day people are expected to assimilate into mainstream culture, and that is what eventually happens in most cases. And that's not a bad thing, if it wasn't the case the USA simply wouldn't exist as a nation. I haven't been paying close attention to the discussion, but I think that's what Riso's getting at. All the voluntarism in the world won't be enough to keep your country united and cohesive if there are irreconcilable political differences between two or more cultural groups. Issues of dominance and power are important and you can't just handwave them away by saying that people should simply 'stop caring' about historically and sociologically important fault lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
In that case I hope global warming kills us all as fast as possible 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:You heard it here, folks, we should make Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia into independent countries exclusively for African Americans in order to keep whites and blacks from destroying each other and causing a national collapse! You're not the first to make this argument! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika Fun fact, one of the leaders of that movement later became Mayor of Jackson, MS. He scared the poo poo out of every white person in Central MS, as they thought the pogroms were inevitable. In actuallity, he got a 1 cent sales tax passed to fund infrastructure improvements, then died of natural causes. His son is running to succeed him, the runoff is next Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:Fun fact, one of the leaders of that movement later became Mayor of Jackson, MS. He scared the poo poo out of every white person in Central MS, as they thought the pogroms were inevitable. In actuallity, he got a 1 cent sales tax passed to fund infrastructure improvements, then died of natural causes. His son is running to succeed him, the runoff is next Tuesday. So what you're saying is, there's still hope?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The reason that the USA isn't a true example of multiculturalism isn't 'white supremacy' (what the hell)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:No they weren't, and no they aren't. There's a gulf about 10 miles wide between black and white culture even today, let alone in 60's when the civil rights act was passed, or in the other 60's when most of them were still slaves. The reason it is different is because whites were allowed to create a system where they have unquestioned superiority, not only in law but in number as well. There's no way that 2 races can violently clash when one race has been held down with their hands tied behind their backs since before they were even brought to north america. So two English speaking Christian cultures are further apart than the Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians, who don't celebrate the same holidays, speak different languages AND use different scripts (Latin alphabet for Croatians and Bosniaks, Cyrillic for Serbs) and were bitter enemies, going back longer than the United States even exists. With the Croatians much more influenced by Catholic Austria-Hungary, Serbia by the Orthodox Russians and the Bosniak by the Muslim Ottomans. Perhaps it's a bit more difficult to tell who was more different in the 1860s, but to say they aren't more different than Whites and Blacks in the USA today is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians, ... speak different languages What? I thought they were the same language
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:You're not the first to make this argument! Welp, we're running out of shades of this one color, better just lump 5-50% into one category 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
3peat posted:What? I thought they were the same language Hmm, perhaps. That's open to discussion and definition. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are mostly mutually intelligible, but so are Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Furthermore, there are quite a few differences in the vocabulary (with Bosnian for example with a significant number of Turkish, Arabian and Persian loanwords for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
3peat posted:What? I thought they were the same language They're dialects with armies, ie. languages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
3peat posted:What? I thought they were the same language Not any more, they ain't!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Wow, brutal article: quote:After the collapse of Communism and subsequent wars, the situation changed. Suppressive relations changed significantly after the dissolution of the SFRJ and the founding of the sovereign Republic of Croatia. The regained freedom enabled public usage of previously forbidden words in the semantic sphere of administration, army etc. As a consequence, formerly suppressed words switched from the more or less passive vocabulary of the Croatian literary language to the active one without any special stylistic marking. That's one way to try to maintain linguistic unity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:and were bitter enemies, going back longer than the United States even exists. What? Most if not all of the foundations of all the bitter rivalries in the Balkans were laid down in the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What? Most if not all of the foundations of all the bitter rivalries in the Balkans were laid down in the 19th century. All nationalist identities and the "historic rivalries" they are built on go back, at the earliest, to the 19th century. Nations did not exist before 1800.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Why would someone make such a map and what is the supposed message? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:So two English speaking Christian cultures are further apart than the Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians, who don't celebrate the same holidays, speak different languages AND use different scripts (Latin alphabet for Croatians and Bosniaks, Cyrillic for Serbs) and were bitter enemies, going back longer than the United States even exists. With the Croatians much more influenced by Catholic Austria-Hungary, Serbia by the Orthodox Russians and the Bosniak by the Muslim Ottomans. There is no way you would be able to tell whether the person you're talking to was Serb, Croat or Bosniak short of asking. Official languages are not as different as you claim them to be - more like dialects of English. But, official Croatian is a lot like what all three nations speak like in Herzegovina, as well as Montenegrin. Many Croats from Eastern Slavonia speak what is technically the official Serbian language, and so on. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but my point is, cultural identities of the three nations you speak of are not as prominent as you think they are. Regional cultural traits are much more pronounced, but you can't decode someone's nationality from their regional culture because all three nations in the said region share the same culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
A country of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Cornwall (and Brittany as well, but that isn't on this map) are the dreams of some weird celtic nationalists...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Why would someone make such a map and what is the supposed message? Is it based on proportionate population perhaps? To show how big of a deal the occupation of Germany was is my guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:51
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Is it just a coincidence, or was the bottom of that map meant to resemble maps of where the highest populations of German-Americans are, such as this one from the 2000 census? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
'Balkanised Britain'
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Metrication posted:'Balkanised Britain' So did they just decide to make Yorkshire independent randomly, or is there some sort of in-joke here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is it based on proportionate population perhaps? To show how big of a deal the occupation of Germany was is my guess. Most likely, that's the only explanation I can think of. Poor, poor Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Germany pretty clearly earned the division, the forced population transfers not so much but why they happened is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So did they just decide to make Yorkshire independent randomly, or is there some sort of in-joke here? Yorkshire is British Texas, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
It must be based on area, not population. West Germany had 3 times as many people as East Germany. The "West Germany" parts of the UK map definitly have less people than the "East Germany" parts. And the "Oder-Neisse" parts of the US have more people than the white part (and it had many times more in the 1940s).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Looks like land area to me too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
The point of the map, and book, is that the Potsdam Conference, which broke up Germany, was simply an act of revenge. edit: If the roles were reversed here's how America and Britain would be broken up. It's not supposed to make sense, just like the break up of Germany didn't. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
What was the alternative? The Cold War is just about to kick off, but I guess you could convince Stalin to give up East Germany? Or just give West Germany to him? Maybe after 6 years of war and the liberation of the concentration camps everyone would have been on board with just setting up an independent government and letting Germany go on its way? I don't see how you end the war without a period of occupation and the division of Germany just follows on from there, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:28
|
|