Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

This Thread Will Go Down in [History]

1181921232431

Posts

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Screwing Up Censuses, Easy Mode: Record three different birth dates for the same person in three successive censuses.

    Screwing Up Censuses, Hard Mode: Record three different birth countries for the same person in three successive censuses.

    (argh)

    1990 - "United States of America"

    2000 - "America"

    2010 - " 'Murica"

    chrishallett83TofystedethcB557
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Screwing Up Censuses, Easy Mode: Record three different birth dates for the same person in three successive censuses.

    Screwing Up Censuses, Hard Mode: Record three different birth countries for the same person in three successive censuses.

    (argh)

    1990 - "United States of America"

    2000 - "America"

    2010 - " 'Murica"

    2020 - "Trumpmerica™"

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Screwing Up Censuses, Easy Mode: Record three different birth dates for the same person in three successive censuses.

    Screwing Up Censuses, Hard Mode: Record three different birth countries for the same person in three successive censuses.

    (argh)

    1990 - "United States of America"

    2000 - "America"

    2010 - " 'Murica"

    I wish; there were multiple continents represented.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    So my uncle just sent me a scan of a flier he found, from my great-grandfathers bakery in the forties. There's some great stuff in here, including a bunch of 1940s pudding recipes which I'll post in the food thread when it's not 2am.

    xsmxi4twgngl.png
    3dj0xm4n5cfe.png
    u0k9x3kpdq5n.png

    LalaboxRMS OceanicJedocchrishallett83facetiousAl_watDouglasDangerL Ron HowardintropTofystedethFencingsaxPlatylonelyahavaknitdanMadEddyIronKnuckle's GhostShortykimeXaquinSlacker71
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Screwing Up Censuses, Easy Mode: Record three different birth dates for the same person in three successive censuses.

    Screwing Up Censuses, Hard Mode: Record three different birth countries for the same person in three successive censuses.

    (argh)

    Thing to remember is that the Census is completely voluntary information, even though it's required to actually answer the census, so you can't rely 100% on the information found within it. It's a very reliable tool for a population as a whole because of the law of large numbers and the fact that people are honest for the most part when there is zero incentive to lie, but even honest people can accidentally give the wrong dates and information so you can't expect it to be 100% accurate when you get down to the individual level. I worked the 2010 census, and there was zero follow up with the answers a respondent gave us. We were explicitly trained to record the answer that was given, regardless of if we believe the respondent. If the whitest guy you'd ever seen said they were african-american, you marked him down as an african-american.

    Your specific example could be the head of household just fucking with the census for the hell of it, or they could have just mistakenly gave the wrong dates, but most likely to me it was the result of the respondent honestly not being sure and being asked to guess estimate the date, which was an actual thing we asked respondents to do if they weren't sure of birth dates during the 2010 census.

  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    When I was sent to live with my grandfather in 1990 Cheyenne was doing a recount in the census so I feel they assumed I had two parents living with me just to squeak by the 40k pop minimum for federal money for the city
    As I remember for years the sign said 40050 or something like that
    But it was obvious they were fudging on the math

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Screwing Up Censuses, Easy Mode: Record three different birth dates for the same person in three successive censuses.

    Screwing Up Censuses, Hard Mode: Record three different birth countries for the same person in three successive censuses.

    (argh)

    Thing to remember is that the Census is completely voluntary information, even though it's required to actually answer the census, so you can't rely 100% on the information found within it. It's a very reliable tool for a population as a whole because of the law of large numbers and the fact that people are honest for the most part when there is zero incentive to lie, but even honest people can accidentally give the wrong dates and information so you can't expect it to be 100% accurate when you get down to the individual level. I worked the 2010 census, and there was zero follow up with the answers a respondent gave us. We were explicitly trained to record the answer that was given, regardless of if we believe the respondent. If the whitest guy you'd ever seen said they were african-american, you marked him down as an african-american.

    Your specific example could be the head of household just fucking with the census for the hell of it, or they could have just mistakenly gave the wrong dates, but most likely to me it was the result of the respondent honestly not being sure and being asked to guess estimate the date, which was an actual thing we asked respondents to do if they weren't sure of birth dates during the 2010 census.

    Yeah, these were the 1881 through 1901 censuses, so even less quality control alongside the fact that the people working them were generally someone in the community who at least thought they knew a lot about the neighbors. The differences between things I know for certain were filled out by the family members and those I know for certain weren't are consistent enough in a few lines that I'm starting to get a feel for which relatives have/give decent data and which ones are having blanks filled in by a neighbor who's known them for awhile.

