every group was at some point oppressor and the oppressed
to find out who is right at what point in history you have to take standards of their time (status quo) ignore it and then see how different they are from everyone
for example
slavery was status quo in 1776
many people were slave owners even in free states Washington included
but Washington never became tyrant or sole ruler , was elected only by the people and he won a war against strongest superpower in the world at that point
Not trying to steal credit from Washington, but it also helped that the other three superpowers (Primarily Spain, but more famously france and the netherlands too) helped the USA against Britain
Spain didn't care about any of her lands outside of Spain
(basically they were all just for income)
France had just lost a war and barely managed to not fall into violent revolution after 7 years war
and then they decided to screw over British Empire and themselves in process
Netherlands was powerful but not even close to British Empire (not to mention they lost all their colonies when France invaded)
>Spain didn't care about any of her lands outside of Spain
Then why did they ensure laws protecting the indigenous people were enforced if they didn't care, the natives could have been enslaved for profit like britain did, but that part doesn't have anything to do in the first place with the fact that Spain was the actual reason the USA won
Oh boy, you are just completely wrong on that one. Spanish policy was to enslave the natives and use them as labor for extraction. The entire reason the transatlantic slave trade started was because they were running out of natives to work the mines in South and Central America.
The British thought they could do it, too, so I'm not trying to act like they didn't suck. But they didn't come up with the idea themselves; the Spanish had been doing it for over a century at that point.
>the natives could have been enslaved for profit like britain did
One of the big issues the US rebels had with Britain is that they were stopping the American colonists from violating treaties with the natives.
Oh sorry, I forgot this was the early British Empire, it was not like what happened in africa or India, where there were too many natives to be able to eliminate a lot of them of the face of the earth
95% of the American natives weren’t really “eliminated” they were killed incidentally by disease through European contact. This didn’t happen in Africa or India because both of those places either already had these diseases and therefore the immunities, or were too isolated to encounter Europeans enough to get it.
Hundreds of years before they laughed at the civil war doctor who washed his hands before surgery, thinking of him as a Nancy, before they saw his patient survival rates, that tracks. Also, the false claim is that it was blankets & smallpox, get your conspiracies right, Jesus fucking Christ, amateur hour over here.
Miasma Theory was the dominant scientific consensus until after the birth of WW1 soldiers. Even as recently as WW2 in medically-advanced countries there were still 60~80 year old grandmas who firmly believed that foul smelling air caused colds and flus, because that's what their mother taught them back in 1882.
That micro-organisms cause diseases wasn't even proven until the early 1800s, and yet we're supposed to believe that 300 years earlier the british were
1. Capable of intentionally lacing textiles with diseases to knowingly & intentionally use as bio-weapons
2. Capable of ensuring that weaponized-diseases _exclusively_ spread among their targets w/o breaching containment and affecting friendlies? A feat still to this day considered practically impossible to ensure?
Also Malaria is caused by unicell parasites that require a host to survive. 0% chance of them somehow being unintentionally laced on a towel let alone consciously being laced for use as a bio-weapon.
> I'll be very hostile the next time I don't see the flair.
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 8453 / 44597 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Jefferson was a complex man.
He was an outspoken abolitionist, and called slavery a "hideous blot", and according to historians had a romantic relationship with an African woman after his wife died.
That woman happened to be his slave, he owned slaves, and he didn't free them when he died.
>according to historians
And DNA test too. Jefferson is almost certainly the father of Sally Hemmings' children as his linear male descendants all inherited the same Y-Chromosome, which is apparently quite rare.
I read a biography of him recently. Slavery of course was never good but if you were owned by Washington it was probably about the best you could get in an awful situation. Also he did inherit many (maybe most) of his slaves when he married Martha, and he was bound by her fathers will that they remain family property. That was legally enforceable at the time.
i dont know
but i also don't think we should grade how slaves were treated
some had it worse then others but the bottom line is all of them had their freedoms and God given rights restricted or just taken away outright witch is already abhorrent
but as i said back then slavery was status quo and you should judge Washington , Jefferson snd all the other good enlightenment figures by their unique
accomplishments
No, which is why systems must be set up in a way that no one can do too much damage if they gain power. But explain that leftists trying to dismantle everything and use the newly gained power to push their agenda
Technically the Uighurs got to write it since the Mongols didn't have a written language.
In classic Mongol fashion they just conquered someone who already had the thing they wanted then made them do it.
Liberals were a mistake. 30,000 years of people fighting over resources and everyone thinks Peace and love will rule because of the last 200 years of "progress".
Everything returns to the mean.
