Erase One Major U.S. Event

[Fiddytree]

The PT Cruiser

Justin Beiber.

During the midnight hour, have a parade of sumo wrestlers break into mommy and dady love time. Problem solved.

 

[soccerboy22]

Justin Beiber.

During the midnight hour, have a parade of sumo wrestlers break into mommy and dady love time. Problem solved.

If you throw in the Jonas Brothers you got yourself a deal.

 

[Tomoko]

65 years now. Even if the US had not made the Atomic breakthrough - others would have.

As a Japanese I agree also..I have been living in the US now for almost 8 months..many do not share the same views as me and say that the US obviously knew what these nukes could do, but not the lasting effects..I still say if they didn't do it many more would of lost their lives at a much bigger scale and the war would of continued on..something had to be done to stop it... it would of been an even more ugly and bloody up close and personal combat. I love World War II history especially about the pacific.

 

[Ned Racine]

As a Japanese I agree also..I have been living in the US now for almost 8 months..many do not share the same views as me and say that the US obviously knew what these nukes could do, but not the lasting effects..I still say if they didn't do it many more would of lost their lives at a much bigger scale and the war would of continued on..something had to be done to stop it... it would of been an even more ugly and bloody up close and personal combat. I love World War II history especially about the pacific.

Thank You. That was concise & refreshing.

Also as you might know - in what was then the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Thailand, Korea, Manchuria , Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shanghai and in Japan proper - there were Thousands of Allied Prisoners. Some were held for 4 years. Many were down like 50% +_ of Body wight and were close to death . If the War had continued many would not have lived out the year.

Among Westerners (American, British, Australians etc) 31% (at least) persished as prisoners of Japan. Against Nazi Germany in that same period on 4% died. One of the reasons no Warning was given concerning Hiroshima or Nagasaki OR one of the 3 other possible Atomic targets was due to a Fear that Allied POW's would be assembled in these locations. BTW - later information approximates possibly 30 + American dead at Hiroshima.

 

[Whovian]

Reality TV.

 

[Le Marteau]

I'd go with Andrew Jackson's genocide against the American Indians.

Genocides never look good on a country's "past mistakes" list.

 

[Goshin]

I'd go with Andrew Jackson's genocide against the American Indians.

Genocides never look good on a country's "past mistakes" list.

Oversimplification.

First of all, there are still lots of Native Americans around, therefore if it was genocide, it was a relatively ineffective one.

Secondly, the Indians engaged in warfare among themselves, including vicious attacks on noncombatants and torture of captives, and also practiced these acts on white settlers. In many cases, specific tribes and clans of Native Indians allied themselves with American settlers against other Indian tribes/clans.

The tribe some of my ancestors were affiliated with, the Cherokee, migrated south from possibly around the Ohio area a few centuries before Columbus, displacing or destroying other tribes to create a new homeland for themselves.

It is an old story in history. Europeans did it too... Consider the history of the repeated colonization/subjugation and sometimes genocide of Britain and Ireland, for instance. Whole tribes and clans were wiped out in Europe to make way for some other more successful tribe/clan/nation. There's no use singling America out as if we'd done something no one else has.

Virtually every fertile square mile of ground upon which any human being lives was taken from some other tribe/clan/nation, and many people were killed in the process. It's called life.

 

[Harshaw]

I'd go with Andrew Jackson's genocide against the American Indians.

Genocides never look good on a country's "past mistakes" list.

Yeah, 'coz both England and France are squeaky-clean paragons of virtue.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

First of all, there are still lots of Native Americans around, therefore if it was genocide, it was a relatively ineffective one.

Plenty of Jews left, too. It isn't necessary to succeed in order for it to be considered genocide, only that you try.

It is an old story in history. Europeans did it too... Consider the history of the repeated colonization/subjugation and sometimes genocide of Britain and Ireland, for instance. Whole tribes and clans were wiped out in Europe to make way for some other more successful tribe/clan/nation. There's no use singling America out as if we'd done something no one else has.

