Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's 4th Of July Parade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kato View Post
    The Romans - and Chinese, south of the Yangtze - were sitting 2000 years ago, the Minoans and Indus Valley Civilization 3000 years ago, the Egyptians 4000 years ago.
    Yes, people of means in ancient societies sat. I don't pretend to know how common it was or wasn't. If I had to guess, I'd assume where sit toilets existed, they would have only been used by only the upper 3-10% of society.

    Royalty, nobility, wealthy merchants, and members of the priestly class were people of means who had the wealth to have sit toilets, palaces, furniture, etc. created for them. These sorts of things have left behind archaeological evidence.

    Everyone else squatted. I think it's a mistake to extrapolate the practices of the upper class for which there's archaeological evidence, as being representative for the rest of that ancient society. Especially given that it's a matter of proven historical record that squatting has been the predominant practice in Egypt, China, and India for the last several hundred years.

    To me, common sense would lead me to make an educated guess that if 90%+ of the population of India, China, and Egypt were squatting as late as 1900 or 1950, or even later, they were also squatting in 2000BC, 1000BC, and 0AD.

    It's also worth taking into account only a small portion of the world's population was urbanized until just recently. Ancient cities leave behind a wealth of archaeological evidence. 90%+ of the human population were non-urbanized. They've left behind far less archaeological evidence as to their practices. But again, we can look back just a few decades, or even the modern day, to see how non-urbanized people with few means do their business.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 15 Jul 19,, 17:51.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • Trump's 4th of July parade, and we are shitting on it by talking about toilets. OMG!

      Make America Great Again!, which in other words mean find a pornstar and....!!! :D :D :D
      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
        Trump's 4th of July parade, and we are shitting on it by talking about toilets. OMG!
        Ya think, this was the MO right from the start

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          Ya think, this was the MO right from the start
          Well, at least nobody has broached the subject of the Celine Dion yet.

          ;-)
          Last edited by Ironduke; 16 Jul 19,, 05:02.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Marginally less disgusting than threatening genocide))
            To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

            Comment


            • This whole talk about toilets, sitting, squatting, started with kato.

              I think he's manipulated us all with some psychological kung-fu. He subtly posted a photo of a French porta-potty in flames, and here we are now.

              And the next time Trump and Putin meet, we'll all be talking about 2 Presidents 1 Cup, the forthcoming sequel to the Moscow Pee Tape.

              Well played, kato.
              Last edited by Ironduke; 17 Jul 19,, 15:23.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                This whole talk about toilets, sitting, squatting, started with kato.

                I think he's manipulated us all with some psychological kung-fu. He subtly posted a photo of a French porta-potty in flames, and here we are now.

                And the next time Trump and Putin meet, we'll all be talking about 2 Presidents 1 Cup, the forthcoming sequel to the Moscow Pee Tape.

                Well played, kato.
                Just talked with my 10 year old in the boonies in the Philippines visiting my wife's family. Asked him about toilets and he says they have one you have to stand over. That wasn't as bad as the fact that there is no toilet paper and that he has to wash himself off with a bucket of water and his hands. He has now had diarrhea for two days despite washing his hands...

                Comment



                • Just talked with my 10 year old in the boonies in the Philippines visiting my wife's family. Asked him about toilets and he says they have one you have to stand over. That wasn't as bad as the fact that there is no toilet paper and that he has to wash himself off with a bucket of water and his hands
                  I stock up on wipes and portable hand sanitizer before I travel to the developing world. CVS has them in 20 pack and 72 pack, next time he goes stock him up on both along with pocket sized hand sanitizer.

                  Dont even mess with the bucket
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                    The Bastille Day Parade this year had its usual large amount of rolling armor including “tanks” and the French failed to melt down about it! Talk about the True Grit of the French! They even had a guy with an HK assault rifle on a “flyboard!”
                    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-eu...litary-display

                    https://www.foxnews.com/world/bastil...ry-cooperation
                    The way I see it, the French parades are posturing and a way of compensating for past defeats. France has lost two major wars in the past 150 years, with its capital occupied and independence lost. In the wake of their last defeat, they lost a number of colonial wars and lost most of their Empire. WWI was a close call and had a devastating impact on their national morale.

                    The French feel the need to prove something. Despite not having a perfect track record when it comes to quagmire wars marked by insurgency, American military capabilities are unparalleled and we've never lost a conventional war.