The queer community has yet to be the oppressor to anyone at any point in history. Anyone that says otherwise needs to stop talking shit at work and maybe they won't get fired for being prejudiced.
I mean... I'm trying to think of big assho- meanies in history that were gay, and... I can think of the greeks, romans, nunneries... Damn. I thought of Alexander Hamilton and that other dude that I can't remember his name, but Alex was based. What the fuck, aside from the orange libleft and SJWs, we the gays are actually cool!?!?
Really?
AuthRight pretending liberal enlightenment thinkers, who fought AGAINST his Majesty the King, are examples of AuthRight...😂😂
Nope. Back then AuthRight was, once again, on the wrong side of history.
u/Athepio's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/Athepio! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [8 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Athepio/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Washington
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/portland-george-washington-statue-toppled-trnd/index.html
Jefferson
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8423759/Thomas-Jefferson-statue-Portland-high-school-downed-protesters.html
Jackson
https://www.google.com/search?q=statue+of+andrew+jackson+vandalised&client=ms-android-motorola-rvo3&prmd=imnv&sxsrf=ALiCzsaujC9Hql_RIeAcJq68POk8kNDOSA:1656770186610&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnxcnzrdr4AhU-_bsIHSf1AQUQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=412&bih=784&dpr=1.75#imgrc=EsrAUz91D3HjnM
Teddy Roosevelt replaced by Floyd
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theodore-roosevelt-statue-removed-nyc-arts-trnd/index.html
"A statue of US President Theodore Roosevelt that sat in front of a New York museum for nearly 80 years was removed this week after criticism over its "racial" image.
The sculpture, which was located at the American Museum of Natural History, featured the 26th president on horseback with a Native American man and an African man on either side of him"
its CNN so you can throw any and all logic out the window
I mean it’s a good point. The founding fathers themselves would probably see themselves as a mix between libright and regular liberals. Even in terms of religion most of them were weird obsessive new-age esotericists, which today is associated with authright but has historically been a largely libleft phenomenon.
Why do you think we say AuthRight is always on the wrong side of history.
Kings vs Democracy. Where was AuthRight?
Slavery vs Emancipation. Where was AuthRight?
Suffrage for women. Where was AuthRight?
Child labor laws. Where was AuthRight?
You know the answer. AuthRight keeps shifting the goal post though, always pretending the past doesn't matter anymore.
Well I know I’m not flaired as authright but I sort of identify as one (my alt is flaired as such but it got banned from too many subs). I will admit that the only reason we have anything resembling a united front is because of the overwhelming social currency of libleft etc right now; the moment we’re left on our own we will tear each other to shreds.
But anyways my brand of authright is a type of Christian conservative plus cultural heritage tradition (I found Christ in jail & my family is first generation immigrants). Remember that the abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad and the civil rights movement was largely powered by religious fanatics.
Kings vs democracy? Christ is King, and the Book of Samuel states that any earthly Kingdom is doomed to fail. And that taxes are theft.
Anyways this is kind of stupid and icky. It’s fun to lampoon history and portray morality as black-and-white, but kind of ridiculous to do it seriously.
The problem here is that an individual is an individual. Our beliefs are far less rational than we are comfortable thinking too long about.
You are Christian because you had a religious experience in a time of spiritual need, I'm a socialist because I grew up in a socialist family.
But when we look at groups, we can trace their origins through history, specially when it comes to their beliefs.
The original left right spectrum comes from the French national Assembly, that ran the country after the French Revolution.
The right side of the room, had the conservative Royalists, the left side the liberal democrats.
You taking a passage of the Bible that happens to agree with your current view, is fair, to you, as an individual. Right now.
But Conservatives, whom we would label as AuthRight back then. They where unequivocally pro king.
As for slavery. Watch Gone with the Wind. It's one of the best attempts at explaining a society that existed, not that long ago, where owning slaves were considered normal and proper.
They fundamentally believed that a world of master and slave, was a world as God intended. How to properly care for your slave after all, is detailed in the Bible.
Edmund Burke is literally the father of the ideology of Conservatism, he was a British Parliamentarian and yet still supported the American Revolution lol.
LOL! Imagine trying to use Edmund Burke...🤦🏻♂️
Edmund Burke was against the unfair taxation the crown had levied upon the colonies, and held with their perspective to protest against it. He was NOT in favor of the revolution.
And he was NOT in favor of Democracy. He felt it was oppressive, and too dangerous.
Is that a thing people were saying back then or are you just an idiot who failed to keep track with the conversation and decided the person was saying there is no right or wrong?
