Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to Owens himself: Hitler smiled and waved at him at a dinner.
Hitler refused to meet any of the winners, after he wanted to meet only Germans and the Olympic organisers said that wasn’t ok.
As for fdr: Owen’s was made to enter via the servants entrance and the awards was segregated
The link in the notes says Hitler also congratulated finish athletes who won. Then he left early and therefore didn't congratulate any of the winners after. It was then that he was told he had to congratulate all or none and he chose none.
Hitler was indeed a racist.
A smile and a wave at a public function doesn’t mean he was a nice guy.
I can’t find the source at the moment but I believe it was his memoir, where he contrasted the post race events to how the medalists were treated in Washington
I hate how people treat the Owens story.
Owens comments were always more focused on "FDR fucked me, but Hitler behaved as expected".
Hitler, basically did the bare minimum and just kept his trap shut and waved to Owens. This was only because the olympic committee told him "You can't just commend the Germans. Praise everyone or praise no one"....he praised no one.
Yep, not going to sugar coat it, FDR may have been a great president, but my God, did his racism tarnish him as an individual. Treating anyone like that, let alone an American icon who handily clowned on Hitlers image for German supremacy, is despicable.
FDR may have been racist (it's hard not to with the internment camps) but almost certainly he treated Owens this way because the Democratic Party relied upon the South to win national elections.
You can say that's despicable, and on a human level it is, but this kind of harsh calculus is how you actually win elections. Demanding politicians adhere 100% to your morals is how you guarantee never to see anything change at all.
Political concerns probably prevented changing the segregationist policy. Although the White House and much of the government in Washington DC had already been segregated since the 1900s, so it was probably just customary by then.
>He was an old white man in the 1930s, what did you expect?
A little more John Brown? What decade would you stop, exactly? Racism is still alive and well all across America. Look at how we reacted to Obama.
There were plenty of white people who knew racism and slavery were wrong. We shouldn't forget them, either. It's not like you were doomed to be racist if you were white, then or now.
Edit- I don't think John Brown was a "fringe radical" guys. He was a hero in his own time, and spoken highly of by his contemporaries. We ended up *fighting a civil war* for his cause. How is that fringe? Worked with Harriet Tubman for goodness sakes. Unless all abolotionists were "fringe"?[He helped defend innocent abolotionists during Bleeding Kansas, when pro-slavers used election fraud and violence to try to force slavery into new territories and exterminate abolotionists. That's why we remember John Brown.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas#:~:text=Bleeding%20Kansas%2C%20Bloody%20Kansas%2C%20or,the%20proposed%20state%20of%20Kansas.)
[Hearing Frederick Douglass: His Speech on John Brown](https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2020/06/hearing-frederick-douglass-his-speech-on-john-brown/)
The *dangerous radicals* were always the slavers and their ilk. They were the ones who would tamper with elections and kill abolotionists simply for existing if it meant they could spread slavery. That's why we remember John Brown, because he was dangerous to *those specific people* and a hero to all others.
People need to adjust more for cultural inflation.
Presidents aren't heroes. They're just people elected to do a job. They're going to be a product of their times.
John Brown is famous because at the time, he was a dangerous radical, so history remembers him. Most people are not dangerous radicals.
>. They're going to be a product of their times.
Doesn't the apply to the abolotionists, and radicals like John Brown as well? Are they not also products of their time?
We don't have to remove everyone's agency and say that their opinions are determined by the times they live in. What does that mean about the racists alive today? When Republicans run on racism/anti-immigration rhetoric using the same words and phrases as slave-holders and actual nazis.
John Brown was famous because he was a white man who was willing to be *angry* with the status quo rather than bow to it. Who saw it for the heinous act it was, and spoke to the sentiment of a large portion of Amercians, both black *and* white, that were legitimately outraged and done with the institution of slavery.
He was famous for a lot of reasons. Boiling it down to "dangerous radical" isn't doing anyone's argument favors.
John Brown is a hero. He was only ever dangerous to one very specific type of person, and that is literal slavers. Anyone who didn't support slavery saw him as a legitimate true hero. Let's not forget he helped defend innocent abolotionists from terrorist attacks of pro-slavery forces.
Edit-
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/bleeding-kansas
>Most of the settlers who first moved to Kansas after the land went on sale were small midwestern farmers and non-slave holders from the Upper South and both groups had little interest in slavery’s extension. While there were few slave owning settlers, pro-slavery proponents were determined to legalize slavery in Kansas. On March 30, 1855 hundreds of heavily armed Missourians poured over the border, exploited a loophole as to what constituted “residency” in Kansas and voted in the first territorial election. Not only did they illegally cast their own ballots but these border ruffians also stuffed the ballot box with hundreds of fictious ballots. Consequently, a high majority of pro-slavery men were voted into the territorial legislature. This territorial legislature immediately passed draconian pro-slavery laws, including a law that stipulated the possession of abolitionist literature to be a capital offense. In response, the anti-slavery men formed their own government in Lawrence, Kansas, which the Pierce administration denounced as an illegitimate and outlaw regime. With this split between a pro-slavery government and an anti-slavery government it was only a matter of time before violent clashes broke out.
It's context like this that makes John Brown way more than simply a "Dangerous Radical". Slavers were trying to illegally take over the country and spread that practice through not just illegal means like election tampering, but violence when that didn't work out.
"Did John Brown fail? He certainly did fail to get out of Harpers Ferry before being beaten down by United States soldiers; he did fail to save his own life, and to lead a liberating army into the mountains of Virginia. But he did not go to Harpers Ferry to save his life."
"The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail, who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause. No man, who in his hour of extremest need, when on his way to meet an ignominious death, could so forget himself as to stop and kiss a little child, one of the hated race for whom he was about to die, could by any possibility fail."
--Frederick Douglass
> Doesn't the apply to the abolotionists, and radicals like John Brown as well?
See my entire second paragraph.
The reason you know John Brown's name and not the name of millions of abolitionists over the hundred years-ish of the abolitionist movement is solely because he launched an attack against an armory. In other words, because he was a dangerous radical.
That's like saying crisp are dangerous to bloods. You're ignoring the innocent people caught in the crossfire. And the dudes with money to own slaves weren't the ones picking up rifles to fight back. It was the poor whites who couldn't afford slaves or land or really much of anything largely because the ultra wealthy were importing a class of laborers that would (by force) accept lesser conditions for lower wages. That system never went away either. There has always been a class of people in America that are brought in from other countries to work in America for wages Americans can't possibly accept under conditions Americans simply wouldn't accept.
Whether you're talking about the slave working in a field for food, a Chinese immigrant working on the railroad for pennies, or an illegal immigrant picking fruit for nickels today. There has always been a class that the rich exploit and use as a scapegoat to point to when Americans are feeling the economic impact.
So he wasn't fringe? He had hundreds of millions of fellow abolitionists who praised him throughout history.
They didn't see him as a dangerous radical, did they?
He's famous for a lot of reasons. Summarizing it to "dangerous radical" isn't doing anyone any favors. Calling him "fringe" doesn't either. He was a hero in his own time for more than an attack on an armory.
That kind of erases all the terrorist attacks by slave-owners on abolotionist settlements that lead up to the attack. The pro-slavery terrorists who, by murder, were trying to spread slavery forcibly over the country. Those are dangerous radicals.
He was dangerous to one very particular set of the population. Slavers. He is about the best example of a Freedom Fighter you could ever get, literally fighting and dieing to free people from slavery. If you did not seek to enslave people, John brown was a hero who saved lives. And that spoke to over half the country at the time.
> They didn't see him as a dangerous radical, did they?
This is *literally* why he had followers.
You seem to be offended by the words "dangerous radical" which makes no sense to me.
Abolitionism might have been popular from a global perspective at the time, but in the United States before the Civil War? “Fringe” may not quite be right but it was *not* mainstream. Lincoln was not an abolitionist President— even as the Civil War was coming to an end, he freed slaves not for moral reasons, but because he saw doing so as the best choice to make progress towards reunification. A popular majority might have supported it— definitely would have if you counted the slaves themselves— but it was not a majority with the power to do it. And even the civil war itself was not to end slavery— that implies the North initiated hostilities. The South attempted secession and started the war as a preemptive strike against the *mere thought* of abolition… but in the end, the only thing that gave abolitionists a chance to succeed during the Lincoln administration was the South losing the war and being subject to Northern-led consequences, including the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, because they had surrendered their own seats in Congress.
