|
Silver2195 posted:What was the Winter War really about, then, in your opinion?
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Can anyone explain to me, a historical ignoramus, what the situation was with slavery in the early days of British colonization of America? More precisely, I want to know when and specifically how it became a matter of race. I'm aware of a certain Anthony Johnson, whom I vaguely remember from history class. He was an African, born and raised, who was kidnapped and turned into an indentured servant in the American colonies. He had a pretty interesting life overall, but the thing that really interests me is that he wasn't a slave for life, and in fact, eventually became a land owner himself, and held several slaves(or servants, not sure which). Does this imply that he, as a black man, was really no better or worse in the eyes of his captors than the white Europeans who were locked in indentured servitude at the time? Or did he just get lucky? I've also heard that it was apparently considered to be illegal to keep a Christian man as a slave for life, but I don't know if that's accurate whatsoever. I can type up something more detailed later, or maybe another poster will elaborate, but the short answer would be that in the early colonies the distinction between slaves and servants was vague and poorly defined, and slavery wasn't a racial institution. There are early examples of black Africans who owned property and slaves. However keeping indentured servants in line was proving exceptionally costly and there were even some examples of black and white labourers organizing together and demanding better working conditions. The move toward racialized slavery was a way of dividing the colonies population of labourers and also of assuring a servile workforce. Sorry if that's a little vague, your question is an extremely interesting and important one and definitely deserves a more fully fledged answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I can type up something more detailed later, or maybe another poster will elaborate, but the short answer would be that in the early colonies the distinction between slaves and servants was vague and poorly defined, and slavery wasn't a racial institution. There are early examples of black Africans who owned property and slaves. Basically this. Turning slavery into a racial institution made both white indentured servants and poor whites gain a sense of superiority over and alienation from black slaves/indentured servants, hampering any sort of cross-racial rebellion against the upper class of the colonies, which actually did happen a few times. As for a timeframe, it basically changed from non-racial to racial from the 1630s or so to the 1680s. Farecoal fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Can anyone explain to me, a historical ignoramus, what the situation was with slavery in the early days of British colonization of America? More precisely, I want to know when and specifically how it became a matter of race. I'm aware of a certain Anthony Johnson, whom I vaguely remember from history class. He was an African, born and raised, who was kidnapped and turned into an indentured servant in the American colonies. He had a pretty interesting life overall, but the thing that really interests me is that he wasn't a slave for life, and in fact, eventually became a land owner himself, and held several slaves(or servants, not sure which). Does this imply that he, as a black man, was really no better or worse in the eyes of his captors than the white Europeans who were locked in indentured servitude at the time? Or did he just get lucky? I've also heard that it was apparently considered to be illegal to keep a Christian man as a slave for life, but I don't know if that's accurate whatsoever. Originally most unpaid labor (i.e., not workers as we know it) were provided through Indentured Servants, or basically people who sold themselves for a set period of time in exchange for free passage to America. Your example Johnson appears to have been one of these indentured servants, so he was supposed to be freed under the law. Indentured Servants fell out of fashion mostly because they couldn't keep up with demand, however in the early days there was not enough demand to warrant additional labor. Actual slaves (i.e., people who were expected to work for life) were basically always Africans, although very rarely they were freed and could (in theory) buy property, with a few actually becoming slave owners themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Stalin wanted bits of Finland, not all of it. They wanted all of Finland. The desire for the original concessions around Lenningrad was irrelevant if it came to war with Finland. Finland had only been independent for 20 years, the Soviets had no problem taking Finland back as province of Russia/Soviet Union. The size of the Soviet invasion and the fact Soviet soldiers were even warned not to cross into Sweden gives good indication where the war was going if the invasion hadn't been a disaster. If not eventual annexation, the fact the Soviets formed a Finish puppet government in exile right after the war started would point to at least satellite state or protectorate. Ofaloaf posted:There really just ought to be a history forum, because this stuff just seeps out of