|
chitoryu12 posted:Are you counting constitutional changes or governmental changes as technically "new nations"? Because when I speak of the US as being very young, I mean in its actual existence. The United Kingdom was formed from separate British and Irish nations in 1707, but those nations that united had all existed for centuries beforehand. The European-based nation that now takes up a big chunk of North America didn't even start to get off the ground until 17th century colonies and didn't become independent until about 230 years ago. The modern nation of France can trace its history to before the year 1000 CE. I made it pretty clear that I was talking about the government and not ethnic/cultural nationality. The US has made amendments to the constitution, sure, but it's not like we've gone from having a monarchy with no-poo poo power to having one with figurehead status. Germany as a sort of national identity is rather old, but it'd be offensive to say that the Germany of today is just a sort of extension or modern evolution of the 3rd reich. Reread what I wrote; I was careful not to conflate "nation" with "government" or "state." CommieGIR posted:Its so loving creepy. Oh, right, missed that it said State Guard. Still not a big deal at all.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Are you counting constitutional changes or governmental changes as technically "new nations"? Because when I speak of the US as being very young, I mean in its actual existence. The United Kingdom was formed from separate British and Irish nations in 1707, but those nations that united had all existed for centuries beforehand. The European-based nation that now takes up a big chunk of North America didn't even start to get off the ground until 17th century colonies and didn't become independent until about 230 years ago. The modern nation of France can trace its history to before the year 1000 CE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Then they should come right the gently caress out and say it. Carl Stokes had it right but these assholes don't have the balls to admit it. The thing is, a lot of the worst racists in modern America don't think they're racist. They think racism is hanging black guys for looking too closely at white women and burning crosses. Instead of hearing black people complaining about systematic oppression, they brush it off as a bunch of lazy whiners who can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps like grandpappy used to. When they don't call back a guy named Tyrone for a job, they don't make a conscious decision "I will not hire a friend of the family." They subconsciously find reasons to toss out the resume, many of which are related to stereotypes they have about black people but won't actually talk about. The problem with this kind of racism is that you can't get rid of it easily. You can take guys who talk about how much they love being in the KKK and lynching thugs and vote them out of office or fire them or toss them in jail when they snarl racial epithets while zapping a guy with a car battery. But if you go up to a guy who does racist poo poo and call him a racist, he's probably immediately going to react with horror and anger. He doesn't view himself as a racist, so none of his actions are, which means that calling him racist just comes off as bullshit slander to him. Unless he takes the time to be introspective and look at his own actions, chances are he's just going to tune you out when you talk about race. Hell, he might call you out for "playing the race card".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Oldest continuous government. As in, one who has operated along the same structure for the longest time without being overthrown or changing in form dramatically. There are many older states, of course, but America has one of the oldest governments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Oldest continuous government. As in, one who has operated along the same structure for the longest time without being overthrown or changing in form dramatically. There are many older states, of course, but America has one of the oldest governments. Honestly the reconstruction amendments were such a dramatic change of form and nature of the US government that it wouldn't be unreasonable to point to 1870 or so and say that's the start of continuous government, but I think that still leaves it as one of the oldest governments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Does Vatican City count as a continuation of the Papal States? There were several severe interruptions and anti-pope shenanigans that disrupted that, so it's still pretty short.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Honestly the reconstruction amendments were such a dramatic change of form and nature of the US government that it wouldn't be unreasonable to point to 1870 or so and say that's the start of continuous government, but I think that still leaves it as one of the oldest governments. Yep, that's around the same age as most major European governments (France restarted a few times since then but that's when they stopped having monarchies).