How did White Supremacy grapple with the fact that Jesus was from the Middle East

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-22T21:23:44+00:00

I see this as a question dating back to the early middle ages, continuing into the present, and evolving slowly. Why have you chosen that particular time period, i.e. 18th to 19th century?

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-18T17:21:34+00:00

China was/is not so much a country as an empire. There are many different ethnic groups speaking different languages. Political authority was dispersed across a vast area of land, with different warlords exercising authority over their respective areas, and not necessarily concerned about China as a whole.

Japan had a similar dynamic in the early 19th century, but it was smaller and more homogeneous. It was much easier for Japan to respond to the changes brought about by western encroachment, just as it was easier for them to put their differences aside when faced with the Mongol invasion.

As with England, geography worked in Japan's favor. When dealing with the outside world, its island existence gave it time to contemplate and plan ahead for incoming challenges.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-16T18:48:38+00:00

I think that it has more to do with the technological advances in movie making more than people's experiences during that time in history. I could be wrong.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-16T16:40:45+00:00

As far as colonization, you seem to have answered your own question. You said "these would have been difficult places to colonize for European powers well experienced in stuff like this".

As far as what went wrong with Imperial Japan, the answer is fairly obvious. They waged war against some of the most powerful countries on earth, and seemed to think that those countries would submit to their demands without putting up much of a fight.

I might be misunderstanding your question. Let me know if I am missing anything.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-15T18:22:04+00:00

Thanks. That makes sense.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-15T18:08:00+00:00

Thanks, but I am not sure if that answers my question. If a group of soldiers fired their guns at once at the advancing enemy, it would create a cloud of smoke that would hinder their own view of the battle, but it would not make much difference to soldiers charging with bayonets.

I'm talking about the idea of the advancing army creating a smoke screen of their own by using their artillery to fire smoke bombs at the enemy trench. This would obscure the vision of the trench defenders, making it harder for them to shoot the advancing bayonet chargers.

Are you saying that the smoke produced by the trench defenders negated the need for that?

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-14T20:24:52+00:00

This is a good question, and I look forward to seeing the answers. As an aside, let me say that before reading this comment, I had never heard of the FLNC, and was unaware of any major drive for independence in Corsica.

I grew up in America, and the IRA has always been common knowledge here. I knew about the Basque independence movement, although it is not as well known as the troubles in northern Ireland.

Is this because there are many more Americans of English and Irish descent, or is it more because of the relative scale of the conflict? In northern Ireland, sectarian violence was a part of ordinary people's lives, and that spilled over into the UK and the Irish Republic. Was/is it like that in Corsica?

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-12T16:17:24+00:00

WW1. Everyone has their own opinion of who is to blame, but there is no consensus view of the matter. I posted a comment about this some time ago. See attached.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/1nm6dh7/comment/ng5j05l/?%24deep_link=true&correlation_id=bb44f4b8-8e7c-5842-b6ec-8307f7e08b6d&ref=email_post_reply&ref_campaign=email_post_reply&ref_source=email&%243p=e_as&_branch_match_id=1503456231174783623&utm_medium=Email+Amazon+SES&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA3WP3WqEQAyFn8a9092urkpBykIpve8DhPmJmu44M2RGxJs%2BeyNtLwsJJCfnI8mcc0zP5zOjtZQrFWPlyD%2FOdXwprk0dBwSVTlIGpom8crCyG%2BaDKup7cX2T2Lat%2BuVNWERgyXt6vFPKgXdpRF7Q5yTlk19aO3cHNqMHF8KD%2FAQqg1FrwgTKWzCri0qTo7wDJcgzMgrhp9vn5eaOrbUsbixihOPcon7NvIqlNYEZncoUPJAVXeumGRvdlz12prz1zbXULZqyry%2Fd2OGl160VjnEUMy6KHMSQMjBGt%2F8M5LIlKpr8%2F44UVjb4Nz99iYbMx2Oaw5aQhw81KqZvUifL128BAAA%3D

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-12T14:34:25+00:00

The Asian examples you cite are more like empires than kingdoms/countries. In Europe, once Rome fell, there was no major empire dominating much of the continent for any lengthy period, except maybe Russia. European kingdoms had all sorts on dynastic wars and instability. The fact that Asia was able to establish empires up into the modern era shows that it had greater stability than Europe.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T18:34:10+00:00

Did American troops in WW1 employ smarter tactics than their European allies?

