-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Debate: Why isn't racism wrong when it comes from minorites?
- Thread starter Dave2112
- Start date
natural tickler said:
I understand what you mean NT, but I've got to disagree. We may have a long TIME to go before we regard each other as equals, but the distance we have to travel as a society is ridiculously small. All we have to do as a race (the human race, as Jimmy Cannon would say) is wake the hell up and take the next evolutionary step.
In fact, I think the "differences" we see between ourselves are totally imaginary. If a martian with 4 heads and 6 arses landed in a flying saucer and wandered into the nearest cafe for egg and chips, there'd be no deep down difference between him and me. The physical is so damn ephemeral it's ridiculous.
Heh heh. And NT thought HE was rambling!
true equality is an impossibility as we currently stand. although ostensibly living as a cohesive populace within each city and to a lesser extent state, in reality our social organisations border on a primitivistic tribal culture segregated by facotrs such as sex, age, race, style, creed, class, etc.
when i see a black man, i see a black man. this is one of his defining qualities, and anyone who says it does not matter (insofar as a descriptor ) is clearly an idiot. what i would like to have seen is a person, a being, but i dont, i see a black man (this in no way indicates that i believe black people are less than human or not classed as humans) we cannot help what we are, but we can alter it, for everything is transient and permeable. nothing is absolute and immovable. i am for a hegemonious culture, which to some extent we have now. we simply need to further it. a few centuries more of interbreeding should ensure an almost uniform skin tone and feature set anyway. i do not know if this will lessen racism or increase it. however, hopefully by that time we will have inculcated our children with the idea that everyone is truly equal, those who try to kill us as well as those who live within our walls. jesus said love your enemy. true, he did have to invoke the idea of the kingdom to enforce this mandate, but it didnt really work anyway. a will to equality is needed. i see a culture which has grown strong and good and moral and permissive, one where all that is good in every culture is embraced. one where there will be no affirmative action or anti discrimination laws because they will not be needed.
when i see a black man, i see a black man. this is one of his defining qualities, and anyone who says it does not matter (insofar as a descriptor ) is clearly an idiot. what i would like to have seen is a person, a being, but i dont, i see a black man (this in no way indicates that i believe black people are less than human or not classed as humans) we cannot help what we are, but we can alter it, for everything is transient and permeable. nothing is absolute and immovable. i am for a hegemonious culture, which to some extent we have now. we simply need to further it. a few centuries more of interbreeding should ensure an almost uniform skin tone and feature set anyway. i do not know if this will lessen racism or increase it. however, hopefully by that time we will have inculcated our children with the idea that everyone is truly equal, those who try to kill us as well as those who live within our walls. jesus said love your enemy. true, he did have to invoke the idea of the kingdom to enforce this mandate, but it didnt really work anyway. a will to equality is needed. i see a culture which has grown strong and good and moral and permissive, one where all that is good in every culture is embraced. one where there will be no affirmative action or anti discrimination laws because they will not be needed.
I don't think a single genetic "schmozz" is needed to end racism. I think it just needs the small step of people deciding to think for themselves instead of believing what they told or manipulated to believe. Take that step and genetic diversity would become something to celebrate instead of gawk at. People have been swallowing the line that someone of a different race is "different" from them for so long, that it's become established "fact". Like so many "facts" that billions hold to be immutable, it's total arse.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
BigJim said:
bbig jim my friend ,i'm affraid i have to differ on a couple points.
there are glaring differences between the differing races. physical, and cultural. those are immutable facts. but i do agree with you that they can be tossed aside, or gotten around. we don't have to have blinders on in the world, we just have to be able to understand that just cause someone is different doesn't mean thay are bad.
except rap music. then you are bad 😛
steve
tickledorange
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 2,425
- Points
- 0
ok, i hate racism. To me, its fake. Totally fake.
To me, racism and that kinda stuff is all about not liking someone because of their race and wanting them to be so much a part of your race and your thing that they forget about theirs.
I lived conformity and issued dictatorship, and believe me its not fun. The fact that everyone looked diff made it a little better for everyone.
