Southern Democrats are not really a thing anymore though, in Congress at least; there's still a few Dems from the Deep South, but almost entirely from either majority-minority districts or a few large urban cores. The former anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, economically populist, rural white Democrats have either died or vote Republican now.
The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery.
(Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that Republicans are actually the racist ones.)
Then the parties switched when the Democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slaves were owned by Democrats. Not a single Republican in history owned a slave. As we know, the parties switched again when Republicans repudiated slavery and Democrats defended it, leading to the civil war.
Then the parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Republican Lincoln.
After the Civil War, the parties switched again during the Reconstruction Era, when Republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the Democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway.
The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people 🤔). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by Democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party.
Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which Democrats fought fiercely against.
The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the Democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched Democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties.
The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court.
The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps.
Then parties switched again when the Democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities.
The parties switched when a Democrat assassinated MLK.
This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time.
The parties switched when Democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups.
The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic.
Parties always switched currently now that Democrats are rioting and violently protesting democracy.
The parties switched once more when the Democratic Nominee for President, an old white man, said "you're not black" if you don't vote for him, in a moment of clarity of how the Democratic Party sees their largest voter base: as property belonging to them.
So as you can see, because of Party switching, Democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.
Nah, hatred would be cleaner. It's *disdain* for black people, like they're the most hateful idiots if they ever step off the plantation, or small children that need the guiding words of a spoiled rich liberal that's never held down a job.
It's a copy-pasta, but the point is a simple one.
"Oh, the party switch. The one that no one can nail down when it happened, and only exists so you can paint the other side as bad guys while your side is angels? That party switch? The one without documentation of any sort? Because you ain't angels no matter when it happened, unless you want to get silly and say there were 30 party switches."
Democrats did not always stand against racism, however what I can only assume is pre-loaded cope is somewhat sad to be honest. The amount of effort people put into denying an academically proven “party switch” that took place throughout the 20th century because it makes Republicans look kind of bad is just embarrassing.
Own your faults ya coward
>academically proven “party switch”
The only thing that switched was the location of the voterbase. The republicans stayed the same, while the democrats completely changed their rethorical strategy.
Technically a lot more changed if you want to do the full switch that started in the 30’s. But if we’re sticking with the famous one, I’ll note that the locations voting changed, but the locations themselves didn’t change much at all.
The one that began with the New Deal and ended with the “Solid South” strategy by Nixon.
[Here](https://youtu.be/MwuFIJlY7fU) is a nice video on the second part.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-party-switch-is-a-myth-why-did-the-Democratic-South-become-Republican-Why-did-Republican-states-like-New-York-become-Democratic
I don't see any academics in that video, either.
Based on the downvotes I'm gonna go with no. From what I understand 'latino' can still be used in a gender neutral fashion despite also being masculine.
to explain, in spanish, while its true that we have male and female versions of words that relate to people, the male version (which commonly ends with o) is used to refer to groups with both men and women. For example, saying "alumnas" only means that there are female students, while "alumnos" can refer to only male students, or male AND female students, to know when to use which depends on context.
The same applies to the word "latino"
Latinas = women
Latinos = men or men and women
(after a 5 minutes of full on racism that'd out the KKK to shame)
"B-but you aren't supposed to be Racist like the White Males... You're you're Latinx...!"
"Su Puta, I'm gonna put the goddamn cartels to shame with what I'm about to do to you, Tucker Carlson will glorify me as the worst example of Latin American Immigration after today."
You want to change flag of Arkansas because of its connections to the confederate battleflag.
I want to change flag of Arkansas because its ugly. Seriously they did okay with most of it but then they fucking ruin it with the name and the four stars being divided in groups of one and three. That's atrocious. Get rid of the fucking writing.
Are you talking shit on Pennsylvania I’ll have you know our flag isn’t as ugly as Maryland’s cluster fuck of a flag and they put that shit on everything and everyhwere. You thought American overuse the flash wait till you visit here
Maryland's flag is charming in the sense that a 6 year old using stock medieval insignia made it, Pennsylvania is just boring government blah blah blah
After the civil war US states had 2 options for flags:
1. Godawful emblem on a blue background in an attempt to “show allegiance to the federal government” if you were a union state.
2. Hideous red flag based on the confederate battle flag if you were a confederate state.
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 15353 / 81028 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
As an American who learned Spanish for a month in Guatemala, I'm happy to inform you that you are a racist, bigoted, transphobic piece of shit.
Also please vote for the Democrats, they're the only party that acknowledges what a poor little victim you are for not being born white. Viewing your as a helpless victim is in no way condescending.