Virtually every fertile square mile of ground upon which any human being lives was taken from some other tribe/clan/nation, and many people were killed in the process. It's called life.

Blood, blood, blood makes the grass green! Guts, guts, guts make the grass grow!

We did it better than anyone else in history, with the possible exception of Rome-- Carthago delenda est-- and we showed second-place Germany the way. Personally, I prefer to be proud of our history rather than ashamed; we are the greatest nation on the face of this Earth, and it was only possible through the genocide of the people who occupied our land. Like you said... that's life.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder if the American Revolution never happened, if we would all be one big Canada.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I wonder if the American Revolution never happened, if we would all be one big Canada.

The world would be a lot nicer, but poutine?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The world would be a lot nicer, but poutine?

Maybe they would accept our chili cheese fries instead!!!

 

[Ned Racine]

Plenty of Jews left, too. It isn't necessary to succeed in order for it to be considered genocide, only that you try.



Blood, blood, blood makes the grass green! Guts, guts, guts make the grass grow!

We did it better than anyone else in history, with the possible exception of Rome-- Carthago delenda est-- and we showed second-place Germany the way. Personally, I prefer to be proud of our history rather than ashamed; we are the greatest nation on the face of this Earth, and it was only possible through the genocide of the people who occupied our land. Like you said... that's life.

I kind of have a problem with Your use of the word WE. It allows some today to blame others TODAY for events they in fact had no hand in. It opens the door to things like Reparations for Slavery and other nonsense.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I kind of have a problem with Your use of the word WE. It allows some today to blame others TODAY for events they in fact had no hand in. It opens the door to things like Reparations for Slavery and other nonsense.

So, you think genocide, conquest and slavery are wrong and you would disavow your ancestors for their actions... yet you have no problem continuing to benefit from the historical actions you condemn?

I reject your notion that we are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers.

 

[Yossarian]

So, you think genocide, conquest and slavery are wrong and you would disavow your ancestors for their actions... yet you have no problem continuing to benefit from the historical actions you condemn?

I reject your notion that we are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers.

We are not 'responsible' for the actions of our forefathers in the sense that there is no causal relationship between, say, my existence and the decisions that our forefathers made. Having said that, it seems reasonable in a deterministic sense to suggest that perhaps there is an inverse causal relationship, viz. that our forefathers' actions may be to some degree responsible for my existence, but that is another matter.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we are 'responsible' for the perpetuation of the outcomes of our forefathers' actions in some respects, which is different to suggesting that a causal relationship exists between us and our forefathers.

 

[Ned Racine]

So, you think genocide, conquest and slavery are wrong and you would disavow your ancestors for their actions... yet you have no problem continuing to benefit from the historical actions you condemn?

I reject your notion that we are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers.

Benefit (???) You speak in broad terms I hope .

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What you seem to be suggesting is that we are 'responsible' for the perpetuation of the outcomes of our forefathers' actions in some respects, which is different to suggesting that a causal relationship exists between us and our forefathers.

That is exactly what I am suggesting. We bear the moral responsibility for the actions of our forefathers', like we bear the moral responsibility for the actions of our government, because they are of our people. We inherit their responsibilities and their debts like we inherit their wisdom and their wealth. The descendants of the original victims of colonization still bear the harm of our forefathers' actions, and we still bear the benefits. How can we not be responsible?

I am not suggesting that we make reparations; far from it. I am only saying that we should not, can not, disavow them for the very actions that made our existence possible.

Benefit (???) You speak in broad terms I hope .

Whose land do you live on, and how did he acquire it? Imagine a world with no America, or try to imagine our great nation crowded into tiny pockets along the Atlantic shore.

We are blessed to have this country that we live in, and that country only exists because our ancestors did some pretty terrible things to win it.

