I’m sorry, but the article starts with “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation,…" in its first paragraph.
That statement in and of it’s self screams of a white, conquering, nation building colonial power.
He may be saying the quite bit out aloud, but your nation was built on death and repression of an already existing group of peoples.
Not every country is a settler-colony, lets be 100% about that. The evil that AmeriKKKa has unleashed on the native people and across the globe is almost unparalleled, although a lot of euro nations certainly have tried or gave inspiration. But the amount of blood and tears shed to create the romanesque empire that the founding butchers envisioned is an outlier and not the norm.
Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work?
Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
I am just curious, do you consider the reverse to be a realistic possibility?
The US formally becoming a chauvinistic, fake-Christian, oligarch/mafia state, with no real democracy (the Russians nominally do have elections) for the next 30-50 years.
The only reason I ask is that my centre-right friends from the US have mentioned things like “Well, we had the gilded age, and we made it through.”
While the above is true, there are also other key historical events to consider like the great depression, global rise of fascism and WW2.
Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work? Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
No I can’t, and our current government seems to bet trying thier best to roll back some of the gains of the last 20-30 years.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
And the twat in the OP is being held up as a right wing white rule type. He has spoken their quiet parts out aloud, but the article in question starts with Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, (that is problematic in it’s self) as the counterpoint to the current governing right. I’m calling that out as being a nation building colonial speech.
For me that remains open to interpretation. The colonies were of different countries and up until Lincoln, they mixed together with the natives (what was left of them anyway) and the black slaves. And though his work was cut short, tangential evidence suggests to Lincoln working towards a complete integration.
Many use that vision when mentioning Lincoln and it’s possible that’s why it was also used as an argument in the article.
Then again, deconstructing it into a form of colonial dominion is also an opinion.
I’m sorry, but the article starts with “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation,…" in its first paragraph.
That statement in and of it’s self screams of a white, conquering, nation building colonial power.
He may be saying the quite bit out aloud, but your nation was built on death and repression of an already existing group of peoples.
What country are you from?
I could ask the same of you if you don’t want to acknowledge America’s dark history
It was an honest question, but I suppose it doesn’t matter.
I didn’t really think that it did at that stage, but if you must know it New Zealand
Every country is built upon the bones of the oppressed. Why pick and choose?
Not every country is a settler-colony, lets be 100% about that. The evil that AmeriKKKa has unleashed on the native people and across the globe is almost unparalleled, although a lot of euro nations certainly have tried or gave inspiration. But the amount of blood and tears shed to create the romanesque empire that the founding butchers envisioned is an outlier and not the norm.
I’m not. My country is pretty fucked in this regard - but at least we acknowledge and are <semi> trying to work to right some of those wrongs
Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work? Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
I am just curious, do you consider the reverse to be a realistic possibility?
The US formally becoming a chauvinistic, fake-Christian, oligarch/mafia state, with no real democracy (the Russians nominally do have elections) for the next 30-50 years.
The only reason I ask is that my centre-right friends from the US have mentioned things like “Well, we had the gilded age, and we made it through.”
While the above is true, there are also other key historical events to consider like the great depression, global rise of fascism and WW2.
Of course. People change, ideas change, needs change. What was can’t always be.
No I can’t, and our current government seems to bet trying thier best to roll back some of the gains of the last 20-30 years.
And the twat in the OP is being held up as a right wing white rule type. He has spoken their quiet parts out aloud, but the article in question starts with Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, (that is problematic in it’s self) as the counterpoint to the current governing right. I’m calling that out as being a nation building colonial speech.
For me that remains open to interpretation. The colonies were of different countries and up until Lincoln, they mixed together with the natives (what was left of them anyway) and the black slaves. And though his work was cut short, tangential evidence suggests to Lincoln working towards a complete integration.
Many use that vision when mentioning Lincoln and it’s possible that’s why it was also used as an argument in the article.
Then again, deconstructing it into a form of colonial dominion is also an opinion.