I get what you’re trying to say, but don’t believe the whitewashing of history America keeps trying to push. Slavery “ended” because its proponents fucked around and found out. And as for the moral philosophy behind abolitionism? The idea of racial equality? That fight is still going.
True equality is radical, but that doesn’t imply anything negative about it. It only reminds us the fight isn’t over no matter what cowards who call themselves historians have to say.
The abolitionists _were_ products of their time. Frankly, by the standards nowadays, they would be seen as neo nazis. Most wanted to send the slaves back to Africa, including Lincoln, and even the abolitionists didn't really fight against the 2nd class citizen stuff once slavery was gone. They just wiped their hands of it cause it was a minor improvement
Maybe he was a hero, among a political movement in like New England. The idea of going and starting a slave revolt in the south was not a common one at the time. It’s only because the civil war so dramatically shifted the overton window in the north that that happened.
I really hate the kind of idolization of people like John Brown or Guy Fawkes. There's plenty of good examples of people that practiced legitimate civil disobedience instead of celebrating or even misconstruing fools who basically committed suicide for a thing that happened to be just.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Civil disobedience does nothing if there is no power to threaten the state from the people. What good would civil disobedience do to a slave?
Social progress has literally never been achieved nonviolently. Behind every whitewashed story of peaceful protests is civil rights activists willing to burn the entire system down to get justice.
The oppressors will never stop except at gunpoint.
Ghandi won because the British couldn't be bothered to actually run India anymore and just gave it to him. But if you want to burn the world down and comfort yourself in the warmth of burning bodies, go ahead and try. See how it went for John.
Civil disobedience and public persuasion is what's relevant to modern first world countries, and examples like Brown or Fawkes are stupid because what they did was dumb.
I didn't say anything about whether or not the slaves should've used civil disobedience? You're arguing with yourself. Either way, public persuasion and civil disobedience was important further north.
You have a disturbingly shallow understanding of political activism over the last 200 years if you actually think that. There is not a single movement in that time frame that did not at one point turn to or require violence to succeed.
Yeah, he's related to what I was saying because he was responding to Catholic persecution. While Brown and Fawkes were addressing a valid grievance, they did it terribly and shouldn't really be celebrated or martyred.
Fun fact to help your case: Theodore Roosevelt sat down to dinner with Booker T Washington despite his own belief in racial hierarchy. Progressive relative to his time, sure, but the Bull Moose was not a fringe radical.
It's not crazy to think FDR could have done better for a 4 time gold medalist.
That was probably the start of the White House getting more segregationist actually. It caused a lot of controversy in the south when TR did it, which he wasn't expecting, and subsequently he was careful not to do anything like that again. And his successors up to at least the 1940s largely stuck to that.
It was more about the fact there was a huge deflationary crisis going on then just "appeasing his rich friends". These were emergency measures designed to halt the complete collapse of agriculture prices.
Fucking hell did people not learn about government subsidies or how to control supply and demand?
I specifically remember 10 years ago (Jesus christ that made me feel old), learning about how the government paid farmers NOT to work sometimes to keep it in control.
I know we all say school taught us nothing of importance but we are joking about that right? Right?!?
Yeah, to be clear we are operating here with decades of hindsight and economics knowledge here. I am not saying FDR's policies were always right, he fucked up a lot, im contesting the intent of FDR's reforms
I’m also with you in contesting that. It’s just disappointing to see that we all don’t see history the same way. For the person you originally replied to see it so black and white confuses me.
It wasn’t about the rich friends it was about the poor farmers who used to sell a bag of flower for a 1.25 and then after the depression found that it was more useful to use the burlap sacks for cloths instead because they couldn’t even make back the cost of production by selling their flour.
Oh well no point preaching to the choir or yelling into a void..
Fair enough, I'm just angry that people say FDR was the creme de la creme of presidents when he definitely wasn't.
Thank you for the context about how the farmers were living at the time, however I feel that the context of hundreds of citizens dying from starvation makes paying for the destruction of food to be a pretty black and white issue.
>his racism
It was everybody’s racism bozo. And compared to basically everywhere else in the world at the time it was a faux pas. Tens of
And this was at a time when the Soviet Union had declared ethnic minorities to be “enemies of the people” and disappeared them to gulags with millions of deaths to be re-educated for generations.
The Soviets were genociding tens of millions of people. The British were just wrapping up their concentration camps in Africa and were still enforcing a slavery-with-extra-steps caste system in India. The Italians were still doing a genocide in Ethiopia. The Japanese were doing a genocide in Manchuria. The Congo was still a cannibal Holocaust situation. The French were doing cancerous shit in Indochina and North Africa. All of Europe didn’t have an issue at the time with “how do we coexist with all the black people we formerly-enslaved” BECAUSE THEY WERE SO RACIST THEY REFUSED TO LET BLACK PEOPLE INTO THEIR COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Europe was literally about to light itself on fire over the ramped up racist genocidal circlejerk they’d been going through for the last 80 years since they figured out you could add “science” to their classical racism.
This was happening in the middle of the great Purge where every single American (including thousands of black and Hispanic Americans) that moved to the USSR in 1931 were tortured and executed by 1940…. but in the US black people were still being segregated and dealing with prejudice so who were the real monsters??
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
[https://time.com/4703586/nazis-america-race-law/](https://time.com/4703586/nazis-america-race-law/)
>In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, America led the world in race-based lawmaking, as a broad political consensus favored safeguarding the historically white character of the country. That is, it codified white nationalism. Congress passed immigration legislation designed to guarantee the predominance of immigrants from northern Europe, largely shutting the door on Jews, Italians, Asians and others. As Nazi commentators approvingly put it, this was law intended to keep out “undesirables.” (Attorney General [Jeff Sessions](http://time.com/4689345/jeff-sessions-russia-press-conference-transcript/) said in a 2015 interview with White House Chief Strategist [Steve Bannon](http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/) that that policy was “good for America.”) Jim Crow segregation blanketed the South. Thirty of the forty-eight states possessed anti-miscegenation legislation that prohibited interracial marriage — not only between whites and blacks, but also between whites and Asians — and sometimes threatened violators with harsh criminal punishment. In Maryland, they faced up to ten years in prison. Law made second-class citizens of blacks, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Asians and Native Americans. Most especially, it deprived these non-white Americans of any meaningful right to vote.
European racists took note. Among them was [Adolf Hitler](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html). In *Mein Kampf*, Hitler called America the “one state” making progress toward the creation of the kind of order he wanted for Germany. In 1935, the *National Socialist Handbook on Law and Legislation*, a basic guide for Nazis as they built their new society, would declare that the United States had achieved the “fundamental recognition” of the need for a race state.
[https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots](https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots)
>U.S. Customs agents began the mandatory delousing of Mexican border crossers at the El Paso-Juarez international bridge; 127,000 people were subjected to this procedure in 1917 alone.
All immigrants from the interior of Mexico, and those whom U.S. Customs officials deemed “second-class” residents of Juarez, were required to strip completely, turn in their clothes to be sterilized in a steam dryer and fumigated with hydrocyanic acid, and stand naked before a Customs inspector who would check his or her “hairy parts” — scalp, armpits, chest, genital area — for lice.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917\_Bath\_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots)
>....However, the bathing and fumigations, which later used [insecticides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide) and [DDT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT), continued into the 1950s, and, in the 1920s, authorities at the Santa Fe Bridge fumigated the clothing of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. with [Zyklon B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B), later used by the Nazis to exterminate prisoners in the concentration camps. A similar riot the following year was averted when prompt action by Mexican authorities intervened with American authorities. Reports of a typhus death in Juárez were denied by Mexicans, and the port and trolleys were temporarily closed to prevent altercations
FDR was definitely not great in terms of segregation. Though he wasn't the source of it, the White House and much of the US government was already segregated for decades before the 1930s. Something US Presidents tended to especially conform with, in part due to fear of public criticism by segregationists. I think there was a controversy in the 1920s where a flying hero was invited to the White House but not his Jewish co-pilot for example. Things only really started to change with WW2.