a lot of threads and there's history-oriented threads in D&D, A/T, GBS, PYF, the Firing Range and probably others. Oh man, can we please have a history sub forum in here, please admins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:"Very likely" based on what? Stalin's demonstrated history of respecting people's sovereignty and his generally relaxed approach to political disagreements? It's "very likely" based on Russia being in almost total ruin after the war, Stalin and Molotov understanding that getting a poo poo load of money from the US to rebuild in exchange for "respecting people's sovereignty" was a good deal, and even if there were free elections in the boarder countries given that Russia was their liberator against the Nazi's (and Stalin had trained a bunch of people in the later half of the war to expand his influence in those countries) they would be more pro Russia then they would be pro US/England. Well it was a good deal until the US reneged on it and left them out to dry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:It's "very likely" based on Russia being in almost total ruin after the war, Stalin and Molotov understanding that getting a poo poo load of money from the US to rebuild in exchange for "respecting people's sovereignty" was a good deal, and even if there were free elections in the boarder countries given that Russia was their liberator against the Nazi's (and Stalin had trained a bunch of people in the later half of the war to expand his influence in those countries) they would be more pro Russia then they would be pro US/England. Well it was a good deal until the US reneged on it and left them out to dry. Yeah but it's a better strategic move to just keep your new satellite states and power and just strip east Germany and other places of resources you need to rebuild. The Soviet Union wasn't shattered enough(I mean they protected a good deal of their industrial capacity) to just give up all their new influence for a few billion dollars in aid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Can anyone explain to me, a historical ignoramus, what the situation was with slavery in the early days of British colonization of America? More precisely, I want to know when and specifically how it became a matter of race. I'm aware of a certain Anthony Johnson, whom I vaguely remember from history class. He was an African, born and raised, who was kidnapped and turned into an indentured servant in the American colonies. He had a pretty interesting life overall, but the thing that really interests me is that he wasn't a slave for life, and in fact, eventually became a land owner himself, and held several slaves(or servants, not sure which). Does this imply that he, as a black man, was really no better or worse in the eyes of his captors than the white Europeans who were locked in indentured servitude at the time? Or did he just get lucky? I've also heard that it was apparently considered to be illegal to keep a Christian man as a slave for life, but I don't know if that's accurate whatsoever. I can't speak for other places but honestly in the US the focus on our own colonial history sort of misses how, until population/economic growth created markets, North America was most useful as a source of supplies and resources for the fabulous wealth that could be generated in the Caribbean. Chattel slavery and the societal attitudes travel north from the island slave abattoirs, they merged incompletely with the more permissive situations found in the frontier colonies of North America. It's a complicated question but one which is much better understood in looking at the colonial system and not attempting to identify American colonial history as a solo project.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Yeah but it's a better strategic move to just keep your new satellite states and power and just strip east Germany and other places of resources you need to rebuild. Short term (about 20-30 years) absolutely, but Roosevelt had convinced Stalin that it would be much better in the long run if instead of keeping all those satellite states he could have control over Poland, East Germany, and a poo poo load of money to rebuild his economy, in exchange for letting the people of those satellite states roll the dice to decide what government they wanted. Stalin wasn't totally blameless here though which is why after Yalta in 43 he starts training a bunch of communists from those satellite states to try and stack the deck in his favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much further we'll get arguing about a counterfactual scenario like this but I find it puzzling why you're ignoring Stalin's actions within the USSR itself. He killed off most of his own Politburo and General Staff just to ensure there wouldn't be a whisper of dissent, assuming based on a treaty he signed at Yalta that he was genuinely ready to accept independent states in Eastern Europe is a pretty questionable assessment. Even if he had intended that, I think its basically guaranteed that at the first sign of any real independence from Moscow he would have cracked the whip. That is made fairly clear based on how the USSR acted when it eventually did face dissent in eastern Europe. Anyway, even if we assume totally benign motivations on Stalin's part - which I don't think we should - its exceptionally unlikely that a different President than Truman would have been able to engineer a massive aid package for the USSR or that domestic US political pressures wouldn't have inevitably driven whoever was in the Oval Office into a confrontation with Russia. The Cold War did not happen because Truman was hard on Stalin, it happened because the USSR and US both had imperial ambitions beyond their own boarders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:All that is really intriguing to me, but we can go with 2. I've done a little bit more research since I made my first post, and it seems that there's not much evidence that suggests the colonists even had a deep understanding of the Iroquois system of government in the 1780's, so I can see how it's considered unlikely. Does the Iroquois thesis assert some kind of Iroquois "lobbyists" that were actively pushing for their own representation, or just a gradual European trend of adopting some native values over time? OK, I have a few minutes so, let's go into the first point. The study of "borderlands" ties directly into the question of which people and groups influenced the early colonial governments and attempts at union, and how. By about the mid-to-late 1600s, British colonial settlements in North America were firmly expanded into the main coastal plains of their states and beginning to set up really extensive networks of roads, towns, markets, and outlying settlements. There were natural lines and barriers, especially the Great Lakes region, the Adirondacks, the Blue Ridge, and the Appalachian, which kept them somewhat constrained even during these periods of growth. Where these natural areas of border met the most rapid areas of population expansion, like the newer colony of New York or Pennsylvania, or the rapidly expanding South Carolina and Georgia colonies, zones of intense cultural contact were set up with the remaining stable Native American polities in the inland areas, especially the Iroquois. This often resulted in tragedy. The example of the Pequot War is a great one for the study of borderlands, as is the setting up and fate of Fort Pitt / Pittsburgh. In the leadup to the Pequot War, which is a good example of borderlands in the earliest periods of rapid colonist expansion, there was really significant trade between New England colonists and the inland tribes. This trade was tremendously valuable to both sides, and specialist communities of smugglers, interpreters, fences, and more sprung up on both sides. There were many individuals who were members of no specific community -- Christian members of the Narraganset who spoke English and Dutch, Dutch traders who lived with the Mohegan for months our of the year, Englishmen who were devoted to converting Natives, and more. The Native American political units in the area were locked in political conflict over the wealth, opportunities and hazards brought by the expanding European communities, with several communities -- the Niantic, Narragansset, Pequot, and Mohegan involved. One of these transient individuals, an important leader in the Niantic community, was murdered by Dutch traders after a cultural misunderstanding, an insult made worse on both sides by repeated missed and misinterpreted ransoms. The Niantics, in retaliation, found a "transient" European named John Stone, who was really an Englishman but deeply involved in trade with Native Americans and not much loved by the English colonial authorities, and killed him and some of his crew -- some of whom were, you guessed it, transient Native Americans. This whole thing degenerated quickly -- the Niantics were attacked by the English in retaliation, and allied tribes attacked an English trader and his Native friends, but the translators owed allegiance to other groups, and so the blame for the attacks settled on the Pequots, sort-of-allies of the Niantics. This is all made possible by the equal, flexible relationships between the chiefs of the Native American villages and political communities, the rigid power structure of the English and Dutch trying to use the unreliable trader and privateer and transient elements, and more. Mixed in with all this is religious rivalry between the English and Dutch, and the intensity of key English power figures in their religious dedication to attacking or converting natives. Within a year, more raids have resulted not only in mutual killings and massacres, but the interchange of community members through captives taken and negotiators sent. The aftermath of the English attacks on the tribes they percieved as responsible for escalation was horrific -- all the remaining Pequots offered themselves up as slaves, assuming the cultural understanding they had of slavery extended to their captors. This was sadly not the case -- the Pequots were enslaved and destroyed for life, not the kind of limited servitude they were used to. These borderland studies show how malleable identity, language, community, religion and violence are in communities which are exposed to constant stresses and new outside forces and ideas. Native Americans living with Englishmen, captive English becoming adopted members of Native American communities, everything in between. However, they also often focus on how this malleability has tragic and horrific consequences -- the confluence of