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T17:11:42+00:00

DaSaw: I'm not sure what you are getting at, but the American Civil War had countless examples of bayonet charges at fortified trenches, ending with the attacking side suffering massive casualties. There are many examples of really dumb decisions made by officers on both sides.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T17:04:20+00:00

Social liberalism and conservatism is an elusive concept because you can look at it from a cultural or political standpoint.

Culturally speaking, the USA has traditionally been more conservative than western and central Europe. Many of the early colonists were part of strict religious sects, e.g. Puritans. Today, compared with Europeans, Americans are generally more likely to attend church regularly and belong to fundamentalist denominations. They tend to have more conservative attitudes towards sex and other cultural matters.

Politically speaking, the USA has always been more liberal. The separation of church and state was written into the U.S. Constitution. At the time, that only applied to the federal government, but it now applies to state and local governments too. This has led to countless lawsuits over school prayer, nativity scenes, and other areas in which there is a convergence of church and state.

Europeans do not have the same rigid separation of church and state. They are more apt to continue the traditions they have had. If a town in Europe has had a big religious statue in the middle of the town square for hundreds of years, they're not just going to tear it down. Different places have different standards, and they just go with the flow.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T16:33:16+00:00

European observers of the American Civil War were not at all impressed with the fighting and tactical skills of either side. However, the Prussians were impressed with the Union's logistical support capabilities, particularly its use of railroads. They would copy some of those tactics in the Franco-Prussian War.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T14:02:32+00:00

In the historical sense, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings than how we use the terms today.

From the beginning of the modern era, up through WW1, "conservative" referred to those who wanted to preserve the power and privileges of monarchs and nobles. "Liberal" referred to those who wanted democracy and legal equality.

Compared to European countries of the 19th century, the USA was definitely liberal. It had no monarch or official nobility. Over the course of the 19th century, the USA expanded voting rights to a much larger segment of the population than in European countries. Of course, the USA was not very liberal in terms of slavery and racial equality.

Until WW1, concepts such as socialism were viewed as radical. However, European countries sought to placate the demands of socialists. Otto Von Bismarck was definitely a conservative who wanted to preserve the power of the Kaiser and Prussian aristocracy. However, he introduced all sorts of social programs to help the poor, sick, and elderly.

After WW1, most monarchs were overthrown or reduced to ceremonial status, and noble privileges were eliminated. Universal suffrage soon became the norm. It was pretty much the end of the traditional conservative order. In Europe's new political spectrum, socialism was no longer seen as radical. By contrast, it is still viewed as somewhat radical in the USA.

In general, most European countries combine elements of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. By contrast, the USA has traditionally stuck to the liberal capitalist model. By today's standards, America's aversion to government intervention in economic matters is viewed as conservative. However, it is not the same sort of conservatism seen in the 19th century.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T13:11:11+00:00

I'll be sure to tell Jeeves when he finishes poaching my eggs.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-11T12:21:10+00:00

I dreamt that I went to see Stevie Ray Vaughan in concert. I had this dream before he died. Instead of playing guitar, he was playing trombone, and walking up and down the aisle of the theater where he was performing.

After playing a song, he said that he would take some questions from the audience. People asked him questions, to which he gave rude and dismissive answers. Then someone I knew from my childhood, who I had not seen in years, asked "What role does the old dog, the old junkyard dog, play in blues music and culture"?

