Alienated America

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(03-06-2019, 09:18 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I didn't know that. That's tragic. What allowed the coal people to treat them like that? I can't believe they didn't break some sort of law or regulation. Or was it just that the laws had not caught up to their tactics at that time?

As for the Scots and Irish, the point I was making was mostly that whites, as a race, were not oppressed for any significant period of time. Not necessarily that any group of people who were white had never been oppressed. The Irish were oppressed by other whites, so it'd be difficult for white people to claim that oppression as a race related thing. It's more of a heritage based thing (white face like in White Chicks is not heritage specific after all).

There's the Arminians under the Ottoman Empire who were treated as second class citizens. Everything came to a head during the first world war as the Ottoman Empire started to crumble and they tried to wipe the Arminians out. Forced marches and mass murder resulted in 600k to 1.5 million deaths.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-06-2019, 09:18 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I didn't know that. That's tragic. What allowed the coal people to treat them like that? I can't believe they didn't break some sort of law or regulation. Or was it just that the laws had not caught up to their tactics at that time?

As for the Scots and Irish, the point I was making was mostly that whites, as a race, were not oppressed for any significant period of time. Not necessarily that any group of people who were white had never been oppressed. The Irish were oppressed by other whites, so it'd be difficult for white people to claim that oppression as a race related thing. It's more of a heritage based thing (white face like in White Chicks is not heritage specific after all).

Okay.....I get where you're coming from now....

A lot of that was before the formation of the UMWA.  So, yes, the laws hadn't caught up with the tactics, but it didn't end altogether when they did.  What happened was, once the ground was purchased for pennies on the dollar, the companies built the towns and set up their own government with bought and paid for lawmen and judges they brought in from the outside a lot of times.  The other times, money talks and locals sold out.  On top of that, you had notoriously corrupt state governments like Kentucky (still is, but I digress), that were also getting their pockets lined.  It's an interesting topic, if you ever take the notion to read up on it, and explains the distrust people from the region have for outsiders, and their "backward" beliefs. It's not really backward, it's a deep seeded lack of trust.

Now, that's not to say all companies were like that. For example, U.S. Steel out of Pittsburgh realized the value of the coal to their bottom line, and built Lynch, KY. Lynch was state of the art in coal town territory, and the company looked out for the well being of its population and did right by the workers. They built and maintained a very nice living for its inhabitants. There a lot of horror stories though. The Mattewan Massacre is a good launching point, if you're interested, followed by Bloody Harlan.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry for any offense, but it is just frustrating to try and have any sort of discussion with a person who has his own secret definitions that none of us know.

I'm sure it's very frustrating to debate with someone you feel is deliberately misstating your position or ignoring obvious facts. 

Quote:How do you expect us to understand anything you try to say when we are used to using commonly accepted definitions that other people use to communicate their ideas?

Let's examine this question a bit.  You're engaging in a semantic argument over the word "strong".  There are numerous possible definitions for strong.  Does this mean physically powerful, mentally resilient, forceful of will, having a moral code of behavior one adheres to religiously or possessing an intense personality?  Luckily, in this example, we have a further set of words to guide us, that being the "creates easy times" follow up.  Now, what possible definitions of "strong" would lend itself to a person who can create "easy times"?  Possibly all of them?  More likely some than others?  Quite demonstrably, Fred, there is no one definition of the word "strong" that one could look at and easily state, "this is the one we're talking about"!

So, we are forced to once again rely on the following words, "creates easy times".  Do you feel that Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini created easy times?  Your argument would lend one to believe this was the case.  If this is true I had no idea you thought so highly of men who murdered millions and nurtured some of the darkest ideology the world has ever seen.  If this is not the case then maybe you need to concede that your knee jerk attempt to paint someone with a bigoted brush has instead seen you inadvertently coating yourself.  If you are so inclined as to admit such I would happily believe the assertion that you do not find Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin to be admirable, or "strong", men.

I eagerly await your reply.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 05:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You know, the interesting thing about today's Politics is I think they've improved my view of Republicans.