religion, political and social instability, and need for material wealth and insecurity resulted in orders from many English colonial town governments to never even speak the name of the Pequot tribe again, for example. If I get some more time later, I'll go through all the precious few mentions of Native Americans in the Notes on The Constitutional Convention and Madison's Notes on Confederacies and the Vices Of The Political System of the United States, which is where we turn to debunk the idea that a "borderland" had anything to do with the discussions many years later in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. BrotherAdso fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not sure how much further we'll get arguing about a counterfactual scenario like this but I find it puzzling why you're ignoring Stalin's actions within the USSR itself. He killed off most of his own Politburo and General Staff just to ensure there wouldn't be a whisper of dissent, assuming based on a treaty he signed at Yalta that he was genuinely ready to accept independent states in Eastern Europe is a pretty questionable assessment. Stalin being paranoid about internal dissent and crushing it and letting Eastern Europe be independent are two different things though, and he was ready to accept that based on what came out of Yalta. Also, Russia cracking the whip in Eastern European countries was a direct result of the US reneging on giving Russia aid since having it's industrial base in ruins and no real hope of getting it back would have happened without doing so. Now even if the cold war does get started under a different president instead of Truman, whatever the replacement for the Truman doctrine becomes more than likely isn't as black and white when it comes to dealing with Russia and communism since without it becoming policy in 47 detente is given more than a few years to take hold as a more effective strategy, a strategy that was revived with Nixon and proved to be more effective than containment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Obviously the thread should have limitations. I only meant to suggest that the United States cannot be discussed in a vacuum and it is necessary to bring in other topics and discussions. As the OP, I think you get to determine how far that extends though. I agree completely, but imagine if the right wing media thread, the supreme court thread, the 2016 presidential election thread, the budget conference thread, etc were all combined into one massive "American Politics Thread.". It'd be a mess. If history threads as a topic are going to be really lively, then it would be best to divide it. Things seem pretty readable so far, but maybe we could use a geopolitical history thread with a focus on conflicts and relations between major powers, colonialism in the third world, things like that? Definitely something to keep in mind if this one starts getting too cluttered. So long as this thread has some regular discussion about the US prior to 1940, I'm happy. Brother Adso, I'm at work, but I'll definitely take a close look at your post when I can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Can anyone explain to me, a historical ignoramus, what the situation was with slavery in the early days of British colonization of America? More precisely, I want to know when and specifically how it became a matter of race. I'm aware of a certain Anthony Johnson, whom I vaguely remember from history class. He was an African, born and raised, who was kidnapped and turned into an indentured servant in the American colonies. He had a pretty interesting life overall, but the thing that really interests me is that he wasn't a slave for life, and in fact, eventually became a land owner himself, and held several slaves(or servants, not sure which). Does this imply that he, as a black man, was really no better or worse in the eyes of his captors than the white Europeans who were locked in indentured servitude at the time? Or did he just get lucky? I've also heard that it was apparently considered to be illegal to keep a Christian man as a slave for life, but I don't know if that's accurate whatsoever. This video has some interesting facts about the Atlantic slave trade, you may find some answers to your questions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnV_MTFEGIY&list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9&index=24
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
temple posted:I never knew there was so much American history in Russia! Oh, you have no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia quote:The American Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia) was a United States Army force that was involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russian Empire, during the end of World War I after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Stalin wanted bits of Finland, not all of it. That's really not what Winter War was about. Stalin wanted what was his according to the agreement with Germany, and that was all of it. This doesn't mean that Finland was necessarily going to be annexed like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were, but Finland was to become a Soviet satellite at least. Some parts would have been integrated to Leningrad buffer zone in either case, but it's silly to think