Saving History With Sandbags: Climate Change Threatens the Smithsonian (nytimes.com) 125
President Warren Harding's blue silk pajamas. Muhammad Ali's boxing gloves. The Star Spangled Banner, stitched by Betsy Ross. Scripts from the television show "M*A*S*H." Nearly two million irreplaceable artifacts that tell the American story are housed in the National Museum of American History, part of the Smithsonian Institution, the biggest museum complex in the world. Now, because of climate change, the Smithsonian stands out for another reason: Its cherished buildings are extremely vulnerable to flooding, and some could eventually be underwater. From a report: Eleven palatial Smithsonian museums and galleries form a ring around the National Mall, the grand two-mile park lined with elms that stretches from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol. But that land was once marsh. And as the planet warms, the buildings face two threats. Rising seas will eventually push in water from the tidal Potomac River and submerge parts of the Mall, scientists say. More immediately, increasingly heavy rainstorms threaten the museums and their priceless holdings, particularly since many are stored in basements. At the American History Museum, water is already intruding.
It gurgles up through the floor in the basement. It finds the gaps between ground-level windows, puddling around exhibits. It sneaks into the ductwork, then meanders the building and drips onto display cases. It creeps through the ceiling in locked collection rooms, thief-like, and pools on the floor. Staff have been experimenting with defenses: Candy-red flood barriers lined up outside windows. Sensors that resemble electronic mouse traps, deployed throughout the building, that trigger alarms when wet. Plastic bins on wheels, filled with a version of cat litter, to be rushed back and forth to soak up the water. So far, the museum's holdings have escaped damage. But "We're kind of in trial and error," said Ryan Doyle, a facilities manager at the Smithsonian. "It's about managing water." An assessment of the Smithsonian's vulnerabilities, released last month, reveals the scale of the challenge: Not only are artifacts stored in basements in danger, but floods could knock out electrical and ventilation systems in the basements that keep the humidity at the right level to protect priceless art, textiles, documents and specimens on display. Of all its facilities, the Smithsonian ranks American History as the most vulnerable, followed by its next door neighbor, the National Museum of Natural History.
It gurgles up through the floor in the basement. It finds the gaps between ground-level windows, puddling around exhibits. It sneaks into the ductwork, then meanders the building and drips onto display cases. It creeps through the ceiling in locked collection rooms, thief-like, and pools on the floor. Staff have been experimenting with defenses: Candy-red flood barriers lined up outside windows. Sensors that resemble electronic mouse traps, deployed throughout the building, that trigger alarms when wet. Plastic bins on wheels, filled with a version of cat litter, to be rushed back and forth to soak up the water. So far, the museum's holdings have escaped damage. But "We're kind of in trial and error," said Ryan Doyle, a facilities manager at the Smithsonian. "It's about managing water." An assessment of the Smithsonian's vulnerabilities, released last month, reveals the scale of the challenge: Not only are artifacts stored in basements in danger, but floods could knock out electrical and ventilation systems in the basements that keep the humidity at the right level to protect priceless art, textiles, documents and specimens on display. Of all its facilities, the Smithsonian ranks American History as the most vulnerable, followed by its next door neighbor, the National Museum of Natural History.
DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh you mean that swamp... no we haven't drained that yet either...
Re: DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So Drain the Swamp. Like we did in the Netherlands. Since a lot of our land is under sea level, managing the water table is a constant necessity. Come ask us how.
Ya, but that would require thought, long-term planning, effort and probably taxes, all of which Americans loath to pay and some politicians are loath to levy -- both even for worthwhile objectives. Everyone wants what *they* want, for free, no one want to pay for stuff they don't personally care about and/or doesn't directly affect them.
Perhaps we haven't gotten through the "me" vs. "us" stage of development, which would explain why we're having so much trouble with "us" vs. "them" ... (sigh)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we haven't gotten through the "me" vs. "us" stage of development, which would explain why we're having so much trouble with "us" vs. "them" ... (sigh)
This is why you need kindergartens. That's precisely what you learn there.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we haven't gotten through the "me" vs. "us" stage of development, which would explain why we're having so much trouble with "us" vs. "them" ... (sigh)
This is why you need kindergartens. That's precisely what you learn there.