Not Trump sycophants (or extreme fanatics, I suppose), mind you. But actual Republicans. The pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro small government, pro low taxes Republicans.

When I was growing up in the George W Bush years, I was convinced (arguably, propagandized) into thinking that all Republcans were racist. All Republicans were sexist. All Republicans were immoral millionaires who's only concern was keeping their money and to hell with anyone else who may need help in this country (or people tricked into voting that way by immoral millionaires).

I've spoken to many many many Republicans over the last 3 years. And I've learned that, while there are those people and they do exist, there are also a lot of Republicans who vote that way for the aforementioned reasons. I have my reasons for voting Democratic, despite their characteristic flaws. And there are Republicans who are exactly the same in that regard.

A Republican voter may disagree with the lack of corporate tax and increasingly steep tax cuts that are increasing the deficit (along with the inordinate amount of money spent on wars and other imperialistic ventures), but they are also a Catholic and believe that abortion is a hell worthy offense. 

Or there may be a Republican who disagrees that immigrants are the reason our economy is a mess (whether it is or is not) and is not all that concerned with immigration reform, but they really care about their rights to owning a gun.

You don't need to agree with every stance of your party in order to vote with them.

Of course, there are also Republicans who just really really hate black people, gays and trans people. And, to be fair, there are Democrats who feel that way as well.

But my view of Republicans, as a whole, has generally improved over the last few years. All they have to do is say "Trump is a terrible person" and I at least know we're on the same wavelength, as human beings.

I had a similar epiphany several years back regarding the pro-choice/pro-life argument.  I have always been pro-choice, I don't like the government telling adults what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.  I used to scoff at pro-lifers who claimed a zygote was a human being and that abortion was murder.  Then I actually considered that many, if not most, of these people think they way they do because the genuinely believe that abortion is murdering a child.  Would I stand idly by while children were murdered, absolutely not.  So, while I still don't agree with them on the subject, although my view on later term abortions has certainly been affected, I can respect their position and why they hold it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2019, 09:39 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: There's the Arminians under the Ottoman Empire who were treated as second class citizens. Everything came to a head during the first world war as the Ottoman Empire started to crumble and they tried to wipe the Arminians out. Forced marches and mass murder resulted in 600k to 1.5 million deaths.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

There's also the million plus Europeans, including several hundred Americans, enslaved by the Barbary pirates.

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 08:39 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, to be fair, the Roman empire eventually converted to Christianity haha. I'd say that is a pretty big victory for the Christians

LOL bad news for the pagans, though.

Jews too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2019, 12:20 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL bad news for the pagans, though.

Jews too.

The Jews haven't exactly had it easy ever.

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 08:59 AM)Wyche Wrote: People were shot over wanting safe working conditions and decent pay during the strikes, all the way into the 1970s.  There's a lot more to the story than that, and it's actually very interesting if you're into history. Forced to live in company housing and buy from the company stores, most miners wound up essentially working for room and board, and little else, and the companies got all of that money too. I don't want to seem to be diminishing what happened before the Emancipation Proclamation, but this was essentially legalized slavery in a sense.  Not to mention that the native landowners were ignorant to the value of their land when the coal barons showed up and ripped them off for their mineral rights. It's akin to the European settlers buying native lands for beads. 

Once the industrialists to the north got what they wanted out of the ground, they've abandoned these communities and left them with little from the boom days but debt, pollution, and dwindling opportunity. These people fueled the Industrial Revolution and the WWII war machine, and have largely been left to wallow in poverty and ridicule.

I'm not going stand idly by while someone criticizes capitalism, the basis of our national success!

I'm going to pitch in and help . . . .   You are describing what Marx called "free labor."  Free in the double sense that workers were freed from any means o feeding themselves (e.g., owning a few acres of land) and free in the sense they were not slaves, so you didn't have to house and feed them yourself, or care for them when sick.  Imagine slaves paying for their room and board (i.e. wages recouped by the capitalist) and that is close to the system you are describing here--except mine workers were free to leave if they wanted--and starve.

