Odd Facts About European Leaders
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel,
France’s Emmanuel Macron,
Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni,
Great Britain’s Theresa May,
Holland’s Mark Rutte,
Sweden’s Stefan Löfven,
Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and
European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?
The first is they are all leaders of nations/regions now suffering terrible Islamic extremism brought about by open-border immigration policies that they continue to support and demand be allowed.
The second is that none of them have children or grandchildren.
Let that sink in.
Read more at http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubl … G66RUbQ.99
Maybe they are just in this life for themselves to get what they can while they can? That would be rather cold!
People with children and grandchildren normally want to leave their children and grandchildren better off economically and safer.I was inclined to think this was BS but I checked out three or four of them and it is true. You are right. Parents and grandparents look at the problem from a different angle. It would be nice to think at least one of those leaders had experience in that area.
If you don't have children you are not looking to making a better society, in my opinion. Because you are going to be looking at what you can get in the here and now. Some people decide to have a career. People who are politicians have the 'here and now" in spades, they want money and power, they want it for themselves, and they want it now, and they don't care about the future or anyone else.
I heard an adult man who hasn't had children say that everything ends with me, its just me, its cold, (he wants to get married and have children someday). With these kind of politicians, it ends with them, and that feeds self-centeredness, but I think with politicians it really reflects self-centeredness.
What a load of nonsense.
There are many people without children who are doing great things.
I'm not religious but just to show you the simplicity of the statement.
Jezus had no children. and he was a good person according to The Bible.
to combine this crazy nonsense with Islamfobia is simply below the belt.
Besides it shows how you are not willing to help strangers in need. An very selfish act I would call it.
I agree with most of your points, colorfulone, but you are taking the typical propaganda view on Islamic extremism that’s perpetuated in the American News Media.
We can get CNN on cable TV in Britain, which I dip into to see how they are reporting events at times such as when there’s a terrorist attack in Europe. Fortunately we don’t get Fox News on cable TV in the UK, so I have to go on YouTube to catch up on how they report things in Europe.
In the past I’ve only been able to watch CNN for a few minutes before switching channels in disgust because although generally they report fairly accurately most of the time, CNN have a tendency to slip in the odd ‘un-truth’.
In watching CNN coverage of the General Election in the UK this week, apart from at the start of the vote count where CNN made a few minor misrepresentative points, the rest of the evening they predominantly gave a reasonable representation of the facts; so I was impressed. A few times later in the evening CNN went slightly off beam, although it seemed to be through ignorance of the facts rather than deliberate. Understandable in that the presenters in the CNN TV studios are 4,000 miles away, and don’t live in Britain; and therefore can’t be expected to know everything about the British culture and what it’s really like to live in Britain.
However, the following day I browsed Fox News reports on YouTube about the General Election, and every single report plugged ‘terrorism’, most of the added comments being Fake News.
Fox News creating Fake News about terrorism in Britain and Europe has been a long standing problem; and only helps to perpetuate a false image of terrorism in Europe. Persistent propaganda about Britain doesn’t help Anglo American relations; especially when Trump quotes from them, which on several occasions has caused a massive negative backlash from the British public e.g. several petitions with millions of signatures from the public to the British Government against Trump for making false claims against Britain.
Fox News was forced to apologies to Britain and France for one of their Fake News items, but the damage had already been done:-
Fox News Apologizes for No-Go Zone "Errors" in England and France: https://youtu.be/rF-mhgGWIgk
UK: More than a million sign petition for Trump state visit to be cancelled: https://youtu.be/bvfrzX35gXUExposure of more Fake News about Terrorism in Britain that continues to perpetuate Americans false image of the UK: - https://youtu.be/z1KC-zgGt-o
In contrast, this is the reality:-
London Mayor (Sadiq Khan) Speech on London Attack: - https://youtu.be/_w-z4KapcsMDon't take this the wrong way, but I wonder if having gone through two world wars amongst yourselves, on your own soil, makes Europeans look differently at violence than we do. We haven't ever had bombs hitting our cities and foreign invaders. Well,not since the Civil War and that didn't include foreigners.
Maybe, the whole thought of it is so much more alien to us because of that. Terrorism has been a part of European history. Britain, especially, with the Irish so recently. I think sometimes Europeans look at us as if we are violent but realistically most Americans have little experience living within it. Don't fault us for our naivete. I'd prefer to be naive than learn to accept that to be inclusive of other cultures involves putting up with the occasional terrorist act.Actually, I fully agree with you ‘Live to Learn’. The two world wars have had a profound effect on the way Europeans think and feel; although Britain wasn’t actually invaded by Germany, like most of Europe was, we still had the nightly bombing of our cities in England from Germany, which destroyed over 2 million homes.
