this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
585 points (79.9% liked)
Memes
45648 readers
1335 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Last two flags are in the wrong order. Not just chronologically, but with regards to causation too: the Nazis were heavily influenced by American racists.
An argument could be made for the American traitor flag to be on both sides of the swastika, but that would be pretty messy..
A Stars & Stripes with 48 stars would probably be too subtle..
Hitler spoke about the American south and Jim Crow with reverence, he thought it should be a model for German racist policies.
This was something he wrote about in Mein Kampf.
Greater than just the South, the eugenics movement in the US in the early 20th century, with forced sterilizations and criminalizing interracial marriage, happened nationally.
Though you don't need to be capitalist to be racist as fuck. Racism exists all over the world in many different government and economic systems throughout all of human history
Indeed, Chicago, until the 1960's, was one of the most segregated cities in the USA. Irish, Italians, African Americans, Hispanics, etc...during daylight hours, everything was business, but during sunset, nobody crossed the ethnic and racial lines drawn up by the neighborhoods.
I am not sure, but I think Milton Friedman once revealed the depths of his ignorance about racial segregation in the US and that the claim that laws demanding all segregation be dismantled were a violation of the free market principle and that a true free market would dissolve segregation.
Chicago, as you mentioned, was used as an example to show just how dumb he was. Chicago had no official segregation policy. From a purely legal standpoint if an Irishman wanted to get an apartment in a black neighborhood and invite Italian friends over that would be a huge taboo and suffer reprecussions over it even if he wasn't doing anything remotely illegal.
The only way it COULD have dismantled is to make law to strictly forbid that kind of discrimination on any grounds.
Australia heavily advertised multiculturalism and anti-racism during the '70s and '80s and then stopped. It seemed effective. We had one not very racist generation.
I appreciate your sarcasm. Chicago is still racist. But it would be even more racist if they didn't do that stuff during the civil rights era.
i mean not just the south, the west and midwest too where do u think he got all those ideas about contiguous "living space" and about exterminating the people who already live in the land u want to steel and about consecration camps and reservations that continuously move towards a frontier until the displaced people have nowhere to go, amerikkka from its very inception was the template for nazi germany.
I lived in the Midwest, it's nothing like that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
The south literally fought a war (Texas fought 2) to preserve their practices of slavery and genocide.
The Midwest fought, killed, and died to stop them.
The post is about the genocide of Native Americans. Natives originally lived in the Midwest, and now they don’t.
Also, Indiana is the only state to be taken over by the KKK, and the North was racist in its own way.
They lived in the entire US, particularly the south, as did millions of slaves who suffered centuries of genocidal brutality and worse.
And as a non-white American , you are infinitely full of shit.
I've lived in most of the country, I have NEVER experienced such utter and brutal racism as in the vile, depraved south.
This is because after the civil war we let the slaver class live in the south, and they just took over as soon as our back was turned.
Worst decision in this country's history, we would be so much greater of a nation if we'd simply dealt with the problem then instead of letting their filth fester and spread. Notice how Germany is a good country nowadays while the south is still as worthless as ever.
Indiana had racism, but comparing it to the south is like comparing a sneeze and ebola.
That really isn't true, and it's not true for the same reasons as you describe of the American South. There was relatively little denazification in West Germany, and the West German government eventually became the German government, so now we have a country where the supposedly liberal parties respond to the blatantly fascist AfD by adopting their policy positions.
It really is, except for East Germany, which got rid of their Nazi trash and replaced them with Soviet trash, which, just like Russia has, swerved them hard nazi again.
I obviously don't expect you to have a positive regard of the Soviets, but equivocating between the East German government and Nazis is frankly disgusting. We can start with something uncontroversial: The East Germans absolutely did not have death camps (probably the closest thing they did was the killing of many former Nazis) and were not engaging in ethnic cleansing.
