Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work?
Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
I am just curious, do you consider the reverse to be a realistic possibility?
The US formally becoming a chauvinistic, fake-Christian, oligarch/mafia state, with no real democracy (the Russians nominally do have elections) for the next 30-50 years.
The only reason I ask is that my centre-right friends from the US have mentioned things like “Well, we had the gilded age, and we made it through.”
While the above is true, there are also other key historical events to consider like the great depression, global rise of fascism and WW2.
Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work? Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
No I can’t, and our current government seems to bet trying thier best to roll back some of the gains of the last 20-30 years.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
And the twat in the OP is being held up as a right wing white rule type. He has spoken their quiet parts out aloud, but the article in question starts with Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, (that is problematic in it’s self) as the counterpoint to the current governing right. I’m calling that out as being a nation building colonial speech.
For me that remains open to interpretation. The colonies were of different countries and up until Lincoln, they mixed together with the natives (what was left of them anyway) and the black slaves. And though his work was cut short, tangential evidence suggests to Lincoln working towards a complete integration.
Many use that vision when mentioning Lincoln and it’s possible that’s why it was also used as an argument in the article.
Then again, deconstructing it into a form of colonial dominion is also an opinion.
Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work? Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.
Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.
I am just curious, do you consider the reverse to be a realistic possibility?
The US formally becoming a chauvinistic, fake-Christian, oligarch/mafia state, with no real democracy (the Russians nominally do have elections) for the next 30-50 years.
The only reason I ask is that my centre-right friends from the US have mentioned things like “Well, we had the gilded age, and we made it through.”
While the above is true, there are also other key historical events to consider like the great depression, global rise of fascism and WW2.
Of course. People change, ideas change, needs change. What was can’t always be.
No I can’t, and our current government seems to bet trying thier best to roll back some of the gains of the last 20-30 years.
And the twat in the OP is being held up as a right wing white rule type. He has spoken their quiet parts out aloud, but the article in question starts with Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, (that is problematic in it’s self) as the counterpoint to the current governing right. I’m calling that out as being a nation building colonial speech.
For me that remains open to interpretation. The colonies were of different countries and up until Lincoln, they mixed together with the natives (what was left of them anyway) and the black slaves. And though his work was cut short, tangential evidence suggests to Lincoln working towards a complete integration.
Many use that vision when mentioning Lincoln and it’s possible that’s why it was also used as an argument in the article.
Then again, deconstructing it into a form of colonial dominion is also an opinion.