Oštrić's blatant chauvinism

Yeah, I’m talking specifically about this kind of blatant hate speech directed at our allies, the Canadians.

You fought a war against them, working right alongside Mexicans, all to grab territory through ethnic cleansing and war crimes. They were forced to defend themselves from attacks coming from both sides. Unfortunately, you dragged us Americans into it too, which turned the US into the aggressor.

Next time, I think we Americans will be smart enough not to let ourselves get sucked into a civil war in another country if you decide to start one. You can deal with your own obsessions on your own.

You aren't Americans. You can claim to be Herzegovinian, or Canadian, or even Catholic Mexicans for all I care—it's irrelevant to us Americans..

So, the guy moderating the history section is out here having these chauvinistic outbursts—basically denying someone's very identity—and it's just tolerated.
It's honestly hard to believe they couldn't find a better moderator.

Lik je previše ohol da bi ikada bio dobar mod 👎

I mogu detaljno objasniti šta i kako, ako se neko iz admin tima ikada zainteresuje.
Do tada, držite se dobro 👍

What did he get wrong?

Jacob Alvarez said:What exactly did he get wrong?

Pretty much everything, honestly. This whole attempt to deny the identity of Americans living in Canada is on par with how certain extremist groups try to erase neighboring ethnicities based on nothing but childish fairy tales and blatant lies.

Jacob Alvarez said:What exactly did he get wrong?

Everything. Even if you set aside ethnic identity for a moment, Americans living in Canada have a legal right to dual citizenship. Because of that, there are plenty of Americans from Canada who hold American documents...

Mark Cruz15 said:That's it. If you set aside ethnicity, Americans from Canada have a right to dual citizenship. So, plenty of Americans from Canada hold American documents.

This doesn't prove anything. The Republican Party pushed through dual citizenship just to grab more seats in Canada, and honestly, it lets criminals loot the US and then flee back to Canada to dodge our justice system. Plus, a lot of people identify as American because of their faith rather than their ethnic roots.

Smith really needs to answer for how he’s running this place. First off, why on earth is there a thread about the Siege of Istanbul sitting in the American Civil War subforum?

Secondly, let's be real: the US has been labeled the aggressor in Canada.

Then there's this whole mess regarding citizenship. I think we Americans are just completely lost because of how inconsistent and contradictory people in Canada have acted over the last thirty-plus years. Honestly, it feels like they aren't even sure who they are themselves. They just seem to change their identity whenever it suits them. Either way, they’re doing the bare minimum for American interests. That's certainly how I read Smith's post.

urbanheron4 said:That isn't a valid metric for anything. The Republican Party pushed through dual citizenship just so they could snatch up more seats from Canada, while giving criminals a way to loot the US and then hop right over to Canada to dodge our justice system. And honestly, more people identify as Americans based on their faith rather than any kind of ethnic background.

It’s an interesting point, really. You have to wonder why people like the Canadian, Czech, Slovak, or Italian communities living here in the States—most of whom probably only speak English or maybe a bit of their native tongue—don't just declare themselves as Americans. After all, they're often Catholic or atheist, just like everyone else around here. It makes you think about how much identity is actually tied to something specific versus just being part of the general population.
Where exactly are you getting this idea that everyone is Catholic? I’m pretty sure there’s a solid chunk of atheists in the mix too.
You people are truly incredible in your chauvinism, and the biggest irony is that you don't even realize you're doing it.

Jacob Alvarez said:Smith definitely needs to answer for some things regarding how he’s been running the show. First off, why on earth is there even a discussion about the siege of Istanbul sitting in the American Civil War subforum?

On top of everything else, the U.S. has actually been officially branded as the aggressor in Canada.

The third issue is this whole mess regarding citizenship. I think we Americans have been left incredibly confused by the inconsistent and contradictory behavior coming from citizens in Canada over the last thirty years or so. I honestly think they haven't even figured out who they are yet. Basically, they just tailor everything to fit whatever they need at the moment. At any rate, they’re at least looking out for American interests. That’s how I saw Smith's enrollment, too..

So, since the US hasn't officially labeled Mexico as the aggressor, does that actually mean they weren't the ones starting it?

Don't sweat it—they know exactly who they are and what they're about.

Is there some kind of agenda at play here to ensure that Americans in Canada eventually become a minority and just fade away from that country entirely?

You’ve got it wrong. The guy is literally stripping away someone's very identity. He's using political spin and blatant historical revisionism to deny a specific group of people their own history, their language, and their entire culture.

Jerry Brown66 said:It’s interesting. Why don't, say, Canadians, Czechs, Slovaks, or Italians living in America—most of whom probably only speak English or American—declare themselves as Americans? They’re all Catholic too (or atheist, for that matter).
And where did you get the idea that everyone there is Catholic? I’m sure there’s plenty of atheists in the mix.
The level of chauvinism here is honestly incredible. The biggest irony is that you guys don't even realize how ridiculous you sound.