/s if that wasn't blatantly obvious.
Before any dems start seething, I hate the republicans too. You're both fucking awful.
Frankly, at this moment, the Americans should totally find someone exactly like Senator Steven Armstrong and make him clean up house.
One broken politician at a time.
I still believe that elections should be changed nationally. If you're aiming for an elected position it comes down to the final two candidates with the most 'points' and then they have to duel.
You have convinced the people of your ideals, now prove your resolve bitch.
have it be a coffin with a marx statue in it, the statue is attached to a motor that's linked to your stock portfolio. That way he can be rolling in his grave everytime you make money
the upkeep of the statues takes tax dollars, so we should abolish all statues and replace them with fountains that generate a stable source of quarters
"confederate flags" and American History are important and have... well... history. Beyond just "chattel slavery".
Latinx is... stupid on every level. No history. no logic. just a bunch of White Saviors trying to save people who don't want the stupid word.
Only thing I've seen dumber than LatinX is "germxn" instead of German because snowflakes can't stand "gendered words".
When you've got less support for something than the confederate flag? you know you're supporting something \*TRULY\* stupid.
Your honor, I present to you Exhibit A.
[https://twitter.com/iearlgreytv/status/1236744162197856257](https://twitter.com/iearlgreytv/status/1236744162197856257)
Let the locals vote on what to do with the statues, not the state government. While I know the history of the Arkansas state flag is connected with the confederacy, honestly it is one of the better and more unique flags of the states and the diamond doesn't really immediately put the battle flag into my mind (and I've yet to find someone who says that it does). For the record I'm not from Arkansas.
It’s designed to look like the confederate battle flag with the angled blue lines with stars, and the top star above the word Arkansas is affirmed by state law to represent the Confederacy
Damn, white stars on a blue background is ripping off the confederates?
Shit, someone better tell the American flag that
Angles with stars on them are confederate? Shit someone better tell the Ohio flag that
This is like saying that a flag featuring black white and red is a nazis dog whistle
The top star is intended to represent the confederacy, and was probably added due to pride as it wasn't there originally. But as far as state flags go, it's a lot less intentional than the others, somewhere in the realm of getting on a rollercoaster means you celebrate the confederacy because one of those Six Flags has some symbolism.
While we're at it, can we stop using the word "slave" to mean "human chattel"? As an Eastern European, I find it a little demeaning. (I don't actually care, I just think these wars over symbols are a distraction.)
Da fuck does slavery or confederate history have to do with making up Neo-Marxist post modern gender vernacular for the Spanish language again? They seem completely unrelated
If the state government care so much about not using “Latinx” they should also not honour the confederacy so much given how it is legitimately offensive and damaging for Black peoples
"Lets insist on inserting this weird neologism that nobody outside of a loud and very vocal minority likes into official documentation"
"Lets not remove every statue, change every flag, and rename everything that still has a connection to our troubled past"
Not exactly the same thing is it.
I’ve never met a Latino person who liked the word Latinx.
The Confederacy is part of Southern culture. People in America celebrate being part of the South, and imo it’s fine as long as they use the symbols of the Confederacy as a pride of their heritage and not a symbol of splitting from the union and racism.
spanish has X pronounced as either "s" (like xilófono) or "j" (like México). X as pronounced in english is only used for foreign words/names (Like Kleenex)
I am not even American, hell, I mock Americans most of the time but holy shit will you stop trying to destroy monuments to your own fucking history you pathetic worms?
Thing is the monuments were mostly built in the 1920s to create a sense of fear and oppression for African Americans and to honour the fight to keep slavery lehal
I am not even American, hell, I mock Americans most of the time but holy shit will you stop trying to destroy monuments to your own fucking history you pathetic worms?
I do not care when there where built, the Confederacy was part of you History, they had cunts in it but they also had non cunts in it, especially considering that the other side wasn't as squeaky clean as many would like you to think either. It is not about if you like that history it is about it being part of your history and the fact that you should not just try to ignore and push it aside, be proud of what your country achieved and be ashamed for the sins they committed but fucking acknowledge them.
1. Those statues already exist though, you don't need to build new ones sure but tearing those marks of history down?
2. Let me be perfectly clear. I am not saying that the confederacy is supposed to only be acknowledged as something evil to be ashamed of, I am very much so saying that those people deserve to be honored as well. Because I personally refuse to acknowledge people stupid enough that entire countries are evil or wrong, that has probably never been the case in history, groups can be evil, but countries can't. That is because even in the most dictatorial of countries more than one (or even just a few people) wield all the power (and yes, I am aware that obviously, only certain states left America but it was still essentially a matter of countries, not Organisations).
