The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
- Messages
- 3,140
Do you mean return to swamp as usual default politics settings? 😕
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
The highway truck incident looks like the white SUV tried to force it's way between the truck, and the bus because you can see where it was practically crowding the truck off the road before it pushed back! I'm not sure if it was occupied by secret service or not, and I can see how they would be miffed at a truck tailgating the bus that close.
Yet I don't see a malicious attempt to endanger the former VP, though running that close in any situation isn't to high on the intelligence scale regardless of political leanings.
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
The highway truck incident looks like the white SUV tried to force it's way between the truck, and the bus because you can see where it was practically crowding the truck off the road before it pushed back! I'm not sure if it was occupied by secret service or not, and I can see how they would be miffed at a truck tailgating the bus that close.
Yet I don't see a malicious attempt to endanger the former VP, though running that close in any situation isn't to high on the intelligence scale regardless of political leanings.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
@BroederTrapist I am not an American; I am a member of the Cherokee, Tlingit & Tsimshian nations. Due to the effects of cultural imperialism I am legally a citizen of the United States & I have already voted.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2020
- Messages
- 620
@2spiritcherokeeprincess
Thanks for informing. Before your post I had no knowledge that such tribes existed.
Thanks for informing. Before your post I had no knowledge that such tribes existed.
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
Why would you say you're not an American? Do you consider "Americans" an ethnic group rather than just a label?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
As far as your picture though, apparently the genocide of Native Americans took the population from 76000000 to 250000 people according to some estimates. This is quite shocking to me, as this is almost 10 times that of the Holocaust, yet American schools get a week long lesson on the Holocaust, but barely any attention to this genocide. Especially considering that Americans were completely uninvolved in the Holocaust comparatively. This is far more deserving of attention.
Even with all of this I still don't understand why you'll "never be an American", if anything, being an American is such a loose concept that almost anyone can become one since it has nothing to do with ethnicity. Are you instead trying to say you don't recognize the American government?
Excuse me for being unknowledgable, but, how do you *legally* found a new country? It would seem to me that a country comes first and laws later, not the other way around, and even then, new countries only come into existence when enough countries that already exist recognize it as such. Furthermore, how did they commit "hate crimes" if the acts they were committing were not considered illegal by the entities that perpetrated them? Not even the established America, before that were colonialists that were either Spaniards and then the British.
As far as your picture though, apparently the genocide of Native Americans took the population from 76000000 to 250000 people according to some estimates. This is quite shocking to me, as this is almost 10 times that of the Holocaust, yet American schools get a week long lesson on the Holocaust, but barely any attention to this genocide. Especially considering that Americans were completely uninvolved in the Holocaust comparatively. This is far more deserving of attention.
Even with all of this I still don't understand why you'll "never be an American", if anything, being an American is such a loose concept that almost anyone can become one since it has nothing to do with ethnicity. Are you instead trying to say you don't recognize the American government?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,553
As a US citizen, it's perfectly okay for First Nations people to consider themselves separate from the "American" identity. They've been othered by the government and its people for 500 years after all. I also understand the sentiment in regards to the founding of the U.S. It's an abhorrent black spot on the nation's history equal to or greater than the spot left by slavery. The terminology may be modern, but the sentiment is rings true.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
@Chrona (Not an expert, take everything with a grain of salt)
No flag, no country /s
In the old ages, countries would just be groups of people and towns that band together under a goverment and eventually expand their territory until they encounter another gov that has the same Idea, this would end up in either an alliance or war or ignoring each other. EZ.
Today, things are more complicated, there are no longer any more territories to discover, the only way a country can be created now is by reforming the previous one or by declaring independence, the one that comes to my mind is South Sudan, which required years of civil war and bloodshed, then it took more years of negotiations to eventually determine the territory and borders and shit like that to finally separate from Sudan, and then, you still need other countries to recognize your existance *COF COF, taiwan COF COF*. New countries can be created when a group of people makes negotiations with the goverment of the country they live in and declare their independence, but it is a very complicated thing, I don't expect seeing another country be created for a long time.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Messages
- 710
if you want to be the runner-up after CCP then please vote the left because that's the world we live in right now. Nothing lasts forever though, choose your nation's fate: nationalist OR globalist. That's it.
And in case you're a twitter guy don't ever blindly cast your vote just to follow the flow of hashtag or trending topics on twitter, I remember labour boasted that they were surely could kick the conservatives out of majority but look at swinson and jeremy now, pfffft.
Enjoy the election day~
And in case you're a twitter guy don't ever blindly cast your vote just to follow the flow of hashtag or trending topics on twitter, I remember labour boasted that they were surely could kick the conservatives out of majority but look at swinson and jeremy now, pfffft.
