Languish.org

Hopefully this will prove Lettow wrong.

Family doesn't count for purposes of this poll.

I answered based on how I felt in the US (Californian) rather than now (American).

Non-American, don't give much of a damn except social-liberal societal values. If I were to identify with something, it would be that. So I guess that makes me "other".

Family first.

Are you perhaps leaving out loyalty to your ethnic group, which is distinct from your race?  For example someone who identifies with their Irish heritage but couldn't care less about being white?

Or what about political ideology?  I've always felt a great deal of affinity for fellow Conservatives in the US or UK.

I don't know how to answer, because there's no single answer.  At different times I've felt like a Canadian, an Albertan/Manitoban/Yukoner, a Christian, a conservative, and a Ukrainian.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 11:02:34 AM
Family first.

Not a significant enough group, unless you're extending it out so far it becomes race/ethnicity.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:09:09 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 11:02:34 AM
Family first.

Not a significant enough group, unless you're extending it out so far it becomes race/ethnicity.

What if you have a large extended family. I don't think mine could then be counted as race/ethnicity. :unsure:

Family doesn't count. These are meta-labels. Your surname usually represents a couple dozen people who are closely related to you and thousands who aren't. Family is also far more immediate than the other abstractions listed. It's closer to the self than to the collective.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Family doesn't count. These are meta-labels. Your surname usually represents a couple dozen people who are closely related to you and thousands who aren't. Family is also far more immediate than the other abstractions listed. It's closer to the self than to the collective.

Ok then...I do not really know. 'American' I guess.

Don't care much but I voted for Region.

I would kill for America.

I would not kill for Jesus.

Quote from: Phillip V on April 12, 2016, 11:26:06 AM
I would not kill for Jesus.

Well I don't think he would want you to, so...

Love your enemies but kill the bastards anyway. Isn't that what he said?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Family doesn't count. These are meta-labels. Your surname usually represents a couple dozen people who are closely related to you and thousands who aren't. Family is also far more immediate than the other abstractions listed. It's closer to the self than to the collective.

Well I don't think I would use my actual surname. Still group of people even if not one easy name for the collective.

:hmm: lets see:

I am proud to identify as Puerto Rican just as much as I identify as an American.

Maybe you gringos and even international laws or whatever don't consider Puerto Rico to be a country in itself, but in my heart and mind and that of any Boricua, it is a nation. I feel the same love and pride to the USA. I proudly serve that flag.

Holy crap, maybe this is how lettuce feels?  :o

Except he doesn't have the divided loyalties.

Lettuce doesn't love the USA :P

I consider PR a foreign country that is also part of the USA.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:49:24 AM
Except he doesn't have the divided loyalties.

Divided? Can you not be loyal to both?

Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2016, 11:37:54 AM
Well I don't think I would use my actual surname. Still group of people even if not one easy name for the collective.

It's a small group of people that are usually very emotionally attached to each other. As the point of the poll is to ascertain whether people put country or region first, I'm not too keen to learn that everyone puts family ahead of both.  ;)

Quote from: lustindarkness on April 12, 2016, 11:51:09 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:49:24 AM
Except he doesn't have the divided loyalties.

Divided? Can you not be loyal to both?

Ok, dual loyalties?

Just saying, Lettuce considers the US an oppressor.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:53:48 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2016, 11:37:54 AM
Well I don't think I would use my actual surname. Still group of people even if not one easy name for the collective.

It's a small group of people that are usually very emotionally attached to each other. As the point of the poll is to ascertain whether people put country or region first, I'm not too keen to learn that everyone puts family ahead of both.  ;)

I see :P

Well if Texas started a secessionist war I would be on the unionist side. But I think most of you already knew that.

Sorry I cannot change my vote.

I still think "My nationality(American)" would be by vote, but I don't think the gringo that made the poll would agree with me. I will just pretend it reads nationalities.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:54:41 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on April 12, 2016, 11:51:09 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 11:49:24 AM
Except he doesn't have the divided loyalties.

Divided? Can you not be loyal to both?

Ok, dual loyalties?

Just saying, Lettuce considers the US an oppressor.

:thumbsup:

Midwestern Pride y'all!

Kidding.  Nationality of course.  Then again Californians are seriously weird so I do wonder if I should be lumped in with them.

None. I'm not a demographic, I'm an individual.