Bristol Blitz 1940, city destroyed by German bombs (where I was born and now live): https://youtu.be/vIVaXQu5LUI
Yes Terrorism has been a part of the European history for a long time e.g. the 30 years IRA terrorist campaign in the UK from 1969 until the Peace Treaty in 1999, and the ‘Separatists’ in Spain etc., so we know how to react to it.
The 30 years IRA terrorist campaign was between ‘Christian Catholics’ in Northern Ireland who want unification with the Republic of Ireland (The IRA terrorist group) and ‘Christian Protestants’ in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of the UK (The Ulster Resistance).
The main agitator was the IRA who wanted to force the British Government into letting Northern Ireland become part of the Republic of Ireland, just like the British Government gave southern Ireland its independence following the Irish civil uprising against the British in the 1920s. However, these days it’s the British Government’s policy not to give into Terrorism.
During the 30 years IRA Terrorist campaign between 1969 and 1999 (which frequently spilled out into mainland Britain) there were an estimated 1,823 deaths in the UK caused by Terrorism. In the 17 years since 2000, there have only been 90 deaths in the UK caused by Muslim Terrorists. So from a British perspective, terrorism from Muslims in the UK is only a tenth of the terror caused by the IRA conflict.
What the British have learnt from our experience of terrorism over the decades (and the two world wars, especially the 2nd world war where Britain was being bombed daily) is that you don’t give into terror; you’ carry on regardless’ with your daily lives in defiance of the aggressor. To let the terrorists see that they are causing fear amongst the population (like in America) is what the terrorists want.
The political wings of the IRA and the Ulster Resistance are Sinn Fein and DUP respectively. Part of the 1999 Peace Treaty is a carefully balanced Norther Ireland Government where both sides have to ‘power share’; with the British Government supposedly being a neutral arbitrator. And part of that peace treaty which was key in getting the IRA on-board is a ‘clause’ that allows Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic of Ireland if that is the ‘will’ of the people in Northern Ireland e.g. via a referendum.
Sinn Fein wants to call a referendum, DUP don’t. In the last UK Parliament Sinn Fein had only 4 seats compared to DUP’s 8; in this week’s UK General Election Sinn Fein increased their seats to 7, and DUP to 10. So although Sinn Fein have a long way to go they are gaining support and are quietly confident that it’s just a matter of time before they have a large enough majority to call for a referendum for the unification of Ireland.
Yes, Brits do have a perception that America is violent e.g. the gun culture and the tens of thousands of Americans killed each year by gun violence. In listening to those Americans who want gun control (but still want the right to gun ownership) I have been trying to understand the American mind-set on this issue; but in coming from a culture where we don’t have guns, and we don’t have the gun violence, I am struggling to understand the Americans mentality of gun violence being perfectly acceptable in their society. But I am still listening and I am still trying to understand, but it is an uphill struggle to try to get my mind around this issue.
This video demonstrates the difference between the UK and the USA when it comes to gun crime: https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg
I don’t mind you being naïve about the terrorism in Europe (I’m naïve about a lot of issues in America); but I do object to the wide use of Fake News and propaganda.Let's take a look at your comments from an American perspective. First, I know a few people who lived through the Irish troubles and they lived in Ireland. History is different, depending on which side of the fence you are standing on. They were victimized for years by the English and they were not happy that their country was torn apart to appease England; from their perspective. The point I am attempting to make with that comment is that terrorists can believe there is a valid reason for their terrorism and I'm sure the English are quite familiar with that because Ireland is not very unique in English history. They simply lived close enough to the general population for their terrorism to be felt by them.
As an imperialist power England terrorized entire populations in order to subjugate them to English rule. Or, so our history tells us. We fought, and won but prior to that our first experience with a government attempting to ban the ownership of firearms was England. So, we have a long history of resisting those attempts and we have a long memory of why these types of attempts are made. I suppose if anyone is to blame for our refusal to consider regulations on gun ownership we could blame King George III for creating our distrust in government. I realize most Europeans think of us as a gun toting wild west style population. We aren't. We are very, very jealous of our freedoms and we are suspicious of anyone or any government attempting to convince us that they can ensure they can keep us safe so we should simply trust them. We are willing to live with the consequences just as your country is willing to live with terrorism in order not to be perceived as giving in to it.
But, talking about giving in to terrorism. What you have to realize is that terrorism created by foreign influence is a part of your lives. It is not a part of ours. I suppose if the latinos sneaking across the border in search of a better life were carrying bombs in order to create the same havoc here that is being created there we would be reacting to it somewhat as your countries do. We have a large latino population which have been with us since the beginning and we would be desperately attempting to determine how to control the problem while ensuring our neighbors understood we didn't blame the lot of them for the problem. But, they aren't.