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I will never understand this. It shows how transparently racist so many self professed libertarians are if they cannot acknowledge that there are people right here and now that are being oppressed by "the state". It's unfolding right in front of them and for all their talk about government never taking their guns or how they want to call for revolution, the poo poo hits the fan and they don't say a word. Every single one of these gadsden flag waving motherfuckers should be called out as cowards at every opportunity, or racists for dismissing the concerns coming out of predominantly black areas of the country. gently caress these people. On the other hand, I don't think anyone in Baltimore or Ferguson wants gadsden flag waving open carrying motherfuckers to be at their protests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Does Vatican City count as a continuation of the Papal States? No, because they loving ceased to exist for about 70 years from the 1860s to when the Vatican was granted statehood in the late 1920s, if you can even consider that a continuity seeing as though the papal states were a good chunk of Italy and the Vatican is basically a park in Rome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:On the other hand, I don't think anyone in Baltimore or Ferguson wants gadsden flag waving open carrying motherfuckers to be at their protests. I don't either. I guess I'm just venting because the hypocrisy is out in the open. It would be interesting to see those guys openly lobbying for young black guys to own fire arms for self defense. They say it will lead to lower violent crime rates so why not? I mean, if they really believe what they say then they should do what they can to arm every law abiding citizen everywhere yet that never happens. Yes I understand it's fully obvious why they choose not to do that. I do wonder though what would happen if they did. I can't imagine every single tea party "patriot" is a closet racist. I feel, and I could be wrong, that a lot of those people think arming every day people is good for everyone. If they fully believed that, what would happen if they pushed for that in cities as well as far as what everyone in that group thought? What about a concerted effort by the NRA to get law abiding minorities guns in metro areas that allow it. How many people would balk and how many would go along with it because they honestly believe that's what it takes. Again, I know it sounds crazy and I know it would never ever happen, but it's interesting to think about (to me).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Are you counting constitutional changes or governmental changes as technically "new nations"? Because when I speak of the US as being very young, I mean in its actual existence. The United Kingdom was formed from separate British and Irish nations in 1707, but those nations that united had all existed for centuries beforehand. The European-based nation that now takes up a big chunk of North America didn't even start to get off the ground until 17th century colonies and didn't become independent until about 230 years ago. The modern nation of France can trace its history to before the year 1000 CE. It's somewhat dishonest to call modern France meaningfully related to the France of 1000 CE. I mean, yes, there are connections to be sure but modern France is really more closely related to the Third Republic than anything. And that's a late 19th century regime 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No, because they loving ceased to exist for about 70 years from the 1860s to when the Vatican was granted statehood in the late 1920s, if you can even consider that a continuity seeing as though the papal states were a good chunk of Italy and the Vatican is basically a park in Rome. A park in Rome with an empire upon which the sun never sets, and a billion soldiers ready to take their marching orders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I could be wrong, that a lot of those people think arming every day people is good for everyone. If they fully believed that, what would happen if they pushed for that in cities as well as far as what everyone in that group thought? I don't think anyone supports arming anyone. Arming people costs money. I've never met a gun advocate who is interested in parting with money to arm someone other than themselves or a personal friend. /Shrug
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Has the Huey Newton gun club gone defunct or has everyone just forgotten about it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its so loving creepy. New York State has an army, navy, and air force that is not the National Guard, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I don't think anyone supports arming anyone. Arming people costs money. I've never met a gun advocate who is interested in parting with money to arm someone other than themselves or a personal friend. I don't mean starting a gun charity. I mean advocating for gun ownership in cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I don't either. I guess I'm just venting because the hypocrisy is out in the open. It would be interesting to see those guys openly lobbying for young black guys to own fire arms for self defense. They say it will lead to lower violent crime rates so why not? I mean, if they really believe what they say then they should do what they can to arm every law abiding citizen everywhere yet that never happens. I've seen gun rights people talk about how Chicago/DC/etc. should have the same gun rights as Utah or whatever often enough: the standard response from anti-gun types is "but most black people don't want guns, are you going to force them to own them?" Mind, I'm sure if it looked like it was going to happen a lot of those closet racists would come up with sudden justification for why there needs to be some limits, and even others are less thinking about arming black people and more imagining if they were there surrounded by all those "gang members" but unable to legally carry. But it's not like it doesn't come up. People into guns are quite happy to tear down the racist old gun laws to catch the fringe benefits, even the ones who are also doubling down on racist policies that don't affect them at all like voting restrictions and anti-immigrant proposals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