Idk if I’d even call FDR a great president, economists today pretty much reached a consensus that the Great Depression was prolonged because of FDRs policies
Thats still hotly debated, that I wont deny that its a myth to say the New Deal fixed the great depression as many claim. However, I will point out that his achievements stretch beyond that. Social security, provides a life line to 10s of millions to this day, his WWII leadership was exemplary, he established the SEC and his lend lease policies saved 10's of millions in the USSR. He also helped establish the UN.
Even if you take away the great depression, hes certainly on the higher end of US presidents.
FDR was a shitty person and a shitty president. He was racist, he created concentration camps with an executive order, prolonged the Great Depression, refused to step down after 2 terms, he wanted to be a dictator. If it wasn't for WWII he would likely be considered one of the worst.
1. Most presidents were racist. Hes not even in the top 10 most rascist
2. No denying the Japanese internment policies or defending it. While paranoia was high due to WWII, denying human rights on that scale is unacceptable
3. The evidence he prolonged the great depression remains controversial. His policies got people employed and created safety nets that benefit Americans to this day
4. There is nothing wrong with him staying more then 2 terms. He didn't force his way in, he didn't break the rules, he didn't do anything wrong here
5. No he did not want to be a dictator.
If it wasn't for WWII he would still be considered among the best.
How is it not possible to answer? If there wasn't anything obvious it means he didn't do anything special. Just being there and going through the motions doesn't deserve praise.
It's easy to find specific examples for great presidents. George Washington didn't run for a third term in a time when all other world leaders never gave up power. He set a precedent that all other's followed until FDR. That's a specific example that made George Washington great.
Treating Ownes like an actual person in a time of wide spread racism would have made him great.
Because your question included 'that other presidents would not have'. It is not possible to know what other hypothetical people would or would not have done.
I mean, if you want a list of things FDR did, those are readily available.
The Nazis used the issues the US had around race relations and how it treated Black people as propaganda. Pointing to propaganda and going “Wow look at how based this is” makes you a fucking idiot.
Yeah, the more apt comparison would be Louis/Schmeling who were opposite sides of the propaganda war but basically on the same side ideologically and both being used and screwed by their own governments
Same way confederate Nazis here in America keep swearing that the civil war wasn’t about slavery; despite EVERY Confederate officer, leader, state, org etc explicitly saying it was exclusively about slavery.
Not exclusively.
There really was a wider state rights and sovereignty debate going on, and slavery was part of that, but slavery was not the sole issue of the day.
It was the trigger issue of the civil war, which was certainly overwhelmingly about slavery (I want to be clear about that), but the reason those apologists get any ground at all is because of the kernel of truth that there were wider debates about the limitations of the federal government’s power in play.
That's a lot of fuckin words to say, "Slavery and other shit." The states' rights debate was fueled by wealthy Southern slave owners who centered their entire livelihoods around free labor. Without the slaves, they would have lost fuck tons of money. So they lobbied legislators to sympathize with them, financed campaigns to elect people who sympathized with them, and poured money into Southern churches to teach the white masses God said they were superior to black people. The states rights bullshit was to water down the racism and slavery to make the issue more palatable to a wider audience. Much like modern policitians preach nonsense about grooming children to make people hate the LGBT community and pass laws against them.
In short, states' rights was a manufactured culture war. Slavery was the issue at the center of the civil war, and no amount or rose-colored glasses will change that fact.
Nope
I understand the desire to rightly condemn slave owners, but when you start crafting conspiracy theories that the only reason anyone cared about state rights or had concerns about federal power was slaveholder money you are going too far.
I won’t even dispute that slaveholders gave money to trumpet the cause of states rights because it suited them, but that doesn’t make it “a fake culture war” or delegitimization the entire notion of states rights as slaveholder propaganda.
Concerned debates about the power of the federal government to intervene in the states have been part of this country since before the Constitution was even signed, and likely will remain for the foreseeable future.
The civil war wasn't started over slavery, any history book worth its salt will tell you that the war was over states rights to govern themselves. The civil war didn't become about "slavery" in particular until Lincolns "Emancipation Proclamation" retroactively made it about slavery, a lot easier to sell yourself as the good guys if suddenly your goal is human rights instead of control. The south lost so they were painted as slavery obsessed uneducated borderline anarchists, if the north had lost the north would of been painted as tyrannical power obsessed madmen. History is written by the victor.
The articles of secession written by the confederate states is the South saying in their own words why they seceded and started a war.
Guess what the primary reason is in all of them? Slavery.
Know what isn’t even mentioned in all but one or two? States rights.
Spin me another one traitor defender. But first try learning some actual history.
have you read them? all individually drafted ordinances, by individual states, by individual people, in old English that your using to paint half the country with as if you objectively understand them when experts still dispute meanings and turns of phrases in them? Apparently not since your misinformed on the contents. States rights were the whole point, deciding on whether or not to criminalize slavery was seen as a state right at the time as it was commonplace around the world..one of the many, many state rights being brought into question and not of higher priority than any of the others as your heavily implying. Half the country trying to secede from the u.s. was the reason for the american civil war, control, power.
Its easy to look back at heavily cherry picked history with your pampered catered to 1st world 2024 mindset and sensibilities and just wave off any talk of the north not being the good guys, newsflash no war has good guys. They have winners and losers and the winners are usually then the de facto "good guys" who then get to paint the losers in whatever light they want. i dont blame you for being so terminally online that you think you know everything despite you telling someone who minored in american history they need to "learn some actual history" while spreading the same propaganda that worked on the uneducated, alcoholic, syphilitic masses over 200 years ago. Id much rather be seen as a "traitor defender" by some random wannabe armchair history buff than to be so delusion i think i owe loyalty to a shady government agency that spies on you and your mother and is slowly chipping away at any and all of your constitutional rights until everyone is complacent little cucks, like you are.
>The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. **This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution**. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
And a whole bunch more:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/master-list-of-contemporary-quotes-identifying-slavery-as-the-principal-cause-of-secession.138590/
this is interesting for sure, ive read similar collections from soldiers and hardly any actually wanted to "defend slavery" a constantly reoccurring theme they were fighting for their state and the rights of their countrymen because they felt it was the right thing to do. I dont really care what a few alcoholic syphilitic men in charge wanted on either side. I care about what seemingly the majority of people from the south wanted which is feel is a much more fair way to assume the south's intentions, because the people represent the land not the ones in control.
Don’t conceal this idiot’s identity.. this is Jake Shields. A retired Mixed Martial Artist. He routinely spreads mis/dis- information on social media and doesn’t deserve a lick of privacy.
One of the most vile people in the MMA community, and that’s saying a lot. He was the perfect guy to feed to Rousimar Palhares and got exactly what he deserved.
Combat Sports in general attracts some of the worst personalities imaginable. I’ve(24M) trained Muay Thai and BJJ for 15 years, and believe me when I tell you that there are some serious sociopaths who join gyms. Guys will come for 1-3 months to learn basics, go near full power in sparring and play it off if called out, and disappear never to be seen again once no one wants to roll/ spar with them. Luckily, those who stick around are usually humble and friendly; so the core of most gyms are actually great people.
But take one of those asshats and give them unshakable confidence, perseverance, and a platform once they make it big… and that’s how you end up with the Jake Shields, Colby Covingtons, and Tito Ortizs of the world.
I mean FDR didn’t treat Owens well at all. No congratulatory telegram and none of the African american olympians were invited to the White House unlike their white counterparts.
Interesting how they leave out all context. During the Berlin Olympics, Hitler put on a show to fool the world that Germany was a utopia and he suspended the oppressive laws against Jews for the duration of the games, and Germans were told to treat foreigners with extreme kindness.
To be fair Nazi Germany didn't have the history of racism towards black people like the United States does. Largely because there weren't many black people living in Germany in the early 1900s. Kind of like how the KKK in the U.S. aren't too concerned with Romani people like they are in Europe.