Judging by how many people are behaving, looks like we'll need bigger desks in kindergartens so we can send some people back for a refresher. Current events make me think about this exchange in The Good Place [wikipedia.org], S3:E4, "The Snowplow":
Simone: As humans evolved, the first big problem we had to overcome was "me versus us." Learning to sacrifice a little individual freedom for the benefit of a group. You know, like sharing food and resources so we don't starve or get eaten by tigers, things like that.
Eleanor: Okay, with you so far.
Simone: The next problem to overcome was "us versus them," trying to see other groups different from ours as equals. That one, we're still struggling with. That's why we have racism and nationalism and... why fans of Stone Cold Steve Austin hate fans of The Rock.
Eleanor: No, we hate The Rock because he went Hollywood, and Stone Cold keeps it real, so The Rock's fans are the real jabronis. Point made. Keep going.
Learning to sacrifice a little individual freedom for the benefit of the group -- like wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated ... Just my $0.02.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Trump did drain the swamp to his credit. It's just well, he ended up refilling it with even more muck.
Re:DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be wary of anyone who conceives of the district as "The Swamp", and really, really wants to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
You should be wary of anyone who conceives of the district as "The Swamp", and really, really wants to go there.
The strange paradox of the Republican party, a hatred of Government with a deep white hot loathing, but they really really really want to be the government, and want total power in it.
Re: (Score:2)
is true for all values of x.
Re: (Score:2)
[x] wants to limit the power of their opponents, while maximizing their own. is true for all values of x.
It does not follow however that all values of x are identical.
Xd -does not claim to want to reduce the size of Guvmint to where they can drown it in the bathtub. So there is no paradox in that case.
Xr on the other hand does.
As well, all values of x are proficient liars, The paradox remains when you claim unproven fraud in order to force your way into ruling when you claim to hate it.
Therefore it does follow that having a deep desire to be what you claim to hate is a verifiable act of dissembling.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans can't really want government so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub, because if that were the case, well, those damn dirty Dems would be dropping planned parenthood leaflets from the skies, or teaching our kids that there are steps that can be taken to prevent teen pregnancy.
No political party wants government small enough to drown in a tub. They want govern
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean to imply that they're identical, merely that the paradox should be self evident without knowing anything about them. Republicans can't really want government so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub, because if that were the case, well, those damn dirty Dems would be dropping planned parenthood leaflets from the skies, or teaching our kids that there are steps that can be taken to prevent teen pregnancy. No political party wants government small enough to drown in a tub. They want government that enforces their mores, and prevents anyone else from imposing incompatible ones upon them. This was the case back when the Dems were the dipshit racists too.
Who are now the people in control of the Republican Party, the former Dixiecrats.
The Kennedy's moved the Dems too far to unacceptable Southern values when they got behind things like Integration and equal rights, then Johnson really pissed them off with his "Great Society".
The Southern Democrats were just as racist as when they used to own people, but were still much butthurt by their second place finish in the Great War of Northern Agression. And no way they would be Republicans for a long time. So
Re: DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:3)
Re:DC will always be a Swamp. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every decrepit building suffering groundwater intrusion is because of climate change. DC has had heavy storms for centuries. The difference now is that there's so much hard surface where the water can't soak in to the ground that it all flows (and overflows) towards the rivers. I don't know what the future holds but blaming current DC basement flooding on climate change is patently absurd.
It's like.... (Score:2)
It's like the opening scenes of a disaster movie.... but a disaster movie that plays out over years, instead of a couple of hours.
Are we all just going to be boiled frogs?
Or perhaps drowned frogs....
Re: (Score:3)
And as usual there's that scientist that tells everyone about the impending doom, but nobody bothers to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
The "impending doom" of 2cm of sea level rise per century? Here's your thought experriment: find photographs of the Statue of Liberty from the water when it was erected in 1886 and compare it to 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you don't have to convince me, I already don't give a fuck about your planet. I have no kids and it will somehow last the maybe 30 years I have left, why'd I give a fuck about what happens after that?
Re: It's like.... (Score:2)
Because youâ(TM)re not an asshole?
Re: (Score:2)
Rats, he knows my weak spot.