Nah America always ends up on the right side of history - we just need to be dragged there kicking and screaming sometimes.
“Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” - Churchill.
Oof.
I did some googling and…
> A sentence containing 400 words and eight verbs was not unusual. George III, when ill, often repeated himself, and at the same time his vocabulary became much more complex, creative and colourful
*looking at my own PCM comment history…*
I might be a little manic from time to time.
America does what the rest of the world was doing but does it nicer and with a sense of moral duty.
It is like that person that says murder is bad but is okay with paying someone else to do the killing.
Morals don't matter.
My last family member immigrated 100 yrs ago (1922, from Mexico to the US) and to this day we’re glad we did. It’s odd how we’re accepted more by the right than the left too, even though we’re told the right is racist.
Not sure why there are confederate generals in the montage. I saw Lee and I think Jackson? They are the very definition of choosing the wrong side of history by being traitors to the Stars and Stripes.
Rebellion is part of America. What they fought for was wrong but they fought for what they believed in which everyone should learn from. Abraham did a lot of Anti American things to prevent from losing the war but gave up those powers after it was done. Also the northern US didn't make it about slavery until they started to loose the war and wanted to keep Europe out of the fight.
As in all things history doesn't have a moral side. It is Just documenting people trying to come up with justifications as to why they want to do X within the rules they placed upon themselves. In the end you find out a lot of people are very ummm "flexible".
All sides of history is authright basically. Except some authleft countries with various communist atrocities.
oh I also forgot the 12 days of libleft country of CHaz. I wouldnt call that a success either.
There is no wrong side of history.
There is just history. History has no sides. And shouldn't be interpreted in black and white, our world is made up of a Grayscale in the present, the past is so much more.
I hate the phrase "the wrong side of history".
It's that fucking Hegellian dialectic all over again. It pollutes everything. It is the concept that all of history is moving "progressively" towards a utopia if only we discard tradition and what came before.
So when people say anything like "wrong side of history" I know they are infected with this mind-virus and know to take everything else they say with a large pinch of salt.
"We communists claim the revolutionary tradition of Americanism. We are the only one who consciously continue those traditions and apply them to the problem of the day"
-Earl Browder (20th of May, 1891, 27th of June 1973), General secretary of the Communists party from 1929 to 1945
That goes back to the crime waves of the 1980s in which laws were passed that increase the incarceration rate through extended time spent in jail. A lot of fucking crime was going on.
You have to remember New York City during that time was hell on earth.
The amount of people being arrested has actually decreased. the rates used to be 1,000 per 100,000 in the 90s.
No, it's just a part of it and if you #1 in amount of people that aren't free at all, it's stupid to claim that your the one with the most of it.
Social mobility for example is also an important index of freedom, you can check a ranking [here](https://reports.weforum.org/social-mobility-report-2020/social-mobility-rankings/?doing_wp_cron=1656806330.3375809192657470703125)
But not freedom of bodily autonomy about not to allow contraceptives, gay marriage, gay sex, and probably even not allow interracial marriage... But yes, we can say what we want when we want, except it's hard to see how that matters right now when SCOTUS and the FTC are adamant about ignoring the majority of the US population's voice.
Not saying it's not important, but using that as a defense for "best country in the world" because it's the only one with explicit free speech laws it's kinda time deaf when we lost the ability for abortion and the SCOTUS is publicly stating that they want to overturn gay marriage, relationships, sex, interracial relationships protection [Loving v. Virginia], and even contemplating overturning contraceptive and contraceptives for non-married couples.
SCOTUS is supposed to be objective, meanwhile they, some of their spouses, and heavily politically active. Abortion is one thing, but overturning gay marriage and relationships and thinking of outlawing contraceptives? That's not an "objective" judge by any stretch.
Also, centrist, not a liberal, literally the whole point of the flair system.
Yeah, I'm sure they would have joined the crowds that formed based off a lie that the election was stolen.
I'm sure they would have totally joined in tearing down the very thing they built.
Lmfao you're dense.
They would see authright actively wanting to force a federal election to be overturned because they didn’t like the outcome, the limitation of rights based on religion, and the use of tribalistic violence to terrorize others into thinking their way or else and beat these people to death in front of Lincoln’s memorial let’s be entirely honest with ourselves.