There are many reasons i am not a racist: a family with no nationality, living in such a diverse area of the country that the cultures about every racare very cool ( holidays, sonds, traditions, food, etc.) and there are so many coo, things ive learned from other cultures.
I will respect another culture as long as they respect mine.
Í dont hate people for their race, i hate them for who they are. A pet peeve of mine is when people say "You just wont _____ because im _____". I just tell them that i dont hate theyre nationality, i just hate them and maybe theyre the ones who are the racists.
I wont date people from certain cultures. Its just a thing of mine. I dont care if other people do it, its just a choice of mine. Respect it or hate me, i dont care. I prob wont like u anyways then. It works out better in the end for someone to date someone because they have the same interests, not because they are the same race. If you love someone, love them for who they are and dont worry about race. I.E. If you meet someone into tickling.
And remember, a world divided is a lot worse than a world together. If we can all get together, we can defeat the evil in the world. I mean it. We all dont want to end up living in a world where were afraid to say or do anything because of what is happened in the past (Say like, if political correctness and segregation of today and the past take full effect, we could be in big trouble in the future as far as liberties and freedom are concerned.) Take away one freedom, and they will eventually all be taken away.
Stacy
To me, racism and that kinda stuff is all about not liking someone because of their race and wanting them to be so much a part of your race and your thing that they forget about theirs.
I lived conformity and issued dictatorship, and believe me its not fun. The fact that everyone looked diff made it a little better for everyone.
There are many reasons i am not a racist: a family with no nationality, living in such a diverse area of the country that the cultures about every racare very cool ( holidays, sonds, traditions, food, etc.) and there are so many coo, things ive learned from other cultures.
I will respect another culture as long as they respect mine.
Í dont hate people for their race, i hate them for who they are. A pet peeve of mine is when people say "You just wont _____ because im _____". I just tell them that i dont hate theyre nationality, i just hate them and maybe theyre the ones who are the racists.
I wont date people from certain cultures. Its just a thing of mine. I dont care if other people do it, its just a choice of mine. Respect it or hate me, i dont care. I prob wont like u anyways then. It works out better in the end for someone to date someone because they have the same interests, not because they are the same race. If you love someone, love them for who they are and dont worry about race. I.E. If you meet someone into tickling.
And remember, a world divided is a lot worse than a world together. If we can all get together, we can defeat the evil in the world. I mean it. We all dont want to end up living in a world where were afraid to say or do anything because of what is happened in the past (Say like, if political correctness and segregation of today and the past take full effect, we could be in big trouble in the future as far as liberties and freedom are concerned.) Take away one freedom, and they will eventually all be taken away.
Stacy
areenactor said:
I agree with nearly every word you say Steve. The reason I say that there is no ultimate difference between us all, is because I tend to regard this physical life as being tansient, rather than the real thing. Obviously there are physical differences between the races. For starters black people are generally physically superior. (That'll piss the racists off.) They have stronger muscles, more endurance, higher bone density and are generally tougher. That's largely the reason why black men dominate physical sports. The small exceptions are sports like swimming, where the higher bone density and bigger mass work against you.
Cultural differences don't really depend on race. Take the UK and USA and then compare the differences between the WASP communities of each one. Same religious background, same genetic background, different culture and philosophy. With the rise of Americanism in England there are fewer and fewer admittedly, but the ones that there are are marked. Of course you can compare the culture of say, an Australian Aborigine living in the bush and a WASP in Manchester and they'd be totally different, but I think the colour has less to do with it than you'd think.
It's nice to see this thread has got some life back in it again. It's been a while since...page 1, so I figure it's time to lend my unique perspective again.
a few centuries more of interbreeding should ensure an almost uniform skin tone and feature set anyway
-Aussie Monkey
I like this idea. Mostly because the idea of massive interracial orgies appeals to the satyriasist in me in such a way that I shouldn't think about it anymore lest my drool short out my keyboard.
Now, on to more serious matters.
