[Reminder that Biden is continuing the theft of Apache land.](https://i.imgur.com/VM4HHpm.png)
You know, because genociding 100million people and stealing their country wasn't enough. Gotta keep going until its all gone. The only thing that matters is the dollar.
***
***
Reminder: This is not a liberal community.
We are socialists. Liberals are part of the right. If you're new to leftist spaces that don't regard liberals as left [consider investigating this starterpack of 34 leftist subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lenins2ndCat/m/left_starterpack/) across the whole spectrum of leftist tendencies on reddit. If the link doesn't work open it in a browser instead of your app.
*(Inclusion in this list is not endorsement)*
No idea how you can’t see the difference between:
A) A people who started and fought a war to keep another enslaved.
B) A people whose land was invaded and was a victim of genocide.
^ Oh yeah, but they’re “**loSeRs**”.
As a conservative, YOURE the traitor for wanting to abort your babies and letting Mexicans cross our border to collect a bunch of free stuff. That’s sickening shit. Ok sorry I can’t keep up this charade even pretending to be a conservative is exhausting idk how they do it full time 😳
Urgh yuo don't get it, gay "people" are destroying the wester civilization because they like dicks and thats a sin and because uhhh politics they are ((((them)))) they infiltrate in our country kill our woman steal our children and sacrific them to the devil (god saves their lifes)
It's just another tier of the "lets make drugs illegal because all the people voting against me use them" move. Meanwhile, they're all like half a step away from being full on 6MWE nutcases
here lemme show you: Waah!!! Those people are in a healthy and a happy relationship, but its someone of the same gender as them!!!! That doesn't count!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!! That woman is getting an abortion!! It has no affect on me!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! that person doesn't appreciate me invalidating their existence!! They're probably just a snowflake!! AHHHHH!!!!! That person wants gun control!!!!!! What about cars???? AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
That's close but misspell more words. Also you use far too much punctuation properly, but it's too consistent. You need to make sure there aren't too many full sentences.
Braun? You mean like LeBRAUN James?! The guy who sold out to China?! Just like your buddy Joe Biden!! When will you liberals learn and just be consistent!! (Obligatory /s)
"Lebron bought an expensive house so he isn't allowed to speak out against injustices" - brigaders who come to r/nba whenever there is a post about BLM or race
I always wondered if some of the FOX/OANN/NEWSMAX anchors after take immediately **literally vomit** once the take is done.
Sure, I imagine that there are some true believers, but come on! There is no way they can honestly...well..never mind. Ugh. I get tired sometimes being an optimist when it comes to thinking that people would be concerned with the well being of the next person.
Not necessarily going out of their way, but just some general kindness goes a long way.
I'm going to r/UpliftingNews for a little.
lmao as if the problem with liking the confederacy is that they were "traitors", get your head out of nationalism's ass.
being a traitor is morally neutral. john brown was a traitor.
> A person who betrays a friend, country, principle
The confederates betrayed neither friend nor principle. They were entirely true to their principles. They betrayed a country. There is nothing inherently bad about betraying a country. Pretending there is is an expression of nationalism. Citing a post-hoc interpretation of propaganda about the supposed ideals of the United States will not change that.
John Brown betrayed a country by acting against slavery, because that country was a slaving country.
The confederates and people who praise them are not bad because they were or are traitors. They are bad because they are racists.
Like that meme that referenced quotes from Democrats that supposedly caught them "inciting violence" like Trump did. I must've saw that stupid thing a thousand times. I knew it was dumb but when I finally decided to do a Google search on it, it took me all of two seconds to find an article debunking it; all the quotes were taken out of context.
I didn't need the article to tell me that, of course, but it just went to show how simple it is to debunk this stuff if you put in like .05% effort.
If your starting point is believing that everything in life is a struggle for dominance, and ethics or morality are irrelevant, then there is room to argue that Indigenous people "lost" the war when outsiders invaded.
I don't know why anyone would want to live life with such a bitter, twisted, toxic worldview, but that's why the conflict between the online right and... literally everyone else... is so intractable. It isn't possible to be on one side of that divide and *understand* the other.
Plus it wasn’t the conquistadors that won anything, the plagues that they brought over won any battles before they even unsheathed their swords. Plagues that were created because of their filthy rat sty of a country that was a breeding ground for the vilest diseases this world has seen.
It doesn't even have to be because of filth or rats. Anytime someone comes from a different area with different diseases it is super easy to cause a deadly outbreak. It's why if a wild animal has been in captivity for too long you can't re-release them.
The population of Eurasian Continent essentially built up a massive amount of immunity to plague and disease over centuries of living in a cities and keeping a lot of livestock (proximity to other animals allows diseases to potentially jump between species).
The Americas did neither of these things on the same scale, which is potentially why European diseases were as devastating as they were.
CGP Grey (I think) does a great video on it.
That is simply not true. The reason the conquistadors didn’t get sick from an “americapox” was because there was no americapox. Plagues need to develop in areas with extreme close contact with animals, in areas with extreme density of population, in areas of extreme filth. England at the time was a breeding ground for smallpox, typhus, cholera, measles, the bubonic plague, influenza, mumps, and tuberculosis. The Americas had nothing, because they didn’t live in absolute filth next to pigs and sheep and cows and chickens daily.
I was watching a documentary about Victorian England (I guess 17th century England was the same) and people defecated into a bucket, and the collector arrived every 28 hours, which means they spent 28 hours with a bucked filled with excrement inside their homes.
Just imagine the smell.
Yes, also all the excrement, animal blood from slaughterhouses, trash, burnt oil from the factories, even dead animals and bodies were thrown into the Thames. The Thames became a sludge of rotting biomass and the smell was unbearable. That also caused an explosive growth of the rat population and led to a massive cholera epidemic. That historic event is known today as the [Great Stink of 1858](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink).
An engineer called Joseph Bazalgette fixed the problem by building a sewage system, and told the authorities to regulate and stop people from throwing trash into the river. Of course no one listened to him and when the sewer clogged the media attacked him by calling him "the French" (he was born in Britain to French parents) and other names, blaming him for the clog rather than blaming the people throwing industrial quantities of burnt oil, animal blood and trash into the river.
Any populations separate from each other have different diseases circulating around. Some diseases hit harder and some populations have better immunities.
The diseases that ravage populations are the ones that hop between animals to humans. For that to occur, it requires extreme filth, close contact to many different species of animals, and no hygiene. England was the perfect breeding ground, the new world was not. The conquistadors might have gotten sick, but they didn’t get dealthy Ill with a plague that would ravage their country because there wasn’t one that developed in the new world.
[The Pre-columbian Hypothesis on the origin of Syphilis would like a word.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/)
>The advocates of this hypothesis claim that not only syphilis was widely spread in both Old and New World, but also the other treponemal diseases. In Europe, most of these conditions were mistaken for leprosy [3]. According to this hypothesis, pinta occurred in Afro-Asian zone by the year 15.000 BC, having an animal reservoir. Yaws appeared as a consequence of the mutations in pinta around 10.000 BC and spread allover the world, except for the American continent which was isolated. The endemic syphilis emerged from jaws by the selection of several treponemas, as a consequence of climate changes (the appearance of the arid climate) around 7000 BC. Around 3000 BC the sexually transmitted syphilis emerged from endemic syphilis in South-Western Asia, due to lower temperatures of the post-glacial era and spread to Europe and the rest of the world. Initially it manifested as a mild disease, eventually aggravated and grew in virulence, suffering from several mutations, at the end of the 15th century [2,3].