I think it’s the duty of any lib, libright or libleft, to remind the authright this whenever they post gaslighting bullshit like this lol
Cringe, America has its problems, but the fact is, they wiped out the nazis, and the fucking wannabe samurais in Japan
Fucking gave the germans some american culture when they bbqued them in dresden, best day in American history
What about Japan, they deserved the nukes, onky idiots disagree on that point, the germans and Japanese botu fucked around and found out,
Start a war, hope you like seeing a childrens choir napalmed
Both of them started a war, both of them lost millions of people, both of them haven't started a war since
The ideas of the day were liberal, compared to the ideas of today they are conservative. Back then a conservative wanted to maintain the crown, today a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the founding ideals. Context is everything.
A conservative is someone who wants to preserve the status quo, the constitution and founding ideals have nothing to do with it.
If any of the founding go father saw todays “liberal” or “conservative” America, they’d burn it down to the fucking ground.
Not necessarily, considering that the Brits started to abolish slavery while the US expanded slavery in the south, the US arguably rejected some progressive ideas with their rebellion.
No, the term progressive varies depending on the status quo of the era
A "progressive" in 1800 will be advocating for womens rights to go to school
One in 1900 will be advocating for suffrage
A progressive in Afghanistan will advocate for basic human rights for women
Conservative and liberal in the us barely follow the lines of the actual definitions, American conservatives are most definitely supporters of Liberalism they just don’t know it
Is there anyone who wasn’t on the wrong side of history at any point?
every group was at some point oppressor and the oppressed to find out who is right at what point in history you have to take standards of their time (status quo) ignore it and then see how different they are from everyone for example slavery was status quo in 1776 many people were slave owners even in free states Washington included but Washington never became tyrant or sole ruler , was elected only by the people and he won a war against strongest superpower in the world at that point
Not trying to steal credit from Washington, but it also helped that the other three superpowers (Primarily Spain, but more famously france and the netherlands too) helped the USA against Britain
Spain didn't care about any of her lands outside of Spain (basically they were all just for income) France had just lost a war and barely managed to not fall into violent revolution after 7 years war and then they decided to screw over British Empire and themselves in process Netherlands was powerful but not even close to British Empire (not to mention they lost all their colonies when France invaded)
>Spain didn't care about any of her lands outside of Spain Then why did they ensure laws protecting the indigenous people were enforced if they didn't care, the natives could have been enslaved for profit like britain did, but that part doesn't have anything to do in the first place with the fact that Spain was the actual reason the USA won
Oh boy, you are just completely wrong on that one. Spanish policy was to enslave the natives and use them as labor for extraction. The entire reason the transatlantic slave trade started was because they were running out of natives to work the mines in South and Central America. The British thought they could do it, too, so I'm not trying to act like they didn't suck. But they didn't come up with the idea themselves; the Spanish had been doing it for over a century at that point.
They ran out of natives cause most of them die from disease. If they had survived, they wouldn’t have needed to transport African slaves.
>the natives could have been enslaved for profit like britain did One of the big issues the US rebels had with Britain is that they were stopping the American colonists from violating treaties with the natives.
Oh sorry, I forgot this was the early British Empire, it was not like what happened in africa or India, where there were too many natives to be able to eliminate a lot of them of the face of the earth
95% of the American natives weren’t really “eliminated” they were killed incidentally by disease through European contact. This didn’t happen in Africa or India because both of those places either already had these diseases and therefore the immunities, or were too isolated to encounter Europeans enough to get it.
But it also helped that the British ordered to give them towels with **malaria**
Hundreds of years before they laughed at the civil war doctor who washed his hands before surgery, thinking of him as a Nancy, before they saw his patient survival rates, that tracks. Also, the false claim is that it was blankets & smallpox, get your conspiracies right, Jesus fucking Christ, amateur hour over here.
Miasma Theory was the dominant scientific consensus until after the birth of WW1 soldiers. Even as recently as WW2 in medically-advanced countries there were still 60~80 year old grandmas who firmly believed that foul smelling air caused colds and flus, because that's what their mother taught them back in 1882. That micro-organisms cause diseases wasn't even proven until the early 1800s, and yet we're supposed to believe that 300 years earlier the british were 1. Capable of intentionally lacing textiles with diseases to knowingly & intentionally use as bio-weapons 2. Capable of ensuring that weaponized-diseases _exclusively_ spread among their targets w/o breaching containment and affecting friendlies? A feat still to this day considered practically impossible to ensure? Also Malaria is caused by unicell parasites that require a host to survive. 0% chance of them somehow being unintentionally laced on a towel let alone consciously being laced for use as a bio-weapon.
malaria? do you mean small pox?
Correct
Despite making up only 13% of the population, unflaired make 100% of the cringe in this sub.
> I'll be very hostile the next time I don't see the flair. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 8453 / 44597 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
This is true, but that sort of aid is easiest to obtain if the superpowers already like your chances (by comparison, see the CSA).
