News Stories

[Haruka_Kitten]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

Now something annoying: GOP congressman attempts to re-brand US Civil War as "The Great War of Yankee Aggression".

Talk about souring a historic achievement. There are just some lines that should never be crossed...>.>

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

First something light and cheerful: Cherry blossoms are expected to start opening next week in Tokyo and Kyoto.

Now something annoying: GOP congressman attempts to re-brand US Civil War as "The Great War of Yankee Aggression".

What the....forgive my ignorence in the history of american slang, but did the term Yankee even exist during the civil war?

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What the....forgive my ignorence in the history of american slang, but did the term Yankee even exist during the civil war?

Yes, probably even before the War of Independence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Yes, probably even before the War of Independence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

I see. Regardless, that's a pretty stupid name. I wonder if he's trying to be original or insulting.......or both

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I see. Regardless, that's a pretty stupid name. I wonder if he's trying to be original or insulting.......or both

Ever heard of the book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"? It is written by Mark Twain in the 1880s...meaning that the term had actually existed for sometime, probably formulated after the Seven Years War or during the Independence War.

[MrTerrorist]

Women in Gaza: Life under Hamas

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What the....forgive my ignorence in the history of american slang, but did the term Yankee even exist during the civil war?

Northerner - Yankee
Southerner - Dixie

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Northerner - Yankee
Southerner - Dixie

Thanks, I already knew that ^^ My question was only if those terms existes back then. As I said, please forgive my ignorance.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I see. Regardless, that's a pretty stupid name. I wonder if he's trying to be original or insulting.......or both

I have heard of the use of "The War of Northern Aggression" used for the American Civil War - most, if not all, of the time by Southerners. While not sure when it first came about, it does exist in literature and, I would guess, history as well.

"Yankee", these days and IMHO, isn't really a negative term, but rather more as a way to show that its target is from the Northern U.S. In that sense, "Yankee Aggression" is synonymous. It's certainly better than using the historical term "carpetbagger", which was more derogatory - although no idea on how many people will know of it without looking it up.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

I have heard of the use of "The War of Northern Aggression" used for the American Civil War - most, if not all, of the time by Southerners. While not sure when it first came about, it does exist in literature and, I would guess, history as well.

"Yankee", these days and IMHO, isn't really a negative term, but rather more as a way to show that its target is from the Northern U.S. In that sense, "Yankee Aggression" is synonymous. It's certainly better than using the historical term "carpetbagger", which was more derogatory - although no idea on how many people will know of it without looking it up.

Well then again these are the same people who though slavery was the only way to maintain their way of life. The south generally is the back water of America, southern states other than texas tend to be poorer, and many still love the "good" ole days such as the flying of the confederate flag at the state house in South Carolina. For those people that refer to the Civil War as the war of northern aggression are just harkening for the return of the klan and for strom thurmond to dawn on the hood once he rises from the grave and bring back the halycon days of slavery.

Honestly the election of Barack Obama is not the days of colorless society, but the days of racist society bubbling up, there is a lot of resentment that a black man could be the leader of this great nation. These outbursts such as the John Roberts mouthing No at the State of the union, Joe Wilson's out burst are just some of the vocal racists thoughts leaking out of once precieved taboo thoughts. Also all the birthers are innate racists, it's sad that civil rights took a step back once the first black president took the oath of office.

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Not on the floor of the house it isn't. Besides the Confederates fired first. They should pass a law, anyone who calls it the war of northern/yankee aggression gets whacked on the head with a rolled up essay about Ft. Sumter, which they then have to memorize.

I like this idea. To me the issue has nothing to do with the term Yankee, it is the re-writing of history. South Carolina attacked Ft. Sumter (and five years after a senator from South Carolina brutally caned a Massachusetts senator, BTW). If they want to call it the "War of something Aggression", at least be honest, and call it "the War of Dixie Aggression", or "the War of Slaveholder Aggression".

The fact that someone can get away with making remarks like this in Congress, as part of the public record, is pathetic.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

I like this idea. To me the issue has nothing to do with the term Yankee, it is the re-writing of history. South Carolina attacked Ft. Sumter (and five years after a senator from South Carolina brutally caned a Massachusetts senator, BTW). If they want to call it the "War of something Aggression", at least be honest, and call it "the War of Dixie Aggression", or "the War of Slaveholder Aggression".

The fact that someone can get away with making remarks like this in Congress, as part of the public record, is pathetic.

did you hear the claps yelps of support for this claim. Southerners need to forget the past.

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

did you hear the claps yelps of support for this claim. Southerners need to forget the past.

Apparently they already have. They are chortling over a fiction, not what really happened.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

did you hear the claps yelps of support for this claim. Southerners need to forget the past.

i think that is exactly what happen, they conveniently forgot who fire the first shot.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Well then again these are the same people who though slavery was the only way to maintain their way of life.