And, the truth of the matter is that we share a common culture with our southern neighbors in more ways than not. The only real thing that separates us is the language barrier. I have heard latinos grumbling that Spain owned much of our land and there will come a day when the latino population will gain the majority and take it back. So what? I doubt there would be any real change to our way of life other than celebrating Cinco de Mayo with a little more fervor than we do St. Patty's day. What would happen if your group of countries found themselves with a majority population of your southern neighbors? Those of a different culture, a different ancestral religion and a different way of life? How much change would there be to the daily lives of your citizens?
Your problems are your problems. Ours are ours. We have no desire to see your problems bleed across the Atlantic to land on our shores anymore than you would like to see ours become a problem for you.Live to learn , This is one of the best thoughts I've ever heard spoken of America's position in the world of evolving [and so American ] western politics and cultures . how little the modern world of western- socialism understands America , our culture and our internal issues . The UK 's people , like all other manifest 'colonialist's ' , Spain ,France ,Russia or Germany can hardly or logically explain America's defensive posture to outside influences away by saying "......America is a violent society ...."
Perhaps Northern Ireland ,one of my ancestral homes , has a right to 'weigh in ' on this or India , Afghanistan or Persia for that matter , any other nation invaded by British or any other country seeing the image of the "red coats" and nation building .....including America ? America has every right in the free world to control its own destiny or to protect another's too.
America is probably the last of the nations not sold out to the constructs , the ideals , the evolving visions of socialism ,for lack of a better description although our youth and young are buying into it in many ways , the powers that be still resist . Gun rights and all our liberties are a large part of our many ethnic cultures , and a large draw of immigrating cultures , No one would blame Germany for avoiding up and coming dictators , Poland from avoiding military invasions , China for guarding against invading large armies , or the Scots from political outsiders. So why should outside influences be advising America of it's sovereignty , it's liberties or it's borders . Bottom line , there are few comparisons logically made between any other nation and ours , except what rights and liberties others have lost or given up and that we hold dearly .Thanks ‘Live to Learn’ and ‘ahoresback’ for your honest and frank feedback, much of which I actually agree with; and it is helping me to understand the American psyche a little better.
I know that historically England has been an imperialist nation, rampaging around the world causing all sorts of notorieties; and it’s something the British people these days are not proud of. I for one would love to see Scotland win its Independence and I would like to see Ireland re-united.
Neither the Welsh nor Cornish people have any interest in Independence at this time; but if the ‘will’ of the people in those parts of the UK ever changes, then I would be routing for them. In that respect, I was pleased when Cornwall was granted ‘minority status’ a few years ago because it does mean they can now peacefully pursue their own independent course if in the future that is the ‘will’ of the people e.g. through their own ‘referendum’.
In this respect, I love this video which was made just before Cornwall won its right to ‘Minority Status’: https://youtu.be/-nN9I_7djgo
For clarification, ‘minority status’ in Europe means that an ethnic ‘native’ minority group geographically located in their homeland within a mother state has the legal right to choose their own course in history separate to the motherland if they so wish; subject to the ‘will’ of the people through referendums. For example Scotland has so far gone as far as having its own Government (which is just one step short of Independence), while the Welsh people rejected going that far but did settle for a Welsh Assembly (which is just one step away from full rule by London); albeit the Welsh have gone as far as making Welsh (Cymraeg) their first language.
The reason Cornwall (Kernow) was granted ‘minority status’ is because it’s the only part of England that has never been conquered at any time in history; not even by the Romans, nor the Normans, so it is still deeply rooted in its Celtic origins. It’s why Cornwall is the only part of England where the Queen does not reign, and why her heir apparent (Prince Charles, Prince of Wales) is the Duchy of Cornwall as the representative of the Queen.That's all very interesting. I'd be curious to know what is involved in separation.
I suppose this shows another aspect of our differences. We weren't separate populations which were conquered by another part of the country. Of course, the indigenous population (who were once immigrants themselves) which was here when the settlers arrived has been given lands through a series of broken treaties but the vast majority of us are more recent immigrants or the descendants of such. We do not see ourselves as having ancestral lands. We view ourselves as a disparate group of people who by choice became one through a common dream of freedom and the chance to succeed in life where other nations had denied us those dreams. I doubt attempts at separation would be viewed by any of us with more than mild curiosity.Good question ‘Live to Learn’. The principle of Separation (independence) in modern day Europe is designed to be a peaceful mechanism for ‘self-determination’ of an indigenous culture based on the ‘will’ of the people. In the case of Britain that includes Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall because of their Celtic roots that goes back thousands of years.
