What is tolerance?

[Sculptor]

I have the advantage of avoiding the indoctrination of American schooling. Rather then have all the childish myths of the American state thrust upon me, I heave learned my History as a Master's student in a Universith setting.

For example most Americans beleive that the Boston Tea Party was because AMericans objected paying tax for their tea,
So ingraned is this myth that it even entered the words of a song..

The king has said he's going to put a tax on tea
And that's the reason y'all Americans drink coffee

Nothing could be further from the trust. The objection was not from the people.
It was the elites objecting to the sale of TAX FREE TEA, by boats from England.
THe people were happy to get their tea tax free.
But the "American" (obvious there was no such country at that time), wanted to tax the common people.
SO there was engineered an attack on the boats by cowards dressed as Indians, or they paid Indians to attack the boats.

The rest is just SPIN for gullible Americans..

If all this continues to upset you READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Here's a couple of suggestions..

The American Future: A History From The Founding Fathers To Barack Obama, (2009, ISBN 0-06-053923-2), Simon Schama



A People's History of the United States:(1995) ISBN 978-1-56584-171-0., Howard Zynn

https://archive.org/details/peopleshist ... 9/mode/2up

Nothing you write "upsets me". I sometimes set the record straight, though. Your anti-American bigotry has led you to ignore the truth about the Boston Tea Party, quote mine to demonstrate Lincoln's racism, and prove nothing other than your own ignorance.

Some historians enjoy attempting to debunk what they see as hagiographies or legendary histories. Sculptor appears to read only those histories which debunk American legends. The mainstream histories, however, agree that the Boston Tea Party was a protest againt tax. Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica (from Britain) report:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Tea-Party

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Zinn's "People's History".

A People's History of the United States has been criticized by various pundits and fellow historians. Critics, including professor Chris Beneke and Randall J. Stephens,[5] assert blatant omissions of important historical episodes, uncritical reliance on biased sources, and failure to examine opposing views

Sculptor, of course, accepts uncritically any views which bash the U,S. (in particular) or agree with his prejudices (in general).

I would read a FUCKING BOOK, but they've been banned in Florida.

The critique of his book by such as those is a recommendation.
What is ironic is that Zinn book is the "opposiing view" to the bullshit the deep state are peddling.
It remains a fact that the cause of the Boston Tea Party was that the British were selling TAX FREE tea.

[Sculptor]

https://www.flgov.com/2024/02/15/govern ... activists/

Governor Ron DeSantis Debunks Book Ban Hoax, Calls on Florida Legislature to Amend the Law to Prevent Abuse from Activists

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis continued to debunk the false narrative that the state of Florida bans books. Florida does not ban books, instead, the state has empowered parents to object to obscene material in the classroom. Still, some have abused this process to object to items including books about Johnny Appleseed, The Giver and even the Bible. Governor DeSantis is calling on the Legislature to finetune this process to prevent people from taking advantage of Florida law that is designed solely to remove inappropriate material from the classroom.

Myth #1

Myth 1: The Florida Department of Education bans books.

Truth 1: The Department does not ban books. Each school district is responsible for ensuring all the materials in their schools adhere to state education standards.



Myth #2

Myth 2: Every book written is age-appropriate and has literary value for children.

Truth 2: This is a lie. Books with pornographic and sexually explicit material do not belong in school libraries accessible to children.



Myth #3

Myth 3: Dictionaries and thesauruses have been removed from classrooms.

Truth 3: This is ridiculous. No district in Florida has removed any dictionaries or thesauruses.

And you trust Ron DeSantis??
I feel sorry for Americans.
The depth and penetration of fake news has reached unprecendented levels.
And those shouting the most about it seem to be the ones who peddling the worst of it. Cite Trump.

The story of a black women sitting at the front of a bus is not pornographic, unless you are sick minded.

[Walker]

Tolerance is what gives trolls a place in the world.

[Walker]

“It’s understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself.”

- Ferris (Bueller, Bueller)

[Walker]

And you trust Ron DeSantis??

Certainly more than your words.

Analysis of DeSantis, and his status as a good governor, is a fact-based analysis.

It's not the troll-based analysis used by idiots, such as yourself, who are so eagerly dumbed down by Leftist propaganda.

