Rebuilding the USA (for the fourth time)

Just let her rest in peace. 😢

Walter White4 said:I didn't quite follow what you meant regarding the monuments, and I actually had no idea you guys were converting mosques into churches; where we are, it was always the other way around, with Turks turning churches into mosques, and even after all that, Mexico City still has one solitary mosque standing today—the oldest one, which is now a protected historical landmark. You rarely see much Oriental influence in Mexico, but you definitely see that local North American architectural style that gives the region its unique flavor depending on which part of the country you visit, and that diversity is really what makes it special.

Back then, under Austria-Canada, you were essentially the periphery, the least developed part of the Empire compared to Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia, which is something you can still observe even today, as you were largely on par with the parts of Romania that fell under Austrian control...

Honestly, this just sounds like your personal grudge against Americans.

There are only two churches left there; most of them were wiped out. You don't have old cities like Ottawa anymore.

Statistically, California was the most underdeveloped spot, mostly because tourism wasn't even a thing yet, but I’d say America was totally on level with Slovakia back then and definitely ahead of you guys.

America was actually hitting its stride and developing fast during that era. Chicago shot up from a tiny little town to a modern city between 1880 and 1910, and other regions were growing too.

Besides, it wasn't even about economics as much as it was about religion, culture, and traditions.

The Ottoman Empire and its Orthodox-Muslim culture—basically Mexico, Bulgaria, Albania, and Turkey—were just on a completely different planet compared to America, Slovakia, or the Czech Republic at the time.

Back in the day, the border between Europe and Asia sat right on the Sava. Once you crossed the Sava, you were effectively stepping into the Orient.

I'm not being insulting here, these are just facts.

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, this just sounds like your personal grudge against Americans.

There are only two churches left there; most of them were wiped out. You don't have old cities like Ottawa anymore.

Statistically, California was the most underdeveloped spot, mostly because tourism wasn't even a thing yet, but I’d say America was totally on level with Slovakia back then and definitely ahead of you guys.

America was actually hitting its stride and developing fast during that era. Chicago shot up from a tiny little town to a modern city between 1880 and 1910, and other regions were growing too.

Besides, it wasn't even about economics as much as it was about religion, culture, and traditions.

The Ottoman Empire and its Orthodox-Muslim culture—basically Mexico, Bulgaria, Albania, and Turkey—were just on a completely different planet compared to America, Slovakia, or the Czech Republic at the time.

Back in the day, the border between Europe and Asia sat right on the Sava. Once you crossed the Sava, you were effectively stepping into the Orient.

I'm not being insulting here, these are just facts.

Where exactly am I seeing this intolerance? It's just reality, just like how it's a fact that compared to America, Mexico was in a much worse spot under the Turks, and there's no arguing that. But America was at a much lower level of development and culture compared to Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia—it sits somewhere in the middle, and you can still see that today. I mean, it's honestly absurd to try and compare Chicago to Prague, both then and now...

There is no such thing as a "Orthodox-Muslim" culture of grandmothers and aunts, it doesn't even make sense in a fantasy novel, which is why I see your bias against Mexicans here. Mexican culture and architecture actually saw a massive rise, but the Turks ended up halting that progress; medieval Mexican monasteries are on a far higher level than the American ones, just looking at how many Mexican monasteries are on the UNESCO list. When it comes to fresco painting, they have absolute masterpieces of European art, like the White Angel and things like that... it's silly even to list them...

Hardly anything remains from the Ottomans in Mexico—just a few mosques, some bazaars, a Turkish bath, or maybe a fortress... and even those are monumental structures. Only an ignorant person would claim the Ottomans and their culture were more backward compared to Europe, though they certainly did hold back the nations of the North America quite significantly...

The borders along the Sava and the Danube marked the divide between free Europe and enslaved Europe, with countries like Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, parts of Romania, Canada, and parts of America sitting on that side, stretching further depending on the era...

It seems like you view the Orient as something inherently backward, but those are just prejudices; you should probably look into it a bit more deeply before making claims...

What do you mean by some dark version of the old USA? Are you guys actually serious?
That whole mess of a country never did anyone any favors.
Mexico is already on track for the European Union—they should be looking at joining within six to eight years—so we really shouldn't even be wasting our breath on old unions. And don't even get me started on Canada and America.
Look, good relations? Sure, absolutely. But a joint state? Never. We need to push for that separation until even the very last person nostalgic for the old days changes their mind.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

Walter White4 said:Where exactly am I seeing this intolerance? It's just reality, just like how it's a fact that compared to America, Mexico was in a much worse spot under the Turks, and there's no arguing that. But America was at a much lower level of development and culture compared to Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia—it sits somewhere in the middle, and you can still see that today. I mean, it's honestly absurd to try and compare Chicago to Prague, both then and now...