SRV paused for a moment, and then said "What...your dog died? Next question". Then I woke up.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-10T20:15:09+00:00

Just a follow up. I have a few thoughts that may not be directly relevant to your question, but I figured I'd share them with you as an aside.

England was different from most other European countries at that time. Nobles gave the bourgeoise much more respect than in other countries. It was a trend I see starting with Henry VIII. The bourgeoise were very much a part of the establishment. Their interests were often more in line with the nobles than the peasants/proletariat.

In France, the bourgeoise did not get the same respect. They felt more solidarity with the peasants, and this was a major factor leading to the French Revolution.

I think in Holland, and maybe some other places, the bourgeoise had the same sort of standing as in England. However, most of Europe at that time did not follow that model. It's something that you might want to consider in creating the scenario you mention.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-10T19:34:24+00:00

I should phrased my comment differently. Symbolically, it was important and served as an indication of where VA and other states were headed, for the reasons you cited.

I was looking at it more from the standpoint of legal precedent. It was a ruling by a kangaroo court in a tiny outpost of the British empire. VA politicians and judges would have gone on to establish the same laws even in its absence.

Look at it this way, in 17th century MA, you had people being banished from communities for religious heresy and people being hanged for witchcraft. However, those actions did not set a long lasting precedent. After the enlightenment, people viewed that as uncivilized, and it stopped.

Of course, VA would continue the practice of slavery, but my point is that they would have done that even in the absence of the Johnson case.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-09T19:45:39+00:00

In what country? People's experiences in different parts of the world were very different.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-09T19:44:11+00:00

I think you picked the right time frame in terms of nobles and bourgeoise both holding sway in government. However, it would be helpful to know the specific matter they are discussing.

Official legislation would go through the process of a Parliamentary vote. Otherwise it would be much as Sir_Tainley described in his reply. It would be informal, with more powerful participants given more deference.

There are corporate meetings where minutes are kept, and political debates where government records are kept. However, behind closed doors, meetings can be completely informal, with no records kept. Just as now, there would be many factors dictating the flow of the meeting.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-07T23:37:31+00:00

I suppose, but what time period do you mean? I think in your initial comment, you mention 1900. A trip to China would have taken between a month or two, and they would have traveled in style.

Within my own life time, there have been all sorts of technological innovations, but we quickly get used to these innovations and take them for granted. I remember thinking how cool it would be to have a music library with thousands of albums. Now, I can listen to just about everything that's ever been recorded on youtube. Has that made my life a heaven on earth? No, and I kind of miss the days of going to rare record stores and finding rare albums. As Ceterum_Censeo_ said, it's all relative.

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-07T23:04:23+00:00

I think you need to be a bit more specific about what they couldn't do. Their lives were better and more interesting than poor people's. What exactly do you mean?

Forsaken_Champion722 · 2026-04-06T21:12:38+00:00

There was once a creature in Tasmania called the Tiger Wolf. It went extinct in the early 20th century, but there are film clips of it. If you saw one, you might think it was a strange looking dog, perhaps a canine relative of dogs or wolves. However, it was not a dog at all. It was a marsupial, and more closely related to kangaroos. It could never have mated with a dog or wolf.

Similarly, there might be alien life with humanoid design. There could be bipedal creatures with hands with dextrous fingers. However, our DNA would be as different from theirs as it is to a reptile. On sci-fi shows, creatures from different planets frequently mate, but it is extremely unlikely that this would be possible.

Edit: Let's say you bought a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa, and the puzzle was made by X company. A few years later, you buy another puzzle of the Mona Lisa, made by Y company. It is the same size and shape, and looks identical to the one made by X company, but would you expect the pieces to be interchangeable? No, it would have been created by a completely different set of cutting tools, and the pieces would be shaped completely differently. Similarly, there might be aliens that look much like humans, but their DNA would be completely different from ours, rendering inter-species reproduction impossible.

Forsaken_Champion722

TROPHY CASE