Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

It's not even reasonable anymore. Even if you arm an entire community against the tyranny of the government, what are they going to do against a battery of tanks or mechanized infantry? What about bombardment from a cruiser on the shore? A high altitude bomber? Fucking nothing is what they're going to do. People aren't interested in protecting themselves from the government anymore, because they can't. They're just interested in cowing the people around them to insane demands by potentially going postal.

Tell that to the US military, I'm sure they'll be happy to hear that the only reason they haven't ended Islamic terrorism yet is their own lack of resolve.

I don't think that's what MaximumZero meant, Baffler.

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium.

I see nothing wrong with that. Gib Elsace-Lothringen.

thecountry was also built on the founding principle of stealing Indian land which is kid of what they wanted to do. so ya Merica!

That isn't actually a principle, that's an action. It happened, and is in no way relevant to the principles this nation, as in the country, not necessarily the land, is built upon.

Plus, how the hell were they trying to steal Indian land?

The park covers archaeological sites and covers sacred lands of the local Native American tribe (which should be the term used, not Indian), and they have joint stewardship of the land along with the government. So, yeah, in a sense....

Edit: If you mean in the past, well, in a word it'd be racism.

[mainiac]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

The US was so fucking obviously not built on that principle.  It is an insult to the men who actually got this country rolling.

The US was built on the idea that peaceful democratic principles had legitimacy.  The US was taxed by Britain for decades without a hint of protest.  Americans were drafted into British regiments to fight in their wars including being sent to die on foreign shores.  They were drafted to serve in their navy.  All of this was okay as long as it was done through the normal channels of government.

The American revolution started because the British empire imposed martial law on Boston, one of the largest and most prosperous english speaking cities in the world.  Parliment did this because it was good for the profits of the East India company which a huge number of them had a personal financial interest in.  It took TWO YEARS of martial law in a major city before the Continental Congress declared they had a right to rebel against these decisions.  Even after they started their rebellion they made an offer of peace with no terms other then the martial law goes away and they get their rights as citizens again.

Comparing a bunch of shits who dont want to pay for the use of public lands to the American revolution is an insult.

[redwallzyl]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

[smjjames]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

Personally, I just think it's better to use Native American.

@Maniac, I don't think Helgo REALLY meant that and was just trying to make a point.

[Lord Shonus]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

Personally, I just think it's better to use Native American.

@Maniac, I don't think Helgo REALLY meant that and was just trying to make a point.

Almost every Amerindian I've ever met considers "Native American" insulting and condescending. "White Man's Horse Shit" is a common description of the term.

[smjjames]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

Personally, I just think it's better to use Native American.

@Maniac, I don't think Helgo REALLY meant that and was just trying to make a point.

Almost every Amerindian I've ever met considers "Native American" insulting and condescending. "White Man's Horse Shit" is a common description of the term.

Hm, not sure what I should use then.... I've never had anybody complain about the term, though I haven't met with any Amerindian in real life. I've known a few on the internets who belong to some tribe or other though.

[Grim Portent]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

Personally, I just think it's better to use Native American.

@Maniac, I don't think Helgo REALLY meant that and was just trying to make a point.

Almost every Amerindian I've ever met considers "Native American" insulting and condescending. "White Man's Horse Shit" is a common description of the term.

Hm, not sure what I should use then.... I've never had anybody complain about the term, though I haven't met with any Amerindian in real life. I've known a few on the internets who belong to some tribe or other though.

It's one of those things that vary from person to person. Some prefer certain terms over others but it's not consistent throughout the demographic which terms are preferred.

[Playergamer]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

It's not even reasonable anymore. Even if you arm an entire community against the tyranny of the government, what are they going to do against a battery of tanks or mechanized infantry? What about bombardment from a cruiser on the shore? A high altitude bomber? Fucking nothing is what they're going to do. People aren't interested in protecting themselves from the government anymore, because they can't. They're just interested in cowing the people around them to insane demands by potentially going postal.

Of course. When has the all-powerful USM ever lost to poorly armed militants?

[smjjames]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

It's not even reasonable anymore. Even if you arm an entire community against the tyranny of the government, what are they going to do against a battery of tanks or mechanized infantry? What about bombardment from a cruiser on the shore? A high altitude bomber? Fucking nothing is what they're going to do. People aren't interested in protecting themselves from the government anymore, because they can't. They're just interested in cowing the people around them to insane demands by potentially going postal.

Of course. When has the all-powerful USM ever lost to poorly armed militants?

We should make a distinction between idiots who don't know battlefield strategy from their asses and those who know how to fight in a battle, even if they are poorly armed compared to the US military.

Plus the fact that urban warfare is hell.

Also, apparently Trump tweeted that two candidates (likely the undercard people) wanted to join his rival event. Whether that will actually happen or if Trump is just trolling remains to be seen. Not that I'm going to watch his event anyway....

[Culise]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

It's not even reasonable anymore. Even if you arm an entire community against the tyranny of the government, what are they going to do against a battery of tanks or mechanized infantry? What about bombardment from a cruiser on the shore? A high altitude bomber? Fucking nothing is what they're going to do. People aren't interested in protecting themselves from the government anymore, because they can't. They're just interested in cowing the people around them to insane demands by potentially going postal.

Of course. When has the all-powerful USM ever lost to poorly armed militants?

We should make a distinction between idiots who don't know battlefield strategy from their asses and those who know how to fight in a battle, even if they are poorly armed compared to the US military.

Plus the fact that urban warfare is hell.

Also, apparently Trump tweeted that two candidates (likely the undercard people) wanted to join his rival event. Whether that will actually happen or if Trump is just trolling remains to be seen.

I'm not sure if we actually should for the purposes of this; the original statement being disputed seemed to be making its distinction on equipment rather than competence.

[Frumple]

Folks, we've got an arm-chair general thread for that kind of nonsense. Please take it there.

[RedKing]

My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.

The US was so fucking obviously not built on that principle.  It is an insult to the men who actually got this country rolling.

The US was built on the idea that peaceful democratic principles had legitimacy.  The USBritish colonies was taxed by Britain for decades without a hint of protest.  AmericansBritish colonists were drafted into British regiments to fight in their wars including being sent to die on foreign shores.  They were drafted to serve in their navy.  All of this was okay as long as it was done through the normal channels of government.

The American revolution started because the British empire imposed martial law on Boston, one of the largest and most prosperous english speaking cities in the world.  Parliment did this because it was good for the profits of the East India company which a huge number of them had a personal financial interest in.  It took TWO YEARS of martial law in a major city before the Continental Congress declared they had a right to rebel against these decisions.  Even after they started their rebellion they made an offer of peace with no terms other then the martial law goes away and they get their rights as citizens again.

Comparing a bunch of shits who dont want to pay for the use of public lands to the American revolution is an insult.

ftfy

I think people tend to forget that all-important part that the British crown was in fact the natural and legitimate authority for the colonies. It's not like the US was already a distinct nation and we were throwing off the yoke of foreign occupation.


I've been thinking lately abut why so much reverence is given to "the Founding Fathers" and their supposed interpretation of what the United States was supposed to be. I mean, you respect your national founders, that's a given. But you don't see Brits going "This isn't the England that William the Conqueror would have wanted". It's been 240 years, I think it's time to stop worrying about what America is supposed to be according to various diviners of the will of long-dead men, and start worrying about what *we* want America to be.

Spoiler: Obligatory. (click to show/hide)

[stabbymcstabstab]

the tribes in general don't really care what you call them trust me i had a whole college class on this and worked with a local American Indian on a project.

Personally, I just think it's better to use Native American.

@Maniac, I don't think Helgo REALLY meant that and was just trying to make a point.

Almost every Amerindian I've ever met considers "Native American" insulting and condescending. "White Man's Horse Shit" is a common description of the term.

Hm, not sure what I should use then.... I've never had anybody complain about the term, though I haven't met with any Amerindian in real life. I've known a few on the internets who belong to some tribe or other though.

It's one of those things that vary from person to person. Some prefer certain terms over others but it's not consistent throughout the demographic which terms are preferred.

It's pretty darn insulting to a lot of People, since your pretty my grouping is together in a attempt to get over your the guilt of what your ancestors did. He'll the only reason I use it is because it's the one thing that doesn't upset the white people I go to college with. 

[mainiac]

ftfy

The word was in common usage by the mid 18th century, hence the name of the country.

I've been thinking lately abut why so much reverence is given to "the Founding Fathers" and their supposed interpretation of what the United States was supposed to be. I mean, you respect your national founders, that's a given. But you don't see Brits going "This isn't the England that William the Conqueror would have wanted". It's been 240 years, I think it's time to stop worrying about what America is supposed to be according to various diviners of the will of long-dead men, and start worrying about what *we* want America to be.

It's important because it provides a reference point and standard.  If someone wants to call themself a later day son of liberty then they should be prepared to ask why they are unwilling to show the patience and willingness to compromise that the actual sons of liberty showed.

[smjjames]

Well, for me, it's largely not knowing what people prefer and Native American (or Native Peoples) when referring to indian peoples in general is the most neutral term, I believe.

It's not that I haven't had some exposure to Native American cultures and, well, honestly, I'm, well, I don't know how to explain it, just out of not having met and personally known anybody who is Amerindian. Nobody on the net that I've known to be Native American have complained about using the term, so.......

The term Amerindian seems okay to me, but I don't know how okay it is to others.