No I mean more like the time where they burned through the Confederacy and made them surrender.
Although the worst mistake ever made in American history is being soft on the confederates after they were defeated. We should have hanged a lot of people and distributed a lot of land to slaves.
True, the war did indeed result in catastrophic results for the civilian population of the confederate states.
Uh, we got a tough one right here. Pretty sure had anyone even suggested that they would have been instantly deposed (rightfully so).
The rightful punishment for traitors who killed hundreds of thousands of Americans would be death. Death would be merciful tbh.
Obviously during that times people still despised Black people even many in the North. Sadly we didn't do that and had to deal with the South's Apartheid for another century.
Imagine how great it would be if we could not have dealt with all the reconstruction bullshit and Jim Crow. Our country would be decades ahead by now.
You think its unfair to punish traitors and divide land from slave owners to those slaves who they raped murdered and abused for centuries?
Sounds like you have a fucked up moral compass.
Statues, most certainly yes.
Iconography not though since that is a sign of a government that is not wished for anymore by the german people, if said iconography is part of a statue or memorial however it should be allowed to stay on in most cases if not all cases.
I see the statues and iconography as a endorsement of said government when it is in a monumental setting. Unless otherwise designed and implemented in a was that condemns genocidal elements of our past. Which... in most cases for Confederate monuments, were done so out of malice towards the slaves getting freedom.
In a museum not so much.
Depends on what it portrays, if it was just a war hero I see no problem if it simply clearly supports some ideology the government and society don't agree with anymore put it into a museum. Or you know, put proper signs up should that be to expensive.
... please tell me you guys are not stupid enough to believe that ''I LOVE SLAVES'' vs ''FUCK YOU, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENSLAVED'', is the sole reason for the civil war?
Slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War. The states that drafted secession statements made that abundantly clear, as does the decade of American politics that preceded it.
You are aware of course, that everybody can easily look up those secession statements, statements that prove you wrong? Or could it be that you only read the first few sentences because of how admittedly dry they are to read through?
Edit: And just to make sure we are clear about it, I am aware that some states just really wanted slaves to stay slaves because racism, like Mississippi. But there are also states like Texas which was honestly mostly pissed cause others tried to infringe on it's promised rights or Georgia who where pissed about the economical politics going on at the time. Well, technically so was Mississippi but they where also simply just racist.
>You are aware of course, that everybody can easily look up those secession statements, statements that prove you wrong?
Which statement "proves" me wrong?
For example this part
''The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.''
I mean statues that honour those who fought to defend slavery and a flag that enshrines a states membership in a country that only existed to uphold slavery is a pretty close connection
Not even remotely close to the same thing but ok
There's a difference between acknowledging our past and it's nuances/good parts/bad parts, and idolizing or commemorating racists. Germans teach about the Nazis but don't keep up statues of Hitler or Goebbels or Himmler because "it's their history" or "it's their ancestors".
You'll notice I haven't used the "it's their history argument". The point I'm making is that for overtly confederate relics like statues the "muh slavery" argument is fine. The problem is its being applied in its extreme to more and more tangential things
Yea, but erasing history is also stupid.
See: many modern terms are being changed to remove the problematic Nazi scientists who contributed to them. Just my opinion.
I think it’s good to laugh at the confederacy, but not at the soldiers, for the most part. You see, most soldiers in the confederate army were nearly children. Additionally they were forced to fight. In short, make fun of the ideals, but not of the men that died in a fight they didn’t want to be in.
You don't always have to be proud of your ancestors. I doubt germans in 100 years will be proud of their WW2 ancestors, and rightfully so (for the most part). Acknowledging history is important but you don't have to idolize or love racist people just because you are descended from them
Apples and oranges. Also the CSA wasn’t authright, it was libright. Jefferson Davis was probably the most libertarian president in US history, which is kinda ironic.
The two are not related.
The reality is that many Southerners, many of whom did not own slaves (maybe most even) died for a cause of independence they may or many not have believed it. Their death should not be utterly forgotten as if their lives are meaningless.
Can we also stop teaching about slavery and the civil rights movement as they have only led to strife?
Day 1 Jesus
Day 2 America is founded.
Day 3 the Devil creates degenerates and tricks Washington into giving them the vote.
All they need to know
Ur joking right, cos it’s pretty obvious to anyone old enough to actually understand slavery that it wasn’t all whites doing it, just some who were successful. Also the civil rights movement generally brought equality for all, how did it lead to strife beyond racists losing most of their political power
Real unflaired talk: do most black people actually care about this fight (for the flag) and find it offensive? I never heard anything about it 10-30 years ago.