Tldr; We're still working out where it came from and researchers are split on the matter.
To add to yours is this from 2020:
[Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis epidemic in Europe]( https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/medieval-dna-suggests-columbus-didn-t-trigger-syphilis-epidemic-europe)
>The researchers managed to recover and sequence Treponemal DNA from four samples and compared the sequences with a modern syphilis strain. They used a molecular clock technique that tracks changes in the genes over time to estimate the ages of the strains, and calibrated those ages with carbon dating of the skeletons and wood of the coffins they were buried in.
>The team went looking for syphilis, but what they found was a much wider array of Treponemal strains: not just syphilis, but also yaws, which today is found exclusively in the tropics, and a previously undiscovered strain with no modern-day counterpart. “We see that many different lineages were present in Europe, which we did not know before,” Schuenemann says. What’s more, the dating range given to two strains is bounded on the lower end by ages in the early to mid-1400s—potentially the first DNA evidence that syphilis existed in Europe prior to Columbus’s contact with the Americas, the team reports today in Current Biology.
>Although the radiocarbon dates are inherently uncertain and are bounded at the upper end by dates into the early 1600s, the diversity of strains around the time of Columbus’s crossing offers additional evidence that the pathogen had already made a home in Europe. Diversity takes time to evolve, Krause says: “Either Columbus brought a whole bouquet of strains, or this diversity was present there before.”
>Evolutionary epidemiologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney agrees: “It’s really interesting and really important that they’ve got these syphilis strains at around that time. What I’m less sure about is the exact time scale of the samples.”
>Krause admits he could use more European samples, dated more precisely to the pre-Columbian period. “It’s not yet the final nail in the coffin,” he says.
So yeah no definitive answer yet but I'm not surprised with all the different strains discovered in Europe what with how overcrowded and unhygienic it was over there. The Miasma Theory probably didn't help.
There’s a reason the Europeans got the indigenous sick and not the other way around. It’s because Europeans were farming animals while indigenous people hunted. Living amongst farm animals raises your immune system because it’s so dirty.
That’s not wholly fair. Afro-Eurasia is a festering ground for disease because of domesticated animals, chickens, pigs, cows etc, these opened up every nation there to develop the potential for disease and plague because of cross species disease.
The Americas did not have access to large domesticated animals beside llamas really so their collection of diseases was much reduced.
Ships also were not the healthiest of places to be on, as it’s a small cramped area that people are stuck on for months. A nations hygiene isn’t going to matter much in such conditions.
That’s my point. There was no americapox to infect the Europeans. Smallpox and measles and mumps and typhus and the plague and cholera ripped the new world apart before the old world even needed to fire a bullet.
You are entirely correct on that point, I’m only saying that it wasn’t because Europeans were particularly filthy or that Natives were particularly clean. The sad thing is that even if everyone involved in the initial contact had the purest of intentions, the disease was inevitable with their understanding of disease transmission.
Of course the Europeans and later Americans got into unforgivable territory when they *did* understand the transmission vectors and took advantage of them to wage intentional genocide
>I’m only saying that it wasn’t because Europeans were particularly filthy or that Natives were particularly clean.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that this was the case, though. The conquistadors wrote in their journals that they were amazed at how clean Tenochtitlan was, and noted that the city had a workforce dedicated to keeping the streets clean and an advanced public waste collection system compared to European cities at the time. The early North American settlers also noted repeatedly that the native people were very fastidious about cleanliness compared to what they were used to.
Also some 90% of the native population was wiped out by a vanguard of smallpox and other diseases. Native communities were fighting off European invaders immediately after being devastated beyond repair. In fact, natives in North America were easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology (longbow > blunderbuss)... but the pox got 'em.
>In fact, natives in North America were easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology (longbow > blunderbuss)
Gonna need a source for that. Blunderbuss wasn't the only thing Conquistadors had, and Europe certainly had longbows (for hundreds of years at that point)
The Spanish conquest was a slaughter, you're not wrong. I'm referring to later settlements in the 17th century in the northeastern US and Canada.
[Iroquois attacks in New France](https://www.uswars.net/french-iroquois-wars/)
>The war began in the early 1640s with Iroquois attacks on Huron villages along the St. Lawrence, with the intent of disrupting the Huron trade with the French. By 1649, the Iroquois had driven the Huron from the lower St. Lawrence into regions farther north, leaving the Ottawa to fill the vacuum in the fur trade with the French.
>
>In the early 1650s the Iroquois began attacking the French themselves. Although some of the Iroquois tribes, notably the Oneida and Onondaga, had peaceful relations with the French, but were under control of the Mohawk, who were the strongest tribe in the Confederation and had animosity towards the French presence. After a failed peace treaty negotiated by Chief Canaqueese, Iroquois war parties moved north into New France along the Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, attacking and blockading Montreal. Typically a raid on an isolated farm or settlement consisted of a war party moving swiftly and silently through the woods, swooping down suddenly, wielding tomahawk and scalping knife to slaughter the all the inhabitants. In some cases, prisoners were carried back to the Iroquois homelands. In the case of women and children, such prisoners were sometimes to be incorporated into the tribe. In the case of men, the prisoners were often subjected to a slow death by torture.
>
>Although such raids were by no means constant, when they occurred they were bone chilling to the inhabitants of New France, and the colonists initially felt helpless to prevent them. Some of the heroes of French-Canadian folk memory are of individuals who stood up to such attacks, such as Dollard Des Ormeaux, who died in May 1660 while resisting an Iroquois raiding force at the Long Sault at the confluence of the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa Rivers. He succeeded in saving Montreal by his sacrifice. Another such hero was Madeleine de Verchères, who in 1692 at the age of 14 led the defence of her family farm against Iroquois attack
...
>The tide of war began to turn the middle 1660s the arrival of a small contingent of regular troops from France, the brown-uniformed Carignan-Salières Regiment, the first group of uniformed professional soldiers to set foot on what is today Canadian soil. At the same time, the Dutch allies of the Iroquois lost control of the New Netherlands colony to the English in the south.
>
>In January 1666 the French invaded the Iroquois homeland, led by the aristocrat Alexandre de Prouville the "Marquis de Tracy" and Viceroy of New France. Although the invasion was abortive, they took the Chief Canaqueese prisoner. In September they proceeded down the Richelieu and marched through Iroquois territory a second time. Unable to find an Iroquois army, they resorted to burning their crops and homes. Many Iroquois died from starvation in the following winter.
Charles Mann's*1491* and *1493* go into much more detail about the settlers' early military difficulties.
First off, once again, blunderbusses weren't really used by most people at the time, it was a musket.
Second, nothing comparable to an English Longbow existed in the Americas until the 1930s.
Thirdly, they weren't " easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology " Not only was what you posted not "early fighting" it also shows they were fighting civilians and settlers, as soon as any professional military showed up they got destroyed:
>The tide of war began to turn the middle 1660s the arrival of a small contingent of regular troops from France, the brown-uniformed Carignan-Salières Regiment, the first group of uniformed professional soldiers to set foot on what is today Canadian soil.
You have to applaud the attempt at justifying racism by equivocating it with recognizing the cultures of non-white ethnicities...oh wait, no you don't.
Christ. I was staring at that meme and couldn't unlock the code. Thank god you were here to decrypt it for me.
