discussion Questions to Americans

[nuzzyfipples]

I never said that slavery wasn't a cause, just that it wasn't the only one. There is no war with only one cause or issue.

And yes, the states right issue is directly tied to the states themselves voting to allow or forbid slavery within it's border. It still had to be voted to be admitted to the union, whether it allowed slaves or not. That WAS entirely a state issue, rightly or wrongly with 2023 morals. It's not fair to say it's a dog whistle, as if it were a secret agenda to get more states with slavery. Usually for every slave state added to the US, there was also a free one added. And yes, many abolitionists were very racist themselves. They definitely didn't see blacks as equals, just that they were human, and thus should not be enslaved by other humans, based entirely on Christian values, which further nullifies the notion that the south is where all the racists were, whether that be the 1800s or today. I'm certainly not advocating that the south was in the right, just explaining why things happened the best I can by giving a total picture and not focusing it so narrowly.

The 3/5ths compromise wasn't quite the threat the north was scared of, at least not imminently. There were only ~4 million slaves in 1860. The northern Union states had roughly 19 million population, with the border & southern states totaling about 12 million, including the slaves. Even if every slave counted as a voter, 12 is far less than 19, and they were thrilled to admit free states to bolster their numbers even more. Now, had the south won the war, there would still be no slaves in the US, as they would have emancipated them all. The Confederate States would have been an entirely separate country that would have allowed slavery until who knows when. Now you could argue that at the time, the Union felt it COULD be a threat in the future, but that denies the economic powerhouse that was building in the south because of the cotton gin, which in my opinion was a far greater threat to the northern manufacturing industries than how many representatives in the House there were. I imagine they were fearful workers would mass migrate south with the promise of making more money.

Also it's easily overlooked that in the south, they have had a "warrior culture" far preceding 1860s, and still exists today. Most of the greatest generals in US history were from southern states, dating from the War of Independence and still today. And honestly I don't think there is anything wrong with people celebrating that, even if they were Confederate generals, many of whom were veterans of merit in the preceding Indian Wars and War of 1812. They were fighting for their homes which were technically invaded by the Union. The south had seceded legally, and the Union came to bring them to heel and bring them back into the fold. Personally I don't have a problem with people with confederate flag stickers on their car or whatever. I don't think they are any better or worse than someone with a BLM sticker, or with one of the 1000 pride flag variants. I don't have a problem if someone has a Trump 2024 or a Biden 2024 sticker either, as it's just a sticker. This stupid tribalism will wind up being the death of us all eventually. I mean, judging by your comments, you probably think anyone to the right of Jimmy Dore has a signed "Mein Kampf" novel.

The state vs federal issue is still a problem today. Just look at marijuana laws.

 

[Deleted member 28264]

They basically wanted a carbon copy of the US, that just didn't forbid slaves and relied more on the states rather than federal level for laws.

Isn't that what USA is now? Quite recently there was this decision made by the Supreme Court but some small local Court somewhere in the states refused to abide by the SC's decision. I don't remember what the decision was about but I remember Americans saying that states can basically do whatever they want, despite the federal decisions. I was told that even the president doesn't have the power to order the states what to do which means the president is useless and the local states have more power than the president. Needless to say how ridiculous that looks to me.

I assume at that time, mostly Russian shows.

Not quite. When the Russian regime (I call it Russian slavery) fell in 1989, by 1997 our TV channels started renting movies and TV shows from the west. Before 1989 that would be unthinkable bc "the capitalistic propaganda", as they used to call it, was forbidden in the country and importing American music, let alone movies, TV shows or anything else that wasn't produced in a communist country was severely punished by the police. In our police's case that meant frequent close contacts with the officers' fists. With nothing else to show on TV, they showed only Russian movies and the topic was always the same - war and constantly praising their overrated Russian tanks, nothing else.

"The Dukes of Hazzard" was an action comedy show, so they would do some racially charged things for comedic effect, which it should also be noted was in the 1970s, which had different social mores than today.

The young actor with the beard to the left - I've seen him on "Evolution" and on "Dude, where's my car". Both of which were made somewhere around the 2000th year, very far from the 70s. And the other young actor to the right - he was on "Men in Black". Also around the 2000th year. I don't know where you get these numbers from. 70s...