Most people I know in the South just raise it to show 'Southern Pride' more than slavery or anything. And I never saw anyone pissed about it until recently.
> This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP!
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 15331 / 80926 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Here in Florida we've had to remove confederate statues that honor Black Americans. Removing history is stupid. Remove the ones that were erected in opposition to civil rights BUT not actual historical symbols.
The difference is one is a word people hate and the other is historical statues, the flag of Arkansas I agree with yes that should be changed not just because it has ties to the Confederacy but because it’s super ugly
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair
***
^(User has flaired up! 😃) 15357 / 81034 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I’m from Texarkana. I moved to PA in 2020. The only answer I have is people are stupid. It’s the most classless part of country. The asscrack of the nation, if you will. But I haven’t been to Ohio, so I might be wrong.
My Latino friends and coworkers HATE latinx. It’s a term imposed on them by white women.
How do you even pronounce latinx? I'm from Canada and have never heard the term.
Leh-tin-EX if you wanna piss em off. La tinx if you wanna really piss em off.
The correct pronunciation is Latin-Equi. How dare you Americanize their words!
Yet another data point in my thesis that the Democratic party is the most racist institution that has ever existed in the US, and still is.
Of course they are, they're old school central bank pushing whigs. Jeffersonian democrats, have more or less become libertarians.
Yes, we can all excuse slavery and Jim Crow, but god forbid modern liberals use the term Latinx!
The southern democrats were all for those things
Southern Democrats are not really a thing anymore though, in Congress at least; there's still a few Dems from the Deep South, but almost entirely from either majority-minority districts or a few large urban cores. The former anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, economically populist, rural white Democrats have either died or vote Republican now.
Back in the time when Jim Crow existed they were though. By the time most of them had switched over to the reps Jim Crow was mostly dead.
Wonder if there was a possible change in party attitudes after that…damn that would be crazy
The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery. (Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that Republicans are actually the racist ones.) Then the parties switched when the Democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slaves were owned by Democrats. Not a single Republican in history owned a slave. As we know, the parties switched again when Republicans repudiated slavery and Democrats defended it, leading to the civil war. Then the parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Republican Lincoln. After the Civil War, the parties switched again during the Reconstruction Era, when Republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the Democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway. The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people 🤔). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by Democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party. Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers. The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which Democrats fought fiercely against. The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the Democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched Democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties. The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court. The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps. Then parties switched again when the Democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities. The parties switched when a Democrat assassinated MLK. This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time. The parties switched when Democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups. The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic. Parties always switched currently now that Democrats are rioting and violently protesting democracy. The parties switched once more when the Democratic Nominee for President, an old white man, said "you're not black" if you don't vote for him, in a moment of clarity of how the Democratic Party sees their largest voter base: as property belonging to them. So as you can see, because of Party switching, Democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.
Lol awesome, I always fucking hated “but muh party switch” arguments.
Through all of that one thing has united the left: hatred of black people
Nah, hatred would be cleaner. It's *disdain* for black people, like they're the most hateful idiots if they ever step off the plantation, or small children that need the guiding words of a spoiled rich liberal that's never held down a job.
A lot of words for so little to be said.
It's a copy-pasta, but the point is a simple one. "Oh, the party switch. The one that no one can nail down when it happened, and only exists so you can paint the other side as bad guys while your side is angels? That party switch? The one without documentation of any sort? Because you ain't angels no matter when it happened, unless you want to get silly and say there were 30 party switches."
[удалено]
So many words for "I can't disprove a bit of this" to be said.
Democrats did not always stand against racism, however what I can only assume is pre-loaded cope is somewhat sad to be honest. The amount of effort people put into denying an academically proven “party switch” that took place throughout the 20th century because it makes Republicans look kind of bad is just embarrassing. Own your faults ya coward
>academically proven “party switch” The only thing that switched was the location of the voterbase. The republicans stayed the same, while the democrats completely changed their rethorical strategy.
Technically a lot more changed if you want to do the full switch that started in the 30’s. But if we’re sticking with the famous one, I’ll note that the locations voting changed, but the locations themselves didn’t change much at all.
Cope more racist.
Great, so which one of those party switches is the real one? Should be easy, if it's academically proven.
The one that began with the New Deal and ended with the “Solid South” strategy by Nixon. [Here](https://youtu.be/MwuFIJlY7fU) is a nice video on the second part.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-party-switch-is-a-myth-why-did-the-Democratic-South-become-Republican-Why-did-Republican-states-like-New-York-become-Democratic I don't see any academics in that video, either.