Put in the simplest terms, the process for each stage is by a simple majority in a referendum, the stages being:-
• Assembly.
• Government.
• Independence.
A Regional Assembly is where the Region is still ruled by the British Government, but they have some devolved powers.
A Regional Government is where the region is still controlled by the British Government and local MPs (Members of Parliament) are still elected in the region to represent that region in the British Government, but they also have their own separate Parliament with their own elections, which has the powers to make its own laws.
WALES
In the 1979 referendum the Welsh people voted ‘no’ to a Regional Assembly (20.3% for and 79.4% against).
In the 1997 referendum the Welsh people voted ‘yes’ to a Regional Assembly (50.3% for and 49.7% against).
SCOTLAND
In the 1979 referendum the Scottish People voted ‘yes’ to a Regional Assembly (51.62% for and 48.38% against).
In the 1997 referendum the Scottish People voted ‘yes’ for a Regional Parliament (74.29% for and 25.71% against).
In the 2014 referendum the Scottish People voted ‘no’ to ‘Independence’ (44.7% for and 55.3% against).
Since its formation the Scottish Parliament has become a very strong left wing socialist Government, contrary to the right wing Capitalist Government we currently have in Britain. Therefore some of the differences in laws and policies are quite striking; for example:-
1. In the UK the Conservative Government abolished free university and introduced university fees capped at a maximum of £9,000 ($12,000) per year. Whereas in Scotland University is free to all UK citizens except the English and free to all other EU citizens.
2. Although Britain is exceeding its targets for renewable energy and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, in spite of not being overly committed, the Scottish Parliament is far more committed and has made much greater progress. The UK targets were to be 20% reliant on renewable energy by 2020, 30% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. We actually reached 20% this year and now expect to exceed 25% by 2020. In contrast Scotland, along with Denmark and Germany are already close to being 100% dependent on renewable energy.
If Scotland does get a ‘yes’ vote in any future referendum for Independence; then that’s when the fun would start. Obviously Scotland wouldn’t become Independent the day after the vote. There would be an agreed date set, and a schedule agreed to give time to make all the necessary negotiations and other changes that would have to be made. Becoming an Independent country means Scotland would have its own economy and would need its own currency; it would need to discuss border arrangements with England, and trade deals with England etc. At the same time Scotland would also be seeking membership with the EU, and if/when accepted, its currency would automatically become the euro, and it would then have full and free trade access to the rest of Europe; which would suit it fine because the EU is currently a big trading partner with Scotland.
Don't be too hard on yourself or the English people, Nathanville. In the United States we have basically presided over a decimation of First Nations people. Racial violence in our history that is probably only exceeded by Nazi Germany and possibly South Africa prior to 1994 in modern times.
The England and the continent has accomplished much in bringing itself together since WW II. That is to be commended, it is less likely that geopolitical circumstance will find you in a similar World War like the first two. Yet, our Military industrial complex and attending war lords are still quite the fashion.Interesting . The present day apologist's much like you , are star struck in apologizing now for the actions of America 150 years ago , while the rest of the people of this world ,who reside in true reality try to figure out what's going on in today's world .You know ? In .........reality .
The oddest reality of European leadership today can be best described by their politically collective guilt of their atrocities of WWII inflicted mostly by ignorance or intention , on their own peoples . Germany, France , Italy for instance , still in the throws apparently of political guilt , pacify their populaces by slobbering over being a P.C driven importer of islamic terror , crime , and non -assimilation .
Fact , not fake !Do you really think that you represent the 'rest of the world" or is it just your narrow view of it?
Maybe before we speak of others "dirty laundry" we ought to attend properly to our own first? We all have different challenges, but the one that we both share is to how to maintain a democratic society with freedom of expression while at the same time dealing with the current menace. Perhaps Europe is being more reflective about the problem rather than blindly follow the Trumpian totalitarian style that has been a typical American response.
America's holocaust had taken place far more recently than 150 years ago, check your history primer and get educated. Lynchings, Jim Crow over the better part of the 20th century. If you can hang Britain out to dry about the Crusades, why can't I speak of this?
When you are busy talking about Britain's shortcomings going back to the Age of Renaissance, does anyone think that our shortcomings in far more recent times is not fair game?
Being in a state denial and absentmindedness about the true nature of American history is the pastime of the Conservatives and most irritating it continues to be. They remind of Sherman and Mr. Peabody.