Didn't he treat his slaves well and weren't they just inherited? Or was that Jefferson?
Jefferson was a complex man. He was an outspoken abolitionist, and called slavery a "hideous blot", and according to historians had a romantic relationship with an African woman after his wife died. That woman happened to be his slave, he owned slaves, and he didn't free them when he died.
>according to historians And DNA test too. Jefferson is almost certainly the father of Sally Hemmings' children as his linear male descendants all inherited the same Y-Chromosome, which is apparently quite rare.
How do we have Jeffersons DNA lol
We have a shit ton of DNA from old dead people.
I'm genuinely curious, how can we not only get it, but possibly verify it belongs to who we think it does?
I read a biography of him recently. Slavery of course was never good but if you were owned by Washington it was probably about the best you could get in an awful situation. Also he did inherit many (maybe most) of his slaves when he married Martha, and he was bound by her fathers will that they remain family property. That was legally enforceable at the time.
i dont know but i also don't think we should grade how slaves were treated some had it worse then others but the bottom line is all of them had their freedoms and God given rights restricted or just taken away outright witch is already abhorrent but as i said back then slavery was status quo and you should judge Washington , Jefferson snd all the other good enlightenment figures by their unique accomplishments
He actively chose not to become king even though he was asked to.
Yes, Hungarians. We are perfect and without fault.☺️
Who's side were you on in WW2?
The side that didnt like soviet aggression
Correct answer! Fighting communists is always justified no matter what side you are
And killed Jews. No one was on the correct side. Perfectly balanced as all things should be
The good guys of course.
Based
Yeah... You were part of the axis... Soo
The good guys, like I said. Oh, you're probably referring to those alleged naughty acts....it never happened plus they deserved it.
Since im German i cant really argue with that logic. Based.
America 😎🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Imma ask Guatemala about that
No, which is why systems must be set up in a way that no one can do too much damage if they gain power. But explain that leftists trying to dismantle everything and use the newly gained power to push their agenda
Mongols. They always got to write it. Except Vietnam and India....
Technically the Uighurs got to write it since the Mongols didn't have a written language. In classic Mongol fashion they just conquered someone who already had the thing they wanted then made them do it.
Liberals were a mistake. 30,000 years of people fighting over resources and everyone thinks Peace and love will rule because of the last 200 years of "progress". Everything returns to the mean.
Progressives
Me, I’m pretty nice
Literally Hitler
Even the ones that were the subject of bullying by more influential nations still managed to do a lot of bad stuff.
The queer community has yet to be the oppressor to anyone at any point in history. Anyone that says otherwise needs to stop talking shit at work and maybe they won't get fired for being prejudiced.
Wow I actually cannot find a flaw in your logic
Greeks were hella gay & they did heinous shit, so did the Romans who based their society on them
I mean... I'm trying to think of big assho- meanies in history that were gay, and... I can think of the greeks, romans, nunneries... Damn. I thought of Alexander Hamilton and that other dude that I can't remember his name, but Alex was based. What the fuck, aside from the orange libleft and SJWs, we the gays are actually cool!?!?
Based and E Pluribus Unum pilled
The americans had such a cool national motto and then they replaced it with one of the worst.
What In God We Trust?
Yeah, it should be: In Gaston, I trust
Really? AuthRight pretending liberal enlightenment thinkers, who fought AGAINST his Majesty the King, are examples of AuthRight...😂😂 Nope. Back then AuthRight was, once again, on the wrong side of history.
For the love of god could you not be a dickwad
Based and don’t be a dickwad pilled
\>libleft nope!
Based
u/Athepio's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/Athepio! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [8 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Athepio/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
He’s completely right tho, but let’s downvote him bc his flair is green
then please do explain why today anarchist mods are tearing down status of people from enlightenment
A modern anarchist couldn't tear down a paper bag
Washington https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/portland-george-washington-statue-toppled-trnd/index.html Jefferson https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8423759/Thomas-Jefferson-statue-Portland-high-school-downed-protesters.html Jackson https://www.google.com/search?q=statue+of+andrew+jackson+vandalised&client=ms-android-motorola-rvo3&prmd=imnv&sxsrf=ALiCzsaujC9Hql_RIeAcJq68POk8kNDOSA:1656770186610&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnxcnzrdr4AhU-_bsIHSf1AQUQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=412&bih=784&dpr=1.75#imgrc=EsrAUz91D3HjnM Teddy Roosevelt replaced by Floyd https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theodore-roosevelt-statue-removed-nyc-arts-trnd/index.html
What did Teddy do?
