Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civil War still divides Americans

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

  • #16
    Doktor- Last 300,since Vienna.AFAIK,our corner of the world never got involved in the crusades,besides allowing crusader armies to pass.Neither SE Europe can be described as the core of the west,but rather its periphery.We HALTED the Ottomans,while the West proper became so dominant that the Ottoman Empire was for the last 200 hundreds of its existence not an equal rival for the west.In that sense there was no conflict for supremacy,because that was already achieved.Russians and Austrians had their wars with the Ottomans,but they were halted in their tracks by the French and British because of the power games in a EUROPEAN world order.
    Nobody expects now another Katyn,but Poland between those 2 would be much less important than otherwise.In that sense,nothing has changed since 1700's or inter-war era.That stands true for my beloved motherland,when it bring its sh1t together and start to have a foreign policy of its own.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • #17
      I wasn't referring to our beloved countries as a core or west of something. I was saying that the Ottoman Empire was core of todays Muslim world (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq-part, Iran...).

      You are referring to Austrians and Russians, I remember English on their SW flank, as well. You don't need open conflict, the threat is sufficient.

      Edit:
      P.S. I think we totally jacked this thread which is not fair
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hijacking threads is the official religion of WAB:Dancing-Banana:

        You missed my point.I'm not talking of whether the Ottomans held or not Muslim lands.I'm saying the Muslim world,Ottoman or otherwise ceased to be a contender against the west after Vienna(as a general point of reference)because it was too weak to be.The West held the top position,thus EVERY conflict involving Western nations was for supremacy inside the Western world order.Everyone else,be they Muslims,Indians,Africans,American Indians were involved in various conflicts between European powers,but always as secondary actors,as allies of one or another Western nation.Think of how the Ottomans survived and managed to hold territories in SE Europe in 19th century.It managed to do so only with French and British support,who feared Russia gaining access to Med Sea.Those 2 even went into Crimean war on Ottomans behalf.
        Compare that with the situation that existed from the rise of Islam,with a clear line separating Christianity and Islam.There were a few occasions when some Christians were allied with the muslims as some Serbs were after first Kossopolje;viceversa,some muslims,like the Order of the Assasins were at times allied with Crusader states.But exceptions aren't the rule and should be treated as accidents.The rule was that the 2 civilizations kicked their butts everywhere they met.Even supposed havens for tolerance like Sicily or Spain were soon ''handled''. No English king or German duke would have shed a tear for the destruction of the Ottomans,had it occurred in the 1300's(hypotheticaly speaking).
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • #19
          Hijacking threads is the official religion of WAB :Dancing-Banana:
          ... now I am a believer.

          Тhink that the one missing the point here is you

          You were saying that when something cease to pose a threat becomes a history. I was referring to the Muslims in general and how the Ottoman Empire is history for a while, yet the fear of Islamisation of Europe still exists.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
            Thoughts, comments, Maj?

            My friend in Memphis sent me this story a few days ago, you beat me to posting it.

            I think it is quite accurate.
            Eric,

            I'm not surprised by the numbers. It goes back to our thread that discussed the Civil War narrative that you were taught growing up - there's a wide variety in how the subject is taught and thus, in how Americans interpret it. I'm sure that many of the folks who voted for state's rights don't realize that the first ever draft on our continent was implemented by the Confederacy or are aware of the other restrictions on personal rights that the Confederacy implemented. I'm also sure that many who voted for slavery probably believe that the North originally set out fighting for slavery when that just isn't the case. It'd be interesting to see what folks would answer in a free text form once you bring some of these facts to light.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              Eric,

              We may have different ideas of 'recent', or at least different ideas of its significance. I firmly believe that history we can no longer interact with needs to be drained of emotion as a wound is drained of pus. The failure to do so leads to the same result in both cases - toxicity. As an historian I am a firm believer in remembering, learning from & even engaging with the past, but I am also a firm believer in limits. Past IS past. It is important to understand it, re-examine it, celebrate it & most importantly get it right, but it is also important not to drag it constantly into the present. Santayana famously observed that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it'. I would propose the addendum that those who cannot exit the past are condemned to constantly poison the present. People must understant their history, but more importantly, they must understand that it is history.
              You must remember the past, but you cannot let it rule you, or it will ruin you. You must not forget, but you must not it become the poison you speak of. Those who let it poison them, are the ones that need to get over it. The war is fresh with so may as it still resonates in symbolism and much more in everyday American life, therefore, I think it carries great weight as many of the subjects stemming from the war have never been resolved for many.