L to L, at least you can realize the futility of ever burgeoning military budgets just for its own sake.And do you plan on forever being the P.C.today , apologist ? because that's where you always come from , as if you were somehow there . It reminds me of others who have left forums ,for whatever reason , who were so stuck in 1840 as to render their voices passe . A little advice , we are who we are yet we live in today , dealing by the way with the incredible realities of a world apparently gone mad. Or so your comrad's in the down-stream media would have us believe .
It's no wonder this divide between the new progressives [ on the right ] and prehistoric apologist's on the left , we see so much from different lenses . "the narrow view of it " is yours to totally own . There is a far cry from the holocaust you fixate on of America's past , and the present day one of the European mess.
Credence , please try with all your might to catch up , evolve beyond the collective pasts of all our histories , bring your consciousness to the forefront .One of the top reasons the world has gone so crazy is because of the political correctness.
None of the past actions were considered shortcomings for that generation. This generation sees them as such. And rightly so, if a society can't review its actions and find cause for improvement it can't become a better society.
If it sounded like I was singling Europe out, I probably was. Their past actions during their colonial phases are responsible for many current woes throughout the world. And, they did drag the lot of us through two world wars.'None of the past actions were considered shortcomings for that generation. This generation sees them as such. And rightly so, if a society can't review its actions and find cause for improvement it can't become a better society.'
Acknowledge, agree.
America played a part in the colonization game during much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We just came to the party late, but we were no better than the Europeans in this regard.
I think "drag" is too strong a word. Woodrow Wilson although a tiring idealist, worked hard to keep America neutral during the First World War. The indiscriminant sinking of American shipping due to unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany was the official reason why Wilson declared war on Germany. Was it really possible to completely separate ourselves from the Continent and its business as would have been necessary to avoid being tangled in to this war? But, there has been accounts of neutrals like America carrying munitions to the combatants. So, we could have been seen as aiding Britain covertly. If we decided to just stay away from Europe during the period, perhaps we could have avoided trouble? I will give you a brownie point or two here.
WWII was imminently different, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on 12/7/41. Germany and Italy, as part of an Axis Pact THEMSELVES declared war on the US just 4 days later. So, I make a stronger case that Europe did not 'drag' us into their squabbles this time.Dragged is the word I chose to use because we didn't participate in the inception of the hostilities. Of course we had to decide which side we would like to see to win and support them in ways we could, without putting boots on the ground. But, I don't begrudge our participation in either war. It was necessary to fight off aggression which would have found its way to our shores, eventually, had the aggressors won. However, we wouldn't be pondering any of this had they not started it.
Self bashing appears to be a fashionable liberal past time. Odd, really. 'We' didn't do any of the things you are bemoaning. Unless you are saying within the past hundred years we are responsible for systematic genocide.
We can all learn from our collective history without taking personal responsibility for every heinous act of our ancestors, but that isn't what liberals are all about. Usually the 'we' translates to 'you' as the conversation goes on.
Although I do agree that other nations should take care of their own security and let us start moving our resources to better uses other than military build up. Like helping our own citizens.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++perfect !
Live to Learn, you’ll be pleased to know that there is growing support within Europe for a European Army. The EU Commission first proposed an EU Army almost 10 years ago, and in 2009 the EU Parliament voted in favour of a ‘Synchronised Armed EU Force’ as a first step towards such an Army.
However, when the Conservatives (Coalition) Government was elected in the UK in 2010 the British Prime Minister vetoed any further progress; albeit the embryonic EU Army has played a limited role in Europe since.
The good news for America and the rest of Europe is that once the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 the EU will be able to then press ahead with working towards forming a proper EU Army to take over the defence of Europe and not rely on NATO for security.
In this respect the EU is working behind the scenes in preparation to press ahead once the veto from the UK is no longer valid.
Below is a video from RT which covers the main points fairly accurately; albeit with a tinge of Russian propaganda because RT is a Russian news media with ties to the Russian Government e.g. Putin and the KGB. https://youtu.be/Sh9YzGHpaXUI'm going to be honest with you. With Europe's track record I would be leery of a strong military force being built on that continent.
Good point ‘Live to Learn’, I’m open minded at the moment so I am interested in your views, and the views of other Americans on this. I’ve heard many Americans in the past state that the EU should take more responsibility in defending itself and be less reliant on the USA e.g. NATO; and there is a logic to that, but NATO has served Europe well since the end of the 2nd world war.
Well, I do wish we could all take care of our own defenses. Doing it together makes sense, but everyone needs to pay their fair share.
Aw geesh, Credence2, There you go again...letting rhetoric and personal bias distort what I hope was intended as a conciliatory response.