This game I've read about is a funny thing to me. Think about it like this: if you had never been to a country before, the only way you could ever ascertain the mannerisms and icons of the inhabitants is the images presented of them...and the icons in Ghettopoly are probably the icons and images you would routinely see concerning America's African-American culture. (this isn't a reference to Mr. Chang...it's a what-if if you were in the situation)
I mentioned last time that the essential problem is a cultural alienation between "whites" and "blacks" (terms used for simplicity only)...and other people seem to think so based on responses. So I suppose we should focus now on the aspects of that culture.
Black culture has been riddled with the very real problem of circumstantial poverty; a century of under-the-counter Reconstruction resistance (e.g. Jim Crow Laws) caused black culture to withdraw into itself for support and sustanence...while most of the rest of the country grew with America's cultural advancement. Granted, black culture wasn't entirely in the dark, but it was prohibited from participating fully. By the time this problem was rectified, the position of poverty had become part of the national identity.
The problem with culture is that it relies on a heirarchy of superficial factors to establish identity: sex, creed, religion, race, height, age, etc., to categorize people into groups of importance to determine what will be the deciding majority in running things. In America, it's mostly white culture, due in part to its oppression of other cultures and the ruthlessness within its own. I discussed this with a friend and he said the following:
"black people continue to fall behind because they still hold on to the idea of 'brotherhood'...they stand by the people who would rob them blind. White people don't do that...they cut their ties with the weaker/criminal elements and let them rot, so they focus more time and energy on their own accomplishments and leave behind the undesireables of their own kind. So basically, white people cut the deadweight and black people let it drag them down." (paraphrased)
An interesting idea. One of the side effects of poverty is that it can make people desperate...the "THIEF" association of black people probably comes from the more recognized desperate individuals who steal to get by. Another side effect is that it tends to raise peoples awareness of vulnerability; poor people can be almost obsessive about how money affects their life...to the point where the acquisition of money anyway anyhow is seen as the purpose in life.
Think about what mabus' article mentioned: the prevalence of drug-dealing and prison culture amongst black people. Drug-dealing rakes in a great deal of money, which is enticing for people raised in an environment where money means everything; it's also illegal, which can explain the prevalence of black inmates nationwide; and there is no greater living example of social darwinism than a prison where the strongest survive and the weak perish. This commonality is probably why prison culture is so celebrated...so many people endure it that it makes it a communal experience and becomes part of their identity. All this combined contributes to violent behavior (both in stressed-out parents and street-survivors), which makes outsiders nervous, lending to more bias against a race that is predominantly confined to a fixed economic state.
As for why the admiration of illegal activity over education? Education doesn't get the bills paid in full on time...even white college graduates are finding that out these days.
And, as I said before, this causes the friction between black and white culture...white people behave one way and get all the money, and use it to suppress black people, so therefore by dealing drugs, it's making great wealth without working for "whitey"/The Enemy, so it may seem like a personal victory to beat the system. And it also makes it appealing to children in these neighborhoods who are constantly aware of how powerless they are against the powerful...so they admire imposing, macho icons and aspire to be like them.
But remember...people only do what they are conditioned to believe they should do...and that culpability falls on culture; because it is culture that defines value and worth and matters obscene and virtuous.
Culture is the culprit...and that is what should be erased.
a few centuries more of interbreeding should ensure an almost uniform skin tone and feature set anyway
-Aussie Monkey
I like this idea. Mostly because the idea of massive interracial orgies appeals to the satyriasist in me in such a way that I shouldn't think about it anymore lest my drool short out my keyboard.
Now, on to more serious matters.
This game I've read about is a funny thing to me. Think about it like this: if you had never been to a country before, the only way you could ever ascertain the mannerisms and icons of the inhabitants is the images presented of them...and the icons in Ghettopoly are probably the icons and images you would routinely see concerning America's African-American culture. (this isn't a reference to Mr. Chang...it's a what-if if you were in the situation)
I mentioned last time that the essential problem is a cultural alienation between "whites" and "blacks" (terms used for simplicity only)...and other people seem to think so based on responses. So I suppose we should focus now on the aspects of that culture.
