Rewrite history…

Mine would be that the attempt on Hitler’s life in 44 was succesful. The new German government unconditionaly surrenders with the Soviets NOT being in eastern eurupe and the Eurupean countries that became pawns in the cold war choose thier own destiny (as much as they can) avoiding the cold war.

Or, the US does not enter WW1. The Germans win, which means WW2 never happens.

Not that I would have wanted this to happen, but I think it would have been interesting if the German generals ran the war in ww2 instead of the half witted corpral (Hitler). I have no love for the Nazis, and thank god they lost, but I have the utmost respect for the brilliance of the german commanders of that war and I am curious if they could have pulled it off.

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

Slavery in and of itself is not wrong.

OMG !

My 2 cents on this one. You have to define slavery. It can be argued, very well in fact that before we broke up the monoplies in America the workers were slaves. Yes, they were paid, and tech. they could leave at any time they wanted to. But than they starve to death. I fail to see much of a difference between that and the slaves that came from Africa. Would it not have been slavery if they were paid only to have the money given back so that they can eat and have a place to live?

Lets say the slaves in America were actualy paid, and with all thier hard earned money they had the exact same life they had not being paid. It does not shock me at all that most of the slaves after the civil war stayed on at the plantations because they knew they at least had a roof over thier head. Slavery by that definition existed in the north before the civil war. Granted, you can not take a worker out and whip them. But that was not a frequent thing in the south.

Going further than that, in 100 years people may look at us now as being more or less slaves. Thier is a big difference between the really rich and the middle class now. I could see our future society thinking it shocking that it takes the average family 30 years of work to own a home. 100 years ago however we would seem rich in comparison because it is possible to own a home in your life time.

Food for thought

@haxorboy:

Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?

Hey man, don’t throw stones. She brings up a point, I don’t agree with a lot of it. But it is a point. I think that it is funny that ppl like you can dismiss the slavery that took place before there was an America. Africans had been doing that for centuries (at least) to each other. Why is it only evil because white ppl did it too? Africans enslaved Africans, that is a historical fact. The treatment of the slaves was different in Africa than in the US, but by definintion they were slaves - they worked for no $.

You need to put things in perspective, rather than go by what you learn in high school which is more or less spoon fed.

@Janus1:

Isn’t the terminology a matter of semantics?

no. slaves are property, for no reason other than power. i.e. i have a big gun, and lots of other people with guns who support me, so i decide that i want you to work for me. without pay. forever, or until i get tired of beating you when you collapse from exhaustion. indentured servitude is a way of offering your physical labor to repay a debt. unfortunately, it is all too easily perverted by greedy people.
the major difference is choice. indentured servants choose to enter into their status, for a predetermined time. slaves dont have a choice.

Like I said before, what is the difference between paying someone to live a crappy lifestlyle because if they don’t they will starve, or being a slave? Another historical fact, slaves that stayed on the plantations after the civil war had a higher standard of living than the ones that left…. or the “white slaves” that worked in the factories in the North.

Work or starve hardly seems like a choice to me.

Last point, on WW1 and the Germans.

The Germans did tech start the war. The assasination did not mean a thing to the German government. They wanted the war, there really is no argument there. The assasination was the pretext for the war. If it was not that, it would have been something else.

What most of you fail to see is that the reason the Germans started the war was because they were trying to avoid something that would have inevitably happened. Britian and France were funneling $ to Russia to build up thier military and thier infastructure… with the intent of waging an aggresive war against Germany. Germany started the war because time was not on thier side. As the railways got built in Russia, and the troop got better equipped germany lost its advantage. It was inevitable that a war would start. The longer Germany negotiated, the more advantage her enemies would have. Russia offered the allies something they didn’t have, manpower. Germany wanted to fight the war against Russia while it was still backwards ass and could not mobolize her troops.

I can not remember the exact quote, but it was something like this in reguards to how Germany viewed starting the war “yesterday would have been better, we need to act now, tommorow will be too late.”

