Skepic

Take Off! An Airborne Adventure through the skies of Avalia! (A 1x1 that may eventually grow into a small group. Not sure)

Alright, I think I'm willing to give this another try. Who wants to explore the mysterious skies of Parele?

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

I'm gonna withdraw from this before Dynamo does something irrational. I'm sure he'll love to explain it. Bye.

@ChaoticFox

Yeah sad to say, due to the views that had been expressed by one RPer I'd rsther they not take part in my RP, and because this story sort of needs all 5 I guess im going to have to close it down, sorry wingmates...

@Dynamo Frokane

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

@Skepic So while we are waiting, is there a reason your pilot characters wolfenstien waifus? (I'm certainly not complaining) but its a very interesting aesthetic choice.

@Dynamo Frokane

It's the manifestation of character ideas I've had for years. I've always enjoyed the aesthetic choices of Germanic forces and I got some heritage as well, at least on my mother's side. Not to mention that the Germany we know today was one of the many possible results of the various states of Central Europe. So there's a lot of potential for a more diverse European background history.

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

Short and sweet to get this moving. Assuming she pulls it off, Hanna will definitely have opened fire with at least her guns the moment she can.

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

"He actually took the bait... It seems that these really are rats with fancier equipment." Hanna thought to herself with a smirk. She'd figured that this low life couldn't resist her plane being at low level, seemingly easy prey, however, it was now painfully apparent that her opponent had not faced her aircraft before. Combining the built up energy of the enemy plane and her already relatively slower air speed, she suddenly deployed airbrakes and pulled up slightly, before rolling the aircraft around while applying her rudder.

This caused the heavy duel engine aircraft to slow drastically, and hopefully roll over onto the faster enemy's tail. In one, beautiful, synchronized movement, she performed the aerial acrobatics to get on her combatant's tail, as if she had done in a thousand times...

Well... okay maybe not a thousand, but a great may eager Karlslanders met their burning graves thinking they got the one up on an attacker, only to be riddled with cannon sized holes.

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

@Dynamo Frokane

Yep! Will be posting tomorrow for certain!

Sky Warrior Stories: The New York 5 (closed)

@Dynamo Frokane

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189

ROBERT E. ROMMEL?

All of our identities are soaked in myth. I grow when I examine these myths with a critical eye.

The Rommel Myth
>>>
Following the war, the Western Allies, particularly the British, depicted Rommel as the "good German" and "our friend, Rommel", hewing closely tothe tenets of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. His reputation for conducting a clean war was using in the interests of West German Rearmament and the reconciliation between the former enemies- the United Kingdom and United Satas on one side, and the new Federal Republic of Germany on the other.The 1950 biography Rommel: The Desert Fox and the 1953 publication of The Rommel Papers added layers to the myth, which has proven resilient to critical examination.

The mythology surrounding Rommel has been the subject of analysis by both English- and German-speaking historians in recent decades. The reevaluation has produced new interpretations of Rommel, including his relationship with National Socialism, his abilities as operational and strategic level commander, and his role (if any) in the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler. Historians and commentators conclude that Rommel remains an ambiguous figure, not easily definable either inside or outside the myth.
<<<

I know Godwin's law is on the rage nowadays, but the parallels are very stunning. Between hero worshiping, historical revisionism throughout the years, and racially motivated nationalism, the heroes that both you and me were raised on may not be as "heroic" as we originally thought. Besides, like I said in my previous posts, even if a man like Robert E. Lee was as great as a man the Southern mythos has us believe, he fought for an institution of racial beliefs and slavery. The very flag of the Confederacy at the time of the Armistice, The Bloodstained Banner represented that ideology. The white you see was to represent the bountiful cotton fields and the white purity of the south. Originally it was all white with the battle flag in the corner, but as you'd imagine, that becomes problematic on the battlefield where white is generally seen as a symbol of surrender.

Point being that no matter how much hagiography we take in on either of these two figures, the regimes they fought for and supported through military action treated human beings like cattle or worst. This does not absolve the Union or the Federal government of its own inhumane actions, but this also does not justify fighting over a statue of all things. Take them down, put them in a museum if you want to spend the money, and move on.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189

Just posted mah blob when the thread updated with your posts.

I will say in all seriousness that history is never black and white (lol pun). If you think the Confederacy was synonymous with someone like the Nazi's, you've been fed history and not learned anything yourself. The Union had plenty of flaws and the Confederates had plenty of virtues, and the opposite is true as well.

Confederate monuments being taken down is ok, though somewhat sad in my book since it's a piece of history. But calling them bad people is about as ignorant as...well as ignorant as a racist is, ironically enough. Slavery would have been abolished in the south within 20 years as well due to industrialization, just like industrialization had killed the slave trade in the North. The Union didn't one day wake up from a two hundred year nap and go "SLAVERY IS WRONG!" They freed the slaves for economic reasons, and to conform with how the rest of europe was acting. They knew transatlantic trade wouldn't go well if Slaves were being used. That and, if they could exploit immigrants, why have slaves when essentially the same work was being done for almost no cost by making the Irish do a lot of the shit labor, and others?

