America’s Shameful Human Rights Record (2012)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The problematic assumption is that his 'partisan interest' would be to favor (D) over (R). That's not the only possibility. I think that Carter's interests are more in steering (D) and other issues like Israel and Palestine. And perhaps, a little, in glorifying himself - the possibility should not be excluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#Covert_action
Teapot dome, Japanese internment camps, the deliberate nuclear bombing of civilian centers in Japan and the fire-bombing of Dresden, the corporatist colonization of Latin America, the Red Scare, blacklists, and House Un-American Activities committee, the attempted invasion of Cuba, the massed invasion of Vietnam under false pretenses, the covert bombings of Cambodia and Laos, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile that ushered in the rule of Pinochet...
Then, a historical blip: the 4-year single-term presidency of Jimmy Carter, widely derided as one of the least effective administrations in the 20th century...
... and, bang: covert deals with Iran for hostages, the support of the contras in Nicaragua, the support of right-wing death squads in San Salvador, the bombings in Beirut, and on & on & 9/11 & on until today and the Obama administration.
It's possible that things are worse today than they were in 1978, but it's also likely that 1978 isn't a particularly useful date to compare 2013 to.
Anyway, if you don't find the USA's involvement in Dresden horrifying enough, we can always bring up, say, the Tokyo firebombing – a 100% all-American operation that killed 100,000 on March 10, 1945 alone.
World War II was horrible on a scale that defies description today. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every theatre of war.
War is horrible. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every war. But I do not think that an abundance of horror means that we should do away with the desire for accuracy.
The word "half" is, in this context, purposefully imprecise. To cite it as "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" is to deploy needless detail to distract the reader from the main point. ("Do we have reason to believe that the USAAF signed off on, and materially contributed to, the bombing of Dresden? Why, yes.")
It's easy to get lost in irrelevant detail, or to deploy irrelevant detail to make other people get lost. It's one of the reasons they ask young physicists to practice those brainteaser problems ("approximately how many cheese salespeople are there in Utica, New York?"): They need to learn not to fret so much about the shape of the leaves that they're afraid to sketch the forest.
You wanted it to be imprecise because it made your argument sound better. Lets be honest you really did your best to come up with such a verbose example:
"42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago"
versus
"Wikipedia reports that a little less than half the force that bombed Dresden" or
"Wikipedia reports that almost half the force that bombed Dresden"
The latter example required the addition of six letters or one word.
1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.
1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? It sucked for the people while it happened. But the world is a better place because of it. Do you hear the british complaining about the Roman's pillaging the country side? nay. As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare.
3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.
4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.
I'm sure Germans love Germany, but the holocaust and the Nazi regime are something that is discussed at their national level and therefore, they're able to move forward as a nation instead of ignoring their past. These are things that need to be discussed. I'm not talking about reparations or anything. The way mature people, and the same goes for nations, is to say, "Well, we sure fucked that up. Sorry, we won't do it again." I'd like to hear that statement about the NSA thing and drone bs from our President.
Now, I am no anarchist; no mindless rebel.
I know what team I play for, and I try to do the right thing by them, and play by the rules of the game, but I definitely don't love my country unconditionally; nor do I shy away from speaking out when criticism is due.
I am not perfect, nor is my family, community or country. We have done evil things in the past, and we continue to do them today: the state commits some grievous crimes, but frequently we have no choice, caught as we are between a rock and a hard place. Only be acknowledging the evil can we hope to counter it. If pride makes us shy away from understanding our faults, then we are doomed.
So, my loyalty to my state, morally dubious organ that it is, is entirely contingent on it being the least-worst option available; on showing at least some promise of improving over time, and on us collectively having the self-awareness and the humility to acknowledge failure when it occurs, and to recognise evil when it breeds.
A self-aware and enlightened populace is necessary, but not sufficient, for a self-aware and enlightened state.
We are being manipulated not just by US propaganda and partisan propaganda but also by propaganda of other countries such as Russia, China, Iran... it's ridiculous to ignore this as if it were impossible, assume everything you are told is correct if it is anti-US, and tell yourself that an uncritically contrarian or hostile view is "honest criticism".