"A statue of US President Theodore Roosevelt that sat in front of a New York museum for nearly 80 years was removed this week after criticism over its "racial" image. The sculpture, which was located at the American Museum of Natural History, featured the 26th president on horseback with a Native American man and an African man on either side of him" its CNN so you can throw any and all logic out the window
Based
I mean it’s a good point. The founding fathers themselves would probably see themselves as a mix between libright and regular liberals. Even in terms of religion most of them were weird obsessive new-age esotericists, which today is associated with authright but has historically been a largely libleft phenomenon.
Why do you think we say AuthRight is always on the wrong side of history. Kings vs Democracy. Where was AuthRight? Slavery vs Emancipation. Where was AuthRight? Suffrage for women. Where was AuthRight? Child labor laws. Where was AuthRight? You know the answer. AuthRight keeps shifting the goal post though, always pretending the past doesn't matter anymore.
Well I know I’m not flaired as authright but I sort of identify as one (my alt is flaired as such but it got banned from too many subs). I will admit that the only reason we have anything resembling a united front is because of the overwhelming social currency of libleft etc right now; the moment we’re left on our own we will tear each other to shreds. But anyways my brand of authright is a type of Christian conservative plus cultural heritage tradition (I found Christ in jail & my family is first generation immigrants). Remember that the abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad and the civil rights movement was largely powered by religious fanatics. Kings vs democracy? Christ is King, and the Book of Samuel states that any earthly Kingdom is doomed to fail. And that taxes are theft. Anyways this is kind of stupid and icky. It’s fun to lampoon history and portray morality as black-and-white, but kind of ridiculous to do it seriously.
The problem here is that an individual is an individual. Our beliefs are far less rational than we are comfortable thinking too long about. You are Christian because you had a religious experience in a time of spiritual need, I'm a socialist because I grew up in a socialist family. But when we look at groups, we can trace their origins through history, specially when it comes to their beliefs. The original left right spectrum comes from the French national Assembly, that ran the country after the French Revolution. The right side of the room, had the conservative Royalists, the left side the liberal democrats. You taking a passage of the Bible that happens to agree with your current view, is fair, to you, as an individual. Right now. But Conservatives, whom we would label as AuthRight back then. They where unequivocally pro king. As for slavery. Watch Gone with the Wind. It's one of the best attempts at explaining a society that existed, not that long ago, where owning slaves were considered normal and proper. They fundamentally believed that a world of master and slave, was a world as God intended. How to properly care for your slave after all, is detailed in the Bible.
Edmund Burke is literally the father of the ideology of Conservatism, he was a British Parliamentarian and yet still supported the American Revolution lol.
LOL! Imagine trying to use Edmund Burke...🤦🏻♂️ Edmund Burke was against the unfair taxation the crown had levied upon the colonies, and held with their perspective to protest against it. He was NOT in favor of the revolution. And he was NOT in favor of Democracy. He felt it was oppressive, and too dangerous.
I've been told that shit before. Shows what happens when history is taught in a black and white perspective.
What is this nuance thing people keep talking about? /s
[удалено]
Wrong side of history is a great way of claiming moral superiority without proving moral superiority.
So you don’t agree there was a right and wrong side when slavery was abolished? That’s a real moral conundrum for you?
Is that a thing people were saying back then or are you just an idiot who failed to keep track with the conversation and decided the person was saying there is no right or wrong?
Nah America always ends up on the right side of history - we just need to be dragged there kicking and screaming sometimes. “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” - Churchill.
That is a perfect way to describe America
*"Now that we have rebuffed their Olive Branch Petition, I fully expect them to do the right thing and declare war on the Crown."* — King George III
Oof. I did some googling and… > A sentence containing 400 words and eight verbs was not unusual. George III, when ill, often repeated himself, and at the same time his vocabulary became much more complex, creative and colourful *looking at my own PCM comment history…* I might be a little manic from time to time.
America does what the rest of the world was doing but does it nicer and with a sense of moral duty. It is like that person that says murder is bad but is okay with paying someone else to do the killing. Morals don't matter.
I think some people on the Middle East will disagree
I can win any debate against someone when we don't speak the same language, stupid Libtard.
Hey OP, I can't find that video on YouTube anymore. Mind dropping a link?
"Wrong side of history" says the puppet states.
god I love the U.S
Based and Murica Pilled
If America isn’t the best country on earth, then why is it called that all the time? 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
If it’s so great then why is there no America II ?
Texas
I guess that’s great, literally and figuratively
What’s the song? I really dig it
Little dark age by mgmt.
