A shot in arm for the Land of the Free.

[Taichiliberal]

Okay children, pay attention: We currently have a full court press by the 2nd Coming of Cheeto Jeezus government to "eliminate DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) from all aspects of our government, civilian and business sections in America. This includes books in library, certain courses in public schools, federal programs, private industry, etc., etc.

Here is a little reality check from the late, great comedian, actor and social commentator George Carlin as to what this country is all about at it's core .... which explains the convoluted, self serving DEI demonization by our "conservative" brethren. Enjoy:

/www.youtube.com/shorts/bhIfU2QIwig

 

[Guno צְבִי]

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bhIfU2QIwig

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay children, pay attention: We currently have a full court press by the 2nd Coming of Cheeto Jeezus government to "eliminate DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) from all aspects of our government, civilian and business sections in America. This includes books in library, certain courses in public schools, federal programs, private industry, etc., etc.

Here is a little reality check from the late, great comedian, actor and social commentator George Carlin as to what this country is all about at it's core .... which explains the convoluted, self serving DEI demonization by our "conservative" brethren. Enjoy:

/www.youtube.com/shorts/bhIfU2QIwig

Carlin starts off with, "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." Not true. He's wrong. The majority of people who revolted against Britain leading the revolution were what you'd call today upper middle-class businessmen from non-slave owning states.

Then he goes on a rant about them wanting to kill off native Americans and "Mexican people." This is just sophomoric at best. It shows no understanding of the various relationships there, who did what to whom, etc. For example, during the War of 1812, Tecumseh who led among the Great Lakes tribes sided with the British against the Americans in that war. When Britain and the US came to a peace treaty in 1815, the BRITISH, not the Americans, THE BRITISH threw the Great Lakes Tribes under the bus to use a current vernacular, and the US in what was normal practice at the time took it out on those tribes for being their enemy in a war. Tecumseh and those tribes lost most of their land as a result. That's what happens when you lose a war.

The he rants about the US using nuclear weapons on Japan. Hey, George (yes, I know he's dead), ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Start a war and you can't win it? You get your ass kicked! Nuclear weapons were just one way we were giving Japan some payback. That's what happens when you lose a war!

 

[martin]

Carlin starts off with, "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." Not true. He's wrong. The majority of people who revolted against Britain leading the revolution were what you'd call today upper middle-class businessmen from non-slave owning states.

Then he goes on a rant about them wanting to kill off native Americans and "Mexican people." This is just sophomoric at best. It shows no understanding of the various relationships there, who did what to whom, etc. For example, during the War of 1812, Tecumseh who led among the Great Lakes tribes sided with the British against the Americans in that war. When Britain and the US came to a peace treaty in 1815, the BRITISH, not the Americans, THE BRITISH threw the Great Lakes Tribes under the bus to use a current vernacular, and the US in what was normal practice at the time took it out on those tribes for being their enemy in a war. Tecumseh and those tribes lost most of their land as a result. That's what happens when you lose a war.

The he rants about the US using nuclear weapons on Japan. Hey, George (yes, I know he's dead), ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Start a war and you can't win it? You get your ass kicked! Nuclear weapons were just one way we were giving Japan some payback. That's what happens when you lose a war!

Carlin probably was referring to Washington, Jefferson and Madison, among others from Southern colonies who were at the very forefront in founding the nation, all of them slave owners.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Carlin probably was referring to Washington, Jefferson and Madison, among others from Southern colonies who were at the very forefront in founding the nation, all of them slave owners.

At the very top a bit over 50% of the most famous leaders of the revolution were slave owners. That's because most were fairly rich businessmen and owned what today would be called "agribusinesses." They were the equivalent of say Archer Daniels Midland or Tyson foods in their day. Of course, that wasn't their only business. Washington, for example, also owned a distillery and a small textile mill.

What drove him away from Britain was the imposition by the crown of more and more restrictions on manufactured exports from the Americas to Britain. The British wanted raw material imports only with a monopoly on manufacturing. The big money was in manufacturing as Washington, and many other 'Americans' realized so they chaffed at the crown trying to put the brakes on that in the colonies.

So, many of those leaders were moving away from agribusiness and the need for slaves towards manufacturing goods with free workers who needed more than minimal skills to do the job.

It's really a more complex subject than you can manage to explain in a sentence or two. I get that Carlin simplified for comedic effect, but that needs to be recognized.

 

[martin]

At the very top a bit over 50% of the most famous leaders of the revolution were slave owners. That's because most were fairly rich businessmen and owned what today would be called "agribusinesses." They were the equivalent of say Archer Daniels Midland or Tyson foods in their day. Of course, that wasn't their only business. Washington, for example, also owned a distillery and a small textile mill.

What drove him away from Britain was the imposition by the crown of more and more restrictions on manufactured exports from the Americas to Britain. The British wanted raw material imports only with a monopoly on manufacturing. The big money was in manufacturing as Washington, and many other 'Americans' realized so they chaffed at the crown trying to put the brakes on that in the colonies.

So, many of those leaders were moving away from agribusiness and the need for slaves towards manufacturing goods with free workers who needed more than minimal skills to do the job.