It's only tangentially related on the US, but Abe was in DC the other day giving another of what is not considered an apology for WW2. It makes me wonder, what's the palette of words that politicians can use that are just barely not a legal apology? What words actually ARE an apology?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Has the Huey Newton gun club gone defunct or has everyone just forgotten about it? Looks like its still a thing. Their most recent facebook post was 10 hours ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:It's only tangentially related on the US, but Abe was in DC the other day giving another of what is not considered an apology for WW2. It makes me wonder, what's the palette of words that politicians can use that are just barely not a legal apology? What words actually ARE an apology? Looks like he said he was sorry for Are Troops who died in WW2 and the criticism is that he didn't apologize for comfort women
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Looks like its still a thing. Their most recent facebook post was 10 hours ago. Oh okay then I'm not crazy and poo poo like this: On Terra Firma posted:I don't mean starting a gun charity. I mean advocating for gun ownership in cities. is just a plain statement of ignorance with regard to that club's existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Looks like he said he was sorry for Are Troops who died in WW2 and the criticism is that he didn't apologize for comfort women
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:The office of the PM says all that same stuff (at least it sounds the same to me) to Korea and China though all the time, but the news always says "he stopped short of a full apology", that's why I'm asking. It's still a contentious issue, partly because of a cultural difference and partly because Japan is really bad about the whole apologizing-for-war-horrors thing. See Okinawa for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:The office of the PM says all that same stuff (at least it sounds the same to me) to Korea and China though all the time, but the news always says "he stopped short of a full apology", that's why I'm asking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's still a contentious issue, partly because of a cultural difference and partly because Japan is really bad about the whole apologizing-for-war-horrors thing. See Okinawa for example. JT Jag posted:Giving your condolences for the soldiers that died in the conflict is not the same as giving your condolences for your role in/the things that you did during the conflict. It's just saying "sorry your people died bro", not "sorry we killed them."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
China and South Korea especially were waiting for Abe to officially apologize on this visit for the comfort women, that's why it's a big deal he didn't. He didn't because he's a right-wing rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I have a hard time believing that they have been just accidentally not apologizing for the last 50 years because they don't understand the cultural context. I think they're choosing their words very carefully, and I got curious about what words they know they can/can't choose. Basically anything that would really piss off the hardcore conservative nationalists, so like straight up saying "raping our way across mainland asia and conducting bizarre medical torture was wrong and we are sorry" or anything close is right out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Basically anything that would really piss off the hardcore conservative nationalists, so like straight up saying "raping our way across mainland asia and conducting bizarre medical torture was wrong and we are sorry" or anything close is right out. Have they apologized for the Bataan Death March yet, or for raping/enslaving white and Pinoy-American women?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:China and South Korea especially were waiting for Abe to officially apologize on this visit for the comfort women, that's why it's a big deal he didn't. He didn't because he's a right-wing rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I have a hard time believing that they have been just accidentally not apologizing for the last 50 years because they don't understand the cultural context. I think they're choosing their words very carefully, and I got curious about what words they know they can/can't choose. Looking at the list of official apologies it seems like word choice, culpability and the scope acknowledged has varied over the decades and by specific individuals giving the apology. I have a hard time seeing how quote:"The problem of the so-called wartime comfort women is one such scar, which, with the involvement of the Japanese military forces of the time, seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women. This is entirely inexcusable. I offer my profound apology to all those who, as wartime comfort women, suffered emotional and physical wounds that can never be closed" (Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on the occasion of the establishment of the "Asian Women's Fund" quote:"During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology" (Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama 'On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end'). Some of the condemnation is Chinese and Korean politicians choosing to take umbrage because it plays well with their constituents, some of it is the feeling that Japan is backsliding on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Looking at the list of official apologies it seems like word choice, culpability and the scope acknowledged has varied over the decades and by specific individuals giving the apology. I have a hard time seeing how Tomiichi was/is a socialist so it doesn't count I guess  E: or maybe the world was looking for Abe to stop being a colossal rear end in a top hat, holy poo poo quote:In October 2006, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's apology was followed on the same day by a group of 80 Japanese lawmakers' visit to the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrines more than 1000 convicted war criminals.