Black culture has been riddled with the very real problem of circumstantial poverty; a century of under-the-counter Reconstruction resistance (e.g. Jim Crow Laws) caused black culture to withdraw into itself for support and sustanence...while most of the rest of the country grew with America's cultural advancement. Granted, black culture wasn't entirely in the dark, but it was prohibited from participating fully. By the time this problem was rectified, the position of poverty had become part of the national identity.
The problem with culture is that it relies on a heirarchy of superficial factors to establish identity: sex, creed, religion, race, height, age, etc., to categorize people into groups of importance to determine what will be the deciding majority in running things. In America, it's mostly white culture, due in part to its oppression of other cultures and the ruthlessness within its own. I discussed this with a friend and he said the following:
"black people continue to fall behind because they still hold on to the idea of 'brotherhood'...they stand by the people who would rob them blind. White people don't do that...they cut their ties with the weaker/criminal elements and let them rot, so they focus more time and energy on their own accomplishments and leave behind the undesireables of their own kind. So basically, white people cut the deadweight and black people let it drag them down." (paraphrased)
An interesting idea. One of the side effects of poverty is that it can make people desperate...the "THIEF" association of black people probably comes from the more recognized desperate individuals who steal to get by. Another side effect is that it tends to raise peoples awareness of vulnerability; poor people can be almost obsessive about how money affects their life...to the point where the acquisition of money anyway anyhow is seen as the purpose in life.
Think about what mabus' article mentioned: the prevalence of drug-dealing and prison culture amongst black people. Drug-dealing rakes in a great deal of money, which is enticing for people raised in an environment where money means everything; it's also illegal, which can explain the prevalence of black inmates nationwide; and there is no greater living example of social darwinism than a prison where the strongest survive and the weak perish. This commonality is probably why prison culture is so celebrated...so many people endure it that it makes it a communal experience and becomes part of their identity. All this combined contributes to violent behavior (both in stressed-out parents and street-survivors), which makes outsiders nervous, lending to more bias against a race that is predominantly confined to a fixed economic state.
As for why the admiration of illegal activity over education? Education doesn't get the bills paid in full on time...even white college graduates are finding that out these days.
And, as I said before, this causes the friction between black and white culture...white people behave one way and get all the money, and use it to suppress black people, so therefore by dealing drugs, it's making great wealth without working for "whitey"/The Enemy, so it may seem like a personal victory to beat the system. And it also makes it appealing to children in these neighborhoods who are constantly aware of how powerless they are against the powerful...so they admire imposing, macho icons and aspire to be like them.
But remember...people only do what they are conditioned to believe they should do...and that culpability falls on culture; because it is culture that defines value and worth and matters obscene and virtuous.
Culture is the culprit...and that is what should be erased.
On the whole Amn, I found that to be an educated, erudite and exceedingly thoughtful post. I'm not sure if I agree with all your points, but the jury is still out. I think two or three days worth of mental digestion is required before I comment fully, not least because American culture is not something I was born into.
However...
Wave the flags and hold the parade; this guy has got it!!! Essentially what the above sentence means is,"Use your minds and your own judgement to form your opinions people, and stop thinking what other people and sources tell you to!" (Feel free to correct me if I'm mis-quoting you, Amn?)
However...
Amnesiac_m(pc) said:
Wave the flags and hold the parade; this guy has got it!!! Essentially what the above sentence means is,"Use your minds and your own judgement to form your opinions people, and stop thinking what other people and sources tell you to!" (Feel free to correct me if I'm mis-quoting you, Amn?)
Knox The Hatter
2nd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,351
- Points
- 0
"And 1812 was a very good year. Nothing like burning a capital city to the ground to brighten the spirits."
Jim, there were many, many people here whose spirits were heightened by events in Britain in the summer and fall of 1940, and would certainly have preferred to see the Isles sink into the sea before lifting a finger to help. And not all of these people had Irish surnames, either. Just thought I'd uh...bring that up. Of course, that pissy little remark above has no effect on my having been an Anglophile my whole life.
Great post, Amnesiac, two posts up. Marvelous.
