Best. Painting. Ever.

[spmetla]

I like the Cthulu version best.

Same here, having the kid writing in blood over the Constitution is pretty funny. Gotta get this to one of my buddies with a similarly warped sense of humor.

[Azathoth]

Yeah, which is only supports the fact we should remove it. If it was a tradition, I would leave it alone. But it is not. The pledge was tampered with in 1954. BTW, does anyone still remember how the people would do the 'Nazi salute' when reciting the pledge or the national anthem (called Bellamy Salute I believe)? Fun times...

Wow, good thing we don't pledge like that anymore.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Wow, good thing we don't pledge like that anymore.

The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).

[Hax]

The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).

Indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Louis VI the Fat]

The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).

Indeed, so much Nazi symbolism predates the Nazis, and is now tainted forever - the salute, the fasces, the swastika (I went to the Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen once. The Swastika was all over the building. It was...weird.)

(Poor me, surrounded by huge blond Scandinavians half a meter taller than me, leading me into their swastika emblazoned headquarters, where no doubt some evil Germanic scientist with paintings of Thor and other Teutonic Gods on his wall would await me, eager to perform some God knows what sort of wicked experiment on me while my screams would be smothered by Wagner's Die Valkyrie.
Freightening )

I've always thought it funny how nobody has a Hitler moustache anymore. They were not all that uncommon. I am always shocked to see men of the period have that moustache.


The striking thing about the picture is not the symbol, but that it had pretty much the same meaning as it did in Germany. That of subjugation of the individual under the nation.
The Nazis did not operate in a cultural vacuum. I think that in a thousand years, the nazis will stand out not as something singular anymore, but at best as the most archetypical variant of a civilization at large.

The modernist urge to create society afresh, the racial fixation, the nationalism, the authoritarianism, the militarism - all of that was pretty common. A person from the year 2133 will be hard pressed to tell the differences between America in 1933 or Germany in 1933. The way we are not immediately aware of which monarchy in Europe was the most absolute 300 years ago.

Like the Hitler moustache, the example set tainted it forever, and ended it. An end was made to imperialism, racial fixation, nationalism. Without Hitler, we'd still be in Algeria oppressing the inferior race in a quest for Lebensraum.

[Azathoth]

The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).

Still, context.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.

*fades away*

[Tellos Athenaios]

A person from the year 2133 will be hard pressed to tell the differences between America in 1933 or Germany in 1933. The way we are not immediately aware of which monarchy in Europe was the most absolute 300 years ago.

I still doubt that. Not because the political/sociological views of Nazi Germany were so radically different of New Deal USA; but because of the way Nazi Germany stands out in a way much like the Louis XIV or Louis XVI stand out. Exemplary of an era, so to speak.

[Meneldil]

Would have to agree with Athenaois. The Nazi ideology was pure evil, as far as we can use such a term to describe a political system.

Auschwitz is so far a singular event in mankind's history, and even if something like that happens again (which is all in all likely), the Nazis will have set the standard, probably for as long as we'll remind what they have done.
Some events in stand out, even though they're not that different from others, simply because they set up a new, probably unbelievable standard.
None will remember the Armenian genocide in 150 years, except maybe some Armenian and Turk nationalists (if these two nations still exist). But the Holocaust? That's probably one of the most important event of modern history.

Edit: And the Cthulhu version made me laugh hard.

[Papewaio]

Like the Hitler moustache, the example set tainted it forever, and ended it. An end was made to imperialism, racial fixation, nationalism. Without Hitler, we'd still be in Algeria oppressing the inferior race in a quest for Lebensraum.

WWII did not gouge that out of France. The retreat from Vietnam happened long after WWII. The reason France is out of Algeria is that it was too costly. France has not forgotten how to oppress as anyone in the Pacific can testify for... Rainbow Warrior, Nuclear weapon testing in atolls, New Caledonia (Operation Victor). The list goes on.

