Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[rvg]

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.

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.