Jim, there were many, many people here whose spirits were heightened by events in Britain in the summer and fall of 1940, and would certainly have preferred to see the Isles sink into the sea before lifting a finger to help. And not all of these people had Irish surnames, either. Just thought I'd uh...bring that up. Of course, that pissy little remark above has no effect on my having been an Anglophile my whole life.
Great post, Amnesiac, two posts up. Marvelous.
Knox The Hatter said:
Is this the same Knox who once wrote on Tickle Theater that not one of my posts had ever failed to raise a smile with him?
Knox I have to assume that you read that post very quickly and then moved on before all the images loaded and the
smiley put in an appearance immiediately after it. Had that smiley been visible when you read it I think it would have been obvious that I had three-quarters of my tongue in my cheek and a mail order crowbar on the way to get it out again. I make remarks like that in response (usually anyway, I can't remember who or what exactly drew it from me that time) to people from the US gloating that they opened up a can of redcoat whoop-ass in the 1776-89 war. I also make tongue in cheek references to the 1812 war to remind people from the US that each country's history class colours events in whatever shade of national flag they deem appropriate. That's as deep as my remarks go. No hidden agenda against the US, no grudge harboured because of the picture painted by Mel Gibson of historical events that are as accurate as the reflection in a fun-fair mirror. I have been a septic-o-phile all my life and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
ah jim me lad
i do believe the "revolutionary war" was from 1775 to 1782. 7 years, not 12. is that what the schools in england have been teaching?
and by all accounts that i've ever heard of, the "war of 1812" was concidered an american win. oh sure we took some lumps, but not as bad as we gave.
what the hell, if it will make you feel better, you can think you guys won, i won't tell😛
steve
i do believe the "revolutionary war" was from 1775 to 1782. 7 years, not 12. is that what the schools in england have been teaching?
and by all accounts that i've ever heard of, the "war of 1812" was concidered an american win. oh sure we took some lumps, but not as bad as we gave.
what the hell, if it will make you feel better, you can think you guys won, i won't tell😛
steve
SlaverTickler
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,153
- Points
- 38
I was not an American win !!!
The war of 1812 was when the Americans tried to take British North America (AKA Canada) from the British Empire. They didn't do it, so it is an American loss.
The war of 1812 was when the Americans tried to take British North America (AKA Canada) from the British Empire. They didn't do it, so it is an American loss.
Last edited:
Knox The Hatter
2nd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,351
- Points
- 0
Actually, a little more complex. The 1812 war started because of the tremendous delay in information crossing the vast ocean in the days before the trans-atlantic line, or telephones. Britain was, at that time, kind of tied up with Napoleon (he was the main reasons for their transgressions against us; understandably feeling that their survival was more important than the braying and whining of insolent Americans), and couldn't devote much time and effort to a war with the United States in this hemisphere. Much to their surprise, we did give a magnificent account of ourselves on the high seas with our comparitively miniscule Navy, but the tide turned as soon as the Bonaparte threat was snuffed out afloat. Things really started to look grim when Britain finally managed to devote complete attention to the war here, and the burning of DC seemed to only be a prelude to much greater disasters. Just when things were darkest, President James Madison dispatched a group of master negotiators to London to broker a peace, a team including future prez John Quincy Adams, a very young Henry Clay, among others. The peace treaty they negotiated was INCREDIBLY advantageous to a country that was getting its ass kicked pillar to post in a war with the greatest military power in the world. My theory is that the Regency was a) sick to death of twenty years of endless, costly war, and b) looking towards a future of very lucrative trade and investment in US growth. The treaty that was negotiated so much in our favor was called a "WIN" in the elementary school textbooks I had to digest as a child. The truth is that if they didn't do that good a job, what would the landscape look like today?
Oddly enough, the Battle of New Orleans, which turned out to be the greatest disaster of British Arms ever on the North American continent, occured after the treaty was signed, but it was a good three months before the news reached our shores...
Oddly enough, the Battle of New Orleans, which turned out to be the greatest disaster of British Arms ever on the North American continent, occured after the treaty was signed, but it was a good three months before the news reached our shores...
