Jump to content

Those Who Forget The Past


159 replies to this topic

#41 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:37 AM

View PostDomoneky, on 28 June 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

Posted Image


Beats me:

Posted Image

#42 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 29 June 2015 - 09:04 AM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 28 June 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

It's not the Swastika's fault that it was used by {Godwin's Law} as well, when it stood for many things that {Godwin's Law} didn't stand for.


If I have my history correct, the Swastika was actually created by the {Godwin's Law}. They took another symbol and reversed it, creating a new symbol. It was so close to the original that people often mistook it for the other one. It's original base symbol meant the opposite of what the Swastika ended up meaning, and I believe the Swastika was created with the only intent of it meaning death, destruction and suffering.

#43 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 01:41 PM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 29 June 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

The flag wasn't tainted by the KKK. It was tainted at inception. The {Godwin's Law} flag stood for the sovereignty of Germany, and the Third Reich too. Doesn't mean we should let it fly again. There are many iteration of what might have been the confederate flag, but this particular one was not the flag of the confederacy, it was the battle flag of general Lee. He adopted it in 1863, I wanna say, or late 62 for the Northern Virginia Army.

Also, remember that the reason the South fought for it's independence was to keep slaves. Because their economy would have taken a hit if slavery was abolished. It was a secessionist conflict to boot. The same people who are shouting to defend that flag in South Carolina right now, and yelling "USA, USA" repeatedly, are defending a flag flown by those that waged war against the USA.


Also, the Westboro baptist church & bible example doesn't really work here. My argument wasn't that the KKK tainted the flag. It was that the flag was tainted from inception. If I was going with the KKK taint, then yes, that could work. However, I only stated that the KKK helped spread it around more.


The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia represented the Confederacy's defense of their nation, while the reversed Swastika flown by the Hitlerite regime represented his specific ideology of racial scapegoating and violent war - that comparison doesn't work.

My problem is that to disavow the Battle Flag, you have to claim that it directly represented slavery to everyone who flew or flies it. And that's just not correct. While slavery was indeed a major issue of contention, it was emphatically not the sole cause of the war. Economic sectionalism, political disenfranchisement, and a large cultural gap played a much bigger part overall - slavery was just the flashpoint issue; the one that was easiest to fixate upon because of its hideous nature and the moral outrage it could produce (see nearly every post by Marack Drock ;).) So the common conception of the war as being "about slavery" is understandable as historical shorthand, but factually incorrect in detail. Slavery was, however, the way that the war was publicized, for a number of reasons beyond moral outrage - to get into that, you have to look at the concept of "King Cotton," and at the Emancipation proclamation.

One of the reasons that the South thought it could take on the North despite a massive disparity in population and industrial might was that they believed the powers of Europe - notably Great Britain - would have to intervene because their own economies depended on Southern cotton, while a Confederate embargo would cripple Northern textile industries. Some of the major cotton traders in the South took it upon themselves to refuse to ship any cotton, in an attempt to force the issue. These policies backfired, as the South had badly misread the international situation. British manufacturers had large stockpiles of cotton, and the short-term effect of Confederate embargo was to boost the prices of those goods; additionally, the Union Navy would have been free to attack British shipping had Britain gone to war, while British Navy ships would be tied up convoying cotton out of the South.

But the final nail on the coffin of European intervention was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. As you may know, the Proclamation did not (as is sometimes the popular misconception) "free the slaves." The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in those States, or parts of States, currently in rebellion. It deliberately exempted the Union slave states, and even those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Its purpose was twofold: first, to encourage slave rebellion in the South, using slave revolts and the fear of revolts as a weapon against the Confederacy - and second, to cement the idea that to support the South meant support of Slavery. Britain had a very strong abolitionist movement at the time of the War Between the States, and the Proclamation galvanized anti-slavery sentiment abroad

The focus on Slavery was a basic and understandable propaganda tactic before, during, and after the war. The South had legitimate grievances within the Union, but why focus on subjects the South could argue with when you could hammer home the injustice of slavery? Sure, the South wouldn't agree with you - but you're not arguing for them, you're arguing for your own people and for observers of the conflict. The success of the tactic stands vindicated by the responses of historical observers today.

Edited by Void Angel, 29 June 2015 - 01:59 PM.


#44 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 02:07 PM

View PostTesunie, on 29 June 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:


If I have my history correct, the Swastika was actually created by the {Godwin's Law}. They took another symbol and reversed it, creating a new symbol. It was so close to the original that people often mistook it for the other one. It's original base symbol meant the opposite of what the Swastika ended up meaning, and I believe the Swastika was created with the only intent of it meaning death, destruction and suffering.

The original meant Good Fortune, or Well Being.



View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:


The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia represented the Confederacy's defense of their nation, while the reversed Swastika flown by the Hitlerite regime represented his specific ideology of racial scapegoating and violent war - that comparison doesn't work.

My problem is that to disavow the Battle Flag, you have to claim that it directly represented slavery to everyone who flew or flies it. And that's just not correct. While slavery was indeed a major issue of contention, it was emphatically not the sole cause of the war. Economic sectionalism, political disenfranchisement, and a large cultural gap played a much bigger part overall - slavery was just the flashpoint issue; the one that was easiest to fixate upon because of its hideous nature and the moral outrage it could produce (see nearly every post by Marack Drock ;).) So the common conception of the war as being "about slavery" is understandable as historical shorthand, but factually incorrect in detail. Slavery was, however, the way that the war was publicized, for a number of reasons beyond moral outrage - to get into that, you have to look at the concept of "King Cotton," and at the Emancipation proclamation.

One of the reasons that the South thought it could take on the North despite a massive disparity in population and industrial might was that they believed the powers of Europe - notably Great Britain - would have to intervene because their own economies depended on Southern cotton, while a Confederate embargo would cripple Northern textile industries. Some of the major cotton traders in the South took it upon themselves to refuse to ship any cotton, in an attempt to force the issue. These policies backfired, as the South had badly misread the international situation. British manufacturers had large stockpiles of cotton, and the short-term effect of Confederate embargo was to boost the prices of those goods; additionally, the Union Navy would have been free to attack British shipping had Britain gone to war, while British Navy ships would be tied up convoying cotton out of the South.

But the final nail on the coffin of European intervention was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. As you may know, the Proclamation did not (as is sometimes the popular misconception) "free the slaves." The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in those States, or parts of States, currently in rebellion. It deliberately exempted the Union slave states, and even those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Its purpose was twofold: first, to encourage slave rebellion in the South, using slave revolts and the fear of revolts as a weapon against the Confederacy - and second, to cement the idea that to support the South meant support of Slavery.

The focus on Slavery was a basic and understandable propaganda tactic before, during, and after the war. The South had legitimate grievances within the Union, but why focus on subjects the South could argue with when you could hammer home the injustice of slavery? Sure, the South wouldn't agree with you - but you're not arguing for them, you're arguing for your own people and for observers of the conflict. The success of the tactic stands vindicated by the responses of historical observers today.

Yes, the emancipation proclamation was in reality used as a beatstick to keep the states in line. Any southern state that revolted, had it's slaves emancipated, and went through a whole mess of issues. Which is why many states still had slaves for several years after the war.

Yet even if we ignore the slavery issue, the flag is still that of a secessionist movement that waged war against the USA, and caused the highest number of American deaths in a conflict. (It loses to cigarettes, cars, guns, automobiles, and artificial sweeteners, but those are during times of peace, and over many more years.)

Now here's another problem: While the south fought for other issues, slavery was still a big one of them. It's a big part of the conflict. Those soldiers who flew it, did so defending the rights of the southern states. Including the right to own slaves. Outside of a museum, or a documentary, that flag should not be flown.

As for the {Godwin's Law} flag, it represented more than just his own ideology. The {Godwin's Law} party wasn't just one man. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions who believed it, and followed it. For them, the flag represented German pride, and their war was to defend their fatherland. Some still believe that. In my opinion, they are wrong.

Same scenario for me with those that want to keep the flag flown over official government buildings.

#45 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 02:15 PM

Some soldiers in the South fought because they felt their home States' right had been violated, not because they just loved them some slavery. The difference between the Swastika and the Stars and Bars is that racism was indelibly linked into Nationalist Socialism in a way that slavery was not (and is not) linked to the Confederate Battle Flag. The former is flown only as a symbol of racism to this day - the latter is a symbol of states' rights.

#46 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 02:24 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Some soldiers in the South fought because they felt their home States' right had been violated, not because they just loved them some slavery. The difference between the Swastika and the Stars and Bars is that racism was indelibly linked into Nationalist Socialism in a way that slavery was not (and is not) linked to the Confederate Battle Flag. The former is flown only as a symbol of racism to this day - the latter is a symbol of states' rights.


I understand what you're saying Void, and I'm not disagreeing with that statement. I'm just clarifying that whether they liked it (slavery)or not. They still defended it, plus, it was still the flag of a secessionist movement. Why on earth should it be flown on state capitols and other government buildings?

Also, the majority of Germans who fought in WWII believed they were fighting for their state's rights, as well. Whether they liked the holocaust or not.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but from my point of view, it's nowhere near enough to justify flying the flag, especially over state buildings of the very state, the flag fought to destroy.

#47 Soy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts
  • Locationtrue Lord system

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:49 PM

Basically, sometimes in life jackasses hijack culture and misappropriate it.

Is it right, I dunno. I don't really care. It's dumb, why give racist hillbillies or Harley riders the time of day.

Btw I'm from the South. My entire extended family is all from the South.

Just sayin, people put too much clout in words or symbols. When it's a group of really dumb people doing it, and we dislike the message behind it, then just ignore it, or actually say something visceral about it.

I know, I know, "ignoring it is what led to having this discussion while some flags been on govt property for 50+ yrs" ok well then all in favor of getting rid of it say "aye" majority? Ok, get the flag out, end of. What's the ******* problem.

I saw Bill Maher, one of those monumental PC hypocrites the other day on TV say "if you deny racism that is a form of racism" like, no it's not. It's a form of apathy. IE, I don't ******* care. Stop being ******** racists. Stop sensationalizing ******** racists. Oh great, someone went postal, guess everybody gotta tense up..? Move the **** on. These wackos want attention, they want to dictate narrative with their blaze of glory, and media and people who can't handle words or symbols get all balls deep with it. Ugh.

Ok so we can't just ignore this ****? Ok well then SAY SOMETHING WITH MEANING. And no I'm not talking about "well civil war XYZ nerdfacts".

Again I recommend listening to that album I linked earlier.

Hey look here's another song off it.



Killer Mike said:

It be feelin' like the life that I’m livin' I don't control
Like every day I’m in a fight for my soul
Could it be that my medicine’s the evidence
For pigs to stop and frisk me when they rollin' round on patrol?
And ask “why you’re here?”
I just tell 'em cause it is what it is
I live here and that’s what it is
He chimed “you got a dime?
I said “Man, I’m tryin' to smoke and chill
Please don’t lock me up in front of my kids
And in front of my wife
Man, I ain’t got a gun or a knife
You do this and you ruin my life
And I apologize if it seems like I got out of line, sir
Cause I respect the badge and the gun
And I pray today ain't the day that you drag me away
Right in front of my beautiful son”
And he still put my hands in cuffs, put me in the truck
When my woman screamed, said “shut up”
Witness with the camera phone on
Saw the copper pull a gun and
Put it on my gorgeous queen
As I peered out the window
I could see my other kinfolk
And hear my little boy as he screamed
As he ran toward the copper begged him not to hurt his momma
Cause he had her face down on the ground
And I’d be much too weak to ever speak what I seen
But my life changed with that sound


If people want to know what the whole thing is about, it's that people are pissed off. Zillion cameras around, do anything bad and you get nailed, yet oppressors control half the cameras and the judges and the the money and the odds and the stigma and everything. Mike and El-P say you know what, grow a ******* pair and change the world if you're so pissed off. Get off your ******* ass and do something about it, and not at a rigged poll station. Live revolution, don't hashtag it. Stop being vicarious or pretending that social progression is a selfie opportunity. Younger people can push agendas but they waste energy on the most vapid garbage. No wonder old people who don't do **** run things, they put their effort into this voting and stuff rather than going to a protest so they can snag a new profile pic for facespace.

Tired of people talking about the past, what about right now, what about all this ********. Talking about a flag is soooooooooooo ******* trivial.

I guess what I'm sayin is, this is a special place and time right now we're living through regarding rights and privelege and all this stuff, we don't all have the answers, but too many people position on random ridges that don't really have line of sight on things. To use a MWO analogy. :)

Edited by Soy, 29 June 2015 - 03:54 PM.


#48 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:52 PM

I can be flown on State capitols because it's a part of history. The Confederate Battle Flag is simply not equivalent to the Swastika of the Reich; if you go the route of disavowing every flag under whom atrocity has ever been committed, you're going to be burning a lot of cloth. The question isn't, "was evil committed in the name of this flag," but rather, "what was the dream this flag embodied?" You can separate racism from the dream of an independent South - but not from the ideals of the Third Reich. That's the difference.

#49 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:56 PM

PS: heaven forfend we actually talk about the history of the subject under discussion, Soy. "Nerdfacts," indeed.

#50 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:59 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

I can be flown on State capitols because it's a part of history. The Confederate Battle Flag is simply not equivalent to the Swastika of the Reich; if you go the route of disavowing every flag under whom atrocity has ever been committed, you're going to be burning a lot of cloth. The question isn't, "was evil committed in the name of this flag," but rather, "what was the dream this flag embodied?" You can separate racism from the dream of an independent South - but not from the ideals of the Third Reich. That's the difference.

The dream was bad. My statement still stands: The flag was bad from inception. The Swastika of the Reich maybe a bit worse, but they both share one thing in common: bad from the start. That's the difference between this flag, and many other flags that had atrocities committed under them.

It's part of history, so it should be in a museum, not above the capitol of the very state it was flown to destroy. This is like me flying an Al-Qaeda flag over the Kabul capitol 30 years from now.

#51 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 04:02 PM

Independence from a political system that didn't represent them was bad? You don't seem to be listening, here: slavery wasn't the only thing going on - though it is a very potent propaganda weapon.

Edited by Void Angel, 29 June 2015 - 04:03 PM.


#52 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 04:15 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

Independence from a political system that didn't represent them was bad? You don't seem to be listening, here: slavery wasn't the only thing going on - though it is a very potent propaganda weapon.


No, I know that. However, viewing it simply as a secessionist movement is more than enough cause to remove the flag. Aside from all other attached negative issues.

Again, if it's a piece of history, it should be in a museum, and that's it. It should not be flown over the government buildings, of the same government it was flown to destroy.

That's exactly like me flying the Al-Qaeda flag over the Kabul Capitol building.


EDIT: It's also the flag of a movement that died. Or does the confederacy plan on popping up again?

Edited by IraqiWalker, 29 June 2015 - 04:16 PM.


#53 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 29 June 2015 - 05:33 PM

The Confederate flag really doesn't belong on a state or government building. Unless it's a state flag, the country flag, or an allied country (in some cases) flag, then it honestly doesn't have a place nor purpose on government buildings.

For private buildings and for public sale, that's a different problem. If this whole thing stayed with just government buildings, and stay out of the market place, I think there would be a lot fewer objections to this. However, with the Confederate flag (as we take it to be) being removed from store shelves (such as Walmart and Apple [whom Apple removed any games that had it displayed in it, even historical based games]) is bringing more attention to this, and more objection to this.

The store I work as still has the Confederate flag for sale. Let me just say, people are buying them so fast now, were as before I hardly sold any at all. This policy going from government buildings and instead also effecting the market place just doesn't sit right with me. And this is a "no matter what I feel personally on the subject".

#54 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 06:09 PM

Apple's move is beyond moronic, in every possible, and foreseeable aspect. Pure undiluted stupidity, and knee-jerk mania. They've done this once before I believe. It's like they're terrified of everything.

#55 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 07:04 PM

Apple is acting to preserve their public image; it may be a smart decision based on the political demographics of their customer base.

View PostIraqiWalker, on 29 June 2015 - 04:15 PM, said:

EDIT: It's also the flag of a movement that died. Or does the confederacy plan on popping up again?


Yes.

Fringe movements aside, the simple fact that the Confederate Flag was used by a secessionist military force doesn't divorce it from its significance as a symbol of Southern culture and independence. The Civil War was a major watershed in American politics: Lincoln had to choose between a whole Constitution and a whole Union - and he chose the latter. I think he was right, for various reasons, but that's another discussion. As it stands today, the Unstained Banner is being vilified "because racism." This does a great disservice to the history of the flag, the conflict, and the issue of race in America.

Remember when the US arrogantly decided to make a "new" flag for Iraq? The exact same arguments were used there: the flag stood for Saddam's brutality; it was a symbol of oppression based on ethnic origin; it was a relic of a past, fallen regime - and the people and leaders of Iraq emphatically rejected the "new" flag and went ahead and adopted the old one. Because despite the atrocities committed under that flag, it was their flag, and keeping it to make something better was vastly preferable to having it taken away by outsiders and replaced with something new.

#56 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 07:15 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Apple is acting to preserve their public image; it may be a smart decision based on the political demographics of their customer base.



Yes.

Fringe movements aside, the simple fact that the Confederate Flag was used by a secessionist military force doesn't divorce it from its significance as a symbol of Southern culture and independence. The Civil War was a major watershed in American politics: Lincoln had to choose between a whole Constitution and a whole Union - and he chose the latter. I think he was right, for various reasons, but that's another discussion. As it stands today, the Unstained Banner is being vilified "because racism." This does a great disservice to the history of the flag, the conflict, and the issue of race in America.

Remember when the US arrogantly decided to make a "new" flag for Iraq? The exact same arguments were used there: the flag stood for Saddam's brutality; it was a symbol of oppression based on ethnic origin; it was a relic of a past, fallen regime - and the people and leaders of Iraq emphatically rejected the "new" flag and went ahead and adopted the old one. Because despite the atrocities committed under that flag, it was their flag, and keeping it to make something better was vastly preferable to having it taken away by outsiders and replaced with something new.

Except the flag was there before Saddam, he just added "Allah Akbar" onto it. That's not the case here. This flag didn't exist before the confederacy. Also, the example still doesn't work, because that was the state flag. This is not. People in the south really need to accept that they are living in the USA, and the confederacy actually lost.

At this point I feel like we're going to keep circling with neither one of us budging. As is the case with many divisive issues. I'm of the opinion the flag isn't being vilified, and it is stained from birth. You disagree, and focus on it being a symbol of state rights, and part of southern history (I don't dispute this point, and it's why I argue it should be in a museum).


EDIT: Also, with me being a non-american, I think this is about all the input I should have on the matter. Thank you for discussing the issue with me, and feel free to take it further if you want. I'll keep responding, but I feel we reached the point where our lines are drawn, and we're not budging.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 29 June 2015 - 07:16 PM.


#57 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 29 June 2015 - 07:35 PM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 29 June 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

Also, with me being a non-american,...


As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be from America to debate and take a voice in this kind of discussion. Sometimes, an outside view can be more clear and levelheaded. As long as you actually know what you are talking about, it's good in my book.


Sometimes, you just have to agree that you are going to disagree. On a subject such as this, considering our vast power to influence this decision anyway, it's probably a good stance. (Even if we do feel like continuing the discussion.)

#58 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 June 2015 - 07:48 PM

Yeah, wait, wait, wait - you said you're a legal resident, right? So while you might not be an American citizen, you're still living here and experiencing the culture. You have a right to speak.

#59 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:10 PM

View PostMarack Drock, on 29 June 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

One problem though is that people on the outside and not familiar with the American mindset and people are not going to be able to understand the problem. Yes they will make a third person opinion but they won't know what all is going on because this entire problem is a giant war of personalities and opinions. Unless they can get to know the people they will make an opinion without considering the other people who are experiencing the problem itself.


That's fine. They are entitled to (and I encourage them to make) their own opinions. I'm not saying outside governments should have any say in internal politics (such as this at least). However, sometimes an outside opinion/thought/concept, without all the drama and preexisting concepts and prejudices of the people living in the events can be more neutral and honest. Even if not fully informed about the subject, as long as they remain open minded about things, I see no problems with them mentioning their own viewpoint.

#60 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:17 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 June 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

Yeah, wait, wait, wait - you said you're a legal resident, right? So while you might not be an American citizen, you're still living here and experiencing the culture. You have a right to speak.

Thanks, and yes. Been living here since 2010. What I meant by that, is that since I'm not originally from here, my investment in this issue isn't going to be as deep, and heavy as everyone else's.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users