Re: It's like.... (Score:2)
So, California basically burned to the ground, Texas had extreme weather (which scientists also predicted), Siberia is still burning⦠but youâ(TM)re gonna cherry-pick one of the few statistics that is less of a problem than expected?
Btw sea-level rise will absolutely be a problem, in Florida it already is, pacific islands too. Itâ(TM)s only a matter of time, might be 100s of years, but still a problem for most coastal areas.
New rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people already know this. Now the Smithsonian will need to learn it, too:
Never store anything in the basement unless you don't care whether you lose when the basement floods.
Re:New rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just don't reclaim swamp land and then build a building with basement storage on that reclaimed land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sank into the swamp (Score:2)
So climate change works in both directions. (Score:3)
Not only does it eliminate our future but also our past.
Vulnerable artifacts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vulnerable artifacts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The Appalachian Mountains are quite near by, and they have been there for 480 million years. Nothing important should be built in a swamp. It's going to sink.
Or burn down and then sink. And if you get a big enough pile of rubble so the castle stops sinking you end up with an out of tune singer and kill crazy knight at your wedding. It's just not worth it.
Re: Vulnerable artifacts? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a story like this is someone trying to take credit for pointing out to the public what I'm certain everyone that works in the 100 year-old building already knows - it leaks.
They want credit for declaring a crisis before the Smithsonian does their planned maintenance, so they can pretend they and they alone are responsible for 'saving our history'.
This 'crisis' is decades away and easily avoidable, but with sufficient hand waving and yelling of 'climate change' they get taken seriously, as countless journalists and bloggers jump on the virtue-signaling train and repetition reinforces the imagined 'crisis'.
Re: Vulnerable artifacts? (Score:2)
Re: Vulnerable artifacts? (Score:3)
Fiddling around will not cure the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change will hit many things, we can spend a lot of money & protect for a while but, long term, places like the Smithsonian are doomed. The real fix is to move them somewhere else - higher ground. The costs will be huge but only those with eyes tightly shut did not see this coming. This is why the many politicians and business lobbyists who watered down targets at COP26 [consortiumnews.com] really need to be held to account.
Other low lying places to abandon: New Orleans [vice.com], New York [wikipedia.org], London [timeout.com], I could go on ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like most things in Washington DC, it's not that simple and has nothing to do with the Capitol Dome.
See here: https://www.ncpc.gov/about/aut... [ncpc.gov]
The actual entry in the Federal Register: https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/Heig... [ncpc.gov]
What has climate to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Old building, storage in the basement, water falls mysteriously from the sky. So climate is to blame if I have an old rotten building and put everything in the basement. While we're at it, lets blame gravity which pulls all the water to the basement.
In Africa they would have been happy with some ground water but here it has to be sucked dry lest it damages some dusty books.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously you didn't read the summary.
The Potomac is a tidal river and as the ocean water levels rise (due to climate change and melting icecaps/glaciers) the level of the tide waters is going to rise. Eventually it will rise enough to flood the Mall where the Smithsonian is located.
The rising ocean levels also rise the underground water table and since the Smithsonian is built on former swamp land the water table is already close to (higher?) than the level of the basements thus increasing water encroachme
Re: (Score:2)
The autists are certainly out in force today.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your citation for this claim? Swampy lands are much more likely to sink faster than a surrounding sea will rise, I would think.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think this would actually need a citation. Unless the area is constricted by a circle of solid rock then the water table has to rise if the ocean levels rise. If you don't see how that is possible just imagine that the ocean level rises enough for the whole area to be under 6ft of water. Do you think the water table would still only be at the point it is currently (again barring any natural or artificial barrier to the rising water)?
As for the swampy area sinking faster than the ocean levels rising
Climate change? Try fixing the roof. (Score:2)
Old buildings (Score:2)
This is getting silly, the Smithsonian can be described as a collection of largely century-old building, some of which may have leaky basements. Leaky basements can be fixed, "history" isn't at risk.
And I'm pretty sure before the national mall floods at least one of the thousands of career Smithsonian workers will suggest moving these 'sacred' items to higher ground.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just a leaky basement.
The ground around and under the complex is inundated with water, as it's all landfill.
So simply digging it out and sealing the basements won't ACTUALLY fix the problem.
There's just way too much hydraulic pressure.