    Oddly the previous few tend to be a lot more solid by comparison around here, though they're a lot more concerned with getting economic information ("tons of gypsum quarried" is an actual household field on the form in some districts), perhaps due to the fact that the town in question was just getting established. It's pretty neat seeing the things the government cares about shifting between them.

    That said, I'm pretty sure that one second-great-grandcestor who gave his residence as the interior of a particular shaft in the local coal mine might have been editorializing about his life a little.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Jedoc wrote: »
    Saskatchewan...Oklahoma? You must be on the lee side of the prevailing winds, because I've never paid attention to that town during a tornado warning, which is the only way Oklahomans learn geography.
    Yeah this tracks with how I learned what counties were where in Texas and Kansas.

    steam_sig.png
  • IronKnuckle's GhostIronKnuckle's Ghost Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    So my uncle just sent me a scan of a flier he found, from my great-grandfathers bakery in the forties. There's some great stuff in here, including a bunch of 1940s pudding recipes which I'll post in the food thread when it's not 2am.
    xsmxi4twgngl.png
    3dj0xm4n5cfe.png
    u0k9x3kpdq5n.png

    The Oslo Lunch: just give your kids like 1300 calories of carbs!
    I do completely believe that the "two and a half times as much weight gain" claim is true.

    PolaritiePhoenix-DSlacker71
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    well at least there's a piece of fruit in there

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    edited June 2017
    In what's now Nigeria, the Kingdom of Benin constructed the world's largest earthwork.
    They extend for some 9,900 miles (16,000 kilometres) in all, in a mosaic of more than 500 interconnected settlement boundaries. They cover 2,510 sq. miles (6,500 square kilometres) and were all dug by the Edo people. In all, they are four times longer than the Great Wall of China, and consumed a hundred times more material than the Great Pyramid of Cheops. They took an estimated 150 million hours of digging to construct, and are perhaps the largest single archaeological phenomenon on the planet.

    Drawing_of_Benin_City_made_by_an_English_officer_1897.jpg

    Construction of the walls took place over around 700 years, a combination of moats backed by ramparts that were as tall as 20 meters (66 feet) around the capital city. The city and surrounding villages were planned on a massive scale at a time when most European cities were basically literal cesspits, to the point that European explorers called the “Great City of Benin” one of the most beautiful in the world.

    There are very few signs of this great wall remaining today, because the British sacked Benin City in 1897 as part of their scramble for Africa, looting the city of treasure, burning it to the ground, and then blowing up the walls. It is nearly forgotten today.

    Mayabird on
    tynicMetzger MeisterErlecchrishallett83DouglasDangerStraightziL Ron HowardFleebkimefurlionintropTrippyJingHeffling
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    So my uncle just sent me a scan of a flier he found, from my great-grandfathers bakery in the forties. There's some great stuff in here, including a bunch of 1940s pudding recipes which I'll post in the food thread when it's not 2am.
    xsmxi4twgngl.png
    3dj0xm4n5cfe.png
    u0k9x3kpdq5n.png

    The Oslo Lunch: just give your kids like 1300 calories of carbs!
    I do completely believe that the "two and a half times as much weight gain" claim is true.

    Eh, depending on what's used I don't think it hits that high. Three slices of bread is only in the 300-400 calorie range, depending on what kind, thickness, etc. I want to put a rough estimate of 700-800 calories on that without looking anything up. Adding the cereal is overkill for sure though (although that probably doesn't mean the crap in stores now). I doubt the butter is adding anything substantial besides getting the kids to eat the bread... which just means you need better bread.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    So my uncle just sent me a scan of a flier he found, from my great-grandfathers bakery in the forties. There's some great stuff in here, including a bunch of 1940s pudding recipes which I'll post in the food thread when it's not 2am.
    xsmxi4twgngl.png
    3dj0xm4n5cfe.png
    u0k9x3kpdq5n.png

    The Oslo Lunch: just give your kids like 1300 calories of carbs!
    I do completely believe that the "two and a half times as much weight gain" claim is true.

    Eh, depending on what's used I don't think it hits that high. Three slices of bread is only in the 300-400 calorie range, depending on what kind, thickness, etc.

    Google tells me it's more like 200-250.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Continuing from the Comey thread, because it's an interesting discussion
    @Kana
    Kana wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Mr. G wrote: »

    the play is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

    That seems like a poor fit, or like someone was intentionally trying to make a conservative version of it.