I wish this would ever be acknowledged, and I wish that contrarian and hostile claims were held to the same standard of evidence as patriotic claims. The reality is that here on HN, they aren't. Gossip is as good as truth as long as it cuts in the right direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_love
The problem is that it tends to be untenable at scale, it also requires reason as a counter-balance when one member of your family is abusive. Which is why unconditional love for country/nation is usually destructive (see nationalism).
If you can't deal with the shameful aspects of our history, you have no right to celebrate the good stuff. They all belong to us.
1.a. Michelle Knight's family is highly disfunctional and poverty stricken, and might get the help it needs as a result of the attention that her horrific experiences with Ariel Castro brought them from the media. Is that a defense of Ariel Castro?
2. The amount of people who died of natural causes last year in the US dwarfs the number of people who are murdered. Does that mean that murderers should go unpunished?
3. Nobody cares about you personally. We live in a capitalist society in which wealth is passed down to the next generation. An awful lot of that money was made from slavery.
4. America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does good things is not an excuse for censoring bad things.
Yes, and you shouldn't blame a nation where no one from the time period when that was acceptable is still alive and no on alive still condones that behavior. How long can you hold a grudge against a nation when that nation still exists in name only?
That's the whole point. Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past doesn't do anyone any good.
This is not true.
>Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past
There are people alive who are still dealing with devastating consequences from the past. There are also people who are living pretty comfortable lives because of the past. It's a lot easier for the beneficiaries to deal with it.
That having been said ... What is expected of me? How should I act? How should I feel?
When people get angry about this subject, I understand their feelings and I don't think for a minute that everyone was born with equal opportunity -- but, should I be throwing money at people? Should I give up my life dreams to go even the odds? I'm not sure what the expected response is? Is it enough if I hang my head at my ancestors, pay my taxes, and do my best to not sound entitled? I'm quite serious, because for all of the complaining about how good people like me have it, I never hear a series of actions that makes my life "acceptable" instead of "something that just causes seething rage in people when they think about it."
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand what the appropriate response is when someone says, "You don't own slaves but that doesn't mean you didn't get the benefits from it!". Is the answer "yes", "no", "I see", "I'm sorry"?
Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male.
What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate...
Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.
Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going.
Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today.
Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples.
As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.
But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"
In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.
Why don't you focus on helping people who are disadvantaged with respect to their current disadvantage, rather than on shaming or punishing categories of people resembling abusers of the past?
If a Puerto Rican living in the US has been crippled by corrupt police, it becomes irrelevant that Puerto Ricans were not as historically disadvantaged as blacks. That person should be helped as a person, not moved down in priority for being a Puerto Rican. And so on.
On the other hand, lots of people from that nation say that whatever that nation does today is good - and the proof is that it has always been the "good guy" throughout history. That's not true, and demystifying this myth of the US exceptionalism is fundamental if we want to have a rational discussion about current issues.
Just one example: I remember someone saying here on HN that even in the war of 1812 the USA wasn't the aggressor...
Important corollary: it certainly doesn't defend current misbehavior of any other country to invoke ancient problems of the US. If you pay attention, you will see many examples of this. The status of the US as 'world police' seems to make it attractive to defend anything you're doing by saying the US is worse anyway.
1a. No, but that's irrelevant. The US is not Ariel Castro. You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.
2. How do you propose to 'punish' the US? Who will carry out the punishment? Do you think doing this will improve the US somehow?
If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders, but a choice between two interventions of the same cost should be made based on benefit.
Punishment after the fact is not a reform, it is at best a deterrent and more typically revenge. Applied to international interactions, your 'punishment' is liable to be a war in which atrocities are committed against the 'prosecuted' nation.
If you are going to justify war or massive sanctions against the US then please come out and do so openly rather than beating around the bush with stupid metaphors.
3. When you blame 'Americans' you blame all the Americans. Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.
4. America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.
The range is from zero to two.
>You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.
I'm going to ignore the tautology here and say that "on par" is a stronger statement than "similar." The US is also not the Hendersons.
>How do you propose to 'punish' the US?
I have no interest in punishing the US.
>If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders
Why doesn't it mean that?
>Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.
Only if you require that I blame every American, like you just did. I thought I was simply blaming the people who did it, and the people who benefit from it.
>America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.