              The article however just draws similarities btwn events today and the events of yore that led up to the war(sans the slavery bit).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                Sgt.,if I get you right,you think there is a connection between current efforts to curtail the attacks on freedom with those 150 years ago.Same broad ideals(the details differ of course),same men.
                I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I absolutely agree with the premises laid down in the article.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  From a totally ignorant-on-the-subject pov I would answer that I fency the South (for their flag) and that the war was not about the human right or slavery, but purely for $$$ as all the other wars. What would that mean?
                  And I would say that your POV is not ignorant, but simply unclouded by looking at something for exactly what it is, in its simplest part. In other words, you CAN see the forest for the trees.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Shek View Post
                    Eric,

                    I'm not surprised by the numbers. It goes back to our thread that discussed the Civil War narrative that you were taught growing up - there's a wide variety in how the subject is taught and thus, in how Americans interpret it. I'm sure that many of the folks who voted for state's rights don't realize that the first ever draft on our continent was implemented by the Confederacy or are aware of the other restrictions on personal rights that the Confederacy implemented. I'm also sure that many who voted for slavery probably believe that the North originally set out fighting for slavery when that just isn't the case. It'd be interesting to see what folks would answer in a free text form once you bring some of these facts to light.
                    OK.....but what did you think of the article? Do you find the similarities the author points to?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                      OK.....but what did you think of the article? Do you find the similarities the author points to?
                      Eric,
                      Sorry, must be the lack of sleep in the past few days with the kids converting to being solar powered (i.e., waking up at BMNT and refusing to fall asleep until EENT . . . at least their not pulling stand-to!). What similarities are you referring to?
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I just realized that we are not looking at the same article. I assumed it was the same as it was linked to CNN and had a similar title. I have started a new thread to discuss this other article. Sorry, maybe I am the one that needs sleep?

                        http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...tml#post801940

                        I will read in it entirety your blog post and then return to comment.

                        (bet I don't assume anything else for awhile) ouch!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                          I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I absolutely agree with the premises laid down in the article.
                          ''When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.''

                          Sarge,I suppose you are in that camp,if I read you correctly.
                          Those who know don't speak
                          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                            And I would say that your POV is not ignorant, but simply unclouded by looking at something for exactly what it is, in its simplest part. In other words, you CAN see the forest for the trees.
                            It's easy to see the forest when you are looking from a distance.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              ... now I am a believer.

                              Тhink that the one missing the point here is you

                              You were saying that when something cease to pose a threat becomes a history. I was referring to the Muslims in general and how the Ottoman Empire is history for a while, yet the fear of Islamisation of Europe still exists.
                              Good,the paradise will be yours.Can't offer virgins,though.They're in a short supply.

                              I thought we made it clear that the Islam vs Europe was much older than the Ottomans.Also there are a few tens of millions muslims that succeeded where Suleyman or Abdul Rahman failed,in settling parts of Europe.We have possibly a nascent geopolitical force South of Med. Sea.That's not a certainty YET. But who's going to bet that it won't become one.Europe will have a foreign competitor,an internal problem and a demographic crisis.
                              For somebody that prefers to think that things can only be rosy(generally speaking those tend to be also leftists),it seems impossible even to admit that those can be a problem.
                              We'll live and we'll see.
                              Those who know don't speak
                              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                                ''When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.''

                                Sarge,I suppose you are in that camp,if I read you correctly.
                                Yup! Thats me!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X