    The story of Julius Caesar is about a leader who was progressive, popular with the people, despised by the old rich patrician white men in the senate, and eventually had his friends turned on him. The point is that the senator's claim he's grabbing too much power even though he's been openly denying power. His death leads to unpopular reforms to undo his changes and leads to a widening split in the republic that leads to civil war. Brutus comes to regret his part in the murder and his co-conspirators are killed. It's a tragedy because the senators use Brutus's honor and loyalty to Rome to convince him that by killing Caesar he'll be saving Rome, but in reality he brings about a civil war and over his defeat the next Triumvirate is formed and Rome at last formally slips from Republic to Empire. The people who kill Caesar are the bad guys.

    If we're doing presidents, the better fit would be Roosevelt or Lincoln. If we're doing recent presidents, Obama would be a better fit.

    That sounds like an incredibly generous interpretation of Julius Caesar's actions.

    Just because someone's a populist doesn't make them a progressive, whatever that even means in late Republican Rome.

    He extended voting rights, citizenship, and opened the positions in government to people outside of Rome itself. He pardoned most of his enemies instead of the traditional prescription (IE, kill them and take their stuff). He reworked the tax and governorship systems to be fairer to the cities and provinces outside Rome, so that they hopefully wouldn't be besieged by one governor pillaging the people for their own gain after another. He reworked the grain dole to exclude wealthier patricians who had been exploiting it to the detriment of the poor.

    He was a dictator, but he also took great care to include provincials in the processes of Rome, people who were previously nothing more than exploited resources.

    Well again, this is an incredibly generous reading. You're starting with a conclusion, "Caesar was a liberal reformer" and then only selecting pieces of evidence that match your conclusion, often out of context.

    For the most obvious example, Caesar's extension of citizenship was something he did as a consul to help end the Social War, which had been going poorly for Rome. It's pretty silly to view that as any kind of liberal reform, when it was giving his allies something they wanted to prevent them from turning on Rome. It was an overdue, practical decision to solve Rome's immediate problem, sure, but there's no evidence it was made out of any sort of higher principle. Similarly, Clodius had way more to do with the grain dole than Caesar did, Caesar was just responding to his innovations / corruption.

    What's more important is that Caesar also used his own public offices to secure loans for his campaign of personal enrichment. He waged an aggressive war against Gaul, including warring against refugees, stealing their stuff and enslaving their people, all to personally enrich himself and his political career, to a degree that was eyebrow-raising even in Rome. He started a civil war not out of any grand cause, but to maintain his own personal political career. He was most likely trying to get himself crowned king, and he effectively killed the Republic. He's hardly the one that introduced the threat of mob violence to Roman politics, but he was the culmination of it.

    It's a fallacy to assume that being a populist is the same thing as being a progressive. Caesar was certainly a populist, but his actions were always to enrich himself first.

    Clodius Pulcher took the subsidized grain dole and made it free, but he intentionally didn't put controls on it because he was using it as a direct method of getting political power. He also formed armed gangs under the roman college system (basically guilds, though usually more like officially recognized armed gangs), which Caesar slowed down in his dictatorship by eliminating most colleges excepting for those with a long history (though he did probably manufacture a history for some of his supporters). Pulcher was basically the political, and otherwise, hit-man for the likes of Crassus and Pompey and hated Caesar.


    The Leges Julia proposed at the end of the Social War was proposed was by Lucius Julius Caesar, not Gaius Julius Caesar. Gaius was about 10 at the end of the Social War. And not to be confused with Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo

    Easy mistake to make, though important because the man who proposed the Leges Julia was Lucius Julius Caesar, son of Lucius Julius Caesar, and father of Lucius Julius Caesar. :rotate: Yay Republic Romans and their few dozen Praenomens and Cognomens that were usually passed down from father to son.
    And the proposal at the end of the Social War was limited to villages that were not in revolt and only allowed villages to vote as a whole.

    Gaius Julius Caesar started expanding individual citizenship rights, along with the individual voting rights, to people outside of Rome, for really the first time (Auxillia/Socii given citizenship were not given voting rights), though it never fully came around for everyone in the Republic/Empire until about 300 years later. However, he extended citizenship and entry into the Cursus Honorem to people outside of Rome, which pissed people off.
    Suetonius wrote:
    With the same disregard of law and precedent he named magistrates for several years to come, bestowed the emblems of consular rank on ten ex-praetors, and admitted to the House men who had been given citizenship, and in some cases half-civilised Gauls.
    Though he actually modified the Cursus Honorem because his first dictatorship caused a bottleneck, and he eventually stepped down from that dictatorship.

