Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[Whacker]

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.

And you are overlooking the fact that abolition was a long time coming at that point, almost half a century in the making. The fact that the south ignored or discounted a clear and obvious trend is noone's fault but their own.

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.

Yes, it was illegal. There was no provision for it in the Constitution because it would undermine it's entire purpose and the reason for the US government's existence. When the early states banded together to form the US, they did so knowing that their continued existence and freedom lay in collective security. Their joining was done with the understanding that it would never be undone. The reason the north refused to let the south go was for those I stated above, it was as much political as ideological, not based on slavery but on the United States was just that, united, and one simply couldn't just pick up and leave because they disagreed with something. It would be no different at all if Wales attempted to secede from England, or Normandy from France. In anticipation of your response, yes it is the same premise, the premise being a fraction of a sovereign nation attempted to detach itself for whatever reason. You'll be extremely hard pressed to find any kind of specific wording in any government documentation that makes allowances for such an occurrence, because it's simply against the entire basis and foundation for the nation and government itself. If you do know of something, I'd certainly like to hear and see it.

[rvg]

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.

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

Indeed and framed in those terms I would agree, but this entire thing is framed in terms of the Nation or Nation State. How then do we define people who technically are members of nation X but dont want to be. The very idea of "The Nation" is a massively loaded word and the "Nation State" is probably late 19th early 20th century.

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.

Indeed now they were declared Iraqi's but they didnt want to be however the Sunni elite were capable of stopping this. Specifically if your conquered before your declared a member of a new nation is your conquered status now invalidated I cant see how it would be.

[Whacker]

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

If we really, really, really wanted to stretch things, we could call it a "re-conquest". Technically, the US and early states came in and "conquered" the land from the natives that already inhabited it and claimed as their own. They in turn had been giving and taking it from each other for millennia before the Europeans showed up.

... but we didn't, because I still agree one can't conquer their own people.

[gaelic cowboy]

You cannot conquer something that is already under your jurisdiction. You can oppress and mistreat your people, yes, but that is not the same as conquest.

I have to dissagree conquest merely means that you gain compliance from someone through force of personality or force of arms.

There is no need for nationhood for this too occur which is why we can use the term sexual conquest.

[rvg]

I have to dissagree conquest merely means that you gain compliance from someone through force of personality or force of arms.

So, if a salesman charms you into buying something this is "conquest"? And this is somehow related to the Kurds getting gassed?

[gaelic cowboy]

So, if a salesman charms you into buying something this is "conquest"? And this is somehow related to the Kurds getting gassed?

yes why not



In my view a conquest does not require nationhood but thats neither here not there as we will just have to leave it there to be honest.

[rvg]

yes why not

Because it's irrelevant. You are using such a broad definition for a term "conquest" that just about anything can fall under it. That makes the term useless.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because it's irrelevant. You are using such a broad definition for a term "conquest" that just about anything can fall under it. That makes the term useless.

And your definition is too narrow hence my total disagreement with it.

We will just have to leave it alone we wont change each others viewpoint.

[Whacker]

And your definition is too narrow hence my total disagreement with it.

We will just have to leave it alone we wont change each others viewpoint.

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.

[rvg]

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.

Precisely.

[drone]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

[rvg]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

But do you hate Yankees?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the crux of the issue is implication. Are you American? I'm guessing no, based on your handle and sig? In America, the term "conquest" as it pertains to international and national relations almost always carries the notion of going out and seeking new territory. The south wasn't "new" territory, in terms of it's relation to the US. I won't speak for him, but I believe that this is why rvg is and I definitely am taking the position we are. The definition of "conquer" simply refers to victory over another entity, so in this regard yes the north did "conquer" the south after the war. The implication that it was one sovereign nation seeking out another new, separate entity to overcome is where the disagreement is. The Confederacy wasn't a "new" or separate entity, it was an illegally created splinter faction of an existing sovereign nation, and was treated as such now and then.

Then you Conquered the American Indians, didn't you. Took their land, took their bison, took their children even and tried to "civilise" them.

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

I doubt it makes you feel any better, but the Europeans get it even if those damn Yankees don't.

As far as I am concerned drone's stated feelings are exactly the sort of thing you would expect from a Welshman, Scotsman, Catalan, Slovakian, Sami.... Take your pick.

I remember seeing a documentary about Southern writers a few years ago, one of them said, "Americans have no history, except in the South" and after the Revolution that seems to be true. You guys lionise Washington, but after that your history seems to go blank until Pearl Harbour.

