Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[drone]

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.

It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered, only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong. I don't think anyone has defended the Southern cause in this thread, but that's where all the focus has been.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered, only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong. I don't think anyone has defended the Southern cause in this thread, but that's where all the focus has been.

I'm not sure you can defend the Southern Cause, because it is so died up with slavery, but I can appreciate the motivations of the ordinary Southern soldiers and the bravery of their generals - and I can appreciate the resounding rage at the Union's mercilous tactics.

as the the Yankees have never lost a war (and don't talk about 1814) they have no point of reference. A big part of a nation's history is it's shared suffering, the North and South haven't shared any suffering since the Revolution.

Going back to the UK, the Welsh have survived as a distinct people by making opposition to the English part of their national culture, it's in their National Anthen (no, not "God Save the Queen").

This last point especially to rvg and Whacker:

The Welsh hatred of the English is a way of ostracising any Welsh who Anglicise (the Welsh speakers just call these "English").

Likewise, Southern hatred of Yankees is a way of maintaining Southern identity in the face of the denial of self determination. You said it youself Whacker, you're ashamed on your Southern ancestors, but why? Did those ancestors own slaves? Do you have any Northern ancestors who did, or any who went West?

Are you not ashamed of them, also?

[Whacker]

I'm not sure you can defend the Southern Cause, because it is so tied up with slavery, but I can appreciate the motivations of the ordinary Southern soldiers and the bravery of their generals - and I can appreciate the resounding rage at the Union's mercilous tactics.

I'm assuming you meant tied, yes? A bit of a cross-over from the judging history thread, but yes, the whole "Southern Cause" was about slavery. Revisionists will try to put spin on it that it was about freedom of choice and self-determination, or a slew of other things, but it's all glossing over or dismissing the reality of it. It was about a way of life based on slavery, racism, and segregation. To be certain, the Union and rest of the world for that matter weren't saints, but it was a sight better than basing an entire existence and way of life on slavery. As for the Union's "merciless" tactics, both sides were equally guilty of "unrestricted warfare". In fact, if you go back throughout modern history, most every war falls into that category, and one sees examples of "total war" as prosecuted by all belligerents.

as the the Yankees have never lost a war (and don't talk about 1814) they have no point of reference.

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

A big part of a nation's history is it's shared suffering, the North and South haven't shared any suffering since the Revolution.

Going back to the UK, the Welsh have survived as a distinct people by making opposition to the English part of their national culture, it's in their National Anthen (no, not "God Save the Queen").

This last point especially to rvg and Whacker:

The Welsh hatred of the English is a way of ostracising any Welsh who Anglicise (the Welsh speakers just call these "English").

Sasaki put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

Likewise, Southern hatred of Yankees is a way of maintaining Southern identity in the face of the denial of self determination. You said it youself Whacker, you're ashamed on your Southern ancestors, but why? Did those ancestors own slaves? Do you have any Northern ancestors who did, or any who went West?

Are you not ashamed of them, also?

I didn't say I'm ashamed of them in general. I'm ashamed they fought for the Confederacy, because I despise everything the Confederacy stood for. On the other hand, I have to admit a certain amount of pride that they were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in, even if I detest what that cause was. And no, none of my ancestors owned slaves, I come from a long history of poor working class families. My father was the first to break that barrier and graduate from college on his entire side of the family, as far as we have ascertained. I was the second. As for any ancestors moving west... not to my knowledge, not that it would matter at all to me where they settled.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sasaki put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

What your actually describing is called Post-Colonialism and to remove it from a nation or a peoples character takes ages and ages. If you have had to conform to a certain trait for a long time it naturally takes a long time for people to grow out of it. An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

Another example when asked how his day went on any particular day most Irish people will say "Ah not too bad now it could be worse" if pushed he might say it was "A fine day" or that it was "A grand day". No Irish person ever really wants to use words like superb, excellant, super, great or fantastic not that they couldnt but they generally wont.

Some people would say it comes from people needing a coping mechanism for the abject poverty and second class status they had in the past.