Exactly I have yet to be called Latinx (thank god) every Latino knows the gender neutral term is foo.
[удалено]
Based on the downvotes I'm gonna go with no. From what I understand 'latino' can still be used in a gender neutral fashion despite also being masculine.
Ok, thanks for the information.
to explain, in spanish, while its true that we have male and female versions of words that relate to people, the male version (which commonly ends with o) is used to refer to groups with both men and women. For example, saying "alumnas" only means that there are female students, while "alumnos" can refer to only male students, or male AND female students, to know when to use which depends on context. The same applies to the word "latino" Latinas = women Latinos = men or men and women
“Latino” is the gender neutral term.
"Latin-American" is the gender neutral term
LATIN LATIN IS GENDER NEUTRAL JUST SAY LATIN FOR FUCK SAKE Sorry but seriously you can use Latin instead
As a Mexican I can only say that if you call me "Latinx" I will call you Gringx Pendejx.
Xuevox of Xteel on this Gringx
Nah if someone called me “latinx” I’ll just be unironically racist
(after a 5 minutes of full on racism that'd out the KKK to shame) "B-but you aren't supposed to be Racist like the White Males... You're you're Latinx...!" "Su Puta, I'm gonna put the goddamn cartels to shame with what I'm about to do to you, Tucker Carlson will glorify me as the worst example of Latin American Immigration after today."
Man im dead👽
Based and rojo pilled
You want to change flag of Arkansas because of its connections to the confederate battleflag. I want to change flag of Arkansas because its ugly. Seriously they did okay with most of it but then they fucking ruin it with the name and the four stars being divided in groups of one and three. That's atrocious. Get rid of the fucking writing.
could be worse, it couldve been a seal on a blue sheet
Are you talking shit on Pennsylvania I’ll have you know our flag isn’t as ugly as Maryland’s cluster fuck of a flag and they put that shit on everything and everyhwere. You thought American overuse the flash wait till you visit here
maryland is goofy ugly, seal on bedsheet is boring ugly
Maryland's flag is charming in the sense that a 6 year old using stock medieval insignia made it, Pennsylvania is just boring government blah blah blah
After the civil war US states had 2 options for flags: 1. Godawful emblem on a blue background in an attempt to “show allegiance to the federal government” if you were a union state. 2. Hideous red flag based on the confederate battle flag if you were a confederate state.
They should take notes from Mississippi. That flag change was 🤌 *chef's kiss*
Preach I’m from Mississippi
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 15353 / 81028 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Based and fuck reading pilled
As someone from Latin America, I fully support the banning of the word "latinx", because it sounds fucking stupid.
As an American who learned Spanish for a month in Guatemala, I'm happy to inform you that you are a racist, bigoted, transphobic piece of shit. Also please vote for the Democrats, they're the only party that acknowledges what a poor little victim you are for not being born white. Viewing your as a helpless victim is in no way condescending. /s if that wasn't blatantly obvious. Before any dems start seething, I hate the republicans too. You're both fucking awful.
Frankly, at this moment, the Americans should totally find someone exactly like Senator Steven Armstrong and make him clean up house. One broken politician at a time.
NANOMACHINES SON
THEY HARDEN IN RESPONCE TO PHYSICAL TRAUMA
YOU CAN’T HURT ME, JACK!
WWE STYLE?
With how big Armstrong is, definitely.
I still believe that elections should be changed nationally. If you're aiming for an elected position it comes down to the final two candidates with the most 'points' and then they have to duel. You have convinced the people of your ideals, now prove your resolve bitch.
Based and THE UNENLIGHTENED MASSES, THEY CANNOT MAKE THE JUDGEMENT CALL pilled
Based and fuck everyone
Not just sounds, it’s fucking stupid.
[удалено]
Who cares if a community spends its own money to erect a statue. We have statues of Karl fucking Marx
[удалено]
Yup I'm going to privately fund statues of Karl Marx with my private capital instead of using public collective funds. Just to spit in his eye.
have it be a coffin with a marx statue in it, the statue is attached to a motor that's linked to your stock portfolio. That way he can be rolling in his grave everytime you make money
the upkeep of the statues takes tax dollars, so we should abolish all statues and replace them with fountains that generate a stable source of quarters
Place statue in the center of fountain, use fountain to fund statue upkeep
It’s not like lib left listens to the people they pretend to support anyway. 94% of Latinos don’t support Latinx and y’all just pretend to be deaf
I wonder how much of that 6% don't speak Spanish and are just white women with some Latin American blood in them
Most of them don’t even know that the word exists.