[Whacker]

Y'all can argue semantics all day long, but that will not answer your initial question of why some smaller groups of people hate those that govern them. Someone requested a Southerner's point of view, so I threw it in there. I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the Civil War, but I've lived most of my life in southern states and have direct family ties to the Confederacy so I'd like to think I know something about hating Yankees. Verbal history, grievous wrongs (real, imagined, or embellished), and collective embarrassment for losing go a long way in keeping an adversarial attitude towards the victors. This can be maintained over centuries, especially with periodic revivals and myths that allow people to identify back to the culture, even if they are really just fringe. Facts don't play into it, it's a state of mind.

Most of my ancestors were broke-*** and starving potato farmers, but along one branch, I'm descended from Confederates from Tennessee who fought against the Union. Suffice to say, that fact is a bit embarrassing to me. I was born and raised in a Union state, but have lived most of my life in a Southern state. My opinion hasn't changed, if anything as I mentioned it's become even more dim of the South and what they did leading up to and even more so after the war.

The whole Southern Victimhood thing is one of those myths that needs to die with the past. The reason that much of the US still thinks of the southeastern chunk as a backwater, racist haven is because ... well, in many ways it is. The South started the war, this is a fact. The South seceded, then forcibly occupied and evicted US troops viewed as "Union" from locations all throughout the region. They fired the first shots. Wars were fought on both sides of the thin red line. Both sides pillaged and looted. Whom did what to whom is a separate matter, but the South brought all this upon themselves. Again, not only did they start it, but after it was all said and done, they doggedly continued to fight against the legislation that lead them to decide to break away to begin with. Second worst to me after the actual secession, is the fact that they undid most all the progressive legal steps that were done in the following decade, and set up all the Jim Crow bullcrap and segregation so they could keep their precious white protestant superior heritage pure and unsoiled. It takes two to make a fight, but in most cases it's pretty clear who the most responsible party is.

Until the South gets over themselves and this self-perpetuated nonsense, it's unlikely those century and a half old wounds will truly heal up and close.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of my ancestors were broke-*** and starving potato farmers, but along one branch, I'm descended from Confederates from Tennessee who fought against the Union. Suffice to say, that fact is a bit embarrassing to me. I was born and raised in a Union state, but have lived most of my life in a Southern state. My opinion hasn't changed, if anything as I mentioned it's become even more dim of the South and what they did leading up to and even more so after the war.

The whole Southern Victimhood thing is one of those myths that needs to die with the past. The reason that much of the US still thinks of the southeastern chunk as a backwater, racist haven is because ... well, in many ways it is. The South started the war, this is a fact. The South seceded, then forcibly occupied and evicted US troops viewed as "Union" from locations all throughout the region. They fired the first shots. Wars were fought on both sides of the thin red line. Both sides pillaged and looted. Whom did what to whom is a separate matter, but the South brought all this upon themselves. Again, not only did they start it, but after it was all said and done, they doggedly continued to fight against the legislation that lead them to decide to break away to begin with. It takes two to make a fight, but in most cases it's pretty clear who the most responsible party is.

Until the South gets over themselves and this self-perpetuated nonsense, it's unlikely those century and a half old wounds will truly heal up and close.

You suffer from the confusion of the Victor, that the loser was in the wrong and that if only he is given enough time and told often enough, he will come to realise that fact.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

The South lost the War, Southerners see the actions of Union forces, particularly the massacres as war Crimes, they consider Lincoln pursuit of the War - rather than anquiencing to sessecion as a war Crime. Those beliefs are backed by blood and suffering, and they will never change. If the Welsh and Irish can still fume about things that happened 1,000-2,000 years ago then you bet the South will hate the Yankees for the reamainder of your life and your children's lives.

[Whacker]

You suffer from the confusion of the Victor, that the loser was in the wrong and that if only he is given enough time and told often enough, he will come to realise that fact.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

The South lost the War, Southerners see the actions of Union forces, particularly the massacres as war Crimes, they consider Lincoln pursuit of the War - rather than anquiencing to sessecion as a war Crime. Those beliefs are backed by blood and suffering, and they will never change. If the Welsh and Irish can still fume about things that happened 1,000-2,000 years ago then you bet the South will hate the Yankees for the reamainder of your life and your children's lives.

I suffer from no confusion. History has been thoroughly documented, there is very, very little ambiguity. The world knows who did what, who said what, who seceded from what when, who fired what shots when. Very little of this is still ambiguous or contested.

Until the South gets over themselves, there will continue to be this old festering wound and divide. As long as the South continues to hold on to this thinly concealed notion of white protestant culture and heritage, there will be the need for things such as Affirmative Action.

You are both right and wrong on that middle point. History is full of situations where the party in the wrong refuses to admit so even to this day. There are several examples to the contrary though, such as post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps one of the factors in those two cases was the sheer scope of their crimes against humanity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suffer from no confusion. History has been thoroughly documented, there is very, very little ambiguity. The world knows who did what, who said what, who seceded from what when, who fired what shots when. Very little of this is still ambiguous or contested.