I think that it is funny that ppl like you can dismiss the slavery that took place before there was an America.

I have no idea where you got I was dismissing slavery didn’t exist before America but I am sure glad you put words in my mouth then spoke down on me with those words freshly placed in my mouth.

Next time you decide to harpoon someone in a thread at least know who said what, might help your cause.

@haxorboy:

Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?

Well, you seemed to take the HS history class perspective on slavery by comparing it to the holocaust. It does not matter to me that you know the fact that slavery existed before america. It bothers me that you hear the word “slavery” and make assumptions about it without putting it in historical context. Slavery is wrong, no doubt about it. But you need to see it for what it is, and not what is spoon fed. Comparing slavery to the holocaust is ridiculous. Was slavery bad? Yes, but you need to look at the economics of it. In many cases it was better to be a slave than one of the dirt farmers in the south.

Recieving $ at the end of a work week does not free someone from slavery if thier standard of living is lower than that of a slave. People go on and on about slavery, but the monopolies that enslaved ALL Americans goes by as a foot note in history.

I made an assumption about you, and I apolagize for that. But you made a ridiculous remark to someone who was bringing up a differing view. I don’t agree with all Jen has to say (I am by no means a hard core christian - another assumption of mine that she is), but I do think that her argument is not flame bait or trolling. Just a different point of view.

@El:

… because the French don’t know how to win a real war,

I would like to have a statement of the moderators in how far jokes on nationalities are not considered personal attacks.

@F_alk:

@El:

… because the French don’t know how to win a real war,

I would like to have a statement of the moderators in how far jokes on nationalities are not considered personal attacks.

i admit that i get kind of irritated with statements like this and other anti-insert-nation-here jokes. Also i consider that calling members of a political party “Demon-rats” unacceptable.

I consider that these kind of absurd comments tend to reflect more on the one making them, than on the group that they are making them about, and only considerably stupid people would suggest that there is an amount of truth to them.

i admit that i get kind of irritated with statements like this and other anti-insert-nation-here jokes. Also i consider that calling members of a political party “Demon-rats” unacceptable.

I consider that these kind of absurd comments tend to reflect more on the one making them, than on the group that they are making them about, and only considerably stupid people would suggest that there is an amount of truth to them.

how bout your referral to Bush as “dumbass”, “his idiotship”, etc.?
im not offended or anything by it, but isnt it doing the same thing that you are complaining about? double standard much…

@Janus1:

i admit that i get kind of irritated with statements like this and other anti-insert-nation-here jokes. Also i consider that calling members of a political party “Demon-rats” unacceptable.

I consider that these kind of absurd comments tend to reflect more on the one making them, than on the group that they are making them about, and only considerably stupid people would suggest that there is an amount of truth to them.

how bout your referral to Bush as “dumbass”, “his idiotship”, etc.?
im not offended or anything by it, but isnt it doing the same thing that you are complaining about? double standard much…

fair enough.
And it’s not really my problem in a sense, as i’m not French, nor am i a democrat (nor am i a true Liberal).
I just figured that some democrats may be offended. If they are not, then fine.
As for Bush - i guess i just call them as i see them. I liked his daddy fine, but the apple hit a few branches when falling from the ol’ tree.

fair enough.
And it’s not really my problem in a sense, as i’m not French, nor am i a democrat (nor am i a true Liberal).
I just figured that some democrats may be offended. If they are not, then fine.
As for Bush - i guess i just call them as i see them. I liked his daddy fine, but the apple hit a few branches when falling from the ol’ tree.

but thats exactly my point, none of it bothers me, say what ever the f you want, just dont condemn people like jen doing it, but not yourself. i hate double standards.

@El:

… and Versailles, IN would be pronounced properly…

According to the Kentuckians of the area, they do pronounce it properly. It’s a he said, she said situation, is it not?