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2016, 01:58:28 PM
Midwestern Pride y'all!

Kidding.  Nationality of course.  Then again Californians are seriously weird so I do wonder if I should be lumped in with them.

Eh San Francisco is not all of California.

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2016, 11:04:31 AM
Are you perhaps leaving out loyalty to your ethnic group, which is distinct from your race?  For example someone who identifies with their Irish heritage but couldn't care less about being white?

Or what about political ideology?  I've always felt a great deal of affinity for fellow Conservatives in the US or UK.

I don't know how to answer, because there's no single answer.  At different times I've felt like a Canadian, an Albertan/Manitoban/Yukoner, a Christian, a conservative, and a Ukrainian.

I can help - you are a Conservative first, Canadian lastlastlast.

There you go.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
Well if Texas started a secessionist war I would be on the unionist side. But I think most of you already knew that.

Without going to extremes, let's make it simpler, less violent.

The Federal government, and the most populous States (with the most representatives in the House) propose a law that they believe is very beneficial to a part of the US but is actually very detrimental, at least in the short-mid term to Texas.  Somehow, they managed to convince just enough senators to vote for it and it comes in effect.  Texas is on the war path, it won't let itself be destroyed like that (not to be taken literally, this is not a repeat of 1860).

Who do you side with?

Same for BB.  The NDP comes into power and pushes for a complete stop to oil production in Canada.  7 provinces out of 10 think this is a great move, we can live free of slaves- I mean, oil, sorry ;)  One province, BC, is on the fence.  They are somewhat sympathetic to Alberta's desires to export its natural resource.

The NPD has the support of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois; only the Conservative Party, with a solid base in Alberta, half the ridings in Saskatchewan and a few other MPs here&there opposes the move.

Alberta is on the war path.  Talks of secession increases.  The Wild Rose party is now proposing seperation on its official platform.  There is talk of an alliance between them and the alberta Cons to overthrow the minority NPD government before the 1st budget.  The Wild Rose and Cons make no guarantee they will not propose seperation, if the law is officially sanctionned in its current form. 

The Federal government refuses to move on the subject, and they use all their pressure to block any attempts from Alberta to finance itself on the canadian markets to further develop its economy by building a pipeline through the rockies.

Where does your loyalty lies?  With the rightfully, democratically elected of your country that wants to screw you?

Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 02:35:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2016, 11:04:31 AM
Are you perhaps leaving out loyalty to your ethnic group, which is distinct from your race?  For example someone who identifies with their Irish heritage but couldn't care less about being white?

Or what about political ideology?  I've always felt a great deal of affinity for fellow Conservatives in the US or UK.

I don't know how to answer, because there's no single answer.  At different times I've felt like a Canadian, an Albertan/Manitoban/Yukoner, a Christian, a conservative, and a Ukrainian.

I can help - you are a Conservative first, Canadian lastlastlast.

There you go.

:lol:

I actually have some difficulty answering the question.  I am not sure what group I most closely identify with.  If forced to it I would probably say the West Coast of North America.  So not really a region or a nation but fairly close cultural ties throughout.

Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2016, 02:53:55 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
Well if Texas started a secessionist war I would be on the unionist side. But I think most of you already knew that.

Without going to extremes, let's make it simpler, less violent.

The Federal government, and the most populous States (with the most representatives in the House) propose a law that they believe is very beneficial to a part of the US but is actually very detrimental, at least in the short-mid term to Texas.  Somehow, they managed to convince just enough senators to vote for it and it comes in effect.  Texas is on the war path, it won't let itself be destroyed like that (not to be taken literally, this is not a repeat of 1860).

Who do you side with?

Same for BB.  The NDP comes into power and pushes for a complete stop to oil production in Canada.  7 provinces out of 10 think this is a great move, we can live free of slaves- I mean, oil, sorry ;)  One province, BC, is on the fence.  They are somewhat sympathetic to Alberta's desires to export its natural resource.

The NPD has the support of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois; only the Conservative Party, with a solid base in Alberta, half the ridings in Saskatchewan and a few other MPs here&there opposes the move.

Alberta is on the war path.  Talks of secession increases.  The Wild Rose party is now proposing seperation on its official platform.  There is talk of an alliance between them and the alberta Cons to overthrow the minority NPD government before the 1st budget.  The Wild Rose and Cons make no guarantee they will not propose seperation, if the law is officially sanctionned in its current form. 

