|
Amused to Death posted:What specific game is this that there's a literal red carpet on the field?(also, it looks like they couldn't even fill the upper decks, but then again there's only a fragment of them in the picture) Theyre playing in a giant NFL stadium. The Sounders sometimes draw upwards of 40000 fans a game which is unprecedented for American soccer. I know MLS doesnt much attention but it has developed into a relatively popular niche sport
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
How are u posted:Yep. The shift started a bit before the Civil Rights era but that legislation was the nail in the coffin for Democrats in the South. Republicans cynically saw the opportunity to cater to the racist, white, disaffected Southern voter and did so with gusto. It really is quite remarkable how quickly it all happened, and just goes to show how utterly terrified Southern whites were of losing their power when the Fed finally stepped in and said "OK, this Jim Crow poo poo you've been doing for nearly a century has just got to end." Well, the Civil Rights Act was the penultimate act splitting the Dixiecrats, but we didn't see a wholesale shift in the South until decades later. Remember, George Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination in 1972, shifting away from supporting outright segregation and Jim Crow, and instead ran on a platform that was really the first true "Southern Strategy" campaign. He talked about gutting welfare for people who didn't deserve it. Gutting funds to minority schools and inner city programs. As a result, Wallace was a legitimate threat to win the nomination. He drew a following amongst lower-middle class white men, which led him to win Michigan and come close to Humphrey/McGovern in other states. Had Wallace not been shot, who knows what he could've done. Wallace voters stayed home that year, but didn't swarm to Nixon. Just 4 years later, Jimmy Carter swept the south. Carter didn't actively promote Wallace-esqe southern strategy type stuff in his campaign, but it didn't matter Carter was a southern Governor running against a hopelessly unpopular President. Ronald Reagan was paying attention, which is why four years later, he adopted the Southern Strategy in toto. He even kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking about states rights. (Philadelphia being the location where civil rights workers were lynched not too many years past). And as Lee Atwater explained, "You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can't say “friend of the family” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Alexander Lamis' The Two Party South and Southern Politics in the 1990s cover the transition down through individual states. Fun fact: the latter is the source of Lee Atwater's "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family" quote. Its also important to note that the "Southern Strategy" primarily wanted to bring the Dixiecrats over to the GOP, but it's affects were felt far outside the south. You might've heard of "Reagan Democrats." Today, the media likes to talk about "Reagan Democrats" as if they are upper class, moderate suburbanites who are wary of both parties. Despite what you might have heard, the overwhelming majority of "Reagan Democrats" were lower-middle class white men, who themselves were largely victims of Reaganomics. But because Reagan had totally and completely adopted rhetoric and policies that hurt minorities and the poor even more, Reagan captured their votes. Wikipedia posted:The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups Remember Atwater's quote: rhetoric attacking the poor, women, unemployed, etc. was simply the evolution in the Southern Strategy. As you can see from tea party rhetoric today, the Southern Strategy is still in full effect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Truman's win of this election is particularly unusual because the Democrats were split up by... Former vice president Henry Wallace also ran for president on the Progressive Party line and took in about as many votes as Thurmond did. That 1948 election really was unbelievable. The equivalent today would be something like Mitt Romney pulling through even though Ted Cruz and Chris Christie ran third party campaigns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Anyway, back to American history. America's gun culture and NRA influence was on full display post-Sandy Hook, when a sufficiently large enough minority of voices raised such hell that even a token gun reform bill couldn't be brought up for a Senate vote. I believe guns are the last major cultural war battle from the 20th century being fought and with no real end in sight. Our history of gun control, however, is extraordinarily complex. Adam Winkler's Gunfight is must read material, but this article tells you what you need to know:The Founding Fathers posted:[W]e've also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. Black Militants posted:OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police. Ronald Reagan, Gun Confiscator posted:Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to end the Panthers’ police patrols. To disarm the Panthers, he proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. When Newton found out about this, he told Seale, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to the Capitol.” Seale was incredulous. “The Capitol?” Newton explained: “Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps.” Newton’s plan was to take a select group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control. Jim Crow posted:After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan. The NRA posted:TODAY, THE NRA is the unquestioned leader in the fight against gun control. Yet the organization didn’t always oppose gun regulation. Founded in 1871 by George Wingate and William Church—the latter a former reporter for a newspaper now known for hostility to gun rights, The New York Times—the group first set out to improve American soldiers’ marksmanship. Wingate and Church had fought for the North in the Civil War and been shocked by the poor shooting skills of city-bred Union soldiers. Who Killed the Kennedys? posted:In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” Orth and the NRA didn’t favor stricter proposals, like national gun registration, but when the final version of the Gun Control Act was adopted in 1968, Orth stood behind the legislation. While certain features of the law, he said, “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.” NRA's Radical Revolution posted:In 1976, Maxwell Rich, the executive vice president, announced that the NRA would sell its building in Washington, D.C., and relocate the headquarters to Colorado Springs, retreating from political lobbying and expanding its outdoor and environmental activities. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Huey Long perplexes us modern history nerds because Long doesn't really fit neatly under any political identification. Long pursued and advocated for some very radical socialist programs, but claimed that government programs were bureaucratic nightmares, that the New Deal was one step away from fascism, that Capitalism was glorious and needed to be defended, and that the only things wrong with capitalism were bankers, the Federal Reserve, and the two political parties that had been bought by them. Basically Huey Long was Ron Paul but for Social Democracy instead of libertarianism
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Peruser posted:They became separate not too long after the colonization. The early colonists were from across England so those various regional accents merged together and as early as 1764 British visitors noted a distinct accent not heard anywhere on the British islands. Surprisingly, however, the prevailing theory is that the major differences developed mostly due to the English changing their accents; not because the American colonists developed their own. What we identify today as the "English Accent" started forming right around the time of the American Revolution, when the English upper classes stopped using rhotic speech---basically, stopped pronouncing the "r" in most words. The English education system quickly adopted this form of speech as proper. "American" accents were thus closer to traditional English accents than the modern English accent is. However, in cities like Boston and New Orleans, where the English presence remained strong, non-rhotic accents began to develop as well--which is how the Boston accent formed. But you're right, the waves of immigration distorted accents to the point where accents were bound to split anyway. When Martin Scorcese was making "Gangs of New York," he hired researchers to figure out what a New Yorker in the 1830s would have sounded like, and it turns out that the "Brooklyn accent" was in full force even back then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:As others have posted, it started the moment they got on the boats. The study of American dialects is fascinating, along with our perceptions of them. For example, what we know as the "southern" accent was brought to America by upper class or aristocratic English who settled in the American South. Similarly, most features of the "black American" accent were adopted from the southern Aristocratic speech. Today, both accents are considered a crude, uneducated accent by lots of Americans, despite its aristocratic origins.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Congress was willing to make the Missouri Compromise line go out to the Pacific and have slavery enshrined in the Constitution, plus Lincoln was not a hard core abolitionist when he was elected. Yeah, something I think gets overlooked is that the Confederacy formed before Lincoln was even inaugurated. South Carolina began its official movement towards secession two days after Lincoln's victory. Even most pro-slavery Southerners thought this was a pretty bad idea but wound up going along with it because a) the state legislatures were far more radical than their nationally elected counterparts and their hands were forced, and b) negotiations crumbled when the Republicans were willing to surrender only most, not all, of their stances on slavery in negotiations. This fact really drives a steak in the heart of the idea that the Civil War was in any way a war of "northern aggression" or a blowback against Northern domination or policies. It was basically a freakout by extremists who were furious that the guy they hated won the Presidency, one that spiraled out of control against the wishes of just about everyone outside the fringe. Emanuel Collective fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Another interesting dynamic to the Civil War is how it played out "behind the lines" of the Union and the Confederacy. Sympathies for slavery and secession varied widely from location to location. Poorer areas, and areas where farming was impractical, had few to no slaves, and thus had little desire to secede. Also, residents in these poorer areas of the south despised being powerless and ignored by their slave-owning aristocrats who dominated state governments. This was most evident in Appalachia, where West Virginia seceded from Virginia, East Tennessee tried to secede from Tennessee, and in Western Carolina/North Georgia, where the Confederacy had a hell of a time dealing with passive and active resistance to the war. Likewise, there were significant pro-Confederate sentiments in the north. The most striking was in New York City and New York state in general, where Wall Street and the state's industry was heavily invested in southern cotton. The Mayor of New York City occasionally threatened to secede from the US and join the Confederacy, and the New York Draft Riots saw New Yorkers go on a killing spree in black neighborhoods. Similarly, states like Indiana and to a lesser extent Ohio had powerful rural agrarian interests and strong economic ties to the south, and largely opposed the war. In Indiana, the state legislature was controlled by Democrats, and the Republican governor basically enacted martial law and had militiamen harass legislative meetings in order to keep the legislature from declaring neutrality or outright secession. In Ohio, the state's representatives were split on the war, with one, Clement Vallandigham, writing letters saying the Civil War was being fought by the Union as a secret plot to enslave white people. Lincoln had Vallandigham arrested and essentially held for ransom, promising to release him if Ohio's congressional delegation would support the war effort.