Spoiler for To save space:

I'm not 100% sure if this is right - at least not by everyone. The South, at the time of the American Civil War, wasn't purely an area of plantations and their owners kept in power through slavery. If that was the case, the Underground Railroad, for one, would have been broken up not too long after it got started, IMHO.

For those already in power, yes, it would have been one factor, but there are also the loss of (1) privilege, (2) power and (3) tradition, esp. for those who were perhaps ordinary sharecroppers. By taking away the "tradition" in the South, you can make some serious hay over the ideas of "destroying our way of life" and "removing a (if not the) path to prosperity", and both will get people upset.

Just as not everyone in the South is pro-slavery, I doubt that everyone in the North is against it. President Abraham Lincoln, in his Emancipation Proclamation, did not free all of the slaves in the country - just those in rebellion; he also did not make slavery illegal. I also doubt that those Northerners who went to the South during Reconstruction did it out of kindness.

In the end, though, the winner always writes the rules and histories. Neither side was particularly pure or honorable. General William Sherman's Savannah Campaign was fairly brutal in its effects on both the military and civilian areas - although it wasn't at the scale of, say, the "traditional" punishment of sacking and burning of a city for refusing to surrender when told.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

The south generally is the back water of America, southern states other than texas tend to be poorer, and many still love the "good" ole days such as the flying of the confederate flag at the state house in South Carolina. For those people that refer to the Civil War as the war of northern aggression are just harkening for the return of the klan and for strom thurmond to dawn on the hood once he rises from the grave and bring back the halycon days of slavery.

This is referring to the present time, I think, and not during the 17th century? Yes, the South does have a reputation for being poor... Texas, outside of certain cities like Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth, isn't exactly prosperous either - just as the North isn't all "peaches-and-cream" and etc.

And it does not help matters, IMHO, that you get the "good ole boys" talking the talk. Of course, their remarks tend to make good - if more negative - sound bites, so a "quality" one gets more air time, which for a politician, is good.

These also play on people's beliefs that (1) the past tends to be bright and beautiful, (2) if allowed, our lives would have been better, and (3) what happened was not our fault, but rather caused by *those* people.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Honestly the election of Barack Obama is not the days of colorless society, but the days of racist society bubbling up, there is a lot of resentment that a black man could be the leader of this great nation. These outbursts such as the John Roberts mouthing No at the State of the union, Joe Wilson's out burst are just some of the vocal racists thoughts leaking out of once precieved taboo thoughts. Also all the birthers are innate racists, it's sad that civil rights took a step back once the first black president took the oath of office.

Interracial relationships were up not too long ago, I thought? For the "birthers", I also wonder if some of them are also hoping that if they could prove that Barack Obama is not a native son, it would be possible to... unwind time and get rid of his changes. Of course, the number of changes Barack Obama has made so far isn't that much, IMHO; I still see his presidency, not as one of change, but rather one of "out with the old, in with the same".

And before people jump [up and] down on me , I see that being a fault of everyone - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives and etc.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Spoiler for To save space:

I'm not 100% sure if this is right - at least not by everyone. The South, at the time of the American Civil War, wasn't purely an area of plantations and their owners kept in power through slavery. If that was the case, the Underground Railroad, for one, would have been broken up not too long after it got started, IMHO.

For those already in power, yes, it would have been one factor, but there are also the loss of (1) privilege, (2) power and (3) tradition, esp. for those who were perhaps ordinary sharecroppers. By taking away the "tradition" in the South, you can make some serious hay over the ideas of "destroying our way of life" and "removing a (if not the) path to prosperity", and both will get people upset.

Just as not everyone in the South is pro-slavery, I doubt that everyone in the North is against it. President Abraham Lincoln, in his Emancipation Proclamation, did not free all of the slaves in the country - just those in rebellion; he also did not make slavery illegal. I also doubt that those Northerners who went to the South during Reconstruction did it out of kindness.

In the end, though, the winner always writes the rules and histories. Neither side was particularly pure or honorable. General William Sherman's Savannah Campaign was fairly brutal in its effects on both the military and civilian areas - although it wasn't at the scale of, say, the "traditional" punishment of sacking and burning of a city for refusing to surrender when told.

Interracial relationships were up not too long ago, I thought? For the "birthers", I also wonder if some of them are also hoping that if they could prove that Barack Obama is not a native son, it would be possible to... unwind time and get rid of his changes. Of course, the number of changes Barack Obama has made so far isn't that much, IMHO; I still see his presidency, not as one of change, but rather one of "out with the old, in with the same".

And before people jump [up and] down on me , I see that being a fault of everyone - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives and etc.