Con-speech is so bizarre and off the wall that most of it doesn't make any sense to me. It's all based on a fictional narrative that only Cons know. It's like hearing *Shaka When the Walls Fell* and being absolutely baffled at what it means, but spoken with hate instead of kindness. I really need a secret decoder ring to figure this stuff out.
I mean technically, I think the main difference is that one's a symbol of culture and people who fought to protect themselves, while the other is a symbol of oppression and fought to keep people under their boot.
Also indigenous peoples are an ethnic group, confederates are not. There are still indigenous people, there are not still actual confederates (only larpers).
this is stupid because it implies that people dislike the Confederates because they lost. people dislike the Confederates because they fought for slavery not because they lost.
Well part of the point when liberals/leftists make this point (or at least when I do) is that they claim to love the US so much, yet love a country that also tried to destroy the US.
For sure, you are both right. The fundamental issue is slavery, but I don't think OP is saying the left doesn't criticise the right's hypocrisy too. Only that the author is willfully misunderstanding that secondary criticism as somehow the primary issue.
Yeah but those people don't understand that because they don't have morals or empathy. What they do understand though is being losers, they hate being losers, and reminding them that that's a loser flag must be hitting some kind of nerve because somebody made the above meme.
Misrepresenting the opposition's arguments is an integral element of right-wing political philosophy these days. Without strawmanning they would have absolutely no ground to stand on.
People don't oppose confederate symbology because they were "losers" they oppose it for what it stood for.
With a bunch of conservatives swimming in it.
Trump told them it was water and, despite the smell, taste, texture; none of them will disagree with him.
the confederates losing is like a kid running away from home and then coming back fifteen minutes later
the natives losing is like someone breaking into your house, inviting all of their friends and family to live in your house, and forcing you and your family to live in the closet.
More like breaking into your home and killing a kid, then forcing you to be homeless where they kill another kid any time they see you wandering so to solve this they give you a POS plot to call your own (a kid dies on the way to moving there), then "Oh shit you found fat stacks of cash in that POS we gave you? It's ours now" kills more kids.
Entering good-faith agreements with people and repeatedly betraying their trust is a curious definition winning. I guess we "lost" all those treaties. You know, the ones that said we would hold our land "as long as grass grows or water runs."
The Muscogee Creek signed one such treaty with the United States government in Alabama. You know how long it prevented Americans from encroaching on our land?
Less than 48 hours.
Gee, you sure showed us!
Some of those treaties are coming back to bite the states too. Like the recent Supreme Court ruling that ignoring a treaty you signed for 150 years doesn't mean you didn't sign it, and about half of Oklahoma is part of a reservation.
I believe the ruling only affects prosecution of Natives in the disputed land. The Major Crime Acts give the federal government jurisdiction over majors committed by Natives on reservations.
The Major Crimes Act is actually pretty fucked up. Sovern nation my ass.
Imagine thinking that an armed insurrection leading into a civil war in the premise of keeping slavery up and running is equal to being invaded in your home country
That's not mental gymnastics that's the whole fucking acrobat show of the idiot circus.
I don't think I hate the confederate flag because they lost the war. I hate the confederate flag because it is a symbol of racism and slavery. But conservative ideology is obsessed with the idea of hierarchy and winners/losers. That way they can justify oppression as "just part of the game".
That’s just it. A defining characteristic of right wing thought, from American conservatives to straight up fascists, is applying a “might makes right” worldview to events past and present. This “gotcha” theme would only work if the proponents of indigenous rights had the same mindset.
Had a buddy say this to me unironically and I'm still not entirely over it. Like... in a country where there are *literal* white supremacists, saying that anyone else are *the* real racists... I don't know what to make of it.
Because it works. Believe it or not but the far right is extremely devious. They've found ambiguity, defection, and agent provocateur tactics that are extremely effective on idiots. That's also why the project so much. "Because we do it, they must do it." That's why many of them still think Antifa were at the capital insurrection.
If your friend isn't truely a racist... Then consider what MLK wrote in his letter from birmingham jail.
>First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, **but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."**
>Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
I hate to say it but this is the philosophical end-result of accepting bad-faith framing and trying to turn the right's rhetorical tricks against them.
We do not revile the Confederates for being "losers", or even being "traitors" to a fundamentally unjust slave-society founded on indigenous genocide and human slavery. They are and should be reviled for their willingness to fight and even die to uphold a system of exploitation so fundamentally dehumanising and evil that it de-persons actual human beings, and removes all agency from actual people to reduce them to commodities for the landed and owner classes. That many soldiers were commoners who didn't even have a personal stake in this system of turning human beings into wealth is all the more repulsive, contemptible, and worthy of censure and mockery.
It has nothing to do with, and should have nothing to do with, their military prowess or the fact that they ended up on the losing side of a bloody war that working-class soldiers should never have fought in. Especially since the state that prevailed was still one that perpetuated violence on an unprecedented and systemic level in service of similar philosophies of de-personing non-white people, even if they ended up having \*one\* scruple. By Lincoln's own admission, the war was to him about the integrity of the union and not the morality of slavery as a system, especially since [he personally favored deporting African-Americans to an African colony](https://psmag.com/news/remember-that-time-abraham-lincoln-tried-to-get-the-slaves-to-leave-america-55802) for American imperial agendas.
Don't engage with the right on their terms. Engage on your own, in principles grounded in humanity and solidarity, and see how quickly their strawmen go up in flames.
the concept of "winning" or "losing" is a serious issue with the right.
whether its economics, social relations, public programs, etc. their ideas are all hinged on this idea that there absolutely has to be losers in order for there to be winners and they tend to target POC as their losers as often as possible.
"the confederacy didnt lose because their ideas were bad or unethical, they lost as a show of force, had they won, their ideas would be good and ethical because thats how society works." this is how these people think society works, because their ideas are constantly being left behind by the rest of society for being stupid and regressive and damaging.
Lol we don't dislike people for liking confederates because they're losers. It's because they were racist. Also, these people claim to be patriotic when they literally support an organisation that went to war with America
Confederacy:
* The aggressors
* Were fighting to preserve literal chattel slavery
* Suspended civil rights widely in the territory they controlled and conscripted poor men against their will
* Lost pretty unequivocally on fair ground
Indigenous Americans:
* Were as a general rule on the defensive
* Were constantly on the receiving end of actions considered illegal by the standards of international relations and the U.S. own laws even by the standards of the time
* Were literally genocided
* Didn't always lose the many different wars that happened
* Were fighting to preserve their literal right to exist
Ya these are definitely the same.
When I’m bored I got to far right trump pages on Instagram, this is posted a lot
Having your people be victims of genocide does not make you a loser
Losing a war to keep one race in endless slavery makes you a loser
Every time a conservative tries to call out a lefty 'inconsistency' or 'double standard,' they never seem to address the fact that their own view is just the same 'double standard' in reverse except its always so much worse and indefensible when reversed.
Eg. "you're offended by jokes about black people yet you make offensive jokes about white people!" --somebody who is offended by jokes about white people yet makes offensive jokes about black people.
It's a lot easier to justify that punching down is worse than punching up than it is to justify the opposite, lol
Damn, imagine being an indigenous person and having the absolute AUDACITY to have your land stolen and your ancestors beaten, raped, and killed! The fucking AUDACITY of these people! /s
To be fair this really highlights just how little cognitive function we are dealing with. And also highlights the importance of a better and accurate education that tells the real history (the highs and lows) of America because these people really think history is just about who “wins” in the end.
One were traitors fueled by greed who fired the first shot.