@POOHEAD189

Oh it was certainly a war of spooked fucking idiots on both sides who thought slaughtering each other in droves would be a reasonable way of settling their differences. No doubt about that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Skepic

I have to agree from a martial standpoint that the destruction and domination of the Confederacy by the Union would have been the best choice if that had been the goal. But this was never the goal, not even from the start. An intellectual man could tell you that defeating and destroying your enemy down to their identity is the most intelligent option, but a wise man would tell you reconciliation and the reunion is more important.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Well I'd tell the wise man that he needs to go back to wise man college and retake his tests cause he ain't soundin so wise, but that's a discussion for another time. ;D

Hindsight will forever be in the favor of those in the future, but the objective was not to defeat and control the Southern states and their rebels. It was more important to the people of the time to reunite the United States, a philosophy by which I abide. It was a classical example of Americans waging war on a moral matter rather than a factual matter. We have done this time and time again throughout history, with recent history proving this best; it would have been strongly in American favor if we had completely dominated Afghanistan and Iraq and destroyed not only the enemy, but it's sympathizers. We do fight in such a manner though; it is not our battle identity.

However, we as the United States do not wage that war. Especially not when the President at the time was assassinated and his message, emphasis and objective was to reunite. It made it a just war then in the eyes of the public, who then largely wanted to see his message carried out. His death convinced more that he was speaking the truth. It is in part the reason Abraham Lincoln is so martyred now.

Hindsight is a bitch indeed, and I'm not saying they made hugely unreasonable choices in their situations. I will say they failed in a lot of ways, to truly reunite the United States and heal the massive gaping scare left by the Civil War, as practically no Southern man, general, or political leader was punished. No reshuffling of power in any significant way, no long term attempt to change any of the South's ideas on race or political identity. The moment the Union troops left, was the the moment the South began to chant "The South will Rise Again!" ect. Nothing had really changed, other than a stop to the massive violence and open rebellion, but to the Union leadership at the time, that was enough for them. And like I said, fair enough, but they still failed at the follow through and like many before them, left the problems to be dealt with by the people of the future.

Anyway, on to the topic we were actually suppose to be talking about. (But I am enjoying this! Just hard to keep these points straight in my head, cause I'll end up typing up a response only to realize that it was meant for another part or point of the discussion and end up deleting most of it. xD)

The recency of the topic has no meaning to me. In many ways, even with that motive, history has proven who is right. Did they erect those monuments as a way to combat the Civil Rights Movement? Very likely, the time frame and rationale of being a "good rebel" suggest it. But who won that war? The American people, again. If anything it stands as good testament to the character of the nation.

We should focus not on the destruction of what we find offensive, rather we should focus on the constructive, such as bettering our historical education and dedication to the National Parks and Historical Sites of the country. The majority of the nation agrees, even with that Left-leaning poll's inherent bias.

Sure, long-term wise I believe focusing on teaching history as objectively and truthfully as possible, no matter how hard that can be as we are inherently biased whether we try or not. However, I don't see why we can't do both. It sounds that the alt left has somewhat swayed that opinion of yours as well, as I don't think it has to be solely because people are "offended" by it. It is a symbol of racism, a constant, ugly reminder of a regressive, dark time built in a public place. This is not some guy hoisting a confederate flag on his farm, this is a whole street in my state's Capitol (Monument Ave, Richmond, VA) dedicated to honoring the "heroes" of the Confederacy. Hero's who defended the Confederacy's right to enslave human beings. It's not "Very Likely" they were built as a way to combat the Civil Rights movement, they were explicitly built to combat the Civil Rights movement.

You can build whatever you want on your property, display whatever horrific shit on your land, but when you have very clear, very undisputed symbols of racism, of slavery, in the middle of a major public road in your state capitol, then that is a very different story. That reflects and inability to move on from the past, to stop idolizing figures who ultimately stood for a terrible regime, and accept that what they stood for in the end was wrong. That's refusing who the victor was in history, and attempting to push a different narrative on a state government level (or at least, a city government level), which I do not agree with or stand by. It shows the opposite, not that the American people won, but that the South isn't done.

I do, however agree with your last statement. We should focus on our National Parks and Historical sites. The "Crater" should be our reminder of the civil war, not some idealistic statues of Confederate leaders on horses in the middle of the State capitol. That doesn't reflect the war accurately in any shape or form. A war torn stretch of land, filed with dedicated staff, artifacts, and smelly historical Civil War reenactors will go a lot longer in objectively showing the real, human side of the war, its reason for starting, and the lessons learned from it, then any (admittedly pretty) statue of Confederate leaders built for the wrong reasons, during the wrong time.

So Mr. Harbinger of Ferocity, tear down this wall the statues!
(sorry... couldn't resist.)