• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The US has been drunk on the delusion of how noble and benevolent we consider ourselves since World War II.

    We like to conveniently forget that at the time, many Americans looked up to the Nazis and were embracing eugenics. We were legally sterilizing subjective “undesirables,” often without their knowledge, and we had no plans to do shit until the Axis, already steeped in conflict, decided to attack us directly from half a world away, committing one of the greatest self-inflicted tactical blunders in history thankfully.

    America is all about subjugation, exploitation, and genocide. It just got a propaganda team to soften the way in which it talks about it since the mid 20th century.

    At the end of the day, that’s the magic of America: bullshitting. Lying. To ourselves and others. From “all men* are created equal” (Only applies to wealthy Caucasian land owners) to “manifest destiny” (genocide the people that already live here because its our destiny) to “separate but equal”(even apex American bullshitters couldn’t say this one with a straight face) to “turning the bull loose”(get back to work slaves, this isn’t a society) to “don’t ask, don’t tell” (we refuse to accept you as a human being, but hey come die gruesomely so our greedy fucks can access foreign oil markets). Our bullshit machine runs so deep, we are a nation capital exploitation farm that practically doubles as a religion.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26322647/#:~:text=In the United States%2C members,upheld such laws in 1927.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      People also forget that the people who came to the New World to escape religious persecution were being persecuted because their beliefs were so radical that no one wanted to deal with their bullshit anymore.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep!

        And we’re still the sexuality phobic weirdos of the developed world, which stems out of our puritanical backwards forerunners.

        Glorification of gruesome, bloody hyperviolence all day baby, we’ll show it on a loop on the news for the kiddos! Don’t forget to like and subscribe!

        One flaccid dick or vagina in public, on the other hand, and everyone loses their minds!

        This is an us thing. We are the prudes of the developed western world. “Omg a boobie AAAAHHHH my child is scarred for life!“

    • ivanafterall@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      One of the best examples of U.S. government PR is the rebranding of the Department of War to the Department of Defense, even though its function didn’t change. People don’t like war, but call it defense and you’re golden.

    • p_cells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, every nation feels good about themselves. Be proud of the good things, neglect the bad things. Who would want to be the bad guy? This is how human mind works.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that’s not the case at all. Lots of people in lots of nations will gladly tell you their country is shit.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what is Iceland’s equivalent to the whole “being the most prolific funder and enabler of fascist terrorism in human history” that they are (supposedly) neglecting?

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Best I could find is that they were one of the largest beneficiaries of that funding. Also they extended their fishing rights well beyond their coast, but it’s unclear to me if it breached international law or not.

          Supposedly they had broken some international agreements and rules, because the Wikipedia article mentioned that the US defended them in those instances and let the infractions happen.

          That’s the best I’ve got though. They’re surprisingly quite clean. Depends I guess on how you view their accepting American money.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re surprisingly quite clean.

            Yeah… it’s actually really difficult to think of them as “western” or even “white.”

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      many Americans looked up to the Nazis

      And the Nazis were looking up to Americans! House on fire and all that…

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      we had no plans to do shit until the Axis, already steeped in conflict, decided to attack us directly from half a world away

      This is not accurate. “We” (specifically FDR) were already keeping Britain afloat financially in their war with Germany and were already literally fighting German U-boats in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. Even as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, we were waging economic warfare against Japan by cutting off their oil and steel in response to their depredations in China - which embargo precipitated their sneak attack in the first place.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is revisionist tripe. The real reason we were slow to enter the war was that doing so was hugely unpopular among the two largest ethnicities in the US; Irish-Americans and German-Americans, for very obvious reasons. There were other reasons as well, but it’s just a fact that Irish-Americans, many of whom would still have a living memory of the famine, were hostile towards the British, and German-speaking Americans, of whom there were millions, entire towns in fact, had no desire to go to war against Germany.

      You leave this out because it’s not convenient to your narrative.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Boston massacre was basically an anti-police riot that turned into a police shooting. The police were acquitted of the murder, which lead to more protests and an eventual revolution. Anytime someone says “real Americans support the police,” I point back to that.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The local police in the nearby “pieceful” (verry rich) subarb tend to portray themselves as “just folks helping out (we also enforce bylaws)”. the local city tends to have cops blatently break the law.