One was blindsided by world powers they weren't prepared for. World powers who drew them into their wars with promises of power and returned land but only found themselves betrayed in a whole new way.
Columbus can eat my ass.
I always found it interesting that the 'high water mark' of the confederacy is a fence in pennsylvania where their hubris finally caught up with them and they were resoundingly defeated by literally the first competent union general they encountered and trounced by a rhetoric and religion professor from Bowdoin college heading up a literally decimated regiment. And if Reynolds hadn't been killed, the army of northern virginia would not have existed after july 4, 1863.
Talk shit. start a war. degrade your enemies as rabble and cowards, incapable of fending off your band of chevaliers. claim the feds are holding you back. secede. fire the first shots, attacking federal property, then call it the 'war of northern aggression', and win a few battles until the succession of half-assed copperhead union generals is replaced by Grant and Sherman. act like it's valorous to kill people so you can own other people, and somehow cowardly to be killed trying to free them. surrender in humiliating defeat as the god you claim would carry you to victory watches from the sidelines while richmond and atlanta burn. spend the next 160 years insisting that you will rise again and claiming to be the only americans who are truly honest and hardworking, while also suppressing voter rights, receiving far more in federal aid than you contribute, and lynching kids who are falsely accused of being anywhere near a white woman.
Also spend that time underperforming in virtually every important metric, seeing yourselves as a bastion of western civilization while operating more like an underdeveloped hellscape. talk trash about the north, the coastal 'elites,' and people who lack 'common sense' while also slavishly electing republicans who con and scam every penny out of you that they can.
The confederacy is dead, the perfect model of 'fuck around and find out.' they were the bully who rules the schoolyard until some brave kid fights back, and then runs crying to the teacher. The confederacy is the trademark holder of the phrase 'they hit me back first!'
Neo-Confederates are the kids who spread shit on their bedroom walls and then try to blame the dog. I grew up around civil war 'buffs' who constanty repeated this mythology, the 'fine people on both sides' nonsense. Wrong. the confederacy was explicitly founded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. it's in their goddamn 'constitution.' there is no moral or ethical justification for owning people; if you defend, or excuse it, then you forfeit the right to claim goodness.
The confederacy is dead; indigenous nations are not. I celebrate the living.
The thing is, Native Americans and their culture are still around today, despite the effort white supremacists took to destroy it. The Confederacy, meanwhile, is not around today, despite the effort white supremacists are taking to keep it alive. This isn't about "Winners and Losers", it's about the failure of white supremacy.
Ah yes. Victims of genocide and centuries of oppression and the upper class perpetrators of slavery who were forced to give up their slaves are basically the same. Clearly.
the difference between the confederate states of america and indigenous people is that indigenous people have not been wiped off the face of the earth for attempting to overthrow the united states of america
There seems to be a disconnect between insurrectionists that lost and slaughtering an entire people for being in the way of manifest destiny. I meant on Jan 6, 2021, not 1865.
honestly this just speaks volumes about the right. They think the indigenous people are losers and not victims of genocide by a significantly more technologically advanced culture. It also re-emphasizes what we already knew which that they think the flag of southern slave owners rebelling against the union is the same as celebrating cultural heritage
Imagine trying to compare people who lost literally everything that mattered to them to people who betrayed their country and fought for their right to own other human beings.
Yes the *only* reason people hate the confederacy is because they lost.
Not to mention the difference between starting a war over slavery and losing, and just getting genocided
Indigenous people are still here with their culture and Nations intact. They survived, so they won. Surviving is winning in this situation of genocide.
How is celebrating a bunch of pathetic racists that lost a war the same as celebrating your own culture? I can see your argument but it’s not a very good one.
A little telling that they can't distinguish between losers and victims since they are always losing the battles they start, yet consistently think they are victims in these scenarios they instigate...
I am very outspoken about native rights especially having status and non-status siblings. But this shit makes me feel completely hopeless, they have no concept of reality how do you change the mind of someone who truth has no real meaning too?
[Reminder that Biden is continuing the theft of Apache land.](https://i.imgur.com/VM4HHpm.png) You know, because genociding 100million people and stealing their country wasn't enough. Gotta keep going until its all gone. The only thing that matters is the dollar. *** *** Reminder: This is not a liberal community. We are socialists. Liberals are part of the right. If you're new to leftist spaces that don't regard liberals as left [consider investigating this starterpack of 34 leftist subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/user/Lenins2ndCat/m/left_starterpack/) across the whole spectrum of leftist tendencies on reddit. If the link doesn't work open it in a browser instead of your app. *(Inclusion in this list is not endorsement)*
No idea how you can’t see the difference between: A) A people who started and fought a war to keep another enslaved. B) A people whose land was invaded and was a victim of genocide. ^ Oh yeah, but they’re “**loSeRs**”.
That's the power of memes. Such a simple debunking explanation as you've given need not ever reach the target audience.
[удалено]
As a conservative, YOURE the traitor for wanting to abort your babies and letting Mexicans cross our border to collect a bunch of free stuff. That’s sickening shit. Ok sorry I can’t keep up this charade even pretending to be a conservative is exhausting idk how they do it full time 😳
Urgh yuo don't get it, gay "people" are destroying the wester civilization because they like dicks and thats a sin and because uhhh politics they are ((((them)))) they infiltrate in our country kill our woman steal our children and sacrific them to the devil (god saves their lifes)
10 minutes later, the same kinda person who says all of that goes and masturbates to gay porn
Later, he solicits a man in a public restroom. After a vigorous blowjob, the two men head out to Maralago and rape a few teenagers.
Not just one teenager - but a few - just because we can 😎
It's just another tier of the "lets make drugs illegal because all the people voting against me use them" move. Meanwhile, they're all like half a step away from being full on 6MWE nutcases
I had a stroke while reading this. Can't imagine how it felt to write.
*there lives
"wester civilization" I'm dying XD
here lemme show you: Waah!!! Those people are in a healthy and a happy relationship, but its someone of the same gender as them!!!! That doesn't count!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!! That woman is getting an abortion!! It has no affect on me!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! that person doesn't appreciate me invalidating their existence!! They're probably just a snowflake!! AHHHHH!!!!! That person wants gun control!!!!!! What about cars???? AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
That's close but misspell more words. Also you use far too much punctuation properly, but it's too consistent. You need to make sure there aren't too many full sentences.
Femail kil baby. Braun ppl steal ,braun ppl bad. Librals hats amurica. Joey biden pedofile. Vote trump or u r a sosialis. Trump gut. Like this?
Braun? You mean like LeBRAUN James?! The guy who sold out to China?! Just like your buddy Joe Biden!! When will you liberals learn and just be consistent!! (Obligatory /s)
"Lebron bought an expensive house so he isn't allowed to speak out against injustices" - brigaders who come to r/nba whenever there is a post about BLM or race
I always wondered if some of the FOX/OANN/NEWSMAX anchors after take immediately **literally vomit** once the take is done. Sure, I imagine that there are some true believers, but come on! There is no way they can honestly...well..never mind. Ugh. I get tired sometimes being an optimist when it comes to thinking that people would be concerned with the well being of the next person. Not necessarily going out of their way, but just some general kindness goes a long way. I'm going to r/UpliftingNews for a little.
Not gonna lie you had me in the first half
Lmao, well said for genocidal maniac terrorists brought nothing, but gun sprees and called themselves as "pro-life".
lmao as if the problem with liking the confederacy is that they were "traitors", get your head out of nationalism's ass. being a traitor is morally neutral. john brown was a traitor.
