What aspects of history are Americans violently passionate about?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What aspects of history are Americans violently passionate about?

«‹›6 »

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Peven Stan posted:

I rest my case

i thought i was trying to say that everything in the past was tainted by the filth of abhorrent ideology while simultaneously trying to point out that writing off influential parts of history because they are inherently tied to that wicked ideology is a wasted effort.

the moral high ground of modernity is fickle and functionally useless. it does not signal virtue to rail against democracy because it was created by slave owning, classist, war-mongering pedophiles but, rather, to celebrate democracy because it arose and survived in spite of the horrific nature of its creators.

the point is that everything for much of humanity's existence has been incomprehensibly brutal and abhorrent. but castigating the few good things that managed to survive until modernity because of the sins of their creators is stupid.

the genocide of the native americans wasn't bad because the europeans had bad ideology. it was bad because it was genocide.
the labor movement wasn't bad because of pervasive racist ideologies of the era.

you can't have manifest destiny without genocide, but you can have a labor movement without racism, so i fail to see how or why implications of racism can delegitimize the labor movement.

and finally, the labor movement at the time was hyper-aware of its racial divisions. that was like Eugene Debs whole deal. so its not like it was just some ignored, unmentioned aspect of the movement. it was front and center during the movement and the movement died out before the issue was ever resolved either way. and even more to the point, the labor movement was fractious and splintered. to refer to it at all as a coherent, collective movement is to misunderstand that period entirely

i think i'm just trying to say "yes everyone in the past sucked and were total shitheads. but some criticisms hold more weight than others." oh, and no one is entirely innocent or perfect

RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 4, 2018

# ? Feb 4, 2018 20:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 04:26

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

RaySmuckles posted:

i thought i was trying to say that everything in the past was tainted by the filth of abhorrent ideology while simultaneously trying to point out that writing off influential parts of history because they are inherently tied to that wicked ideology is a wasted effort.

the moral high ground of modernity is fickle and functionally useless. it does not signal virtue to rail against democracy because it was created by slave owning, classist, war-mongering pedophiles but, rather, to celebrate democracy because it arose and survived in spite of the horrific nature of its creators.

the point is that everything for much of humanity's existence has been incomprehensibly brutal and abhorrent. but castigating the few good things that managed to survive until modernity because of the sins of their creators is stupid.

the genocide of the native americans wasn't bad because the europeans had bad ideology. it was bad because it was genocide.
the labor movement wasn't bad because of pervasive racist ideologies of the era.

you can't have manifest destiny without genocide, but you can have a labor movement without racism, so i fail to see how or why implications of racism can delegitimize the labor movement.

and finally, the labor movement at the time was hyper-aware of its racial divisions. that was like Eugene Debs whole deal. so its not like it was just some ignored, unmentioned aspect of the movement. it was front and center during the movement and the movement died out before the issue was ever resolved either way. and even more to the point, the labor movement was fractious and splintered. to refer to it at all as a coherent, collective movement is to misunderstand that period entirely

i think i'm just trying to say "yes everyone in the past sucked and were total shitheads. but some criticisms hold more weight than others"

what an elaborate defense of "not all white people"

# ? Feb 4, 2018 20:48

Preen Dog: Nov 8, 2017

Inherited guilt. Current Americans didn't even get to to own a slave or smallpox anyone. :smith:

RuanGacho posted:

Not to be flippant, but Capitalism?

Ok, but still not responsible for the historical slavery or genocide.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 21:17

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

point out that america has been the bad guys in every war we've waged since ww2

# ? Feb 4, 2018 21:36

viral spiral: Sep 19, 2017; by R. Guyovich

SKULL.GIF posted:

Pointing out that the Soviet Union did the bulk of the work in WW2 and the Americans mostly did mop-up duty in Europe.

This is my favorite one. The USSR suffered the brunt of the Nazi war machine at the cost of 20 million casualties, and most of the German soldiers died on the eastern front as well. Americans pretending that they saved Europe and Russia from Nazi Germany will always be hilarious.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:20

Nosfereefer: Jun 15, 2011; IF YOU FIND THIS POSTER OUTSIDE BYOB, PLEASE RETURN THEM. WE ARE VERY WORRIED AND WE MISS THEM

In general, American history as it is taught would make Stalin blush.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:28

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Peven Stan posted:

what an elaborate defense of "not all white people"

no, no. (virtually) ALL white people were REALLY BAD. just absolute poo poo by modern standards. i want to be really clear about that

i tried really hard to write up this big thing explaining racism and labor movement and why writing off the whole movement as "racist" is a stupid and ignorant thing to do, especially since race was so important DURING the movement itself (insofar as it pertains permitting participation by black people within the developing movement).

but you know what? you're right. there were more lovely people than good and the question of race only further splintered an already fractured movement. racism helped sink the early labor movement, so gently caress it.