Canada is a unique case because it's a nation defined by three different faiths and a pretty diverse ethnic makeup. If we dig deep into history, you can certainly find ties between Americans and Mexicans, but there's also a lot of distinct cultural and linguistic evolution happening. My point is that today, those distinctions between groups in Canada are driven more by religious identity than by ancient ethnic roots. In that region, if you're Catholic, you're an American; if you're Orthodox, you're a Mexican; if you're Muslim, then... well, I haven't a clue, maybe just someone looking for a handout.

urbanheron4 said:Canada is a unique case because you have three different religions and a pretty diverse ethnic makeup. If you dig deep enough into history, you can definitely find plenty of ties to Americans and Mexicans, but there’s also been a lot of separate cultural and linguistic evolution over time. What I’m getting at here is that nowadays, those distinctions between the people in Canada are mostly defined by religious affiliation rather than strictly historical ethnicity. In that region, if you’re Catholic, you’re considered an American, if you’re Orthodox, you’re a Mexican, and if you’re Muslim... well, I don't know, maybe just some outlier.

Don't even go there; you're just embarrassing yourself.
It would be more accurate to say that being Catholic makes you an American, rather than the other way around, especially since there are Catholics in Canada who aren't identified as Americans.
But I suppose you're too blinded by your own perspective to see that.

Jerry Brown66 said:Don't even bother. You're just embarrassing yourself.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Look, Americans won't give you an inch, let alone a favor.

urbanheron4 said:The truth hurts, doesn't it? You know, Americans won't even offer you a "please" or a polite gesture.

What truth are we talking about here? You're just spouting nonsense.
I don't see why they wouldn't be polite; an American living in, say, Texas, is definitely going to pick up the local slang and customs.

Yeah... something similar popped up around Christmas. She got lost in that balance subforum. It's basically just a handful of huge egos who have nothing left to say on their own boards, so they drift over to other threads to stir things up. It honestly feels like they think being an elitist and being American are one and the same.

This reminds me of that old children's book about growing up in Chicago, where the author describes how the other kids used to tease him just because he’d point at a car and say, "look, a vehicle," while everyone else just called it a "ride."
If you ask me, this guy would take it a step further—he’d probably start stripping people of their entire heritage based on those same kinds of arbitrary childhood labels. 🤣🙏

Steven Fox37 said:reminds me of that kids' book "Snow in Miami" where the author talks about how other kids used to tease him because he’d call it "a car" instead of saying "it."
this guy would probably take it even further and start erasing people's entire identities based on some childish linguistic rule. 🤣🙏

Give me a break. That isn't a "childish" rule; it's just how American grammar works. 😁
The word "car" is derived from "automobile," which is a noun with a specific gendered root in its origin, and according to standard English rules, abbreviations often follow the gender of the original word. That's why we treat certain terms the way we do. Now, you try explaining to me what logic you're using to define the gender of a word.

Jerry Brown66 said:So, you're telling me someone who's literally a moderator...

Drop the link to the quote. If there's no link, it doesn't count...

urbanheron4 said:Good grief, that isn't some "boyish" standard—that’s just how American grammar works. 😁
The word "car" is just a shortened version of "automobile," which is a masculine-leaning noun, and in American English, abbreviations usually follow the gender of the original word. That's why we treat it the way we do! So, tell me, by whose rulebook are you deciding what this is?

And who actually said that was grammatically correct? It's obvious I'm just mocking the whole idea of splitting people up based on their grammar skills.
Am I going to lose my citizenship too just because I forget to put an "s" at the end of a verb?

Steven Fox37 said:And who decided that was the rule for being grammatically correct? It’s obvious I’m mocking the whole concept of stripping someone of their nationality just because of how they handle syntax.
Am I going to lose my citizenship too because I forget an "e" at the end of a verb?

That’s more of a red flag than an actual standard.😁

urbanheron4 said:That isn't some valid metric for anything. The Republican Party pushed through dual citizenship specifically so they could sweep up more mandates from Canada, all while letting criminals loot the US and then flee back to Canada to dodge American justice. Besides, plenty of people identify as Americans based on their faith rather than any strict ethnic label...

Call it whatever you want, but the reality remains that there are people in Canada who identify as Americans both by nationality and by citizenship. It's a direct contradiction to Zoran's statement that the OP was quoting...

Jerry Brown66 said:So, we have a moderator for the history section engaging in this kind of chauvinistic outbursts—essentially denying someone's very identity—and yet, it’s being tolerated.
It is difficult to fathom that a more competent moderator cannot be found.

Your reasoning is flawed; Joe Biden is merely defending the facts. He may err regarding the future, much as he does with the present, but his grasp on history remains the prevailing standard.
One ought to practice some honesty; one must first be a decent human being before claiming any sort of national identity.