Enjoy the election day~
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
A few points here:
A) American Indians (which is the correct term as "Native American" is primarily associated with the nativist party, not the indigenous peoples of precolonial America) still have sovereignty in certain parts of the nation. Granted, not all the tribes or customs have territory, but it is true that the American Indians still have their own jurisdiction and governance.
B) What happened to the Native Americans was not genocide. What wiped out most of the Native population was disease, which would have happened regardless due to the lack of beasts of burden within the Americas and so any contact from any culture would have lead to most native populations being wiped out. The American Indian population at the time was minuscule, and was nothing compared to something that we do not consider a genocide such as Caesar's invasion of Gaul which had more tribes killed in single battles than the total of most conflicts between American Indians and European settlers. Most of the worst deeds were committed before America was founded, such as by the British and especially the Spanish, and not the American government itself. This is not to say that America didn't have its share of atrocities committed against the native peoples, such that is evident through the Battle of Wounded Knee, Indian Removal Acts, and Trail of Tears, but when compared to the systematic subjugation, extermination, and enslavement by the Spanish, and the various crimes committed under the British Government, the US is a far less egregious offender than its peers. You must always grade on a curve when looking back onto the past. Every nation has blood on its hands, the drive to expand, and crimes by which you can look at them with discontent, but America has tended to be able to acknowledge its mistakes but amend them.
Besides, it does not help that Native populations themselves varied on their customs and views and different tribes were more or less "imperialistic" as others. Tecumseh wanted to unite all of the tribes on his half of the Mississippi River, willing or not, under his banner to oppose the Americans. The Iroquois, perhaps the most socially advanced of all the North Americans, still had periods where the Five Tribes would expand its borders. Do not even get me started on the Aztecs, Inca or other Mesoamerican powerhouses which were known for their tributary empires and labor taxes. The Aztecs had the "Flower Wars" which they used to enslave other tribes for the sole purpose of sacrifices. Cortes could not have defeated the Aztecs if he had not convinced the other native tribes to rebel against them first. Compared to the US which acquired most of its land through purchasing them via treaties, diplomacy, and negotiations, the Empires of old and the contemporary times were far, far worst and more oppressive. (Also, aside from Texas, which was its sovereign state because of its rebellion from Mexico, the US legally acquired its land. For all legislative purposes, what it did was not "stealing" land, because it rightfully either bought it, earned their independence from other nations, etc. Only a very small percentage of land was fought over with Native tribes due to the fact the US had the power to either buy them out, set up treaties do to the differences in manpower and technology, or just integrate the tribes into the US naturally through cultural osmosis. The Native Americans didn't have any power to enforce a claim to the land because to a large majority of the tribes, no one COULD own the land. It wasn't THEIR LAND, it was just a part of nature. It was also too scarcely populated to hold because of disease, and so it would inevitable that someone would fill the power vacuum and take it eventually.
You may decry it as unfair, and you would be right, but it was nothing exceptional not only for its time, but in fact would be foolish not to acquire more land given the fact the US was actively trying to facilitate the Monroe Doctrine of removing the colonial powers from the Americas, and keeping the Europeans out. Compare the US and its brief imperialistic period where it mostly fought for control over islands in the pacific and the Caribbean such as the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. to the atrocities during the Opium Wars or the wars in Africa by the British, and you'll begin to realize that America is definitely more favorable than pretty much any other growing civilization of its power and resources of its day. If the Americas had all the beasts of burden, and the myriad of other advantages the old world had over the new, then it would have colonized and conquered. It is the luxury of modernity with nuclear weapons that we do not tend to see empires anymore, as any invasion or conquest would be met with global pushback and the means by which other nations and their allies can curb the power of growing institutions, or at least in theory, if China is anything to go by.
C) What happened to the Native Americans was not "cultural imperialism" any more than any other state would. It is innate to man that when he migrates, he spreads his culture with his and mixes his culture with the local elements. This has been true from Ancient China spreading its language to all of East Asia, Alexander spreading Greek culture from Sparta to India, Rome controlling all of Europe and the Mediterranean, the Omayyad and Abbasids turning all of the Middle East into a united Arabic-speaking, Islamic culture. If you unfairly malign the US for doing the same as every other successful civilization, it puts them to a moral standard that cannot be present in determining the innate nature in which people find themselves in due to things like inequality in resources, desire to expand, the cultural syncretism found in all peoples, etc.
