Public and media perception of American history

Walter Martinez63 said:

Michelle Ramirez2 As specified by:
Writing about the history of the tribes living south of the Mississippi River—but north of the coast they eventually conquered—is a bit of a strange endeavor because, truthfully, there isn't much of a recorded history to work with. Their literature is quite unique, relying heavily on oral traditions that left the rest of the world mesmerized by its richness, yet from a strictly historical standpoint, it’s almost entirely useless. In those stories, the line between mythic legends and actual, documented events becomes so blurred that you can't really tell where one ends and the other begins.

????????????????????????
Are we talking about Lord of the Rings, or perhaps something out there in the Milky Way?

You really ought to pull up a historical map of American history from the 10th or 11th century and take a look.
Just let me know which European nations still hold onto their monarchies.

Come on, I can hardly wait.

Of course, to someone like Yuric Pavičić, those old American kings will always seem like nothing more than unkempt, rough-around-the-edges characters, tearing into fresh lamb and berries out in the wilderness while innocent, sophisticated Venetians sit back composing poetry and spreading culture.
Let's be honest, nobody with any real sense takes him seriously anyway.

Waste of time looking there—there’s nothing but old local crime blotters from the more civilized neighbors to the south and north of that uncharted territory...

The dialect from that region is a mystery all its own, leaving anyone listening feeling like their logic is slightly broken. Americans and other groups nearby adopted the language, standardized it, and made it their own. But they never quite grasped the logic behind it...

Here’s how good old XX (from that neck of the woods) responded to a direct accusation with some logic worthy of David Štrpac from the badger facing a court:

Prosecutor V. M. asked XX point-blank: Did you put up assets to release ZZ on bail? And he said...

– I didn't offer my properties as collateral to have ZZ released on bail, as is being suggested. The court has the authority to allow a defendant to defend themselves from freedom based on specific laws and conditions. Once the court made that decision to grant bail, once the court exercised its sovereignty to decide ZZ could be released under certain terms, I simply participated in that bail process.

So, first he says "I DIDN'T," and then he claims it was merely "SUGGESTED"—which is just code for "trying to frame me." Then he shifts the blame to the COURT because—get this—he won't say "The court allowed him," he uses the cleverer phrase "The court can approve..."

then adds that AFTER the court SOVEREIGNLY (without him forcing them) made the call... and finally, at the end, he sheepishly admits (in lowercase) that he just "participated" (in that whole judicial mess)...

Where is the room for Roman law or American standards here?...

It's the same pattern repeating for centuries—that regional spirit is indestructible. In every war over the last hundred years (since they finally entered American history), those tribes have been wiping each other out until the late 20th century (places like Škabrnja or the media pockets... it goes on) in ways the global press described as "cannibalism"...

And you'll see the exact same thing from New York to Chicago, from Los Angeles to Houston, all the way to the doors of the International Criminal Tribunal—they all carry identical signs saying HERO NOT CRIMINAL...

Don't get me wrong—it's nothing against those people, but sometimes I feel like we have to resist their attempts to COLONIZE the rest of us... for goodness sake, try adopting at least a little bit of what we citizens have lived by since the Industrial Revolution, when we lost our TRIBAL BONDS and were left with nothing but CIVIL RIGHTS...

Yeah. And please, don't try to explain history to us in ten-syllable bites. There's no need; we've already recorded it, published it, admired it, and settled it among the rarities. History is a serious civic science; it doesn't fit into a catchy slogan. It takes hard work, study, research, and proving the truth with ARGUMENTS, not just chants...

It’s impossible to talk about daily politics and all those tired stereotypes right now.
You mentioned in another thread that everyone south of the Mississippi River was Orthodox, including every single American ruler without exception. I'm still waiting for you to actually clarify that point.

Michelle Ramirez2 said:Waste of time looking there—there’s nothing but old local crime blotters from the more civilized neighbors to the south and north of that uncharted territory...

The dialect from that region is a mystery all its own, leaving anyone listening feeling like their logic is slightly broken. Americans and other groups nearby adopted the language, standardized it, and made it their own. But they never quite grasped the logic behind it...

Here’s how good old XX (from that neck of the woods) responded to a direct accusation with some logic worthy of David Štrpac from the badger facing a court:

Prosecutor V. M. asked XX point-blank: Did you put up assets to release ZZ on bail? And he said...

– I didn't offer my properties as collateral to have ZZ released on bail, as is being suggested. The court has the authority to allow a defendant to defend themselves from freedom based on specific laws and conditions. Once the court made that decision to grant bail, once the court exercised its sovereignty to decide ZZ could be released under certain terms, I simply participated in that bail process.