Eugene V Debs was a saint though. (and gently caress gompers and the AFL)

just as a meta discussion on the topic, i'm just personally reluctant to write things off in the past because "they were racist" because everything in the past was racist as all get out. it was the prevailing ideological disposition. so to me it becomes more important to ask "was this thing in the past bad because, in adhering to the norms of the era, it offends our modern sensibilities?" or was it uniquely bad that it stands out, even for the time, even it its just an extreme extension of that eras beliefs (like the genocide of the indigenous americans by europeans). and, in the context of this thread, it also has to something that has been subsequently whitewashed and now taught as something grand and good (like manifest destiny) so as to upset people who hold opposing beliefs.

i don't think the labor movement has been "whitewashed" in the sense that its been retold as a universally good thing by establishment institutions (beyond 40hr workweek, no child labor, and safe working conditions, etc. things that are still "valued" today). if anything, it is quickly glossed over until maybe college where you first actually learning about it in american history classes. so, when i see people toss out what seems like a sort of gotcha with "did you know that the labor movement was racist?" it does kind of piss me off because a) pretty much everyone was and still is racist, b) certain wings of the labor movement were far out and ahead of their time in terms of good, modern opinions on race, and c) by drawing that comparison it paints the entire movement with ignorant brush of stereotype that misrepresents the actual movement which was well aware of race and had some of the most progressive contemporary stances on the subject.

contrast that with things like manifest destiny or columbus's arrival in the new world and they seem to be orders of magnitude different in both their modern interpretations and consequences.

its like the opposite of what this thread is about.

little brain: columbus discovered america
we settled the west
they created the working conditions that we're familiar with today

full brain: cortez tricked the aztecs and conquered mexico
indian wars
never achieved lasting mainstream success

ascendent brain: the spaniards committed genocide
the americans weren't very honorable in their dealings with the natives, nor were the "wars" very "war-like"
the labor movement was internally divided along class and racial lines

galaxy brain: Columbus initiated the violence that doomed the indigenous people with his very first action upon reaching the new world
The united states committed states sponsored genocide and ethnic cleansing and it was sponsored specifically by the government
the early labor movement failed specifically because it was divided along class and racial lines

with the labor movement, again, its something that didn't even succeed in its most closely associated era and the lessons that failed them early were learned and applied in later decades under organizations like the IWW. 1953 was peak union membership (35%), so to try and lay out the gotcha of "did you know the labor movement was racist" falls flat because any serious understanding of the time, the movement, and the subsequent evolution of the ideology of organized labor firmly establishes that things were changing, changed, and those criticisms no longer hold value in terms of defining the movement so much as they only serve to condemn specific individuals in the past for ideology that no one would defend today.

so like, yeah, of course early unions were full of stupid racist bullshit. it was destructive and disruptive to the movement at the time and has been subsequently purged from the ideology of anyone still pushing labor forward.

its like when idiots try to say to berniecrats "well, be careful arguing for a new New Deal because the old one had some lovely racist underpinnings." well no poo poo something from the 1930s and 40s had really lovely elements to it. those aspects have been so thoroughly purged from modern bernie voters' minds that even bringing it up as a potential hurdle is preposterous. its not relevant to the contemporary.

well, poo poo. i guess i did poo poo out a long stupid screed about the labor movement and painting them with a brush.

like, the AFL? samuel gompers? very important, influential early labor figures? super racist and classist and total assholes who constantly sold out the movement for their own material gain. but no on today is advocating for a return to those policies (though, it should be noted that the AFL survived and still exists today but it champions debs' version of organized labor over gompers, ironically enough). if anything, the divisions along craft, class, and racial lines showed the labor movement the value of solidarity and helped evolve the movement

yeah, i guess you successfully triggered me, lol. but only because i legitimately think you're wrong and that its a false criticism.