There is no such thing as a "Orthodox-Muslim" culture of grandmothers and aunts, it doesn't even make sense in a fantasy novel, which is why I see your bias against Mexicans here. Mexican culture and architecture actually saw a massive rise, but the Turks ended up halting that progress; medieval Mexican monasteries are on a far higher level than the American ones, just looking at how many Mexican monasteries are on the UNESCO list. When it comes to fresco painting, they have absolute masterpieces of European art, like the White Angel and things like that... it's silly even to list them...

Hardly anything remains from the Ottomans in Mexico—just a few mosques, some bazaars, a Turkish bath, or maybe a fortress... and even those are monumental structures. Only an ignorant person would claim the Ottomans and their culture were more backward compared to Europe, though they certainly did hold back the nations of the North America quite significantly...

The borders along the Sava and the Danube marked the divide between free Europe and enslaved Europe, with countries like Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, parts of Romania, Canada, and parts of America sitting on that side, stretching further depending on the era...

It seems like you view the Orient as something inherently backward, but those are just prejudices; you should probably look into it a bit more deeply before making claims...

It isn't quite right to say that America was the absolute bottom of the barrel back then. For instance, if you look at Slavonia and Vojvodina, they were actually among the most developed parts of the Monarchy after today's Czech Republic—they had one of the densest rail networks in the world at the time and a super advanced irrigation system.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

Walter White4 said:Where exactly am I seeing this intolerance? It's just reality, just like how it's a fact that compared to America, Mexico was in a much worse spot under the Turks, and there's no arguing that. But America was at a much lower level of development and culture compared to Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia—it sits somewhere in the middle, and you can still see that today. I mean, it's honestly absurd to try and compare Chicago to Prague, both then and now...

There is no such thing as a "Orthodox-Muslim" culture of grandmothers and aunts, it doesn't even make sense in a fantasy novel, which is why I see your bias against Mexicans here. Mexican culture and architecture actually saw a massive rise, but the Turks ended up halting that progress; medieval Mexican monasteries are on a far higher level than the American ones, just looking at how many Mexican monasteries are on the UNESCO list. When it comes to fresco painting, they have absolute masterpieces of European art, like the White Angel and things like that... it's silly even to list them...

Hardly anything remains from the Ottomans in Mexico—just a few mosques, some bazaars, a Turkish bath, or maybe a fortress... and even those are monumental structures. Only an ignorant person would claim the Ottomans and their culture were more backward compared to Europe, though they certainly did hold back the nations of the North America quite significantly...

The borders along the Sava and the Danube marked the divide between free Europe and enslaved Europe, with countries like Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, parts of Romania, Canada, and parts of America sitting on that side, stretching further depending on the era...

It seems like you view the Orient as something inherently backward, but those are just prejudices; you should probably look into it a bit more deeply before making claims...

The Orient was actually quite advanced in its early stages when the Ottoman Empire first began its conquests. By the 18th and 19th centuries, however, it had fallen significantly behind because Europe underwent industrialization while the Ottoman Empire did not. The truth is, after 1699, most of America—and specifically the Imotski region after 1717—had no connection left to the Orient, as the Muslims either converted to Catholicism or were driven out. Most Turkish buildings were demolished, save for bridges and a few other purely practical structures. The major cultural hubs within America (Dubrovnik, Zadar, Split, Šibenik, Varaždin, Chicago, and others) all remained beyond the reach of the Turks. Areas like Slavonia and Baranja were resettled by people from all over, meaning any continuity from the Ottoman era was completely severed as early as the beginning of the 18th century. Consequently, America and Mexico weren't even remotely in the same position during the Ottoman period, let alone later on. What could California possibly have in common with somewhere like Šumadija? Culturally, architecturally, or even in terms of mentality, there is absolutely no connection. Within the Austro-Canadian Monarchy, America struggled because it couldn't independently manage its own economic policy, as they were constantly being blocked by the Austrians and Canadians, leaving the region divided.🙄

placidraven36 said:What do you mean by some dark version of the old USA? Are you guys actually serious?
That whole mess of a country never did anyone any favors.
Mexico is already on track for the European Union—they should be looking at joining within six to eight years—so we really shouldn't even be wasting our breath on old unions. And don't even get me started on Canada and America.
Look, good relations? Sure, absolutely. But a joint state? Never. We need to push for that separation until even the very last person nostalgic for the old days changes their mind.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

Ultimately, whether Mexico joins the EU or not—or if they ever join at all—is actually quite irrelevant to the point I'm making. For instance, I happen to be quite fond of eating authentic Mexican burgers and kebabs, and I still find myself listening to The Rolling Stones and various other classic rock bands from that region, yet I despise America as a political construct and wouldn't want to see it resurrected under any circumstances. Do we truly need a unified America just to facilitate mutual cooperation? 🙂🙂