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You honestly believe there was a good side in WW2, and that the USA was part of it?? Trying to keep this on the American history track. Not everything has to be black and white, disney-esqe good vs. evil. There can be a "good side" in a war even where that good side commits unthinkable atrocities. The bombing of dresden was a godawful war crime, but genocide of Europeans on a massive industrial scale was even worse. Just as the Union was the "good side" in a war that saw them burn down wide swaths of the South in order to ultimately end slavery.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Yeah except the Soviets had no real way of getting their giant army from mainland Asia to Japan. The Soviets didn't have a huge navy in the Pacific circa World War 2, but you just needed a handful of troops on the mainland to dramatically change the post-war dynamic. That's sort of what happened in Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:You do need a decent navy though to keep your beachhead from being destroyed. Normally yes. But the Japanese were completely taken by surprise by the Soviet's declaration of war (both sides had been firmly committed to neutrality after Khalkhin Gol) and the Japanese were preparing for an American invasion in the south and east of the home islands. There were practically no real defenses in the north and west. In addition, the Japanese Navy had been ripped to shreds in the Pacific campaign and couldn't have defended all sides of the home islands. Nobody seriously claims that the Soviets could have taken the Islands, but they could have realistically carved out a nice little occupation zone. Note that the Soviets basically ran forces into Korea as fast as they could with no means to supply any of them, because the very fact that they had troops in some areas of the country guaranteed they'd have tons of leverage over the area. It worked out tremendously for the Soviets. So if Stalin had landed a few thousand troops in Northern Japan and then lost the ability to reinforce or supply any of them, it's still a net win for the Soviets assuming Japan surrenders at some point. Emanuel Collective fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
While we're tangentintally on the topic of US Troops behaving badly in foreign lands during world war 2, how about the Battle of Brisbane? US servicemen stationed in Australia had it pretty good. They were paid much better than Australians, had access to much more food and luxury items that Australians had seen rationed, and were a hit with the local ladies. As wikipedia notes, "in mid-1942, a reporter walking along Queen Street counted 152 local women in company with 112 uniformed Americans, while only 31 women accompanied 60 Australian soldiers." There was also the issue of Australians treating African-Americans much better than Americans themselves treated them, leading to a full blown riot where white and black American troops fought each other after white troops were angry about blacks having equal access to nightlife. This came to a head one summer night in Brisbane, when a drunk American soldier was accosted by an American MP, causing a scene. Some Australians attacked the MP, causing an even greater scene. Thousands of American and Australian soldiers, along with Australian citizens, poured onto the streets and started an all out brawl. Surprisingly, only one man died, but hundreds of people were struck with fists, bottles, rifle butts, and anything else they could get their hands on. The Americans had to pull their troops out of Brisbane. This wasn't an isolated incident, either. Riots between Americans and Australians erupted in nearly every major city where American troops were present. Its a wonder why Australia, not France, became the Allies Americans hate the most.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
If Johnson isn't president, we don't have Medicare, Medicaid, ESEA, and just about every other Great Society program. These sorts of programs were vehemently opposed and derailed for decades. Kennedy couldn't even get a Medicare-lite bill out of committee. Even assuming we get a landslide election in 1964 with Kennedy, it was largely Johnson's pull that got Medicare through the Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What was the deal with Texas at that time, by the way? I mean how could Johnson have been loved in Texas but hated in the rest of the south? Texas was also segregated, full of white supremacists, etc, was it not? Was it just a case of home state advantage? His support wasnt Machiavellian opportunism. He acknowledged at the time that signing that bill would cost Democrats the south for the foreseeable future. But Johnson, born and raised in rural West Texas, was personally far removed from the racial animosity of the south, and long had an affinity for Mexican immigrants he taught and worked with. Johnsons father was a strong supporter for civil rights as a member of the Texas legislature, which was rare at the time. And Johnson recognized that the 'war on poverty' couldnt succeed without breaking down discriminatory barriers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Johnson was an odd bird in the sense that he represented all of the social progress of the New Deal and none of the racism. If anything I'd say he was a bit like Robert Byrd without any of the early-career Klan business. It's kind of depressing that he knew where he stood in relation to a good amount of his party, and could foresee the electoral bludgeon he was handing to the GOP. He knew what he was doing was right, but I think he knew to some degree how badly it would fracture the party. Lyndon Johnson rose fast in the Senate by putting himself under the wing of Richard Russell, at that point the most powerful Dixiecrat in the Senate. This meant that Johnson was aligned with the Dixiecrats while in the Senate, going so far as to vocally denounce and oppose the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Until Johnson started pushing hard for the Civil Rights Act, he still retained his friendship and alliance with most Southern leaders. Johnson was never one to say anything negative about a group of Senators he could have extracted political gains from, so we'll never know if he was personally reviled by any of them, but it seems unlikely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