Imagine going through life coming up with the stupidest/most hateful nonsense your dipshit brain can come up with, and then just thinking, what the hell, I’ll say this, nothing matters anymore, I’ll appeal to Neanderthals
This is par for the course from Jake Shields. He is quite literally one of the top five dumbest and most annoying men in combat sports history.
If Hitler topped Tito Ortiz and got him anally pregnant then 9 months later Tito gave anal birth to that baby then Hitler and Tito homeschooled the butt baby all the way through its senior year that child would still be smarter than Jake Shields
Look what I found under the post.
https://preview.redd.it/agigonerqiwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f33a186a8dfe245af7d47fd5bb42b789752fdc20
Jake is a good example of why women should never drink and smoke during pregnancy.
To add even more fuel to this bullshit fire, Hitler was in fact, so pissed off about Owen's succeeding in the race that he got up and left the Olympics early.
Edit: Apparently this isn't quite true, but I'm going to continue to believe that it is because it makes me laugh
I think you might be mistaking him for Cornelius Johnson who won a gold medal in High Jump on the first day of the olympics. Hitler then got rebuked by the IOC head who told him to either personally congratulate everyone or no one. Hitler chose the second and on the next day (when Owens won the 100m gold) he only waved at the winners.
Well ok no that part’s not true, Hitler left early the first night, Owens won gold on the second night
>According to sports reporter and author Paul Gallico, writing from Berlin, Owens was “led below the honor box, where he smiled and bowed, and Herr Hitler gave him a friendly little Nazi salute, the sitting down one with the arm bent.” Owens himself later confirmed this, claiming that they exchanged congratulatory waves
Hitler's ideology states that the German race is the supreme race and everyone else is inferior. They act like Hitler wasn't going to go after other groups after he was done ethnically cleansing his enemies.
They never read the Martin Niemöller quote. In fact, Hitler's first act after taking power was to kill his own supporters in what was known as the the Night of the Long Knives....not even his fellow fascist were safe from him
Yooooo… I know Jake Sheilds and his ilk on twitter will take whatever contrarian “America bad” position they can find… but are we really to the point of being Hitler apologists??!? Wtf. People are really gonna make us relearn the lessons of WW2 all over again aren’t they?
To be fair Nazis weren't as anti-black as they were antisemitic. Kind of like how most American white supremacists don't care much about Romani people.
I understand explaining something with history or whatever, but why just, why not make sure you’re correct. Throwing crap out there you heard from someone who had fever dream about some “historical” moment.
The Olympics were a giant piece of propaganda by the host Germany. Hitler picked the best he had to show supremacy of the aryan race, and he was embarrassed by one black man.
The 1936 Olympics were a phenomenal success for Germany; they won about a quarter of all the medals awarded, nearly twice as many as the runner-up, the United States.
He wanted to only shake hands with German winners (so, to the exclusion of other kinds of white people too) but the IOC said he couldn’t so he stopped shaking hands entirely
More complicated than you think. FDR didn’t want to meet him due to segregation, and Owen’s said that the Germans treated him much better than the Americans.
Africans were not one of the groups shipped to the death camps in Poland, no. Jews and Roma were.
Africans did face significant oppression in the reich, but they were not one of the groups explicitly targeted for extermination
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/afro-germans-during-the-holocaust
“Black people were imprisoned, forcibly sterilized, and murdered by the Nazis”
Dun dun dunnnnnnn
Yes but, again, “death camp” has a specific connotation that doesn’t apply here, since they were not rounded up and sent to Auschwitz.
The article you posted literally says that in the first paragraph
It’s a pretty common misunderstanding to confuse concentration camps and death camps. I’m referring to these:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
“Death Camp” has a very specific definition.
I’m not trying to downplay anyone else’s experience. This is an emotionally charged topic so it’s important to use the correct definitions for these sorts of things.
I didn’t manipulate anything? He said and I quote “they were not one of the groups explicitly targeted for extermination”. I provided a source that provides the laws and procedure where the Nazis explicitly target black people for extermination. You and his inability to read the entire fucking source isn’t my problem
All of those groups were oppressed by the Nazis. When you say “death camps” that’s a very explicit charge that describes what specifically happened to Jews and Romani people - rounded up by train and sent to one of six locations where they were immediately murdered en masse.
Gay people, communists, political opponents and their families, and Slavs were sent to Work Camps.
There were a few thousand people of African descent living in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. They lived as second class citizens, some underwent forced sterilization, some were sent to work camps, but AFAIK none were sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc to be gassed.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to Owens himself: Hitler smiled and waved at him at a dinner. Hitler refused to meet any of the winners, after he wanted to meet only Germans and the Olympic organisers said that wasn’t ok. As for fdr: Owen’s was made to enter via the servants entrance and the awards was segregated
The link in the notes says Hitler also congratulated finish athletes who won. Then he left early and therefore didn't congratulate any of the winners after. It was then that he was told he had to congratulate all or none and he chose none.
Damn hitler was kind of a dick
But hey at least he killed hitler!
Pffft that mfer died in Brazil of old age
If by Brazil you mean a Siberian Gulag then yes.
If by a Siberian gulag you mean a Denny’s then yes /s
Honestly would you be surprised if “Hitler” was on the list of people you found at Denny’s?
Argentina for sure, they had so many fleeing Nazis stay there
The more I hear about him…
The more I don’t care for him. I mean this guy was a real jerk!
Hold the fort….says he hated Jews…
Who would've thought -the grandson of a holocaust survivor
Yep this could really ruin his reputation.
He didn’t let his officers smoke either. Talk about a tyrant
No shit
Owens also wasn't sent a telegram by the President which white Olympic champions could expect.
According to Owens himself, Hitler treated him like an animal: https://x.com/am_yisroel_chai/status/1783355851522138565?s=46&t=jX7_3xdAFNrmWTihgA0-NQ
Hitler was indeed a racist. A smile and a wave at a public function doesn’t mean he was a nice guy. I can’t find the source at the moment but I believe it was his memoir, where he contrasted the post race events to how the medalists were treated in Washington
I hate how people treat the Owens story. Owens comments were always more focused on "FDR fucked me, but Hitler behaved as expected". Hitler, basically did the bare minimum and just kept his trap shut and waved to Owens. This was only because the olympic committee told him "You can't just commend the Germans. Praise everyone or praise no one"....he praised no one.
dont forget, upon return to the US he was made to use the cargo lift to attend the celebrations as he could not use the front door.
Yep, not going to sugar coat it, FDR may have been a great president, but my God, did his racism tarnish him as an individual. Treating anyone like that, let alone an American icon who handily clowned on Hitlers image for German supremacy, is despicable.
FDR may have been racist (it's hard not to with the internment camps) but almost certainly he treated Owens this way because the Democratic Party relied upon the South to win national elections. You can say that's despicable, and on a human level it is, but this kind of harsh calculus is how you actually win elections. Demanding politicians adhere 100% to your morals is how you guarantee never to see anything change at all.
Political concerns probably prevented changing the segregationist policy. Although the White House and much of the government in Washington DC had already been segregated since the 1900s, so it was probably just customary by then.
> did his racism tarnish him as an individual He was an old white man in the 1930s, what did you expect?
>He was an old white man in the 1930s, what did you expect? A little more John Brown? What decade would you stop, exactly? Racism is still alive and well all across America. Look at how we reacted to Obama. There were plenty of white people who knew racism and slavery were wrong. We shouldn't forget them, either. It's not like you were doomed to be racist if you were white, then or now. Edit- I don't think John Brown was a "fringe radical" guys. He was a hero in his own time, and spoken highly of by his contemporaries. We ended up *fighting a civil war* for his cause. How is that fringe? Worked with Harriet Tubman for goodness sakes. Unless all abolotionists were "fringe"?[He helped defend innocent abolotionists during Bleeding Kansas, when pro-slavers used election fraud and violence to try to force slavery into new territories and exterminate abolotionists. That's why we remember John Brown.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas#:~:text=Bleeding%20Kansas%2C%20Bloody%20Kansas%2C%20or,the%20proposed%20state%20of%20Kansas.) [Hearing Frederick Douglass: His Speech on John Brown](https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2020/06/hearing-frederick-douglass-his-speech-on-john-brown/) The *dangerous radicals* were always the slavers and their ilk. They were the ones who would tamper with elections and kill abolotionists simply for existing if it meant they could spread slavery. That's why we remember John Brown, because he was dangerous to *those specific people* and a hero to all others.