                    Not a perfect analogy, but French military parades are kind of like the middle-aged guy who doesn't have anything going for him, who goes out and buys a sports car to impress people. Trump obviously feels the need to prove something every hour of every day. His desires for a military parade reflect his owns insecurities and a disturbed pathology. France's military parades have their origin in an insecure pathology that exists on a national level.

                    America doesn't have anything to prove.
                    Last edited by Ironduke; 18 Jul 19,, 13:47.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                      Just talked with my 10 year old in the boonies in the Philippines visiting my wife's family. Asked him about toilets and he says they have one you have to stand over. That wasn't as bad as the fact that there is no toilet paper and that he has to wash himself off with a bucket of water and his hands. He has now had diarrhea for two days despite washing his hands...
                      Washing one's self is normal in my part of the world. So is food poisoning. Whenever i have any one from the west visit, its mandatory they carry bottled water with them or only drink that. Nothing from restaurants unless its boiled or has alcohol. Chasing a meal down with a drink was the old fashioned way to ward of these problems.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                        Quite fascinated by that flyboard, the inventor demonstrated it back in 2012. Then in 2017, the govt banned him from using it within French territory. He then threatened to take his company abroad where they didn't have such restrictive laws. This came as a surprise as they are usually supportive of pioneers like this.

                        French came to their senses two months after and reversed the ban. So seeing him flying over the capital is a vindication.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          I have a more nuanced view of the "special relationship". That it was a simply a transitional period that saw the transfer of imperial power from London to DC. We assumed much, but not all of the British Empire's responsibilities, and in other areas extended the Empire's hegemony into areas that Britain would have liked to hegemonize, but was incapable of, e.g. half of Europe.

                          In areas where we lacked the knowledge and experience to extend influence and hegemony, we were able lean on London and tap into their vast knowledge, experience, and expertise, which they more or less freely provided to us as part of this "special" arrangement.

                          That being said, I think the world on the balance is better off that this system has prevailed as long as it has, especially compared to the alternative of Soviet, Chinese, communist, or fascist hegemony. In my opinion, in the face of these much worse alternatives, London willingly surrendered its hegemony to Washington, and that Washington willingly assumed hegemony from London, being equally aware of the much worse alternatives the world faced.

                          Given London's weakness and Washington's strengths, and the perils the world faced, this was the only viable path forward to maintain some semblance of the existing world order, Pax Britannica, etc.

                          Both governments went into this eyes wide-open, but the citizenry of each country did not necessarily fully understand what was going on, and many of those who did had profound disagreements with it, which led to some troubles at home in each country at times.

                          I see broad parallels in some ways with this to what happened with the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, when the Portuguese Empire was based out of Rio de Janeiro from 1808-21. The differences coming afterward, whereas Portugal and Brazil bifurcated and became independent entities.

                          Britain and the US bifurcated earlier, in the 1780s, and merged back together in the 1940s. There was then a transitional period in which the transfer of power began. The transfer of the seat of empire, and the roles of the US and UK assumed since, has been more enduring and stands in stark contrast to the Portuguese example.
                          So i listened to Kori's talk about her book Safe Passage and its very fascinating. We can date the beginning of the "special relationship" to 1823 when the Brits, get this, propose to the Americans an idea that comes to be known as the Monroe doctrine. The Brits then enforce said doctrine for the next fifty years as the Americans weren't ready yet. This came as a surprise to me as a) i didn't realise this was a British idea to begin with and that Britain did the heavy lifting for half a century thereafter. Nothing in wiki to this effect.

                          The idea of this doctrine is America keeps other Euros out and this leave just the US & Brits as key players in the region. The Americans only enforce the doctrine on the Brits in 1895 when there is some debt problem with Venezuela. Funny how Venezuela was PITA even back then. So the Brits back down but this in reality was a reckless decision by the Americans as their navy was no match whatsoever to the Royal Navy in 1895. And the British decision not to push the Americans here as very shrewd.

                          From here we see that the US is not newly a country of crazy people ruled by reckless leaders. They have been like that for most of their history and always have the potential to be just so : D

                          Americans are a people too extreme in their politics & religion to be at peace with themselves -- Bertha Ann Reuter

                          What's interesting is in the early 19th century Americans and Brits do not see eye to eye. The Americans charge the Brits as undemocratic but liberal and the other side finds the Americans illiberal with a messy democracy. It's only in the 1870s that they start to see each other as similar. Values comes up. Americans charging that a government that isn't democratic has no legitimacy and thus cannot be said to be acting in its people's interest.