    Was he motivated by personal interest? Yeah! The civil war was started because the senate threatened to kill or exile him at the end of his governorship, and if they didn't then his creditors likely would. And it was largely because they were afraid of the personal and political power he wielded. Roman life was all about personal gain, but just because of that doesn't mean that someone doing something to gain popular support was suddenly not progressive for the era. Marius changed the Roman army to incorporate new strategy and open it up more to non-patricians and non-citizens, but just because he was doing it to gain favor and power doesn't mean it wasn't also done with advancing the people in mind. In fact that's usually why they did it, they knew that advancing the cause of the plebs and the socii was going to get them a large amount of support.

    DisruptedCapitalistBrainleechIronKnuckle's GhostSlacker71
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Ask me about my scrotalist agenda Registered User regular
    Oof. I just read A Thousand Lives by Julia Scheeres which is about Jonestown. What a depressing book. I was constantly thinking 'what would I do?' But really, there was almost nothing any one person could do. By the time people were in Guyana there was almost no escape possible.

    It's a fairly sympathetic book, emphasising the positive aspects of the cult. The racial harmony in the group (in 1950s America no less), it's progressive values and desire to do good. And then it contrasts it with Jim, who promoted all of this for his own benefit. The point of the book is to show that (contrary to media reports after the suicide) the members weren't evil or mind controlled zombies but were simply trapped by social bonds, threats, starvation and idealism.

    It's good when talking about Jones and the general population of the town. But I felt that more attention could have been paid to the inner members. Those who knew it was all a lie. But I think the book was hampered by a lack of info about inner members. Often the book will only guess at an inner member's motivation. Theres plenty of recordings of Jim. And much of the book is made up of survivor testimony and written records by lower members. But the inner members destroyed records that would have incriminated them and few of them seemed to have gotten off Scot free.

    The end. No moral I guess.

  • facetiousfacetious a wit so dry it shits sandRegistered User regular
    So this came up with a friend the other day and for various reasons I've been extra mad at George Washington lately, so, here's a quote from Washington to the Continental Congress when he was chosen to lead the Continental Army:
    Mr. President, Tho' I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me, in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust: However, as the Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty, and exert every power I possess in their service, and for support of the glorious cause. I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their approbation.

    But, lest some unlucky event should happen, unfavourable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

    In my opinion, the words themselves already scream faux-humility, but even if the words themselves seem sincere it's all rather undermined by the fact that he showed up to the Congress wearing a military uniform.

    "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
    Real strong, facetious.

    Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
  • ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    All of his other clothes were being cleaned.

    nightmarennyMorivethFencingsaxVegemytesarukun
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    George Washington refusing salary and then abusing his expense account was a genius move.

    facetioustynicKwoaruStraightziSolarSkeithFencingsaxMadEddyRMS OceanicMunkus BeaverDuke 2.0BlankzillaSlacker71Edith Upwards
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Historically speaking, isn't it rare for someone taking an appointed position to not humbly accept it?

    KwoaruMvrckFencingsaxcB557valhalla130KanaGundiEdith Upwards
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    my favorite George Washington story is still the time he yelled at a guy so hard that bystanders wrote letters to their families about it

    Shorty on
    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    JedocDouglasDangerXaquinFencingsaxcB557kimeDuke 2.0DyssarukunBlankzilla
  • MorivethMoriveth Nobody suspects a thing... Registered User regular
    Careful how you proceed, good man.

    3ds friend code: 2036 9837 9754 Switch: 3661 4488 2896
    PSN/XBL id: Moriveth Steam: L4Mori
    Tofystedeth
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    my favorite George Washington story is still the time he yelled at a guy so hard that bystanders wrote letters to their families about it

    A personal ambition,

    and one I would have fulfilled on the taxi this morning that nearly clipped my elbow, if I could have caught him up.

    ShortyMorivethTynnanSkeithcB557sarukunDisruptedCapitalistHeffling
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    "dude I just saw this lady swear at a guy so much he started crying, she used words I didn't even know were dirty, it was amazing"

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    tynicchrishallett83XaquinDedwrekkachromdomSkeithFencingsaxcB557valhalla130kimeVegemyteHeffling
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    "she sweared at him so hard he's going to have to move to Cleveland"

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    tynicchrishallett83VegemyteDuke 2.0ASimPersonsarukun
  • MorivethMoriveth Nobody suspects a thing... Registered User regular
    "She swore at him so much she had to go to the hospital afterwards"

    3ds friend code: 2036 9837 9754 Switch: 3661 4488 2896
    PSN/XBL id: Moriveth Steam: L4Mori
    tynicchrishallett83ShortyVegemyte
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    "I will never hear the word nincompoop the same way ever again. It has been forever tainted."

