No, you can't join any really, as i've demonstrated. You can larp, and if they are nice they may even recognize that, but you can't join truly. You will never be raised in a culture you weren't raised in, you will never be a native speaker of a language you aren't yet.
America. That disproves your whole point. You make these claims that aren't true because ethnicity isn't black and white.
Much good that was to those who were dead or wrecks health wise by the time it hypothetically ended. Slaves could also be freed if they convinced the owner, or bought themselves out, or were bought out by someone else. At this point we are talking contractual difference...
If anything a slave was a more long term investment for the master, while an indenture, if he gets sickly or crippled around the end of the term from abuse or owerwork, whatever, not the owner's problem, while a crippled slave is a major loss of value.
Indentured servants were treated much better than slaves. There are a few black people on this site who would tell you to fuck off for you saying slaves were not treated worse than indentured servants.
The obsessive connection between slavery and equality came with modern-ish politicking around that subject. Back in the time this was written, the person who signed it seems to have reconciled it.
No they did not. It was always a sore spot. I respect those who are consistent. An American can be a mysoginist and still be consistent "All MEN are created equal" but they have to invent bullshit science to make racism square itself into America's round peg. "Muh blacks are a diffrent species and not human!"
That's why I can't have anything but contempt towards American racists, those who agree with the constitution and founding fathers on equality but say no to blacks.
It's virtue signalling to leftist mores. These mores should be attacked as aggressively as progressives themselves enjoy violating other's social norms, not catered to.
There is no use for self-flagellating over the past of your people, your nation when you're not a leftist - after all, a leftist wants to create a "year zero", hates the past culture and people, and want to create a "new man" who is completely separated from the past and condemns it as much as possible, in other words it's what Mao did.
But if you're not a leftist, a more nuanced reconciliation with history is a better solution.
Secondly, what is now is now, what is the past is the past. If you want to justify certain barbaric practices now because "our ancestors used to do it too sometime somewhere", well, why the hell aren't you saying we would be right to do whatever our ancestors did in the past to people who did those things to us, like war slavery, pillaging, raiding, starving enemies or razing cities?
If you want to justify the barbaric practices of our enemies on the basis of the past, well then we should have as much right to do any historical barbaric practices to them in return, as some form of eternal precedent traditionalism.
It's not going to leftist mores. The left does not have a monopoly on morality. Tell me if leftists started saying child rape and suicide was bad would you say it was good?
Also for your last sentence I actually agree on threating people the way they treat others. So sure.
Well then, if that is so, we have no choice but to destroy them first. Is this the conclusion you wanted to arrive to with your attempts at moralizing?
Good luck on beating the whole world, it's not the 1800's anymore. China and India can blow up Europe.
It is a question of framing. Are you "black people" or US citizens who happen to be of African descent? Are you "white people" or US citizens who happen to be of European descent?
Which "allegiance" is real, which is fictional, and which ranks higher if both are real? If white and black Americans were to be trying to get one over each group for own benefit, then one would have to conclude the Americans as a people are a fiction, which would have its own implications, some quite terrible. If Americans were however to be real as a people, a nation, then such actions are detrimental to its cohesion and future prospects, which makes them quite unpatriotic. Is treason or actively destroying your country and nation moral? Different philosophies disagree on that question, and so your answer will depend on where you stand on such philosophies and the nation in question, and i don't know what it is even if i have suspicions.
Expanding it beyond certain categories of people and geography, one can get even more benefits than that by taking from 99.9% of other people and making them second class citizens, and call himself the Supreme Leader or something like that.
But a nation can be unequal. Why not have blacks be in power and oppress whites? If we can get away with it and still be a super power why should a black man not fuck you over?
They do patrol. We just have the capability to have sp much it helps the smaller nations nit bankrupt themselves.
And we have been fighting pirates protecting freedom of navigation since age of fucking sail.
Yes everyone hunts Pirates Zach because they cause headaches to almost everyone. That's why the Romans called them enemies of mankind because all nations were angry at them. Then Anglo larpers started spouting it and adding slavery to that, which makes no sense as the majority of humanity has had slavery so how can the majority of humanity be enemies to themselves.
No they still would be. We could shut our selves off today and they would still hate us
Why do you think this? This is as stupid as saying Iraqi's hate us for our freedom. Again in the war with Germany, and Japan and Vietnam they hated us also. They don't anymore but that's because there has been decades since there was conflict.
The French are partners. Allies is a little touchy with them as after 1812 we grew closer to the Brits then the French.
We are closer and friendlier towards the brits then the french thats ehy I say that.
Japan isn't taught to hate us...neither is South Korea or Vietnam even.
We grew closer to them because of Anglophiles who were traitors to America. They were the same progressives in the early 1900's who got us into world war 1 and such and also brought about prohibition.
Not NATO. countries within NATO.
Because how can they be sure we would support them?
Because we went into a war we lost to protect a non NATO member. Do you understand the scenario I brought up or are you misunderstanding it?