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you hurt your foot in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have broke me leg so I could"


Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you broke your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have lost me leg so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you lost your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda died so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez me an Sean was in an accident and poor Seaneen was killed so he was"
Patrick: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda being killed an all so I could"

Even the bailout gets treated the same "Ah sure it could be worse we could be Greece" or "Ah sure it could be worse we could owe more so we could" I even heard someone say after a skinfull how "Could be worse the Germans could set the Tans on us"

There is always something worse that could happen thats is the Irishmans coping mechanism.

[rvg]

An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

So, what has changed in the past 30 years?

[gaelic cowboy]

So, what has changed in the past 30 years?

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.

My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.

[rvg]

Any young girl today is generally far more confident in her body, her opinions etc etc you name them out they act different and lads are pretty much the same. Now most people would say oh thats just becaue your having a belated 60's or that the Church is losing it's grip but it really is more than that.

This is happening across Europe though, it isn't unique to former client states.

My grandfather was born into a country that was under imperial rule that has an effect on you all your life. Grandad then raised children in a free country but he probably never lost the fear of sense of freedom being fragile, only his great granchildren were raised by people who only ever knew freedom as a fact of life.

I presume your father was born in free Ireland. Does he have any fear of the Empire?

[Whacker]

What your actually describing is called Post-Colonialism and to remove it from a nation or a peoples character takes ages and ages. If you have had to conform to a certain trait for a long time it naturally takes a long time for people to grow out of it. An example is to watch any film about the Ireland before the say the 70's/80s the directors always get one thing wrong no woman or man would ever hold there head up like the young people of today.

Another example when asked how his day went on any particular day most Irish people will say "Ah not too bad now it could be worse" if pushed he might say it was "A fine day" or that it was "A grand day". No Irish person ever really wants to use words like superb, excellant, super, great or fantastic not that they couldnt but they generally wont.

Some people would say it comes from people needing a coping mechanism for the abject poverty and second class status they had in the past.

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you hurt your foot in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have broke me leg so I could"


Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you broke your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda have lost me leg so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez Sean you lost your leg in an accident"
Sean: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda died so I could"

Patrick: "Oh jeez me an Sean was in an accident and poor Seaneen was killed so he was"
Patrick: "Ah sure it could be worse I coulda being killed an all so I could"

Even the bailout gets treated the same "Ah sure it could be worse we could be Greece" or "Ah sure it could be worse we could owe more so we could" I even heard someone say rather after a skinfull how "Could be worse the Germans could set the Tans on us"

There is always something worse that could happen thats is the Irishmans coping mechanism.

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

[gaelic cowboy]

So keep me honest here. The situation with Ireland strikes me as fundamentally different than the Civil War in America. I know that Cromwell was a ripe, giant bastard and what he did to the Irish is a sore spot that will probably be as much a part of the Irish self-identity for centuries and millennia to come. The other major aspect is the situation with Northern Ireland. As I understand it, NI is occupied mostly by the descendants of English settlers who came over during efforts by the English to systematically oust the Irish and redistribute land. In essense, Ireland is a partially "occupied" nation. That wouldn't sit well with me either. I know the discussions about potentially returning NI to Ireland is a long, drawn out, very complex and intricate discussion, but my understanding is that it's an ongoing process of talks to with no definite decisions at all in sight.

I have heard unification described as an "eternally delayable aspiration" generally aspirations for a nation can be a good thing.(if there used correctly) nowadays Ireland is moving more to the idea that if the North votes for unification than were happy to have them, there will alwys be louts and terrorists that will just be have to be a fact of life sadly.

Partition is without a doubt the biggest scar and the greatest wrong ever done on this island, really the parties involved should have spent more time and not less deciding on the future of the island. Many catholics were standed in a state that was in some cases actively hostile to them while the South probably didnt appreciate just how apocalyptic a worldview Ulster protesstants actually had. Southern protestants had in reality less in common with Ulster protestants than there Catholic neighbours this probably skewed our idea of Protestant thinking with regards to the North.