                          The transfer of hegemonic power from Brits to Americans is the only instance that Kori knows that went off peacefully. The Brits saw american power as additive and not competitive. Though things could easily have gone wrong over the course of time but somehow did not. She chronicles seven key points in time which could easily have queered the bilat and set the course of history on an unfamiliar trajectory. That the Brits managed to pull this off is a feat of incredible far sightedness.

                          This insight had major implications for an enduring British created world order enforced by some one else. The mod at Kings mentioned that to understand 20th century grand strategy a study of 19th century British history was necessary. The Brits managed this period by being team players. Alliances here and there for short term tactical gains means they dealt with any one and every one that could be useful.

                          During the American civil war the Brits could have supported the confederacy. Apparently the Americans threatened they would support the freedom of the Scots & Irish in retaliation. What the Brits did do was enforce blockades something the Americans didn't like but this was for larger British interests. They did it all over the world when necessary and this was not directed specifically against the US.

                          If one compares China's rise today and how the US has to manage it, then imagine what the Brits were looking at towards the end of the nineteenth century. They were sparring with the French & Spanish earlier. Now, they had to deal with the rise of US, Russia, Germany & Japan. How do you navigate this mess and still protect your empire. A problem of staggering proportions. Cooperating with the Americans helps as they are the most similar. Allow them to grow and assist here and there and they serve your own interests with them doing the fighting.

                          Go back a century earlier and a similar problem presented itself. The Brits lost the US in 1776 due to mismanagement on their part. At a time when they had to fend off the Spanish & French. What do they do. Move to India. I've often told Americans, the only reason their country was discovered was because people were looking for mine and their independence led to the colonisation of mine. US India relationship right now seems like a mini special relationship where the Americans help the Indians with dominating the Indian ocean like the Brits helped the Americans in the Pacific a century back.

                          This term "special relationship" is Brits mythologising their relationship with the Americans. It has a long history. Whether it still exists today is an open question. Is it dead, past its sell by date, I didn't get a clear reply on that one. If Brexit does go through then who else will the Brits look to.

                          She started on this book to try and figure where US & China go from here. Whether there are areas of agreement and how areas of disagreement can be managed. Jury is still out on this one.

                          Once Upon a Time in America | Hoover | May 06 2011

                          A Tale Of Two Hegemons: The Anglo-American Roots Of The Postwar International System | WOTR | Dec 21 2017
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jul 19,, 16:00.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            American military capabilities are unparalleled and we've never lost a conventional war.
                            Invasions of Canada (1775 and 1812), American Civil War (easy one, either Conferate Americans or Union Americans were going to lose), Vietnam War.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • One more thing to add. My points not Kori's. The present world order depended

                              - on the Brits lasting long enough for the Americans to take over. Both could have weakened each other if they wanted to. If this happened then the brutish great pwer rivalry of the 19th c would have endured well into the 20th and the world would be a great deal more unstable than after WW2.

                              - the Americans lasting long enough to survive intact as one country into the 20 century despite meddling by European powers that could have broken the US up and then the US would not be in a position to take over at all. This means the Brits would be up against three rising powers by the end of the 19th century. Something would have to give.

                              The Brits did a lot of things right but the biggest blunder I think has to be losing the US in 1776. By mismanagement. They almost lost Canada by 1830 too.

                              It amazes me that the British empire lasted as long as it did and that is through their astute management, it could have crumbled a century earlier. A lot of South american countries get their independence by the early 19th c. Spain couldn't hold on to its over seas territories.

                              How does the US compare to Britain in its hey day.

                              Lost the US, got into India, managed the US relationship well, got into alliances to keep other rivals out. Survived two world wars to then gracefully decline. This is a duration of a century and a half.

                              US survived the cold war and now into contestation with China. Lot more to go for the Americans still if they can manage to hold on.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jul 19,, 18:38.

                              Comment


                              • You forget one big factor. Luck. Up until WWI, both Britain and the US had plans for war against one another and it was a close call whether the US was going to side with the Kaiser or the King.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X