So, first he says "I DIDN'T," and then he claims it was merely "SUGGESTED"—which is just code for "trying to frame me." Then he shifts the blame to the COURT because—get this—he won't say "The court allowed him," he uses the cleverer phrase "The court can approve..."

then adds that AFTER the court SOVEREIGNLY (without him forcing them) made the call... and finally, at the end, he sheepishly admits (in lowercase) that he just "participated" (in that whole judicial mess)...

Where is the room for Roman law or American standards here?...

It's the same pattern repeating for centuries—that regional spirit is indestructible. In every war over the last hundred years (since they finally entered American history), those tribes have been wiping each other out until the late 20th century (places like Škabrnja or the media pockets... it goes on) in ways the global press described as "cannibalism"...

And you'll see the exact same thing from New York to Chicago, from Los Angeles to Houston, all the way to the doors of the International Criminal Tribunal—they all carry identical signs saying HERO NOT CRIMINAL...

Don't get me wrong—it's nothing against those people, but sometimes I feel like we have to resist their attempts to COLONIZE the rest of us... for goodness sake, try adopting at least a little bit of what we citizens have lived by since the Industrial Revolution, when we lost our TRIBAL BONDS and were left with nothing but CIVIL RIGHTS...

Yeah. And please, don't try to explain history to us in ten-syllable bites. There's no need; we've already recorded it, published it, admired it, and settled it among the rarities. History is a serious civic science; it doesn't fit into a catchy slogan. It takes hard work, study, research, and proving the truth with ARGUMENTS, not just chants...

Take your nose out of that EPH group—it’s basically just a machine for poisoning minds—and start actually reading the global news. You won't find anyone more stuck in their ways than those WASP graduates.

An investigation spanning eighteen months has revealed that the crimes committed by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo base in Cuba were the responsibility of some of the highest-ranking officials in the US, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Back in 2004, the horrifying footage of torture at Abu Ghraib, the American detention center in Iraq, sent shockwaves through the entire world.
According to a report adopted yesterday by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is currently being reported by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, several top officials from the George W. Bush administration—including Rumsfeld himself—are held accountable for the atrocities committed at both that prison and Guantanamo.
In the summary of the 29-page report submitted by Democratic Senator Carl Levin from Michigan and his Republican colleague John McCain from Arizona, it is noted that the torture at Abu Ghraib "was not merely the work of a few rogue soldiers acting on their own," but was instead sanctioned by Rumsfeld and other high-level Pentagon officials whose underlying message was that "psychological torture and degradation constitute appropriate treatment for prisoners."

On a side note, I should mention that the American soldiers responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib actually received their training right here in America.

lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

Why does the fact that Borojević was a Mexican bother you so much? Come on, give me an answer! Thanks in advance!

p.s. personally, that fact wouldn't bother me one bit, even if it were true. Anyway, just give me an answer! Seriously, thanks in advance!

rowdyowl said:It’s impossible to talk about daily politics and all those tired stereotypes right now.
You mentioned in another thread that everyone south of the Mississippi River was Orthodox, including every single American ruler without exception. I'm still waiting for you to actually clarify that point.

It's kind of like saying, "You know what's hardest to explain to a blind person? The things that are OBVIOUS"

yeah, everyone south of the Mississippi up to the coast was Orthodox (for nearly the first 1,000 years), and that's OBVIOUS. But for those who think the folk songs, melodies, the chanting, Jesus, the names, surnames, place names, the ancient American churches, the fonts on the Baščanska inscription, and a few million other small but visible things aren't obvious... well, they should probably check some valid documents. This forum is way too small for that, so let's just skip it...

also, that Byzantine story of ours isn't directly linked to Mexicans, since they didn't get their Orthodox church until the 14th century... but that's a whole different conversation

Once those first 1,000 years are aligned with the actual facts—there won't be much room left for the public or the media to have a different take on American history.

Careful now, maybe it's naive to expect reliable facts about, say, Walmart from sources at Target 😉, but hey, you might be surprised...

Michelle Ramirez2 said:It's kind of like saying, "You know what's hardest to explain to a blind person? The things that are OBVIOUS"

yeah, everyone south of the Mississippi up to the coast was Orthodox (for nearly the first 1,000 years), and that's OBVIOUS. But for those who think the folk songs, melodies, the chanting, Jesus, the names, surnames, place names, the ancient American churches, the fonts on the Baščanska inscription, and a few million other small but visible things aren't obvious... well, they should probably check some valid documents. This forum is way too small for that, so let's just skip it...

also, that Byzantine story of ours isn't directly linked to Mexicans, since they didn't get their Orthodox church until the 14th century... but that's a whole different conversation

Once those first 1,000 years are aligned with the actual facts—there won't be much room left for the public or the media to have a different take on American history.