Unions mitigated this exploitation to some degree, but only to a degree. "Right to work" legislation emerges from those historical battles.  

"Ya load 16 tons, and whaddaya get . . . ?"

[GMDino]

It's Ash Wednesday.

If anyone wants to oppress or harass Christians (Catholics) they are pretty easy to pick out today. 

So we'll see what happens.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2019, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's Ash Wednesday.

If anyone wants to oppress or harass Christians (Catholics) they are pretty easy to pick out today. 

So we'll see what happens.  

Who said anything about harassing Christians?

[GMDino]

(03-06-2019, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who said anything about harassing Christians?

  = joke

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 09:39 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: There's the Arminians under the Ottoman Empire who were treated as second class citizens. Everything came to a head during the first world war as the Ottoman Empire started to crumble and they tried to wipe the Arminians out. Forced marches and mass murder resulted in 600k to 1.5 million deaths.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

When the Mongol Empire encompassed much of Eastern Europe, all the way up to contemporary Poland, it figures that quite a few "white folks" were oppressed by Asians. And Europe was militarily rather weak compared to the Middle East, South and East Asia.

Back then, though, people were not designating themselves as "races" and what not. People certainly noticed group differences in skin color and other physical features that "others" had, and these differences could mark those others as "inferior," but they were not integrated into a systematic classification, an anthropology. Kievan Rus did not think of themselves as members of some larger set called "the white race" and Mongols did not think of themselves as "Asian."   (These last points are just general FYI for anyone reading--not a response to anything you said, Neb.)

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2019, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, we are forced to once again rely on the following words, "creates easy times". 

No we are not forced to rely on those words because you can't make a statement true just by making up an arbitrary definition.


"Strong men create easy times."

"No they don't.  Here are a list of strong men who did not create easy times."

"Those strong men do no count because I define 'strong man' only as 'a man who creates easy times'."


Anyone else see the flaw in that type of argument?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-06-2019, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote:
I'm not going stand idly by while someone criticizes capitalism, the basis of our national success!

I'm going to pitch in and help . . . .   You are describing what Marx called "free labor."  Free in the double sense that workers were freed from any means o feeding themselves (e.g., owning a few acres of land) and free in the sense they were not slaves, so you didn't have to house and feed them yourself, or care for them when sick.  Imagine slaves paying for their room and board (i.e. wages recouped by the capitalist) and that is close to the system you are describing here--except mine workers were free to leave if they wanted--and starve.

Unions mitigated this exploitation to some degree, but only to a degree. "Right to work" legislation emerges from those historical battles.  

"Ya load 16 tons, and whaddaya get . . . ?"

"......another day older and deeper in debt....."

Absolutely agree.  Capitalism with a blend of some other philosophies is good, unfettered capitalism is good for only a select few.  

I grew up in the foothills, both my father and his father mined coal, albeit strip mining.  They were fortunate in that they worked for a mine owner that was a local, and operated equipment, versus going underground.  They had it good......others were not so fortunate.  It's quite interesting to note that as the jobs dwindle, they have become safer and safer and pay well now.  Although some are still fighting to get their black lung settlements, it's a far cry from what it was.  Inez, Ky does not have safe drinking water, and at times has no water to some citizens at all.

A large problem with the way things were done in the mountains was that a lot of these lands were in families for generations, some native lands, and that's all the locals knew.  Farming, gathering, and hunting on their own lands was how they fed and clothed themselves.  It was unfortunate they were so naive about what was beneath their feet.  I've read accounts of farmers just using outcroppings of coal to heat and use for blacksmithing.  They couldn't believe anyone wanted to buy the lands where cattle had to have two legs shorter than the other because of the terrain.   Once that was gone, and they were working for their keep, they really had no options to get out, because they had no means to support a move.  It was a really dark time.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-06-2019, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote:
I'm not going stand idly by while someone criticizes capitalism, the basis of our national success!

