|
Effectronica posted:Those aren't things we understand as a consequence of American nationalism, and they're also associated with specific regions in the country. Racism especially is only deemed a "Southern" thing.
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
namesake posted:Clearing a continent of its original inhabitants: a fairly minor atrocity apparently. Europeans did like 90% of that anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Uhh look at the 13 colonies on a map relative to the rest of the US. Also the Europeans doing the genociding were, y'know, the ones in the colonies. One of the reasons the Revolution happened was the British government trying to stop westward expansion was it tended to provoke expensive wars with the Indians (which the colonists didn't want to pay for). Look at a map of the Western Hemisphere and see how much of it belonged to Spain, a European country.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:At least the Spanish managed to keep a quite sizable population of native Americans alive, despite accidentally causing a massive plague. Like, in some South American countries Amerindians are the largest ethnicity. On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We are discussing US exceptionalism here. I don't see what South America has to do with it. It's not Spain that's all like 'we are the best country on earth'. The extinction of the native people is not limited to the future boundaries of the United States.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
davidb posted:How rapidly is that? They'll be a minority in about 35 years (or Hispanics will be a majority, I forget which). fake edit: apparently it might be as early as 2043, and they've been revising that year downwards. real edit: 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:America is literally seen as the greatest threat world peace according to Gallup. It's also the most likely place people would move to according to Gallup.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:While that is true, it's kinda outshone by Australia ... managing to be more attractive to more hypothetical immigrants than live in either country. I'm guessing they primarily polled Europeans.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:The way the U.S. has historically experienced foreign immigration - from people who had it real bad else where - gives us a bit of swagger. There is this notion that the U.S. could open it's borders today, and by tomorrow the rest of the planet would be a Chernobyl-style ghost town. That notion is probably true for many parts of Latin America. Eh, the US hates Mexicans more than (e.g.) Somalians* precisely because we shared a border with them. Europe has the same problem with Arabs in general, even/especially because they take the same low paying jobs that Mexicans do in the US. *Not to be confused with African Americans, who Americans hate quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I think much more interesting is the way African Americans hate Hispanics. I mean it's the same reason poor whites hate Hispanics but with the added benefit of "we really have been utterly screwed over for hundreds of years". doverhog posted:Do they really? I feel like after Russia started doing the poo poo it's been doing lately that has changed. NATO definitely seems more relevant these days. It's less of a thing with Russia but when Libya was going down the Europeans wanted the US to take charge, which is a far cry from their criticisms of us as world police only a few years prior.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Europeans didn't like it when the US did stupid poo poo, and asked the US to do stuff that wasn't so stupid? It's more like "oh hey we actually do like you being world police, just when it (explicitly) benefits us".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Huh weird. It's almost like Europeans agree with some things the US does and not other things. What hypocrites, right? When the rhetoric up till then had been "you guys need to let the world manage its own affairs", yes it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You should have let Iraq manage its own affairs. You should not have let Lydia manage her own affairs. Really, because I'm hearing exactly the opposite these days (regarding Libya, not Iraq) from people in this forum.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you'd have quite a lot of work ahead of you demonstrating this on more or less any basis of analysis. The standard that says that Mao caused millions of people to die would equally apply to the British.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You still have a picoHitlers problem. 45 million in 4 years is probably better than the British Empire managed in over 200 years. That's only due to scale though. Proportionally the Irish Potato Famine had a much greater impact on the country and the British were directly responsible in not providing aid. If Ireland was the size of China you would have seen 100 million people die.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Hilarious fact the pledge of Aleigence was originally designed as a way to sell American flags to immigrants in the late 19th century. America had always ever been about the supremacy of capitalism. And it was developed by a socialist. To sell flags.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Or, y'know, Russia. Russia did both!