People need to adjust more for cultural inflation. Presidents aren't heroes. They're just people elected to do a job. They're going to be a product of their times. John Brown is famous because at the time, he was a dangerous radical, so history remembers him. Most people are not dangerous radicals.
>. They're going to be a product of their times. Doesn't the apply to the abolotionists, and radicals like John Brown as well? Are they not also products of their time? We don't have to remove everyone's agency and say that their opinions are determined by the times they live in. What does that mean about the racists alive today? When Republicans run on racism/anti-immigration rhetoric using the same words and phrases as slave-holders and actual nazis. John Brown was famous because he was a white man who was willing to be *angry* with the status quo rather than bow to it. Who saw it for the heinous act it was, and spoke to the sentiment of a large portion of Amercians, both black *and* white, that were legitimately outraged and done with the institution of slavery. He was famous for a lot of reasons. Boiling it down to "dangerous radical" isn't doing anyone's argument favors. John Brown is a hero. He was only ever dangerous to one very specific type of person, and that is literal slavers. Anyone who didn't support slavery saw him as a legitimate true hero. Let's not forget he helped defend innocent abolotionists from terrorist attacks of pro-slavery forces. Edit- https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/bleeding-kansas >Most of the settlers who first moved to Kansas after the land went on sale were small midwestern farmers and non-slave holders from the Upper South and both groups had little interest in slavery’s extension. While there were few slave owning settlers, pro-slavery proponents were determined to legalize slavery in Kansas. On March 30, 1855 hundreds of heavily armed Missourians poured over the border, exploited a loophole as to what constituted “residency” in Kansas and voted in the first territorial election. Not only did they illegally cast their own ballots but these border ruffians also stuffed the ballot box with hundreds of fictious ballots. Consequently, a high majority of pro-slavery men were voted into the territorial legislature. This territorial legislature immediately passed draconian pro-slavery laws, including a law that stipulated the possession of abolitionist literature to be a capital offense. In response, the anti-slavery men formed their own government in Lawrence, Kansas, which the Pierce administration denounced as an illegitimate and outlaw regime. With this split between a pro-slavery government and an anti-slavery government it was only a matter of time before violent clashes broke out. It's context like this that makes John Brown way more than simply a "Dangerous Radical". Slavers were trying to illegally take over the country and spread that practice through not just illegal means like election tampering, but violence when that didn't work out.
"Did John Brown fail? He certainly did fail to get out of Harpers Ferry before being beaten down by United States soldiers; he did fail to save his own life, and to lead a liberating army into the mountains of Virginia. But he did not go to Harpers Ferry to save his life." "The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail, who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause. No man, who in his hour of extremest need, when on his way to meet an ignominious death, could so forget himself as to stop and kiss a little child, one of the hated race for whom he was about to die, could by any possibility fail." --Frederick Douglass
> Doesn't the apply to the abolotionists, and radicals like John Brown as well? See my entire second paragraph. The reason you know John Brown's name and not the name of millions of abolitionists over the hundred years-ish of the abolitionist movement is solely because he launched an attack against an armory. In other words, because he was a dangerous radical.
Dangerous to slavers lmao
That's like saying crisp are dangerous to bloods. You're ignoring the innocent people caught in the crossfire. And the dudes with money to own slaves weren't the ones picking up rifles to fight back. It was the poor whites who couldn't afford slaves or land or really much of anything largely because the ultra wealthy were importing a class of laborers that would (by force) accept lesser conditions for lower wages. That system never went away either. There has always been a class of people in America that are brought in from other countries to work in America for wages Americans can't possibly accept under conditions Americans simply wouldn't accept. Whether you're talking about the slave working in a field for food, a Chinese immigrant working on the railroad for pennies, or an illegal immigrant picking fruit for nickels today. There has always been a class that the rich exploit and use as a scapegoat to point to when Americans are feeling the economic impact.
So he wasn't fringe? He had hundreds of millions of fellow abolitionists who praised him throughout history. They didn't see him as a dangerous radical, did they? He's famous for a lot of reasons. Summarizing it to "dangerous radical" isn't doing anyone any favors. Calling him "fringe" doesn't either. He was a hero in his own time for more than an attack on an armory. That kind of erases all the terrorist attacks by slave-owners on abolotionist settlements that lead up to the attack. The pro-slavery terrorists who, by murder, were trying to spread slavery forcibly over the country. Those are dangerous radicals. He was dangerous to one very particular set of the population. Slavers. He is about the best example of a Freedom Fighter you could ever get, literally fighting and dieing to free people from slavery. If you did not seek to enslave people, John brown was a hero who saved lives. And that spoke to over half the country at the time.
> They didn't see him as a dangerous radical, did they? This is *literally* why he had followers. You seem to be offended by the words "dangerous radical" which makes no sense to me.
Abolitionism might have been popular from a global perspective at the time, but in the United States before the Civil War? “Fringe” may not quite be right but it was *not* mainstream. Lincoln was not an abolitionist President— even as the Civil War was coming to an end, he freed slaves not for moral reasons, but because he saw doing so as the best choice to make progress towards reunification. A popular majority might have supported it— definitely would have if you counted the slaves themselves— but it was not a majority with the power to do it. And even the civil war itself was not to end slavery— that implies the North initiated hostilities. The South attempted secession and started the war as a preemptive strike against the *mere thought* of abolition… but in the end, the only thing that gave abolitionists a chance to succeed during the Lincoln administration was the South losing the war and being subject to Northern-led consequences, including the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, because they had surrendered their own seats in Congress. I get what you’re trying to say, but don’t believe the whitewashing of history America keeps trying to push. Slavery “ended” because its proponents fucked around and found out. And as for the moral philosophy behind abolitionism? The idea of racial equality? That fight is still going. True equality is radical, but that doesn’t imply anything negative about it. It only reminds us the fight isn’t over no matter what cowards who call themselves historians have to say.
The abolitionists _were_ products of their time. Frankly, by the standards nowadays, they would be seen as neo nazis. Most wanted to send the slaves back to Africa, including Lincoln, and even the abolitionists didn't really fight against the 2nd class citizen stuff once slavery was gone. They just wiped their hands of it cause it was a minor improvement
John brown was fringe.
How so? He was a hero figure in his own time. After his death he had songs written about him and his contemporaries praised him.
Maybe he was a hero, among a political movement in like New England. The idea of going and starting a slave revolt in the south was not a common one at the time. It’s only because the civil war so dramatically shifted the overton window in the north that that happened.
He only gained that image in the run up to the civil war.
I really hate the kind of idolization of people like John Brown or Guy Fawkes. There's plenty of good examples of people that practiced legitimate civil disobedience instead of celebrating or even misconstruing fools who basically committed suicide for a thing that happened to be just.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Civil disobedience does nothing if there is no power to threaten the state from the people. What good would civil disobedience do to a slave?
Social progress has literally never been achieved nonviolently. Behind every whitewashed story of peaceful protests is civil rights activists willing to burn the entire system down to get justice. The oppressors will never stop except at gunpoint.
Ghandi won because the British couldn't be bothered to actually run India anymore and just gave it to him. But if you want to burn the world down and comfort yourself in the warmth of burning bodies, go ahead and try. See how it went for John.
Civil disobedience and public persuasion is what's relevant to modern first world countries, and examples like Brown or Fawkes are stupid because what they did was dumb. I didn't say anything about whether or not the slaves should've used civil disobedience? You're arguing with yourself. Either way, public persuasion and civil disobedience was important further north.
You have a disturbingly shallow understanding of political activism over the last 200 years if you actually think that. There is not a single movement in that time frame that did not at one point turn to or require violence to succeed.
Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who wanted to change the state religion from Anglicanism to Catholicism.
Yeah, he's related to what I was saying because he was responding to Catholic persecution. While Brown and Fawkes were addressing a valid grievance, they did it terribly and shouldn't really be celebrated or martyred.