also, as a final aside, i don't think a labor organization opposing immigration is particularly racist. its a complicated issue even today, still. unorganized immigrant labor is like the #2 enemy of organized labor (behind the capitalist masters). sure, racism helped fuel that issue, but on its face i legitimately believe that organized labor opposing immigration is not an inherently racist nor particularly abhorrent position to hold.

anyway, sorry for all the bullshit and falling into the obvious trap, becoming the embodiment of all this thread exists to tear down. its an interesting subject that i like to talk about :shrug:

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:34

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RaySmuckles posted:

I tried really hard to write up this big thing explaining racism and labor movement and why writing off the whole movement as "racist" is a stupid and ignorant thing to do, especially since race was so important DURING the movement itself (insofar as it pertains permitting participation by black people within the developing movement).

You could probably draw parallels between this, and "progressive" movements in the present day. The ideal of "no discrimination based on personal identity" is unquestionably good, but many of the groups/people pushing it are doing it from an extremely capitalist perspective - class oppression is fine, as long as the board of directors demographically mirrors society. It's like the reverse of the racist (and presumably sexist) labor movement of the early-to-mid 20th century, championing unfettered capitalism for all rather than solidarity for white men. It's worth it to be conscious of this, but that doesn't mean you should just reject anti-racism or feminism as bourgeois tricks to undermine the workers. In the same way, that early labor movement had a point, it's just that its constituent parts were majorly tied up in a system that was poisonous to the movement and society in general.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Feb 4, 2018

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:54

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

Exceptionalism

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:58

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

In the right setting you could probably get people really chippy by forthrightly saying that we lost the Vietnam war

# ? Feb 4, 2018 23:00

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

here's one that gets boomers all the time:

america is already socialist and all the things you like about the country are socialist institutions

# ? Feb 4, 2018 23:03

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

RaySmuckles posted:

no, no. (virtually) ALL white people were REALLY BAD. just absolute poo poo by modern standards. i want to be really clear about that

i tried really hard to write up this big thing explaining racism and labor movement and why writing off the whole movement as "racist" is a stupid and ignorant thing to do, especially since race was so important DURING the movement itself (insofar as it pertains permitting participation by black people within the developing movement).

but you know what? you're right. there were more lovely people than good and the question of race only further splintered an already fractured movement. racism helped sink the early labor movement, so gently caress it.

Eugene V Debs was a saint though. (and gently caress gompers and the AFL)

just as a meta discussion on the topic, i'm just personally reluctant to write things off in the past because "they were racist" because everything in the past was racist as all get out. it was the prevailing ideological disposition. so to me it becomes more important to ask "was this thing in the past bad because, in adhering to the norms of the era, it offends our modern sensibilities?" or was it uniquely bad that it stands out, even for the time, even it its just an extreme extension of that eras beliefs (like the genocide of the indigenous americans by europeans). and, in the context of this thread, it also has to something that has been subsequently whitewashed and now taught as something grand and good (like manifest destiny) so as to upset people who hold opposing beliefs.

i don't think the labor movement has been "whitewashed" in the sense that its been retold as a universally good thing by establishment institutions (beyond 40hr workweek, no child labor, and safe working conditions, etc. things that are still "valued" today). if anything, it is quickly glossed over until maybe college where you first actually learning about it in american history classes. so, when i see people toss out what seems like a sort of gotcha with "did you know that the labor movement was racist?" it does kind of piss me off because a) pretty much everyone was and still is racist, b) certain wings of the labor movement were far out and ahead of their time in terms of good, modern opinions on race, and c) by drawing that comparison it paints the entire movement with ignorant brush of stereotype that misrepresents the actual movement which was well aware of race and had some of the most progressive contemporary stances on the subject.

contrast that with things like manifest destiny or columbus's arrival in the new world and they seem to be orders of magnitude different in both their modern interpretations and consequences.

its like the opposite of what this thread is about.