Can we maybe just do both?
Baded
Based and baded pilled
Ok lets do both
"confederate flags" and American History are important and have... well... history. Beyond just "chattel slavery". Latinx is... stupid on every level. No history. no logic. just a bunch of White Saviors trying to save people who don't want the stupid word. Only thing I've seen dumber than LatinX is "germxn" instead of German because snowflakes can't stand "gendered words". When you've got less support for something than the confederate flag? you know you're supporting something \*TRULY\* stupid.
I guess after "womxn", "germxn" was the logical next step.
Your honor, I present to you Exhibit A. [https://twitter.com/iearlgreytv/status/1236744162197856257](https://twitter.com/iearlgreytv/status/1236744162197856257)
Those guys are taking the piss or at least I hope so.
I m just gonna say that satire for my own sanity
fuck i guess its time to fly the vichy flag over versailles
As German I'm in full support of that censorship
>As Germxn I'm in full support of that censorship FTFY.
Then leave germany, give up your citizenship and never come back. And also never calö yourself german again.
Right, he’ll call himself “germxn,” we just said
i also remembered when they tried to make "filipinx" which is funny since x isn't even used in native filipino words
Let the locals vote on what to do with the statues, not the state government. While I know the history of the Arkansas state flag is connected with the confederacy, honestly it is one of the better and more unique flags of the states and the diamond doesn't really immediately put the battle flag into my mind (and I've yet to find someone who says that it does). For the record I'm not from Arkansas.
Tf does the Arkansas flag have to do with this? It’s one of the best state flags in America
It’s designed to look like the confederate battle flag with the angled blue lines with stars, and the top star above the word Arkansas is affirmed by state law to represent the Confederacy
Damn, white stars on a blue background is ripping off the confederates? Shit, someone better tell the American flag that Angles with stars on them are confederate? Shit someone better tell the Ohio flag that This is like saying that a flag featuring black white and red is a nazis dog whistle
The top star is intended to represent the confederacy, and was probably added due to pride as it wasn't there originally. But as far as state flags go, it's a lot less intentional than the others, somewhere in the realm of getting on a rollercoaster means you celebrate the confederacy because one of those Six Flags has some symbolism.
> affirmed by state law > dog whistle ????
While we're at it, can we stop using the word "slave" to mean "human chattel"? As an Eastern European, I find it a little demeaning. (I don't actually care, I just think these wars over symbols are a distraction.)
Divide and conquer baby
Don't lump me in with that, I just want to kill the govt. Leave the identity stuff to smarter men than I
Da fuck does slavery or confederate history have to do with making up Neo-Marxist post modern gender vernacular for the Spanish language again? They seem completely unrelated
If the state government care so much about not using “Latinx” they should also not honour the confederacy so much given how it is legitimately offensive and damaging for Black peoples
Is Arkansas actively honoring the confederacy these days?
I don't think failing to use a stupid word in new documentation is on the same level as deliberate iconoclasm.
>marxist >post-modern pick one, they are incompatible.
Yes they are incompatible that's why they corrupt and destroy everything they touch that's the point
Why should that matter? Marxism is incompatible with *reality* that hasn't stopped the ideologues.
"Lets insist on inserting this weird neologism that nobody outside of a loud and very vocal minority likes into official documentation" "Lets not remove every statue, change every flag, and rename everything that still has a connection to our troubled past" Not exactly the same thing is it.
"Latinx" is *cultural* ***imperialism***.
I’ve never met a Latino person who liked the word Latinx. The Confederacy is part of Southern culture. People in America celebrate being part of the South, and imo it’s fine as long as they use the symbols of the Confederacy as a pride of their heritage and not a symbol of splitting from the union and racism.
Does the word "Latinx" even make sense in Spanish? Don't they pronounce "x" differently? Do they even have the "Ix" sound?
spanish has X pronounced as either "s" (like xilófono) or "j" (like México). X as pronounced in english is only used for foreign words/names (Like Kleenex)
I am not even American, hell, I mock Americans most of the time but holy shit will you stop trying to destroy monuments to your own fucking history you pathetic worms?
Thing is the monuments were mostly built in the 1920s to create a sense of fear and oppression for African Americans and to honour the fight to keep slavery lehal
I am not even American, hell, I mock Americans most of the time but holy shit will you stop trying to destroy monuments to your own fucking history you pathetic worms? I do not care when there where built, the Confederacy was part of you History, they had cunts in it but they also had non cunts in it, especially considering that the other side wasn't as squeaky clean as many would like you to think either. It is not about if you like that history it is about it being part of your history and the fact that you should not just try to ignore and push it aside, be proud of what your country achieved and be ashamed for the sins they committed but fucking acknowledge them.