And you can't undermine to seal the floors.
Well, you COULD. But the engineering for such a project would be expensive, even for a government like the US, which is just printing money like its going out of style.
It'd probably be more economical to tear down and rebu
The nation's attic? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the Smithsonian was supposed to be "the nation's attic".
Now you tell me the stuff is actually in the nation's basement?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing critical in it to speak of though, so I don't know where the fuck you pulled that synopsis from.
That's not to say there isn't anything to criticize, but my guess is that www.smithsonianmag.com isn't really in the "Criticizing the Smithsonian" business.
Oh for chrissakes (Score:1)
These people are either ignorant of, or just completely glossing over the fact that, historically, the DC area is SWAMPLAND (like Chicago and New Orleans are).
So it's all high water tables, landfills, and low elevations around sea level.
Nowadays, our building codes generally either prohibit, or highly discourage such behavior. There is SOME reclamation land, but usually done with a more modern understanding of "just dump crap in there until the water disappears".
Re: (Score:2)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Try a little harder.
Maybe you'll be funny next time...
Smithsonian at the Mall is mostly exhibit halls (Score:4, Informative)
Only a small fraction of the Smithsonian's holdings are actually stored at the museums on the National Mall. The museums there are mostly comprised of exhibit space. The vast majority of the items in the Smithsonian's collections are stored at offsite facilities -- 40% are stored at the Museum Support Center [wikipedia.org] in Suitland, Maryland, and the remainder at other offsite facilities.
The National Mall and a lot of downtown Washington D.C. was built on low-lying, reclaimed swamp land (specifically, the Washington City Canal and Tiber Creek) and so the area has been flood-prone since it was built [mallhistory.org]. Flooding there isn't new and certainly doesn't surprise anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand what they mean is that flooding in that area is likely to get a whole lot worse in the foreseeable future, the odds are good you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The National Mall and a lot of downtown Washington D.C. was built on low-lying, reclaimed swamp land
This simply isn't true. For the life of me, I can't figure out where this myth originated.
Parts of the mall area were definitely reclaimed land (the land south and west of the mall used to be marsh), but most of it was land "when they got there", with an elevation of between 30-50 feet above the Potomac, and nothing remotely approaching resemblance to a swamp.
Artifacts and structures are not the Republic. (Score:2)
Objects can be moved and structures can be rebuilt or replaced.
Cities CHANGE. Adapt and build better. If we want a structure visually and materially identical to one that's lost, build it! Western Europe recovered nicely from two world wars doing just that.
It really is that simple. Overthinking is silly. If you want engineering, pay engineers. If you want structures, pay other humans to build them. The US is amply rich especially right now.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even need to build a copy, just move all the buildings. If we could do it at Abu Simbel [wikipedia.org], we can do it to the Smithsonian.
Except it isn't rising on the East Coast (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. The DC Mall is built upon infill, so my guess is that the land would sink faster than any waters would rise.
Stuff is stored in the basement, what can we do? (Score:2)
So let's see, there is stuff stored in the basement and they are concerned about potential water intrusion and damage.
This sounds like a super hard problem but let me take a stab at it. Maybe they could move the stuff out of the basement?
It's pretty bad at National Library of Medicine (Score:2)
It's pretty bad at the National Library of Medicine. NLM lore claims the facility was built in an underground silo with a roof that can collapse upon the building to seal it from nuclear and conventional attack, but groundwater and flooding were apparently not in the design plans. There are water sensors throughout the complex to protect the collection after several water emergencies exposed the oversight.
The easy idea is to store artifacts above ground if they must be kept in flood-prone areas. Not sure
Bullshit (Score:2)
I have lived in dc for over a decade and there is no fâ(TM)ing way that mean sea level increases in the worst case would cause the smithsonian to go underwater. I love climate science but this is some serious fake news bullshit.
Nuclear fission power? (Score:2)
So, will US Congress demand more nuclear fission power to lower CO2 emissions? No? Okay then, they are clearly not taking global warming seriously.
There is ample evidence that nuclear fission power is the safest energy source in human history, it is lower in CO2 than so called "zero carbon" solar power, takes far less material resources and land than any other energy source we have available, and that nuclear power is far more reliable than any other option. Here's but on place to see this evidence: http [blogspot.com]
But that land was once marsh. (Score:2)
Yes, so OBVIOUSLY the fact that the basement is wet is "climate change".
