Unite the Right

[Speaker to Animals]

Like the South or even Canada (from what I have heard), when it comes to its treatment of Indigenous people

Well unlike you, I'm not a revisionist race hustler trying to portray the British Empire as being some sort of benign humanitarian operation to free all the slaves everywhere, I have no liberal white guilt, I embrace my history as it was, not as some sort of Postmodern Cultural Marxist morality play about the opressor and the opressed.

"Vote Yankees 2017, they freed the blacks and the indians!" lol.

That being said, the reality was that the Yankees were such a genocidal threat to the Indians, the Indians had literally sided with the British Empire, not because they didn't fear it, but simply as the lesser of two evils.

As for Canada specifically, you won't find much actual genocidal war against the indegenous people's in the record, certainly there was displacement and oppression, but in terms of actually wiping them out with an army and starving them to death to clear the West? Wasn't actually much of that at all. In our "great war" against Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885, the Metis suffered a whopping 16 dead and 30 wounded, although, yes, we did shoot Louis Riel.

Mind you, by your own doctrine of "them Soutrons got what was coming to them cause they was traitors!", technically Louis Riel and the Metis were attempting the same sort of ostensibly treasonous secession against Canada, although there was no march to sea to burn Manitoba to the ground in our war against the Seceshes.

The South were traitors though during the Civil War.

What were the colonists who fought against the British Empire in the American Revolution, then?

Also, I think the word you are looking for is rebel rather than traitor. None of these people were trying to overthrow the government. They were distinct groups of people trying to break off and forge their own destiny. For good or ill, that's rebellion. Treason is more like plotting against your government to overthrow it (like the French Revolutionaries).

[katarn]

Well unlike you, I'm not a revisionist race hustler trying to portray the British Empire as being some sort of benign humanitarian operation to free all the slaves everywhere, I have no liberal white guilt, I embrace my history as it was, not as some sort of Postmodern Cultural Marxist morality play about the opressor and the opressed.

"Vote Yankees 2017, they freed the blacks and the indians!" lol.

That being said, the reality was that the Yankees were such a genocidal threat to the Indians, the Indians had literally sided with the British Empire, not because they didn't fear it, but simply as the lesser of two evils.

As for Canada specifically, you won't find much actual genocidal war against the indegenous people's in the record, certainly there was displacement and oppression, but in terms of actually wiping them out with an army and starving them to death to clear the West? Wasn't actually much of that at all. In our "great war" against Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885, the Metis suffered a whopping 16 dead and 30 wounded, although, yes, we did shoot Louis Riel.

Mind you, by your own doctrine of "them Soutrons got what was coming to them cause they was traitors!", technically Louis Riel and the Metis were attempting the same sort of ostensibly treasonous secession against Canada, although there was no march to sea to burn Manitoba to the ground in our war against the Seceshes.

The South were traitors though during the Civil War.

What were the colonists who fought against the British Empire in the American Revolution, then?

Also, I think the word you are looking for is rebel rather than traitor. None of these people were trying to overthrow the government. They were distinct groups of people trying to break off and forge their own destiny. For good or ill, that's rebellion. Treason is more like plotting against your government to overthrow it (like the French Revolutionaries).

A worthy distinction, even if not wholly supported by the dictionary. But yeah, rebel is a much better word and one that until recently was prominently used.

[Smitty-48]

The South were traitors though during the Civil War. The problem is that even today you get this romanticization of the South as noble and virtuous warriors fighting for "states' rights" is just bullshit created in the aftermath of the war. Lee chose his state over his country and paid the price for it. the other southern states choose their state's interest over their nation and all paid the price for it. It's just after the war they tried to romanticize it and created a bunch of myths that are still prevalent today. Like the myth that the North were the aggressors when in fact South Carolina was the first to lead an attack on Fort Sumter because the wrong person was elected president.

Well of course from my point of view here amongst the remnants of the British Empire, America was born of an act of treason, George Washington being the first Virginia slave holder to betray his country in act of secession, although we Hanoverians buried the hatchet with him a long time ago, when we firgured out that it was actually better for business to just carry on with the American republic as a partner rather than an enemy, which did of course all come back to be of great benefit, when said republic came to the aid of the British Crown in 1918 and again in 1941.

In terms of the North being the agressors, I find that to be essentially factual, the Confederacy did not invade the Union, the Union invaded the Confederacy, by international law and the laws of armed conflict, mobilizing 75,000 troops to invade occupy and repress a state which had democratically voted to secede from a federation, is technically a war crime, the Southrons would have Right to Self Determination by democratic means, in the wake of the Union's invasion, they would have Article 51 Right to Collective and Individual Self Defense.

As for romanticizing ones military history? No crime is that, where I come from at least, Brock and Tecumseh; huzzah!

[Penner]

[katarn]

Like the South or even Canada (from what I have heard), when it comes to its treatment of Indigenous people

Well unlike you, I'm not a revisionist race hustler trying to portray the British Empire as being some sort of benign humanitarian operation to free all the slaves everywhere, I have no liberal white guilt, I embrace my history as it was, not as some sort of Postmodern Cultural Marxist morality play about the opressor and the opressed.

"Vote Yankees 2017, they freed the blacks and the indians!" lol.

That being said, the reality was that the Yankees were such a genocidal threat to the Indians, the Indians had literally sided with the British Empire, not because they didn't fear it, but simply as the lesser of two evils.

As for Canada specifically, you won't find much actual genocidal war against the indegenous people's in the record, certainly there was displacement and oppression, but in terms of actually wiping them out with an army and starving them to death to clear the West? Wasn't actually much of that at all. In our "great war" against Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885, the Metis suffered a whopping 16 dead and 30 wounded, although, yes, we did shoot Louis Riel.

Mind you, by your own doctrine of "them Soutrons got what was coming to them cause they was traitors!", technically Louis Riel and the Metis were attempting the same sort of ostensibly treasonous secession against Canada, although there was no march to sea to burn Manitoba to the ground in our war against the Seceshes.

The South were traitors though during the Civil War. The problem is that even today you get this romanticization of the South as noble and virtuous warriors fighting for "states' rights" is just bullshit created in the aftermath of the war. Lee chose his state over his country and paid the price for it. the other southern states choose their state's interest over their nation and all paid the price for it. It's just after the war they tried to romanticize it and created a bunch of myths that are still prevalent today. Like the myth that the North were the aggressors when in fact South Carolina was the first to lead an attack on Fort Sumter because the wrong person was elected president.

Remember several things. They were fighting against federal overreach as they perceived it, which most on here- the Liberalist-y bunch- would see as admirable. However, the particular rights they fought for were the rights to keep slaves, which is abhorrent.

Second, of course Lee chose state over country. At the time, it was at least as common if not more to identify as a Virginian or a New Yorker before an American. The Civil War and the time directly preceding and following it is when the federal government became bigger than states for sure.

To use a line I heard somewhere: Before the Civil War, Presidents said "the United States are..." Only after it did they say "The United States is."

[Speaker to Animals]

The actual name is: These United States.

After the Civil War, it suddenly became The United States and the federal leviathan was born.

[katarn]

Like the South or even Canada (from what I have heard), when it comes to its treatment of Indigenous people

Well unlike you, I'm not a revisionist race hustler trying to portray the British Empire as being some sort of benign humanitarian operation to free all the slaves everywhere, I have no liberal white guilt, I embrace my history as it was, not as some sort of Postmodern Cultural Marxist morality play about the opressor and the opressed.

"Vote Yankees 2017, they freed the blacks and the indians!" lol.

That being said, the reality was that the Yankees were such a genocidal threat to the Indians, the Indians had literally sided with the British Empire, not because they didn't fear it, but simply as the lesser of two evils.

As for Canada specifically, you won't find much actual genocidal war against the indegenous people's in the record, certainly there was displacement and oppression, but in terms of actually wiping them out with an army and starving them to death to clear the West? Wasn't actually much of that at all. In our "great war" against Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885, the Metis suffered a whopping 16 dead and 30 wounded, although, yes, we did shoot Louis Riel.

Mind you, by your own doctrine of "them Soutrons got what was coming to them cause they was traitors!", technically Louis Riel and the Metis were attempting the same sort of ostensibly treasonous secession against Canada, although there was no march to sea to burn Manitoba to the ground in our war against the Seceshes.