 

[Ned Racine]

That is exactly what I am suggesting. We bear the moral responsibility for the actions of our forefathers', like we bear the moral responsibility for the actions of our government, because they are of our people. We inherit their responsibilities and their debts like we inherit their wisdom and their wealth. The descendants of the original victims of colonization still bear the harm of our forefathers' actions, and we still bear the benefits. How can we not be responsible?

I am not suggesting that we make reparations; far from it. I am only saying that we should not, can not, disavow them for the very actions that made our existence possible.



Whose land do you live on, and how did he acquire it? Imagine a world with no America, or try to imagine our great nation crowded into tiny pockets along the Atlantic shore.

We are blessed to have this country that we live in, and that country only exists because our ancestors did some pretty terrible things to win it.

Actually there are those who can imagine that very easily BECAUSE they believe that [prior to European Expansionism, and the Industrial Revolution that All the World's peoples(of Color) got along just splendidly and were in harmony with nature.

They prefer not to think about a bustling sub Sahara Slave trade existing long before the Portugese came down the Coast - about the First Jihad making it all the way to Tours,France and all those Mongols getting into what is now Iraq and the Carpathias. They also forget how some of the Native Americans didn't exactly get along.

Now guys like Cecil Rhodes and James K.Polk and Andrew Carnegie might be answerable in the next life , but possibly they served a purpose in this one.

 

[Goshin]

So, you think genocide, conquest and slavery are wrong and you would disavow your ancestors for their actions... yet you have no problem continuing to benefit from the historical actions you condemn?

I reject your notion that we are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers.

I have a slightly different take.


First, slavery. Slavery began with high-intensity agriculture and surplus food. It became more feasible to enslave a captured enemy and make him work for you, instead of sacrificing him to Baal or the One-Eyed Hunter or whoever. Thus, slavery was originally a function of economic properity, and a higher moral choice than slaughtering the enemy entirely. Most captives in ancient times were probably relieved to be enslaved instead of having their hearts cut out on a stone altar.

At the time of the US Civil War, slavery was going into decline. Industrialization and farm machinery were on the verge of making slavery no longer economically viable. Slavery would have largely faded out within a generation even without the war.

The dealings of the American settlers with Native Indians tribes was, IMO, more about land-grabbing than genocide. Early on the idea was to push the Indians west of the Mississppi river, to leave the coastal lands for the white settlers. The typical Indian required 8 square miles each to support his hunter-gatherer/slash-and-burn-agriculture lifestyle, whereas the European settlers could support a family on 30 acres. The greater land-efficiency and higher technology allowed higher population-density for the American settlers, and made the displacement and decline of Native Indians inevitable. These trends continued as America expanded west, and the native Indians were forced onto smaller and smaller plots of land... they were forced, in most cases, to give up most of their previous way of life and take up European-style agriculture.

I would debate that it was genocide in the same sense that Adolph's desire to exterminate the Jews was.... the American settlers just wanted them out of the way. The Indians didn't want to go, hence there was war. Because their culture was relatively disorganized and inefficient, they lost. Nowadays, they have their reservations and fleece the white man in their casinos. :mrgreen:

Like a lot of people who trace their family back to pre-Revolution times in this area, I'm part Cherokee. It doesn't really matter, because I'm "culturally" decended from European settlers and those Native Indians who saw the writing on the wall, conformed to the new order and intermarried with the white settlers. I benefit from my ancestors' actions, yes.

Still, I am glad that the technological, economic and social progress of the past two centuries has enabled us to give up slavery and view genocide as evil, as I consider these morally preferable positions. I don't judge our ancestors by modern standards, because they lived in different times with different norms and values.


To a large degree, the level of morality with which we actually treat our fellow man, is positively influence by how wealthy we are as a society, and how advanced technologically and economically. Conversely, the degree of desperation or necessity that we may view a given situation with affects the level of morality we think we can afford in a negative manner. You're more likely to indulge in charity if your own children are not going hungry, you see. You're less likely to want to slaughter the enemy en-masse if you don't feel very threatened by him.