You must be registered to see attachments

And finally you are most likely referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which was a definitive source years ago, but is now about as reliable as Wikipedia. It effectively was the Wikipedia of books, and was an expensive set to have. Then Microsoft Encarta was one of the first real software encyclopedias. Now there's Wikipedia.

Well, I didn't pay anything. There's a website of Britanica which is free and with a little search you can find what you need.

 

[Nastastic]

The young actor with the beard to the left - I've seen him on "Evolution" and on "Dude, where's my car". Both of which were made somewhere around the 2000th year, very far from the 70s. And the other young actor to the right - he was on "Men in Black". Also around the 2000th year. I don't know where you get these numbers from. 70s...

You must be registered to see attachments

The Dukes of Hazzard was originally a television series from the 1970s. Nuzzyfipples probably assumed you were talking about that (so did I, actually).

 

[Deleted member 28264]

I don't watch anything before 1990 (with one exception), mostly bc of the poor audio quality. + it never occured to me that this movie could have an earlier version.

 

[Nastastic]

I never said that slavery wasn't a cause, just that it wasn't the only one. There is no war with only one cause or issue.

You're kinda splitting hairs. The Civil War was 95% about the Southern plantation holder class and its interest in maintaining slavery. Any other issues including states' rights were only in support of protecting the "peculiar institution".

The 3/5ths compromise wasn't quite the threat the north was scared of, at least not imminently. There were only ~4 million slaves in 1860. The northern Union states had roughly 19 million population, with the border & southern states totaling about 12 million, including the slaves. Even if every slave counted as a voter, 12 is far less than 19, and they were thrilled to admit free states to bolster their numbers even more. Now, had the south won the war, there would still be no slaves in the US, as they would have emancipated them all. The Confederate States would have been an entirely separate country that would have allowed slavery until who knows when. Now you could argue that at the time, the Union felt it COULD be a threat in the future, but that denies the economic powerhouse that was building in the south because of the cotton gin, which in my opinion was a far greater threat to the northern manufacturing industries than how many representatives in the House there were. I imagine they were fearful workers would mass migrate south with the promise of making more money.

The South was doing OK economically in 1860, but their status-quo-obsessed elites were happy to rule like petty gods over their little fiefdoms of human chattel and didn't pay much attention to the burgeoning Industrial Revolution which was happening almost exclusively in the North. Or if they did pay attention, it was to fear it. If the South had waited 10 more years to secede the war likely would have been won in less time because of the increased productivity of the North, which would soon have outstripped the wealth generated by the relatively primitive cotton gin (engine) run by unpaid labor. They should have paid attention - before the advent of the cotton gin, large-scale plantation slavery was starting to become economically infeasible as it took too much labor and time for slaves to clean cotton by hand. One machine saved the "peculiar institution" from its own limits. But as it was, the lords of the manor resisted industrialization, to their cost.

As to the North fearing workers would move south to make more money... That would be like modern Americans moving to Mexico to find work! The South had little use for paid laborers - they already had lots of underemployed "poor white trash" to do whatever slaves couldn't - the last thing they needed was Northern labor demanding more than the pittance the manor-born paid the "white trash" to do things like hunt runaway slaves and be overseers and the like.

Also it's easily overlooked that in the south, they have had a "warrior culture" far preceding 1860s, and still exists today. Most of the greatest generals in US history were from southern states, dating from the War of Independence and still today. And honestly I don't think there is anything wrong with people celebrating that, even if they were Confederate generals, many of whom were veterans of merit in the preceding Indian Wars and War of 1812. They were fighting for their homes which were technically invaded by the Union. The south had seceded legally, and the Union came to bring them to heel and bring them back into the fold.

The Southern ruling class felt themselves to be the spiritual descendants of British and Continental nobility, and like them, they loved studying and playing at war, especially if they could be the lordly generals who led armies and sent others off to die. Like most of the Founding Fathers, most of the famous Southern generals were slaveowners themselves, and fought to maintain their own privileges and wealth (their land and their property, human and non-human). The rank and file fought to defend themselves, sure. But they wouldn't have had to if their "betters" hadn't selfishly decided to secede. And of course the question of the "legality" of secession was settled by that very war.