The South were traitors though during the Civil War. The problem is that even today you get this romanticization of the South as noble and virtuous warriors fighting for "states' rights" is just bullshit created in the aftermath of the war. Lee chose his state over his country and paid the price for it. the other southern states choose their state's interest over their nation and all paid the price for it. It's just after the war they tried to romanticize it and created a bunch of myths that are still prevalent today. Like the myth that the North were the aggressors when in fact South Carolina was the first to lead an attack on Fort Sumter because the wrong person was elected president.

The North was acting pretty aggressive. And Fort Sumter was fired upon because it was a fort from another country in the bay of one country. If you think about how the US reacted when anyone touched Cuba in history, it was for the same reasons.

When the South seceded (which AFAIK hadn't yet been made illegal and unallowable by federal law), they were as rightfully another country as the US was after the declaration, so demanding federals leave Southern property (the forts) was reasonable, unless you refused to recognize Southern sovereignty, like those in Sumter did.

[katarn]

The actual name is: These United States.

After the Civil War, it suddenly became The United States and the federal leviathan was born.

Exactly.

[Smitty-48]

Well he only got there, because he refused to take part in the Union's unlawful agression against the State of Virginia in 1861, so it is sort of romantic, that Robert E. Lee was so chivalrous, that he would not betray his people on behalf of a tyrannical government, even though to defy this government would ultimately result in his utter defeat, which he knew would probably be the case, quite romantic that, actually, he's like a man from an earlier age, practically medieval in his ethos.

[Penner]

Well unlike you, I'm not a revisionist race hustler trying to portray the British Empire as being some sort of benign humanitarian operation to free all the slaves everywhere, I have no liberal white guilt, I embrace my history as it was, not as some sort of Postmodern Cultural Marxist morality play about the opressor and the opressed.

"Vote Yankees 2017, they freed the blacks and the indians!" lol.

That being said, the reality was that the Yankees were such a genocidal threat to the Indians, the Indians had literally sided with the British Empire, not because they didn't fear it, but simply as the lesser of two evils.

As for Canada specifically, you won't find much actual genocidal war against the indegenous people's in the record, certainly there was displacement and oppression, but in terms of actually wiping them out with an army and starving them to death to clear the West? Wasn't actually much of that at all. In our "great war" against Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885, the Metis suffered a whopping 16 dead and 30 wounded, although, yes, we did shoot Louis Riel.

Mind you, by your own doctrine of "them Soutrons got what was coming to them cause they was traitors!", technically Louis Riel and the Metis were attempting the same sort of ostensibly treasonous secession against Canada, although there was no march to sea to burn Manitoba to the ground in our war against the Seceshes.

The South were traitors though during the Civil War. The problem is that even today you get this romanticization of the South as noble and virtuous warriors fighting for "states' rights" is just bullshit created in the aftermath of the war. Lee chose his state over his country and paid the price for it. the other southern states choose their state's interest over their nation and all paid the price for it. It's just after the war they tried to romanticize it and created a bunch of myths that are still prevalent today. Like the myth that the North were the aggressors when in fact South Carolina was the first to lead an attack on Fort Sumter because the wrong person was elected president.

Remember several things. They were fighting against federal overreach as they perceived it, which most on here- the Liberalist-y bunch- would see as admirable. However, the particular rights they fought for were the rights to keep slaves, which is abhorrent.

Second, of course Lee chose state over country. At the time, it was at least as common if not more to identify as a Virginian or a New Yorker before an American. The Civil War and the time directly preceding and following it is when the federal government became bigger than states for sure.

To use a line I heard somewhere: Before the Civil War, Presidents said "the United States are..." Only after it did they say "The United States is."

There was no federal overreach. Lincoln was just elected and they freaked out because he was an abolitionist (and I would like to point out Lincoln was more about gradual/generational abolishment). the South took up arms against their own countrymen because Lincoln won.

As with choosing state over his country- he was a military man he should've sided with his country. But you are right, the Civil War was the movement that redefined America. Instead of "well, do I choose my state or my country" it became, "country over state". Still again, their is this group of people that just want to to revert back to "my state" or whatever and want to dissovle the coutnry.