Therefore, societal wealth and technological progress tend to be moral goods on the whole.

So, go out and thank a scientist or engineer, and don't forget to thank your nearest greedy capitalist as well. :mrgreen:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would debate that it was genocide in the same sense that Adolph's desire to exterminate the Jews was.... the American settlers just wanted them out of the way. The Indians didn't want to go, hence there was war.

Lebesnraum ist lebensraum, nicht? I don't see the difference, at least in moral terms. One wanted to destroy an ethnic group to steal their land, the other wanted to destroy an ethnic group to steal their property. Both justified their actions on the grounds of supposed cultural superiority and manifest destiny. The only difference is that one nation succeeded, and is allowed to be proud of their accomplishments, while the other group failed and appears destined to be shamed for all eternity by the rest of the civilized world. The whole affair bears an important moral lesson on the importance of winning versus losing.

Like a lot of people who trace their family back to pre-Revolution times in this area, I'm part Cherokee. It doesn't really matter, because I'm "culturally" decended from European settlers and those Native Indians who saw the writing on the wall, conformed to the new order and intermarried with the white settlers. I benefit from my ancestors' actions, yes.

Still, I am glad that the technological, economic and social progress of the past two centuries has enabled us to give up slavery and view genocide as evil, as I consider these morally preferable positions. I don't judge our ancestors by modern standards, because they lived in different times with different norms and values.

Ironically, I view this argument as too morally relativistic. It strikes me as strange that people who believe in one moral authority, one moral standard, can still excuse their ancestors for being "from a different time". Still, it is better to acknowledge the necessity of their actions than to condemn them, when they made your life possible.

Therefore, societal wealth and technological progress tend to be moral goods on the whole.

So, go out and thank a scientist or engineer, and don't forget to thank your nearest greedy capitalist as well. :mrgreen:

Certainly. Though, one can't help to point out that if societal wealth and technological progress aren't available to everyone, the moral good they encourage doesn't reach everyone-- in which case, it's hardly just to condemn the underprivileged for the lack of moral rectitude their position of society imposes upon them.

 

[RightinNYC]

2004 ALCS.

But for that, Bostonians wouldn't be such insufferable pricks.

 

[soccerboy22]

I am reserving the right for a comeback for ^ when I am a little less hungover.

 

[Goshin]

Lebesnraum ist lebensraum, nicht? I don't see the difference, at least in moral terms. One wanted to destroy an ethnic group to steal their land, the other wanted to destroy an ethnic group to steal their property. Both justified their actions on the grounds of supposed cultural superiority and manifest destiny. The only difference is that one nation succeeded, and is allowed to be proud of their accomplishments, while the other group failed and appears destined to be shamed for all eternity by the rest of the civilized world. The whole affair bears an important moral lesson on the importance of winning versus losing.

Hmmm. I still think there was a substantial difference in the treatment of American Indians as opposed to Jews by Hitler and company. One point I'd make is that while "we" (irony since I have ancestors on both sides) forced the Indians onto reservations, once they were there we didn't push them into mass gas-chambers or anything like that. I will concede that that difference may be more one of degree than of kind, however.

Ironically, I view this argument as too morally relativistic. It strikes me as strange that people who believe in one moral authority, one moral standard, can still excuse their ancestors for being "from a different time". Still, it is better to acknowledge the necessity of their actions than to condemn them, when they made your life possible.