I'm going to pitch in and help . . . .   You are describing what Marx called "free labor."  Free in the double sense that workers were freed from any means o feeding themselves (e.g., owning a few acres of land) and free in the sense they were not slaves, so you didn't have to house and feed them yourself, or care for them when sick.  Imagine slaves paying for their room and board (i.e. wages recouped by the capitalist) and that is close to the system you are describing here--except mine workers were free to leave if they wanted--and starve.

Unions mitigated this exploitation to some degree, but only to a degree. "Right to work" legislation emerges from those historical battles.  

"Ya load 16 tons, and whaddaya get . . . ?"

Forgot to mention, right to work is a farce......right to lower wages and less talented employee pools.

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's examine this question a bit.  You're engaging in a semantic argument over the word "strong".  There are numerous possible definitions for strong.  Does this mean physically powerful, mentally resilient, forceful of will, having a moral code of behavior one adheres to religiously or possessing an intense personality?  Luckily, in this example, we have a further set of words to guide us, that being the "creates easy times" follow up.  Now, what possible definitions of "strong" would lend itself to a person who can create "easy times"?  Possibly all of them?  More likely some than others?  Quite demonstrably, Fred, there is no one definition of the word "strong" that one could look at and easily state, "this is the one we're talking about"!

So, we are forced to once again rely on the following words, "creates easy times".  Do you feel that Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini created easy times?  Your argument would lend one to believe this was the case.  If this is true I had no idea you thought so highly of men who murdered millions and nurtured some of the darkest ideology the world has ever seen.  If this is not the case then maybe you need to concede that your knee jerk attempt to paint someone with a bigoted brush has instead seen you inadvertently coating yourself.  If you are so inclined as to admit such I would happily believe the assertion that you do not find Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin to be admirable, or "strong", men.

I eagerly await your reply.

Actually, I like what you are doing here. You point out that, in the abstract, words like "strong" can hold many different (sometimes contrary) meanings. This variation is massively reduced by context, by words and phrases around "strong," as well as its thematic deployment in a larger progression.  In Mein Kampf, "strong" is deployed in passages describing sacrifice of individual life for the nation and willingness to do what is necessary to eliminate threats to racial purity.  Fair to say that contrasts with  "strong" + "good times" and a picture of a factory in operation.

There is still a larger context though, a genealogy of how "strong" has been deployed to describe men and leadership, how it has been selected from among other traits to support authoritarian politics. That it is, in your image, singled out as necessary, is still a bit of a problem. I think that is what Fred noticed. Hitler and Mussolini did not create "easy times."  But many who supported them thought they would. Though if we look at their writings, this was not what they promised. They asked for sacrifice and promised endless testing. Both accepted economic well being as measure of national success, but not as a goal for individuals, or even an end goal for the nation.  Fair to say that "good times" was not really the goal, certainly of Hitler.  (I have no problem thinking of Hitler as "strong." It is just the wrong strong.)  

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 03:45 PM)Wyche Wrote: Forgot to mention, right to work is a farce......right to lower wages and less talented employee pools.

LOL yes. That us the point.  Keep wages down.  FREEDOM!!!--for employers.

[*bfine32*]

It would all be ok if only....

Quote:"If we train them — if we give them skills, support, financing, media training, spotlights, then they're the ones that are going to carry forward the solutions that we so desperately need,"

"If we could form a network of those young leaders, not just in the United States, but around the world, then we got something," "if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles who are running around thinking they can change the world" hope is achievable.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-theres-hope-if-we-can-train-a-million-baracks-and-michelles
All we need is 1,000,000 more Baracks and Michelle's; then we have hope.

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It would all be ok if only....

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-theres-hope-if-we-can-train-a-million-baracks-and-michelles
All we need is 1,000,000 more Baracks and Michelle's; then we have hope.

Maybe triple that. But otherwise, agreed.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2019, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It would all be ok if only....

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-theres-hope-if-we-can-train-a-million-baracks-and-michelles
All we need is 1,000,000 more Baracks and Michelle's; then we have hope.

Respectful people who listen and try to inspire others?  Yeah.  That would be wonderful to have.

Glad we agree!