The Federal government refuses to move on the subject, and they use all their pressure to block any attempts from Alberta to finance itself on the canadian markets to further develop its economy by building a pipeline through the rockies.

Where does your loyalty lies?  With the rightfully, democratically elected of your country that wants to screw you?

Are you suggesting this as some kind of hypothetical?  Because literally nothing like this is happening.

QuoteThe Federal government, and the most populous States (with the most representatives in the House) propose a law that they believe is very beneficial to a part of the US but is actually very detrimental, at least in the short-mid term to Texas.  Somehow, they managed to convince just enough senators to vote for it and it comes in effect.  Texas is on the war path, it won't let itself be destroyed like that (not to be taken literally, this is not a repeat of 1860).

Who do you side with?

Well if Bernie comes to power and destroys NAFTA, as he has promised, we might get that scenario :P

If Texas was opposing such a move by constitutional means I would, of course, be supportive. But secession is un-constitutional so...there we go. Also secession to reduce trade barriers seems hilariously counter-productive.

Can't really see myself as a United Kingdomer, given it's a somewhat artificial construct liable to fall apart at any moment (thanks Dave).

Being described as a Brit would work for ethnicity, English would be too narrow and inaccurate for me and others given the amount of intermarrying between the four nations in these isles.

But probably the ill-defined region where I live is what I most strongly identify with, though no doubt that's a similarly artificial construct or perhaps a token of whimsy, say closer to Hardy country than to Alfred's Wessex.

In order of priority: Bernician - British - European - English if there's a major sporting event on and it catches my attention - Irish if I want to wind up Irish Americans or claim to be foreign for some nefarious reason 

Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2016, 04:26:20 PM
Bernician

What's that mean?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 04:33:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2016, 04:26:20 PM
Bernician

What's that mean?

Do you think they'll ever invent programmes or stuff that just, like, looks stuff up on the internet? :unsure:

I think we should make a rule that only the person asked the question is allowed to be snarky and say "just google it".

Flemish off course. Part of the dustbin of Western Europe

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 04:42:57 PM
I think we should make a rule that only the person asked the question is allowed to be snarky and say "just google it".

:blush:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2016, 04:33:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2016, 04:26:20 PM
Bernician

What's that mean?

Maybe he feels the Bern? :unsure: Who knows? Tyr doesn't speak English, so we never know what he is saying.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Northumbria.rise.600.700.jpg)

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
Are you suggesting this as some kind of hypothetical?  Because literally nothing like this is happening.

Hypothetical yes.  Likely to happen?  Of course not. The Federal government would never side against an english speaking provinces.

But many actions were taken against Quebec interests in the past, even under a Conservative government.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 03:10:31 PM

QuoteThe Federal government, and the most populous States (with the most representatives in the House) propose a law that they believe is very beneficial to a part of the US but is actually very detrimental, at least in the short-mid term to Texas.  Somehow, they managed to convince just enough senators to vote for it and it comes in effect.  Texas is on the war path, it won't let itself be destroyed like that (not to be taken literally, this is not a repeat of 1860).

Who do you side with?

Well if Bernie comes to power and destroys NAFTA, as he has promised, we might get that scenario :P

If Texas was opposing such a move by constitutional means I would, of course, be supportive. But secession is un-constitutional so...there we go.

of course, I said this was not 1860, it was not a secession in your case. :)

QuoteAlso secession to reduce trade barriers seems hilariously counter-productive.

An independant Texas could negotiate its own trade deals with Mexico and Latin America.

Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2016, 05:05:53 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Northumbria.rise.600.700.jpg)

You feel like you belong in an ancient kingdom?

Yo soy Americano.

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 04:16:04 PM
somewhat artificial construct

What the fuck does 'artificial' mean in the context of social group identities? They are all made up.

Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2016, 06:16:53 PM
An independant Texas could negotiate its own trade deals with Mexico and Latin America.

And add another country that would be fucking everything up by pursuing its own politically convenient interests. Besides there is a roughly 0% chance people who think like me would be running an independent Texas  :lol:

That being self-evident I don't see why I would support this.

Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2016, 06:35:38 PM
You feel like you belong in an ancient kingdom?