[Sculptor]

And you trust Ron DeSantis??

Certainly more than your words.

Analysis of DeSantis, and his status as a good governor, is a fact-based analysis.

It's not the troll-based analysis used by idiots, such as yourself, who are so eagerly dumbed down by Leftist propaganda.

[Walker]

[Sculptor]

You are hilarious

[Walker]

You are hilarious

This is exponentially more interesting than the Leftist nonsense that rattles around in your gullible noggin. It’s about folks wising up to being hoisted by the petard of tolerance, and to understand what that means ... follow the link.

As such, it is a much more purposeful, useful, productive, constructive, and elevating analysis of what’s happenin’ now. Much more provocative for the thinking (contemplation) … more thought provocative than chumming around in the wake of troll effluvium.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... apart.html

”Take education, for example — a paradigmatic service people expect from government. People are openly challenging public schools, which spend more on racial and sexual ideology than on reading, writing, and arithmetic. On crime prevention, perhaps the number-one benefit derived from government, problems abound. Crime is surging. Progressive no-bail policies are releasing offenders the same day they are arrested. Terrorists and criminals are flooding across our borders unvetted. At the federal level, we’re more vulnerable to attack than we have been in decades because we redirect defense spending from war-fighting to DIE seminars. If you are a low-wage worker, open borders allow illegal aliens to pour in and take your job. The government is not keeping its end of the bargain. Insecurity is the word of the day.”

“A turning point is approaching in the culture, too. A recent article in The Spectator by Justin Brierly talked about a subtle but noticeable movement toward Christianity among younger people in the U.K. It is inevitable that such a turn will happen throughout the West. The human person can take only so much lying and nihilism, as the Soviet Union demonstrated. Eyes are opening, at least for those willing to look.”

[Sculptor]

You are hilarious

This is exponentially more interesting than the Leftist nonsense that rattles around in your gullible ...

You are out of touch and out of line.

[Sculptor]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... he-tea-act

On May 10, 1773, the British Parliament passes the Tea Act, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company from bankruptcy by greatly lowering the tea tax it paid to the British government and, thus, granting it a de facto monopoly on the American tea trade. Because all legal tea entered the colonies through England, allowing the East India Company to pay lower taxes in Britain also allowed it to sell tea more cheaply in the colonies. Even untaxed Dutch tea, which entered the colonies illegally through smuggling, was more expensive the East India tea after the act took effect.

British Prime Minister, Frederick, Lord North, who initiated the legislation, thought it impossible that the colonists would protest cheap tea; he was wrong. Many colonists viewed the act as yet another example of taxation tyranny, precisely because it left an earlier duty on tea entering the colonies in place while removing the duty on tea entering England.

When three tea ships carrying East India Company tea, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to send back the cargo, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the so-called Boston Tea Party with about 60 members of the radically anti-British Sons of Liberty. On December 16, 1773, the Patriots boarded the British ships disguised as Mohawk Indians and dumped the tea chests, valued then at £18,000 (nearly $1 million in today’s money), into the water.

Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, known to colonists as the Intolerable Acts, the following year. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to what they saw as British oppression.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... he-tea-act

On May 10, 1773, the British Parliament passes the Tea Act, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company from bankruptcy by greatly lowering the tea tax it paid to the British government and, thus, granting it a de facto monopoly on the American tea trade. Because all legal tea entered the colonies through England, allowing the East India Company to pay lower taxes in Britain also allowed it to sell tea more cheaply in the colonies. Even untaxed Dutch tea, which entered the colonies illegally through smuggling, was more expensive the East India tea after the act took effect.

British Prime Minister, Frederick, Lord North, who initiated the legislation, thought it impossible that the colonists would protest cheap tea; he was wrong. Many colonists viewed the act as yet another example of taxation tyranny, precisely because it left an earlier duty on tea entering the colonies in place while removing the duty on tea entering England.

When three tea ships carrying East India Company tea, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to send back the cargo, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the so-called Boston Tea Party with about 60 members of the radically anti-British Sons of Liberty. On December 16, 1773, the Patriots boarded the British ships disguised as Mohawk Indians and dumped the tea chests, valued then at £18,000 (nearly $1 million in today’s money), into the water.

Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, known to colonists as the Intolerable Acts, the following year. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to what they saw as British oppression.