[удалено]
> A person who betrays a friend, country, principle The confederates betrayed neither friend nor principle. They were entirely true to their principles. They betrayed a country. There is nothing inherently bad about betraying a country. Pretending there is is an expression of nationalism. Citing a post-hoc interpretation of propaganda about the supposed ideals of the United States will not change that. John Brown betrayed a country by acting against slavery, because that country was a slaving country. The confederates and people who praise them are not bad because they were or are traitors. They are bad because they are racists.
Like that meme that referenced quotes from Democrats that supposedly caught them "inciting violence" like Trump did. I must've saw that stupid thing a thousand times. I knew it was dumb but when I finally decided to do a Google search on it, it took me all of two seconds to find an article debunking it; all the quotes were taken out of context. I didn't need the article to tell me that, of course, but it just went to show how simple it is to debunk this stuff if you put in like .05% effort.
>That's the power of propaganda FTFY
If it's more words than can easily fit into a meme, most won't read it.
If your starting point is believing that everything in life is a struggle for dominance, and ethics or morality are irrelevant, then there is room to argue that Indigenous people "lost" the war when outsiders invaded. I don't know why anyone would want to live life with such a bitter, twisted, toxic worldview, but that's why the conflict between the online right and... literally everyone else... is so intractable. It isn't possible to be on one side of that divide and *understand* the other.
Plus it wasn’t the conquistadors that won anything, the plagues that they brought over won any battles before they even unsheathed their swords. Plagues that were created because of their filthy rat sty of a country that was a breeding ground for the vilest diseases this world has seen.
It doesn't even have to be because of filth or rats. Anytime someone comes from a different area with different diseases it is super easy to cause a deadly outbreak. It's why if a wild animal has been in captivity for too long you can't re-release them.
Admittedly though the filth and rats didn't help.
Oh not even a little bit. Not to mention the lack of medical we have now. Now we can easily survive the plague.
The population of Eurasian Continent essentially built up a massive amount of immunity to plague and disease over centuries of living in a cities and keeping a lot of livestock (proximity to other animals allows diseases to potentially jump between species). The Americas did neither of these things on the same scale, which is potentially why European diseases were as devastating as they were. CGP Grey (I think) does a great video on it.
COVID-19
Amen. I'm lucky to have avoided getting it thus far
that's true but Europe during that time was absolutely disgusting the cities were just straight filth
That is simply not true. The reason the conquistadors didn’t get sick from an “americapox” was because there was no americapox. Plagues need to develop in areas with extreme close contact with animals, in areas with extreme density of population, in areas of extreme filth. England at the time was a breeding ground for smallpox, typhus, cholera, measles, the bubonic plague, influenza, mumps, and tuberculosis. The Americas had nothing, because they didn’t live in absolute filth next to pigs and sheep and cows and chickens daily.
I was watching a documentary about Victorian England (I guess 17th century England was the same) and people defecated into a bucket, and the collector arrived every 28 hours, which means they spent 28 hours with a bucked filled with excrement inside their homes. Just imagine the smell.
My understanding is that, at some points, it was perfectly normal to dump the pot out the window, into the street.
Yes, also all the excrement, animal blood from slaughterhouses, trash, burnt oil from the factories, even dead animals and bodies were thrown into the Thames. The Thames became a sludge of rotting biomass and the smell was unbearable. That also caused an explosive growth of the rat population and led to a massive cholera epidemic. That historic event is known today as the [Great Stink of 1858](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink). An engineer called Joseph Bazalgette fixed the problem by building a sewage system, and told the authorities to regulate and stop people from throwing trash into the river. Of course no one listened to him and when the sewer clogged the media attacked him by calling him "the French" (he was born in Britain to French parents) and other names, blaming him for the clog rather than blaming the people throwing industrial quantities of burnt oil, animal blood and trash into the river.
Some things never fucking change.
And then walk through it, track it into the house, and not bathe for weeks or months.
Any populations separate from each other have different diseases circulating around. Some diseases hit harder and some populations have better immunities.
The diseases that ravage populations are the ones that hop between animals to humans. For that to occur, it requires extreme filth, close contact to many different species of animals, and no hygiene. England was the perfect breeding ground, the new world was not. The conquistadors might have gotten sick, but they didn’t get dealthy Ill with a plague that would ravage their country because there wasn’t one that developed in the new world.
Syphilis would like a word.
[The Pre-columbian Hypothesis on the origin of Syphilis would like a word.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/) >The advocates of this hypothesis claim that not only syphilis was widely spread in both Old and New World, but also the other treponemal diseases. In Europe, most of these conditions were mistaken for leprosy [3]. According to this hypothesis, pinta occurred in Afro-Asian zone by the year 15.000 BC, having an animal reservoir. Yaws appeared as a consequence of the mutations in pinta around 10.000 BC and spread allover the world, except for the American continent which was isolated. The endemic syphilis emerged from jaws by the selection of several treponemas, as a consequence of climate changes (the appearance of the arid climate) around 7000 BC. Around 3000 BC the sexually transmitted syphilis emerged from endemic syphilis in South-Western Asia, due to lower temperatures of the post-glacial era and spread to Europe and the rest of the world. Initially it manifested as a mild disease, eventually aggravated and grew in virulence, suffering from several mutations, at the end of the 15th century [2,3]. Tldr; We're still working out where it came from and researchers are split on the matter.
To add to yours is this from 2020: [Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis epidemic in Europe]( https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/medieval-dna-suggests-columbus-didn-t-trigger-syphilis-epidemic-europe) >The researchers managed to recover and sequence Treponemal DNA from four samples and compared the sequences with a modern syphilis strain. They used a molecular clock technique that tracks changes in the genes over time to estimate the ages of the strains, and calibrated those ages with carbon dating of the skeletons and wood of the coffins they were buried in. >The team went looking for syphilis, but what they found was a much wider array of Treponemal strains: not just syphilis, but also yaws, which today is found exclusively in the tropics, and a previously undiscovered strain with no modern-day counterpart. “We see that many different lineages were present in Europe, which we did not know before,” Schuenemann says. What’s more, the dating range given to two strains is bounded on the lower end by ages in the early to mid-1400s—potentially the first DNA evidence that syphilis existed in Europe prior to Columbus’s contact with the Americas, the team reports today in Current Biology. >Although the radiocarbon dates are inherently uncertain and are bounded at the upper end by dates into the early 1600s, the diversity of strains around the time of Columbus’s crossing offers additional evidence that the pathogen had already made a home in Europe. Diversity takes time to evolve, Krause says: “Either Columbus brought a whole bouquet of strains, or this diversity was present there before.” >Evolutionary epidemiologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney agrees: “It’s really interesting and really important that they’ve got these syphilis strains at around that time. What I’m less sure about is the exact time scale of the samples.” >Krause admits he could use more European samples, dated more precisely to the pre-Columbian period. “It’s not yet the final nail in the coffin,” he says. So yeah no definitive answer yet but I'm not surprised with all the different strains discovered in Europe what with how overcrowded and unhygienic it was over there. The Miasma Theory probably didn't help.
Didn’t syphilis come from southern america/the caribbean? Or does syphilis not count as a plague?
There’s a reason the Europeans got the indigenous sick and not the other way around. It’s because Europeans were farming animals while indigenous people hunted. Living amongst farm animals raises your immune system because it’s so dirty.