To your point about the First nations people, how many nations do you think weren't formed, (or maintained), by conquest? And to use this statement relative to a discussion of the United Kingdom is even more an indication of rhetoric.
Of course there is truth in your statement, and I don't think Americans are proud or boastful of that part of our history, but your use and terminology present it in such a negative way as to seem almost a condemnation. Is that how you really feel?
The real kicker was your Nazi Germany comparison. There your personal racial bias distorted your intended message. You are black, so our country's tragic history of black racial violence and intolerance obviously came to mind, and blinded you to the reader-perceived message of your statement.
Good ol' Nazi Germany. the Boogeyman for sensitive minds, the blackest of black marks to give. Yet, when your, "Racial violence in our history that is probably only exceeded by Nazi Germany ..." looks at all racial violence in the history of our world's nations, then your comparison might be more than just a bit off the mark. I could offer the links, but you can find them as easily as I did. Consider Australia's history, or Saudi Arabia's, or India's or even, unexpectedly, Japan's history.
Of course The United States, and, the United Kingdom, are included in that list of nations with a history of racial violence, but if you take a look, (just to prove me wrong and back-up your Nazi Germany comparison), I think you will see that your original comment was just more rhetoric.
I will finish with two links. You spoke of the progress Britain and Europe, (the Continent?), have made since WWII. Well, here is a link to a Swedish study* map of the World's Most and Least racially tolerant nations, which I think will surprise you. And another map of the world's most and least ethnically diverse nations. and once more I think you will be surprised.
*I only provide the Swedish study maps as food for thought, not as a definitive authority.
... and you can't even blame this one on 'The Force'
GAAw geesh, Credence2, There you go again...letting rhetoric and personal bias distort what I hope was intended as a conciliatory response.
To your point about the First nations people, how many nations do you think weren't formed, (or maintained), by conquest? And to use this statement relative to a discussion of the United Kingdom is even more an indication of rhetoric.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, one man's rhetoric is another man's discourse. My point in this, GA, is that I was getting the impression that Europe was being bashed and that somehow America and the American experience was superior and above the fray. That is what has started all of this. Someone mentioned European history as a bloody mosaic, I simply said that in the relatively brief time of this Republic, we have shed more than our fair share of blood and have been the cause of mayhem for those not among the chosen. We all know who those have been and to a certain extent, still are.
-------------
Of course there is truth in your statement, and I don't think Americans are proud or boastful of that part of our history, but your use and terminology present it in such a negative way as to seem almost a condemnation. Is that how you really feel?
--------------------------------
According to the direction in this thread, I was getting the impression that it was to be seen as America, uber alles. That is hardly correct. There is a lot of negative in our history, and depending on where you sit you will see it from a different point of view. Much like the "is it blue or yellow dress" controversy of a couple of years ago. Why do some people see the dress as blue and some see it as yellow, while looking at the identical same image. Our heroes may be different, our take on historical events may be different, all of this while taking the same factual information, as much as history can be objective and factual.
-----------------------------------------------------
The real kicker was your Nazi Germany comparison. There your personal racial bias distorted your intended message. You are black, so our country's tragic history of black racial violence and intolerance obviously came to mind, and blinded you to the reader-perceived message of your statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Nazi Germany was an extreme example, but even its "final solution" was over a period of no more than 5 years. German Jews lived under the Third Reich for a little more than 12 years. There is little that can compare with genocide. But, after the end of the Civil War in 1865, still in 1965, people were having their homes bombed, systematically murdered living with an environment of oppression and fear which was more than enough to have kept people in line without the crematoria. While there was the intensity of the 12 years of the Third Reich, the intensity was still there for post Civil War America at a lower level but over a vastly longer period of time( a century). I am not bashing America, but don't be so quick to put it on a pedestal when compared with Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good ol' Nazi Germany. the Boogeyman for sensitive minds, the blackest of black marks to give. Yet, when your, "Racial violence in our history that is probably only exceeded by Nazi Germany ..." looks at all racial violence in the history of our world's nations, then your comparison might be more than just a bit off the mark. I could offer the links, but you can find them as easily as I did. Consider Australia's history, or Saudi Arabia's, or India's or even, unexpectedly, Japan's history.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest issue with all of this is yes, America is not the only one. But we are the ones that talk about the Constitution and the Rights of Man, the rule of law, etc. I expect more from America as the one trumpeting about 'rights' rather than to compare America's record to that of some banana republic somewhere. We speak of lofty ideals, therefore the expectations are also expected to be above the average.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course The United States, and, the United Kingdom, are included in that list of nations with a history of racial violence, but if you take a look, (just to prove me wrong and back-up your Nazi Germany comparison), I think you will see that your original comment was just more rhetoric.
