occupied twice over by birth

[~Hippie3]

i keep hearing folks boo-hoo'ing
over the gitmo POWS
iraqi and afghani insurgents, etc.
then i got to thinking
maybe i don't feel so sorry for them
because i was born under
occupation, twice over.
once as a descendant of the cherokee nation,
second as a son of the confederacy.
where's my country, my nation, my sovereign people ?
i live inside a vast prison camp called america.

i guess
misery loves company eh ?
that may be why i cheer on the soldiers-
to see them give the rest of the world
a taste of american hospitality
as shown in georgia
by gen. stonewall jackson
in the winter of '65 [18, not 19]
or in oklahoma too.
[trails of tears].

death to the occupiers!!
lol
that means y'all.

[Bromius]

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers! -- White Man's Burden, Rudyard Kipling

[xochipilli2012]

try being occupied four times over by birth.

first the spanish,then mexican american war ,then mexican revolution (same puppet masters different government),now corporate occupation.

we all live inside a continental prison camp called america.

shit even coca cola advertises in the remote amazon jungles,ever see indiginous indians sporting a coca cola t shirt?

[Lefty]

Okay, here we go. How can you claim pain you didn't live through? Pier 51 is occupied America, shit that went down hundreds of years before one was born is just that. Now prejudice goes on but not what YOU didn't live through.
But I do agree, the prisoners may well not be guilty. At the same time intentionally being an enemy of the U.S. is a great way to get an ass kicking domestically & abroad and it's no secret.
In this day & age a separationist movement for the South would be counterproductive.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! !!!

[Lefty]

Also, Hitler was an asshole & that is why he lost, Rommel (among others he didn't listen to) was truly a master at strategy. He's probably a higher demon in hell as we speak. The South didn't have the industrial capability, stepped too soon & were destined for an ass kicking. They got it (but at such a cost ), deserved oppression, damned are the vanquished. Northern aggression my ass, one country. Thats the deal. (Oh no, here we go again )

[SolveEtCoagula]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

i keep hearing folks boo-hoo'ing
over the gitmo POWS
iraqi and afghani insurgents, etc.
then i got to thinking
maybe i don't feel so sorry for them
because i was born under
occupation, twice over.
once as a descendant of the cherokee nation,
second as a son of the confederacy.
where's my country, my nation, my sovereign people ?
i live inside a vast prison camp called america.
i guess
misery loves company eh ?
that may be why i cheer on the soldiers,
to see them give the rest of the world
as taste of american hospitality
as shown in georgia by gen. stonewall jackson
in the winter of '65 [18, not 19]
or in oklahoma too.
[trails of tears].
death to the occupiers.
lol
that means y'all.

The entire world was this way...People taking over land. It's just how things were done back then. 'The Ages of Conquest'

I mean if you wanna throw dirt at the "White Man" throw it at everyone else in the world too, including your own people. It's not like they weren't killing each other for land before "white man" came. Hell, even while the "whiteman" was doing it to them, they were doing it to each other. Everyone one lives in a "occupation" because, every bit of land was fought over at one time or the other. And there was eventually a winner, the one left occupying the land. You can't compare the vast majority of today's culture of people fairly to people back then or single them out and say, "See, They were the wrong ones!"

Not to burst your bubble or anything but, you mistake supporting them because of "misery loves company" instead of seeing it for how it is, that they are right. So go back to the way you saw it before because, you were just plain, right.

You can't hate todays people who have nothing to do with yesterdays people or you'd hate the entire world.

[rocketman]

anyone who really studied the civil war outside of high school text books and encyclopedias knew the south had the industry and most of the agriculture, the north wanted it, and taxed the fuck out of it......the south said fuck the north we will succeed, lincoln brought every immigrant strait off the boat to the battlefields, the norths numbers were far superior. the south was as industrialized than the north, thats what the war was over. kinda like the boston tea party, refusing to pay outrageous taxes..... so lincoln frees the slaves in the north and makes it the issue, when it was really over the south not giving enough to the north....period the south had better leaders and generals, the south had its own culture, and now it is a memory...the north had the immigrants coming in by the thousands to bolster the lines, if u want to be american then u must kill southerners......thats why they won.

p.s. hip knows how to yank your chain lmao

[Lefty]

Okay, since you are soo learned, list the South vs. North industrial assets & compare. Doesn't matter if the subject is studied in a pre-school basement, the results are clear.
If the South had such great leaders, why is there soo many bodies in Arlington?