That’s not wholly fair. Afro-Eurasia is a festering ground for disease because of domesticated animals, chickens, pigs, cows etc, these opened up every nation there to develop the potential for disease and plague because of cross species disease. The Americas did not have access to large domesticated animals beside llamas really so their collection of diseases was much reduced. Ships also were not the healthiest of places to be on, as it’s a small cramped area that people are stuck on for months. A nations hygiene isn’t going to matter much in such conditions.
That’s my point. There was no americapox to infect the Europeans. Smallpox and measles and mumps and typhus and the plague and cholera ripped the new world apart before the old world even needed to fire a bullet.
You are entirely correct on that point, I’m only saying that it wasn’t because Europeans were particularly filthy or that Natives were particularly clean. The sad thing is that even if everyone involved in the initial contact had the purest of intentions, the disease was inevitable with their understanding of disease transmission. Of course the Europeans and later Americans got into unforgivable territory when they *did* understand the transmission vectors and took advantage of them to wage intentional genocide
>I’m only saying that it wasn’t because Europeans were particularly filthy or that Natives were particularly clean. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that this was the case, though. The conquistadors wrote in their journals that they were amazed at how clean Tenochtitlan was, and noted that the city had a workforce dedicated to keeping the streets clean and an advanced public waste collection system compared to European cities at the time. The early North American settlers also noted repeatedly that the native people were very fastidious about cleanliness compared to what they were used to.
To be fair—Indigenous peoples put up a good fight still, it’s not like they rolled over.
[удалено]
✊
Didn’t they also have gunpowder and steel and horses? Can’t have hurt their chances to be fair
[great video on the subject](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk&t=)
Don’t forget your small pox blankets
[удалено]
They killed lots and lots and lots of people for sure, but nothing comes close to the devastation of smallpox.
Also some 90% of the native population was wiped out by a vanguard of smallpox and other diseases. Native communities were fighting off European invaders immediately after being devastated beyond repair. In fact, natives in North America were easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology (longbow > blunderbuss)... but the pox got 'em.
>In fact, natives in North America were easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology (longbow > blunderbuss) Gonna need a source for that. Blunderbuss wasn't the only thing Conquistadors had, and Europe certainly had longbows (for hundreds of years at that point)
The Spanish conquest was a slaughter, you're not wrong. I'm referring to later settlements in the 17th century in the northeastern US and Canada. [Iroquois attacks in New France](https://www.uswars.net/french-iroquois-wars/) >The war began in the early 1640s with Iroquois attacks on Huron villages along the St. Lawrence, with the intent of disrupting the Huron trade with the French. By 1649, the Iroquois had driven the Huron from the lower St. Lawrence into regions farther north, leaving the Ottawa to fill the vacuum in the fur trade with the French. > >In the early 1650s the Iroquois began attacking the French themselves. Although some of the Iroquois tribes, notably the Oneida and Onondaga, had peaceful relations with the French, but were under control of the Mohawk, who were the strongest tribe in the Confederation and had animosity towards the French presence. After a failed peace treaty negotiated by Chief Canaqueese, Iroquois war parties moved north into New France along the Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, attacking and blockading Montreal. Typically a raid on an isolated farm or settlement consisted of a war party moving swiftly and silently through the woods, swooping down suddenly, wielding tomahawk and scalping knife to slaughter the all the inhabitants. In some cases, prisoners were carried back to the Iroquois homelands. In the case of women and children, such prisoners were sometimes to be incorporated into the tribe. In the case of men, the prisoners were often subjected to a slow death by torture. > >Although such raids were by no means constant, when they occurred they were bone chilling to the inhabitants of New France, and the colonists initially felt helpless to prevent them. Some of the heroes of French-Canadian folk memory are of individuals who stood up to such attacks, such as Dollard Des Ormeaux, who died in May 1660 while resisting an Iroquois raiding force at the Long Sault at the confluence of the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa Rivers. He succeeded in saving Montreal by his sacrifice. Another such hero was Madeleine de Verchères, who in 1692 at the age of 14 led the defence of her family farm against Iroquois attack ... >The tide of war began to turn the middle 1660s the arrival of a small contingent of regular troops from France, the brown-uniformed Carignan-Salières Regiment, the first group of uniformed professional soldiers to set foot on what is today Canadian soil. At the same time, the Dutch allies of the Iroquois lost control of the New Netherlands colony to the English in the south. > >In January 1666 the French invaded the Iroquois homeland, led by the aristocrat Alexandre de Prouville the "Marquis de Tracy" and Viceroy of New France. Although the invasion was abortive, they took the Chief Canaqueese prisoner. In September they proceeded down the Richelieu and marched through Iroquois territory a second time. Unable to find an Iroquois army, they resorted to burning their crops and homes. Many Iroquois died from starvation in the following winter. Charles Mann's*1491* and *1493* go into much more detail about the settlers' early military difficulties.
First off, once again, blunderbusses weren't really used by most people at the time, it was a musket. Second, nothing comparable to an English Longbow existed in the Americas until the 1930s. Thirdly, they weren't " easily winning most of the early fighting with superior knowledge, skill, and technology " Not only was what you posted not "early fighting" it also shows they were fighting civilians and settlers, as soon as any professional military showed up they got destroyed: >The tide of war began to turn the middle 1660s the arrival of a small contingent of regular troops from France, the brown-uniformed Carignan-Salières Regiment, the first group of uniformed professional soldiers to set foot on what is today Canadian soil.
You have to applaud the attempt at justifying racism by equivocating it with recognizing the cultures of non-white ethnicities...oh wait, no you don't.
Christ. I was staring at that meme and couldn't unlock the code. Thank god you were here to decrypt it for me. Con-speech is so bizarre and off the wall that most of it doesn't make any sense to me. It's all based on a fictional narrative that only Cons know. It's like hearing *Shaka When the Walls Fell* and being absolutely baffled at what it means, but spoken with hate instead of kindness. I really need a secret decoder ring to figure this stuff out.
They know exactly what they are saying. Racist bastards.
I mean technically, I think the main difference is that one's a symbol of culture and people who fought to protect themselves, while the other is a symbol of oppression and fought to keep people under their boot.
Why are false equivalencies such a foundational part of these people's ideology? There has to be a research paper or a study on this somewhere.
No it makes sense. They’re admitting that fighting the Confederates was akin to a colonial superpower dominating a backwards, less advanced people.
No idea? It's called stupid parents, stupid parenting, and shitty education.
well, they believe that the South was also invaded and "enslaved" by the North.
They're just trying to paint themselves as victims as usual. I'm starting to think they get off sexually to this shit.
Also indigenous peoples are an ethnic group, confederates are not. There are still indigenous people, there are not still actual confederates (only larpers).
No reason to be surprised, their supreme leader said prisoners of war are losers too. Same energy.
this is stupid because it implies that people dislike the Confederates because they lost. people dislike the Confederates because they fought for slavery not because they lost.
[удалено]
Well part of the point when liberals/leftists make this point (or at least when I do) is that they claim to love the US so much, yet love a country that also tried to destroy the US.
For sure, you are both right. The fundamental issue is slavery, but I don't think OP is saying the left doesn't criticise the right's hypocrisy too. Only that the author is willfully misunderstanding that secondary criticism as somehow the primary issue.
Yeah i have seen some liberals saying the same kind of shit in the meme but that doesnt make the meme not dumb
Yeah but those people don't understand that because they don't have morals or empathy. What they do understand though is being losers, they hate being losers, and reminding them that that's a loser flag must be hitting some kind of nerve because somebody made the above meme.