I find it ironic to be accused of moral relativism. :mrgreen:

I acknowlege that, given the circumstances under which they found themselves and the values/norms common to men of that era, my white ancestors probably felt it was necessary to force the Indians out of the land they wanted onto the res, and to kill those who resisted in what was nearly/arguably a genocidal manner. So yes, I excuse them to some degree, on grounds of the historical context of their actions, the values of the time period, and the necessity they felt driving them. That doesn't mean I couldn't wish that a better and less morally questionable outcome had been possible. Assimilation of the Indians into American society for instance... and some of my readings suggest that this was discussed at times, but in many cases the Indians did not want to give up their tribal hunter-gatherer ways. Since 1000 Indians needed 8000 square miles of land to live that way upon, the white settlers were not going to stand for it when that same 8000 sq miles could support 32,000 American colonists using contemporary agricultural methods. If more Indian tribes had been willing to adopt the agricultural lifestyle of the American settlers, and settle on smaller plots of land, the level of conflict might have been greatly reduced. There weren't THAT many Indians around at the time of Andy Jackson, maybe under a hundred thousand east of the Mississippi.

IF, if, if.... yeah lotta "if" there. Woulda coulda shoulda, but that's not how it happened, and rather than giving my farm back to Cochise I'll live with the fact that my white ancestors were not as gentle with my Indian ancestors as they theoretically could have been.

If everyone were reasonable and rational, there would be no need for war, but clearly this has never been and never will be the case.

Certainly. Though, one can't help to point out that if societal wealth and technological progress aren't available to everyone, the moral good they encourage doesn't reach everyone-- in which case, it's hardly just to condemn the underprivileged for the lack of moral rectitude their position of society imposes upon them.

To a degree there is some truth to that. The thing is, in modern America properity and technology are not beyond almost anyone's grasp, if they're willing to work their ass off for it... so my willingness to excuse the bad behavior of the 'underprivilieged' for the sake of their poverty is therefore somewhat limited.


On a pragmatic level, however, I assert that people's morality often devolves to the level they feel they can afford. When they feel relatively prosperous and unthreatened, many people are very kind and charitable. When they feel very threatened and think their prosperity (or survival) hangs by a thread, many people tend to become ruthless and hard-bitten, and resort to actions that would shock most of their neighbors. I think this is one of the big difference why in modern times we don't target civilian populations deliberately in war, but in WW2 (and the Indian wars!) we DID indeed target civilians on purpose.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Well put Goshin... I believe that we must also look at the issue of "Indian Removal" from a historical perspective. While many of the policies implemented by our government against Native Americans are obviously looked upon as inexcuseable by today's standards of morality, it bears stating that it is difficult and almost unfair to apply all of these same standards to those who lived here and implemented these policies nearly 200 years ago. The fact is, Jackson's Indian Removal Policy wasn't exactly met with a great deal of criticism or resistance from the American masses. We must also consider that there were many American settlers still living at the time who had personal memories (or whose parents had) of Native American alliegances during the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. There were many British frontier families who fell victim to brutal Native American raiding parties during both wars. To those Americans directly tied to such incidents, the Native Americans posed a real and calculable threat.

We also fall short when stereotyping ALL Native Americans as peaceful, hunter-gatherer peoples who were never self-serving and were the quintessintial conservationists. Those Nations allied with the French were often trying to protect viable business ventures and driving off British colonists only helped to solidify those ventures as potential hunting/trapping areas were being "invaded" by the colonists and their new agrarian methods of subsistence.

Sadly, by the time the Jacksonian Era kicked in, ALL Native Americans, for the most part, had been stigmatized as barbaric peoples who refused to assimilate - even the generally peaceful and cooperative tribes. Manifest Destiny was simply an inevitable outcome of a fledgeling nation bent on teritorial expansion. This clash of cultures simply spelled out an inevitable outcome for Native American peoples as well.

To equate what happened here to the policy of Lebensraum in Nazi Germany, well, is a bit of a stretch. The Jews, for the most part, had assimilated to a modern European lifestyle. Beyond that, they were significant contributors to the European industrial economy - especially in Germany. The two situations are from completely different historic eras and, in my opinion, cannot even be placed in the same context.

 

[Cold Highway]

2004 ALCS.

But for that, Bostonians wouldn't be such insufferable pricks.

Oh please Yankee's fans are just as obnoxious.