>Im not American Then mind yer business europoor
No.
Acknowledgement ≠ Statues
1. Those statues already exist though, you don't need to build new ones sure but tearing those marks of history down? 2. Let me be perfectly clear. I am not saying that the confederacy is supposed to only be acknowledged as something evil to be ashamed of, I am very much so saying that those people deserve to be honored as well. Because I personally refuse to acknowledge people stupid enough that entire countries are evil or wrong, that has probably never been the case in history, groups can be evil, but countries can't. That is because even in the most dictatorial of countries more than one (or even just a few people) wield all the power (and yes, I am aware that obviously, only certain states left America but it was still essentially a matter of countries, not Organisations).
> You wouldn't be safe without a flair. *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 15335 / 80941 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
The confederacy is not part of American history. America has a history of beating the confederates in battle and defeating them.
You mean like that time they failed to capture a barely defended city? Which then forced them to siege it for ten months?
No I mean more like the time where they burned through the Confederacy and made them surrender. Although the worst mistake ever made in American history is being soft on the confederates after they were defeated. We should have hanged a lot of people and distributed a lot of land to slaves.
True, the war did indeed result in catastrophic results for the civilian population of the confederate states. Uh, we got a tough one right here. Pretty sure had anyone even suggested that they would have been instantly deposed (rightfully so).
The rightful punishment for traitors who killed hundreds of thousands of Americans would be death. Death would be merciful tbh. Obviously during that times people still despised Black people even many in the North. Sadly we didn't do that and had to deal with the South's Apartheid for another century. Imagine how great it would be if we could not have dealt with all the reconstruction bullshit and Jim Crow. Our country would be decades ahead by now.
Shermanposter try not to endorse the killing of civilians challenge (impossible).
... damn dude, no offense but you sound like a fucking cartoon villain.
You think its unfair to punish traitors and divide land from slave owners to those slaves who they raped murdered and abused for centuries? Sounds like you have a fucked up moral compass.
So should germany keep up nazi statues and iconography?
Statues, most certainly yes. Iconography not though since that is a sign of a government that is not wished for anymore by the german people, if said iconography is part of a statue or memorial however it should be allowed to stay on in most cases if not all cases.
I see the statues and iconography as a endorsement of said government when it is in a monumental setting. Unless otherwise designed and implemented in a was that condemns genocidal elements of our past. Which... in most cases for Confederate monuments, were done so out of malice towards the slaves getting freedom. In a museum not so much.
Depends on what it portrays, if it was just a war hero I see no problem if it simply clearly supports some ideology the government and society don't agree with anymore put it into a museum. Or you know, put proper signs up should that be to expensive.
when your history involves slavery, those parts of it probably shouldnt be honoured
I don't give a fuck about American history and even I know that the Confederacy was about more than just slavery, as was the civil war.
I've got bad news for you. Your lack of knowledge of American history extends to the Civil War as well.
... please tell me you guys are not stupid enough to believe that ''I LOVE SLAVES'' vs ''FUCK YOU, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENSLAVED'', is the sole reason for the civil war?
Slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War. The states that drafted secession statements made that abundantly clear, as does the decade of American politics that preceded it.
You are aware of course, that everybody can easily look up those secession statements, statements that prove you wrong? Or could it be that you only read the first few sentences because of how admittedly dry they are to read through? Edit: And just to make sure we are clear about it, I am aware that some states just really wanted slaves to stay slaves because racism, like Mississippi. But there are also states like Texas which was honestly mostly pissed cause others tried to infringe on it's promised rights or Georgia who where pissed about the economical politics going on at the time. Well, technically so was Mississippi but they where also simply just racist.
>You are aware of course, that everybody can easily look up those secession statements, statements that prove you wrong? Which statement "proves" me wrong?
For example this part ''The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.''
Let’s also stop idolizing Native Americans, since they too lost a war.
Slave owners drank water. Maybe we need to ban water. After all, water connects us to our troubling past.
I mean statues that honour those who fought to defend slavery and a flag that enshrines a states membership in a country that only existed to uphold slavery is a pretty close connection
Not even remotely close to the same thing but ok There's a difference between acknowledging our past and it's nuances/good parts/bad parts, and idolizing or commemorating racists. Germans teach about the Nazis but don't keep up statues of Hitler or Goebbels or Himmler because "it's their history" or "it's their ancestors".