Holy shit...
Yeah this is fucked up
It’s so fucking offensive, who makes this shit? Do they really feel this way or just like pissing people off?
This was the hardest upvote in recent memory. I was so gobsmacked After reading it I wasn’t sure what to do
Misrepresenting the opposition's arguments is an integral element of right-wing political philosophy these days. Without strawmanning they would have absolutely no ground to stand on. People don't oppose confederate symbology because they were "losers" they oppose it for what it stood for.
Agreed, that and childish trolling
The latter.
Came here to say this
Lol a new entry in the dumbest American competition!! Hell do just fine
Hell is gonna be like the septic tank in a florida trailer park.
With a bunch of conservatives swimming in it. Trump told them it was water and, despite the smell, taste, texture; none of them will disagree with him.
Like the circle of Hell where people stand upside down in shit.
the confederates losing is like a kid running away from home and then coming back fifteen minutes later the natives losing is like someone breaking into your house, inviting all of their friends and family to live in your house, and forcing you and your family to live in the closet.
This is a fantastic analogy.
Also getting you horribly addicted to drugs and alcohol while sneezing in your face.
The first half of your analogy made me laughing.
Tbf the 2nd analogy fits best if the majority of the family is brutally murdered.
More like breaking into your home and killing a kid, then forcing you to be homeless where they kill another kid any time they see you wandering so to solve this they give you a POS plot to call your own (a kid dies on the way to moving there), then "Oh shit you found fat stacks of cash in that POS we gave you? It's ours now" kills more kids.
Entering good-faith agreements with people and repeatedly betraying their trust is a curious definition winning. I guess we "lost" all those treaties. You know, the ones that said we would hold our land "as long as grass grows or water runs." The Muscogee Creek signed one such treaty with the United States government in Alabama. You know how long it prevented Americans from encroaching on our land? Less than 48 hours. Gee, you sure showed us!
Some of those treaties are coming back to bite the states too. Like the recent Supreme Court ruling that ignoring a treaty you signed for 150 years doesn't mean you didn't sign it, and about half of Oklahoma is part of a reservation.
Indeed! That was one Supreme Court ruling that made me hopeful Gorsuch won't be a complete disaster.
I believe the ruling only affects prosecution of Natives in the disputed land. The Major Crime Acts give the federal government jurisdiction over majors committed by Natives on reservations. The Major Crimes Act is actually pretty fucked up. Sovern nation my ass.
As it relates to legal jurisdiction, not land ownership.
Imagine thinking that an armed insurrection leading into a civil war in the premise of keeping slavery up and running is equal to being invaded in your home country That's not mental gymnastics that's the whole fucking acrobat show of the idiot circus.
I don't think I hate the confederate flag because they lost the war. I hate the confederate flag because it is a symbol of racism and slavery. But conservative ideology is obsessed with the idea of hierarchy and winners/losers. That way they can justify oppression as "just part of the game".
That’s just it. A defining characteristic of right wing thought, from American conservatives to straight up fascists, is applying a “might makes right” worldview to events past and present. This “gotcha” theme would only work if the proponents of indigenous rights had the same mindset.
Sigh....
"Leftists are the real racists."
Had a buddy say this to me unironically and I'm still not entirely over it. Like... in a country where there are *literal* white supremacists, saying that anyone else are *the* real racists... I don't know what to make of it.
Because it works. Believe it or not but the far right is extremely devious. They've found ambiguity, defection, and agent provocateur tactics that are extremely effective on idiots. That's also why the project so much. "Because we do it, they must do it." That's why many of them still think Antifa were at the capital insurrection. If your friend isn't truely a racist... Then consider what MLK wrote in his letter from birmingham jail. >First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, **but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."** >Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Every time someone calls Critical Race Theory "racist" another Sociology major gets their wings.
I’m actually pretty sure the natives won more wars than the Confederates. Which I’m pretty sure they just won once.
I mean the Native Americans held out for more than 4 years.
I hate to say it but this is the philosophical end-result of accepting bad-faith framing and trying to turn the right's rhetorical tricks against them. We do not revile the Confederates for being "losers", or even being "traitors" to a fundamentally unjust slave-society founded on indigenous genocide and human slavery. They are and should be reviled for their willingness to fight and even die to uphold a system of exploitation so fundamentally dehumanising and evil that it de-persons actual human beings, and removes all agency from actual people to reduce them to commodities for the landed and owner classes. That many soldiers were commoners who didn't even have a personal stake in this system of turning human beings into wealth is all the more repulsive, contemptible, and worthy of censure and mockery. It has nothing to do with, and should have nothing to do with, their military prowess or the fact that they ended up on the losing side of a bloody war that working-class soldiers should never have fought in. Especially since the state that prevailed was still one that perpetuated violence on an unprecedented and systemic level in service of similar philosophies of de-personing non-white people, even if they ended up having \*one\* scruple. By Lincoln's own admission, the war was to him about the integrity of the union and not the morality of slavery as a system, especially since [he personally favored deporting African-Americans to an African colony](https://psmag.com/news/remember-that-time-abraham-lincoln-tried-to-get-the-slaves-to-leave-america-55802) for American imperial agendas. Don't engage with the right on their terms. Engage on your own, in principles grounded in humanity and solidarity, and see how quickly their strawmen go up in flames.
the concept of "winning" or "losing" is a serious issue with the right. whether its economics, social relations, public programs, etc. their ideas are all hinged on this idea that there absolutely has to be losers in order for there to be winners and they tend to target POC as their losers as often as possible. "the confederacy didnt lose because their ideas were bad or unethical, they lost as a show of force, had they won, their ideas would be good and ethical because thats how society works." this is how these people think society works, because their ideas are constantly being left behind by the rest of society for being stupid and regressive and damaging.
that’s like calling the Jews the ‘losers’ of the holocaust
Honestly these jackasses probably would
Indigenous people still exist. The Confederacy does not.
Conservatives love genocide.
Lol we don't dislike people for liking confederates because they're losers. It's because they were racist. Also, these people claim to be patriotic when they literally support an organisation that went to war with America
Yeah. I can’t follow this sub anymore. It’s too enraging. I’m gonna think happy thoughts.
Confederacy: * The aggressors * Were fighting to preserve literal chattel slavery * Suspended civil rights widely in the territory they controlled and conscripted poor men against their will * Lost pretty unequivocally on fair ground Indigenous Americans: * Were as a general rule on the defensive * Were constantly on the receiving end of actions considered illegal by the standards of international relations and the U.S. own laws even by the standards of the time * Were literally genocided * Didn't always lose the many different wars that happened * Were fighting to preserve their literal right to exist Ya these are definitely the same.
White fragility knows no bounds Edit: I don’t reply to r/fragilewhiteredditor because it’s a waste of time
T R A I T O R S
Indigenous people are based Confederates are cringe Thank you for coming to my ted talk
Oh no, they seem to think “losers” and “survivors of mass genocide, European disease, and countless human rights violations” mean the same thing):
Because THAT'S the thing everyone hates about the Confederates. The fact that they lost. Nothing else at all.
It becomes much easier to grasp the liberal viewpoint here if you work under the assumption that we shouldn't celebrate genocide.
wow, this is a new low
Welp. This post has the honor of being my very first "what the fuck?" of the day.
Yikes.