that Stalin would have been satisfied with "only" taking the part including all prepared defenses - this is what Hitler did with the Sudetenland. After Winter War Germans made it clear to Molotov that they no longer respected that part of the pact (during the war Germans had stopped arms shipments from Italy, for instance - now they were looking at Finland as a springboard to Leningrad), otherwise Finland would have been taken over before Barbarossa. After WW2 Finland was very much under Stalin's thumb - Soviets built a military base right next to Helsinki (which Khrushchev then gave away prematurely, that bourgeois pig!), but then he had little interest in delaying reparation payments or causing dumb drama. Stalin was always a careful strategist, which is where the American Russophoby went too far after the war: USSR wasn't going to initiate a WW3 for ideological or geopolitical reasons, it just would have been too risky and stupid. Soviets weren't going to play any more polite game than the US or other imperialists, but they weren't going to bet all on red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Was Huey Long's Share the Wealth movement and Father Coughlin the closest possibility we had towards real, practical (for American politics) Leftism in recent American history? From what I understand, FDR only pushed for further social welfare programs due to the leftward pressure of political figures like Long and Coughlin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:Was Huey Long's Share the Wealth movement and Father Coughlin the closest possibility we had towards real, practical (for American politics) Leftism in recent American history? I guess if you think Strasserism is leftism then sure. For a less sarcastic answer, no, both men were populists. While populism and leftism share some things in common, populism at its core wants to reform capitalism to be more egalitarian while leftism desires its destruction. e: people who know more about Long and Coughlin can expand on what I've said but Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I guess if you think Strasserism is leftism then sure. That's not inherent; Populism is basically the opposite of the shithead libertarians who go "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative". In other words, if you think of early Christian communes and the like, that would be very close to what an ideal form of Populism would be like (they're very religious but believe in helping the poor). Edit: Populism in the contemporary sense is very poorly defined though, and generally just means "doing whatever your constituents/the common people want". computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I guess if you think Strasserism is leftism then sure. What would you consider to be the moment closest to Leftist politics in American history, then? Eugene V. Debs? The reason why I'm saying this is because, as far as I know, we were on a trajectory towards Leftist programs (Universal Healthcare, etc.) up until the Jimmy Carter administration and then that trajectory swerved with the election of Reagan and his successors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:What would you consider to be the moment closest to Leftist politics in American history, then? Eugene V. Debs? This is an incorrect view of history, incidentally. The reason it seems this way is because the American system is set up so basically if you have 50% + 1 you can do whatever you want, and there's only two parties. The death of leftism (or the path to it as you mention) started at least with Kennedy & Johnson in the early 60s, and arguably began as early as Truman with desegregating the military (there was also FDR trying to make sure minorities benefited from New Deal policies but he wasn't really overt in that). Once politicians began to show interest in disenfranchised minority groups they lost a lot of support from traditional groups who supported labor/the poor but were white supremacists. It took a few years to actually show up because inertia in this country is huge, but it was not all the fault of Ronald Reagan that we aren't in a leftist utopia now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:What would you consider to be the moment closest to Leftist politics in American history, then? Eugene V. Debs? Yes. TheRamblingSoul posted:The reason why I'm saying this is because, as far as I know, we were on a trajectory towards Leftist programs (Universal Healthcare, etc.) up until the Jimmy Carter administration and then that trajectory swerved with the election of Reagan and his successors. I would say you and I have different definitions of "leftism." Would it be incorrect to say yours is a more "extreme" ideal of the current democratic party policies? UHC et al are indeed very leftist things by such a standard but my take on what is called leftism would be socialism/communism which seek to destroy the capitalist state rather than reform it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:Was Huey Long's Share the Wealth movement and Father Coughlin the closest possibility we had towards real, practical (for American politics) Leftism in recent American history? From what I understand, FDR only pushed for further social welfare programs due to the leftward pressure of political figures like Long and Coughlin. Huey