Personally I don't have a problem with people with confederate flag stickers on their car or whatever. I don't think they are any better or worse than someone with a BLM sticker, or with one of the 1000 pride flag variants. I don't have a problem if someone has a Trump 2024 or a Biden 2024 sticker either, as it's just a sticker. This stupid tribalism will wind up being the death of us all eventually. I mean, judging by your comments, you probably think anyone to the right of Jimmy Dore has a signed "Mein Kampf" novel.

Lol. There aren't that many signed copies of "Mein Kampf" to go around.

But seriously, the modern Republican party has moved steadily to the right in the last 40-50 years. Blatant racism and whacked-out conspiracy theories like Q-ANON were once confined to the lunatic fringe along with Holocaust deniers, "sovereign citizens" and white nationalist militias. Now all of these things are now fairly mainstream among Republicans, and that's not OK. I have Trump-lovers in my own family, and I haven't written them off. But I sometimes wonder if they would speak up if the Republicans (or at least the Republican political class) got the one-party fascist rule they so clearly want, and the Red Hats marched me off to a re-education camp to learn the glories of our Dear Leader and what a privilege it is to live in a shack breaking my back increasing the wealth of billionaires for $1 per hour, and how I don't deserve health care or Social Security (which they would love to abolish).

I think most people are decent and want basically the same things. But it is also easy to "go along to get along" and when most of your friends, church members and neighbors are shouting, "Make America great again!" it's easy to get caught up in it. Most people now live, socialize and interact online in bubbles where most people think like they do, and that is driving and increasing the intensity of the "tribalism" you mention.

The state vs federal issue is still a problem today. Just look at marijuana laws.

I can't think of any other country in the world that gives states or provinces anywhere near the amount of power that the U.S. does, and that's even today when states' rights are greatly eroded compared to the antebellum period, and I guess that could be considered a mixed blessing. If it were up to the federal government, marijuana would probably still be illegal everywhere (though technically it still is - you could still be arrested by Federal law enforcement such as FBI or ATF for smoking weed, it's just not usually enforced in states with legalization). On the other hand, the educational system(s) in the U.S. is a dysfunctional hodgepodge of different systems and requirements, which is partly due to the massive power we yield to the religious right and their censorship. Not to mention the fall of Roe vx. Wade...

 

[Vulky]

I'm not US American, but in the past the upside down US flag has been used by leftist people during protests. I remember seing it many times for example at Rage Against The Machine concerts, on the stage. I don't know it used also by right wing people.

 

[setzer]

2. The BIGGER PART of the racists are situated in the Southern part of the country and according to some statistics I've seen (from a survey done in 2002 but I doubt that much has changed in that time), Texas was/is the state with the greatest number of racists than anywhere else in the rest of the country. And wasn't that the civil war was all about? The North wanted equality and supported the anti-slavery bills, whereas the South, also known as Confederate States of America, wanted to keep the slavery status-quo? KKK originated from the Southern States which only adds to the Southern "mystery".
I have a theory of my own why CSA were such fans of slavery but that's for another topic and another time. And that theory of mine is actually far more "rude" than my statement you quoted. Before I even decide to post it on the forum, I must first talk to the king of hell bc it spans across a lot more than just CSA but also everything closer to the Equator.

In regard to the "Texas having the most racists..." Texas is the second most populated state in the country. Some thirty million people inhabiting that land mass. However, there is a KKK chapter in every state so it's not a south v. north thing like it's portrayed on TV.

 

[Deleted member 28264]

there is a KKK chapter in every state

It is now. But if you do a search about every racist movement in the States, they all originate from the Southern states. Not a single one was created in a Northern state or in Canada. They all come from where the Confederacy used to be. Too much of a coincidence, if you ask me.

 

[setzer]

It is now. But if you do a search about every racist movement in the States, they all originate from the Southern states. Not a single one was created in a Northern state or in Canada. They all come from where the Confederacy used to be. Too much of a coincidence, if you ask me.

And? Ideas are not local specific. There were slaves in the north during the civil war and were not freed by the emancipation proclamation. Freeing them during the civil war may have resulted in revolts in the north. You're trying to narrow a specific movement to a certain location without the nuance that those beliefs were not held elsewhere. Lemme know how you feel about people who felt the White-Race were the ones to rule but they abhorred slavery in any instance.