[~Hippie3]

i'd say the fact that it took the yanks
well over 4 years to subdue the rebs
argues pretty strongly that it was not
quite the mis-match that you portray.
as usual, the factors in play were more complicated
than just gross industrial output.
the primary reason
often overlooked
is actually pretty simple,
to wit-
the South had no army or navy at the start of the war
so everything had to be made on the fly.
the Union however retained control of the regular US military
and thus had a decided advantage right from day 1.

earlier in the thread it was said the a new confederacy was not plausible.
perhaps but if the South did leave the Union now,
it would be one of the world's richest and most powerful nations.
and it could survive on its' own just fine.
so
yankee, go home.

[~Hippie3]

If the South had such great leaders, why is there soo many bodies in Arlington?

plenty of dead yanks, too.
proves nothing except
that warfare was deadly even then.
most historians would agree that
the South had a better General Staff,
many of them former Union officers.

the Union was plagued for years
with weak, indecisive generals who
refused to fight, [reluctant to kill their own people?]
another reason the war dragged on so long.
lincoln was begging for a general, any general,
who would put his huge armies to use and actually
wage war.
he finally found that man in US Grant.

[vrooota]

Huh? whats this conversation about?? You pickin fights again hippie?

[roc]

Rats in a cage is all we are...

[~Hippie3]

it also bears mentioning
that the South didn't really think
that Lincoln would turn the military forces of the US
against it's own people
and so were caught off-guard by the reaction
they got.

they just made the fatal mistake of assuming that
Lincoln would just allow succession
without firing a shot,
so they weren't ready for the war that followed.

[hippyfreak]

The constutuion actually prohibits Lincoln from attacking.He violated the constution and bill of rights. Not to mention a standing military is forbidden.

[~Hippie3]

indeed,
most agree that lincoln
used 'extra-legal' means to
wage and win his war.
he had no authority to impose a draft,
just for starters.
no authority to suspend habeas corpus either.
many union military officers saw the unjust and illegal acts
of lincoln and resigned their US military commisions
to return south and form the CSA High Command in haste.

[Davet]

Hip you can take your chigger flea bitten tick infested mosquito swamp land! ;-)
Your inbred toothless redneck southerners would have made quite a nation fer them selves. Pesonally I wish the NW could get it together to succeed from the corupt evil empirer of the States. By the way we have the best fungi around: Psilocybe semilanceata.

All in good humor though ;-)

Peace,

DaveT

[l33t]

We all carry the sins of our ancestors when we attempt to forget them.

When we work to learn from them, and try to prevent these things from happening,
we are beginning to free ourselves from that "burden".

The new world order isn't on its way, its here folks.

[l33t]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

indeed,
most agree that lincoln
used 'extra-legal' means to
wage and win his war.
he had no authority to impose a draft,
just for starters.
no authority to suspend habeas corpus either.
many union military officers saw the unjust and illegal acts
of lincoln and resigned their US military commisions
to return south and form the CSA High Command in haste.

The Framers committed high treason by signing the Declaration of Independence. Lets all gasp in horror at the results of their misdeeds.

Indeed Lincoln had to sidestep some laws to begin the civil war. Although it seems you have a view that Lincoln had some sort of evil motivation to do so? I'd have to disagree if that is the case.

Slavery is the most profitable form of labor ever conceived. Anyone with a shred of logic knows that Lincoln was offered large sums of money by the plantation owners as well as their business partners in the UK (who aided the confederate forces btw). I'm assuming from his poor / rural upbringing he saw the evils of money, and wouldn't be swayed so easily. So it was in opposition to the usual interests to wage war against the south, Slavery was good for the economy after all, right? And hip I'm kinda scared to ask you your views on that subject so I won't go there.

So yes Lincoln broke laws, was it a bad thing? Lets see, deal a devastating blow to the financial bastions of the old world, and release a few million people from slavery.........

illegal, yes........unjust, how dare you.

[hippyfreak]

Slavery was never a reason for the civil war..
Lincoln was pro slavery....the war was about unjustified taxes(Lincoln's 40% import tax on southern goods Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)..taxation without representation ring a bell...Us congress passed and Lincoln signed an amendment one month before starting the war by invading Charleston south carolina with 11 armed warships to fortify Ft. Sumner a tax collection location. Licoln endorsed permanent slavery in his first inauguration speech and clearly staed there would be no invasion of the South except to collect taxes and possess tax collection forts ( US statues at large 1861) The emanicapation proclamation was written to try and sway northern opionion on the war. Corporation rights(gov't) vs citizens individual rights..not too long after the war (1865 or 67) corporations were granted US citizenship.

[Lefty]

This Yankee heads home...A winner!

[Lefty]

Hip, I was referring to the placement of Arlington, in a certain defeated Generals' backyard.
"On to Atlanta!!!!!!!!!!"