I don't hear anyone upset about people saying nice things about America (unless they are factually incorrect.)
-a job with risks, rewards, and reasonable compensation -not intrinsically more patriotic than a variety of other jobs (although the culture is designed to make you think it is) -I have contributed far more to America outside of service than I did inside it -I left service convinced that patriotism is not really a value worth caring about. It is like "team membership" like being a Yankees fan.
I guess to me patriotism isn't telling everyone else how much better you are than other countries, it's constantly reminding yourself how much better your country can be, and striving to make it happen. Don't need to be in the military to do that, and sometimes going into the military might be counter productive to that goal.
I'd like to think that selfless and concrete action is also patriotic. Is that not the case? If not then... well.. I'm not terribly skilled with weapons, not that strong, not that athletic, and my eyesight is kind of meh -- I'm not sure I can be that kind of patriot.
It was an intentional dig at this guy who did ROTC but couldn't be bothered to commission.
America has been an overwhelming force for its own self interests. These are the kinds of statements that show why so many people in the rest of the world are mad about US foreign policy.
It's a competition/race, and America has been winning at it for the last century.
The others' moral opposition and distaste with the USA is a product of them not finishing first in this race.
What kind of argument is this? Would you be ok with China conquering the United States? What if it was after 90% were wiped out by SARs?
> I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.
Of course you didn't. But slavery and the dispossession of native lands created a status quo that benefits you.
No one can seriously dispute how bad the Native Americans got it (ANYWHERE in the Americas), and no one can undo that now. But we all just look the other way about ongoing activities in (say) China because what can you do and besides, they brought development to the benighted natives ruled by tyrants, and anyway, Edward Snowden?
When people talk about privilege (though often in a gender context), this is exactly what they are talking about. Or th joke about George Bush being born on third base, thinking he hit a triple.
Those past actions by other people put you in a position of wealth and power >90% of the world's people, and you didn't do any of it, you just received the benefits, and (probably, I don't know you personally), haven't returned ill-gotten gains that came to you. As such, non-Americans have every reason to be displeased with modern Americans.
The vast majority of people on this planet are descendants of cultures that, at some point, were dominant in their area by conquering their neighbors. Vikings, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Russians, Inca, Aztecs, Spanish, French... I'm sure others can give more examples. Given human history, I'm pretty sure that those who did not (or have not) done so failed due to a lack of _means_, rather than will.
Yes, I'm sorry that the founders of this country completely screwed the natives. That was a terrible thing to do. (My ancestors didn't come here until a century later.) What would you have us do? How can one meaningfully repair those wrongs? We've seen in Israel the extreme difficulty of resolving the "I was here first" group's claims with "But my family has lived here for hundreds of years" group. It's like someone coming to take your house because you bought it from someone whose great-grandfather stole it from his great-grandfather.
It saddens me that we, as humans, seem to be unable to agree on a way to live together harmoniously. I'm sure that advocating forgiveness for past wrongs is a position that I only take because I am not from the group that was wronged, but ... where does one go?
A very large number of Americans are descendants of Native Americans, or blacks. Possibly also 'whites' at the same time (though many of those 'whites' were later non-Anglo arrivals).
So you are in the odd position of justifying anger by (say) Dutch people against Americans who are related to them, or to Italians who arrived in 1920, or hispanics or blacks or Native Americans.
Because, don't you know, non-Americans have every reason to be displeased with modern Americans on account of things some Americans did a long time ago. But the Dutch (as one example among many), of course nobody of that nationality did anything back then.
every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.
It's human nature to be a country and invade other countries? How come all that living in peace with neighbours stuff? How come America is so warlike?
Oh, maybe because it was never invaded/occupied/taken over. Maybe because you haven't got the faintest fucking idea what it's like to have done to you what you do to others. Not really, and not at scale.
3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.
Oh, don't worry, otherwise you could just claim it's "human nature", huh? If anyone needs further confirmation for George Carlin's claim that "Germany lost WW2, fascism won it", then one doesn't need look further than this whole "being a fearful aggressor with nothing but BS for arguments is human nature" thing. That's one straight copy if I ever saw one.
America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.