Racism is wrong. However when its against your own race it isnt really racism is it. Now for instance if i saw this mexican guy I didnt know and yelled out look at that spic that would be completely wrong but if another mexican said it then it wouldnt matter. Its like being with a bunch of fat people and sayin we sure are some fat motherfuckers that would be ok but if a skinny guy runs in and gos you guys sure are some fat motherfuckers yall would get offended.
oh and Nina says meow [i agree]
Psycho
oh and Nina says meow [i agree]
Psycho
SlaverTickler
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,153
- Points
- 38
Say what ya want...
... you tried to get Canada, you didn't do it, it's a loss. I'll bet in American history the 'Nam is considered a draw. You lost that one too, it's just that the patriots don't like to admit it.
... you tried to get Canada, you didn't do it, it's a loss. I'll bet in American history the 'Nam is considered a draw. You lost that one too, it's just that the patriots don't like to admit it.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
Re: Say what ya want...
you are right, and wrong. we did lose in viet nam in my opinion, but we won the war of 1812. yes our little eccusion into canada was a bust, but loosing one battle doesn't mean we lost the whole war. as i said to my cousin in toronto about this same subject; get over your self!
steve
SlaverTickler said:
you are right, and wrong. we did lose in viet nam in my opinion, but we won the war of 1812. yes our little eccusion into canada was a bust, but loosing one battle doesn't mean we lost the whole war. as i said to my cousin in toronto about this same subject; get over your self!
steve
Re: ah jim me lad
Steve that doesn't surprise me in the least, I've already said that each country virtually invents it's own version of history to tell it's people. Just as it doesn't surprise me that British schools don't teach their pupils that the British government had a system in Northern Ireland that was effectively the same as Aparteid. If you can stomach it, head over the border to Canada and see just what a different angle their history lessons have.
areenactor said:
Steve that doesn't surprise me in the least, I've already said that each country virtually invents it's own version of history to tell it's people. Just as it doesn't surprise me that British schools don't teach their pupils that the British government had a system in Northern Ireland that was effectively the same as Aparteid. If you can stomach it, head over the border to Canada and see just what a different angle their history lessons have.
Re: Re: Say what ya want...
Nam is a strange one in my opinion. Considering that American forces inflicted 10-15 times as many casualties as they suffered, it can't really be considered an ass-whooping, can it? Politically, it was a humongous ass-whoopping, but that's a different story.
The biggest loss to America, was the way it treated it's veterans of the conflict, which was a shameful and disgusting act of evil.
As for 1812, I find Knox's version of events to be a bit more balanced. (Which considering that he probably got his education in America, is a miracle!😀) New Orleans was a cluster-f**k of huge proportions, but prior to that (while the war was actually still going on) good ol' Unca Sam was getting his star-spangled arse booted from east to west.
I like to think that the seeds of the relationship that now exists between Britain and America were sown in the peace treaty. Mutal benefit rapidly turned (rapidly being over the course of nearly two centuries) into genuine affection. Nowadays the roles are completely reversed! From being our colony, we are now YOUR 51st state in all but name.
areenactor said:
Nam is a strange one in my opinion. Considering that American forces inflicted 10-15 times as many casualties as they suffered, it can't really be considered an ass-whooping, can it? Politically, it was a humongous ass-whoopping, but that's a different story.
The biggest loss to America, was the way it treated it's veterans of the conflict, which was a shameful and disgusting act of evil.
As for 1812, I find Knox's version of events to be a bit more balanced. (Which considering that he probably got his education in America, is a miracle!😀) New Orleans was a cluster-f**k of huge proportions, but prior to that (while the war was actually still going on) good ol' Unca Sam was getting his star-spangled arse booted from east to west.
I like to think that the seeds of the relationship that now exists between Britain and America were sown in the peace treaty. Mutal benefit rapidly turned (rapidly being over the course of nearly two centuries) into genuine affection. Nowadays the roles are completely reversed! From being our colony, we are now YOUR 51st state in all but name.