Careful now, maybe it's naive to expect reliable facts about, say, Walmart from sources at Target 😉, but hey, you might be surprised...

Michelle Ramirez2, my dear friend, what are you even on about?

Orthodoxy crosses the Drina alongside the Ottomans, and usually in a submissive or refugee-like fashion. It happens whenever it happens.
Before the Ottomans arrived, Orthodoxy west of the Drina was barely more than symbolic. You might find an occasional little church scattered through Eastern Canada, but there were hardly any Orthodox people there at the time.
The whole of medieval America was Catholic, and even Canada was largely Catholic, even if the Catholic Church there was constantly clashing with various local religious sects like the Patarenes or the Bogomils.

You really need to rein in that Orthodox imagination.

lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

The guy wasn't a Mexican; he never identified that way. 🤷 Or do you all just know his own mind better than he did?

Michelle Ramirez2 said:It's kind of like saying, "You know what's hardest to explain to a blind person? The things that are OBVIOUS"

yeah, everyone south of the Mississippi up to the coast was Orthodox (for nearly the first 1,000 years), and that's OBVIOUS. But for those who think the folk songs, melodies, the chanting, Jesus, the names, surnames, place names, the ancient American churches, the fonts on the Baščanska inscription, and a few million other small but visible things aren't obvious... well, they should probably check some valid documents. This forum is way too small for that, so let's just skip it...

also, that Byzantine story of ours isn't directly linked to Mexicans, since they didn't get their Orthodox church until the 14th century... but that's a whole different conversation

Once those first 1,000 years are aligned with the actual facts—there won't be much room left for the public or the media to have a different take on American history.

Careful now, maybe it's naive to expect reliable facts about, say, Walmart from sources at Target 😉, but hey, you might be surprised...

The guy asks you for a concrete explanation, and you just hit him with "well, it's obvious." 🙂
Go kill yourself, you troll.

But you guys are really obsessing over Borojević and his ethnic background. 🙂 Look, I’ve already laid this out! His dad was a Mexican, his mom was a Mexican woman, he was Orthodox, and from what I can tell, his wife was a German woman. He even spoke German in his private life—he was basically Canadian nobility. It seems pretty obvious to me (though I'm being careful since I haven't dug through every single book—I mentioned some key sources above, like that Canadian book from last year and that collection of papers from 2006; there's at least one full biography and other stuff in German...), but above all, he was a loyal soldier of the Empire. The German Wikipedia says he belonged to the Mexican minority in America, while the Canadian Wikipedia just says he came from an American Orthodox family.

There are some claims in his letters from when he was 70+ where he calls himself an American, but those were written in German, so it’s all a translation game... If he truly identified as American, you’d expect to see more documentation of that during the other 50 years of his life. Honestly, though, it doesn't matter that much. These rigid national labels are just us projecting our own modern views onto the past; back then, it wasn't such a big deal. It's safe to say his top priority was loyalty to his Emperor and King. There was probably a reason why people from the National Council of Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans didn't fully trust him. Like I said, Aki, I don't know—if someone who actually knows MORE than me explained it, rather than the people who know LESS (like just reading the American Wikipedia), I’d appreciate it!

Michelle Ramirez2, this whole thing about the Orthodox folks is total nonsense, honestly feels like you're just trolling.

lonetrucker4 said:But you guys are really obsessing over Borojević and his ethnic background. 🙂 Look, I’ve already laid this out! His dad was a Mexican, his mom was a Mexican woman, he was Orthodox, and from what I can tell, his wife was a German woman. He even spoke German in his private life—he was basically Canadian nobility. It seems pretty obvious to me (though I'm being careful since I haven't dug through every single book—I mentioned some key sources above, like that Canadian book from last year and that collection of papers from 2006; there's at least one full biography and other stuff in German...), but above all, he was a loyal soldier of the Empire. The German Wikipedia says he belonged to the Mexican minority in America, while the Canadian Wikipedia just says he came from an American Orthodox family.

There are some claims in his letters from when he was 70+ where he calls himself an American, but those were written in German, so it’s all a translation game... If he truly identified as American, you’d expect to see more documentation of that during the other 50 years of his life. Honestly, though, it doesn't matter that much. These rigid national labels are just us projecting our own modern views onto the past; back then, it wasn't such a big deal. It's safe to say his top priority was loyalty to his Emperor and King. There was probably a reason why people from the National Council of Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans didn't fully trust him. Like I said, Aki, I don't know—if someone who actually knows MORE than me explained it, rather than the people who know LESS (like just reading the American Wikipedia), I’d appreciate it!