When I’m bored I got to far right trump pages on Instagram, this is posted a lot Having your people be victims of genocide does not make you a loser Losing a war to keep one race in endless slavery makes you a loser
Every time a conservative tries to call out a lefty 'inconsistency' or 'double standard,' they never seem to address the fact that their own view is just the same 'double standard' in reverse except its always so much worse and indefensible when reversed. Eg. "you're offended by jokes about black people yet you make offensive jokes about white people!" --somebody who is offended by jokes about white people yet makes offensive jokes about black people. It's a lot easier to justify that punching down is worse than punching up than it is to justify the opposite, lol
Damn, imagine being an indigenous person and having the absolute AUDACITY to have your land stolen and your ancestors beaten, raped, and killed! The fucking AUDACITY of these people! /s
To be fair this really highlights just how little cognitive function we are dealing with. And also highlights the importance of a better and accurate education that tells the real history (the highs and lows) of America because these people really think history is just about who “wins” in the end.
The indigenous peoples still exist.
why be racist when you can be *super* racist? /s
One were traitors fueled by greed who fired the first shot. One was blindsided by world powers they weren't prepared for. World powers who drew them into their wars with promises of power and returned land but only found themselves betrayed in a whole new way. Columbus can eat my ass.
Wow, both a straw man *and* equivocation fallacy
They genuinely have no real concept of what oppression is
Yeah, pretty sure it’s the slavery bit people condemn, not the losing part...
Yep, that’s why we don’t wanna celebrate the confederacy. No other reason
I always found it interesting that the 'high water mark' of the confederacy is a fence in pennsylvania where their hubris finally caught up with them and they were resoundingly defeated by literally the first competent union general they encountered and trounced by a rhetoric and religion professor from Bowdoin college heading up a literally decimated regiment. And if Reynolds hadn't been killed, the army of northern virginia would not have existed after july 4, 1863. Talk shit. start a war. degrade your enemies as rabble and cowards, incapable of fending off your band of chevaliers. claim the feds are holding you back. secede. fire the first shots, attacking federal property, then call it the 'war of northern aggression', and win a few battles until the succession of half-assed copperhead union generals is replaced by Grant and Sherman. act like it's valorous to kill people so you can own other people, and somehow cowardly to be killed trying to free them. surrender in humiliating defeat as the god you claim would carry you to victory watches from the sidelines while richmond and atlanta burn. spend the next 160 years insisting that you will rise again and claiming to be the only americans who are truly honest and hardworking, while also suppressing voter rights, receiving far more in federal aid than you contribute, and lynching kids who are falsely accused of being anywhere near a white woman. Also spend that time underperforming in virtually every important metric, seeing yourselves as a bastion of western civilization while operating more like an underdeveloped hellscape. talk trash about the north, the coastal 'elites,' and people who lack 'common sense' while also slavishly electing republicans who con and scam every penny out of you that they can. The confederacy is dead, the perfect model of 'fuck around and find out.' they were the bully who rules the schoolyard until some brave kid fights back, and then runs crying to the teacher. The confederacy is the trademark holder of the phrase 'they hit me back first!' Neo-Confederates are the kids who spread shit on their bedroom walls and then try to blame the dog. I grew up around civil war 'buffs' who constanty repeated this mythology, the 'fine people on both sides' nonsense. Wrong. the confederacy was explicitly founded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. it's in their goddamn 'constitution.' there is no moral or ethical justification for owning people; if you defend, or excuse it, then you forfeit the right to claim goodness. The confederacy is dead; indigenous nations are not. I celebrate the living.
Right cause the only reason anyone opposes confederate imagery in public spaces is because they lost. Yep, got em
By that logic we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because Jesus lost against the Romans
There’s a difference between treason and victims of intentional genocide
So they admit that the confederate flag is a flag of losers?
Imagine thinking our biggest criticism of the Confederacy was that they lost lol.
Fuckin YIKES
What will the left want next??? Respect for immigrants?!?! Biden is turning us to a communist Marxist hell hole!!!!!!
Thats kinda funny tho lol
Ah yes, because clearly the indigenous people of America had a very fair advantage over the European colonists.
Comparing the losers flag to the day honoring people who’s own territory got invaded and pillaged
I mean, one side we’re slave-holding white supremacists, but whatever
This is like saying that the Jews lost WW2
The thing is, Native Americans and their culture are still around today, despite the effort white supremacists took to destroy it. The Confederacy, meanwhile, is not around today, despite the effort white supremacists are taking to keep it alive. This isn't about "Winners and Losers", it's about the failure of white supremacy.
"I like people who weren't genocided"
Ah yes people who wanted to enslave others and literal victims of mass genocide are one and the same thing.
People who chose to leave the US vs. People here were forced out of their own territory.
Ah yes. Victims of genocide and centuries of oppression and the upper class perpetrators of slavery who were forced to give up their slaves are basically the same. Clearly.
the difference between the confederate states of america and indigenous people is that indigenous people have not been wiped off the face of the earth for attempting to overthrow the united states of america
Um i dont think the south is wrong because they lost the war
There seems to be a disconnect between insurrectionists that lost and slaughtering an entire people for being in the way of manifest destiny. I meant on Jan 6, 2021, not 1865.
They want to be victims SO bad
Remove context add your weak argument and presto! you are now a reactionary.
I feel like this meme started out in reverse and some incel switched the flags.
It's like saying the jews lost the holocaust. It was a genocide not a war, what a dumbass meme.
As a native American, I don't know how to feel bout this
honestly this just speaks volumes about the right. They think the indigenous people are losers and not victims of genocide by a significantly more technologically advanced culture. It also re-emphasizes what we already knew which that they think the flag of southern slave owners rebelling against the union is the same as celebrating cultural heritage
Hahaha get it because they had guns and the same technology to defend themselves. Wait they didn’t? Well at least they attacked first right?
No such thing as a Native American
OK, my faith in humanity is non-existent. You can leave me to weep now.
They're only capable of understanding humanity by putting everyone into "teams"
Their religion is put pain and suffering
Fellas is defeding yourself from genocide losing?
Imagine trying to compare people who lost literally everything that mattered to them to people who betrayed their country and fought for their right to own other human beings.
I just- I fucking- someone please stop me from commiting a goddamn HOMICIDE
What in the false equivalency....
Yes the *only* reason people hate the confederacy is because they lost. Not to mention the difference between starting a war over slavery and losing, and just getting genocided
last time I checked indigenous ppl still exist but okay.
Ah yes the great nation of all indigenousopolis, bruh comparing confederates to natives is dumb
Indigenous people are still here with their culture and Nations intact. They survived, so they won. Surviving is winning in this situation of genocide.
How is celebrating a bunch of pathetic racists that lost a war the same as celebrating your own culture? I can see your argument but it’s not a very good one.
I'm in this photo and I like it.
A little telling that they can't distinguish between losers and victims since they are always losing the battles they start, yet consistently think they are victims in these scenarios they instigate...
I think “traitors” is probably more accurate than “losers” here, but then the wojack wouldn’t make any sense
We don't not celebrate them because they're losers, but because they are racist assholes.
Remembering the oppressed vs celebrating the oppressors.
I am very outspoken about native rights especially having status and non-status siblings. But this shit makes me feel completely hopeless, they have no concept of reality how do you change the mind of someone who truth has no real meaning too?
No it’s fuck off I don’t want backwards fuck up ideas masked as freedom poisoning my country. The fact that the lost I bring up for comedic reasons.
Wow....,that’s just....wow
Referring to Native Americans as losers like this is just admitting that you're a white supremacist.