this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1277 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

6355 readers
2098 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 74 points 1 week ago (3 children)

A lot of people here thinking the USA is speed running fascism here.

No, the USA was always an inspiration to fascism (just ask the remaining Native Americans as an example).

That's why it was able to adopt into it so quick. Not that hard to change a car to gasoline if it was already running on diesel.

[โ€“] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Not that hard to change a car to gasoline if it was already running on diesel.

Is almost a good analogy, but that's not so easy ๐Ÿ˜…

[โ€“] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Frying fat would have been better, because most older diesels run on it out of the box.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who gets their frying fat in a box?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Every restaurant I've seen with a fryer installed. Jugs don't stack well, everything comes in boxes at the production level.

[โ€“] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well it did take awhile, but it's definitely easier than turning a horse into an electric car

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

just have to replace the engine, how hard could it be? /s

better analogy would be converting a (relatively modern) gas engine to E85, it's simpler, from what i understand

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yep, but to be fair, he's not an expert in archaeology, so probably he didn't realise.

[โ€“] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

Before WW2 broke out, the New York Times LOVED Mussolini. They kept pumping out articles about how much of a cool guy he was.

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

What if we called the original people Americans, and the newcomers immigrant Americans?

Clarity: Native American -> American

American -> Immigrant American

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All life on land is an immigrant is it not?

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not really. Those are human made concepts, so you must start from the inception of the concept of immigration. Good luck finding the exact date, since it predates written language :/

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Well since dates are human concepts as well we can just state it is immigration date 00/00/0000. Are the months or days first? That's up to you, haha. You make a good point, but you understand what I mean. If we consider immigration only being the integration into another state permanently then we would have to say we had mostly open immigration into the U.S. until the later parts of the 1800s. The first 99 years there were no real immigration laws here. (So roughly 40% of our history had no immigration restrictions for the most part)

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Because "American" is not their word for themselves. It is the Latinized last name of the Italian explorer (Amerigo Vespucci) who explored the continents.

It would be offensively ironic to name the original dwellers of this land mass after the guy, it would be assimilation.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And due to the transitive property of humans, if we follow this through to its logical conclusion then native Americans are immigrant Americans too

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Which is why "indigenous" is the best word in my opinion. Not just for the indigenous Americans, but for indigenous people the world over. It's generally understood to mean "pre-colonial."

Edit: The only exception I can think of is that the Vikings settled Greenland before the Thule (who became the Greenland Inuit), but Danes are not considered indigenous and Inuit are. Maybe because the Vikings that settled there all left or died out and also maybe because the Vikings and the Thule settled different parts of Greenland and had very little contact with each other even when they could clearly see each other across a fjord. The very Christian Vikings of that era were probably quite reluctant to interact with people they saw as heathens.