Mercia shall rise from the ashes -_-

Out of the categories given it's my nationality. I don't live in my home region or state anymore, don't have a religion and being white only matters when I am in non-European countries on vacation.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 07:16:01 PM
Mercia shall rise from the ashes -_-

Now that's a kingdom I've destroyed over and over and over again in CK2. :menace:

Rust Belter for lack of a better term?  I guess you would file that under "regional"

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 07:10:55 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 04:16:04 PM
somewhat artificial construct

What the fuck does 'artificial' mean in the context of social group identities? They are all made up.

The UK isn't a social group identity, you'll very rarely hear us referring to each other in terms of the political/monarchial entity that it is.

Remember last year it nearly ceased to exist and this year posh Dave is having another go at perhaps consigning it to history's curio section alongside Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and India (as in the sub-continent). In that respect it's rather un-like America.

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
The UK isn't a social group identity, you'll very rarely hear us referring to each other in terms of the political/monarchial entity that it is.

You have a flag you proudly covered the world with. You fought together through countless wars. You have been united for over 300 years. Hundreds of thousands of people of Scottish descent live in England so it is not even an ethnic thing. What does it take over there in Euro-land? And you expect to be able to integrate immigrants when it takes longer than 300 years to integrate yourselves?

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 08:28:33 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
The UK isn't a social group identity, you'll very rarely hear us referring to each other in terms of the political/monarchial entity that it is.

You have a flag you proudly covered the world with. You fought together through countless wars. You have been united for over 300 years. Hundreds of thousands of people of Scottish descent live in England so it is not even an ethnic thing. What does it take over there in Euro-land? And you expect to be able to integrate immigrants when it takes longer than 300 years to integrate yourselves?

I think the discussion has reached a natural conclusion if you're going to intentional ignore my point, which was a narrow one about the current or indeed concluding nature of the United Kingdom.

One last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes? 

QuoteIn that respect it's rather un-like America.

Well you cannot really compare anything like what we have to Czechoslavakia or Yugoslavia. Those nations never had a chance. During WWII the Germans tore apart both by manipulating the ethnic divisions. It would have been incredible if they had survived.

I am not sure what you mean by India the subcontinent. It was only that when you guys were keeping everything together :P

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:34:57 PM
I think the discussion has reached a natural conclusion if you're going to intentional ignore my point, which was a narrow one about the current or indeed concluding nature of the United Kingdom.

So...is there a British identity then? I know Northern Ireland is a tricky deal.

QuoteOne last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes? 

We have stuff like that in America. I may have just been giving you a hard time for being a snob about how Americans don't have stuff. We have separatists. We even have ethnic separatists. Check out the Canadian thread sometime.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 08:41:24 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:34:57 PM
I think the discussion has reached a natural conclusion if you're going to intentional ignore my point, which was a narrow one about the current or indeed concluding nature of the United Kingdom.

So...is there a British identity then? I know Northern Ireland is a tricky deal.

QuoteOne last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes? 

We have stuff like that in America. I may have just been giving you a hard time for being a snob about how Americans don't have stuff. We have separatists. We even have ethnic separatists. Check out the Canadian thread sometime.

How on earth did you read that into what I posted?

The ony point I was making with regard to the US was it's a much, much stronger political construct or endeavour, than the current state of the UK.

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:45:54 PM
The ony point I was making with regard to the US was it's a much, much stronger political construct or endeavour, than the current state of the UK.

Maybe. These days I am not sure sure. You know how these things go. Our politics and culture is becoming very divided. Probably won't mean anything and I guess it is a blessing it is not fully regional.

QuoteHow on earth did you read that into what I posted?

I don't know. I was feeling salty.

I'd probably say nationality, and then state/region, mostly in illogical competitive jest...just like I support all my military brothers/sisters, but the USAF is still better than any stinkin' Marine/grunt.  :P

So, Washington is best state, Oregon is our okay, dorky sibling that cannot pump their own gas, and West coast far better than East coast, etc.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 08:41:24 PM
We have stuff like that in America. I may have just been giving you a hard time for being a snob about how Americans don't have stuff. We have separatists. We even have ethnic separatists. Check out the Canadian thread sometime.

Yeah, we still have "the South", even though becoming more of a concept than just a region and becoming more diffused as time goes on, spilling into the "New Confederacy" of the Midwest(Kansas, Nebraska, and the like) as Virginia and North Carolina start to gentrify with New Yorkers. Lulz, suck it, Lettuce.

Texas is its own bullshit.