The modern trend of people from the former East Germany supporting AfD probably has more to do with the interceding decades of liberal rule, combined with the region's historic relative poverty (which preceded even the Nazis).
It should also go without saying that I despise the Russian federation like I despise all liberal governments, and the Russian government especially for its primary purpose being anti-communist suppression. That said, again, "hard Nazi" is a disgusting thing to call them when they aren't doing things like running death camps or engaging in ethnic cleansing. It's just hysterical projection from the liberal masters of a country that has a civil religion around an actual Nazi collaborator and perpetrator of the Holocaust, Stepan Bandera.
Which West Germany didn't face?
Western Germany was more industrialized, because of 2 reasons: 1: access to coal and metal in the Ruhr, 2: Access to trade with Europe.
The former is just natural, the latter is more of that "librul witchcraft" of globalization.
The only difference between the two otherwise is that the Soviets brutalized the East, and that left a legacy of uneducated poverty.
https://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-abstract/52/2/225/107152/Occupation-Reparations-and-Rebellion-The-Soviets?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Basically the Soviets took an impoverished land and squeezed as hard as they could.
Oh, and you're right there were no camps in East Germany, those camps were in the USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union
We already established they had a Nazi problem
Again, the poverty in the region was longstanding and persists even today.
I'm not impressed with your link, remember that the West had the RAF, which enjoyed a fair deal of popular support. I'd also need a source on things like poor education since socialist states historically are the most consistently excellent at things like mass literacy (though of course modern Germany is fine in that regard).
So it's reduced to "They were poor" which was always the case and is still the case, though at least there was virtually no homelessness in the East, which the West and notably modern Germany cannot say.
I said death camps, which the USSR also didn't have. Labor camps are just a form of prison labor that people use the Holocaust's work-to-death camps to sound more brutal than they are. Prison labor was also practiced in West Germany, is practiced in modern Germany, and is practiced in whatever liberal state you like. The equivocation here is really the peak of the "Soviets were also Nazis" bullshit that is of course popular with the aggrieved German liberals and anticommunist historians the world over.
Well no, there's one step further, but I hope we can avoid talking about it because it doesn't concern Germany.
Maybe you haven’t experienced it. But I know a Navajo man very well who was raped by missionaries in New Mexico in the 60s, and that’s a VERY common story. You don’t know shit, shut the fuck up.
You're incredibly uneducated to be making the claims you are.
Racism in the US south against black people looks different than racism in the midwest/Western states against Native Americans because the goals of the racism were different.
The govt wanted to grow the black population so they could have a huge workforce to take from. Explicit racism helps a lot with this, because it's declaring people black and enforcing that they are less than and deserve to be a lower class. This is probably what you mean about how racist the south is.
For Native Americans, the govt's goal is to take their land and destroy their claims to land - they want LESS Native Americans. That's why colorblindness is the racism in the midwest and west. That is also why those areas HATE Latino people, even though those people are generally just Native Americans who speak Spanish. That's why you hear stuff like "We speak English here." That's why old John Wayne movies were the way they were. That's why we had those Native American re-education schools. That's why we killed so mamy buffalo (to starve them) and the Great Plains to this day has never recovered fully from how many millions of herd animals were killed. It's why, TO THIS DAY, Christian organizations will adopt Native kids to explicitly white Christian families. It's why the Mormons are in Utah. It's why most Native reservations are in extremely inhospitable places (look at the Navajo lands versus nearby in Hatch, NM - the Native people would have lived near Hatch, near water, but we took that from them and gave them barren soil - to kill them).
The racism against Native Americans is like smothering and starving a baby to death, whereas the racism in the south is more like screaming//beating at a baby to depression/"submission".
Rec reading: Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Smith, Andrea
Old cowboys used to cut Native women's labia off and put it on their saddle horns to play with. The west is racist too.
It's valid to point that out, but I think that OP is talking about the modern usage of the Confederate flag, not the original use. At least, it becomes a much more coherent message that way.