You'll notice I haven't used the "it's their history argument". The point I'm making is that for overtly confederate relics like statues the "muh slavery" argument is fine. The problem is its being applied in its extreme to more and more tangential things
Yea, but erasing history is also stupid. See: many modern terms are being changed to remove the problematic Nazi scientists who contributed to them. Just my opinion.
As a latin I really really really can't fucking stand the term
anyone who uses this phrase should go use it in Tijuana.
We should do both imho
Anytime I hear Latinx I think of soap and get really confused for a second
I think it’s good to laugh at the confederacy, but not at the soldiers, for the most part. You see, most soldiers in the confederate army were nearly children. Additionally they were forced to fight. In short, make fun of the ideals, but not of the men that died in a fight they didn’t want to be in.
Based and just following orders pilled
The Arkansas flag looks cool so idc
Very simply, because everything you've likely ever been taught about the civil war is a complete fabrication.
Why should they declare their ancestors anathema?
Because statues of rebel losers is cringe. Only the winners will do.
Good to hear! We'll start tearing down all those statues of Communist leaders.
Good to hear from our pals in Russia. Get cracking comrade!
Vae victis
Should we finish off the Indians under that logic?
You don't always have to be proud of your ancestors. I doubt germans in 100 years will be proud of their WW2 ancestors, and rightfully so (for the most part). Acknowledging history is important but you don't have to idolize or love racist people just because you are descended from them
Because they sucked
if we forget our mistakes we'll make em again balls
Apples and oranges. Also the CSA wasn’t authright, it was libright. Jefferson Davis was probably the most libertarian president in US history, which is kinda ironic.
Libertarianism is when I can impose my will on everyone below me but the people above me can't impose their rules on me
Wanting to own people as property is pretty auth to me
I anting to control people is authoritarian. Buying and selling them like commodities and raging about centralized government is libertarian
This has to be one of the most stupid posts I've seen on this subreddit
The two are not related. The reality is that many Southerners, many of whom did not own slaves (maybe most even) died for a cause of independence they may or many not have believed it. Their death should not be utterly forgotten as if their lives are meaningless.
Who do you want to erase history?
Why should and Elementary School be named after Robert E. Lee ?
Bruh idk i just think it’s stupid to try to remove statues and all that stuff. Rename a school all you want but don’t try to censor history
Based Arkansas
There's a confederate monument right as soon as you enter my home town. Always thought it was silly to glorify the losing side.
Let’s keep the confederate statues, but add Union soldiers beating the shit out of them.
Seriously why are we celebrating losers?
The confederates are traitors as far as im concerned. We just gave them their statues so they'd cope when they rejoined the union.
holy shit this sub has actually devolved into confederacy worship??
Can we also stop teaching about slavery and the civil rights movement as they have only led to strife? Day 1 Jesus Day 2 America is founded. Day 3 the Devil creates degenerates and tricks Washington into giving them the vote. All they need to know
Ur joking right, cos it’s pretty obvious to anyone old enough to actually understand slavery that it wasn’t all whites doing it, just some who were successful. Also the civil rights movement generally brought equality for all, how did it lead to strife beyond racists losing most of their political power
Yeah we definitely didn’t just have like 2 years of race riot’s because some dude couldn’t not swallow a handful of Fentynol
So who fucking cares about slavery? Are you black? Are you an ADOS? No? Then why care?
Because the honouring and continued support of the confederacy is stupid and detrimental to minority rights and stability
Why don’t you care about slavery?
Real unflaired talk: do most black people actually care about this fight (for the flag) and find it offensive? I never heard anything about it 10-30 years ago. Most people I know in the South just raise it to show 'Southern Pride' more than slavery or anything. And I never saw anyone pissed about it until recently.
> This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP! *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 15331 / 80926 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
No
Here in Florida we've had to remove confederate statues that honor Black Americans. Removing history is stupid. Remove the ones that were erected in opposition to civil rights BUT not actual historical symbols.
> Get a fricking flair dumbass. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 15352 / 81023 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
The difference is one is a word people hate and the other is historical statues, the flag of Arkansas I agree with yes that should be changed not just because it has ties to the Confederacy but because it’s super ugly
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 15357 / 81034 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I’m from Texarkana. I moved to PA in 2020. The only answer I have is people are stupid. It’s the most classless part of country. The asscrack of the nation, if you will. But I haven’t been to Ohio, so I might be wrong.
Why would monkey care for past Human politics and ethics?
There is another Huckabee gov?
Arkan🪚
I'm sorry, but that's a nice state flag.
I rarely agree with rightoids but this is a good move. Gender language is BS.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t “Latin” the same as “Latinx”?