As a final point, I find it hypocritical that you reject the American identity, yet vote in our elections and have the audacity to decide where we steer our country. If you hate America, wish to not be associated with it and reject any attempt to integrate with its cultural values, principals, and identity, why do you think you should have a say in what leaders we pick? If the tables were turned, where an American Indian tribe was having an election, such as is common with groups such as the Iroquois, and people who do not wish to be Iroquois, reject their cultural values, and do not care about the principals of their five nations, then it would be right for us to condemn that as unjust. What you have done is essentially, according to your own principals and values, interfered in another nation's elections.
You either can choose to have the American identity and be a citizen of the nation, with all the privileges and responsibilities that brings, or you don't have a right to determine the direction of our country or engage with the US government. If you really reject the American label, why not renounce your citizenship, as you have the right to do, instead of this two-faced charade in which you simultaneously decry America and yet participate in its institutions?
A few points here:
A) American Indians (which is the correct term as "Native American" is primarily associated with the nativist party, not the indigenous peoples of precolonial America) still have sovereignty in certain parts of the nation. Granted, not all the tribes or customs have territory, but it is true that the American Indians still have their own jurisdiction and governance.
B) What happened to the Native Americans was not genocide. What wiped out most of the Native population was disease, which would have happened regardless due to the lack of beasts of burden within the Americas and so any contact from any culture would have lead to most native populations being wiped out. The American Indian population at the time was minuscule, and was nothing compared to something that we do not consider a genocide such as Caesar's invasion of Gaul which had more tribes killed in single battles than the total of most conflicts between American Indians and European settlers. Most of the worst deeds were committed before America was founded, such as by the British and especially the Spanish, and not the American government itself. This is not to say that America didn't have its share of atrocities committed against the native peoples, such that is evident through the Battle of Wounded Knee, Indian Removal Acts, and Trail of Tears, but when compared to the systematic subjugation, extermination, and enslavement by the Spanish, and the various crimes committed under the British Government, the US is a far less egregious offender than its peers. You must always grade on a curve when looking back onto the past. Every nation has blood on its hands, the drive to expand, and crimes by which you can look at them with discontent, but America has tended to be able to acknowledge its mistakes but amend them.
Besides, it does not help that Native populations themselves varied on their customs and views and different tribes were more or less "imperialistic" as others. Tecumseh wanted to unite all of the tribes on his half of the Mississippi River, willing or not, under his banner to oppose the Americans. The Iroquois, perhaps the most socially advanced of all the North Americans, still had periods where the Five Tribes would expand its borders. Do not even get me started on the Aztecs, Inca or other Mesoamerican powerhouses which were known for their tributary empires and labor taxes. The Aztecs had the "Flower Wars" which they used to enslave other tribes for the sole purpose of sacrifices. Cortes could not have defeated the Aztecs if he had not convinced the other native tribes to rebel against them first. Compared to the US which acquired most of its land through purchasing them via treaties, diplomacy, and negotiations, the Empires of old and the contemporary times were far, far worst and more oppressive. (Also, aside from Texas, which was its sovereign state because of its rebellion from Mexico, the US legally acquired its land. For all legislative purposes, what it did was not "stealing" land, because it rightfully either bought it, earned their independence from other nations, etc. Only a very small percentage of land was fought over with Native tribes due to the fact the US had the power to either buy them out, set up treaties do to the differences in manpower and technology, or just integrate the tribes into the US naturally through cultural osmosis. The Native Americans didn't have any power to enforce a claim to the land because to a large majority of the tribes, no one COULD own the land. It wasn't THEIR LAND, it was just a part of nature. It was also too scarcely populated to hold because of disease, and so it would inevitable that someone would fill the power vacuum and take it eventually.
You may decry it as unfair, and you would be right, but it was nothing exceptional not only for its time, but in fact would be foolish not to acquire more land given the fact the US was actively trying to facilitate the Monroe Doctrine of removing the colonial powers from the Americas, and keeping the Europeans out. Compare the US and its brief imperialistic period where it mostly fought for control over islands in the pacific and the Caribbean such as the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. to the atrocities during the Opium Wars or the wars in Africa by the British, and you'll begin to realize that America is definitely more favorable than pretty much any other growing civilization of its power and resources of its day. If the Americas had all the beasts of burden, and the myriad of other advantages the old world had over the new, then it would have colonized and conquered. It is the luxury of modernity with nuclear weapons that we do not tend to see empires anymore, as any invasion or conquest would be met with global pushback and the means by which other nations and their allies can curb the power of growing institutions, or at least in theory, if China is anything to go by.