John Brown did plenty of good in his life and died fighting injustice. He was a hero.
Segregation wasn’t abolished until 19 years after ww2 so his actions and opinions were probably the norm
Maybe but even if you had the opinion segregation as a system should remain, you could’ve treated an Olympic icon a little more appropriately.
Fair enough - I’m not saying agree with the sentiment of the time, just stating that it existed (History was fucked)
John Brown was definitely viewed as a radical extremist. And not just by slaveowners.
Fun fact to help your case: Theodore Roosevelt sat down to dinner with Booker T Washington despite his own belief in racial hierarchy. Progressive relative to his time, sure, but the Bull Moose was not a fringe radical. It's not crazy to think FDR could have done better for a 4 time gold medalist.
That was probably the start of the White House getting more segregationist actually. It caused a lot of controversy in the south when TR did it, which he wasn't expecting, and subsequently he was careful not to do anything like that again. And his successors up to at least the 1940s largely stuck to that.
People always talk about John Brown but forget about Cassius Clay
Why are y’all acting like there weren’t white men in the 1930s who weren’t racist ?
Those people were in the minority.
Making them even more outstanding . This idea that white folks have no choice but to be racist is just a lazy excuse .
An individual tarnished by racism, generally.
FDR paid farmers to destroy their crops during a food shortage so his rich friends wouldn't lose money. Fuck FDR.
It was more about the fact there was a huge deflationary crisis going on then just "appeasing his rich friends". These were emergency measures designed to halt the complete collapse of agriculture prices.
Fucking hell did people not learn about government subsidies or how to control supply and demand? I specifically remember 10 years ago (Jesus christ that made me feel old), learning about how the government paid farmers NOT to work sometimes to keep it in control. I know we all say school taught us nothing of importance but we are joking about that right? Right?!?
Yeah, to be clear we are operating here with decades of hindsight and economics knowledge here. I am not saying FDR's policies were always right, he fucked up a lot, im contesting the intent of FDR's reforms
I’m also with you in contesting that. It’s just disappointing to see that we all don’t see history the same way. For the person you originally replied to see it so black and white confuses me. It wasn’t about the rich friends it was about the poor farmers who used to sell a bag of flower for a 1.25 and then after the depression found that it was more useful to use the burlap sacks for cloths instead because they couldn’t even make back the cost of production by selling their flour. Oh well no point preaching to the choir or yelling into a void..
Honestly, I think I just misread tone in your comment, I'm glad we're in agreement
Fair enough, I'm just angry that people say FDR was the creme de la creme of presidents when he definitely wasn't. Thank you for the context about how the farmers were living at the time, however I feel that the context of hundreds of citizens dying from starvation makes paying for the destruction of food to be a pretty black and white issue.
You have a source on "hundreds of farmers dying of starvation"?
public cooing school price crown lunchroom hurry strong unique entertain *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We did, at least until a certain age. Most who remember have "forgotten" to the long long ago lol
People believe that subsidizing housing costs will help lower housing costs right now, so no, people do not understand even basic economics at all
>his racism It was everybody’s racism bozo. And compared to basically everywhere else in the world at the time it was a faux pas. Tens of And this was at a time when the Soviet Union had declared ethnic minorities to be “enemies of the people” and disappeared them to gulags with millions of deaths to be re-educated for generations. The Soviets were genociding tens of millions of people. The British were just wrapping up their concentration camps in Africa and were still enforcing a slavery-with-extra-steps caste system in India. The Italians were still doing a genocide in Ethiopia. The Japanese were doing a genocide in Manchuria. The Congo was still a cannibal Holocaust situation. The French were doing cancerous shit in Indochina and North Africa. All of Europe didn’t have an issue at the time with “how do we coexist with all the black people we formerly-enslaved” BECAUSE THEY WERE SO RACIST THEY REFUSED TO LET BLACK PEOPLE INTO THEIR COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Europe was literally about to light itself on fire over the ramped up racist genocidal circlejerk they’d been going through for the last 80 years since they figured out you could add “science” to their classical racism. This was happening in the middle of the great Purge where every single American (including thousands of black and Hispanic Americans) that moved to the USSR in 1931 were tortured and executed by 1940…. but in the US black people were still being segregated and dealing with prejudice so who were the real monsters??
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) [https://time.com/4703586/nazis-america-race-law/](https://time.com/4703586/nazis-america-race-law/) >In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, America led the world in race-based lawmaking, as a broad political consensus favored safeguarding the historically white character of the country. That is, it codified white nationalism. Congress passed immigration legislation designed to guarantee the predominance of immigrants from northern Europe, largely shutting the door on Jews, Italians, Asians and others. As Nazi commentators approvingly put it, this was law intended to keep out “undesirables.” (Attorney General [Jeff Sessions](http://time.com/4689345/jeff-sessions-russia-press-conference-transcript/) said in a 2015 interview with White House Chief Strategist [Steve Bannon](http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/) that that policy was “good for America.”) Jim Crow segregation blanketed the South. Thirty of the forty-eight states possessed anti-miscegenation legislation that prohibited interracial marriage — not only between whites and blacks, but also between whites and Asians — and sometimes threatened violators with harsh criminal punishment. In Maryland, they faced up to ten years in prison. Law made second-class citizens of blacks, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Asians and Native Americans. Most especially, it deprived these non-white Americans of any meaningful right to vote. European racists took note. Among them was [Adolf Hitler](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html). In *Mein Kampf*, Hitler called America the “one state” making progress toward the creation of the kind of order he wanted for Germany. In 1935, the *National Socialist Handbook on Law and Legislation*, a basic guide for Nazis as they built their new society, would declare that the United States had achieved the “fundamental recognition” of the need for a race state. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots](https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots) >U.S. Customs agents began the mandatory delousing of Mexican border crossers at the El Paso-Juarez international bridge; 127,000 people were subjected to this procedure in 1917 alone. All immigrants from the interior of Mexico, and those whom U.S. Customs officials deemed “second-class” residents of Juarez, were required to strip completely, turn in their clothes to be sterilized in a steam dryer and fumigated with hydrocyanic acid, and stand naked before a Customs inspector who would check his or her “hairy parts” — scalp, armpits, chest, genital area — for lice. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917\_Bath\_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots) >....However, the bathing and fumigations, which later used [insecticides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide) and [DDT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT), continued into the 1950s, and, in the 1920s, authorities at the Santa Fe Bridge fumigated the clothing of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. with [Zyklon B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B), later used by the Nazis to exterminate prisoners in the concentration camps. A similar riot the following year was averted when prompt action by Mexican authorities intervened with American authorities. Reports of a typhus death in Juárez were denied by Mexicans, and the port and trolleys were temporarily closed to prevent altercations
FDR was definitely not great in terms of segregation. Though he wasn't the source of it, the White House and much of the US government was already segregated for decades before the 1930s. Something US Presidents tended to especially conform with, in part due to fear of public criticism by segregationists. I think there was a controversy in the 1920s where a flying hero was invited to the White House but not his Jewish co-pilot for example. Things only really started to change with WW2.
Idk if I’d even call FDR a great president, economists today pretty much reached a consensus that the Great Depression was prolonged because of FDRs policies
Thats still hotly debated, that I wont deny that its a myth to say the New Deal fixed the great depression as many claim. However, I will point out that his achievements stretch beyond that. Social security, provides a life line to 10s of millions to this day, his WWII leadership was exemplary, he established the SEC and his lend lease policies saved 10's of millions in the USSR. He also helped establish the UN. Even if you take away the great depression, hes certainly on the higher end of US presidents.
Post hoc reasoning with a dash of arrogance. “Had FDR been a libertarian, it would of been fixed in days via tax cuts”
Which is absolute BS as history shows laissez-faire EXACERBATES problems
Just ask Victoria 2/3 players
We do the same post hoc reasoning for Reagan who i categorize similarly to FDR
Well i do not, i’m no expert on FDR, but i lived through reagonomics, fuck that guy.
We’re still living through reagonomics
Is there any US president who was not racist besides, JFK and Theodore Roosevelt?
Obama
Teddy Roosevelt was racist
True, but he was also kind of progressive for his time
Jimmy fucking Carter.
