Bretton Woods wasn’t about military protection. It was about stabilizing the global economy and monetary system. It absolutely gave the US a ton of economic influence, but it didn’t have anything to do with military protection. The Soviet Union even took part in the negotiations that turned into the Bretton Woods Agreement, although they chose not to sign the treaty.

The US’ military hegemony came out of NATO, the Cold War, and the Marshall Plan.

Yeah, it all built out of WW2. After WW2 pretty much all of Europe was in shambles. Most major cities had been bombed at least once, many far more than that. Infrastructure all across the continent was destroyed. The industrial capacity was destroyed. Armies had marched, pillaged, and destroyed first out of Germany across Europe, then back across Europe into Germany. The US was uniquely positioned as the only world power that didn’t suffer massive economic devastation from the war. In fact, due to stuff like the lend-lease act and massive industrial mobilization for the war effort, the US was experiencing a massive economic boom while Europe and east Asia were in a depression.

But in the aftermath of the war the Cold War set in. The USSR and Allied powers (led by the US) drew lines in the sand and established their areas of influence. The US instituted the Marshall Plan in Europe which essentially just shotgunned money at western Europe to rebuild as much as possible as quickly as possible. This had a massive positive economic impact on western Europe, but it also ensured that so much of Europe would be dependent on American products and companies. If your rebuilt power grid was made with American parts, then anything new would have to be compatible with that, ensuring your country is a long-term customer of American products. At the same time, the US and western Europe created NATO as a military pact against the Soviet Union, which further strengthened the western alliance. Again, with the US as the only major western power with a larger and more powerful army after the war than before, the US took the leading role in NATO.

Another major factor that most people tend to overlook was the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944. This was an effort to stabilize the global economy and monetary system after WW2. It said that the US would readopt the gold standard (we had abandoned it during the war, and would later permanently abandon it in the early 70s), then every other western-aligned country would use the US dollar as the basis for their currency. Think of it like a gold-standard, but instead of gold, they used US dollars. This gave the US enormous economic influence because everybody needed US dollars to maintain their economies, and the only way to get them was to do business with the US.

This created the conditions that the US expanded and exploited over the second half of the 20th century to cement ourselves as the dominant western world power. Through colonialism and Cold War dynamics, the US and USSR forced most of the global south to pick a side, and often forced regime change when they didn’t like the choice countries made.

Then the Soviet Union fell and the US was the only global superpower left remaining. Over the 90s and early 00s a lot of formerly Soviet-aligned countries hitched their wagons to the US since it was the only game left in town.

So, yes, much of the rest of the world put their eggs in the America basket, but it wasn’t recently, it didn’t happen all at once, and, at the time at least, there were other factors that went into those decisions.

Maybe it’s because I’m not in IT and don’t write code, since an overwhelming number of posts seem to be directed at coders/IT professionals, but most posts on all just aren’t interesting to me.

With hall that filtered, how does anything even show up? I feels like there’s 10 new posts a day, and 7 of them are about American politics. (Obvious exaggeration)

This is a big part of how it’s become so pervasive lately, although the racists have been complaining about the same thing for a very long time. The internet and influencer culture has allowed them to monetize the outrage in ways that weren’t possible before.

You’re not crazy, and it’s not new. The current buzz word is “DEI”, but they’ve been doing the same thing since before any of us were alive. Before DEI it was Woke. Before that it was Critical Race Theory (CRT). Before that it was Social Justice Warriors (SJW). Before that it was Politically Correct (PC). Before that they used terms which are less polite.

In a magical hypothetical world where we could make this happen without it being absurdly cruel to the animals, I’d love to see it.

That’s not a species of animal. That’s the living embodiment of a fundamental force of nature. No mortal, man nor beast, can defeat one.

I think a grizzly bear or a polar bear would take it. Any other bear it’s going to the gorilla.

That’s a different situation considering the Irish language was created before there even was a united Ireland. We can trace the history of how English came to America, and it came from the English people. We can’t trace the history of how the Irish language spread across Ireland because it predates history.

Yes, it’s 100% immature, which is exactly why you should do it.

Like I said, while semantically imprecise, yes, we did get the English language from the English.

