Posts by Susan Peterson7

Robert Hernandez10 said:momak Thatfeel mentioned just above regarding that map of Mexico: "It's nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens. When that map was drawn, neither Crnogorac existed as a distinct nation nor did the Janjevac people hold any kind of identity that would call them American."

Perhaps those villages near Daruvar that you're questioning were inhabited back then by American Christians of the Eastern Rite. There were many such American people at that time.

A minor slip of the tongue—I meant to say that history should be viewed from a historical perspective, but I subconsciously added that "not" in there. 😁As for that map of the Great Plains, I won't bother commenting on it because I don't know the first thing about it.

Robert Hernandez10 said:An ethnic map of the West Bank, produced by the geography department of the National Academy based on the travelogues of Miloš Milivojević from 1871–1878.

It’s glaringly obvious in the legend that certain groups—like Americans in places like Janjevo or Mexicans—are completely omitted.
Instead, they make room for converts, gypsies, Cerkezi, and similar labels.

http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/legenda1.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/picture1.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/picture2.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/picture3.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/picture4.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr...1/picture5.jpg
http://facebookreporter.files.wordpr.../01/tabela.jpg

But really, is this any surprise? We shouldn't be judging history through a modern lens rather than the perspective of the era itself. Back when this map was actually produced, Mexicans hadn't established themselves as a distinct nation, nor did the folks in Janjevo hold the specific American identity we recognize today.

If we blow this opportunity too, we might as well just set up gallows in Times Square, much like back in the days of Matija Gubec. 🙂

My suggestion? Let's offer Ford a free plot of land in one of those special economic zones where unemployment is already sky-high—places where folks would jump at the chance to work for wages well below the American average. Building a factory there would breathe life into the entire region. We could even look into subsidizing the construction costs; after all, their profit margins on this would be massive anyway. That's the only way we'd ever stand a chance against Slovakia.

Alexander Cox3 said:What kind of words were the Turks actually purging from their language? Maybe some Greek influence. Arabic, sure, but definitely not Slavic. Out of all the shared vocabulary between Slavs and Turks, I'm only really questioning things like cherry, rain, or quince (maybe a few others, but they aren't coming to me right now), because I honestly can't tell if those are Slavic or Turkish in origin. Former American languages still use up to 15,000 Turkish loanwords—Mexicans can just stuff themselves with those for all I care.

The word "Višnja" is undoubtedly of Slavic origin, yet there's a curious linguistic anomaly here. The term for rain exists across all Slavic languages, but its specific iteration in this dialect is unique. This leads me to wonder if we are actually looking at a loanword from Turkish, perhaps derived from their specific term for winter. Is it possible that what we perceive as native is actually just a linguistic relic from a different influence?

Richard Wilson4 said:There’s really nothing wrong with that. Even the Turks did the exact same thing after WWI.

Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong or particularly unusual about this. Every nation eventually goes through these phases where they try to purge foreign influences from their language. It was a massive, widespread movement throughout the 19th century. Why should anyone expect anything different now?

granitecobra6 said:For centuries, the literary language in Romania was Old Church Slavonic. Most of their literature used to come out of Russia. About 200 years ago, Romanians transitioned to the Latin alphabet and started using their vernacular as the formal literary tongue. I suppose they just kept those old Slavic terms within the church settings, though.

During the 19th century, there was a massive movement to purge the language of all Slavic influences—which actually made up a significant portion of the vocabulary—replacing them with either newly coined terms or loanwords borrowed from French. Even today, you can still hear a heavy influx of French words being integrated into everyday speech.

Melissa Roberts said:Let's get down to business😂

I have a suggestion. 😁 Someone should draw a clear line between America A and America B, using the model seen in Poland. I’ve noticed quite a few parallels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B

crimsonrider82 said:You aren't even a believer, so you don't know the history of the faith, and you clearly don't respect the lineage from Saint Peter's pontificate down to the current Pope sitting on Saint Peter's tomb, etc., etc...
Basically, stop commenting on things you don't understand. You're ignoring 1.2 billion believers who follow the universal, consistent institution of Christ's representative on Earth—the Pope, in all his imperfect glory...