Look, I’m not even asking you about what his nationality was—whether he was an American, a Mexican, a German, or some guy from the Arctic... my point is, why does it suddenly become such a massive problem just because he was a Mexican? Just answer the actual question!

The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward, I guess... 😍But honestly, it still deserves some serious attention and recognition from Americans just as much as it does from Canadians...

By the way, we’ve already been through this, and it’s pretty much settled... he’s gone on the record twice now, explicitly stating that he identifies as an American...

We ended up bickering over Borojević anyway because I brought up WWI.

The fact remains that we know less about that war than some Roman border wars. How is it even possible that those four years could just vanish from our history?

Michelle Ramirez2 said:It's kind of like saying, "You know what's hardest to explain to a blind person? The things that are OBVIOUS"

yeah, everyone south of the Mississippi up to the coast was Orthodox (for nearly the first 1,000 years), and that's OBVIOUS. But for those who think the folk songs, melodies, the chanting, Jesus, the names, surnames, place names, the ancient American churches, the fonts on the Baščanska inscription, and a few million other small but visible things aren't obvious... well, they should probably check some valid documents. This forum is way too small for that, so let's just skip it...

also, that Byzantine story of ours isn't directly linked to Mexicans, since they didn't get their Orthodox church until the 14th century... but that's a whole different conversation

Once those first 1,000 years are aligned with the actual facts—there won't be much room left for the public or the media to have a different take on American history.

Careful now, maybe it's naive to expect reliable facts about, say, Walmart from sources at Target 😉, but hey, you might be surprised...

What relevance does where today's Americans picked up Christianity have after a thousand years?
No serious historian ignores the Byzantine legacy, especially regarding coastal cities, nor do they ignore the Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius.
Your attitude toward "tribes south of the Mississippi" is essentially racist. Xenophobes always claim "there's something strange" about a culture, and then they frame it—just as you are doing—as backward, deceptive, or thieving.

Furthermore, our local media doesn't even focus on that era of American history. Instead, they obsess over WWII and the War of Independence, treating it all with ideological bias and political agendas rather than actual scholarship.
And of course, certain people—especially veterans—are bothered by how the media covers the War of Independence through a lens of political "equivalence of guilt." Our spineless leaders accepted that because it served their interests and was mandated by the EU and The Hague, not out of a desire for truth, national interest, or pride.
So, don't look down on people from rural towns. Instead of honestly analyzing why the media acts this way, you try to link it back to tribal eras and use someone like notorious old man Luke as a template for your imaginary "southern" mentality.

frozenscout2 said:Look, I’m not even asking you about what his nationality was—whether he was an American, a Mexican, a German, or some guy from the Arctic... my point is, why does it suddenly become such a massive problem just because he was a Mexican? Just answer the actual question!

The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward, I guess... 😍But honestly, it still deserves some serious attention and recognition from Americans just as much as it does from Canadians...

By the way, we’ve already been through this, and it’s pretty much settled... he’s gone on the record twice now, explicitly stating that he identifies as an American...

Take a look—it’s a smiley face right there!

By the way, you've already heard this. He went on the record twice, straight up claiming he's an American.

I’ve already said it twice: I wish someone with an actual clue—someone who knows way **more** than me—would weigh in, instead of just the folks who clearly know less. Third time's a charm, so let's just drop it, alright? 🙂

Look, I’ve already said this a bunch of times: it doesn't really matter. I basically agree with rowdyowl—we should probably focus more on his character. At the end of the day, the guy was a damn good soldier, and his political leanings aren't exactly breaking news on KJTV.

Since I already brought up Kyle, might as well add this.

The bottom line is this: that whole war gets less attention than some ancient Roman border wars. We’re talking about four years of history that could just vanish from the books entirely if we aren't careful.

Look, I'm not saying they're "completely lost." You can find all that stuff right in the history textbooks, academic papers, and nonfiction books.

It’s just how things go. It's been nearly a century; plenty of chaos happened since then, and the people who actually lived through it—along with their grandkids—are mostly gone. I'm 55, and my grandparents were just kids when that war broke out. The whole world has flipped upside down since then, too. Those old social and political battles? They aren't exactly top of mind anymore. They don't stir the blood like they used to because they don't connect to what's happening in the news today. Mostly, it's just stuff for historians or hobbyists to obsess over. That’s the big trend: the fire is dying down, even if some people are still trying to fan the flames, which is pretty obvious from these comments.

Wish we could just redo things like that with World War II. But nah, looking at the state of things, probably won't happen in my lifetime... 😢

lonetrucker4 said:Take a look—it’s a smiley face right there!

