|
Post by Random on Sept 7, 2005 19:48:22 GMT -5
i agree completely with that, however to get a better view of how things are relatively i think one would have to take a look at situations in other countries, and as much as i love seeing canada glorified, we can't just look at one other country
so basically my point here is, well what about other countries? there are probably more people in the US who are utter moral trash, but, what does that mean relative to the rest of the world?
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Sept 7, 2005 19:48:45 GMT -5
Singapore is currently my role model of a perfect community. It may not be the most racially diverse but I think it is the most accepting place in the world.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 7, 2005 23:07:36 GMT -5
sooo much more accepting. they brought in a transvestite to dance to pop music today, and everybody was digging it, even the so called "conservatives"
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Sept 7, 2005 23:54:28 GMT -5
wait in canada or singapore? And by the way nick, try find a country that doesnt have genocide of the native inhabitants and land grabbing from neighbouring countries. Almost every country does the exact same thing. You are also somehow mixing the governments actions with the peoples, that or just saying that both the governments actions and the peoples actions are immoral. Maybe it is the latter. Anyway, as far as people go, the fact that there is "moral trash" is partly societys fault too, and if you really wanted to fix that, you would need to start by fixing the government (since it is the government who has the power to fix society). Personally I think that no matter where you go you will find moral trash, but that in general people are rational and will follow societys rules if they have an incentive. The government should be providing that incentive. But when the government has become a tool of those immoral people, thats when we are in trouble. In my opinion the reason that our governemnt is in such bad shape, is because the people working in it dont have any interest in actually improving the US.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 7, 2005 23:59:57 GMT -5
In my opinion the reason that our governemnt is in such bad shape, is because the people working in it dont have any interest in actually improving the US. i agree, but the ways to go about solving that aren't easy OR numerous. i'm not sure that there have been many or any candidates for much of any position that have been truly interested in improving the US.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Sept 8, 2005 18:12:33 GMT -5
wait in canada or singapore? And by the way nick, try find a country that doesnt have genocide of the native inhabitants and land grabbing from neighbouring countries. Almost every country does the exact same thing. That's why I included such key phrases like "so recently and in such frequency throughout its history." There's no point in rguing if you don't carefully read the other person's argument. You are also somehow mixing the governments actions with the peoples, that or just saying that both the governments actions and the peoples actions are immoral. The latter is correct, but don'tforget that every official in the government is still a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Sept 8, 2005 18:30:29 GMT -5
That's why I included such key phrases like "so recently and in such frequency throughout its history." There's no point in rguing if you don't carefully read the other person's argument. The only reason that America has done it "so recently and in such frequency" is because its a young country that also happens to have had the power to take over its neighbours. If you measure France or England, for example, over, say a single century (take for example the 1800's), you will find much more genocide and conquering than America has done in its whole 2-3 centuries of history. The latter is correct, but don'tforget that every official in the government is still a citizen. But that doesnt mean that every citizen is a government.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Sept 8, 2005 18:39:42 GMT -5
For the sake of simplicty: Point A: This can be very easily attributed to the form of government. The monarchies in many countries didn't boast anything about freedom, liberation, or any such thing. My original point was that the morals the US if formed on can hardly be taken seriously given the actions of the country at its founding. Perhaps you could be more speific with these genocides of the 1800's? I my just be uninformed.
Point B: Every citizen has a vote and is thus, to a very minimal degree, a member of government. All it takes is a lack of morals in the greatest voting section of the population to cause corruption in government.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Sept 8, 2005 18:53:39 GMT -5
Ok, try English Imperialism under their constitutional monarchy. Personally I find that system to be a relatively enlightened one too which I believe pledged to give people freedom and voting power. The things they did though I believe surpassed the light killings the US did.
Even if our country did boast about freedom and liberation, it boasted about political liberation and personal freedom. No matter what, a country still has to fight wars even if it is "free". And the problem with freedom is that if there is too much, then people can restrict other peoples freedoms in the name of exercising theirs. This is mostly what happened with the Indians. Americans unfortunately both didnt know how to deal with them, and didnt really care about them, so that they were pushed into smaller and smaller reservations.
Also, even if a voting population is perfectly innnocent and genial, in fact, even more likely, is it that the government will abuse the trust and become corrupt. Granted, Im sure the American public was not even close to having a perfect set of morals, but I do think that you arent cutting people enough slack, and that no matter where you go there will be fair-minded people as well as predjudiced and self-centered people.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 8, 2005 21:44:51 GMT -5
Ok, this is getting too stupid and off track for me to try joining in, but one point i'd like to make: Americans didn't just not know what to do with the indians, they intentionally committed genocide against them in number of ways:small wars, smallpox blankets, killing their food supply solely to drive off the indians, etc
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Sept 8, 2005 23:19:01 GMT -5
I agree with Alex, what Americans did to steal the land from the Natives was more like terrorism than war.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Sept 9, 2005 9:01:14 GMT -5
wait. What period are you guys reffering to? in no way do small wars constitute terrorism. And when did the americans kill off Indians food supply for the express purpose of driving them off? And Im not sure that the "smallpox blanckets" can be attributed to the americans, as they were given back in the early 1700's.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Sept 9, 2005 14:24:35 GMT -5
Well I think they are referring to European colonization in general. The Americans did continue to have a negative relationship with most natives. The Trail of Tears, although not being genocidal in intent, was an example of this. Later small wars continued to drive off the native americans for the purpose of getting their land. I wouldn't consider it terrorism though. Terrorism is the use of quick actions against a society to scare them into giving the terrorists what they want. Usually terrorists are not the ones to charge into a open war against others.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 10, 2005 0:10:12 GMT -5
you all should have failed your us history ap tests. actually, your fifth grade us history. hey, lets shoot the buffolo as the train goes by so the indians don't have nothin' ta eat! harhar! *yuk*
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 0:13:31 GMT -5
i pointedly didn't really say much because i know i'm an idiot as far as this goes
anyways i have heard of all that stuff and i agree, it was genocide
its pretty much the same as clearing a forest for building, or killing off a bunch of native animals because they're inconvenient for the crops you want to grow; theres no concern for the lifes that will be lost, only the end result of empty space to use
|
|