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    It's cool when stuff like that becomes almost political tradition, though

    For example I always liked that the Speaker of the House of Commons, when elected, has to affect a very unhappy look and be dragged by their arms to the speaker's chair by the MPs around them

    Because the Speaker of the House historically was the guy who had to go to angry monarchs and tell them Parliament had voted down their request to raise taxes for some war or another, it was generally seen as an undesirable, even dangerous, honour (despite actually having some quite significant power)

    tynicKayne Red RobePolaritieJayKaoshonoverecB557Cimmerii
  • TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    Swearing Angry Lady Autotuned

    b1ehrMM.gif
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2017
    Solar wrote: »
    It's cool when stuff like that becomes almost political tradition, though

    For example I always liked that the Speaker of the House of Commons, when elected, has to affect a very unhappy look and be dragged by their arms to the speaker's chair by the MPs around them

    Because the Speaker of the House historically was the guy who had to go to angry monarchs and tell them Parliament had voted down their request to raise taxes for some war or another, it was generally seen as an undesirable, even dangerous, honour (despite actually having some quite significant power)

    we have something similar in australia, where if you're elected PM you have to stand in a public place and smile while old people call you an arsehole.


    I guess that came about because historically we tend to elect massive arseholes.

    tynic on
    SolarKayne Red RobeMadEddyV1mVegemyteCrimson KingCimmeriisarukunEdith Upwards
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I applaud any tradition where people in positions of power are called arseholes

    Fine work indeed

    tynicKayne Red RobeDouglasDangerMagellL Ron HowardFleebchromdomchrishallett83SkeithPolaritieJayKaosMadEddyvalhalla130VegemytemasterofmetroidCimmeriisarukunSlacker71RainfallEdith Upwards
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    Shorty wrote: »
    my favorite George Washington story is still the time he yelled at a guy so hard that bystanders wrote letters to their families about it
    You spit foul recriminations and vicious calumny. Ladies faint dead away and gentlemen stagger under the barrage. Your target runs, weeping, with her hands over her ears. You follow her! Your tirade continues in the street, where hansoms careen hastily off and urchins fall from rooftops. You pick up your victim's dropped letters and wave them as a final salute. You are spent.

    Hobnail on
    cB557MayabirdRainfall
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    No one who becomes president doesn't want to be president

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    furlion
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    No one who becomes president doesn't want to be president

    Well to be more precise, no one who becomes president doesn't want the title and perceived power of being president.

    At least one of them, and almost certainly more than that, seem to have had no desire in actually doing the work of a president.

    valhalla130Slacker71
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    No one who becomes president doesn't want to be president

    What about Andrew Johnson?

    Or LBJ?

    Or Theodore Roosevelt!

  • KwoaruKwoaru Registered User regular
    They all wanted to be president very badly

    2x39jD4.jpg
    FencingsaxEdith Upwards
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Badly enough... TO KILL!?

    Wait, this isn't the conspiracy thread...

  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    that's just what they want you to think

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    facetious wrote: »
    So this came up with a friend the other day and for various reasons I've been extra mad at George Washington lately, so, here's a quote from Washington to the Continental Congress when he was chosen to lead the Continental Army:
    Mr. President, Tho' I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me, in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust: However, as the Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty, and exert every power I possess in their service, and for support of the glorious cause. I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their approbation.

    But, lest some unlucky event should happen, unfavourable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

    In my opinion, the words themselves already scream faux-humility, but even if the words themselves seem sincere it's all rather undermined by the fact that he showed up to the Congress wearing a military uniform.

    Wouldn't it be normal for someone with a military background to show up in uniform when being given a new military position?

    cB557KwoaruFencingsaxV1mSlacker71
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    yes

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    cB557Kayne Red RobeKanaFencingsaxsarukun
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    It's cool when stuff like that becomes almost political tradition, though

    For example I always liked that the Speaker of the House of Commons, when elected, has to affect a very unhappy look and be dragged by their arms to the speaker's chair by the MPs around them

    Because the Speaker of the House historically was the guy who had to go to angry monarchs and tell them Parliament had voted down their request to raise taxes for some war or another, it was generally seen as an undesirable, even dangerous, honour (despite actually having some quite significant power)

    I've recently read a bit about the traditions of the British Parliments, and I do enjoy the fact that they slam the door in the face of the Representitive of the Queen when they knock. (Then open it for them after they knock a second time), and when moving from one building to the main one, they purposely stroll, joke, and take their time getting there.

    Both are based on "The King can't tell us what to do Neener neener neeener!"

    Erlec
Sign In or Register to comment.