And that's assuming the law stopped the practice, some states still see many Native American children shipped to non-Native communities to get federal welfare money.
I think (and hope) your intent is to draw the parallel so similar programs targeting natives in the US (and Canada, I’ll add, they seldom diverge very far) can be viewed in the same light. I’m not adding much nuance besides noting that your wording could be misinterpreted as a dismissive “nothing new under the sun, happened openly in the US well after too” rather than what I think (and hope) you mean as a more inclusive “these programs which continued in the US very closely resemble fascist programs, and that’s important too”.
I don't think I see what's wrong with that direction, unless I'm reversing it along a different axis than what you have in mind.
I were to attempt to reverse that statement it would say "this can happen in a democratic country, a country doesn't need to have fascists and eugenicists in power => therefore the USA does it".
I mean I know the USA does this, but stating it can happen in a democratic country therefore it must happen in the USA isn't how causality works I think.
Wait, are you saying the reversed implication is that the USA isn't actually a democracy and or that it is a fascist country?
If it did and does facist things in opposition to what the majority of its residents want then yeah. Walks like a duck and all that.
US policy towards natives was directly cited as a model for nazism, and has been a model for programs in fascist and non-fascist regimes implementing similar policies for a long time. The US isn’t fascist, as another response interprets my meaning, but establishing a prototype for fascist policies should be recognized as such. The extent to which the US isn’t fascist is mostly lucky internal trivia for those of us who get to experience that luck. And that pendulum has a lot of inertia in the wrong direction.
Best to recognize when we influenced some of the world’s worst mass crimes. That’s my point.
I largely agree with that point, but was making a separate one that these issues don't just happen far away or a long time ago. At best, it happened in the US in living memory, at worst some version of it is still happening.
The more appropriate description is taken by STATE. These and more issues come from state bureaucracies irrespective of any other trappings.
Otherwise decent people will do terrible things when given a bureaucratic goal, just to achieve said goal, and then will say they were only doing their job or following orders.
The word you are looking for is “political correctness”. I have no problem with plural “you” prohibiting easily verifiable, but politically incorrect facts, but let’s not pretend it’s something else - have some guts and explicitly write it down in site rules instead of (repeatedly) pushing bullshit like this.
Given that your account has had such a clear pattern of posting religious flamewar comments* that we've had to warn you multiple times in the past, and given that you were resuming that pattern several times in the current thread, it seems natural to let you know that we need you to stop posting like this and if you don't we will ban you.
Re "facts": people repeat their favorite "facts" all the time to bludgeon the enemy side in whatever internet battle they're prosecuting, so the but-it's-a-fact defense doesn't hold much water. It's a red herring, which is why it's the most beloved response of trolls. There are infinitely many facts, and the choice of which ones to make explicit is always done by a person with a point of view. If you or anyone wants more explanation about this, I've posted about it many times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
If you want to have repetitive internet wars on grand rhetorical subjects, please do it someplace else. We're trying to optimize for curiosity here.
* or whatever you want to call denunciatory generic rhetoric about religion that leads other users to respond in kind and produce dumbed-down, nasty, repetitive threads
No, you aren't. That's the point: you pretend this is the case, but you only allow certain kinds of curiosity - ones that are politically safe.
It seems to be common practice to take children away from their families, if said families are not part of the group in power.
A truly vulgar and heinous facet of Australian/British history - alongside the already heinous acts committed against the original owners.
19th Century America was extremely anti-Catholic. Many immigrants from predominantly Catholic countries were treated as "not white" or "not white enough" and discriminated against.
notice that it does not say that the children didn't need to be removed from their family situations, just that a new policy was put in place to place them in foster care within Native American culture, contrary to what had been happening, so the extremely high percentage of children to whom this was happening which you refer to seems to be a serious problem in its own right.