The zealots will buy it and weep piteously unto the (secular) heavens. The rest of us will shrug and say "well obviously it's a hundred year old building in a swamp"
It's not happening overnight (Score:2)
...and flooding risks haven't exploded in a year. No, they have not.
So they will adapt. Seawalls, flood levees, drainage, and all other manner. Mind you, since much of DC was swamp not long ago, building such structures within feet of the likely flood level was never a good idea, and it's a common mistake.
We will adapt, even the big cities will adapt. Have a few consultants over from the Netherlands. They can set you on a course to solve this in a month I bet. But since we've watched DC go from mere seat of
It may seem obvious, but (Score:2)
Why are all these valuable items stored in
the fucking basement, for gods sake?
There are plenty of office towers in DC that could house
the collection in their upper floors.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen Twitter lately? They're also pretty comfortable with myth making about the present.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Excellent point.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like how the English talk about the wonderful British Empire, and how everyone in the British Empire was so grateful to be part of it. This idea of British exceptionalism had gone to a point where they decided to leave a mutually beneficial political and economic alliance, because while they had representation, they didn't always win.
Every country has its myths, and portrays its history in a more positive light. With larger than life heroes, fighting absolutely corrupt and evil adversaries.
They are a lot of Smart People in America, who actually care about actual history, they will study George Washington not as a mythic hero, but as a real flawed human, leading a rather backwater nation, while trying to push some progressive ideas at the time, while also holding onto often conflicting to these ideals traditions, just to keep the nation running, and also his own personal self interest.
While new news, tries to make Americans to be in Full force of Cancel Culture (in both directions) Where the Right are out to stop History from evolving and expanding to include history on how other people were effected. To the Left who is trying to erase the contributions and achievements that many of our Hero's had accomplished, due to them being a flawed individual, and not meeting the modern Hero standard.
What I see in America, is most Americans know there is more than just the myth, and the myth was designed as simple version of history to elementary school kids, so they know what kinda happened and who were the major players. Washington become president because he was very respected and trusted to lead. However, most people really don't care about history, and a lot of the people who are angry about teaching history, is because the media is telling them to be scared of it. And the fact that history is more nuanced and who we thought were the pure Hero's were actually just normal people who did some bad stuff too, has messed with their world view and they feel angry that they are the bad guys.
If you are not in America, how many So an So the Great/Powerful/Wise were really that good? And got what ever success they had with luck, having better resources, or just made it up in some propaganda campaign.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every country has its myths, and portrays its history in a more positive light. With larger than life heroes, fighting absolutely corrupt and evil adversaries.
Mostly, probably. But not Germany, where there still is a very present consciousness of collective guilt due to crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. This is also why militarism and foreign intervention are frowned upon in Germany, and German patriotism, but really patriotism and nationalism in general, is considered suspect.
This is also why, while most Germans have favorable opinions of the USA, and admire it in many respects, there is also some estrangement with US society due to what Germans perceive as exaggerated and deeply nationalist patriotism in the US. Due to German history, such fervor is considered very troubling as a national ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany was brutally beaten in Two World Wars, within a short period of time. WWI, Germans stuck by their history and their national myths, and basically double downed on it, which they felt so superior, that they Started WWII, when that had ended, basically the whole world basically put every German in front of a movie projector and showed them how bad they were.
That was the very rare time, where the looser of the war, realized they lost, and that they were the bad guys. Where most of the time, if you h
Re: (Score:1)
however it wasn't too cheap and easy to allow for counter information to spread.
LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Where most of the time, if you had lost the war, you will often put a twist on it, such as say with the American War of 1820, (America lost! with a large part because of the Canadian Military)
It was the war of 1812, and USA failed the invasion of Canada, but they beat back the triple invasion of the British. In other words, England lost to America, and America lost to Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
America lost! with a large part because of the Canadian Military
Hard to take anything in this post seriously after that.
The US got spanked when trying to invade Canada, and then they pummeled the fuck out of the invading Brits.
Failed to invade a desolate wilderness, successfully defended territory against the most powerful military in the world.
