Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Trump's 4th Of July Parade
Collapse
X
-
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostI suppose you are reading more than i can here.
Trump has to sit there and take it ?
Yeah and so what.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostIt was very gentle and genteel. He appeared to take it well.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostAnd let's not forget that the USAF ALWAYS do dog and pony shows on 4 July. So, to say the US doesn't do these kind of show offs is false.
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostLots of people watch planes takeoff, fly, and land. Millions of people could watch the same planes where I live, if they wanted. The planes are distant, not in your face, and they're more of an abstraction and curiosity if you're inclined to watch.
When a tank rolls down the street in your neighborhood, that's a little more in your face and aggressive. Not abstract. More direct, up close, and personal.
I don't care about the Donald's tank parade. But there is a difference between seeing a plane at some distance and having a tank in your face.Originally posted by TopHatter View PostAir shows are quite popular here as they are elsewhere, but AFV's in the streets bring up a bad taste in people's mouths.
Americans aren't terribly fond of an overbearing military presence in their streets, regardless of the reason. Air shows, fine. Museums, fine. Tanks rumbling through the neighborhood, not fine.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostSir, we've already acknowledged repeatedly that air shows and fly-overs are common and popular here in the US, but also on a completely different level than armored vehicles rumbling through our city streets.Chimo
Comment
-
In my opinion, these parades are part and parcel of France's politique de grandeur. It is a sign of national pride, and compensatory for France's progressive diminution on both the European and world stages these last several hundred years.
France was the dominant power in Europe for the better part of a thousand years. Diplomacy was conducted in French, foreign courts emulated French customs and practices, and France was the most heavily populated nation in Europe, intensively cultivated with the largest economy. England, Spain, Germany spent the better part of these thousand years as backwater regions, and the Italians were riven by division between city-states, where France could intervene at will.
Hell, even the colloquial word for Europeans in most of the rest of the world, Faranj, Farang, Ferengi, Varangian, comes from the Franks.
France was to Europe like China was to East Asia for this thousand year period. The Middle Kingdom, if you will. The Roman Emperor in Constantinople was even forced to accept the King of France as his equal.
France has been progressively eclipsed as it emerged from the medieval era into the modern one. It won some and lost some in the last several hundred years, but its trajectory has been more of one of being on the backfoot, being weakened by, overshadowed, and overtaken by other powers.
It spent the period of 1815 to 1945 in a state of general malaise, in which the country experienced no natural population growth among the native population, and only grew in population due to immigration from elsewhere in Europe. Half of France is descended from Belgians, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, and other mostly Catholic European immigrants from this 130-year period.
I do think from general French attitudes, is that they have a high sense of self-importance that isn't entirely warranted by reality, and that their sense of grandeur (out of all proportion to their real capabilities) has only been made possible by the tolerance, accommodation, and the grudging willingness of the countries where real power lies to put up with it.
France was allowed to have what Empire it was after 1815 by the grudging willingness of Britain to accommodate them, so long as France stayed content to play second fiddle and not seriously challenge Britain. France was allowed to dominate Germany post-WWII, and form the European Community, by the graciousness and grudging willingness of America and Britain to put up with it. To the extent France has exercised power internationally since 1815, it's because and to the extent they've been allowed to.
They might technically be a great power, but they aren't as great as they'd like to think they are. And I do think their parades are just another aspect of the politique de grandeur.Last edited by Ironduke; 21 Jul 19,, 22:21."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostPerhaps that's precisely why it didn't happen. It doesn't change the fact - it didn't happen. Elsewhere, humiliation, conquest, devastation, plundering, occupation - it did happen.
Originally posted by Ironduke View Post98% of Americans don't know about the Burning of Washington. 97% don't know about the War of 1812.
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostVietnam and Somalia are pretty small beans
Originally posted by Ironduke View Postcompared to having your capital taken three times, being forced to pay reparations and indemnities, being stripped of territory and colonial possessions, being economically plundered and having the fruits of your citizens' labor extracted, etc.
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostAs far as contemporaneous attitudes are concerned, having a British flying column of ships and Marines burn a 14-year old capital set amidst swamp and plantations, with hardly any people living there, a capital city most of the country at the time was ambivalent about anyways, doesn't really rank up there with what Russia, China, France, the Arab states, Turkey, Italy, Spain, or India have gone through.
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostGiven the sectionalism in the country at the time, and the attitudes toward a capital nobody really wanted in the first place, I'd say most Americans at the time didn't care. Many may have privately applauded the city's burning.