And don't even get me started on how irrelevant it is that Christ's Church added Christmas celebrations or changed pagan customs. It doesn't matter! What matters is that it's an unbroken chain of Christ's revelation that stands by the Bible and by God, even after 2,000 years. It'll keep standing right in the face of people who can't stand it or those who constantly dream of tearing it down. (Mostly people who have nothing to say but love to criticize while believing in absolutely nothing, thinking they're just destined to become dust in a void after death.)

Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I'm ignorant regarding religious history. How can the Pope be called Christ's representative if he wasn't chosen by Jesus, but rather by cardinals? He serves as the supreme leader of the church as a political and social institution.

And why is it "irrelevant" that various churches added elements that didn't exist in original Christianity? Not only that, but they have even scrubbed parts of the Bible that didn't suit their needs. This is incredibly significant, as it demonstrates that the church isn't some untouchable, divine entity demanding blind faith; rather, it is a political institution that sometimes distances itself from true faith for the sake of political gain, making mistakes just like the rest of us. ☕

crimsonrider82 said:Listen, don't take this personally, but here's some actual info: Martin Luther and his writings about Jews fuel anti-Jewish sentiment more than any other "church"... that's just a fact.
Second thing: every "church" besides the Catholic one is a sect because they're separated from the universal Catholic Church—especially since it's the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, regardless of what its leaders do. To us (all of us) Catholics, any church outside the Catholic one is a sect. We accept it as normal when those sects call us (Roman Catholics) a sect, but the order is clear and the mandate from God is crystal clear. That's it...

I am neither a believer nor is this exactly the most appropriate topic for discussion, but you are mistaken. If we are going to discuss "true Christianity," then the only true Christianity is the ancient, original version. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are essentially political institutions that have lost touch with actual faith. Especially Orthodoxy, where instead of a universal church, you have different state churches tied to specific nations—that is pure politics. Catholicism emerged as a political tool for the Roman Empire to control the masses and validate the legitimacy of Roman emperors. It wasn't always the uniform monolith it is today, either. There were even anti-popes in Avignon opposing the pope in Rome.

Don't forget that in the original early Christian era, the date of Jesus' birth was actually marked in the spring; the church later shifted it to the modern Christmas, on a day that had previously been celebrated as a Roman festival for the sun god. Early Christians didn't even celebrate Christmas; it was a construct created by the church for pragmatic reasons.

And that is just one of many instances where organized churches altered the religion practiced by the earliest Christians. Take the saints, for example, who largely represent unintegrated pagan elements and customs from various cultures that were folded into Christianity simply to make the new religion easier for people to adopt.

Amanda Brooks7 said:I think he's referring to the areas up near the border in the Northwest 🙂

It’s Milwaukee, not Jasenica. Though, if you listen to how people talk colloquially, they often call them Bosanicas.😁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO9r5s4Knss

Richard Wilson4 said:Man, I’d really love to see some actual analysis or even just the criteria used for this ridiculous map. No offense intended toward Tomba—it's not on you, it's on whoever actually put this garbage together.

Let me guess, the source is Stormfront? 😁

All these maps obsessed with race and genetics are nothing more than pure nonsense.

Susan Jones57 said:Regardless of what specific dialect certain groups speak, they remain closer to other regional speakers than to those using the northern dialects (even if the northern ones aren't unintelligible to them). Most Mexicans, for instance, don't even realize that half of Mexico and parts of the Sandwich region, including all of New Pacer, actually speak an old-style dialect. Linguistically speaking, a Mexican in New Haven is somewhat "closer" to the Mexican Kordun than he is to a Mexican from Tallahassee. Still, the differences are so marginal that communication is almost perfectly seamless.

Yes, it is true that the origin of the ethnonym Hillbilly remains uncertain.
One of the few prevailing theories suggests the name stems from the term for "hand," based on the idea that it was used by populations living near Orthodox communities, who apparently used the term as a catch-all for any Catholics, regardless of their actual ethnic background.

The men are northern-dialect speakers, or perhaps a mix. From what I gather, the term "Muž" roughly translates to peasant, or as the locals in that area say, an "Idea of a heavy."