[55] Two years after the apology, Shinzo Abe also denied that the Imperial Japanese military had forced comfort women into sexual slavery during World War II .[56] In addition, Prime Minister Abe claimed that the Class A war criminals "are not war criminals under the laws of Japan".[57] He also cast doubt on Murayama apology by saying, "The Abe Cabinet is not necessarily keeping to it" and by questioning the definition used in the apology by saying, "There is no definitive answer either in academia or in the international community on what constitutes aggression. Things that happen between countries appear different depending on which side you're looking from."[58] Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Tomiichi was/is a socialist so it doesn't count I guess quote:In October 2006, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's apology was followed on the same day by a group of 80 Japanese lawmakers' visit to the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrines more than 1000 convicted war criminals.[55] Two years after the apology, Shinzo Abe also denied that the Imperial Japanese military had forced comfort women into sexual slavery during World War II .[56] In addition, Prime Minister Abe claimed that the Class A war criminals "are not war criminals under the laws of Japan".[57] He also cast doubt on Murayama apology by saying, "The Abe Cabinet is not necessarily keeping to it" and by questioning the definition used in the apology by saying, "There is no definitive answer either in academia or in the international community on what constitutes aggression. Things that happen between countries appear different depending on which side you're looking from."[58] Initially I was going to be like "Well, as a mitigating factor, that particular shrine is basically a blanket shrine to all war dead" but then I got to the part where Abe said the war criminals weren't considered war criminals, gently caress this guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:is just a plain statement of ignorance with regard to that club's existence. I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to groups that are predominantly white and are operating at a national level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Has the Huey Newton gun club gone defunct or has everyone just forgotten about it? They did an armed protest in the middle of one of the hippest events in the last few months. Oh you didn't read about it anywhere? I wonder why....
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to groups that are predominantly white and are operating at a national level. The NRA pushes for that kind of thing and funds/funded plenty of legal activism against municipal gun responsibility legislation. They fit part of the bill, but they certainly aren't literally arming people, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:New York State has an army, navy, and air force that is not the National Guard, either. And the NYPD is basically run like the FBI and CIA, complete with taking part in out of state operations (or did that finally stop?) FAUXTON posted:Initially I was going to be like "Well, as a mitigating factor, that particular shrine is basically a blanket shrine to all war dead" but then I got to the part where Abe said the war criminals weren't considered war criminals, gently caress this guy. So why are people acting surprised he didn't apologize? It seems pretty clear that's about as likely as Turkey apologizing for the Armenian Genocide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Has the US offered official apologies to all the people whose countries we have ruined and brutalized?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So why are people acting surprised he didn't apologize? It seems pretty clear that's about as likely as Turkey apologizing for the Armenian Genocide. Khisanth Magus posted:Has the US offered official apologies to all the people whose countries we have ruined and brutalized? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And the NYPD is basically run like the FBI and CIA, complete with taking part in out of state operations (or did that finally stop?) The condemnation doesn't really have to be predicated on surprise, nor should it be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Side note for a post a bit ago from Joementum and the "Team of rivals" thing because a shower thought lead me to remember where I heard it first. Gail Sheehy started referring to Hillary's campaign team as a "team of rivals" in a vanity fair piece in 2008. She considered them to be a bunch of "brilliant, egocentric, men" who were unable to work well together because they kept trying to outdo each other and stated that clinton thought their competition would provide the best possible ideas - everyone was praising Lincoln at the time so she was hardly unique in trying this out. It caught on and was quoted in many places including the book about her campaign I read later. It's not an either/or thing. It's both. Edit: overzealous autocorrect. McAlister fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 06:47
|
|