That’s just semantics. Sure, I guess the more proper way to say it is that when the Americans founded the US they continued the practice of race-based chattel slavery which the British had instituted in the colonies prior to the formation of the US. Is that really substantively different than saying the Americans adopted slavery from the British?

My bad. Thanks.

Sort of to both, but not really.

Slavery has existed for at least as long as states and kingdoms have, yes. But the specific form slavery took in the Americas (not just the US and North America) was unique. That being race-based chattel slavery. That form had not existed anywhere else in the world previously or since. The closest you could claim were the Helots in ancient Sparta, but even that was closer to serfdom than chattel slavery.

So, no, the British did not “invent slavery”, but they (along with the Spanish and French) did pioneer a new form of slavery that was uniquely brutal and inhumane.

And while you’re correct that America as a nation did not adopt slavery from the British after the formation of the US since the colonials had already been practicing race-based chattel slavery before the US existed. But where did those colonials get that slavery? From the British who were their overlords and ancestors, who formed the colonies, and who created the economic system that relied on race-based chattel slavery.

So while you might be technically right, it’s only due to semantics. The Brits absolutely did create virtually everything about the American system of slavery, which we then continued to perpetrate for another ~century after independence.

Again, you got that kind of money? I live outside DC, so not close to an international border. In fact, most Americans don’t live somewhere they can travel across the border easily. And with the way the government is denying entry to people with the wrong level of melatonin, I don’t think it’s particularly safe advice to tell people to start crossing the border regularly.

And most people in the US do not fly for vacations. It’s very expensive to fly, and most of us have cars we can take. I’m planning a family vacation later this year to visit my grandparents ~700 miles away. We priced it out and discovered it’s actually cheaper for us to rent an RV and drive than to fly. Flying, especially internationally for a shopping trip, is an extreme luxury for most of us.

Because that’s realistic advice. You have money for be to buy a plane ticket every time I need groceries? Who’s going to fund everyone moving to another country? You got that kind of money? Because I don’t.

Since it’s clear we’re talking about the US here, the 1st Amendment clearly states (emphasis added):

Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says nothing about citizens, tourists, foreign nationals, etc. In fact, the amendment only limits what Congress can do (and the Supremacy clause extends this to the states). It doesn’t say “Citizens have the right to free speech.” It says “Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”

It’s pretty clear that anyone and everyone has the right to free speech and assembly. The right wingers you’re talking about are trying to rewrite the first amendment to justify their fascism.

Honestly, as an individual there really isn’t much you can do with your purchasing power about it.

Next national day of protest in April 19. Find the largest one you are able to attend and join in.

They can secede, with the consent of the other states (meaning an act of the Federal government).

The general theory is that once a state enters into the Union it gains certain privileges and benefits which it would not previously had access to. Things like military protection, federal government investment, the increased power/influence in global politics/economics, etc, etc. Each state is getting things from other states and the federal government at the same time as they’re giving things in return. Since it’s a two-way relationship, it should take both parties to sever that relationship.

It just seems wrong to me, kind of like not allowing divorces.

I’d argue it’s more like requiring alimony after a divorce. When two people are married often one will put their career on hold or de-emphasize it in order to focus on other things to support the marriage (eg stay-at-home parent). When the couple then divorces, the courts recognize that the individual who put their career on hold is now at a sever disadvantage in that they have forgone however many years of experience, advancement, salary, etc. They can’t just jump back into the workforce and expect to get a job as good as if they had been working the whole time. And the other member of the relationship (the one who did not sacrifice their career) got the benefits of having someone to manage the home while they could focus on their career.

So the court acknowledges this disparity in the relationship and will require the higher-paid member of the marriage to pay alimony payments to the other as a way to make up for that economic imbalance between them. The higher earning member of the marriage can’t just divorce and go about their way without having to compensate the other for the years they spent focusing on the family rather than their career.

This is what the secession of a US state would look like in theory. We tried the whole “one side gets unilaterally decides to break up without mediation or compensation to the other” thing. It was the impetus for the bloodiest war in American history. In order to secede “the right way” (ie without bloodshed), a state would have to go to the Federal Government and ask to secede. The government (which is a collection of representatives of the states and people in the states) then debates and decides on terms.

Of course, this has never been done or even tried. I suspect that pretty much every single state (except maybe California) would find that the benefits of staying in the Union far outweigh the benefits of leaving.