little brain: columbus discovered america
we settled the west
they created the working conditions that we're familiar with today

full brain: cortez tricked the aztecs and conquered mexico
indian wars
never achieved lasting mainstream success

ascendent brain: the spaniards committed genocide
the americans weren't very honorable in their dealings with the natives, nor were the "wars" very "war-like"
the labor movement was internally divided along class and racial lines

galaxy brain: Columbus initiated the violence that doomed the indigenous people with his very first action upon reaching the new world
The united states committed states sponsored genocide and ethnic cleansing and it was sponsored specifically by the government
the early labor movement failed specifically because it was divided along class and racial lines

with the labor movement, again, its something that didn't even succeed in its most closely associated era and the lessons that failed them early were learned and applied in later decades under organizations like the IWW. 1953 was peak union membership (35%), so to try and lay out the gotcha of "did you know the labor movement was racist" falls flat because any serious understanding of the time, the movement, and the subsequent evolution of the ideology of organized labor firmly establishes that things were changing, changed, and those criticisms no longer hold value in terms of defining the movement so much as they only serve to condemn specific individuals in the past for ideology that no one would defend today.

so like, yeah, of course early unions were full of stupid racist bullshit. it was destructive and disruptive to the movement at the time and has been subsequently purged from the ideology of anyone still pushing labor forward.

its like when idiots try to say to berniecrats "well, be careful arguing for a new New Deal because the old one had some lovely racist underpinnings." well no poo poo something from the 1930s and 40s had really lovely elements to it. those aspects have been so thoroughly purged from modern bernie voters' minds that even bringing it up as a potential hurdle is preposterous. its not relevant to the contemporary.

well, poo poo. i guess i did poo poo out a long stupid screed about the labor movement and painting them with a brush.

like, the AFL? samuel gompers? very important, influential early labor figures? super racist and classist and total assholes who constantly sold out the movement for their own material gain. but no on today is advocating for a return to those policies (though, it should be noted that the AFL survived and still exists today but it champions debs' version of organized labor over gompers, ironically enough). if anything, the divisions along craft, class, and racial lines showed the labor movement the value of solidarity and helped evolve the movement

yeah, i guess you successfully triggered me, lol. but only because i legitimately think you're wrong and that its a false criticism.

anyway, sorry for all the bullshit and falling into the obvious trap, becoming the embodiment of all this thread exists to tear down. its an interesting subject that i like to talk about

I have never seen such an impassioned and longwinded defense of why white people are justified in whitewashing racism out of the 19th century progressive movement

Go look up the chinese cigar worker's strike-- the white union had no qualms scabbing when it was to break nonwhite workers striking. Even today "Buy American" is a de facto statement of racism and xenophobia. Why are white progressives so passionate about not discussing this? Why is it that when I want to bring up chinese american labor history white liberals keep on derailing about black people?

And yes, if the white labor movement is demanding the total ban of chinese immigrants while promoting white immigration that is a racist policy. Sorry, you are an epitome of what this thread is about. The white left can't fail, it can only be failed.

CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Feb 5, 2018

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:00

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

Okay clearly some of you haven�t seen Peven Stan post before. He�s going to willfully misrepresent anything and/or everything you say working backwards towards his actual rhetorical goal of being the One True Leftist, possibly to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

You are literally wasting your time engaging with the dude. He�s gonna claim that evaluating historical actors or events relative to contextual events and ideology is equivalent to whitewashing racism or whatever else he needs to because he�s arguing from a predetermined conclusion.

Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 5, 2018

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:15

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

For actual content, in my personal experience here in the south a great way to piss people off is to say that we didn�t so much win the war of 1812 as get our asses kicked up and down the thirteen colonies and then achieve a �draw� by virtue of the British being busy with far more important things.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:17

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Phyzzle posted:

"Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was an evil act, a massacre of civilians."

Nosfereefer posted:

"Um, we were killing even more civilians with conventional terror bombings, so shut it peacenik"

it's true imo, the atomic bombs weren't measurably worse than the conventional strategic bombing of civilian targets. it was just a fancier, more expensive method of murdering civilians

in terms of making americans mad the bigger argument here is saying that the atomic bombs didn't end the war as much as the soviet declaration of war on japan, but due to timing that's historically impossible to prove one way or another

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 5, 2018

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:18

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Captain Oblivious posted:

You are literally wasting your time engaging with the dude. He�s gonna claim that evaluating historical actors or events relative to contextual events and ideology is equivalent to whitewashing racism or whatever else he needs to because he�s arguing from a predetermined conclusion.