 

[Deleted member 28264]

I'm not sure I understand the last sentence after the word "felt" but if I do understand it correctly, that sounds like passive racism.

 

[setzer]

I'm not sure I understand the last sentence after the word "felt" but if I do understand it correctly, that sounds like passive racism.

There were non slave owning white men who were white supremacist but also disliked slavery. They were willing to free slaves but did not think of them as equal.

The favorable idea of the day was to send them back to Africa to establish colonies. Fair for the day but entirely insane by today's standards.

 

[Kizma Buudi]

You speak about racism as if it can only come from one race. That's very racist...

 

[Deleted member 28264]

Can anyone tell me what that 9/10 is? European gas stations don't have such labels, other than the price. I'm assuming the big numbers are the price.
I've seen similar stuff on American Truck Simulator but I've never understood what that is.

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[Nastastic]

Can anyone tell me what that 9/10 is? European gas stations don't have such labels, other than the price. I'm assuming the big numbers are the price.
I've seen similar stuff on American Truck Simulator but I've never understood what that is.

You must be registered to see attachments

$3.93 9/10 means $3.939. It's one-tenth of one cent cheaper than $3.94.

 

[Tiur]

$3.93 9/10 means $3.939. It's one-tenth of one cent cheaper than $3.94.

Confirming this. It's another example of left-digit effect in pricing taken even farther. See

You must be registered to see links

- the example image in this article is even taken from an American gas station.

 

[Nastastic]

In related "Americans are fucking stupid" news, back in the 1980s the A&W restaurant chain released the "Third of a Pound Burger" to compete with McDonald's Quarter Pounder burger. They even charged the same price. Sounds like a great deal, right?

But not for millions of Americans confused by fractions! They thought they were being ripped off. Why should they pay the same price for 1/3 of a pound as for 1/4 of a pound? Three is smaller than four, right?

A&W lost their shirts on that campaign...

You must be registered to see links

 

[WhiteVanDaycare]

As you probably know I'm from Eastern Europe, which means there are things about America I don't know and sometimes when I can't find the answer online or Urban Dictionary doesn't have a (clear) definition, I gotta ask an American about it. Unfortunately the Americans on reddit are mostly assholes and won't answer, no matter how nicely I ask. And since the Americans on this forum I've talked to were considerably better and nicer people, I figured I could ask here, so I'm hoping they'll be able to answer my questions - now and in the future.

Today I have 2 questions:

• Is that some kind of a joke with the US flag? Or does it mean that the guy behind the wheel is a confederate d1ck? I saw this on CBS' "S.W.A.T." TV series, in case you wonder. For the first time I heard the term "confederate" last year while watching the new "Roswell" TV series, so I did some reading and it turned out the rotten part of the American nation was situated mostly in the Southern states. It can't be a coincidence that on this bumper sticker the stars are on the Southern part of the flag.

You must be registered to see media

You must be registered to see attachments

• Another thing on "S.W.A.T" I heard that got me confused - a suspect used the term "tan pants" as in clothing. But asking Urban Dictionary for definition showed me something quite different, nothing to do with clothes. It was about a person of questionable age. Google showed me trousers with skin color and considering the team leader doesn't look like a guy who'd wear skin color pants, the meaning of this term confuses me even more.
So - WTH is "tan pants" in this context?

P.S. I'm aware that some Americans think my country (Bulgaria) is a gas station in Arizona, so if you wanna know anything about my country, feel free to ask - I'll answer all of your questions.

Tan Pants refers to technical people (they wear slacks), similar to the term White Collar (referring to executives shirts).
The upside down flag is an international naval tradition to signal a ship in distress (doesn't work for the British, lol), in this context they are saying the country is the ship in trouble.

