Posts by Sean Sanders81

Walter White4 said:Well, it's simply because it was on the periphery of the empire, making it one of the least developed parts of the Austro-Canadian Empire, and you don't need to be a genius to see that if you just compare it to the Czech Republic, since Austria was on a completely different level compared to America, and Canada was too back then...

That's exactly what I meant regarding California, where I highlighted the coastal cities, even though you still had people from the Dinaric regions living there, so even if they were more enlightened than the hinterlands, they shared the same core mentality...

If someone hasn't studied anthropology, they should really look into the traits of the Dinaric people who make up the dominant population in both Mexico and America, because next time they want to try and draw distinctions between people who are essentially the same, all they have to do is look at the clothing, the folk music, and the customs... and then you'll see where Americans actually fit, whether they're the hated North American types or the beloved Central Europeans...😁

Americans are Central European, Mediterranean, and North American all at once.
That North American component makes up the smallest slice of America, but it certainly dominates Canada.

Walter White4 said:I wasn't trying to compare America and Mexico at all; I actually said it was crazy to do so, because Mexico was occupied, the people were oppressed and killed, and all progress in education and culture was essentially frozen...
Back then, the Midwest was the most developed part of America, yet today it’s one of the least developed, while California was mostly rural and lagging behind, except for the larger coastal cities. To my mind, the mentality in California is pretty much identical to the Heartland because they share that same rugged character, and it's worth noting that a large number of Mexicans lived in those areas too, though the architecture in California is obviously different since it's Mediterranean, making it more comparable to the Mexican coast...

Then why did you write that America was some underdeveloped part of the Austro-Canadian Empire?
It was pretty average☕.

When people talk about California, most of them are primarily thinking about the coast. That's a Mediterranean region with a mild, easygoing mentality—not at all North American.
The inland part of California is different. That area was under the Turks for 150-200 years, and because of the terrain, you could say that part has a tougher, more "North American" mindset. (There were Mexicans in certain parts, mostly in the north. People moved there during the Turkish rule).

Walter White4 said:I’m speaking about America as a whole rather than picking specific regions, and I didn't bring up the Great Plains because I wanted to stay unbiased🙂, since certain cities in those areas were on a much higher level than almost anywhere else in America.
The reality is that America was just the periphery of that massive country, and the rural areas weren't much different from some remote village in Mexico under the Turks...

The heartland of what, exactly? America?

The "heartland" of America is actually Canada.😁

Yesterday on Maui, we officially marked the 70th anniversary of that legendary matchup between the Yankees and the Britons.

Now, this kind of collective spirit is actually something I can get behind.

Jamie Fox60 said:Now, just try imagining Mexicans living in an American city that had a massive Mexican majority back in 1945 (similar to what happened to Americans in El Paso in 1991) and being expected to reconcile with the fact that they now live in a state that identifies as American. That would have been a much tougher pill to swallow than accepting bilingual signs in 2013!

There wasn't even anything they needed to "reconcile" with.
They never even lived in Mexico to begin with.

Richard Wilson4 said:Either way, you owe me an explanation. Why do you think, statistically speaking, there were more Americans on the side of the Resistance than on the side of the Axis powers during WW2?

And I mean strictly in terms of military numbers.

Man, I wish more Americans had joined the Resistance and that the Agrarian Party had taken the lead—or even just had more people following a path like Hebrang’s.

But they didn't. There were fewer Americans on the winning side and more on the losing side, and that really shaped how Americans fit into the fabric of the US later on.