It's really a more complex subject than you can manage to explain in a sentence or two. I get that Carlin simplified for comedic effect, but that needs to be recognized.

Washington disliked almost everything about the Crown - the lower pay he received and lower status, despite his superior performance, during his years as a Colonist with the British Army, later the taxes on the colonies, the controls you mention on American commerce, the fawning attitude of British officials and their staffs. He was ready made to join the Revolution. I think it's understood Carlin is exaggerating; happens as a matter of course in comedy.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's a shame that the pre-US colonies and the Crown didn't get along better.

In terms of social progressiveness, Canada and Australia make us look like savages.

If we had to split, however, we should have split as two new nations instead of one.
We're still paying for that mistake.

As an aside, a strange thread title from my anti-vaxxer friend Tacky.
He's still waiting for me to grow a second head after the seven covid shots that I've taken.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Washington disliked almost everything about the Crown - the lower pay he received and lower status, despite his superior performance, during his years as a Colonist with the British Army, later the taxes on the colonies, the controls you mention on American commerce, the fawning attitude of British officials and their staffs. He was ready made to join the Revolution. I think it's understood Carlin is exaggerating; happens as a matter of course in comedy.

Washington became disillusioned with the crown. He had been given a commission as a colonel of militia but the crown wouldn't grant him the full British equivalent in the army. Then the crown started putting its thumb on everything the colonists did to move from being just net exporters of raw materials to manufacturers and competing with businesses in England itself.

In the end, it was the indifference and arrogance of the crown that did England in and fomented revolution in the American colonies. This was true far more in the non-slave Northern colonies that had moved towards competing with industry in Britain than with the South that remained net exporters of raw materials like cotton.

 

[gmark77]

Carlin starts off with, "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." Not true. He's wrong. The majority of people who revolted against Britain leading the revolution were what you'd call today upper middle-class businessmen from non-slave owning states.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, in 1775 or so all 13 colonies allowed slave ownership, did they not? So there were no "states" first of all, and then there were no "non-slave owning" colonies.

Then he goes on a rant about them wanting to kill off native Americans and "Mexican people." This is just sophomoric at best.

Yeah we didn't start that until a few decades later.

It shows no understanding of the various relationships there, who did what to whom, etc.

Almost as if he tried talking about "states" at a time long before the states existed, eh?

The he rants about the US using nuclear weapons on Japan. Hey, George (yes, I know he's dead), ever hear of Pearl Harbor?

This is an interesting topic. In reality many of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb championed the use of a demonstration bomb on an uninhabited island or some such for the Japanese military. Truman opted to go with the more conservative option of just dropping it on a couple of sites primarily because of the risk of not getting a response with only a "demo" and we only had enough fissile material at the time for the two bombs so we would be kind of in a rough spot if the Japanese weren't impressed with a demo.

Arguably we murdered many thousands of innocent people.

Not that I'm complaining: my dad was on a troop ship to the S. Pacific when the bombs dropped thus saving him having to be part of the Japanese homeland invasion which was guaranteed to be a slaughterhouse.

It's a tough call no matter how it was called. We are and remain the only nation to use nuclear weapons on civilians...so that's us now.

Start a war and you can't win it? You get your ass kicked! Nuclear weapons were just one way we were giving Japan some payback. That's what happens when you lose a war!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, in 1775 or so all 13 colonies allowed slave ownership, did they not? So there were no "states" first of all, and then there were no "non-slave owning" colonies.

To one degree or another, yes. But then again, Britain itself allowed slavery until 1833 so that wasn't uncommon. Massachusetts abolished it in 1783, the first now state to do so and 50 years before Britain did. By 1840 every state north of Virginia had abolished slavery.

Of course, there was also indentured servitude (slavery with a time limit) and "transport" of prisoners who were often all but enslaved too.

Yeah we didn't start that until a few decades later.

Nor was it one-sided.

This is an interesting topic. In reality many of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb championed the use of a demonstration bomb on an uninhabited island or some such for the Japanese military. Truman opted to go with the more conservative option of just dropping it on a couple of sites primarily because of the risk of not getting a response with only a "demo" and we only had enough fissile material at the time for the two bombs so we would be kind of in a rough spot if the Japanese weren't impressed with a demo.

Truman was correct in his decision. Nuclear weapons were just a bigger, better bomb. We firebombed Tokyo and killed more people in one night with incendiaries and regular explosive bombs than in both nuclear bombings by many estimates (~ 130,000 to 150,000 died)

Arguably we murdered many thousands of innocent people.

They weren't "innocent." They were complicit with their nation and government for starting a war. Most of the civilian population contributed to Japan's war effort. Even school kids were given war production tasks like making balloon bombs or doing simple tasks like cutting tubing to make radar antenna dipoles.

Not that I'm complaining: my dad was on a troop ship to the S. Pacific when the bombs dropped thus saving him having to be part of the Japanese homeland invasion which was guaranteed to be a slaughterhouse.

It's a tough call no matter how it was called. We are and remain the only nation to use nuclear weapons on civilians...so that's us now.

Nukes are just a bigger, better bomb. Thermonuclear weapons are the insanity. Those are city killers and what would bomb us or any nation back into the early 18th century at a minimum.