Had we gone the way of Canada and Australia and been more patient in getting our sovereignty, I wonder if the world would be a better place?

Thoughts?

[Sculptor]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... he-tea-act

On May 10, 1773, the British Parliament passes the Tea Act, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company from bankruptcy by greatly lowering the tea tax it paid to the British government and, thus, granting it a de facto monopoly on the American tea trade. Because all legal tea entered the colonies through England, allowing the East India Company to pay lower taxes in Britain also allowed it to sell tea more cheaply in the colonies. Even untaxed Dutch tea, which entered the colonies illegally through smuggling, was more expensive the East India tea after the act took effect.

British Prime Minister, Frederick, Lord North, who initiated the legislation, thought it impossible that the colonists would protest cheap tea; he was wrong. Many colonists viewed the act as yet another example of taxation tyranny, precisely because it left an earlier duty on tea entering the colonies in place while removing the duty on tea entering England.

When three tea ships carrying East India Company tea, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to send back the cargo, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the so-called Boston Tea Party with about 60 members of the radically anti-British Sons of Liberty. On December 16, 1773, the Patriots boarded the British ships disguised as Mohawk Indians and dumped the tea chests, valued then at £18,000 (nearly $1 million in today’s money), into the water.

Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, known to colonists as the Intolerable Acts, the following year. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to what they saw as British oppression.

Had we gone the way of Canada and Australia and been more patient in getting our sovereignty, I wonder if the world would be a better place?

Thoughts?

The world would certainly be a very differnet place.
America would have had to abandon slavery much sooner.
Trade banned 1809, and ownership anywhere in the empire 1834 .(I think I have the dates right). There would either have been no Civil War or it would have started earlier and ended much sooner, with the combined efforts of the North and the rest of the British.

Speaking of Canada there is yet another aspect of American history which Americans seem to have the wrong stick about and that is the war of 1812.
(ask an american and they think they won it. But its typical that people's own histories are often taught as lies - I've met AMericans who think they won the Vietnam war - I am not joking)

...And gives further reason why Canada stayed Loyal so long.
The war of 1812 was one of the USAs earlier attemts at colonisation. However they bugled it in a couple of ways.
Walker is going to love this....
When the US expeditionary force entered Canada they missed a massive opportunity to recruit the majority Americans that had already settled there. Instead of operating like a mature responsible army of occupation they went on a rampage of rape and destruction. This resulted in inflaming the local Americans so much that they joined up with the British forces to resist the American invaders..

The advnace pretty much ended when a small band of Candaians and AMericans blew up an arms dump and despite being much smaller in number sent the AMerican force running with their tails between their legs.

Some time after the British paid a visit to Wasington to burn down the Whitehouse and left. This ended the war.
It would have gone som much worse for AMericans if the Britiish did not have Napoloen to defeat in Europe.

But some Americans spin this as a victory! LOL

[Gary Childress]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... he-tea-act

On May 10, 1773, the British Parliament passes the Tea Act, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company from bankruptcy by greatly lowering the tea tax it paid to the British government and, thus, granting it a de facto monopoly on the American tea trade. Because all legal tea entered the colonies through England, allowing the East India Company to pay lower taxes in Britain also allowed it to sell tea more cheaply in the colonies. Even untaxed Dutch tea, which entered the colonies illegally through smuggling, was more expensive the East India tea after the act took effect.

British Prime Minister, Frederick, Lord North, who initiated the legislation, thought it impossible that the colonists would protest cheap tea; he was wrong. Many colonists viewed the act as yet another example of taxation tyranny, precisely because it left an earlier duty on tea entering the colonies in place while removing the duty on tea entering England.

When three tea ships carrying East India Company tea, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to send back the cargo, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the so-called Boston Tea Party with about 60 members of the radically anti-British Sons of Liberty. On December 16, 1773, the Patriots boarded the British ships disguised as Mohawk Indians and dumped the tea chests, valued then at £18,000 (nearly $1 million in today’s money), into the water.

Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, known to colonists as the Intolerable Acts, the following year. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to what they saw as British oppression.

Had we gone the way of Canada and Australia and been more patient in getting our sovereignty, I wonder if the world would be a better place?

Thoughts?