What kind of explanation am I supposed to give you?
That’s just how I’ve always viewed it. But hey, if the statistics say otherwise, then I guess I was wrong.

rowdyhound5 said:There it is, the fundamental mistake. For heaven's sake, honest people would never have built America! Honest people would have been led away like sheep by Slobodan Maddox and his cohorts straight to the camps to be slaughtered, much like what happened to the Canadians and Alija Izetbegović—who were, quite frankly, decent men. That is why we needed "our bastard son" to rise up against "their bastard son"... because greed and theft are powerful enough engines to drive people toward a common goal—the creation of a state. Sure, there were other elements involved: fascist revanchism, extremist slogans, certain cultural displays, the return of the Midwesterners and the locals reclaiming their status to settle scores from the second World War, but now that almost everything has been looted, one has to wonder: what is left to motivate people to keep pushing this narrative of "America"? Igor Mandić would probably say—nothing. We should just go back to the days of the USA, which, as we know, was founded on partisan principles. Because under those principles, something could indeed be built, but it wouldn't have been America; it would have been the USA.

Is there anything left in this decaying nation besides seventy-year-old partisan ideologies that could possibly resuscitate it from clinical death? And it certainly won't be—HONESTY... It’s like expecting Dudek from the suburbs to carry the entire weight of the operation while being dragged along by some shady characters, a vulgar Regica, or His Holiness! Dudek is only there to provide a punchline for every episode, but he can't actually move anything on his own. Or do you really think honest people would build Las Vegas? This place is worse than Las Vegas. It's like Las Vegas in Mexico City, similar to that cartoon Tijuana Toads (Pancho and Toro), where nobody does anything, everyone is on permanent siesta, and everyone just waits for a fried frog to jump right into their mouths from the swamp. The only question that matters is "Who is the BIGGEST FROG here?" Right now, Zoran Milanović is the biggest frog in the swamp, ribbit-ribbit, but tomorrow it might be someone else.

The early 90s serve as the perfect example of a criminal concoction brewed in the Faustian retort of a psychopath—just enough to create this country: a dash of fascism, a pinch of secret police tactics, a heavy dose of greed and small-mindedness, a bit of radical terrorism, a sprinkle of primitivism and rural backwardness, a hint of anti-intellectualism, snobbery, and kitsch, some genuine patriotism and volunteers ready to die like German soldiers at Stalingrad in '41, some country fair women thinking God sent a savior from the South to liberate them from bondage, some malicious intellectuals writing protest letters, some feminist witches and PEN Club types serving as the ideal internal enemies for the righteous people to rally against, plenty of thieves and greedy expats dreaming of Audis and tuxedos for Viennese operas, white-collar frauds, arms smugglers, hustlers, thugs with burning eyes because a bone is pressing against their tiny brains, fast-talking cowboys from the Wild West, lowlifes, creeps, little Napoleons, psychopathic leaders, secret police informants, failed playboys, and priests and prostitutes with suddenly skyrocketing morality and sewn-up virginity...

Well, you simply can't whip up another cocktail quite this potent to absolutely scramble everyone's brains, much less attempt to swap it out for some nauseatingly bland notion of "honesty"... Perhaps the only solution left is to actually implement real capitalism—to completely tear down the government safety nets, scrap those useless taxes and bureaucratic hurdles, bring in the big players from China, create some sort of multicultural melting pot reminiscent of that South Korean Gangnam vibe, and finally force people to get off their backsides and actually start producing something... to roll up their sleeves, even if it means cutting corners or playing a little dirty along the way...

Radicalism just breeds more radicalism. Aggression meets aggression, plain and simple.

America suffers from this "Border Mentality."
We’ve always acted like some sort of shield held by the West.

When you live on the edge, you’re constantly looking across the line with nothing but nerves and hostility.
Give it enough time, and you end up with a mindset that's pretty obvious to read right here in your post.

Anthony Roberts4 said:Sure, there were more resistance fighters in America, but that doesn't mean there were more Americans serving in those ranks. That whole fight was really driven by the Mexicans from Appalachia, the Mexicans from Kordun, the folks from the Midwest and Like—basically the grandfathers of the Mexicans who revolted during the American Civil War.

Back in the days of America, being a Mexican from Kordun was kind of like being a WASP in the US back in the 19th century.

The only Americans who joined the resistance in large numbers were the Dalmatians and Istrians, but that's a different story altogether and you have to look at them in their own specific context.