Not really a whole lot of regional identity here.  You just can't go all "Yay, Maryland."  Just doesn't work.  That's like going, "Yay, medium", or "Yay, scent-free hypoallergenic laundry detergent."

What about any Baltimore > Philly > NYC dynamic at least?  :P

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 12, 2016, 09:33:58 PM
What about any Baltimore > Philly > NYC dynamic at least?  :P

Oh, yeah. It's dynamic, alright.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
Texas is its own bullshit.

Oh its bullshit alright. But we are also being colonized at a quick rate.

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 09:45:46 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
Texas is its own bullshit.

Oh its bullshit alright. But we are also being colonized at a quick rate.

I interviewed for two gigs in Houston last year.  I would've gone if I had scored them, but it's not breaking my heart that I didn't, either. 

I've heard nobody except for CdM  talk about a "New Confederacy" that encompasses those regions. The South is shrinking, not expanding. North Carolina and Virginia are not being "gentrified", they are being colonized. The settlement of Dixie by Yankee colonists has been accelerating in the last few decades and augurs dire portents, but at the very least they have been very reluctant to settle Mississippi.

Kansas is of course rightful Southern land that was stolen by the sinister efforts of the New England Emigrant Aid Company, but there was never any meaningful dominance of Southern culture in that province.

Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2016, 09:53:54 PM
I've heard nobody except for CdM  talk about a "New Confederacy" that encompasses those regions.

Their politics tell you everything you need to know about them.  They just don't smack of your typical Dixie at first glance, what with the dearth of Coloreds Not Appearing In This Picture.

Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2016, 09:53:54 PM
Kansas is of course rightful Southern land that was stolen by the sinister efforts of the New England Emigrant Aid Company, but there was never any meaningful dominance of Southern culture in that province.

How do you figure? California was the southern land that got stolen. Kansas was north of the Missouri compromise line.

 Kansas, adjacent to Missouri, and with a yankee lodestone for settlement directly north, should have naturally developed as an appendage of the South, and seemed set to do so before the issue was politicized and the fix was set in.

It is also true that the valorous contributions of the South in the war against Mexico were rewarded with false-dealing and a determination to block Southern expansion, and that in a more rosy world we might have claimed at least Arizona, New Mexico, and part of California. 

It merited a map, so I quickly made one.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVzfC2X1.png&hash=d0094796ce4b1a5f1d2fc4bf69f0ffe178c49fe5)

Grey is unqualifiedly Southern; Red denotes foul tories to be shunned and marked for what they are. Blue areas are lost to yankee colonization, but were once Southern. Purple is Texas, which has a complicated relationship with the rest of the South. Orange areas are border regions that are essentially Southern, but have a differing experience to draw upon and exist at the fringes of the great Southern civilization. Somewhat suspect.

Green represents areas the South has had a claim to at some point, and would ideally would have joined themselves to an independent Southern nation.

During your tea ceremonies every afternoon, does the tea scoop double as a genital cuff, or is that something different? 

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:45:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2016, 08:41:24 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:34:57 PM
I think the discussion has reached a natural conclusion if you're going to intentional ignore my point, which was a narrow one about the current or indeed concluding nature of the United Kingdom.

So...is there a British identity then? I know Northern Ireland is a tricky deal.

QuoteOne last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes? 

We have stuff like that in America. I may have just been giving you a hard time for being a snob about how Americans don't have stuff. We have separatists. We even have ethnic separatists. Check out the Canadian thread sometime.

How on earth did you read that into what I posted?

The ony point I was making with regard to the US was it's a much, much stronger political construct or endeavour, than the current state of the UK.

Yes, he should have known you were making a throwaway mongers point but somehow he got suckered in

An interesting question. I think I consider myself the part of Latin (as opposed to, Cyryllic) European culture.

Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 02:07:35 AM
An interesting question. I think I consider myself the part of Latin (as opposed to, Cyryllic) European culture.

My fellow Latin!

Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2016, 06:35:38 PM

Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2016, 05:05:53 PM
[img width=985 height=1024]https://
You feel like you belong in an ancient kingdom?

The north east remains a very culturally distinct area with a strong regional identity.
Bernicia sounds sexier than north east.

Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 02:07:35 AM
I think I consider myself the part of Latin (as opposed to, Cyryllic) European culture.

Quote of the day, Speedos Gonzales.

Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 02:07:35 AM
An interesting question. I think I consider myself the part of Latin (as opposed to, Cyryllic) European culture.

Okay, sweetie.

"Nationality". I feel a strong attachment to that, more so than any particular group or region within the nation.

Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2016, 09:53:54 PM
I've heard nobody except for CdM  talk about a "New Confederacy" that encompasses those regions. The South is shrinking, not expanding. North Carolina and Virginia are not being "gentrified", they are being colonized. The settlement of Dixie by Yankee colonists has been accelerating in the last few decades and augurs dire portents, but at the very least they have been very reluctant to settle Mississippi.

Kansas is of course rightful Southern land that was stolen by the sinister efforts of the New England Emigrant Aid Company, but there was never any meaningful dominance of Southern culture in that province.

how would you differentiate a Yankee from a Southerner?  dialect aside, what makes one a true southern boy as opposes to a Yankee colonist after 3 generations?

Quote from: Lettow77 on April 12, 2016, 10:22:52 PM
Kansas, adjacent to Missouri, and with a yankee lodestone for settlement directly north, should have naturally developed as an appendage of the South, and seemed set to do so before the issue was politicized and the fix was set in.

Again...what are you talking about? It was long understood that it was to be a slavery free zone. It was the California Gold Rush that screwed that plan over. And last I checked the fix involved voting shenanigans on the part of the Missourians.

Quotet is also true that the valorous contributions of the South in the war against Mexico were rewarded with false-dealing and a determination to block Southern expansion, and that in a more rosy world we might have claimed at least Arizona, New Mexico, and part of California. 

No it was well understood that all the land south of the Missouri Compromise line was going to be slave territory. Then the Gold Rush happened.

But remember the North opposed the war against Mexico because it was primarily going to be one for slave land. They were eventually calmed by assurances that most of the land was desert so nothing to worry about. Then everything got thrown out of whack.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2016, 09:51:45 PM
I interviewed for two gigs in Houston last year.  I would've gone if I had scored them, but it's not breaking my heart that I didn't, either. 

Seedy in Texas.  Now that'd be a sight.

Imagine the complaints he'd have when October rolls around and it's still summer.

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:34:57 PM
One last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes?

Just out of curiosity, given this, is Lord Byron considered a Scottish poet, an English poet or a British poet?

Quote from: Savonarola on April 13, 2016, 12:32:20 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 12, 2016, 08:34:57 PM
One last go, simply put many people in England would not be that bothered if Scotland or Northern Ireland spun off into a different orbit. And as we know many, perhaps not a majority of Scots actively want to see it ended. This is rather different to things in America, yes?

Just out of curiosity, given this, is Lord Byron considered a Scottish poet, an English poet or a British poet?

Gordon Ramsay: foul-mouthed Scot, English, or British celebrity chef? :P

English soccer player.

Quote from: derspiess on April 13, 2016, 10:30:04 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2016, 09:51:45 PM
I interviewed for two gigs in Houston last year.  I would've gone if I had scored them, but it's not breaking my heart that I didn't, either. 

Seedy in Texas.  Now that'd be a sight.

Hey man, I would've bought a Stetson and put a big ass Longhorn hood ornament on the Jeep and everything.  But that heat is just fucking bullshit.

Just trying to get as far above the 40th parallel as possible.

London, south. But not the posh bits west of Clapham or the racist bits in the south-east or the Croydon wastelands. The bit of South London where your local pub has a banned list like this (this really is one of my locals).

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepoke.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2Fpub.jpg&hash=f6fdf3b82f5b47d63b773d3fde059caf47b00132)

London south of the river. :x

Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2016, 07:20:19 AM
London south of the river. :x

ooooh it's not Hoxton.

Quote from: Gups on April 14, 2016, 07:40:53 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2016, 07:20:19 AM
London south of the river. :x

ooooh it's not Hoxton.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to live there either.

That's a good list, I would not want any of those fucks at my house either.

I see Shielbh snuck in on Sunday  :)

lol

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2016, 08:51:46 AM
I see Shielbh snuck in on Sunday  :)

And I see Jaron is going by the nick "Jason".  ;)

Other: None

So, garbon is the Vitriolic Queen, I presume?

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
So, garbon is the Vitriolic Queen, I presume?

I'm afraid I don't really go to drinking establishments south of Vauxhall, so unlikely.