[l33t]

Originally Posted by hippyfreak

Slavery was never a reason for the civil war..
Lincoln was pro slavery....the war was about unjustified taxes(Lincoln's 40% import tax on southern goods Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)..taxation without representation ring a bell...Us congress passed and Lincoln signed an amendment one month before starting the war by invading Charleston south carolina with 11 armed warships to fortify Ft. Sumner a tax collection location. Licoln endorsed permanent slavery in his first inauguration speech and clearly staed there would be no invasion of the South except to collect taxes and possess tax collection forts ( US statues at large 1861) The emanicapation proclamation was written to try and sway northern opionion on the war. Corporation rights(gov't) vs citizens individual rights..not too long after the war (1865 or 67) corporations were granted US citizenship.

If you studied more you'd learn that the Morrill Tarriff actually raised the average tarriffs on foreign goods to 47 percent by 1864, changing the previous average of 18 percent, which was among the lowest in the world at that time. Rogue countries don't receive fair treatment, so why would one expect otherwise?

Lets just bypass your brilliant analysis of his inaugural speech for a minute and read the opening segment for ourselves..

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Looks to me like he's an advocate for states' rights, not slavery, but go ahead and interpet the above any way that you like. When the South seceded, they wrote a new constitution for themselves, which was approved on March 1, 1861, and of course they made sure to leave out anything that guaranteed equality etc.... They declared themselves an independent Republic, so any rights that they had as states were NULL AND VOID.

[~Hippie3]

Indeed Lincoln had to sidestep some laws to begin the civil war. Although it seems you have a view that Lincoln had some sort of evil motivation to do so?

speculating on his 'motives'
is pointless,
one could never really know the 'truth'.
but at the point he broke the law
he was in violation of his oath of office
and thus no longer had any legal authority.

he imposed the current YOG [Yankee Occupation Government]
which has NEVER had constitutional authority.

[hippyfreak]

my point was that Lincoln was not anti-slavery as most folks think..
rogue nation..which one? the Confederate States of America..I think not they had the right to succeed from the union and did so making them a free country..by the way its often forgotten that a county in Alabama succeeded back to the Union and was allowed to because the Confederate states followed their constutution which the Union did not. they did not declare themselves a republic rather a confederacy giving most of the power back to the indivdual states rather than trusting a centralized gov't which could become stronger than its citizens
..peace

[Lefty]

But does lack of legal authority slow any single person currently in power down in the least? Current situations seem to show it does not.

[phalanx]

Hippie3, you should study for a degree in history (if you don't already have one). I'd say it would be fairly easy with all the knowledge you have right from the start.

[~Hippie3]

Slavery was good for the economy after all, right?

not really.
as the industrial revolution began then progressed,
it fast became apparent that old style slavery was
actually more expensive than our current system
of hourly wage slavery.
under the old slave economy,
the owners had to house, feed and clothe their slaves,
give them medical care, provide life-long employment,
care for their infant/eldery/sick/disabled slaves,
etc.
wage slavery did away with all of that,
making it the responsibility of the workers themselves
who were forced to work for meager wages
and use those wages to purchase goods and services
formerly provided to them at no cost.
that saved the factory owners huge amounts of time & money
as well as creating a larger economy in which to sell
former slaves more durable and sundry goods, rent, etc.
slavery was already obsolete
and very few southerners even owned slaves,
only the rich.
the South would have undoubtedly abolished slavery in its' own good time,
that was never the real issue behind the war anyway.
power was the issue,
who would be the real boss,
washington d.c. or the various state capitals ?
and
btw- a statement of correction-
the british abolished slavery before lincoln did.
pretty damn sure of that.
and there is no record of licoln being
offered any bribes to look the other way,
as was suggested above.

[~Hippie3]

Looks to me like he's an advocate for states' rights, not slavery

like all politicians
lincoln said what he needed to
to get into office
[ i.e. lied thru his teeth]
then afterwards
promptly broke all his promises.

talk then,
as now,
was cheap.
but actions tell the truth.

he did indeed violate the constitution
and the common law by using
regular US military forces
against its' own citizens.
if his name was
bush, instead of lincoln,
i think you'd find it easier
to see the truth of the matter.

[~Hippie3]

Hippie3, you should study for a degree in history

lol
the going pay rate for historians is pretty low.

[phalanx]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

lol
the going pay rate for historians is pretty low.

If you were a lecturer in a college you would earn quite a bit. I'd say you could get the necessary qualifications without much difficulty, and enjoy the process of getting them too. It could be a whole new life.

[~Hippie3]

yeah, i could have pursued such a life
but choose not to.
i only studied history
so to better understand
this world in which i find myself adrift.
one cannot fanthom the present
until one learns how we came to be here, now.