C) What happened to the Native Americans was not "cultural imperialism" any more than any other state would. It is innate to man that when he migrates, he spreads his culture with his and mixes his culture with the local elements. This has been true from Ancient China spreading its language to all of East Asia, Alexander spreading Greek culture from Sparta to India, Rome controlling all of Europe and the Mediterranean, the Omayyad and Abbasids turning all of the Middle East into a united Arabic-speaking, Islamic culture. If you unfairly malign the US for doing the same as every other successful civilization, it puts them to a moral standard that cannot be present in determining the innate nature in which people find themselves in due to things like inequality in resources, desire to expand, the cultural syncretism found in all peoples, etc.
As a final point, I find it hypocritical that you reject the American identity, yet vote in our elections and have the audacity to decide where we steer our country. If you hate America, wish to not be associated with it and reject any attempt to integrate with its cultural values, principals, and identity, why do you think you should have a say in what leaders we pick? If the tables were turned, where an American Indian tribe was having an election, such as is common with groups such as the Iroquois, and people who do not wish to be Iroquois, reject their cultural values, and do not care about the principals of their five nations, then it would be right for us to condemn that as unjust. What you have done is essentially, according to your own principals and values, interfered in another nation's elections.
You either can choose to have the American identity and be a citizen of the nation, with all the privileges and responsibilities that brings, or you don't have a right to determine the direction of our country or engage with the US government. If you really reject the American label, why not renounce your citizenship, as you have the right to do, instead of this two-faced charade in which you simultaneously decry America and yet participate in its institutions?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@Richman
Yes, I'm a dumb-dumb when it comes to Spanish, but I got a 5 on both my AP World History and AP US History exams, so I know my shit.
I also really like America because I like how it's a place that's not defined by any arbitrary ethnic identity, race, or linage, but instead is united in common principles and cultural values, meaning anyone of any nation who is dedicated enough or passionate enough can become an American and excel within our nation. It's an experiment of a nation, but I definitely think it's a force of net good for the peoples of the world and is one of the few systems that can unite such a diverse range of peoples, identities, customs, cultures, and histories and yet all of them can come together under the shared banner to ensure the best rule for all.
(I also know a lot about the Iroquois because I'm in Indiana and because they're awesome, but that's irrelevant)
Yes, I'm a dumb-dumb when it comes to Spanish, but I got a 5 on both my AP World History and AP US History exams, so I know my shit.
I also really like America because I like how it's a place that's not defined by any arbitrary ethnic identity, race, or linage, but instead is united in common principles and cultural values, meaning anyone of any nation who is dedicated enough or passionate enough can become an American and excel within our nation. It's an experiment of a nation, but I definitely think it's a force of net good for the peoples of the world and is one of the few systems that can unite such a diverse range of peoples, identities, customs, cultures, and histories and yet all of them can come together under the shared banner to ensure the best rule for all.
@BestBoy
Good to know, though I don't believe we were discussing if it was "okay" or not to not identify as American. The discussion was more of a problem of what exactly an "American" is, and why certain people would be excluded from it. I can understand the concept of not agreeing with the policies of a nation, but if you're rejecting the concept of involvement in the government affairs, it would seem to be almost akin to choosing to be a colony belonging to an empire as opposed to a member of the empire. Not to state that the US is or isn't one, I'm just trying to understand what exactly "I will never be an American means." Because it certainly doesn't mean the same thing as "I will never be Chinese" or "I will never be French."
@Richman
@axelTHEGREAT
I dunno, the CCP is doing pretty well for itself these days. Imagine that you're literally putting Muslims in death camps, but those in the Middle East decide to protest France because of political cartoons instead. Says a lot about where the de facto power is on the current world stage, and it isn't in the West.
Good to know, though I don't believe we were discussing if it was "okay" or not to not identify as American. The discussion was more of a problem of what exactly an "American" is, and why certain people would be excluded from it. I can understand the concept of not agreeing with the policies of a nation, but if you're rejecting the concept of involvement in the government affairs, it would seem to be almost akin to choosing to be a colony belonging to an empire as opposed to a member of the empire. Not to state that the US is or isn't one, I'm just trying to understand what exactly "I will never be an American means." Because it certainly doesn't mean the same thing as "I will never be Chinese" or "I will never be French."
@Richman
Civil war isn't really legal though. I suppose you could call the trimmings of the actual referendum that took place in 2011 "legal", but that "legal" option would not have been available without bloodshed that was definitely not legal. It feels disingenuous to refer to it as such over the 2.5 million dead over the two civil wars.