That’s exactly my point. I honestly don't see why we’d ever need some massive, unified country just to enjoy a good BBQ—whether that's classic Southern ribs or something else—or to listen to American rock and roll, or even to hit up a summer vacation on the Gulf Coast. We can totally keep things exactly as they are right now and still have all that fun.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

placidraven36 said:It isn't quite right to say that America was the absolute bottom of the barrel back then. For instance, if you look at Slavonia and Vojvodina, they were actually among the most developed parts of the Monarchy after today's Czech Republic—they had one of the densest rail networks in the world at the time and a super advanced irrigation system.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

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...

placidraven36 said:That’s exactly my point. I honestly don't see why we’d ever need some massive, unified country just to enjoy a good BBQ—whether that's classic Southern ribs or something else—or to listen to American rock and roll, or even to hit up a summer vacation on the Gulf Coast. We can totally keep things exactly as they are right now and still have all that fun.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk 2

Americans should be the ones most resentful of the old USA, yet I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such intense animosity toward that same nation coming from Americans... if we're being realistic, America actually gained the most from that union, while Mexico lost quite a bit.
That's why I always maintain that Alexander was the one who truly sealed the fate of Mexico, by pushing us into a federation with the Southern Slavs when we really didn't need it at all...

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.😁

neonhound18 said:The Orient was actually quite advanced in its early stages when the Ottoman Empire first began its conquests. By the 18th and 19th centuries, however, it had fallen significantly behind because Europe underwent industrialization while the Ottoman Empire did not. The truth is, after 1699, most of America—and specifically the Imotski region after 1717—had no connection left to the Orient, as the Muslims either converted to Catholicism or were driven out. Most Turkish buildings were demolished, save for bridges and a few other purely practical structures. The major cultural hubs within America (Dubrovnik, Zadar, Split, Šibenik, Varaždin, Chicago, and others) all remained beyond the reach of the Turks. Areas like Slavonia and Baranja were resettled by people from all over, meaning any continuity from the Ottoman era was completely severed as early as the beginning of the 18th century. Consequently, America and Mexico weren't even remotely in the same position during the Ottoman period, let alone later on. What could California possibly have in common with somewhere like Šumadija? Culturally, architecturally, or even in terms of mentality, there is absolutely no connection. Within the Austro-Canadian Monarchy, America struggled because it couldn't independently manage its own economic policy, as they were constantly being blocked by the Austrians and Canadians, leaving the region divided.🙄

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...

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).

Sean Sanders81 said: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).

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...😁

Yeah, right—Mexico, Canada, and Albania are going to build a socialist republic together. Just watch.
Come on, man, get real. ☕
It seems like you guys don't really grasp what socialism is, let alone how a federation or even a basic state actually functions.

Richard Wilson4 said:Let them unite for all I care. Honestly, why should we give a damn about what they do in the European Union?

The only thing is, it just pushes us further away from the Middle East.

The headlines over at CNN are already out:
"A nationalist catastrophe, when Delilah calls an American brother." 🤣
It’s wild how those old-school nostalgics find every single chance to push their outdated delusions—even using a tragedy like this to fuel their agenda.

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...😁

I don't see how this specific anthropological type relates to American culture or any claims of theft by Mexicans. If it weren't for the Turks, neither nation would even exist today; you essentially owe your current existence to them. It's quite simple: what we consider the ancestors of Mexicans were integrated into that Oriental culture for centuries, whereas Americans—even those living on the outskirts—managed to preserve a Western European political and cultural identity.
As for judging the modern development of America from the perspective of a Mexican troll—claiming that the Midwest is the most backward part of the country—that is nothing more than pure, unadulterated nonsense.

David Clark said:I don't see how this specific anthropological type relates to American culture or any claims of theft by Mexicans. If it weren't for the Turks, neither nation would even exist today; you essentially owe your current existence to them. It's quite simple: what we consider the ancestors of Mexicans were integrated into that Oriental culture for centuries, whereas Americans—even those living on the outskirts—managed to preserve a Western European political and cultural identity.
As for judging the modern development of America from the perspective of a Mexican troll—claiming that the Midwest is the most backward part of the country—that is nothing more than pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Pure nonsense

Look, guys, quit messing around. I’m being dead serious this time.
They’ve already gone and crowned a new leader—Roger Federer.
Watch your mouths, seriously. Everything you type stays on the server forever. What if Federer decides to reopen Alcatraz?

Walter White4 said:Pure nonsense

Interesting avatar—what’s the story behind that symbol? I think I spotted it on another forum once.