By the way, you've already heard this. He went on the record twice, straight up claiming he's an American.

I’ve already said it twice: I wish someone with an actual clue—someone who knows way **more** than me—would weigh in, instead of just the folks who clearly know less. Third time's a charm, so let's just drop it, alright? 🙂

Look, I’ve already said this a bunch of times: it doesn't really matter. I basically agree with rowdyowl—we should probably focus more on his character. At the end of the day, the guy was a damn good soldier, and his political leanings aren't exactly breaking news on KJTV.

Since I already brought up Kyle, might as well add this.

The bottom line is this: that whole war gets less attention than some ancient Roman border wars. We’re talking about four years of history that could just vanish from the books entirely if we aren't careful.

Look, I'm not saying they're "completely lost." You can find all that stuff right in the history textbooks, academic papers, and nonfiction books.

It’s just how things go. It's been nearly a century; plenty of chaos happened since then, and the people who actually lived through it—along with their grandkids—are mostly gone. I'm 55, and my grandparents were just kids when that war broke out. The whole world has flipped upside down since then, too. Those old social and political battles? They aren't exactly top of mind anymore. They don't stir the blood like they used to because they don't connect to what's happening in the news today. Mostly, it's just stuff for historians or hobbyists to obsess over. That’s the big trend: the fire is dying down, even if some people are still trying to fan the flames, which is pretty obvious from these comments.

Wish we could just redo things like that with World War II. But nah, looking at the state of things, probably won't happen in my lifetime... 😢

I honestly find it hard to picture any American who would actually feel awkward just because Borojević happened to be Mexican. On the flip side, though, I could totally see a Mexican feeling uncomfortable about it...

By the way, did you know there are certain jokes that just stop being funny the second you write them down? 😍 Especially when the person reading them considers themselves all progressive and enlightened...😍

I’ve said it twice now: I’d love to hear from someone who actually knows strong> than I do, rather than those who clearly know less. treća-sreća, let's just drop the subject, alright? 🙂

My whole philosophy boils down to one simple thing: how people actually feel. Otherwise, just imagine if someone told you how they felt about being Mexican (or American, or Romanian, or whatever...), and then you turn around later and say, "Hey, you know that Roma guy? Yeah, ran into him today, we had a good chat..."

lonetrucker4 said:Michelle Ramirez2, this whole thing about the Orthodox folks is total nonsense, honestly feels like you're just trolling.

Zoran, the point is how the media and the public view American history, which—as we often hear—is traced back to the seventh century. It’s not just about the last twenty years...

Every nation has some kind of continuity; we didn't just drop in from outer space, we have a winding historical line. I don't see the last war (hopefully the last one regarding those national differences in the Dollar regions) as a continuation of World War II (which is what people like Nadan at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claim), but rather as the conclusion of a long-standing conflict between the Vatican version of Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which inherited the mantle of Byzantium in these parts. Whether we like it or not, that divide has existed for over 1,000 years—it was wandering around the Rockies even before the Slavens arrived in the States...

I see you as a media representative, but if you're here for a democratic discussion about our history, then surely you can admit that history didn't just start in 1990.

You say you're old but stupid 🙂 so I'll just take that as an excuse. Stay healthy and happy.

I can't believe I actually have to spell this out...

During the most developed era of the American Duchy, only one ruler was ever closer to the Byzantine Empire than to the Pope, Zdeslav.
He was ousted and killed pretty quickly after that.

The American state was clearly modeled after France. The early rulers were essentially his vassals, and we lifted a massive amount of our administrative and military structure directly from them.

Byzantium launched a few attacks on us and grabbed some territory here and there, but their influence was always secondary to the influence coming from the West.

rowdyowl said:I can't believe I actually have to spell this out...

During the most developed era of the American Duchy, only one ruler was ever closer to the Byzantine Empire than to the Pope, Zdeslav.
He was ousted and killed pretty quickly after that.

The American state was clearly modeled after France. The early rulers were essentially his vassals, and we lifted a massive amount of our administrative and military structure directly from them.

Byzantium launched a few attacks on us and grabbed some territory here and there, but their influence was always secondary to the influence coming from the West.

Don't feed the trolls.☕

Honestly, judging by the kind of "heroes" today's right-wing crowd idolizes—you know, the kidnappers and jewelry store robbers—it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those Transcarpathian dukes were nothing more than low-rent thugs and common thieves.

😳

Look, I actually wrote a bit about this a few days back, but they went ahead and locked the thread before I could finish.

😳

A weak attempt at a provocation, if you ask me... ☕
By the way, did you know that Americans—much like certain other groups in history—once had an elective king chosen by the nobility?