@Janus1:

fair enough.
And it’s not really my problem in a sense, as i’m not French, nor am i a democrat (nor am i a true Liberal).
I just figured that some democrats may be offended. If they are not, then fine.
As for Bush - i guess i just call them as i see them. I liked his daddy fine, but the apple hit a few branches when falling from the ol’ tree.

but thats exactly my point, none of it bothers me, say what ever the f you want, just dont condemn people like jen doing it, but not yourself. i hate double standards.

So you would equate ethnic/political slurs with criticism of a political figure then?
In that regard referring to african-Americans as F-in’ N-word-s would be the same as calling Jean Cretien (former PM of Canada) a dishonest mercenary?

Obviously i disagree.

@cystic:

@Janus1:

fair enough.
And it’s not really my problem in a sense, as i’m not French, nor am i a democrat (nor am i a true Liberal).
I just figured that some democrats may be offended. If they are not, then fine.
As for Bush - i guess i just call them as i see them. I liked his daddy fine, but the apple hit a few branches when falling from the ol’ tree.

but thats exactly my point, none of it bothers me, say what ever the f you want, just dont condemn people like jen doing it, but not yourself. i hate double standards.

So you would equate ethnic/political slurs with criticism of a political figure then?
In that regard referring to african-Americans as F-in’ N-word-s would be the same as calling Jean Cretien (former PM of Canada) a dishonest mercenary?

Obviously i disagree.

There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.

This is why making fun of black, yellow, white and red people (hoping I didnt miss one, if I did, add it to the list) is morally wrong, while pointing out the foibles of a foreigner is not. As the scottsman in the Simpsons said: “…you cheese eating surrender monkeys!” This was not pulled from public television during prime time because it was not morally wrong. It was politically charged, it was hardly politically correct, but it was not morally wrong, and most assuredly it was not ethically wrong!

Slander, on the other hand, such as saying that Joe Blow raped someone when he obviouslly did not, is ethically and morally wrong. So there is a fine line you have to tread. But saying something like “The French have not won a war since WWI” is perfectly legit since they technically lost WWII, lost Vietnam, and lost elsewhere when they were supposed to be a major player. It’s like saying the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s. However, it’s not legit to call someone a Nggr or Ch*nk since these are genetical differentiations that cannot be changed or altered nor, really, have any factual evidence in history to draw upon.

@Jennifer:

There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.

I disagree with this reasoning to try to justify what i see as nationalism.

…But saying something like “The French have not won a war since WWI” is perfectly legit since they technically lost WWII, lost Vietnam, and lost elsewhere when they were supposed to be a major player. It’s like saying the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.

You really need to check your history.
Hitler never was elected into office.

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.

I disagree with this reasoning to try to justify what i see as nationalism.

National pride is not morally wrong. Racial bias is wrong because it’s based on something out of control of the person being biased against.

For instance, if I were to decide to fire all my Canadian employees (I don’t have any, but this is just a hypothetical) and not hire anymore, there is no country - that I know of - that would have a law forbidding this.

However, if I were to fire all black employees (which I do have, but it’s still a hypothetical) then I would be in violation of many laws in this country and many other countries I do business in.

Obviously I wouldn’t fire on either account, but it works in the context of what is internationally accepted as morally right and wrong as extrapolated by the laws.

So you would equate ethnic/political slurs with criticism of a political figure then?
In that regard referring to african-Americans as F-in’ N-word-s would be the same as calling Jean Cretien (former PM of Canada) a dishonest mercenary?

there is a big difference between “dishonest mercenary”, and “his idiotship” or “that dumbass”. theres also a big difference between “dishonest mercenary” and “nigger”

and actually, ive got a problem with the term “african american”. what kind of bs is that? do we call all white people in this country “european americans”? no. not all black people are from africa (meaning, most werent born there, nor were there parents, etc., from a very long time ago). isnt it insulting to label them this way? isnt that basically saying “well, hes black, so clearly hes from africa”. when black people are asked where they from, and say “georgia” for example, then the questioner gets disappointed, because he meant where in africa, the black person gets upset (in my experience) so how is it any different to say “african american”? what about black people in europe? are they “african europeans?”

same shit, different day