There was also the small fact that Mexico was in a state of civil war at the time the Zimmerman telegram was sent, and the US Military had already been making small incursions into Mexico to hunt down Pancho Villa's raiders. Mexico's central government barely existed outside of Mexico City and would not have had any ability to wage an international war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:What does that mean? This quote unquote evidence wasn't actually, and so the judgement was in error? At the very end of the Committee's research, they were handed a recording from a "dictabelt"-essentially an ancient audio recorder-allegedly from a police motorbike that was near Kennedy's motorcade. They interpreted sounds on the dictabelt as indicating more than one shooter, and changed their entire findings as a result. It turns out the bike was probably never anywhere near Kennedy's motorcade, the recordings happened after the assasination took place, and the supposed gunshot sounds were probably engines. The recording is available here, but you probably won't be able to glean anything from it yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwddUuGaaT8 dilbertschalter posted:The House Select Committee on Assassinations made that judgment, with the linchpin being misinterpreted audio ”evidence." Well no, the finding that there was a second gunman was based on the bad dictabelt analysis. The finding for a conspiracy was pretty weak (basically, the CIA was lying its rear end off to the committee regarding its mafia/Cuban operations, and the Committee refused to accept their word at face value) but was based on research other than the dictabelt. This thing is worth a read: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html Emanuel Collective fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Literally it was nothing but Also because of electoral tactics in Florida that resembled something out of a sham democracy
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 18:53
|
|
"Blowjobs, blowjobs, blowjobs, blowjobs!"
|
icantfindaname posted:edit: Actually it was Rhode Island that was the last state with property requirements. They dropped them after Dorr's Rebellion in 1842. Dorr's Rebellion is one of my favorite overlooked events in American history. After the Revolution, Rhode Island simply kept their colonial charter, never adopting a state constitution. One of the provisions of this charter was that only landowners could vote. Non-landowners couldn't even bring civil suits unless a landowner sponsored their claim. As immigration to Rhode Island grew, this resulted in a majority of white men being denied the vote. Thomas Dorr, a wealthy liberal lawyer, had long fought to enfrancise all men, even blacks. Recognizing he could only gain majority support if he restricted the vote to whites, he organized a political convention, and drafted up a new Constitution giving all free white men the vote. He organized an informal vote of all Rhode Island men for the new Constitution, and over 99% of the voters approved of it-even a majority of landowning white men. Sensing the discontent, the state legislature put its own Constitution to a referendum which while granting most free white men the vote, didn't go as far as Dorr's constitution. Dorr's supporters turned out to reject the referendum. Frustrated, Dorr's supporters organized its own extra-legal elections, electing Thomas Dorr governor, and claimed that Dorr's referendum had rendered Dorr the legitimate governor of the state. Dorr organized a militia to seize the state's arsenal, which was repelled by other militamen, including many blacks dissatisfied with Dorr's refusal to enfranchise them. Dorr had to flee the state. Rhode Island then approved the previously-defeated Constitution. A few years later, a Dorr supporter claimed in court that Rhode Island's government was illegitimate, that Dorr's government was legitimate, and that Article IV of the US Constitution guaranteed Rhode Island a republican form of government. This led the Supreme Court to declare that the legitimacy of Rhode Island's government was a "political question," and that the Court would no longer hear disputes that it considers "political" in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, tarriffs and government infrastructure spending were straight up barred in the Confederate constitution. Coupled with the South's declining market share/price of cotton, that economy would'nt have survived to the 20th century
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
MrNemo posted:Yeah but that happened because pretty much everyone knew there was going to be some sort of armed confrontation coming in the spring and there were a few cases of both sides trying to secure gunpowder stores with neither really willing to risk opening a shooting war over it. I think it would be more fun to consider how the American revolution really got started with that proudest of American traditions, the government actually wanting people to pay the taxes they owed complete with a tax decrease coupled with more effective enforcement measures being met with cries of tyranny, injustice and the crippling tax burden Americans faced. Adam Winker's "Gunfight" is a must read if you're interested in the birth of gun culture or gun politics. This is a good free article on the same topics: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 17:59
|
|