Yeah, it's literally impossible to resist being free and wealthy when the saints come marching in. Nevermind that even in America itself anyone but the rich has been stagnating, if not declining for the last 30 years, much less the rest of the world. All those free trade agreements, all those credits which only serve to undermine American power and give away free opportunities.
Pointing out the true history of the United States is one of the best ways to learn from the mistakes of the past. Don't mad at people for talking about this, get mad that colonialism exists and its affects, past and present, continue to shape US society in the negative.
> 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.
This is no way excuses any injustice brought about via military and armed conflict/occupation.
> 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism?
I hear this sentiment a lot in various forms, that somehow people in the past who were violently and systematically oppressed and violated should be grateful to their oppressor. This is utter nonsense, the effects of colonialism are not over and continue to affect and harm those people you believe only to have been affected in the past.
> 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare.
This fact was exploited in warfare and policy against native peoples in the United States and this is not something that excuses violent invasion and occupation.
> 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.
The legacy of colonialism and slavery still exist today and some kinds of people still directly benefit from that legacy. To deny that is the wipe the current day experiences and issues that affect native and black folks away so you can feel better about yourself/your country/your society.
> 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.
This is debatable, however even if good deeds have been done, that doesn't change the history of the horrible things done by the United States and we should most certainly not forget that or ever stop talking about that legacy and how it shapes society today.
* taxpayer money being allocated on the basis of race, e.g. a Maori television station. That is morally wrong. I think that's the situation you're referring to, and completely agree with you.
* the Crown (now Government) signed the Treaty of Waitangi with almost all of the Maori tribes in New Zealand, essentially pledging to leave their land alone. Then, in many cases, they took it anyway. That is something for which reparation is entirely appropriate, as the entities involved (tribes, and Government) are still extant today.
America is the A+ student, who volunteers at the homeless shelter and teaches at-risk kids how to read. But the only thing that certain people can ever bring up is that it shot a squirrel once with his BB gun when he was five years old.
Don't get me wrong, I have very serious concerns with the way civil liberties are being treated as of late and we should absolutely make sure the abuses and wrongs are taken care of now. But constantly bring up shit from 200 years ago is what bugs the hell out of me.
Do you really see the US this way, honestly? A country that's basically been terrorizing other countries almost non-stop since the 50's/60's. The last "A+" assignment the US had was World War II. There have been quite a lot of squirrels getting shot ever since.
I find the discussion about slavery to be pretty pointless too, mostly because all it accomplishes is to take people's attention away from the pretty obvious truth that the US has been 'raping and pillaging' almost constantly for half of the last century. To borrow your high school (I guess?) analogy: America is the former A+ student that helped (greatly) to bring down the high school bully, then slowly started transforming into that bully, only with less anti-semitism and quite a bit more islamophobia.
As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Actually there are many people held as slaves in the U.S.
Examples I can speak of are generally women held as slaves in circumstances in which men pay another man (the "slaveholder") for his permission to rape said slaves. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other kinds of slavery too.
Honest question without a clear answer: If your grandparents had robbed a bank, killing innocents in the process, and left millions for you in a secret untraceable trust fund, would you accept the money?
That's the real moral issue underlying social justice. While I wasn't responsible for slavery or genocide, I still profited from it. I don't claim there's a clear solution, or any intrinsic culpability, but it is reality. While I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the bank-robbery money, I would certainly advocate for giving some/all to charity or to the descendants of the victims.
You are quite correct on [2], by the way, which deserves to more widely known. However, that still doesn't justify all the broken treaties and other abhorrent behavior.
> blame America first crowd.
Let's be fair: this is more accurately described as the "Blame the powerful first" crowd. It simply happens that America is really, really fucking powerful.
Slavery was brought into place 2 centuries before the Founding Fathers. And they were fundamental in bringing it down.
> One of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.
For comparison, the Nazi's existed less than 1 century from today, so does modern Germany face the same criticism?
And yet Great Britain managed to abolish slavery three decades before it was abolished in the US.
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue...
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation...
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection...
[1] http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
EDIT: For the curious, am referencing "Arithmetic on the Frontier" by Kipling ( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7846/7846-h/7846-h.htm#link2H... ).