I will finish with two links. You spoke of the progress Britain and Europe, (the Continent?), have made since WWII. Well, here is a link to a Swedish study* map of the World's Most and Least racially tolerant nations, which I think will surprise you. And another map of the world's most and least ethnically diverse nations. and once more I think you will be surprised.
*I only provide the Swedish study maps as food for thought, not as a definitive authority.
-----------------------------------------------
Quoted from the Article
"If we treat this data as indicative of racial tolerance, then we might conclude that people in the bluer countries are the least likely to express racist attitudes, while the people in red countries are the most likely.
Compare the results to this map of the world's most and least diverse countries.
Before we dive into the data, a couple of caveats. First, it's entirely likely that some people lied when answering this question; it would be surprising if they hadn't. But the operative question, unanswerable, is whether people in certain countries were more or less likely to answer the question honestly. For example, while the data suggest that Swedes are more racially tolerant than Finns, it's possible that the two groups are equally tolerant but that Finns are just more honest. The willingness to state such a preference out loud, though, might be an indicator of racial attitudes in itself. Second, the survey is not conducted every year; some of the results are very recent and some are several years old, so we're assuming the results are static, which might not be the case."
----------
I offer you the explanation that you are getting this response, because I don't believe that people think that it is polite to express a certain level of bigotry in our culture. That does not mean that it does not exist, and will not be expressed in ways a little more subtle than a public survey. Isn't that what the conservatives complain about as 'PC"? With the events of the last few months, I have had to wonder, how far how we really come, was it all smoke and mirrors?
Thanks, GA, for the opportunity to clarify myself before you and the hub pages audience
Well talk again....Hey bud, I saw the impression you speak of too. And I was also tempted to respond. But I considered that the 'audience' of the impression would understand that it was not representative of most of us, and since there was little likelihood of success addressing the origin... Well, you know I always look for profit in conversations.
From my perspective, your comment was just as bad; over the top, and not representative of most of us. Hence my response to it. The difference is that our past discussions almost always profit at least one of us. (although my arms do get tired sometimes ;-) )
Also from our past discussions, you know that I see much more positive than negative in our national and constitutional history. So there is no need for us to rehash the racial progress issue. As bad as it has been, and as bad as it seems now, we both have agreed that tremendous progress has been made. I hold the same view for out national and constitutional progress.
So... just leave that "Nazi Germany" comparison in the bag. It almost always causes one to run afoul of Mark Twain's thought about who not to argue with.
To your response about that Swedish study, I did note it was only "food for thought." I didn't think it was a definitive evaluation either, (and neither did the article's author). My point was; just as we are not as 'righteous' as some promote, we are also not as 'bad' as others, (ahem!), portray.
ps. I do agree with one of your points... I also expect "more of America," and from my perspective, I am seeing that "more" with every new generation.
GASo... just leave that "Nazi Germany" comparison in the bag. It almost always causes one to run afoul of Mark Twain's thought about who not to argue with.
--------------
Yes, but I did make it clear that we were dealing primarily with the past, the 100 years since the Civil War and I will not deny that progress that was forced through by the "activist" Warren Court and pushed on in the Executive branch, by those who allied with our cause, Kennedy and Johnson. All of this made the last 50 years bearable in comparison. But since I both was alive and viable before 1965, I can't consider that period 'back in the days of the dinosaurs'. Without the genocide, I still say racial oppression rose to the level of the Nazis attacks on Jews. Read a little critical history and see how many communities were razed to the ground, race riots, etc. When we get beyond those 'Dick and Jane" primers, it becomes another world.
----------------------------------
To your response about that Swedish study, I did note it was only "food for thought." I didn't think it was a definitive evaluation either, (and neither did the article's author). My point was; just as we are not as 'righteous' as some promote, we are also not as 'bad' as others, (ahem!), portray.
-----------------------------------
I guess that I emphasize 'not as righteous as some promote', while you emphasize' not as bad as others'. One take on the matter cannot be said without deference to the other. I just make sure that due deference is giving to the point that I emphasize.
---------------------------------------------------------
ps. I do agree with one of your points... I also expect "more of America," and from my perspective, I am seeing that "more" with every new generation.
-----------------------------------------
Ok. but with Trump, questions still arise as to how permanent these beneficial changes are, are they any more than finely spun gossamer, that will dissemble at the first ill wind?"Lordy," (my new favorite exclamation), Cred. "finely spun gossamer," "ill wind," and "Trump," - all in the same sentence?
We better get back to bashing Europe before you sprain something.