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostAnd the US still came out of the War of 1812 stronger and in a better position than it had gone in. Even if there was no "winner".
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostMost US military displays that occur domestically are in large part a form of advertising, to make the military seem cool and appealing to potential recruits.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Jul 19,, 22:21.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostWe've covered that already, remember?
1860 - 1939 is 80 years between visits. 1860 the two countries had not warmed up yet.
Can go all the way to India in 1912 which is a further trip than to the states.
Maybe the question is wrong. Does it really matter that the King didn't visit earlier.
Visits by heads of state are symbolic and symbolic matters a lot in IR, that is where i was coming from. A way to gauge how important relationships are is by how often heads of state meet. Maybe this is a modern way of looking at things.
The Brits managed their business for centuries using bits of papers on boats going across the world. They managed relations this way with every one.
There had to be many visits going across by people in that period.
As relations grew closer people to people interactions would increase.
In the end this is what counts.Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Jul 19,, 22:30.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostThey might technically be a great power, but they aren't as great as they'd like to think they are. And I do think their parades are just another aspect of the politique de grandeur.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostYou made this observation, that's what:
Ironduke was refuting that. Trump didn't take it well At All.
Trump is just going to have to like and lump it like any other opposition figure around the world when it happens.
It seems a real stretch to put so much weight into this one event don't you think.
Times i've heard Trump talk in the past, he seemed to critique the way administration of the day was doing things. Didn't matter which party. He always said he could do better.Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jul 19,, 00:29.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostCan go all the way to India in 1912 which is a further trip than to the states.
He went to India for a coronation ceremony. If I recall correctly, the reasoning for the creation of the title of Emperor/Empress of India was done to put the British monarch on an equal level of rank with the newly proclaimed Kaiser of Germany in the 1870s.
The Hohenzollerns had been promoting themselves up the ranks over the previous 200-300 years, from margrave to duke, to King in Prussia, to King of Prussia, and finally, Emperor of Germany.
The European monarchs put a lot of importance on ranks and titles back then. It had a lot to do on how they would be addressed, treated, received, where they sat at the table, the importance with which their ambassadors would be regarded, and all kinds of other silly stuff.
Given the international situation in 1911/12, it wouldn't surprise me if the trip to India for the coronation had more to do underscoring that the British monarch too was an emperor, and a very important person, and that by extension, the countries and empire he personified were also important.Last edited by Ironduke; 22 Jul 19,, 00:54."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by kato View PostIf you're counting 1860 then you also have to count Edward VIII's visits as Prince of Wales. 1919, 1920, 1924, 1927.Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jul 19,, 23:14.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostWell, George V did have the title of Emperor of India. He wasn't Emperor of the United States.
He went to India for a coronation ceremony. If I recall correctly, the reasoning for the creation of the title of Emperor/Empress of India was done to put the British monarch on an equal level of rank with the newly proclaimed Kaiser of Germany in the 1870s.
The Hohenzollerns had been promoting themselves up the ranks over the previous 200-300 years, from margrave to duke, to King in Prussia, to King of Prussia, and finally, Emperor of Germany.
The European monarchs put a lot of importance on ranks and titles back then. It had a lot to do on how they would be addressed, treated, received, where they sat at the table, the importance with which their ambassadors would be regarded, and all kinds of other silly stuff.
Given the international situation in 1911/12, it wouldn't surprise me if the trip to India for the coronation had more to do underscoring that the British monarch too was an emperor, and a very important person, and that by extension, the countries and empire he personified were also important.
Couldn't be emperor in England ? nope, parliament and all that.
But Kaiser is Kaiser of Germany.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostSir, we've already acknowledged repeatedly that air shows and fly-overs are common and popular here in the US, but also on a completely different level than armored vehicles rumbling through our city streets.
Maybe much of the opposition has to do with who is ordering the parade - a president unlike any who came before and who has repeatedly expressed admiration for dictators and shown dictatorial tendencies. I wonder if GWB or his father would have faced such opposition if he tried to do this. This talk about tanks on roads being verboten may be missing the point. Most common Americans would love to catch a glimpse of military hardware they don't get to see on a regular basis. There is an element of curiosity and novelty in it after all. If an actual parade with tanks rolling on the street had happened, a small percentage of people would have decried it as "Fascism!" while the rest would be too busy taking selfies with the cool looking tanks and posting them on instagram.Last edited by Firestorm; 23 Jul 19,, 01:22.
Comment
Comment