Imperialism didn't end, it just picked easier opponents. All that France and Europe learnt was that to keep picking on smaller nations and not go head to head with another first world nation. Also the biggest reason that Europe didn't fight another conventional war was the very real chance that it would involve USA vs USSR using the EU as a nuclear testing ground... something a European power will only ever allow in another part of the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It didn't end May 8th, 1945. It ended in the decades following, when the moral implications of WWII sank in. None of the colonial wars was lost because European nations couldn't afford them They were unwinnable because the brutality of colonial wars was deemed unacceptable. In 1900, it was alright to genocide troublesome areas. In 1960, no longer.

Then there was 1968. And all the other changes in society after that.


As for the rest of your post, I am in a combative mood, since tomorrow morning is Monday morning and I'll have to get up early for work, so:

Pft.

Twenty-five million white British settlers genocide an area the size of Europe in the Pacific, and then spend the rest of eternity mewling about one hundred thousand Frenchmen living on three tiny Pacific rocks, who unlike the Ozzies didn't murder the natives nor had a 'Whites Only' policy until two weeks ago, and who therefore experience occassional etnic tensions.

Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?

[Papewaio]

I was hoping that there was some Gaelic combativeness still left. You bite to easy, I will have to introduce you to my family farm on which we have Truffles and Maine Anjou cattle for the real feeling of France in the Pacific.

Now that I have your attention. Who do you think will win on the 29th at Marseille? I would like to see France beat the All Blacks (I know heresy) in a close match based on a passing game... no more kicking. A win such as this would annoy both England and Wales for the cost of a single loss.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?

When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S

[Subotan]

When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S

Ooooh BURN

[Louis VI the Fat]

Who do you think will win on the 29th at Marseille? I would like to see France beat the All Blacks (I know heresy) in a close match based on a passing game... no more kicking. A win such as this would annoy both England and Wales for the cost of a single loss.

I predict we'll butch up your anthem first, presenting a singer who cant even reme'mber the lyrics*. Then we'll be completely outplayed and outclassed. Then twenty minutes before time, Marconnet will commit an embarassing foul that will see us pull ahead.

Or such seems to be the standard of French sports at the moment.


*See: France -South Africa last week.

When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S

Yes, AP, but that was my very point. To not only look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but also notice the beam which is in your own eye.

[Jolt]

I laughed like a maniac at the description of the Professor.

[Meneldil]

When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S

When you know, they'll stop complaining about racism and actually try to do something with their hands other than burning cars.

[Aemilius Paulus]

When you know, they'll stop complaining about racism and actually try to do something with their hands other than burning cars.

Lol, I am actually closer to your position, but I just had to try sting Louis , when I saw a perceived blunder in logic.

That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).

[Meneldil]

Lol, I am actually closer to your position, but I just had to try sting Louis , when I saw a perceived blunder in logic.

That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).

France succesfully assimilated thousands of italians, poles, germans, spanish, armenians and jews. Most of those nowadays consider themselves more french than I do. I don't think there's any other European country that had to deal with that many immigrants, except for Great Britain maybe.

Sure, mistakes were made by the State regarding African immigrants, but they're not treated worse than poles were when they arrived (Poles were mostly sent to work in coil mines in the late 19th).
African immigrants who trully want to do something with their life manage to get jobs, fund their own company and what not.Not surprisingly, these ones are often quite critical toward the dumb lazy sobs that spend their time complaining, bitching and burning cars.

[Idaho]

I really enjoyed that

Weren't the constitution writers all avowed atheists, deists and freemasons?

[Megas Methuselah]

Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?

Man, why does everyone ******* forget about Canada?!

When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S

That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).

It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.

Not surprisingly, these ones are often quite critical toward the dumb lazy sobs that spend their time complaining, bitching and burning cars.

I think you are speaking in jest. Yes. Yes, you are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.

Quite correct. The pledge was added in 1954 following a lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus (notably the Sir Knights of the 4th degree of our order). It is an acknowledgement of the divine, but purposefully phrased ecumenically so that no sect or faith would feel excluded.