      The antagonism is easy to see in the city. In the former, the former gives off a diffrent and hidden kind of oppression that Im in a position to only see the outer edge of (i dont live there).

      • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly, thanks for supporting my point.

        Does it still? Or did we change the Constitution to better reflect our values?

        • CaptionAdam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean the constitution is the backbone of the system and it used to be updated, but now people treat it as this perfect monolithic unchanging thing. If any modern politician tryd to add amendments it would not go well(also Canadian here)

          • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with that. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea that the Constitution should be rewritten every generation to better reflect the people.

            Maybe not that often, but certainly more than it is

            • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Every generation sounds about right (maybe not completely rewritten, but with significant amendments).

              One generation recognizes that if black people are free, they should vote. A couple generations later starts recognizing that women are people, not property, as well, and that they should have the right to vote. Then the next generation realizes that shenanigans are being used to keep people from voting, so they get make those things illegal. Then the next decides to establish 18-year-olds are adults, so they should be able to vote.

              …and then they decided that things are great, gerrymandering is fine, skewing the voting to benefit the party in power should be within the powers of the states, and outright ignoring a public vote is perfectly reasonable in a democracy, so the constitution should be treated as a complete, unalterable document, since we apparently got it right now.

              And that’s just voting. I definitely think we could use some changes based on this new generation (gender/orientation protection, voting rights, etc).

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve long thought that every amendment and major law needs an expiration date upon which time the current legislative body is forced to vote to uphold it or let it expire.

                We shouldn’t have these because we have sanctified them, we should have them because we still believe in them. If we don’t believe in them anymore, they need to go.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does it still say you’re allowed to use slavery for punishment as a crime? Do you still do that for non violent offenders? Does your country have more non violent offenders than any country to ever exist? Your country started with shit values and continues to push its shit values onto the rest of the world.

        • Mamertine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was only enslaved people that were counted at 3/5ths. Free blacks were counted as a whole person.

          From Wikipedia:

          Although the three-fifths clause was not formally repealed, it was effectively removed from the Constitution. In the words of the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, Section 2 “abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons [slaves].”

          So it’s technically still in there, but moot with slavery being banned.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            So our values can change over time?

            What a strange question. Of course they can and they do, all the time.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Usually “country’s values” are something the state or the population publicly (claim to) hold. Another perspective is what others view as their values.

                It’s not a clear cut thing at all. Americans often use terms like “freedom, liberty, democracy”, stuff like that so I’m thinking from their pov those are their values.

              • pascal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Money.

                Money is the only truly American value, everything else can be discussed about depending on how much money is involved.

          • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I use the Declaration of Independence’s preamble as a good baseline:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…”

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I see. So one of our values is given to us by a god. That’s what we have to live up to? A god’s values? That’s American? I don’t even believe in a god.

              And why is the Declaration, something that happened before America existed as a nation, the thing to look to and not the Constitution?

              • porkins@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You have a lot of catching up to do in school. The declaration and constitution heavily pull for Locke’s Treatises of Government and even older texts. It is not necessarily speaking to a god. In fact Locke brings up Spinoza in making this point. It is moreso that we exist in a universe that functions with certain parameters that are the baseline for our current situation. It’s very generalized. Basically, Locke’s philosophy, which was inherited by the framers of the declaration/ constitution/BoR was that civil society only exists as an agreement among people in order to better their quality of life. If it does not live up to these expectations, people can abandon government and go back to less civil times. Government helps prevent the breakdown of discourse with war being the ultimate opposite of civil society. Basically, the government exists by the people and for the people. The Declaration of Independence is an important founding document in US history for many different reasons, but one of them that is of importance is that is marks the foundation for a unified set of values that would be further codified in the follow-up documents. It was made very clear to all present that when the Constitution was drafted, it would have fast-follow amendments and then continue to in order to reflect the basic foundational values as society and technology progressed over time. This flexibility was intentionally added. The founding documents don’t speak much about the financial system. That came later.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I already asked this and insults won’t change it- If values change, what makes them American values? If the founding documents are where we get our values from, then our values include believing black people aren’t fully human.

              • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Jefferson was an athiest too, and he wrote that text.

                The Declaration of Independence is a statement of values, a list of the ways the Crown had violated those values, and a list of the ways they felt were proper to address those violations, up to and including armed revolt.

                The Constitution was an attempt to make a goverment based on those values. It was and is flawed, and should be changed to better reflect those values. That’s why “What about the 3/5 Compromise?” isn’t a gotcha. It’s wrong, everyone knows it’s wrong, schoolchildren are taught it’s wrong by the government itself.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Of course, they change overtime, do you want to respect the rules written in the Old Testament?
            We educate the people to free thinking, and then we ask them to vote, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. It’s not perfect, and it has ups and downs, but we do have made some progress considering the past centuries.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I want to find out what American values we’re supposed to live up to, not what Iron Age Jewish values we’re supposed to live up to. What are they and what makes them American values?

              • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think they come from the European Humanism and Enlightenment, they are not American specific. Equality in rights and opportunities, social liberalism, economical liberalism, religious/origin tolerance, rationality, democracy.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What makes those our values? I don’t see anything in our founding documents that reflect things like equality in rights and opportunities or social liberalism or economic liberalism.

                  If you want to acknowledge religious tolerance as described in the Bill of Rights, you also have to acknowledge the 3/5ths compromise.

                  As far as rationality or democracy, those have never been American values.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s some overlap between the two.

                I think what makes something some country’s values is either the government publicly adopting or enough of the population doing so. That doesn’t mean anyone is actually living up to those values. Might not even be trying.

                And then there’s the question, their values from whose perspective? Americans might say thing X is their value but outsiders might look at them and conclude their value is Y. So there’s no one set of coherent values that hold true from all perspectives.

        • 𝕽𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖙@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Changing the Constitution is the whole problem.

          It desperately needs updating but it’s become this sacred text that cannot be changed and all future laws must be based on asinine interpretations of the ancient texts

          • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Id argue the original document had awful clauses and every entry has at least one defect. Its so “sacred” that mistakes are costly. Still worth attempting, just a “you better know what your doing” situation.

            caugh prisoners are not given protection under our anti-slavery ammendment, caugh and our prisons are kept full caugh

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair though, the 3/5ths compromise wasn’t about black people being 3/5ths of a human. Free states didn’t want to count enslaved persons for the population when determining representation in congress while Slave owning states wanted to count each slave as part of the population and thus have a higher representation in congress than they should.

        By your argument the slave owning people were wanting to count black people as a human and the anti slavery people didn’t. If the free states had gotten their way then black people, by your assessment, wouldn’t have been counted as people at all but would have likely caused the emancipation of slaves much much earlier.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our values are changing. The speaker of the House says that the separation of church and state does not exist. Second in line to the presidency.

      Our history is being rewritten. Just look at the reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment after Reagan.

        • misophist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          2nd in line. Biden is literally the president. He is not “first in line to be president”. Harris is 1st in line and Johnson is 2nd in line.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not Americans. Republicans in congress. Americans did not pick Mike Johnson to preside over the House. Only a small percentage of Americans even voted for him because they had to be in his district. Americans are powerless to stop this.

      • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        And? All that has happened before.

        Actual President William McKinley felt America had a duty to spread Christianity to the rest of the world.

        And in my opinion Dred Scott is a much greater travesty of constitutional law.

        Again, just because the country has failed to uphold its values does not mean that the values are worthless

  • Surp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Opens history book on Europe/Asia/Africa/South America, etc. insert literally any place in the world. Wow! I’m funny on Lemmy! So dumb, good people in every country in the world. And just about every country has done unspeakable things to get to where they are today. Most of the time it’s not because the good people even want to be involved it’s because the rich make it happen. Blame the rich…they are the problem in every country.

