Failzero
Platinum Member
VE/VJ day
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Only one state still celebrates VJ Day as a holiday.VE/VJ day
Hawaii ? California ??Only one state still celebrates VJ Day as a holiday.
Rhode Island.Hawaii ? California ??
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. "Well said!
That is how the people are kept convinced of the American way is the only way forward. While in truth it upholds racial discrimination and the huge income inequality. No breadthrough appears to be possible.
But at least letting the racists know that they incriminate themselves when they tar all those of a particular skin colour with the same brush. If they are embarrassed enough to stop then there's something gained.
And something gained even if they do persist.
Hold your head high! They can't.
You might notice that your quote says the Canadian government was FORCED to establish the commission by massive lawsuits. It's a PR move and nothing will come of it.Truth and Reconciliation
Since the beginning of its work in 2010, the commission has been collecting information about what was done to survivors in the residential schools and has worked to make this information public. From this process, the survivors receive public, communal acknowledgement and support for years of...www.facinghistory.org
Britain only finally abolished slavery all over its empire in 1843. It took a monarchy only twenty-two years less than it took a badly divided representative democracy to do so. The slave states totally controlled the Federal Government until shortly before the ACW to a great extent because they could count three fifths of every slave in the census giving the slave states inordinate power. It was only the massive immigration leading up to the ACW that allowed the anti-slavery northern states to seize control and take effective action against slavery. The northern states were against slavery as far back as the constitutional convention. With the slave state's coordinated political muscle, the anti-slavery states had two unpalatable options. 1) refuse to join the new nation resulting in three hostile states occupying North America instead of two (the British empire's Canada), North USA and South USA. 2) Accept the inferior position and work within the system to reduce the slave state's power and eventually end slavery. If they had accepted option 1, and IF the two USAs had managed to survive a hostile British Empire AND Spain/Mexico you would be a slave, or at best a third-class citizen of the South USA today. Which option do you think the anti-slavery states should have taken IM2?Interesting. Britain had slaves back then but ended slavery before America did. So your opinion makes sense.
The US system USED to work that way. That was the intent of the filibuster. It forced compromise and encouraged senators to work with the moderates of both parties. The senate was always intended to be like the House of Lords and be insulated from passing political fads since its members didn't stand for popular election, but were appointed by the states to represent them.Your mention of coalition building is quite interesting. I've never considered that distinction between the two systems of government.
A quick glance would suggest the same is possible in the US system, but that may not be so true?
I thought of a third option just now. The militarily weak South USA could have been conquered by Spain/Mexico and you could be a peasant in a very corrupt Mexico today instead of posting here.Britain only finally abolished slavery all over its empire in 1843. It took a monarchy only twenty-two years less than it took a badly divided representative democracy to do so. The slave states totally controlled the Federal Government until shortly before the ACW to a great extent because they could count three fifths of every slave in the census giving the slave states inordinate power. It was only the massive immigration leading up to the ACW that allowed the anti-slavery northern states to seize control and take effective action against slavery. The northern states were against slavery as far back as the constitutional convention. With the slave state's coordinated political muscle, the anti-slavery states had two unpalatable options. 1) refuse to join the new nation resulting in three hostile states occupying North America instead of two (the British empire's Canada), North USA and South USA. 2) Accept the inferior position and work within the system to reduce the slave state's power and eventually end slavery. If they had accepted option 1, and IF the two USAs had managed to survive a hostile British Empire AND Spain/Mexico you would be a slave, or at best a third-class citizen of the South USA today. Which option do you think the anti-slavery states should have taken IM2?
And speaking FrenchI thought of a third option just now. The militarily weak South USA could have been conquered by Spain/Mexico and you could be a peasant in a very corrupt Mexico today instead of posting here.
Well the agrarian South certainly couldn’t provide many weapons to the Mexicans fighting Emperor Maximilian. The North wouldn’t have any reason to with the entire South as a buffer.And speaking French