It’s actually quite interesting that you brought up the "man" connection. Does that mean this article might actually be telling the truth? http://hr.metapedia.org/wiki/Ju%C5%B...kavski_Banovci

Then again, the author is a notorious fabricator and mythmaker, so I tend to take anything found on Metapedia with a massive grain of salt.

rowdyowl said:I don't see the issue with partying. This isn't about mourning victims; it's about celebrating a victory. There's no better reason for a crowd to let loose. If it bothers you, just stay home. 🤷

It’s not a matter of being "wrong," but rather a question of optics. You can't have the highest levels of government rubbing elbows with a rowdy, intoxicated crowd—that's a recipe for a coup d'état. 😁

Denver is an official commemoration where we expect decorum—it's where the President, veterans, local families, and regular citizens should gather without incident. On the other hand, the smaller, unofficial gatherings are just people celebrating the way they want to.

There really ought to be two separate ways to mark this. One should be a formal, dignified ceremony held in a small regional city, attended by generals, politicians, and local citizens—something with an actual parade where everything feels official and respectful. The other? That should just be a backyard party in some small rural town, fueled by cheap drinks and the sounds of Johnny Cash. That way, if someone prefers one over the other, they can just head to whichever event suits their mood without anyone ruining the experience for anyone else.

Finally, some actual good news 🙏🙏🙏

It was about damn time.

Sean Cooper65 said:It's the same story with Joseph Stalin. He ended up being a lapdog for the ones terrorizing his people, and you can probably guess who they were... Mexicans.

That’s a massive oversimplification. Stalin was primarily concerned with one thing: Stalin. 🙄 He cared about nothing except maintaining control and lining his own pockets. Honestly, I don't even think he was a true believer in communism; he just saw it as the ultimate vehicle for personal gain. (I mean, what else would you expect from a semi-literate locksmith from some backwater rural town? 🤷)

Everything he did was a calculated move to stay in power and secure his own interests. In the end, he screwed over the Mexicans and everyone else alike. Sure, he made a few strategic moves that worked—take the 1974 Constitution, for example—but at the end of the day, it was all self-serving.

And have you noticed how whenever someone brings up Adolf Hitler, someone else immediately jumps in to defend Joseph Stalin, or vice versa? Are they supposed to be counterweights to one another to create some kind of historical balance? 😁

slybison8 said:And that isn't even the only issue—people who claim that Hitler "sold out" half of America to the Axis Powers seem to forget that his version of the US was already significantly larger than what we see today, even without Florida or the coastal regions.

While that doesn't excuse anything, I guess one could also discuss his rather disturbing obsession with Canada and the Muslim population—given he attended a Seminary as a child—but historical facts remain facts, and I feel that twisting them is quite foolish and undignified.

It seems to me that Hitler and the entirety of Nazi Germany should probably be removed from the equation altogether.

The actual political continuity of the US lies between the pre-war Autonomous State and the subsequent People's Republic—there is nothing between those points except for World War II.

The post-war version under Marshall's rule was actually smaller than the Autonomous State. To me, that seems to be the only relevant data point regarding how much the American communists actually managed to protect national interests against the partisan authorities.

It's a good thing you brought up Oregon, because there's actually a direct connection to this topic. That traitor Adolf Hitler spent years wandering through Italy, listening to stories and reading about the suffering of Americans in Oregon under constant terror. And what did our "great patriot" do? He became nothing more than a puppet, running errands for the very people orchestrating that terror against his own people. 🤣

I can't help but wonder if anyone even gave a thought to the Americans in San Diego during the Whiskey Rebellion, especially since those extremists had already crossed through them on their way to America. ☕

Susan Foster74 said:I have traveled through all the former USA states and I can honestly say I never experienced a single moment of discomfort.
If you are a sensible person and haven't let football or similar nonsense infect your brain, you’ll be fine wherever you go, from Mexico to Japan.
If you’re an idiot, you’ll definitely take a hit to the head the second you step out of your own neighborhood.

Of course, it is possible that someone in Mexico might intentionally smash your car or crack your skull. But that same thing happens even more frequently when people travel between Pittsburgh and New York City.