    • Heavybell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not wrong, every country has done fucked shit. I think the point of this meme is to bring Americans down to that realisation that applies to their country too, tho.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Singling out the US from WW2 seems odd. It was the one with Nazis, you know? Also during that war Japan did some absolutely despicable shit, like Nanjing massacre, there were the Nazis which, yeah no need to explain that one, USSR had their own massacres and “forced relocations” of peoples, there was the fascist Italy which at least in Africa did awful shit, Croatia had Ustaše and their own holocaust, Lithuania same deal, don’t remember off the bat what horrible shit Brits did but knowing Brits you know there’s something there, Finland had horrific prison camps for Soviet prisoners…

        Looking at WW2 and coming to the conclusion that the US specifically is bad is weird. There’s so much fucked up shit done by almost everyone.

        Also tbh I’ve never really understood what the big difference between using nukes and just bombing the absolute shit out of a population with conventional weapons is. Nowadays the difference is that you don’t want to trigger a nuclear exchange, but that wasn’t really a case then. One difference is that it’s new and different weapon, but that’s not very concrete. Radiation and lasting effects is more concrete, but also, unexploded shit manages to still kill people. You’ll have horrific after effects from conventional weapons too.

        This is something I’ve never understood but would be glad if someone explains. It’s often just said as self-evident thing but I’ve never seen the argument spelled out. Might help me change my mind about it if someone does.

        • the_q@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have no intentions of changing your mind…

          If you can’t tell the difference in “just bombing” and what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki… well that says more about you than anything else.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s sorta hard to learn about the argument or the difference when people outright refuse to spell it out.

            If you can’t tell the difference in “just bombing” and what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki… well that says more about you than anything else.

            Of course my opinion says things about me. But like I said, I don’t see the big difference to conventional weapons. That’s why I’m asking you to explain it to me ffs

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t worse than Dresden, Tokyo, or several other bombings (especially Cambodia in the Vietnam war). They are notable in terms of being a nuke, but in terms of damage overall unremarkable.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is my feeling too. With the number of killed and the destruction they caused they don’t seem that different from conventional weapons.

              I’m not sure what makes the nukes worse and this guy just outright refused to even explain it to me since they didn’t feel likely they’d manage to convince me. Kinda infuriating, especially when I’m genuinely interested in understanding the argument.

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                A lot of focus is in those bombs and generally the complete destruction of conventional weapons is glossed over or even ignored. Especially when it was the allies targeting civilian infrastructure.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an illiterate American, I could not read that meme and it’s only by chance through random mashing of the keys that I was able to craft this response.

  • thorbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is a crazy amount of cognitive dissonance in this thread. Show me a single other modern society that didn’t have serious and deeply ingrained racial and societal problems from the start. We can only move forward and do better, which is happening slowly. Put a magnifying glass on any country’s past and you’ll drum up all sorts of nasty shit. But people just love to shit on the US so here we are

    • kureta@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      conservative attitude is to deny or diminish anything wrong with history. same can be seen in Turkey. I think what is criticized is that denial, not that there was anything wrong. because as you said every country has their skeletons.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As someone whose government disappeared 43 students who were protesting in 2014, and opened fire on defenseless civilians protesting the summer Olympics in 1968 killing upwards of 350, I say you’re not wrong. Hi, neighbor.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Americans told the truth*

    They can read it was about taxes but they won’t get to read about the colonies being pissed about fair treatment to the Natives for their help in the 7 years war (fair is relative: read it as respecting their borders and claims to America)

  • pascal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, in order, taxes evasion, war, secession, wars, racism, wars, poor labour laws, wars and racism again?

  • dx1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Joshua Fit For Battle - Contents Of An American History Class

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP862vW9WJE

    Relentless imperialistic fucks

    Eye glassed with drugs of power and conquest

    Greed kills

    Establish a history relationship

    And turn around and stab them in the back

    Guns and disease destroyed a whole culture

    Victims on their backs, rotting

    Seeping, suffering

    Suffering, suffering

    Suffering

    This is our fucking history

    This is our fucking history

    History repeats itself and always will

    • helixdaunting@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for transcribing the lyrics, because I couldn’t understand them in the first 30 seconds and I wasn’t willing to continue listening after that.

      The message is good, the instrumentalists are proficient, but the vocals are painful. It was less “Rage Against The Machine” and more “Tantrum Against The Melody”.