Until the South gets over themselves, there will continue to be this old festering wound and divide. As long as the South continues to hold on to this thinly concealed notion of white protestant culture and heritage, there will be the need for things such as Affirmative Action.

You are both right and wrong on that middle point. History is full of situations where the party in the wrong refuses to admit so even to this day. There are several examples to the contrary though, such as post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps one of the factors in those two cases was the sheer scope of their crimes against humanity.

As I said, you are suffering from a confusion - that the "facts" matter in the slightest.

As a non-Southerner your opinion is irrelevent and your protestations merely reinforce the divide.

[Whacker]

As I said, you are suffering from a confusion - that the "facts" matter in the slightest.

As a non-Southerner your opinion is irrelevent and your protestations merely reinforce the divide.

My apologies, I will be more direct in explaining.

I am not confused in the slightest. I am protesting nothing. I understand what you are saying.

Let's try this another way. Most of the US has long, long, long since moved on since that era. It's well in the past, and aside from a few points here and there in history classes and some Civil War re-enactors, we generally do not care. The southerners who cling to that sense of victimhood and foster the grudge are the ones who create this divide you mention. You are certainly correct, my opinion is irrelevant. Whether or not southerners continue to hold this course is entirely up to them, the ball is in their court. It does become an issue when the old traditions of racism come into play, and legislation has to be enacted to force them to be civilized towards fellow man. To be fair (to an extent), this also holds true for the rest of the US. It sometimes becomes an issue when southern revisionists attempt to re-word history to depict the north as the aggressors and demonize them, which the rest of us will not stand for. Nursing a grudge is one thing, that would be their own prerogative. Actively attempting to reinstate in any shape or form the old southern segregationist and racist institutions, or re-write or gloss over history is not something the rest of us will tolerate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My apologies, I will be more direct in explaining.

I am not confused in the slightest. I am protesting nothing. I understand what you are saying.

Let's try this another way. Most of the US has long, long, long since moved on since that era. It's well in the past, and aside from a few points here and there in history classes and some Civil War re-enactors, we generally do not care. The southerners who cling to that sense of victimhood and foster the grudge are the ones who create this divide you mention. You are certainly correct, my opinion is irrelevant. Whether or not southerners continue to hold this course is entirely up to them, the ball is in their court. It does become an issue when the old traditions of racism come into play, and legislation has to be enacted to force them to be civilized towards fellow man. To be fair (to an extent), this also holds true for the rest of the US. It sometimes becomes an issue when southern revisionists attempt to re-word history to depict the north as the aggressors and demonize them, which the rest of us will not stand for. Nursing a grudge is one thing, that would be their own prerogative. Actively attempting to reinstate in any shape or form the old southern segregationist and racist institutions, or re-write or gloss over history is not something the rest of us will tolerate.

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

EVAR FORGET!

[rvg]

This is where the Northern (in the broadest sense) US is atypical though - in most of the rest of the world we hold on to our history, but much of yours is ignored - I can't remember the last time an American mentioned the British scak of Washington DC in 1812, but it's an essential part of US history, not least because it is why the White House was painted in thick white paint, to hide the burn marks.

It is a very typical mistake I see the Europeans repeat ad nauseum: they think that Americans are ignorant. We're not, we just have different values that emphasize different things. Yes, we know that DC got burned to the ground, but so what? The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We remember the white house burning fine. We also remember that we used to be british, that we'd be nothing without britain, and that we've been close allies for ages. You can remember history without holding on to a grudge.

People for whom history is about grudges and moralized stories have a very distorted view of history anyway.

[Greyblades]

The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

What? It was a draw. Status quo ante bellum. Unless you mean that huge cash settlement we gave you not to demand back the freed slaves we gave asylum to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a very typical mistake I see the Europeans repeat ad nauseum: they think that Americans are ignorant. We're not, we just have different values that emphasize different things. Yes, we know that DC got burned to the ground, but so what? The war still ended in our favor, which is what matters.

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant.

I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.

[Whacker]

Huge irony. Anyone get this month's NatGeo yet? Cover story is about the Civil War.

[rvg]

What? It was a draw. Status quo ante bellum.

We got Britain to stop impressment of our sailors, which was one of the big reasons for the war. Wars aren't just about territorial gains.

[Greyblades]

Ah, point taken.

[rvg]

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant. I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.

But education is not a direct reflection of intelligence. If you are conditioned to think that we're stupid, what difference will the education make?

[Whacker]

Actually, we are conditioned to think you are stupid, not ignorant.

I don't believe that personally, but on the other hand the Backroom probably has a higher gneral level of education and awareness than your average Joe.

How dare you? I'll have you know I'm a quite handsome, highly edumakayted and inlltijint man. Saelf pic attahced.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: