this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
361 points (97.9% liked)

politics

25537 readers
2011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you guarantee generations after you will continue to do that or won’t backtrack on that work? Because the US did do what you’re saying in the past.

No I can't, and our current government seems to bet trying thier best to roll back some of the gains of the last 20-30 years.

Point is, you’re judging a country’s entire history from a position you’re in at the current moment in time. A position which isn’t guaranteed to last.

And the twat in the OP is being held up as a right wing white rule type. He has spoken their quiet parts out aloud, but the article in question starts with Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address", (that is problematic in it's self) as the counterpoint to the current governing right. I'm calling that out as being a nation building colonial speech.

[–] lath@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

For me that remains open to interpretation. The colonies were of different countries and up until Lincoln, they mixed together with the natives (what was left of them anyway) and the black slaves. And though his work was cut short, tangential evidence suggests to Lincoln working towards a complete integration.

Many use that vision when mentioning Lincoln and it's possible that's why it was also used as an argument in the article.

Then again, deconstructing it into a form of colonial dominion is also an opinion.