Seeing as people might like to know what my thoughts are on the subject I would be pretty confident that Ireland will unify later on this century. It seems to me the train has started because of Sinn Fein's rise in the North and the continual rolling back eastward of Protestant electoral success lately.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yesterday, on local radio, as I was driving to work.

You people think America has no history because you either choose to ignore it or focus on specific parts. Being an old country isn't a sign of accomplishment, it is a disadvantage.

Late edit:

Again, more willful ignorance; in less it's due to your own preconceived notion of national suffering.

Try several centuries of oppression and being ground-at-heel. Every country in Europe has had that, the English had the Vikings, then the Normans - the Irish had the Normans then the English, the Catalonians had the Muslims, then the Castilians...

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.

I'm assuming you meant tied, yes? A bit of a cross-over from the judging history thread, but yes, the whole "Southern Cause" was about slavery. Revisionists will try to put spin on it that it was about freedom of choice and self-determination, or a slew of other things, but it's all glossing over or dismissing the reality of it. It was about a way of life based on slavery, racism, and segregation. To be certain, the Union and rest of the world for that matter weren't saints, but it was a sight better than basing an entire existence and way of life on slavery. As for the Union's "merciless" tactics, both sides were equally guilty of "unrestricted warfare". In fact, if you go back throughout modern history, most every war falls into that category, and one sees examples of "total war" as prosecuted by all belligerents.

I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.

Sasaki

put it beautifully. Making suffering and grudges a pillar and fixture of a national identity will breed nothing but insularism, closed-mindedness, and negative attitudes towards not only the object of the anger but towards others in general. "Southern culture" is the poster child for this, they are extremely resistant to any non-southern types who move into those regions, and while they have outstanding manners the ostracism is plain for all to see and experience. Southerners will be very quick to tell you (and often repeat it), always as a joke of course, that "A yankee is a northerner who comes to visit. A damn yankee is one who comes to visit and stays."

Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me. While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.

I didn't say I'm ashamed of them in general. I'm ashamed they fought for the Confederacy, because I despise everything the Confederacy stood for. On the other hand, I have to admit a certain amount of pride that they were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in, even if I detest what that cause was. And no, none of my ancestors owned slaves, I come from a long history of poor working class families. My father was the first to break that barrier and graduate from college on his entire side of the family, as far as we have ascertained. I was the second. As for any ancestors moving west... not to my knowledge, not that it would matter at all to me where they settled.

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

[rvg]

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche.

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am having a really tough time imagining the impact of 1066 on the psyche of modern England.

The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.

That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.

[rvg]

The English became second-class citizens in their own country, even todat 1/4 of England is owned by the descendants of William's 100 favoured retainers.

Wealth begets wealth. Would things really be much different if 1/4 of England were owned by the descendants of Harold Godwinson's retainers?

That is to say nothing of the mark left on our laws and our language, and just the general change it enacted in out culture.

That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

[Whacker]

America had the English/French - but then you had the Civil War and nothing since. The "Great Depression" bearly registers as a blip in European history, a pivotal moment to be sure, but hardly an Epoch.

You must have missed the part where it caused America to withdraw most of it's financial support to Weimar Germany, which was near totally dependent on that money to continue it's growth and war reparations. Yanking that out from under them directly lead to the re-emergence of the NSDAP as a significant power source, and ... you know where it went from there. I'd hardly call it a blip.

I do mean tied, but you are wrong it is not just about Slavery, it is about the Southern States choosing how they progress socially. Arguably, a lot of the current problems with racial strife in the South have to do with the North imposing abolition on the Southern States rather than allowing the movement to spread naturally - as it spread from England to the US.

I think you're confused now mate. It's about how the United States of America progresses socially. The problems with slavery and abolition were handled at the proper level, which was the national, federal level. This was in no shape or form an individual state to state issue. It also had and was spreading naturally from England to the US.

Vietnam certainly left it's mark, but the other two are draws at worst and they aren't exclusively American conflicts either. None of them compare to dates like 1066 or 1314 in the National Psyche. None of those wars actually involved America losing anything, other than men, material, and prestige, and in fact America became more powerful after both Korea and Vietnam.

Korea was certainly an American conflict. The vast majority of combatants on the side of South Korea were US soldiers, followed by native South Koreans. It was the first of the major cold war proxy conflicts between the "forces of democracy and communism", ie. US and the Soviet Union, and at the time China. The end result when the armstice was drawn up was highly unfavorable to the US/SK lead alliance, and I wouldn't call it any more of a draw than Vietnam was.

Southern Culutrue is hardly the "poster child", believe you me.

You really don't know much about the South, do you?

While I don't dissagree with your sentiment, it really doesn't matter - and the fact remains that an adversarial mindset has preserved cultures that would otherwise have died out.

Agree, the gist of what I'm getting at though is that it's not the "rest of the US's fault" that the southern folk have decided to retain this ridiculous sense of victimhood. After the war, the south was occupied by the military and martial law was universally declared. Lots of other things happened, but it generally was milder than one would see as the result of a traditional occupation post-bellum. Look at what the allies and Soviets did to post WW2 Germany, they stripped it bare. The US did just the opposite, it tried to rebuild and reintegrate in the following years, hence the Reconstruction period in US history. The thing that is most telling is not only did the southerners hold and nurse that grudge, they passive-aggressively waited for the right time (about a decade) after the war was over and had regained some measure of autonomy and authority in the federal government, and proceeded to near completely undo every socially progressive measure made in that time, and in many cases reverse and revert back to near pre-war slavery. The fact that a good amount of southerners never owned up, and further attempted to direct blame and responsibility for their morally, ethically, and legally reprehensible actions to other parties is the core of the problem. The olive branch was extended a long time ago, and they chose to burn it. The ball for moving past this is in their court.

You know who have lots of history in the US? The American Indians, if they didn't loathe whites and especially "the Federal Government" their communities would have died and and they would have been completely absorbed into the general population, just like the Southern Indians in Mexico and further South.

That's a partial vew of US history, the families that went West backed by "manifest destiny" were displacing the native population, that genocide is arguably worse than fighting for the South - but nobody seems to care. As to Southern soldiers, primarily I expect they fought because the Union was fi8ghting them.

Completely different situations and circumstances.

[drone]

Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan.

Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line? Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.

What would you suggest then?

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

There was also a civil society and potentialy unifying elite ready to take over afterwards, this would not be the case in Afghanistan in any stretch of the imagination.(plus it helps if the fighting doesnt go on too long)

[Whacker]

Pffft. Did Ho Chi Minh appoint a military governor to keep New York in line?

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.

Are Afghan troops doing the rape/pillage thing throughout Pennsylvania? The North has no reference.

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.

It's already been mentioned in the thread. Why have Japan and Germany turned out so well? Their occupations were focused on positive goals, not punitive measures.

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

[drone]

No, because New York didn't try to pick up it's ball and leave when it didn't get it's way in the due course of legitimate government process.

No different than Lee and crew living off the land in Pennsylvania. Here's another part. If the South didn't want Sherman rampaging through Georgia and taking the fight to the people who started it, then maybe they shouldn't have started it.

Seriously? Really? See my post to PVC. The South was held accountable for what it did. In many ways they got off far easier than a separate belligerent nation, because the goal at the end was reintegration and reconstruction, which were aggressively pursued.

Way to completely miss the point.

[Whacker]

Way to completely miss the point.

OK, let's try this another way.

What, in your opinion, does the average southerner want or expect from non-southerners in regards to moving toward true and complete reconciliation? This can be words or actions. Please be very specific, these need to be concrete, actionable things, not vague or ephemeral.

[Whacker]

only on stating over and over again that they were in the wrong.

This is a fact. Secessionism was/is wrong. Slavery was/is wrong. Glossing this over, revising history or history books, deflecting blame against the Union for "starting a war of aggression", or in any way denying or dismissing in whole or part the south's culpability is flatly not acceptable nor will it ever be.

It's funny how the discussion hasn't been on how to change the mindsets of the conquered,

What would you suggest then?