Linkee

That phrase has been under more or less constant legal challenge since 1955.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.

Hence all the people who actually try and succeed. You know, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's of the world. I would recommend you read her books, especially where she levels criticism against those who came from similar situations to her and instead of working hard did nothing and simply had a sense of entitlement or were lazy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.

Tell that to obama

[Idaho]

Tell that to obama

I take it you haven't noticed the backlash? Even our Dave is calling him an African Muslim.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I take it you haven't noticed the backlash? Even our Dave is calling him an African Muslim.

Backlash? Dave is one guy out of many Americans in the backroom, and that's about the ratio for the whole US population; a small minority.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

A hundred years ago there were racist attacks against Italians in France, sometimes deadly. 'Swarthy, poor, and religious fundamentalists', or such was the thought.

(Then again, there are racist attacks against Italians in Italy. For the same reasons)


None of which really stopped until full cultural and even genetic assimilation. Both forms of assimilation are simply much harder for populations that are visibly different from a majory.

Ah well, for better or for worse, one day we'll all look like Brazilians. The fastest growing group in France is 'mixed'. A whopping thirthy percent of Algerians marry to Frenchmen*, a level of exogamy that equals that between Frenchmen and Spanish, Portuguese and Italians in earlier decades.


*Racist terminology, which serves to illuminate inherent racism. Frenchman is the term for 'white' Frenchman. Who incidentally most often are not of French stock at all, but have an estimated 25-40% of non-French blood from immigration of the past two centuries alone.

[Strike For The South]

A hundred years ago there were racist attacks against Italians in France, sometimes deadly. 'Swarthy, poor, and religious fundamentalists', or such was the thought.

(Then again, there are racist attacks against Italians in Italy. For the same reasons)


None of which really stopped until full cultural and even genetic assimilation. Both forms of assimilation are simply much harder for populations that are visibly different from a majory.

Ah well, for better or for worse, one day we'll all look like Brazilians. The fastest growing group in France is 'mixed'. A whopping thirthy percent of Algerians marry to Frenchmen*, a level of exogamy that equals that between Frenchmen and Spanish, Portuguese and Italians in earlier decades.


*Racist terminology, which serves to illuminate inherent racism. Frenchman is the term for 'white' Frenchman. Who incidentally most often are not of French stock at all, but have an estimated 25-40% of non-French blood from immigration of the past two centuries alone.

*yawn* I don't even know where my family came from

[Louis VI the Fat]

*yawn* I don't even know where my family came from

Well, your mother married your uncle, who was the brother of your grandpa, whose cousin married your

[Papewaio]

Quite correct. The pledge was added in 1954 following a lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus (notably the Sir Knights of the 4th degree of our order). It is an acknowledgement of the divine, but purposefully phrased ecumenically so that no sect or faith would feel excluded.

It only serves those of a monotheistic faith. It purposefully excludes those who believe in nature spirits, more then one god or those who don't believe in a divine being. I would say it is crossing the line of separation of powers.

Unless of course one thinks that the belief systems of Native Americans is insignificant and that it is okay to blanket out there causes. Or to regulate atheists to the status of non citizen in a discriminatory manner.

Put the shoes on in another manner. God with a capital G normally refers to the Chrisitian (and coincidentally Jewish and Islamic) religiousness Deity. Would you feel excluded if the phrase was:

"One Nation under No God" Atheist Premise
"One Nation under the Greek Pantheon" Ancient Greek
"One Nation under the Spaghetti Monster" atheist with a sense of humour.
"One Nation under Ra"
"One Nation under the Force"
"One Nation under Nature"
etc

I'm sure if one or more of these was used in the pledge you would feel it as an attack on your belief system. As I'm sure others do feel about having to recite a pledge of another's belief system to show their loyalty to the nation. It certainly is mixing church and state when one has to acknowledge a religious belief to show allegiance to a nation.