Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Are you sure?
The Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of centre vs regionalism. The Southerners were regionalists more than slave-owners, what they resented was Washington's diktats.

---

Not quite. When it came to the issue of slavery they of course claimed that it was their own business and the feds should stay out of it. On the other hand, when confronted with the issue of fugitive slaves (whom most Northern states refused to apprehend), the Dixiecrats were shouting atop their lungs about the duty of the Federal Government to intervene. Pure hypocrisy, you see.

Quote:

---

Also, I think you are somewhat confused about how "ethnicity" and "race" work in Europe - very differently to in the Americas. For starters, we don't subscribe to the "one drop" mentality.

---

Most people here don't subscribe to it either. What I can tell you for sure though is that whether you're English, Scottish, Irish, Swedish, German, Italian or Romanian isn't gonna make a lick of a difference here. Ethnicity is meaningless here, unless you happen to be French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not quite. When it came to the issue of slavery they of course claimed that it was their own business and the feds should stay out of it. On the other hand, when confronted with the issue of fugitive slaves (whom most Northern states refused to apprehend), the Dixiecrats were shouting atop their lungs about the duty of the Federal Government to intervene. Pure hypocrisy, you see.


Most people here don't subscribe to it either. What I can tell you for sure though is that whether you're English, Scottish, Irish, Swedish, German, Italian or Romanian isn't gonna make a lick of a difference here. Ethnicity is meaningless here, unless you happen to be French.

---

So, are we talking about another European civil war here? :inquisitive: Because I'm tired of the critics that say we only go to war with brown people. Let's do this soon. In a few decades Europe will be full of brown people and I don't want to hear the same criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Right, so it's about anti-Englishness, friendly or otherwise it amounts to the same thing. The idea that the most important thing is to not be seen as English, to differentiage oneself.

Meanwhile, the average poor bloody Englishman is wondering what he or his ancestors ever did to the Irish or the Welsh that the Irish or Welsh didn't do to him at the behest of the same Norman magnates - if he thinks about it at all.

---

nobody said it was fair PVC we are talking about sport after all.

This is just like the rain or the wind tis the way of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So, are we talking about another European civil war here? :inquisitive: Because I'm tired of the critics that say we only go to war with brown people. Let's do this soon. In a few decades Europe will be full of brown people and I don't want to hear the same criticism.

---

I suspect by the time Europe is "Brown" so will the USA thats what moves all the debate in the Southern states is it not.

For the record this Eurabia thing is overdone not a hope in hell in happen Europe will turn muslim, by the time Islam might be capable of doing so there home countries will also have entered population decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

nobody said it was fair PVC we are talking about sport after all.

This is just like the rain or the wind tis the way of things.

---

Oh I know, but you said it yourself - sport is a substitute for war.

It would be nice if everyone could find someone other than the English to go to war with, rather than us being the majority opponent. It is at best tiresome and a little frustrating - and at worst it does spill over into naked and vile racism.

The current "Southern" attitude to the North is definitely rooted in the war and Reconstruction. It's not as heated as what you would see in Europe, mainly because of migrations and the homogenization of US culture through mass media, but the latent bitterness is still there. I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.

---

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh I know, but you said it yourself - sport is a substitute for war.

It would be nice if everyone could find someone other than the English to go to war with, rather than us being the majority opponent. It is at best tiresome and a little frustrating - and at worst it does spill over into naked and vile racism.

---

The closer one is on the political spectrum to Sinn Fein or the closer they live to the actual border the more likely your statement would be true.

But for most Irish it is merely a habit a sort of national passtime, there are clowns who are in it cos there eejits but then they would have been eejits without the match to begin with.

Irish people are rural conservative by nature but if they here really hated the english they wouldnt use words like "WE" when describing a match between Arsenal an Man U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

---

Conquest involves the use of force on a people this can involve etnicity, race and have a distinct nationality or even a lack of nationality.

The common thread is the use of force to impose political will against others will, sometimes the people make an accommadtion later but more often they dont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The current "Southern" attitude to the North is definitely rooted in the war and Reconstruction. It's not as heated as what you would see in Europe, mainly because of migrations and the homogenization of US culture through mass media, but the latent bitterness is still there. I think the lesson is: if you conquer and occupy a region, the people are going to hate you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

---

Sherman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Conquest involves the use of force on a people this can involve etnicity, race and have a distinct nationality or even a lack of nationality.

The common thread is the use of force to impose political will against others will, sometimes the people make an accommadtion later but more often they dont.

---

That would qualify the use of riot police as conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Sherman

---

I'm sure they hate Uncle Billy's guts, I highly doubt they hate the USA though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That would qualify the use of riot police as conquest.

---

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road Belfast or the Bogside in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road Belfast or the Bogside in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

---

They are professional miscreants though - don't they take state handouts as a way of sticking it to the Crown, or was that just the Muslim terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They are professional miscreants though - don't they take state handouts as a way of sticking it to the Crown, or was that just the Muslim terrorists.

---

The point would still have to be conceded though they would see it as conquest, although I would agree that lately it has gotten a lot more youthful and hence looks more like the UK riots.

I suppose thats the problem with the terms here, I meant republican in it's wider term but specifically the riots in the North lately are being co-opted by young fellas who want to raise hell still there is a slight RIRA influence so we can argue they see it as as conquest.


by a happy coincidence RiRa would roughly be something like excitement in Gaelic there is no actual word but in conjunction with ruaile buaile ie rira agus rualie buaile it would mean to raise hell or a commotion or a tumult. I believe it would be an apt term for these seekers of excitement and confusion.








They are also so far away from the thinking of my grandfathers it's a joke, hardline republican socialists bah most them never did a days labour in there lives. In fact they wouldnt be able to do an honest job there really an underclass that is a mirror of the opposing camp in the North.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Indeed sure republicans on the Falls Road Belfast or the Bogside in Derry would agree with that statement totally.

---

This is absurd though. If the government's ability to enforce law and order equals conquest, then the whole idea of government is incompatible with freedom, since government without power is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It wasn't conquest though. Conquest involves subjugation of a sovereign nation, and that was not the case in the Civil War.

---

Says who? You aren't thinking like a Southerner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I'm sure they hate Uncle Billy's guts, I highly doubt they hate the USA though.

---

Sherman gets his fair share of hate, but it's not so much the war as the Reconstruction that fed the ill will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Says who? You aren't thinking like a Southerner.

---

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.

Quote:

---

Sherman gets his fair share of hate, but it's not so much the war as the Reconstruction that fed the ill will.

---

How's is that Sherman's fault though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This is absurd though. If the government's ability to enforce law and order equals conquest, then the whole idea of government is incompatible with freedom, since government without power is nothing.

---

Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's continued rule.

Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure naturally Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.

It's not that government cannot use force to imose it's will, it is that peoples idea of what is and isnt conquest have different meanings depending on place, history etc etc.

To purely frame it in terms of sovereign states implies that people who historically have never had a soverign state can not be conquered.

Abroiginal people the world over would naturally raise there eyebrows at such a narrow definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's rule.

---

What about the other half that supports it? Aren't their wishes just as valid?

Quote:

---

Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure, specifically Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.

---

I'm not in a position to tell Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein how they should view things. It doesn't mean they are correct though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.


How's is that Sherman's fault though?

---

You aren't from the South, are you? :laugh4:

In 1860, it may have all been one country, but the cultural differences were vast. The Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a new country. This country was then conquered and occupied.

Sherman gets hate from the South for what he did during the war. After the War, he transitioned over to earning hate from the Native Americans. Reconstruction wasn't his thing (deconstruction was).

I added more to the earlier post

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Is not government enforecment of it's own standards by definition a conquest if one half of the community is opposed to being under it's continued rule.

Specifically how you define conquest matters not a jot to Gerry Adams thats for sure naturally Sinn Fein see enforcement of British law as an attempt to continue partition hence the conquest idea.

It's not that government cannot use force to imose it's will, it is that peoples idea of what is and isnt conquest have different meanings depending on place, history etc etc.

To purely frame it in terms of sovereign states implies that people who historically have never had a soverign state can not be conquered.

Abroiginal people the world over would naturally raise there eyebrows at such a narrow definition.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

What about the other half that supports it? Aren't their wishes just as valid?

I'm not in a position to tell Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein how they should view things. It doesn't mean they are correct though.

---

your mistaking the idea that government support is about x percentage and therefore becomes the will of the people and therefore inviolate the situation is waaaay more complex than that.

Simply put since the other side wishes to remain British obviously this is also framed in terms of conquest of the Irish in conjunction with the British Government.

As I said earlier if I come from the deepest jungle of Brazil and end up thrown off my land for a new dam does this mean that my movement from pillar to post is not conquest of my people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.

---

Agree.

Quote:

---

How's is that Sherman's fault though?

---

It's not really, he simply did what thousands of other commanders throughout history have done; made war hell for everyone.

@ drone

You're probably right about Reconstruction being the biggest itch. The problem with the southerners is that they're... well. southerners. My parents recently moved to Savannah and over the two odd years they've lived there now, I've come to learn more and more about southern history and the Civil War era, which I've always found pretty boring. Even with trying to learn from various sources (with their own inherent biases), pretty much everything I've read has given me an increasingly dim view of the South and southern culture. They resisted due processes of government. When they couldn't get their way, they tore up the constitution and broke away. They howled and yelled and pointed the finger at the north for starting a 'war of aggression', which they still call to this day and ignore the fact that they started it. After they'd been defeated, they resented northern occupation and military rule, which I guess I can see to an extent. The worst in my view was what drone highlighted, reconstruction. They opposed all of the progressive laws and movements made over the following decade, which saw such things as more civil rights and liberties for minorities, but integration efforts, and even some black leadership at the government level. Not only did they resent it, when they (the southern government reps in the senate) regained some measure of power and autonomy, they categorically and systematically undid most all of what the north accomplished.

So in short, they were not only embittered in defeat, they resented being pushed down a more civilized path and resisted strongly any and all changes to their precious heritage and culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

You aren't from the South, are you? :laugh4:

---

Easy to tell, isn't it?

Quote:

---

In 1860, it may have all been one country, but the cultural differences were vast.

---

True, but that was not the main cause, otherwise *all* Southern states would have seceded.

Quote:

---

The Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a new country. This country was then conquered and occupied.

---

Yes, perspective does make a difference. Still, I doubt there is any strong sense of Confederate identity left in the South.

Quote:

---

Sherman gets hate from the South for what he did during the war. After the War, he transitioned over to earning hate from the Native Americans. Reconstruction wasn't his thing (deconstruction was).

---

Exactly. Can't fault Sherman for reconstruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Says logic. A nation can't subjugate and conquer itself.

---

Kurds were conqured and subjucated by Saddam so logic is off here.

There are loads of peoples out there in the world who historically have never had a nation state, they will many of them continue to feel conquered and subjucated even as there told they are a part of the nation subjucating them.

Whats wrong here is the use of the word Nation it's basically far to fuzzy a word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

As I said earlier if I come from the deepest jungle of Brazil and end up thrown off my land for a new dam does this mean that my movement from pillar to post is not conquest of my people.

---

If the government compensates you, then no, it doesn't amount to conquest. If that were conquest, then any action involving change could qualify as conquest, because pretty much no matter what is being done there will be someone opposed to it being done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Kurds were conqured and subjucated by Saddam so logic is off here.

---

They weren't conquered, they were persecuted. Totally different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

They weren't conquered, they were persecuted. Totally different.

---

Somehow I think the Kurds might dissagree with you supposedly they were a part of the Iraqi nation yet they got gassed and the like.

To my mind that is conquest and subjugation even if they never had even a proto-nation state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Agree.



It's not really, he simply did what thousands of other commanders throughout history have done; made war hell for everyone.

@ drone

You're probably right about Reconstruction being the biggest itch. The problem with the southerners is that they're... well. southerners. My parents recently moved to Savannah and over the two odd years they've lived there now, I've come to learn more and more about southern history and the Civil War era, which I've always found pretty boring. Even with trying to learn from various sources (with their own inherent biases), pretty much everything I've read has given me an increasingly dim view of the South and southern culture. They resisted due processes of government. When they couldn't get their way, they tore up the constitution and broke away. They howled and yelled and pointed the finger at the north for starting a 'war of aggression', which they still call to this day and ignore the fact that they started it. After they'd been defeated, they resented northern occupation and military rule, which I guess I can see to an extent. The worst in my view was what drone highlighted, reconstruction. They opposed all of the progressive laws and movements made over the following decade, which saw such things as more civil rights and liberties for minorities, but integration efforts, and even some black leadership at the government level. Not only did they resent it, when they (the southern government reps in the senate) regained some measure of power and autonomy, they categorically and systematically undid most all of what the north accomplished.

So in short, they were not only embittered in defeat, they resented being pushed down a more civilized path and resisted strongly any and all changes to their precious heritage and culture.

---

You are looking at it from a Northern perspective. The majority of Southerners were not slave owners, but when the slaves were freed the Southern economy collapsed and their living standards suffered.

You are also wrong about the South starting the war, it was not illegal for the Southern States to secede - it was simply not provided for in the Constitution. The North refused to let them go, which was a political decision, not an ideaological one based on whether or not they should own slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You are also wrong about the South starting the war, it was not illegal for the Southern States to secede - it was simply not provided for in the Constitution. The North refused to let them go, which was a political decision, not an ideaological one based on whether or not they should own slaves.

---

I believe Whacker is referring to the attack on Fort Sumter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Somehow I think the Kurds might dissagree with you supposedly they were a part of the Iraqi nation yet they got gassed and the like.

To my mind that is conquest and subjugation even if they never had even a proto-nation state.

---

Iraqi Kurdistan was and is a part of Iraq. I will repeat that it is logically impossible for a nation to conquer itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Iraqi Kurdistan was and is a part of Iraq. I will repeat that it is logically impossible for a nation to conquer itself.

---

Says who the Saddam era Sunni elite what the hell would the Kurds care what they think of as the Iraqi nation.


Lack of a nation state historical or otherwise does not imply you are not conquered or subjugated people. Simply put you believe that because the Sunni's were able to enforece there idea of what the Iraqi nation was therefore the Kurds are not conquered.

To me that just does not sit right with what I know to be how people define themselves in there everyday lives, explain then how Irish people who had no nation state were not conquered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Says who the Saddam era Sunni elite what the hell would the Kurds care what they think of as the Iraqi nation.


Lack of a nation state historical or otherwise does not imply you are not conquered or subjugated people. Simply put you believe that because the Sunni's were able to enforece there idea of what the Iraqi nation was therefore the Kurds are not conquered.

To me that just does not sit right with what I know to be how people define themselves in there everyday lives, explain then how Irish people who had no nation state were not conquered.

---

To be fair, the Irish had their own Kings, and they had their own Lords and later their own Parliament - they also had their own brand of Catholicism and their own distinct identity goin back into the Dark Ages.

With reference to Iraq, it was the British who decided that the Kurds should be split between three countries to prevent them becoming a power Bloc.