@axelTHEGREAT
I dunno, the CCP is doing pretty well for itself these days. Imagine that you're literally putting Muslims in death camps, but those in the Middle East decide to protest France because of political cartoons instead. Says a lot about where the de facto power is on the current world stage, and it isn't in the West.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 171
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
True, true. But it is kind of hard to find a modern day example of a country being created without conflict, I think (while writing in my computer, at home, with internet access to the knowledge of almost all of humanity).
Edit: While researching in english and spanish, I found a fucking WikiHow in how to create your own country, lmao.
Edit2: @Chrona, I found this article (use reader mode) that says that basically shows 3 examples of new countries, those who use separatist movements like rebellion and civil war, those that ask for independence through negotiations (like referendums) to the country they want to be separated from and those who have declared independence and are looking for recognition from other countries COF COF like Taiwan COF COF, sorry, it's a little chilly rn. I could look for more.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@Chrona I can help answer this, I think.
America has for a long time been defined by its values, such as universal rights and suffrage, equality under the law, democracy and the rule of law, and the balance of power throughout society so no one group, branch, or aspect has too much power, and the value of meritocracy. But above all: liberty and tolerance. Historically, we started with the basics, such as that we will coexist with different denominations of Christianity, which was radical considering Europe in the 1600s was tearing itself apart between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. Then we expanded to different nations and customs, before expanding to different races and genders, and ever onward to destroy any arbitrary barriers that do not affect a person's character, ideals, values, or principles. We seek to reach a society where people are solely judged based on their actions, ideals, values, and principles, where WHAT you are is nowhere as important as WHO you are. The great American Experiment is much more akin to one that seeks out to help people reach their full potential, which in turn helps them to propel society forward and only seeks to benefit the nation as a whole.
The French and Chinese fixate upon on ethnocentrism and the idea that citizenship is tied ancestry, customs, and genealogy. For instance, the Han Chinese (the largest of the 56 ethnic groups of China) typically consider themselves to be the "Chinese" and everyone else to be outsiders who have been integrated into their customs. The French historically have had a very aristocratic attitude that favors either elitism or absolute anarchy if the French Revolution is anything to go off of. The Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East are defined by ethnic groups in constant conflict with one another because there's no shared overall set of values or identity they can appeal towards. What makes America so successful is we progressively are heading towards a point where immutable characteristics or inconsequential choices are not so important, but where we can remain united under our shared set of goals and ideals, rather than such arbitrary characteristics we have no say over.
@LunaKara Pretty sure it was just autocorrect or me thinking of an old political cartoon about either Roosevelt or Wilson. Either way, all that matters is it should be the fifty-first state along with the entirety of Canada.
@Richman Sealand technically created itself, but no one officially recognizes it, so it's up in the air of if its sovereign or not
America has for a long time been defined by its values, such as universal rights and suffrage, equality under the law, democracy and the rule of law, and the balance of power throughout society so no one group, branch, or aspect has too much power, and the value of meritocracy. But above all: liberty and tolerance. Historically, we started with the basics, such as that we will coexist with different denominations of Christianity, which was radical considering Europe in the 1600s was tearing itself apart between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. Then we expanded to different nations and customs, before expanding to different races and genders, and ever onward to destroy any arbitrary barriers that do not affect a person's character, ideals, values, or principles. We seek to reach a society where people are solely judged based on their actions, ideals, values, and principles, where WHAT you are is nowhere as important as WHO you are. The great American Experiment is much more akin to one that seeks out to help people reach their full potential, which in turn helps them to propel society forward and only seeks to benefit the nation as a whole.
The French and Chinese fixate upon on ethnocentrism and the idea that citizenship is tied ancestry, customs, and genealogy. For instance, the Han Chinese (the largest of the 56 ethnic groups of China) typically consider themselves to be the "Chinese" and everyone else to be outsiders who have been integrated into their customs. The French historically have had a very aristocratic attitude that favors either elitism or absolute anarchy if the French Revolution is anything to go off of. The Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East are defined by ethnic groups in constant conflict with one another because there's no shared overall set of values or identity they can appeal towards. What makes America so successful is we progressively are heading towards a point where immutable characteristics or inconsequential choices are not so important, but where we can remain united under our shared set of goals and ideals, rather than such arbitrary characteristics we have no say over.
@LunaKara Pretty sure it was just autocorrect or me thinking of an old political cartoon about either Roosevelt or Wilson. Either way, all that matters is it should be the fifty-first state along with the entirety of Canada.
@Richman Sealand technically created itself, but no one officially recognizes it, so it's up in the air of if its sovereign or not
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
@Tamerlane Believe it or not, the WikiHow said that you could create your own nation if you create your land in open sea. Dutch technology is amazing.
- Status
Similar threads