Re: ah jim me lad
No, but I counted 76 as the first full year of independence and 89 as the year that an elected President first officialy took office. I consider those dates to be more important, despite what years field combat took place in.
areenactor said:
No, but I counted 76 as the first full year of independence and 89 as the year that an elected President first officialy took office. I consider those dates to be more important, despite what years field combat took place in.
Knox The Hatter
2nd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,351
- Points
- 0
It actually surprised me, but here's the truth: American growth- industries, expansion, our rise from coast to coast, was underwritten by two major institutions, 1) the Bank Of England, and 2) Barings, and other London investment houses. The US economy in the nineteenth century danced to their tunes...when things were getting a little too heated and crazy, they'd pull back, and cause major economic depressions. We Americans were taught that we did it all ourselves...the truth is that Barings and the Bank Of England thought of the youthful nineteenth century antebellum America as a a wayward, spirited pre-teen in need of close supervision.
Britain ruled the world in the nineteenth century so effectively because of the wisdom of the Disraelis and the Palmerstons, and their ability to manage a checkbook. You see, we rule the world despite our deficiency in that category, and it's gonna swallow us.
Britain ruled the world in the nineteenth century so effectively because of the wisdom of the Disraelis and the Palmerstons, and their ability to manage a checkbook. You see, we rule the world despite our deficiency in that category, and it's gonna swallow us.
Knox The Hatter
2nd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,351
- Points
- 0
"As for 1812, I find Knox's version of events to be a bit more balanced. (Which considering that he probably got his education in America, is a miracle!) New Orleans was a cluster-f**k of huge proportions, but prior to that (while the war was actually still going on) good ol' Unca Sam was getting his star-spangled arse booted from east to west."
I don't know anyone among my acquaintance who's as interested in history as I am...I've been devouring historical tomes about American and British and other events since I was ten years old. The information's here. You can accept the condensed, abridged, and even slanted accounts in the overaged, smelly from the awful glue they used textbooks in school, or you could go to the library, and now even search online for information you're looking for. Like I said, it's there...
Now, if our leaders took the time to go to the library to study other areas of the world that the US is involved in, we wouldn't be in half of the friggin' trouble that we've been in!
I don't know anyone among my acquaintance who's as interested in history as I am...I've been devouring historical tomes about American and British and other events since I was ten years old. The information's here. You can accept the condensed, abridged, and even slanted accounts in the overaged, smelly from the awful glue they used textbooks in school, or you could go to the library, and now even search online for information you're looking for. Like I said, it's there...
Now, if our leaders took the time to go to the library to study other areas of the world that the US is involved in, we wouldn't be in half of the friggin' trouble that we've been in!
Knox The Hatter said:
Knox dude, you have my serious admiration. That above passage is exactly what I've said in several of my conspiracy threads. I've been more extreme than you of course, but the gist is there.
My contention was that Britain deliberately lost the war (not so difficult to believe when you see what hoops the generals had to leap through to make sure that big enough fuck-ups occured to ensure it) and then set up America as covert rule, as opposed to the previous overt version. They did it through finance and putting placemen like Franklin and Washington into office, who were tightly linked to the British aristocracy. Again, a version of events I doubt many of y'all were taught at school. Would it be closer to the truth to say that American history teachers taught you that a viscious, colonial tyrant was overthrown by righteous American leaders who made a brave dash for freedom? That Britain pushed it's luck too far and woke the sleeping hunger for liberty?
I had a deeply moving experience the other night. A voice from the sky? A burning bush? A voice in my head telling me all the world's evils? Nope. I watched a film called The Truman Show that took exactly what we are today and put it in a movie context. Smoke and mirrors, deceit and deception, people unquestioningly accepting the version of reality they are presented with. Just like Truman Burbank we have swallowed it for years without question. Just like Truman Burbank we're a heartbeat away from breaking out of the reality prison and into true freedom, if only we climb the stairs and open the door.
But what the bollocking, arseing buggery has it got to do with racism from minorities?
Shagged if I know.😕
SlaverTickler
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,153
- Points
- 38