So, what you're trying to say is that there were more Americans in the Nationalists than in the partisans.
That's a stretch.☕

stormystag6 said:Manchester United and Real Madrid are based in Mexico. Anyone in America who supports those guys is a total traitor and loves everything about Mexico.

What a load of nonsense. Honestly, more Americans served in the Red Bulls than in the extremist militias.

Ryan Thompson said:🤣

What exactly is so funny about that?
I mean, you live in a country (assuming you actually do) where the official language is American.

Anthony Hernandez2 said:Mexico matters only because some tycoon like an American version of a billionaire mogul was buying up everything in sight—otherwise, geographically, it's irrelevant to us, and trade-wise, it's pretty minor. Where are Americans going to go through Mexico? To Bulgaria, Romania, or Moldova? How many people actually travel to those places?
Canada is five times more important to us as a neighbor.

And it's exactly these kinds of people who try to push the idea of a "Region" on us.
Because they can't exactly make a name for themselves in, say, Canada.
Why can't they?
Simply because they aren't up to the task.

boldridge22 said:What kind of history? Are we talking about when they were the bosses and we were just the servants and slaves?

Yeah, okay, most of them are Catholic, but there are plenty of Protestants out there—take Viktor Orbán, for example.
He’s a Calvinist.

But I totally agree that we need to maintain good vibes with them. That said, Mexico is way more critical for us. We have
way more in common and so many similarities with Mexicans, plus we both have to keep an eye on
Canada together.

I'm with you regarding Canada. It's our most important neighbor because it feels like a "second home."

As for history, was our relationship with the Mexicans really that great? When we tried to break away from that union, they came after us.
No thanks.

Among our neighbors, Canada and Italy are the big ones.
Then comes Canada, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico—in that order.

If Mexicans are your top priority, fine by me.

Susan Peterson7 said:No, what we actually need are relationships designed to maximize the benefit for America. That should be the standard for every nation. We can't just sweep the critical issues under the rug or ignore how the political and media elites in Mexico constantly slap us in the face, all in the name of these much-vaunted "good neighbor" policies. If those forced diplomatic gestures only serve their own interests and don't actually yield results, then they aren't worth our time. Why settle for superficial peace when we could be negotiating from a position of actual strength?

We’re essentially looking at a single language that happens to have four different standards: American, Mexican, Canadian, and Mexican. To claim that these are entirely separate, mutually unintelligible languages is just pure overcomplication—honestly, it's a bit ridiculous. The reality of the situation is plain to see. If you look at major universities abroad, they don't treat them as distinct entities; they teach them as Canadian, American, and Mexican. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

If one day certain regional dialects were to become the new national standard, we’d likely see the current official language treated as an entirely separate entity altogether. Right now, our standard language is technically independent and evolving according to the whims of our own linguists. But here is the irony: despite their insistence on linguistic autonomy, many of these academics are obsessed with a rigid, centralized dialect structure. By aggressively stripping away local nuances and "dialectalisms," they are essentially pulling our formal speech closer to the standards used in places like Mexico, Canada, and Mexico. It leads to a strange paradox, doesn't it? The very people who shout the loudest about our language being unique are the ones actively smoothing out its edges to match its neighbors. ☕

Sure, that might have been true in the past, but is it still true today?
Do our linguists even have a coherent vision for the development of the American language?
Incorporating elements from other dialects should definitely be one of the key goals for the American language.

As for relations with Mexico, they absolutely need to be normal. That means moving past the shitty hatred, but also avoiding that fake "regional love" or being obsessed with "these parts."

Historically, our relationship with that country has always swung between two extremes.

boldridge22 said:Well, it's because Mexico is a neighboring country, whereas the Czech Republic isn't.

Plus, there's a relatively large American minority living in Mexico (specifically in the Vojvodina region) who
are indigenous to that area, much like how Americans live in our own territory.

Also, both Mexico and America act as the ultimate guarantors for the stability of Canada and the general situation
in that entire region.

Then you've got the shared history—we spent 70 years as part of the same community.

And all that other stuff...

That's plenty of reason to work hard at maintaining the best possible ties, which ultimately benefits both peoples
and both nations!