I hear nathanville is a self-proclaimed socialist. You can send him some testimonials, I will recommend some remedial readings, and ahorseback can ...
See! Now look where you made me go. *Sorry ahorseback, no disrespect intended, but I needed a final contrast for the ending. Surely you can see it was Credence2's fault.
GA;-)
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0And the mindless comparisons go on and on , Simple truth in one paragraph , we would all be speaking German if it wasn't for America , from Russia to Canada , North Africa to Norway ,Europe , would be a black hole of straight arm saluting blond-blue eyed bigots Why so many apologists have so many guilt issues with their love and envy of America is understandable , We are probably the most advanced political influence in the world , most people have adopted some form of democratic voting system , local , regional and nationally.
SOS ,"Who you gonna call ? " America
Perhaps the first nations of America defenders need some history lessons , very much like the middle east today , you can't go around removing the heads of those who disagree with you ,dragging burned bodies behind trucks or hanging them from trees , shallow historians like credence have to be reminded that slavery was not only-- NOT an American invention but more of another American solution , actually the Muslim - Islam traders were the earlies" slavers ", ..........but why bring truth to the table when you can dine on lies , guilt trips and false honor.
Shame on the haters .
But why look at truths and fact with American history when you can join in on the International America Bashing Party so popular in this ignorantly divisive mainstream media today ,And the mindless comparisons go on and on , Simple truth in one paragraph , we would all be speaking German if it wasn't for America , from Russia to Canada , North Africa to Norway ,Europe , would be a black hole of straight arm saluting blond-blue eyed bigots
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"we all would be speaking German"? Such a worn out cliché of a rag from America's rightwingers...
So, does that mean that America is infallible and has been guiltless during the annuals of history?
I think not. Trump is bringing back the domesticated version of the black hole of straight arm saluting blond-blue eyed bigots.
I am sure that the Australian people consider themselves a successful and prosperous example of Western democracy at work, and they are, but what do the Aborigines say?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why so many apologists have so many guilt issues with their love and envy of America is understandable , We are probably the most advanced political influence in the world , most people have adopted some form of democratic voting system , local , regional and nationally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That does not mean that we can rest on our laurels and not backslide, saying that this is ok as well, because we are America, the inventor of the concept of popular sovereignty?
-----------------------------------------------------
SOS ,"Who you gonna call ? " America
Perhaps the first nations of America defenders need some history lessons , very much like the middle east today , you can't go around removing the heads of those who disagree with you ,dragging burned bodies behind trucks or hanging them from trees , shallow historians like credence have to be reminded that slavery was not only-- NOT an American invention but more of another American solution , actually the Muslim - Islam traders were the earlies" slavers ", ..........but why bring truth to the table when you can dine on lies , guilt trips and false honor.
-----
Nobody mentioned slavery here, did I? I am talking about the American reign of terror against people of color that spanned a period of a century after slavery was abolished. Try to keep up, won't you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shame on the haters .
But why look at truths and fact with American history when you can join in on the International America Bashing Party so popular in this ignorantly divisive mainstream media today ,
-----------------------------------------
The rightwing clan has already attempted to impose their "revisionist" version of American history, a la Donald Trump. You conservatives need to realize that many of us are well aware that American history is not always depicted accurately through John Wayne movies.....
Related Discussions
- 96
UK decides to leave the EU
by rhamson 7 years ago
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a similar direction. Can the US learn anything from this or are we just terminally...
- 14
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare th
by LoliHey 7 years ago
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare their independence?Do you think those countries could try?
- 871
Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
by Scott Belford 44 hours ago
Three white men were recently convicted of chasing down and murdering a black man who had the audacity to appear in their neighborhood. A year ago or more they might have gotten away with it.Today there is a report of another white father and son team shooting at a black FedEx driver at least...
- 132
Should the Kingdom Remain United?
by Muldania 10 years ago
Seeing that the Scots are to have a referendum in two years time, which is likely to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom, which will I have no doubt lead to a similar vote in Wales, I wonder if it is a good or bad thing that the United Kingdom should disappear from the world map. What...
- 66
What Do You Expect a Brexit Will Bring ?
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
The government’s bill implementing the withdrawal deal has passed through both Houses of Parliament, meaning the UK will finally be leaving the EU on January 31st, 2020. For the duration of the debate, both sides have made bold predictions about the success of failure of the split. What...
- 19
What is the correct term? British or English? Scot or Scottish?
by meow48 13 years ago
What is the correct term? British or English? Scot or Scottish?okay, this may be rather silly, but to the folks from england, do you prefer to called British or English???? The same question to those from Scotland, is it Scot or Scottish?? thanks for your participation ahead...