Ya- huge loss.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also why, while most Germans have favorable opinions of the USA, and admire it in many respects, there is also some estrangement with US society due to what Germans perceive as exaggerated and deeply nationalist patriotism in the US. Due to German history, such fervor is considered very troubling as a national ideal.
Is any of that related to what we and our allies did to Germany? Deserved notwithstanding, that was a pretty massive curb stomping.
Re: (Score:2)
To be more accurate, all the truly great German heroes were either Jewish (like Einstein) or Flemish (like Beethoven).
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly, probably. But not Germany, where there still is a very present consciousness of collective guilt due to crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. This is also why militarism and foreign intervention are frowned upon in Germany, and German patriotism, but really patriotism and nationalism in general, is considered suspect.
This is also why, while most Germans have favorable opinions of the USA, and admire it in many respects, there is also some estrangement with US society due to what Germans perceive as exaggerated and deeply nationalist patriotism in the US. Due to German history, such fervor is considered very troubling as a national ideal.
If I understand you correctly, Germans view nationalism and patriotism as good as long as that support has limits; when those two -isms take over rational thought and taint one's view of their country's conduct, that is when they go too far and are detrimental to the country's future. The prime example of that is Nazi Germany of the early 20th century; the nationalism and patriotism furor was so heavy that otherwise sensible Germans didn't see the evils of the Nazi party as such; they supported it because
Re: (Score:2)
News flash, fucker. You don't speak for "Germans"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Does this really matter? (Score:2)
Could you imagine someone like Jeff Bezos liquidating all his money for something other than his own self interest?
Uh, you don't liquidate money, money IS liquid. You liquidate assets, which means you're turning them into money. Washington (and most of the other Founders) actually had quite a bit of land (and slaves) and other non liquid assets but they couldn't liquidate them because nobody had any money to buy them.
So yes, I could easily imagine a narcissist like Bezos using all his available cash to fund a Revolution, setup a new government and become a Hero of the People, and retire to one of his mansions.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how the English talk about the wonderful British Empire
I'm Canadian, so I have one leg of my stool in Britain, one leg in the America, and one in France.
Certainly the Brits have rose-coloured glasses some of the time, but when it comes to thinking their country is so goddamn "star-spangled awesome," that's the USA by a long shot.
Britain doesn't even come close.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Funny)
From what I've seen of Americans, they're far more comfortable with myth-making about their past than learning their own actual history.
Stupid is universal and no country is without it. The difference is American stupids are very loud about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just peruse forums focused on any nationality.
The problem is that people around the world like to peruse US social media platforms and think that Americans are only there in a representative amount.
It's like bitching about your roommate's loud fucking while hiding under his bed. It's fucking creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that Americans really are big-mouths. Ever hear the term "Ugly American"? It isn't about their looks. It's about their behaviour when visiting other countries. Symptoms include proud ignorance, loudly expressed, blatantly uninformed opinions and boorish behaviour.
As for your claim that "people around the world like to peruse US social media platforms", I'll just say this: It's hard to look away from a train wreck.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that Americans really are big-mouths.
Nope. You're just playing around on our toys and pissed off that we're all over the place when you do.
Ever hear the term "Ugly American"? It isn't about their looks.
Nope.
It's about their behaviour when visiting other countries.
Look, I get that we order your women by mail. That is pretty ugly.
Want to hear some of my stereotypes about Europeans visiting the US?
Symptoms include proud ignorance, loudly expressed, blatantly uninformed opinions and boorish behaviour.
Oh shit- you nailed it!
As for your claim that "people around the world like to peruse US social media platforms", I'll just say this: It's hard to look away from a train wreck.
Oh spare me your holier than thou fucking ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned above, I can see you aren't particularly bright. Nor are you even passably well-informed.
Thanks, by the way, for an excellent demonstration of the proud ignorance coupled with drooling, slope-headed stupidity typical of the large minority typically labeled "Ugly American". Do you really need to be whipped back to your kennel again?
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned above, I can see you aren't particularly bright. Nor are you even passably well-informed.
More bad logic from you.
You make these claims, and yet you cannot back them up.
You can't address my argument, so you try to insult my intelligence.
Are you really surrounded by people so fucking stupid that this method of argumentation gets you ahead?