Whites then knew what they were doing was wrong. There's a street in San Francisco named after a jewish labor activist who was the sole voice to not endorse chinese exclusion at a meeting of the california workingmen's party in the 1870s. Don't give me this crocodile tear poo poo, racism was a deliberate and calculated policy pursued by white labor interests at the expense of nonwhites, even in the late 19th century.

On the other side of the country, literal klansmen and plantation owners in Mississippi left the Mississippi Chinese alone and never massacred them. Not everyone was a murderous racist in America towards the Chinese in the 19th century.

CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Feb 5, 2018

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:22

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

Peven Stan posted:

Whites then knew what they were doing was wrong. There's a street in San Francisco named after a jewish labor activist who was the sole voice to not endorse chinese exclusion at a meeting of the california workingmen's party in the 1870s. Don't give me this crocodile tear poo poo, racism was a deliberate and calculated policy pursued by white labor interests at the expense of nonwhites, even in the late 19th century.

He thinks he sees a giant, but alas, it is just a windmill.

It would be way sadder to me if you earnestly thought you were having the argument implied by this post, because then you�d just be very dumb instead of a deliberately pointlessly antagonistic gimmick poster.

Or to put it more bluntly: No poo poo my dude. Well except for the �whites knew what they were doing was wrong� part lmao have you never heard of rationalizing one�s material interests or what

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:25

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Captain Oblivious posted:

Or to put it more bluntly: No poo poo my dude.

So why hide it then? The left academics who write 19th century labor's hagiopgraphy are curiously silent.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:30

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

peven stan tends not to be wrong in being mad at white people imo

it�s his other posts that are bad

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:33

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

Peven Stan posted:

So why hide it then? The left academics who write 19th century labor's hagiopgraphy are curiously silent.

Sir this is an Arby�s. The left academics who write 19th century labor�s hagiography don�t work here.

The reason you have trouble is you project legitimate grievances onto arguments that don�t say what you think they�re saying and, effectively, random passerbys. It is simultaneously true that American labor poo poo on a wide variety of minorities for their own (white) gain and also it is reductive and useless to therefore stop the conversation at �therefore labor bad�. Yes labor bad sometimes, good other times.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:36

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

as an american i've had a guy get actually berserk furious at me, foaming mouth and everything, for saying that vietnam was a pointless and stupid war borne out of cold war paranoia

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:37

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

RaySmuckles posted:

no, no. (virtually) ALL white people were REALLY BAD. just absolute poo poo by modern standards. i want to be really clear about that

i tried really hard to write up this big thing explaining racism and labor movement and why writing off the whole movement as "racist" is a stupid and ignorant thing to do, especially since race was so important DURING the movement itself (insofar as it pertains permitting participation by black people within the developing movement).

but you know what? you're right. there were more lovely people than good and the question of race only further splintered an already fractured movement. racism helped sink the early labor movement, so gently caress it.

Eugene V Debs was a saint though. (and gently caress gompers and the AFL)

just as a meta discussion on the topic, i'm just personally reluctant to write things off in the past because "they were racist" because everything in the past was racist as all get out. it was the prevailing ideological disposition. so to me it becomes more important to ask "was this thing in the past bad because, in adhering to the norms of the era, it offends our modern sensibilities?" or was it uniquely bad that it stands out, even for the time, even it its just an extreme extension of that eras beliefs (like the genocide of the indigenous americans by europeans). and, in the context of this thread, it also has to something that has been subsequently whitewashed and now taught as something grand and good (like manifest destiny) so as to upset people who hold opposing beliefs.

i don't think the labor movement has been "whitewashed" in the sense that its been retold as a universally good thing by establishment institutions (beyond 40hr workweek, no child labor, and safe working conditions, etc. things that are still "valued" today). if anything, it is quickly glossed over until maybe college where you first actually learning about it in american history classes. so, when i see people toss out what seems like a sort of gotcha with "did you know that the labor movement was racist?" it does kind of piss me off because a) pretty much everyone was and still is racist, b) certain wings of the labor movement were far out and ahead of their time in terms of good, modern opinions on race, and c) by drawing that comparison it paints the entire movement with ignorant brush of stereotype that misrepresents the actual movement which was well aware of race and had some of the most progressive contemporary stances on the subject.

contrast that with things like manifest destiny or columbus's arrival in the new world and they seem to be orders of magnitude different in both their modern interpretations and consequences.

its like the opposite of what this thread is about.