The whole thing about the nation was in fact Slavery wasn't just a North South thing just like the Revolutionary war wasn't just a England vs them thing. There were sympathizers on both sides, but in South, even if you were a proponent of free blacks, you could easily lose your land, whereas in the North being pro slavery didn't instantly castigate you from society. Also there were many attempts to fight the Underground railroad, namely the fugitive slave act, which allowed southern bounty hunters to grab runaways and bring them back to the south to be brought back to slavery.

Now Sherman was a general, at the time of the war his actions would cost the US government millions of dollars but at the time, after bunker hill and the battle of appomatax the notion of playing civil with the southerners would have cost Grant the war. The decisive and brutal tactics that Sherman used helped demoralize the south enough to force the surrender of the confederates. And yes the war wasn't fought solely on noble purposes of the freedom of slaves as Lincoln was a proponent of emigration of Africans back to Africa.

And for the most part on Obama, yes he's more of the same, with the renewing of the patriot act, and the slow withdrawal of American troops in Iraq, and the escalation in Afghanistan, but at least on some things he's moving. Still I just want the corporatists out of washington, and for the people to become the main customer of the government not the corporations some of which are enslaving part of this great nation. (pst i know it's rhetoric, but working poor do exisit)

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Are you like Ron Paul or something? I'm sorry, but this way of thinking is downright outrageous.

How do you think the US got to be the superpower it is today? We sold Europe and and the rest of world over these last two centuries, a plethora of goods, and particularly during the World Wars, tons of weapons.

Why is it downright outrageous? Why do I care about the US being a 'superpower?' When I want superpowers I can read a comic book, I'm more interested in a sustainable peaceful planet. Something that the US nor any major industrial power are contributing towards. You think your country being militarily and economically powerful are all that? Then why are so many people in this country suffering from so many different medical ailments (the 'western ailments'), mental issues, stress, and a painstaking, backbreaking lifestyle? Just so we can say we're at 'the top?' Maybe the big corporate leaders and their political slaves can be proud of America's standing, they're the ones reaping the majority of the benefits anyways.

[Reckoner]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_507128.html

Gashaw Tahir Fights Deforestation, Plants One Million Trees In Ethiopia


Ethiopian-born American citizen Gashaw Tahir traveled back to his homeland several years ago and was shocked at the massive deforestation that had taken place since his departure.

Rivers have dried, mountains have been deforested, and rising temperatures due to climate change are making plant life more difficult to maintain. Tahir decided that something had to be done. His story is told in a new video from America.gov.

"My ultimate vision is making Africa green again," he says. "That inspires me, touches me, and moves me into action."

He gathered young people from his hometown -- only a few dozen at first -- but those young people recruited their friends and family until there were hundreds. On only two acres of land they planted thousands of seedlings. Now, Tahir owns 11,000 acres of Ethiopian land on which his group has planted one million trees.

"You see, one person can enroll other people," Tahir says. "Outreach to them for a vision. And he can lead, and other people follow and they can make a difference. You can do a lot. I planted over a million trees, hired over 450 young people, and made a difference in the ecology. That's what I have done. If one man can do this with collaboration, we can make a huge difference."

We need more heroes like this guy.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Why is it downright outrageous? Why do I care about the US being a 'superpower?' When I want superpowers I can read a comic book, I'm more interested in a sustainable peaceful planet. Something that the US nor any major industrial power are contributing towards. You think your country being militarily and economically powerful are all that? Then why are so many people in this country suffering from so many different medical ailments (the 'western ailments'), mental issues, stress, and a painstaking, backbreaking lifestyle? Just so we can say we're at 'the top?' Maybe the big corporate leaders and their political slaves can be proud of America's standing, they're the ones reaping the majority of the benefits anyways.

Sure. This attitude definitely helped us during the Cold War and World War II.

Lets ignore the rest of the world. Lets just focus on ourselves, and be isolationists. I'm sure we'll be ok (sarcasm).

[iLney]

I know there is no "if" when discussing history. But let suppose that clown Wilson didn't get us into WWI, Germany & co would've won => the Czar would've been able to suppress Lenin, and there would've been no Hitler => no WWII.

And I bet you don't even know what is the difference b/w isolationism and non -interventionism.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by iLney

I know there is no "if" when discussing history. But let suppose that clown Wilson didn't get us into WWI, Germany & co would've won => the Czar would've been able to suppress Lenin, and there would've been no Hitler => no WWII.

And I bet you don't even know what is the difference b/w isolationism and non -interventionism.

lol. The German's winning or not did not determine the Russian revolution. So no, the Czar would not have suppressed Lenin.

Also, WWI may very well have still been won by France and Britain even without the help of the US.

My point still stands regardless of what history event you want me to pick out. Isolationism ==> non-interventionism. Non-interventionism ==/==> isolationism.



Honestly, intellectual arrogance will get you nowhere.