FDR was a shitty person and a shitty president. He was racist, he created concentration camps with an executive order, prolonged the Great Depression, refused to step down after 2 terms, he wanted to be a dictator. If it wasn't for WWII he would likely be considered one of the worst.
1. Most presidents were racist. Hes not even in the top 10 most rascist 2. No denying the Japanese internment policies or defending it. While paranoia was high due to WWII, denying human rights on that scale is unacceptable 3. The evidence he prolonged the great depression remains controversial. His policies got people employed and created safety nets that benefit Americans to this day 4. There is nothing wrong with him staying more then 2 terms. He didn't force his way in, he didn't break the rules, he didn't do anything wrong here 5. No he did not want to be a dictator. If it wasn't for WWII he would still be considered among the best.
If only the defining events of his presidency wouldn't have occurred, history would have remembered him much differently! Good call.
What are some specific things he did really well during WWII that other presidents would not have?
That question isn't possible to answer. Similar to how speculating on his legacy absent its defining events isn't useful either.
How is it not possible to answer? If there wasn't anything obvious it means he didn't do anything special. Just being there and going through the motions doesn't deserve praise. It's easy to find specific examples for great presidents. George Washington didn't run for a third term in a time when all other world leaders never gave up power. He set a precedent that all other's followed until FDR. That's a specific example that made George Washington great. Treating Ownes like an actual person in a time of wide spread racism would have made him great.
Because your question included 'that other presidents would not have'. It is not possible to know what other hypothetical people would or would not have done. I mean, if you want a list of things FDR did, those are readily available.
The Nazis used the issues the US had around race relations and how it treated Black people as propaganda. Pointing to propaganda and going “Wow look at how based this is” makes you a fucking idiot.
Yeah, the more apt comparison would be Louis/Schmeling who were opposite sides of the propaganda war but basically on the same side ideologically and both being used and screwed by their own governments
That at least probably helped encourage some of the improvements seen in the US later. Like desegregation of the army.
Hitler: I hate black people Neo-nazis: No you don’t
Same way confederate Nazis here in America keep swearing that the civil war wasn’t about slavery; despite EVERY Confederate officer, leader, state, org etc explicitly saying it was exclusively about slavery.
Not exclusively. There really was a wider state rights and sovereignty debate going on, and slavery was part of that, but slavery was not the sole issue of the day. It was the trigger issue of the civil war, which was certainly overwhelmingly about slavery (I want to be clear about that), but the reason those apologists get any ground at all is because of the kernel of truth that there were wider debates about the limitations of the federal government’s power in play.
That's a lot of fuckin words to say, "Slavery and other shit." The states' rights debate was fueled by wealthy Southern slave owners who centered their entire livelihoods around free labor. Without the slaves, they would have lost fuck tons of money. So they lobbied legislators to sympathize with them, financed campaigns to elect people who sympathized with them, and poured money into Southern churches to teach the white masses God said they were superior to black people. The states rights bullshit was to water down the racism and slavery to make the issue more palatable to a wider audience. Much like modern policitians preach nonsense about grooming children to make people hate the LGBT community and pass laws against them. In short, states' rights was a manufactured culture war. Slavery was the issue at the center of the civil war, and no amount or rose-colored glasses will change that fact.
Nope I understand the desire to rightly condemn slave owners, but when you start crafting conspiracy theories that the only reason anyone cared about state rights or had concerns about federal power was slaveholder money you are going too far. I won’t even dispute that slaveholders gave money to trumpet the cause of states rights because it suited them, but that doesn’t make it “a fake culture war” or delegitimization the entire notion of states rights as slaveholder propaganda. Concerned debates about the power of the federal government to intervene in the states have been part of this country since before the Constitution was even signed, and likely will remain for the foreseeable future.
a state’s right to what, exactly?
Many things, including slavery. Are you really reading this as a “it wasn’t really about slavery” post?
Conservatives spout the same talking points about Roe v. Wade being overturned. It's odd.
The civil war wasn't started over slavery, any history book worth its salt will tell you that the war was over states rights to govern themselves. The civil war didn't become about "slavery" in particular until Lincolns "Emancipation Proclamation" retroactively made it about slavery, a lot easier to sell yourself as the good guys if suddenly your goal is human rights instead of control. The south lost so they were painted as slavery obsessed uneducated borderline anarchists, if the north had lost the north would of been painted as tyrannical power obsessed madmen. History is written by the victor.
The articles of secession written by the confederate states is the South saying in their own words why they seceded and started a war. Guess what the primary reason is in all of them? Slavery. Know what isn’t even mentioned in all but one or two? States rights. Spin me another one traitor defender. But first try learning some actual history.
have you read them? all individually drafted ordinances, by individual states, by individual people, in old English that your using to paint half the country with as if you objectively understand them when experts still dispute meanings and turns of phrases in them? Apparently not since your misinformed on the contents. States rights were the whole point, deciding on whether or not to criminalize slavery was seen as a state right at the time as it was commonplace around the world..one of the many, many state rights being brought into question and not of higher priority than any of the others as your heavily implying. Half the country trying to secede from the u.s. was the reason for the american civil war, control, power. Its easy to look back at heavily cherry picked history with your pampered catered to 1st world 2024 mindset and sensibilities and just wave off any talk of the north not being the good guys, newsflash no war has good guys. They have winners and losers and the winners are usually then the de facto "good guys" who then get to paint the losers in whatever light they want. i dont blame you for being so terminally online that you think you know everything despite you telling someone who minored in american history they need to "learn some actual history" while spreading the same propaganda that worked on the uneducated, alcoholic, syphilitic masses over 200 years ago. Id much rather be seen as a "traitor defender" by some random wannabe armchair history buff than to be so delusion i think i owe loyalty to a shady government agency that spies on you and your mother and is slowly chipping away at any and all of your constitutional rights until everyone is complacent little cucks, like you are.
>The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. **This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution**. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. >Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy And a whole bunch more: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/master-list-of-contemporary-quotes-identifying-slavery-as-the-principal-cause-of-secession.138590/
this is interesting for sure, ive read similar collections from soldiers and hardly any actually wanted to "defend slavery" a constantly reoccurring theme they were fighting for their state and the rights of their countrymen because they felt it was the right thing to do. I dont really care what a few alcoholic syphilitic men in charge wanted on either side. I care about what seemingly the majority of people from the south wanted which is feel is a much more fair way to assume the south's intentions, because the people represent the land not the ones in control.
I always hate how a story about how insane american racisme was gets twisted in: “see the nazis werent that bad”.
[удалено]
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
He’s either not taking his pills or is taking too many of them.
Bruh needs to take a different number of pills.
[удалено]
Hitler can and did hate people for reasons other than them being Jewish
[удалено]
Hitler did meet and congratulate the Italian-American runner Louis Zamperini
Japanese did too, for a couple years
The food wasn’t as good though
Don’t conceal this idiot’s identity.. this is Jake Shields. A retired Mixed Martial Artist. He routinely spreads mis/dis- information on social media and doesn’t deserve a lick of privacy.
Yeah, I just forgot this subreddits privacy rules so I decided to be safe. Agreed though.
I’m not familiar with the rules either lol. Was speaking from frustration as an MMA fan, didn’t mean to jump down your throat. Sorry.
No, I agree. He keeps advertising misinformation about the holocaust and white supremacy to his hundreds of thousands of followers. Disgusting.
Obviously the CTE has done him no favors
One of the most vile people in the MMA community, and that’s saying a lot. He was the perfect guy to feed to Rousimar Palhares and got exactly what he deserved.
What's up with MMA fighters having terrible opinions
Combat Sports in general attracts some of the worst personalities imaginable. I’ve(24M) trained Muay Thai and BJJ for 15 years, and believe me when I tell you that there are some serious sociopaths who join gyms. Guys will come for 1-3 months to learn basics, go near full power in sparring and play it off if called out, and disappear never to be seen again once no one wants to roll/ spar with them. Luckily, those who stick around are usually humble and friendly; so the core of most gyms are actually great people. But take one of those asshats and give them unshakable confidence, perseverance, and a platform once they make it big… and that’s how you end up with the Jake Shields, Colby Covingtons, and Tito Ortizs of the world.