little brain: columbus discovered america
we settled the west
they created the working conditions that we're familiar with today

full brain: cortez tricked the aztecs and conquered mexico
indian wars
never achieved lasting mainstream success

ascendent brain: the spaniards committed genocide
the americans weren't very honorable in their dealings with the natives, nor were the "wars" very "war-like"
the labor movement was internally divided along class and racial lines

galaxy brain: Columbus initiated the violence that doomed the indigenous people with his very first action upon reaching the new world
The united states committed states sponsored genocide and ethnic cleansing and it was sponsored specifically by the government
the early labor movement failed specifically because it was divided along class and racial lines

with the labor movement, again, its something that didn't even succeed in its most closely associated era and the lessons that failed them early were learned and applied in later decades under organizations like the IWW. 1953 was peak union membership (35%), so to try and lay out the gotcha of "did you know the labor movement was racist" falls flat because any serious understanding of the time, the movement, and the subsequent evolution of the ideology of organized labor firmly establishes that things were changing, changed, and those criticisms no longer hold value in terms of defining the movement so much as they only serve to condemn specific individuals in the past for ideology that no one would defend today.

so like, yeah, of course early unions were full of stupid racist bullshit. it was destructive and disruptive to the movement at the time and has been subsequently purged from the ideology of anyone still pushing labor forward.

its like when idiots try to say to berniecrats "well, be careful arguing for a new New Deal because the old one had some lovely racist underpinnings." well no poo poo something from the 1930s and 40s had really lovely elements to it. those aspects have been so thoroughly purged from modern bernie voters' minds that even bringing it up as a potential hurdle is preposterous. its not relevant to the contemporary.

well, poo poo. i guess i did poo poo out a long stupid screed about the labor movement and painting them with a brush.

like, the AFL? samuel gompers? very important, influential early labor figures? super racist and classist and total assholes who constantly sold out the movement for their own material gain. but no on today is advocating for a return to those policies (though, it should be noted that the AFL survived and still exists today but it champions debs' version of organized labor over gompers, ironically enough). if anything, the divisions along craft, class, and racial lines showed the labor movement the value of solidarity and helped evolve the movement

yeah, i guess you successfully triggered me, lol. but only because i legitimately think you're wrong and that its a false criticism.

also, as a final aside, i don't think a labor organization opposing immigration is particularly racist. its a complicated issue even today, still. unorganized immigrant labor is like the #2 enemy of organized labor (behind the capitalist masters). sure, racism helped fuel that issue, but on its face i legitimately believe that organized labor opposing immigration is not an inherently racist nor particularly abhorrent position to hold.

anyway, sorry for all the bullshit and falling into the obvious trap, becoming the embodiment of all this thread exists to tear down. its an interesting subject that i like to talk about

pretty much. what i have learned from all of my history classes is that the past is hosed up scary place and if you are smart you do the hegel type thing and try to learn from both the good actions done and the lovely awful poo poo. if your doing any kinda of study on the gilded age(hell any age before the 1960s) you learn that racism/bigotry was every famous white person on some sort of level. basicaly listen to the dollop and you will learn all.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 06:06

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

boner confessor posted:

as an american i've had a guy get actually berserk furious at me, foaming mouth and everything, for saying that vietnam was a pointless and stupid war borne out of cold war paranoia

well your right. how old was he? because he could have been a vet? or maybe lost someone there, or was just weird chickenhawk.

Kanine posted:

point out that america has been the bad guys in every war we've waged since ww2

we were ok in korea because at least that was a un police action, even though we hosed that up gloriously on a ton of different levels.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 06:10

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

boner confessor posted:

in terms of making americans mad the bigger argument here is saying that the atomic bombs didn't end the war as much as the soviet declaration of war on japan, but due to timing that's historically impossible to prove one way or another

Oh yeah, that one definitely works here on SA, so it'd probably work elsewhere too.

e: It does a good job of hitting various "demographics". For the people who are uncomfortable with the nukings they can at least justify them through ending the war, but that justification falls apart if they didn't actually end the war. For people who think the Japanese deserved it and America has nothing to apologize for, you have "Actually, the Evil Empire probably also ended the war in the Pacific, on top of winning the war in Europe" to tick them off.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Feb 5, 2018

# ? Feb 5, 2018 07:31

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

"Patton wasn't a very good general" tends to hit some sore spots.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 07:58