Long was crooked as hell, and although he successfully gave Louisiana a modernist commonwealth his legacy is the most corrupt state in the Union. It's interesting to compare him with Stalin and other rapid modernizers, as the resulting bureaucracy often depends on the will of this one individual. It's good to break away from the Left/right frame. It is completely inadequate for making comparisons across time periods. Long was a populist who appealed to the common sense of industrial wealth distribution ('Every man a king') and he delivered these things by being a bullying, nepotistic executive. FDR was a more pragmatic executive, but one who also used the office for social change. I'm less knowledgeable about Father Coughlin; but it seems to me he was a fire brand preacher who drove rhetoric about social change, but was never a serious office runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I guess if you think Strasserism is leftism then sure. I really don't think it's fair to tar Long with the brush of fascism. Have you been playing Kaiserreich? Coughlin was a radio blowhard with ugly opinions about The Jew and it's clear that he was a fascist, sort of like Limbaugh on steroids and in a time when even nastier rhetoric was tolerated than today. On the other hand, Long was a left-populist who championed wealth redistribution on a scale your average leftist would love to get anywhere near proposing on the national stage, let alone build a hugely popular movement around. Was he a leftist as such? No, he wanted to work within capitalism - but as far as attempting to accomplish lefty goals in terms of social equality, he wasn't bad. Despite the occasional ideological alignment and alliance of convenience between the two, the constant association of Coughlin and Long in pop- and alt-history works masks the huge gulf between their ideas that existed in reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I really don't think it's fair to tar Long with the brush of fascism. Have you been playing Kaiserreich? ....Maybe. but I was the CSA I swear  e: also isn't Long the less "nazi" choice for the AUS in KR? I thought the option where Kuhn takes control leads to the max right/max authoritarian government. Jazerus posted:Coughlin was a radio blowhard with ugly opinions about The Jew and it's clear that he was a fascist, sort of like Limbaugh on steroids and in a time where even nastier rhetoric was tolerated. On the other hand, Long was a left-populist who championed wealth redistribution on a scale your average leftist would love to get anywhere near proposing on the national stage, let alone build a hugely popular movement around. Was he a leftist as such? No, he wanted to work within capitalism - but as far as attempting to accomplish lefty goals in terms of social equality, he wasn't bad. Despite the occasional ideological alignment and alliance of convenience between the two, the constant association of Coughlin and Long in pop- and alt-history works masks the huge gulf between their ideas that existed in reality. But yes you are correct Long wasn't a fascist and I shouldn't have labeled him as such but Coughlin definitely was. However, the dividing line between non-left populism and strasserism is a very thin and fine line indeed. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
You don't have to go back so far to find revolutionary leftists in US History when the Black Panthers were literally Maoists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
The Nozzle posted:You don't have to go back so far to find revolutionary leftists in US History when the Black Panthers were literally Maoists. That seems pretty counterproductive since most rural people are white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
The Nozzle posted:You don't have to go back so far to find revolutionary leftists in US History when the Black Panthers were literally Maoists. The Black Panthers have never been politically viable. Long was arguably the most viable leftist we've had in modern history
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:....Maybe. but I was the CSA I swear Long is the left option for the AUS, yeah, and you can conceivably run the AUS as relatively non-fascist by firing Coughlin and Kuhn from your cabinet at the start. By the time you win the civil war, Kuhn can be gone entirely and you can run the USA with Long as a very lefty president. I think KR has tarred Long for a lot of people who have never actually played as the AUS and just see the AI do the events, the fact that it's the South Rising Again, etc. and assume that since Huey Long is the leader of the AUS that he's as fascist as the rest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k Long was a pretty incredible orator, this is one of my favorite speeches
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I would say you and I have different definitions of "leftism." Would it be incorrect to say yours is a more "extreme" ideal of the current democratic party policies? UHC et al are indeed very leftist things by such a standard but my take on what is called leftism would be socialism/communism which seek to destroy the capitalist state rather than reform it. Would you not consider Social Democrats to be leftists then? Social Democrats have traditionally co-opted the capitalist state to further leftist policy instead of pursuing its destruction, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The Black Panthers have never been politically viable. Long was arguably the most viable leftist we've had in modern history Well George McGovern supported a Guaranteed Income in 72, which is pretty drat progressive. e: And he got 17 more Electoral Votes than Long ever did