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The Spanish did all the heavy lifting with colonizing the places, we took them off their hands in basically a pointless war. And we fully integrated one of those and released another one fairly quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:People bringing up that the USSR did much good for the world do not mean they did it directly, but by the mere existence of Communism being an alternative to Capitalism which lead the West to adopting many of the policies that lifted up and made life better (for first world) workers and with it's decline and fall we have seen those gains reversed and destroyed. That seems like a really forgiving narrative for the communists. The existence of Communism did not provide (e.g.) massive government assistance to rebuild Europe, except in the sense that it provided an existential threat that Europeans had to overcome quickly. Most of the "left" policies adopted by the West were either due to "poo poo we need to rebuild fast, and central planning lets you do that easily (up to a point)" or "poo poo we have tons of money and literally no one can oppose us, free money for everyone". I mean remember that the Interstate system in the US had to be billed as a military project just to get it to pass, despite the objective benefits it provided in other fields. computer parts fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You might want to read what I wrote again, with a special eye towards the distinction I make between the example of what might happen (i.e. the USSR) and the people who might make that happen (i.e. the indigenous revolutionary labour movement). The USSR showed why the people in general wouldn't want to support a Communist revolution, not just the people in power.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Sure, if you have a child's understanding of early to mid 20th century labour movements. Your post was: Cerebral Bore posted:The existence of the USSR provided a really nice argument for various Social Democrats to get the bourgeoise to play ball in the first place. Basically if the capitalists didn't work with the Social Democrats the alternative was the communists mobilizing the working classes, and the USSR showed why avoiding this was in the best interest of the capitalist class. The USSR by the mid to late 40s was also a noted shithole run by an authoritarian (that's why 1984 was penned by a socialist!).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:1984 wasn't about socialism, George Orwell was actually quite a bit of a dang socialist himself. You Americans just get taught that reading because it's useful as propaganda if misinterpreted in a certain way. Yes, 1984 was about authoritarianism. The thing that lots of people want to avoid, regardless of political persuasion. I even literally said that Orwell was a socialist. Goddamn.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
TheIneff posted:Cuba. Oh wait, for some reason they don't count to you??? Cuba's been good for Cubans but they don't really have much international reach. And, you know, they got the world as close as it's been to thermonuclear destruction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:The fact that nation-states are actually a thing, and even are considered a good thing, is so completely dumb in these 2015s. Singapore is worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:China definitely would be as bad or worse, there is enough evidence for that already I think. On the other hand, I think a lot of nations have a FYGM attitude because the dominant power does too - it's sort of like kids who get bullied when they're small at school taking the opportunity to wail on everyone when they get big, as a pay-off for getting wailed on themselves. Eh, it's more that large/powerful countries all act a certain way because they can. China's actions are alike in some ways to e.g. Russia (mostly the dispute with the islands which coincidentally have tons of oil) but are very dissimilar in other ways (e.g., they're not trying to annex neighboring countries). Brazil is very similar to the US in many ways, from their inequality to their demographic crises. I don't think they would act much different from the US if given the opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think if Australia became a world superpower I might commit suicide. They are literally the US but with funnier accents.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:For a given value of colonized. Setting up a few forts along a river and claiming territory thousand of miles in either direction is not really the same as actually settling the land. I'm glad to know that Mexico just had a few forts set up in a thousand miles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That Mexico had heavier settlement in areas that were later conquered by the US doesn't change the fact that Spain had laid claim to massive areas far outside their practical control, or that France had likewise claimed a ton of territory where they had essentially no presence. So did the US for many decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How the gently caress is that relevant? How is it not? The US had nominal control over wide swaths of its territory outside of practical control for decades, the same as Spain or France did. The map of the US you see circa late 19th century of the US is just as made up as the Spanish one of the 18th Century.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So? That the US colonized certain territories pretty drat late compared to what the maps would tell you doesn't change the fact that the Spanish and the French never colonized them at all. Most people would dispute that first fact.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:western Canada is a pretty sizable chunk of North America. And so is Mexico.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
Actually, going by your definition of "colonized" the vast majority of Canada still hasn't been.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Canadian government has the ability to actually control the territory it claims, through the wonders of modern technology. It doesn't need boots on the ground in the same fashion as we did before modern communication networks, plus I'm not aware of anyone in Canada not recognizing the Canadian state as the de facto supreme authority of that territory, even if I suppose some people aren't that happy about it. So you admit the defining factor is not people actually living there, but ability to be contested militarily?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 15:20
|
|