Thanks, by the way, for an excellent demonstration of the proud ignorance coupled with drooling, slope-headed stupidity typical of the large minority typically labeled "Ugly American". Do you really need to be whipped back to your kennel again?
Even more of the same shit. Come on, attack the argument. "You're wrong cuz ur dumb" is fucking weak. Don't be an imbecile.
My guess is that you suffer painful cognitive dissonance between your ethnocentrism and the US dominant position in the world.
You have
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe that nonsense you spew qualifies as an argument?
Re: Does this really matter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
America started in 1619.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be supporting his statement with your comment. Are you really that stupid, or are you trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a three-figure IQ is not among your gifts.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's logically evaluate the discussion.
OP says:
From what I've seen of Americans, they're far more comfortable with myth-making about their past than learning their own actual history. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans believe Washington actually chopped down the cherry tree than that racism in the US still exists.
The primary component of racism (at least in the modern sense), is the antagonism of people based upon their general membership of some group that you dislike.
You'll note that this is highly analogous with any assertion that contains the following logic:
"From what I've seen of X, they're Y"
Whether X == Americans, and Y == myth-making, or X == Blacks, and Y == criminals, the logical error is the
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, buddy, you even fail as a troll. Try to up your game a little.
Question: Is it true Oregon is where Tennessee sends residents too stupid and inbred even for hillbillies to tolerate?
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen of Americans, they're far more comfortable with myth-making about their past than learning their own actual history. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans believe Washington actually chopped down the cherry tree than that racism in the US still exists.
Quoted against the trolls with censor mod points.
Substantive comment on your last bit. I had never heard of Critical Race Theory, but based on the insane reactions against it, I'm now sure it is something I should study. However it's such an obscure topic that I can't even find any books about it. Seems to be some sort of Streisand Effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Nearest hit in my database was The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that. There's a pack of right wing trolls here who never seem to lack for mod points and a willingness to misuse them.
As I understand it, Critical Race Theory is a topic taught in some post-secondary classes as part of a larger subject. I believe it has to do with a demonstrable systemic disadvantage black people face in the United States. The term has been co-opted by right wing loudmouths and redefined as "white man bad, black man good", and used to shut down teaching US public school chi
Re: (Score:2)
Basically concurrence, though I think you could have said "undocumented and illegal guest workers", just for the sake of their illogical consistency.
I guess it's worth noting that if their data ior analyses were valid, then they wouldn't be so desperate to resort to such games as the use of sock puppets with mod points. It's precisely because their BS can't stand on its own that they have to "advertise" ior censor opposing views.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Easily. The Rittenhouse verdict. The fact that he was let out on bond, where a Black man would not have been.
The high number of police killings... of Blacks. When was the last news story of a white man with a gun shot by a number of police?
The very fact that every Black in America, and at least a percentage of the rest of us, know the acronym DWB - overwhelmingly, most, if not all Blacks have been pulled over for "driving while Black" - a coworker was pulled over, because they didn't believe that he could o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. If Rittenhouse was black he certainly wouldn't be taking pictures high fiving cops.
Until that dickhead Q shaman guy was sentenced, the harshest punishment up until then was handed down to a black guy who wasn't even at the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can you give some examples? (Score:3)
Except you'd have to be willfully blind to disregard that the Waukesha murderer was let out on ridiculously low bond ($1000, so he had to pay $100) despite having MULTIPLE OPEN FELONY CHARGES PENDING.
That hardly sounds like a system biased against black people.
Before you insist that a black man shooting someone would never be exonerated like Rittenhouse, you might want to google Andrew Coffee IV. Exonerated the same /day/ as Rittenhouse in fact.
No, you're just a garden variety racist insistent on the victi
Re: (Score:3)
So I'm wondering: can you give some valid examples of racism in the US?
Oh heck yeah, I can.
My neighbor who calls Mexican immigrants "creatures".
The guy I met from the south who says, "blacks are lazy."
Another guy I met from Illinois who asked sincerely, "Do you have much of a negro problem where you're from?"
I would agree that most people in the US are not racist, but if even 10% of the people are racist, that means every week you are going to run into a racist person. If you're the one they are racist against, over time that is really going to drain you mentally/emotionally.