2. The US is comprised many states, and Federal power was weaker than. Some states banned slavery earlier.
3. Slavery was hugely economically impactful in North America. Once USA left the British Empire, slavery became less relevant, and pushing for worldwide abolishing of slavery may even have been economically strategic against USA competition.
That is blatantly false.
Jefferson wrote several times about possibly supporting gradual emancipation if it included deportation of former slaves, but his actions speak much louder than his words.
Not only did he refuse to support actual plans for gradual emancipation several times in his career, but Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime, even bringing them with him while he lived in France and to the White House during his presidency (which truthfully was not uncommon for presidents of the time). Jefferson viewed slavery as part of the Southern way of life.
At the time of his death, he had freed a grand total of about 7 slaves, but 130 slaves were sold from Monticello after his death. Compare that to other wealthy slaveowners like George Washington, who freed all of their slaves upon their death.
Here's Jefferson, writing on freed African-Americans:
> "For men probably of any color, but of this color we know, brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them." [1]
[1] http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett....
Of course, it is very accepted to blast every American for slavery today, so that is just sort of an international double standard.
Do you believe Americans, as a group, are similarly educated or aware?
The entire nation? Like 100% of everything that has been accomplished?
Ahhh, the good old - let me attribute all the negative things in the world to the actions of the evil white men that live in the USA, while ignoring every positive thing they did, while white-washing all other colors/races/countries - closet supremacist statement.
This is made up.
Look it up youself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_de...
1700 - 89% white
1800 - 81% white
1870 - 87% white
1910 - 89% white
1960 - 89% white
You are technically correct, even slightly more if you distinguish between white and Hispanic. But I'm really not going to argue over a few percentage points with anyone.
Basically, the Americans conquered the whole country. Its like the French declaring anything west of the Mississipi theirs. What happened to the people living there? I bet they didn't say, yes France, you own us.
The OP decided to bring race into this. And I know exactly were he is going with this. I'm just responding.
No, he didn't. You did.
But how can you tell me that race does not stand behind the curtains of that quoted and emphasized statement?
America was predominantly white, 90% up to 1960. If you make a statement about it being built by stolen black slaves, while not giving any credit to the other people, it becomes a race thing.
The story of everywhere is the story of violation of human rights. If the USA's record is shameful, then the record of the rest of the world is even more shameful.
Did you mean "violation"?
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ce3sz/why_di...
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gcb51/why_di...
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dmbt3/how_we...
In the case of Nicaragua in 1984, it went up the UN courts with the US being found to encourage human rights violations but it didn't amount to much since the US sits on the security council.
This is such a complicated topic that I really don't know whats the moral answer is. On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist when there's so much going on in the world but on the other hand it's very easy to screw things up and impossible to predict the consequences. The best I hope for is having morally justified reasons for intervention rather than economically justified ones.
Lots of interesting stuff at the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actio...
Agreed. But we (USA) should be non-interventionists. Isolationism is when you cut off economic ties and restrict travel in and out (think North Korea). Non-interventionism is when you stay out of other nation's political affairs (politics, war, economics).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And simple answers to complex questions come with their own problems.
...but now, which option is more profitable?
There is no doubt that America's past is stained with human rights violations. However, to hold up America as equivalent to the current regimes in China or Russia (to name just two) is laughable by anyone with an understanding of history. It comes from people who benefit from seeing a weaker US and these people chose to be ignorant because it advances their world view.
One of my many causes is a stronger America and a better world. I see a stronger America as a potential force for good in the world. However, in the past decade, it's been hard to see through many of our faults.
So how does it benefit me to see a weaker US? By equating our surveillance state with those of other regimes? By pointing out that gerrymandering and electioneering isn't quite democratic? By disagreeing with the use of drones that result in 10x the number of civilian casualties?
Sorry, but all this protestation is intended to strengthen my country, not weaken it. I'm not sure how you arrived at the opposite conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...
That other countries exist with their own violations of humans rights doesn't negate any kind of criticism about the United State w.r.t. human rights. You can be critical of more than one thing at a time.
> I'm sick of the moral relativism that you see when people point out American's shortfalls. You see words like "undemocratic", "despot", "dictatorship" thrown around by people who have little understanding what those words mean.
Many people have a good idea of what those words mean and the United State's actions and policies can most certainly be described with those words throughout various times in its history.