The world would certainly be a very differnet place.
America would have had to abandon slavery much sooner.
Trade banned 1809, and ownership anywhere in the empire 1834 .(I think I have the dates right). There would either have been no Civil War or it would have started earlier and ended much sooner, with the combined efforts of the North and the rest of the British.

Speaking of Canada there is yet another aspect of American history which Americans seem to have the wrong stick about and that is the war of 1812.
(ask an american and they think they won it. But its typical that people's own histories are often taught as lies - I've met AMericans who think they won the Vietnam war - I am not joking)

...And gives further reason why Canada stayed Loyal so long.
The war of 1812 was one of the USAs earlier attemts at colonisation. However they bugled it in a couple of ways.
Walker is going to love this....
When the US expeditionary force entered Canada they missed a massive opportunity to recruit the majority Americans that had already settled there. Instead of operating like a mature responsible army of occupation they went on a rampage of rape and destruction. This resulted in inflaming the local Americans so much that they joined up with the British forces to resist the American invaders..

The advnace pretty much ended when a small band of Candaians and AMericans blew up an arms dump and despite being much smaller in number sent the AMerican force running with their tails between their legs.

Some time after the British paid a visit to Wasington to burn down the Whitehouse and left. This ended the war.
It would have gone som much worse for AMericans if the Britiish did not have Napoloen to defeat in Europe.

But some Americans spin this as a victory! LOL

Had there been no independent America from 1939 to 1945, would the British have defeated Germany on the "Western Front"? Would Russia have defeated Germany on its own and been in control of much of Europe by 1945?

[Sculptor]

Had we gone the way of Canada and Australia and been more patient in getting our sovereignty, I wonder if the world would be a better place?

Thoughts?

The world would certainly be a very differnet place.
America would have had to abandon slavery much sooner.
Trade banned 1809, and ownership anywhere in the empire 1834 .(I think I have the dates right). There would either have been no Civil War or it would have started earlier and ended much sooner, with the combined efforts of the North and the rest of the British.

Speaking of Canada there is yet another aspect of American history which Americans seem to have the wrong stick about and that is the war of 1812.
(ask an american and they think they won it. But its typical that people's own histories are often taught as lies - I've met AMericans who think they won the Vietnam war - I am not joking)

...And gives further reason why Canada stayed Loyal so long.
The war of 1812 was one of the USAs earlier attemts at colonisation. However they bugled it in a couple of ways.
Walker is going to love this....
When the US expeditionary force entered Canada they missed a massive opportunity to recruit the majority Americans that had already settled there. Instead of operating like a mature responsible army of occupation they went on a rampage of rape and destruction. This resulted in inflaming the local Americans so much that they joined up with the British forces to resist the American invaders..

The advnace pretty much ended when a small band of Candaians and AMericans blew up an arms dump and despite being much smaller in number sent the AMerican force running with their tails between their legs.

Some time after the British paid a visit to Wasington to burn down the Whitehouse and left. This ended the war.
It would have gone som much worse for AMericans if the Britiish did not have Napoloen to defeat in Europe.

But some Americans spin this as a victory! LOL

Had there been no independent America from 1939 to 1945, would the British have defeated Germany on the "Western Front"? Would Russia have defeated Germany on its own and been in control of much of Europe by 1945?

When you ask one of these fantasy alterntive history question you would have to state what were the actual differences in events that meant that the USA never happened. When you answer that question it pretty much establishes a cascade of other changes.

I have no doubt that if Britain had kept what would have become the USA there would have been so many other changes as a consequence. I doubt that the French Revolution would have happened when and how it did. Without the intellectual intercourse between the young USA and the French revolutioaries things would have been very different. Napoleon would not have taken the opportiunities given, since things would have been different. There is no telling if there would have been a colloection of other people to fill the voids. For example Thomas Payne who used to have a few beers in a pub I myslef have been drunk in several times in Lewes Sussex, would not have found himself in American and France spreading his "sedition". Franklyn would never have lived in England as US ambassador. How many other changes. Without the atmosphere of revolution mmayne Payne would have ended up a drunken customs officer growling at passers by from his chair in 179 HIGH STREET LEWES what is now known as "The RIghts of Man2 tapas house.
By the time the 20thC dawned German - British relations would have been utterly different such that the world wars would not have happened as they did.