.....that is how you get forces that are not willing to fight because commanders don't care because they know the soldiers will follow without question.
We are to think and question the orders in ways to make sure we understand what is being told.
And asking why is one if the things we are often told to do
Because the why is important.
That is how you know if it is lawful or not.
Ans a soldier has to be able to think because squad level tactics is a thing and what makes the US military so powerful with its NCO corp...
Do you know why very effective leaders in the US like Henry Kissinger have called military men dumb pawns? Because their role is to obey orders. You are an NCO right? Sure you want your privates to have some initiative in a firefight or doing their job. But if you get orders to deploy to Niger in Africa. We want to restore the old president to power to "bring back democracy from the dictatorship that took it"
. If one of your privates decides to "think for himself" and say "You know this war is both unjust and is not helpful to the American people, in fact I think it might be harmful to our interests as a whole to be seen as colonizers and damage relations with other nations. So Sargent Zach I'm not going to obey the orders to participate in the invasion."
What would you do?
en.wikipedia.org
Did you read at all about what he used to invoke that? He had to write an EO, and used the Insurection act.
It wasn't just a simple "your federalized".
The state NG leadership had to also allow it.
Remember, during the inauguration in 2020 NG troops were voluntarily sent to DC and were not federalized because they couldnt be.....
the federlization if troops in the 50s was basically forcing then to stand down.
The president can invoke the insurrection act at his will. He can claim that the National Guard obeying the governor's order to go into another state is an insurrection. Yes it's easy to be federalized, because there is no mechanism to prevent and punish the president from doing that.
That isn't an empire.
It is a commonwealth. The British have no direct control over any of those nations.
An empire does not have to be centrally controlled. The empire can give autonomy to it's regions. I see an empire as a nation with large land, population, and resources. The British if they get into a war with France or Germany can call upon it's commonwealth. That's why in world war 2 even if America stayed out of it the British might still have outproduced the Germans.
I am not scared of China so it isn't a phobia. I know they are a threat to the freedoms in which we were founded on and should they have the capability they would make sure everyone in the world who isn't Han has to suffer to make them superior.
Zach I'm not scared of England either, so I guess I don't have Anglophobia. I just have antipathy towards the English for their past crimes, their double standard of pointing fingers at other European colonial powers and America while they themselves are proud of their empire and say it did nothing wrong, and their current misdeeds.
Also I don't think the Chinese are a threat to our freedoms. No nation in the world is able to take away our freedom of speech, right to bear arms, 5th ammendment, etc. The only one that could do it is our own. That's why I don't want it to be too strong because an army that can be sent abroad can be sent home to enforce the government's rules. China and Russia can't come to American shores go into American houses take our guns away, or arrest people for insulting Putin, or whoever. The U.S. government has the ability to do that if you said something.
Do you know how big the oceans are and the amount of sea lanes there are?
We have the capability to do what we do and many countries do nit.
Freedom of navigation is something we have a thrive to ensure.
Having our ships always able to support rhat freedom is key to making sure trade is good.
The ocean is big
I get the ocean is big Zach, but a carrier is not needed for anti piracy operations. We have radar and sonar and all sorts of stuff so that frigates could just be used for that. It's not the age of sail where pirates can fight warships and win.
Yeah, we do.
Even new variants and modifications, too. smh
@King Arts ...Those countries are independent.
Completely.
Hell, Canada is more America's 51st state by this point than they are part of a "British Empire".
Countries in the Commonwealth are not under British control. We trade. We share shit. We have a common monarch. We have exclusive sports leagues you non-Commonwealthers can't access.
Unless, you know, you're saying Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et cetera, et cetera, still take orders from London.
I legitimately wonder if you're a troll or are just fucking brain damaged by this point.
I'm not really a troll because I do have a heavy dislike of the English people and almost everything they have done, so me saying it or insulting English I don't think qualifies as trolling. Though I should probably try to be more civil.
As for brain damaged not at all again only a fool would be trusting of English people it's perfectly reasonable to dislike the English and their power and influence and want to do what you can to weaken the wealth, and power of Anglos. Since the Anglos are one of the most powerful groups around today. I'm just applying what you did in Europe in the past today to you. Always support the weaker party in a conflict since every conflict you've been in has been picking on those weaker than you. It makes sense that I would support them over you.
Umm Jormungandr I said that the UK has a commonwealth which makes it an empire. I did not say Canada, or New Zealand or Australia are lands that were wrongly taken.
You did not respond to the lands that should not be part of the British though like Gibraltar which should be given to Spain. You only keep it so that you have control over the med.
Also there is the Chagos Islands. That is in modern times, tell me why British soldiers don't deserve to be spit on and called theives and rapists when your military kicks people out of their homes and lands, and then when called out on it tries to give paltry "compensation" to try and avoid controversy?
The way I see it actions like that make your people deserve the migrants.
en.wikipedia.org