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:Would you not consider Social Democrats to be leftists then? Social Democrats have traditionally co-opted the capitalist state to further leftist policy instead of pursuing its destruction, no? As long as their end goal is the establishment of socialism I consider such a group leftist. I disagree with their theory that one can use the levers of the capitalist state to achieve socialism since I believe a. The entrenched elites will always put an end to such an experiment and b. with the crises facing humanity we don't have time to gradually transform to socialism but yes they are leftists. Anyhow this is getting more for the Marxist thread, does anyone have more information on Huey Long since my knowledge on him is so lacking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Huey Long perplexes us modern history nerds because Long doesn't really fit neatly under any political identification. Long pursued and advocated for some very radical socialist programs, but claimed that government programs were bureaucratic nightmares, that the New Deal was one step away from fascism, that Capitalism was glorious and needed to be defended, and that the only things wrong with capitalism were bankers, the Federal Reserve, and the two political parties that had been bought by them. Basically Huey Long was Ron Paul but for Social Democracy instead of libertarianism
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I don't really think Long poses a problem with categorization, he was a Populist that invites a mixture of extreme and even contradicting positions. There is a reason that fascism, populism and conspiracy theory all intersect. If I'm feeling up for it maybe I'll pull up my old thesis paper and do an effort post about the changing place that conspiracy theory had had in American politics in the last 30 years. Or I'll just post some sections of the paper itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Anyway, back to American history. America's gun culture and NRA influence was on full display post-Sandy Hook, when a sufficiently large enough minority of voices raised such hell that even a token gun reform bill couldn't be brought up for a Senate vote. I believe guns are the last major cultural war battle from the 20th century being fought and with no real end in sight. Our history of gun control, however, is extraordinarily complex. Adam Winkler's Gunfight is must read material, but this article tells you what you need to know: I wish this book was out when I was writing my thesis paper. Although I wince whenever anyone says "THE FOUNDERS" like they were a hivemind that believed all one thing. The premise is generally correct (regulation of guns/militia/army was a big thing most politicians were for) but not all of them were for a universal gun-owning public that served in the militia. Lots of Federalists hated that idea big time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Basically Huey Long was Ron Paul but for Social Democracy instead of libertarianism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzLMRAz5G_4 This speech by Father Coughlin was "End the Fed" seven decades before the Ron Paul Revolution. Was this an example of Coughlin starting to adopt Hitlerian oratorical style? I heard somewhere that he started doing that in the latter part of his gig.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Does anyone know about the Philippines and how the US treated them after it gained possession of them after the Spanish-American War? Did the US have adverse colonial effects on the locals or did we more or less leave it in the same spot the Spanish left them (which based on Cuba I'm guessing not very well)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
Even though it is nowhere as detailed as a book I would recommend the Ken Burns documentary "Huey Long". It was quite impressive as it interviewed many people who actually lived during the time and it's pretty clear to see who hated him the most (Rich people and companies). When Long was nearly impeached it wasn't because of the corruption, the whole drat country would have to resign if that was true, it was because he had the audacity to tax a nickel per barrel of oil produced in Louisiana to fund social programs. Standard Oil sent it's musical band to rallies to encourage Long's impeachment. Long was corrupt, but he did plenty of good. Also calling him a fascist does a huge disservice to victims of fascism and shows how out of touch Americans are when it comes to dealing with fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Could someone tell me about the bad ol Jimmy Carter days that apparently led to Reagan's election? I understand inflation and interest rates were high but why was it high? I've heard people say that labor had too much power and they were hindering economic growth. Once again any book recommendations on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 13:55
|
|