Speaking of the police, here's a fresh example why I need this topic to ask Americans. As I've probably mentioned (or maybe I haven't) I'm currently watching "SWAT" - a TV show of 2017. The SWAT officers often repeat the phrase "requesting an RA unit". After a long and tedious search lasting about 45 minutes, I finally found the answer on a board from 20 years ago that it actually means an ambulance and also that RA phrase is only typical for the Californian police. You can correctly guess that the most of the modern stuff you can find in the first 5 pages of the search results has nothing sensible when it comes to police terms. "SWAT" has another phrase ("Give me two") that I never found the answer in search engines and I had to ask on the show's Twitter page. Eventually someone answered they were curious about that too and it turned out that this was also a phrase typical for the CA police.
But you can't find things like these by Googling or Ducking and it's easier to just ask an American cuz it's more likely that they would know. It just occured to me that I could ask the new Opera's AI (Aria), it probably could find the answer a lot quicker, altough the AI requires correct phrasing, otherwise you'll get nothing.


That's a very long and mostly political answer I don't feel like writing at the moment. I guess a short answer could go something along the line of "When America farts, my country shits its pants".

RA (rescue ambulance) is an emergency services term for an off-road capable ambulance, I don't think it is regional just not known by the general public.
"Give me two" refers to requesting backup when entering a dangerous situation (so 3 officers total).
Want some more fun? A 'flashbang' is often referred to as an LSDD (stands for Light Sound Diversionary Device). Getting behind cover means behind something that can stop any bullets coming at you, when they jump behind the car or are clearing a house they are actually getting behind concealment but TV and movies never get that right (most bullets go through walls and car bodies). You may hear UC's (undercover officers) discussing HBD, it stands for Hiding, Blending, Disguise which is the UC tradecraft. Other shorthand you might hear includes "Hotels" which are hostages, "Uniforms" which are beat officers, and "Tangos" which are bad guys.

 

[WhiteVanDaycare]

In related "Americans are fucking stupid" news, back in the 1980s the A&W restaurant chain released the "Third of a Pound Burger" to compete with McDonald's Quarter Pounder burger. They even charged the same price. Sounds like a great deal, right?

But not for millions of Americans confused by fractions! They thought they were being ripped off. Why should they pay the same price for 1/3 of a pound as for 1/4 of a pound? Three is smaller than four, right?

A&W lost their shirts on that campaign...

You must be registered to see links

I'm old enough to remember when the US tried to change over to the metric system, it was just too much for the average joe. So now there are 3 countries in the whole world that don't use the metric system - US, Liberia, and Myanmar.

You must be registered to see media

 

[Deleted member 28264]

I'm old enough to remember when the US tried to change over to the metric system, it was just too much for the average joe. So now there are 3 countries in the whole world that don't use the metric system - US, Liberia, and Myanmar.

UK is using that system as well. Considering how many other things USA did "wrong" in order to spite UK (driving on the proper side of the road, for instance), I've always wondered why you kept that funny measurement system. It would be a lot easier with 1 mm, 10 mm, 1 m, 1 km and so on bc everything is dividend by 10. AFAIK only NASA is using the easier system for distances. The average Joe is still dumb Joe even with the current measurement system.

"THEY! ARE! NOT! COCKS!"

 

[Nastastic]

I'm old enough to remember when the US tried to change over to the metric system, it was just too much for the average joe. So now there are 3 countries in the whole world that don't use the metric system - US, Liberia, and Myanmar.

We're in fantastic company.

UK is using that system as well. Considering how many other things USA did "wrong" in order to spite UK (driving on the proper side of the road, for instance), I've always wondered why you kept that funny measurement system. It would be a lot easier with 1 mm, 10 mm, 1 m, 1 km and so on bc everything is dividend by 10. AFAIK only NASA is using the easier system for distances. The average Joe is still dumb Joe even with the current measurement system.

"THEY! ARE! NOT! COCKS!"

They use both systems in the UK (along with some stuff Americans don't use like "stones"), but officially they use the metric system like every other intelligent nation.

Basically Americans are stubborn and incredibly nationalistic to the point of jingoism. Look up the phrase "American exceptionalism" if you really want to understand why America does 90% of the shit it does.

So we can't be seen to bend to international pressure to use "that foreign Frenchie metric crap" because USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! USA! USA!

It was Jimmy Carter who tried to get the metrication train rolling in the U.S. When Reagan entered office, he dispensed with that and set 'Murica the way God meant it to be, the good ol' Republican way.

He also got rid of the solar panels Carter put on the White House. 'Cause we don't need none of that liberal environmentalism crap because USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! USA! USA! ?