However, using words like "undemocratic", "despot" and "dictatorship" to describe the US cheapen those words and do a great disservice to the MILLIONS of people who have died under such regimes.
By that logic, it's also offensive to call the contemporary PRC and Russia undemocratic, despotic, and dictatorial because millions of people aren't dying under those regimes.
Are you seriously accusing Jimmy Carter of moral relativism? of not understanding the meaning of words like "undemocratic", "despot", or "dictatorship"? of wanting to see a weaker US??
I suggest you stop throwing around baseless ad hominem attacks, and actually address the points raised.
This would be the Jimmy Carter who kissed up to Hamas?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/16/jimmy-carter...
Look, I'm not saying that you have to agree with anything the guy is saying, but simply dismissing him as "doesn't know what he's talking about" is insufficient.
Then it's a good thing I didn't do that. I pointed out a specific instance in which he supported a definition of "peace" which, to put it mildly, seems a bit inconsistent with the usual sense of the word. It's not ad hominem to criticize a person based on things they've actually said or done that are relevant to the issue at hand.
(he's not writing about current events)
Are you just highlighting that the article was written in 2012 or suggesting that because the article was written in 2012 it is not relevant or current? Or that the issues themselves, as mentioned above, are not current (ie. citizen target assassinations or NSA mining of electronic communications...that is so...2012)?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
If you want an example of massive and pointless civilian casualties caused by Allies in WWII, take the Dresden bombing instead.
It took considerable effort to change opinions to allow deliberate targeting of civilian populations.
To go from not killing civilians, to bombing cities, to the awful fire-bombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima shows just how brutal we became during the war.
I'm not sure why you mention the Axis powers. "The Nazis did it too" is not something I want to use to justify my behaviour. We know the Axis powers were fucking evil. I hope we hold ourselves to higher standards that the people carrying out the Holocaust or Unit 731.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)
> And no nation other than the US today would do something that could even inadvertently hurt civilians
The US deliberately targets civilians. Very many civilian deaths are caused and these are not inadvertent or accidental.
Over 500 cruise missiles and over 1,500 air sorties, causing over 6,000 civilian deaths (Shock and Awe, beginning of Iraq war)is not some incidental death count.
I am addressing a distortion of history. If you don't recognize that fraught decisions and, yes, the unintentional AND intentional deaths of civilians (and rape, and torture) are an ancient part of war - NOT just by the US or the Allies or even the parties to WWII - then I am sorry to say that something is very wrong with your understanding of war and history. Specifically, it is a very selective understanding; a very conveniently selective understanding, aimed only at imparting a sense that the US is worse than everything else in history.
It isn't helpful to propagate this misunderstanding, by selectively citing ONLY cases where the US has killed civilians (but nobody else, and always out of context). It isn't helpful to equivocate casually between civilian deaths in war, and intentionally killing civilians, as if they were exactly the same thing.
There are important and meaningful changes in how civilians have been affected by war over time. But you are just blowing these away entirely in favor of a simplistic cartoon.
I'm not sure why you would hold me to account for defending the Iraq war, which I have never done, or attribute to me the bizarrely specific claim that 6,000 deaths is "incidental". Perhaps you should address this to someone who supported that war.
The Axis, for example, always erred on the side of not hurting any civilians.
I have no idea where you got that idea. Hitler used collective punishment against civilian populations to deter resistance. Stuff like 'for every German soldier that dies, we kill 100 civilians'. The German's also bombed civilian centers like London and Belgrade.
right now the issue is framed as: sacrifice liberties = being 'tough on terrorists'.
what's needed is some rhetorical jiu-jitsu.
frame it as follows
Non pants wetter = I'm not afraid of terrorists and to the extent I am afraid, I'll overcome my fears and take the risk of a terrorist attack to preserve our great american traditions.
Pants wetters = everyone who's so afraid of terrorists that they'd sell out what it means to be american
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here
those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters"
obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11.
I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building.
So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
My own "courage" doesn't give me the right to hand over the lives of others and my politics certainly don't either.
Any framing which disregards the trade-off is harmful. That trade-off needs to be discussed.
Unfortunately, a position's power is negatively correlated to the position's support for speaking of humanity's great concerns.