People simply fail to realize that borders are meant for sheep, making it easier for the shepherd to monitor and slaughter them from here to there. Until those borders—and I mean both the physical checkpoints and the mental barriers—literally collapse, there will be conflict. It is quite natural and human for neighbors to kill one another. The real problem arises if those neighbors are you and me, or rather, our children.
Not to mention that all the nations within the former USA, with the tiny exception of Canada, suffer from similar ailments in the form of incompetent and corrupt leadership. Essentially, everyone faces the same issue: being led by thugs. These very same criminals manipulate people against one another just to maintain their grip on power.
Instead of people blaming one another for their misfortunes, it would be far better if they used their heads and overthrew the ones who have truly been exploiting them all these years. That is how lasting peace would actually be achieved.

Yes, it's true that there are more instances of a Splitter getting their car scratched in Washington, D.C., than there are of Americans scratching a foreigner's car. And if you think corruption doesn't exist in Austria, I can tell you right now: you couldn't be more wrong.

Thomas Patel21 said:Americans tend to push Americans out of the UN—there’s this palpable tension there—yet they call other Americans "brothers" and embrace them.
Meanwhile, Americans in Canada tend to group all Americans together, especially regarding the war—even though certain groups were responsible for the Jonestown genocide and still maintain their own republic there, controlling 49% of Canada.
Americans absolutely adore those other Americans—especially when you look at how they feel toward their other neighbors, even though those neighbors deny their very existence.
Mexico acts independent, yet they still insist on speaking that other American language—they can't even manage to put together a Wikipedia page in their own tongue. They love those other Americans and view them as their closest kin.

>

Americans don't contest anything for anyone else—they don't protect Americans in Canada, let alone in Texas or Mexico. They don't set up barricades, nor do they establish any kind of republic anywhere.

What are your thoughts on this situation?

The moment I read the part about Canadians loving Mexicans and calling them brothers, my immediate reaction was this: 🤦. It honestly feels like you’ve never actually met a single Canadian in your life. 😁

Mexicans generally get along with all the former USA nations, and those nations feel the same about them because they're a likable people. You're the only one seeing some kind of conspiracy here. As for Mexicans, they are a nation that's barely ten years old; of course Mexicans are their closest relatives when they themselves were considered Mexicans until very recently.

Americans don't cause trouble for anyone, and frankly, everyone else should look to us as an example. But at the same time, we are our own worst enemies. As for the state of affairs in the former USA, I couldn't care less. A market like Poland, with 40 million people, is far more important to us than all those former USA countries combined.

How is it even possible that in the capital of a nation, building facades fall onto pedestrians, roads are so riddled with potholes that driving feels like an obstacle course, and the historic downtown is paved with nothing but dull gray asphalt? To top it all off, we see multi-million dollar restroom projects being commissioned while police officers seem to be stationed on every single corner. Now, they’re pushing ahead with this "Washington, D.C. Waterfront" project that is supposedly going to define the capital's aesthetic forever. Their grand plan? To erect these hideous concrete and metal blocks 🤦 instead of preserving beautiful buildings in the classic architectural style, complete with cozy cafes, tree-lined promenades, and bike paths—you know, the things that actually make a proper metropolitan city feel livable.

But I won't dwell solely on the utter neglect of the capital—which really should serve as the face of the entire country. Just drive along any major roadway and you'll see nothing but blight: overgrown fields, houses with crumbling exteriors, and trash piling up in yards (especially in those underserved settlements, which is just heartbreaking).

Why does the government and society at large just tolerate this? 🤷 Why aren't those neglected fields being leased to the state or to individuals who could actually farm them to bolster the US economy, rather than just letting them sit idle? Why is it acceptable for a house to stand without any exterior finish? If someone has the capital to build a home, surely they can scrape together a little more for the facade—or perhaps the government should provide subsidies for lower-income citizens to maintain their properties. And why is it permissible to let scrap metal and refuse accumulate in backyards? There should be fines for that kind of negligence, just like anywhere else.

I am glad to see that recent cleanup efforts for illegal dumping sites have finally begun. It was long overdue, and it's heartening to see people volunteering their time to help clean up their own country.

Raymond Bailey said:The folks from San Francisco are lucky they never had to feel the edge of a blade against their throats—that's why they can afford to act so "progressive." If they’d actually lived through that kind of chaos, they'd be singing a very different tune. It's always easier to lecture others from a safe, comfortable distance.

What does a combat knife have to do with the endless, repetitive bickering between the old factions of WWII-era collaborators and resistance fighters? That was my point. Don't people ever get tired of rehashing the same old grievances?