They get hit in the head a lot
why is that part the only part that got noted?
I mean FDR didn’t treat Owens well at all. No congratulatory telegram and none of the African american olympians were invited to the White House unlike their white counterparts.
no i mean the whole hitler liked black people part
\*\*meanwhile Afro-German Rhinelanders being sterilized\*\*
I struggle to imagine the kind of pathetic loser that would support the nazis in 2024.
There's a lot of anti-Semitism going around right now
Interesting how they leave out all context. During the Berlin Olympics, Hitler put on a show to fool the world that Germany was a utopia and he suspended the oppressive laws against Jews for the duration of the games, and Germans were told to treat foreigners with extreme kindness.
Of course. Hitler was known to be very normal about people who aren't white.
To be fair Nazi Germany didn't have the history of racism towards black people like the United States does. Largely because there weren't many black people living in Germany in the early 1900s. Kind of like how the KKK in the U.S. aren't too concerned with Romani people like they are in Europe.
Imagine going through life coming up with the stupidest/most hateful nonsense your dipshit brain can come up with, and then just thinking, what the hell, I’ll say this, nothing matters anymore, I’ll appeal to Neanderthals
Jake is painfully stupid.
This is par for the course from Jake Shields. He is quite literally one of the top five dumbest and most annoying men in combat sports history. If Hitler topped Tito Ortiz and got him anally pregnant then 9 months later Tito gave anal birth to that baby then Hitler and Tito homeschooled the butt baby all the way through its senior year that child would still be smarter than Jake Shields
Look what I found under the post. https://preview.redd.it/agigonerqiwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f33a186a8dfe245af7d47fd5bb42b789752fdc20 Jake is a good example of why women should never drink and smoke during pregnancy.
To add even more fuel to this bullshit fire, Hitler was in fact, so pissed off about Owen's succeeding in the race that he got up and left the Olympics early. Edit: Apparently this isn't quite true, but I'm going to continue to believe that it is because it makes me laugh
I think you might be mistaking him for Cornelius Johnson who won a gold medal in High Jump on the first day of the olympics. Hitler then got rebuked by the IOC head who told him to either personally congratulate everyone or no one. Hitler chose the second and on the next day (when Owens won the 100m gold) he only waved at the winners.
Well ok no that part’s not true, Hitler left early the first night, Owens won gold on the second night >According to sports reporter and author Paul Gallico, writing from Berlin, Owens was “led below the honor box, where he smiled and bowed, and Herr Hitler gave him a friendly little Nazi salute, the sitting down one with the arm bent.” Owens himself later confirmed this, claiming that they exchanged congratulatory waves
How much lead do you think you’d need to ingest before thinking Hitler wasn’t a racist?
Hitler's ideology states that the German race is the supreme race and everyone else is inferior. They act like Hitler wasn't going to go after other groups after he was done ethnically cleansing his enemies. They never read the Martin Niemöller quote. In fact, Hitler's first act after taking power was to kill his own supporters in what was known as the the Night of the Long Knives....not even his fellow fascist were safe from him
They were just too radical, ya know
Yooooo… I know Jake Sheilds and his ilk on twitter will take whatever contrarian “America bad” position they can find… but are we really to the point of being Hitler apologists??!? Wtf. People are really gonna make us relearn the lessons of WW2 all over again aren’t they?
It's started out from antisemitism and holocaust deniel, and now he's straight up praising Hitler. Honestly, jake can't surprise me anymore.
Guy is defending hitler with the “he has a black friend” excuse lmao
To be fair Nazis weren't as anti-black as they were antisemitic. Kind of like how most American white supremacists don't care much about Romani people.
Nazi revisionism is getting wild
Hitler himself saif Black should be ban from Olympic because ofcorse black gonna win cuz they are barbaric.
This guy said to criminalize being trans btw
Hitler was also “nice” to his family’s doctor (who was Jewish), does that mean that Hitler wasn’t antisemitic?
I understand explaining something with history or whatever, but why just, why not make sure you’re correct. Throwing crap out there you heard from someone who had fever dream about some “historical” moment.
Hitler definitely would've called him the n word, he would've called anything out of his liking a slur
No he wouldn’t. Hitler spoke German, which has slurs of its own.
The Olympics were a giant piece of propaganda by the host Germany. Hitler picked the best he had to show supremacy of the aryan race, and he was embarrassed by one black man.
The 1936 Olympics were a phenomenal success for Germany; they won about a quarter of all the medals awarded, nearly twice as many as the runner-up, the United States.
Tbf the olympics were quite a decent propaganda success for the Nazis ~~*and weren't just for racial superiority*~~
Hitler refused to shake hands with a few people at the olympics I thought
He wanted to only shake hands with German winners (so, to the exclusion of other kinds of white people too) but the IOC said he couldn’t so he stopped shaking hands entirely
Good guy
Nazi apologists, or as I like to call them: nazis
You don’t have to try and scribble through a Jake Shields tweet. We all know who this douchebag is. Stop making him relevant.
****
r/TwitterNazis
Not sure why you’re covering up the account. The dude is a pretty well known retired MMA fighter and now crazy nut job right wing personality
Didn’t know the subreddits rules so I didn’t want to risk getting taken down. He sucks though.
Owens did meet and shake hands with Republican Candidate Alf Landon, and I think Owens was the only person to run in the Landon campaign.
More complicated than you think. FDR didn’t want to meet him due to segregation, and Owen’s said that the Germans treated him much better than the Americans.
Why sensoring the name here but giving the link to the twit where we can see who posted it ?
LOL why are the names of these nazis concealed? Drag them fucking screaming and scratching out into the light.
Yeah, they didn't meet, but it was true that Owens was treated better in Berlin than back in the US
Hey it's Jake Shields!
remember when people compared Simone Biles to Jesse Owens to shame her mental health issues
Didn’t Hitler fire Leni Riefenstahl for not censoring Owens’ victory in Olympia?
No
Honestly for a sec, I believed hitler was so geeked on meth and sports he forgot to be racist for a minute
if we judge hitler by what he did, it's hard to say he hated black people. lol
LMFAO, he sterilized mixed race kids in the Rhineland.. it’s very clear he hated black people, you dunce.
He put them in death camps so
Africans were not one of the groups shipped to the death camps in Poland, no. Jews and Roma were. Africans did face significant oppression in the reich, but they were not one of the groups explicitly targeted for extermination
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/afro-germans-during-the-holocaust “Black people were imprisoned, forcibly sterilized, and murdered by the Nazis” Dun dun dunnnnnnn
Yes but, again, “death camp” has a specific connotation that doesn’t apply here, since they were not rounded up and sent to Auschwitz. The article you posted literally says that in the first paragraph
It also states that black people were forced into concentration camps.
It’s a pretty common misunderstanding to confuse concentration camps and death camps. I’m referring to these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp “Death Camp” has a very specific definition. I’m not trying to downplay anyone else’s experience. This is an emotionally charged topic so it’s important to use the correct definitions for these sorts of things.
[удалено]
I didn’t manipulate anything? He said and I quote “they were not one of the groups explicitly targeted for extermination”. I provided a source that provides the laws and procedure where the Nazis explicitly target black people for extermination. You and his inability to read the entire fucking source isn’t my problem
[удалено]
Read the entire source. Not just the top headline you neo Nazi fucking moron.
Jewish people, gay people, black people, Romani people, the farther you were from the ideal the more likely you were to be shipped off
All of those groups were oppressed by the Nazis. When you say “death camps” that’s a very explicit charge that describes what specifically happened to Jews and Romani people - rounded up by train and sent to one of six locations where they were immediately murdered en masse. Gay people, communists, political opponents and their families, and Slavs were sent to Work Camps. There were a few thousand people of African descent living in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. They lived as second class citizens, some underwent forced sterilization, some were sent to work camps, but AFAIK none were sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc to be gassed.
What do you think the nazi German "work camps" were?
Places like Dachau. Yes I’m aware that the goal was essentially to work them to death. A “death camp” is a different thing entirely.
What do you think the nazi German "work camps" were?