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Kemper Boyd posted:

"Patton wasn't a very good general" tends to hit some sore spots.

so does �Patton was a huge anti-semite� or �MacArthur was a moron�

# ? Feb 5, 2018 08:36

Blue Star: Feb 18, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

I dunno, I think America is pretty cool. We're better than Russia or China, at least. Way better than Saudi Arabia. Not perfect but hey, who is? :shrug:

# ? Feb 5, 2018 09:52

Vegetable: Oct 22, 2010

Martin Luther King was less loved by his contemporary liberals than many remember. His views on poverty were radical and he was prepared to attack Democrats from the left, even if it meant losing support for the cause of racial justice.

I think many moderate Democrats would lose their poo poo if you told them MLK would think little of them.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 10:13

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

stone cold posted:

so does �Patton was a huge anti-semite� or �MacArthur was a moron�

I've spent too much time in university history departments, sometimes I forget that "MacArthur was an egregious fuckup on every level imaginable" is a controversial stance :v:

# ? Feb 5, 2018 12:04

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Waffles Inc. posted:

In the right setting you could probably get people really chippy by forthrightly saying that we lost the Vietnam war

V� Nguy�n Gi�p was the greatest 20th century general.

You can probably start fights in multiple countries with that fact.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 12:48

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

I got one guy get legit angry at me when I pointed out that our founding fathers were religiously diverse and more influenced by the enlightenment than ~*Judeo-Christian values*~. Acted like I personally insulted him as a veteran and stormed off.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 15:34

radmonger: Jun 6, 2011

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Oh yeah, that one definitely works here on SA, so it'd probably work elsewhere too.

For SA, you probably want something like �Stalin was aware that the Kulaks were more of an ethnic group than an economic class at the time he ordered them liquidised�.

I mean, nothing in the question actually specifies _American_ history, merely history that Americans care about.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 15:41

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

ProperGanderPusher posted:

I got one guy get legit angry at me when I pointed out that our founding fathers were religiously diverse and more influenced by the enlightenment than ~*Judeo-Christian values*~. Acted like I personally insulted him as a veteran and stormed off.

Presumably he'd not be happy hearing about US-Moroccan relations either then.

radmonger posted:

For SA, you probably want something like ‘Stalin was aware that the Kulaks were more of an ethnic group than an economic class at the time he ordered them liquidised’.

Your version of SA must be considerably tankier than the one I read for that to get people riled up.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 15:51

Nosfereefer: Jun 15, 2011; IF YOU FIND THIS POSTER OUTSIDE BYOB, PLEASE RETURN THEM. WE ARE VERY WORRIED AND WE MISS THEM

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Your version of SA must be considerably tankier than the one I read for that to get people riled up.

It's basically whataboutism as a coping mechanism, supporting many of the claims ITT.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 16:36

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

just being a soldier does NOT make you a hero

"police officer" is not a dangerous job

# ? Feb 5, 2018 17:10

Blue Star: Feb 18, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

Yeah, the Founding Fathers were a lot more mystical than people believe. Many were Deists and Freemasons, quite a few were sorcerers. The Puritan and Protestant settlers were merely a useful tool for their magickal designs, which are still playing out to this day. To where and what will they ultimately lead? None can tell.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 18:21

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

RaySmuckles posted:

just being a soldier does NOT make you a hero

"police officer" is not a dangerous job

The guy was legitimately in the poo poo while in �Nam (had no idea until he flipped out on me).

# ? Feb 5, 2018 23:45

thatfatkid: Feb 20, 2011; by Azathoth

What do the founding fathers and some dude being a vet have to do with each other?

Also to contribute: The only tragedy about 9/11 was it's small scale.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 00:00

Haverchuck: May 6, 2005; the coolest

most people who clicked this thread probably already saw this a week ago but check this poo poo out
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/get-country-navajo-lawmaker-harassed-arizona-trump-supporters-accusing-illegally/

# ? Feb 6, 2018 00:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 04:26

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

thatfatkid posted:

What do the founding fathers and some dude being a vet have to do with each other?

Also to contribute: The only tragedy about 9/11 was it's small scale.

By calling the Founding Fathers deists and atheists, I�m implying that our nation and constitution have an evil foundation and therefore I must hate America.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 00:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What aspects of history are Americans violently passionate about?

«‹›6 »