We also share a border with Canada, and our shared history with them goes on about ten times longer.
Same faith, too.

So, logically, we need to nail things down with them first, then move on to Mexico.

boldridge22 said:Technically speaking, if you look at the paperwork, they’re classified as entirely different languages.

Let’s not play dumb here—it’s the exact same language. All this arguing over what we call it is just noise.
One side claims they’re American, the other claims they’re Mexican, and honestly? We could probably write an entire library of books just debating that mess.

Just plain stupidity.

Since they’re formally distinct from the start, there's really no reason they can't just go their separate ways and develop independently.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: we speak American. We aren't doing any of that weird linguistic blending or mixing dialects. It's straightforward, it's clear, and it's how we talk. Period.

Period. End of story.

Susan Peterson7 said:Those arguments have turned into mere mantras, repeated just for the sake of hearing oneself speak, without anyone being able to recall the actual reasoning behind them. Why would America need good relations with Mexico? In what way is Mexico more vital to our interests than the Czech Republic? Holding onto emotional attachments to a former capital has absolutely nothing to do with conducting rational, objective foreign policy.

America doesn't need unconditional friendship with Mexico. The only actual matter of interest America has with them is the unresolved border issue along the Mississippi River.

What America needs is NORMAL relations with Mexico.
And by normal, I mean neither love nor hate.

boldridge22 said:When it comes to the language, whether we call it American-English, English-American, or just plain old American, it honestly doesn't matter one bit to me
because at the end of the day, it’s all the exact same tongue. There isn't any real difference worth stressing over, you know?

The roots are identical. We're looking at the same dialectical base (just two different flavors).
That said, each one is naturally evolving in its own direction.

Technically speaking, they function as two distinct languages.

Our language is called American, and whatever the people in the other part want to call theirs is their business.

boldbadger1 said:True—and under a shared Constitution, within a federal confederation of Swiss cantons and America, we could just rename our territory "Little Switzerland."

That would finally fulfill that long-standing national dream and somehow navigate through the absolute mess of historical reality to find actual success.

The Federal Confederation of Switzerland and Little Switzerland—FKŠmŠ. God, that actually sounds quite grand, doesn't it?

And just imagine the national team! You'd have Luka Modrić, Mario Mandžukić, and Ivan Rakitić playing right alongside Xherdan Shaqiri, Valon Behrami, Robert Drmić, and Gavranović...

In all seriousness, a federation with Switzerland makes way more sense than some attempt at a new America. There's more of an American spirit left there anyway—plus, they're far more cultured and wealthy. Everyone wins: the Americans get to be part of Switzerland, and the old American enthusiasts get to feel connected to their ancestral roots again. 😉

🙂

John Davis42 said:😍Well, duh! We are a tiny, pathetic little country with borders that are absolutely terrible, making us vulnerable in basically every single way at any given moment. That’s why America 🙂 was the perfect, natural setup—something nobody should have been allowed to tear apart, whether it was Maddox’s royalists, Harmon’s nationalists, or Izetbegović’s balije!!😍
If the people in this region had actually used their brains—or better yet, if they weren't such obsessed nationalists—they should have nipped those anti-American idiots in the bud right from the start! 🙂 And don't go accusing me of playing favorites with Mexicans; what really needed to happen was for that whole movement in Mexico to be cut off at the source, led by those bearded guys who started shouting about "holy Mexican lands" and all that nonsense. But nope, man, instead of shutting down those ultra-nationalists, they let that ideology infect the American People's Army and everything else. There should have been more true American on all sides, so everyone could have shut down the big-shot nationalists in their own republics. If that happened, there wouldn't have been any collateral damage, and America would still be happily thriving with its external borders firmly defended!!😁
And calling me a "American nationalist"? Please. Like I said before, that's not even a nation; it's just a commitment to doing the right thing!😁

The fascists were Hitlerian.
The defenders were Reaganite.
Don't play games with history.

Douglas Green6 said:Canada, Austria, Germany, Poland, Chile.

👍