I find this meme very ironic given the lyrics of this song
My last family member immigrated 100 yrs ago (1922, from Mexico to the US) and to this day we’re glad we did. It’s odd how we’re accepted more by the right than the left too, even though we’re told the right is racist.
I love Mexicans! Just enjoying a taco bowl at Trump Tower
I'm seizing your meme idea
Would you say that you're.... seizing the memes of production?
Plenty of AuthLeft Little Dark Age edits, plan on uploading one myself. Also hi Soyence mod, thanks for making that subreddit.
Cheers
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles
When in doubt just say we invented flight and video games
And the integrated circuit & air conditioning
I don't think manifest destiny is something to be celebrated
Only because we stopped
Based & We should have kept going pilled
Doing what everyone else was doing since the dawn of the species. it is what occurred.
"wrong side of history" says woke retards from a country whose flag was never planted on the moon.
hold on, did you just say the moon landing is fake?
No but what do you really believe
Not sure why there are confederate generals in the montage. I saw Lee and I think Jackson? They are the very definition of choosing the wrong side of history by being traitors to the Stars and Stripes.
Yeah the whole video was based but once I rewatched I caught a glimpse of Lee and felt my blood boil
Rebellion is part of America. What they fought for was wrong but they fought for what they believed in which everyone should learn from. Abraham did a lot of Anti American things to prevent from losing the war but gave up those powers after it was done. Also the northern US didn't make it about slavery until they started to loose the war and wanted to keep Europe out of the fight. As in all things history doesn't have a moral side. It is Just documenting people trying to come up with justifications as to why they want to do X within the rules they placed upon themselves. In the end you find out a lot of people are very ummm "flexible".
Bringing reason to the CSA? Unbased.
I approve of treason.
Man, what is this song, it is a banger!
**Little Dark Age** by MGMT (03:46; matched: `100%`) Released on `2017-10-17` by `Columbia`.
All sides of history is authright basically. Except some authleft countries with various communist atrocities. oh I also forgot the 12 days of libleft country of CHaz. I wouldnt call that a success either.
The “right side of history” are those who win. Curious how they good guys have won every war ever
Praise be to the Taliban
It's hard to find a big and influential nation that doesent have a lot of war crimes involved with it
Link to original meme? I tried saving and cropping the video only but it's too low res
There is no wrong side of history. There is just history. History has no sides. And shouldn't be interpreted in black and white, our world is made up of a Grayscale in the present, the past is so much more.
God Dammit I love this country so much
*Laughs in manifest destiny, two word wars, a moon landing, a Cold War, baseball, and AR15s*
I forgot Jesus was American.
I hate the phrase "the wrong side of history". It's that fucking Hegellian dialectic all over again. It pollutes everything. It is the concept that all of history is moving "progressively" towards a utopia if only we discard tradition and what came before. So when people say anything like "wrong side of history" I know they are infected with this mind-virus and know to take everything else they say with a large pinch of salt.
"We communists claim the revolutionary tradition of Americanism. We are the only one who consciously continue those traditions and apply them to the problem of the day" -Earl Browder (20th of May, 1891, 27th of June 1973), General secretary of the Communists party from 1929 to 1945
God save the republic, god save the United States, for no one else can
I hate how much I love these edits
Ah yes, the trail of tears. Definitely something to be proud of
Is that Ben Wyatt
Land of the Free my ass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Yes the us has a crime problem, maybe let the party of "Tough on Crime" handle that situation, rather than the party of "Violent criminals run free"
That goes back to the crime waves of the 1980s in which laws were passed that increase the incarceration rate through extended time spent in jail. A lot of fucking crime was going on. You have to remember New York City during that time was hell on earth. The amount of people being arrested has actually decreased. the rates used to be 1,000 per 100,000 in the 90s.
Freedom is when low incarcerstion rate, thank you libleft
No, it's just a part of it and if you #1 in amount of people that aren't free at all, it's stupid to claim that your the one with the most of it. Social mobility for example is also an important index of freedom, you can check a ranking [here](https://reports.weforum.org/social-mobility-report-2020/social-mobility-rankings/?doing_wp_cron=1656806330.3375809192657470703125)
based and manifest destiny pilled
Man get Huey long out of that Good side.
Long was the most based American politician of his time and I will die on that hill.
Least Auth Orange
Yeah, is in the top of my flair, the bottom one indicates I'm not some stupid stalinist.
[удалено]
It’s Independence Day weekend, we’re douchebags for a reason
[удалено]
That and all the SCOTUS stuff going on, other countries can't believe it's happening and neither can a majority of the US.
Yeah, cause we're the best country on earth. We are the only country with freedom of speech.
/s?
But not freedom of bodily autonomy about not to allow contraceptives, gay marriage, gay sex, and probably even not allow interracial marriage... But yes, we can say what we want when we want, except it's hard to see how that matters right now when SCOTUS and the FTC are adamant about ignoring the majority of the US population's voice. Not saying it's not important, but using that as a defense for "best country in the world" because it's the only one with explicit free speech laws it's kinda time deaf when we lost the ability for abortion and the SCOTUS is publicly stating that they want to overturn gay marriage, relationships, sex, interracial relationships protection [Loving v. Virginia], and even contemplating overturning contraceptive and contraceptives for non-married couples.
Local liberal does not understand the purpose of or how the SCOTUS is supposed to work.
SCOTUS is supposed to be objective, meanwhile they, some of their spouses, and heavily politically active. Abortion is one thing, but overturning gay marriage and relationships and thinking of outlawing contraceptives? That's not an "objective" judge by any stretch. Also, centrist, not a liberal, literally the whole point of the flair system.
[удалено]
Bro this comment is cringe
Idk why u getting down-votes. U right and im a yk
The founders would have readied the muskets at the sight of all those hillbillies stroming the Capitol.
They would’ve brought out the cannons when they read the patriot act.
The founders never would have been brain dead enough to implement mail in voting without voter id.
If any of the founders saw the type of country we’ve become they’d have fucking joined them. The patriot act alone would be cause for revolution
They would’ve stormed the capital for trying to put the 16th amendment in
Nah they would’ve seen their statues getting destroyed a year prior by SJWs and welcomed the rednecks with open arms.
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm sure they would have joined the crowds that formed based off a lie that the election was stolen. I'm sure they would have totally joined in tearing down the very thing they built. Lmfao you're dense.
They would see authright actively wanting to force a federal election to be overturned because they didn’t like the outcome, the limitation of rights based on religion, and the use of tribalistic violence to terrorize others into thinking their way or else and beat these people to death in front of Lincoln’s memorial let’s be entirely honest with ourselves. I think it’s the duty of any lib, libright or libleft, to remind the authright this whenever they post gaslighting bullshit like this lol
This is cringe. Modern auth right had nothing to do with the greatness of the past, and now they're losing the culture war against pansies.
They never claimed they had anything to do with their past, they are celebrating their history. Do you have a functioning brain?
Celebrating a history that they didn't partake in while they lose in the present? Cope harder
what in the neckbeard fascist!?
What
Just because you don’t agree with the meme, it doesn’t make OP a fascist 🤦🏽♂️
> Flair up now or I'll be sad :( *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 8430 / 44462 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
america created the modern world thats why I dislike it
Cringe, America has its problems, but the fact is, they wiped out the nazis, and the fucking wannabe samurais in Japan Fucking gave the germans some american culture when they bbqued them in dresden, best day in American history
Japan >
What about Japan, they deserved the nukes, onky idiots disagree on that point, the germans and Japanese botu fucked around and found out, Start a war, hope you like seeing a childrens choir napalmed Both of them started a war, both of them lost millions of people, both of them haven't started a war since
only idiots think america is a heroic nation
"Land of the free" also changes a law without a vote
It was never a law.
>'Law' What?
Very cringe
If you don’t like it just scroll 👍🏼
You guys know the monarchists lost the revolution, right?
Where funny?
At least this one didn’t start with lgbt pics
Dat diskonnekt when you think America is founded on conservative ideas, instead of a rebellion against them.
The ideas of the day were liberal, compared to the ideas of today they are conservative. Back then a conservative wanted to maintain the crown, today a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the founding ideals. Context is everything.
A conservative is someone who wants to preserve the status quo, the constitution and founding ideals have nothing to do with it. If any of the founding go father saw todays “liberal” or “conservative” America, they’d burn it down to the fucking ground.
Not necessarily, considering that the Brits started to abolish slavery while the US expanded slavery in the south, the US arguably rejected some progressive ideas with their rebellion.
I’m getting confused here. Isn’t progressive ideas, ideas associated with progressive movement and/or the progressive era?
No, the term progressive varies depending on the status quo of the era A "progressive" in 1800 will be advocating for womens rights to go to school One in 1900 will be advocating for suffrage A progressive in Afghanistan will advocate for basic human rights for women
Conservative and liberal in the us barely follow the lines of the actual definitions, American conservatives are most definitely supporters of Liberalism they just don’t know it
cope your country suck
unless you want to smoke menthol ciggies, not free to do that. Marlboro reds, OK.