America

[Qza]

Recently there has been muh discussion about the vile actions of various radical groups and the inaction of several nations that are founded on a certain religion/philosophy.

What of America?
America I believe has a solid and enduring foundation.A foundation of freedom and justice. The foundation is good. I will go further, its one most if not all modern nations tend to want to emulate.The foundation is not the problem. The building that was constructed on that foundation is.

The american construct has grevious structural flaws.The materials used to build America were Lies broken promises and Crimes against humanity that would make hitler look like a boy scout. American heros men like Andrew Jackson, fine son of America, who carried out the most dispicable act blatant law breaking by an international head of state in modern times. I refer of course to disoeying a ruling of the supreme court and acting as a dictator and removing civilized indian nations that were recognised by the us government.
Do Americans know that china today is simply a model of America in the 19th century, massive traders in cheap in demand materials that undercut free trade the world over. that american governments tortured and commited genocide on entire populations of civilized nations. do americans know that americans were religious terriosts in the 19th century, and domestic trrorists not 50 years ago

[Thorne]

Yes, the American government, and the American people, have committed atrocities in the past. Fortunately, I don't have to paint myself with that brush, since my ancestors didn't come to this country until the early 20th century.

But I challenge you to find ANY great nation which did not commit similar, or worse, atrocities in their past. Let's not forget the wrongs done to the peoples of Africa and Southeast Asia by the British, French, German and even Italian nations. Let's not forget the horrific actions of the Spanish Inquisition. Let's not minimize the malicious harm caused by the Crusades, the echoes of which are still reverberating today.

What one has to remember, though, is that those actions, while reprehensible to us now, were considered right and proper at the time. In most cases they were even sanctioned by the churches, whether Catholic or Protestant. In other words, they were not considered to be immoral acts then.

We consider them immoral now, though. Because we have grown as people and as nations. We have a better understanding of the importance of other people, regardless of race, creed or color. And, despite its flaws, we have America to thank for that.

And no, it's not perfect. There are still people out there who hate others simply because they look differently, or speak differently, or worship differently. Those kinds of people exist everywhere. But we can minimize their impact, I hope, by exposing their hypocrisy and hate for what it is. Barbarism.

[Qza]

About the issue of other nations also commiting inhuman acts you are correct but this thread is not about other nations its about America.
On the point of it being approved by the church you are wrong at least in the american context for the time period that i quoted that is the 19th century. I am a student AmericanHistory at Fothill inCalifornia. I can assure you that the protestant church largely condemned the acts of the american government at the time in relation to the genocide of indians, the forced removal of civilized peacefull indian nations that were officially recognised by the said american government. and lastly but most importantly they almost universally opposed slavery everywhere except the southern cotton belt and even there there was opposition. in fact the us congress censured andrew jackson for breaking the law but they were too morally bankrupt to impeach him. they knew what he was doing and he knew and everyone knew it was a dispicable and reprehensible act to blatantly defy an order of the supreme court. did u know the us government ordered troops in to forcibly remove various missionaries from indian lands so that they could forcibly move or kill civilized native americans, i am not talking about bufflo hunting tribes here. the actions were known to be terrorism even if the term was yet to be coined. the american people them selves largly rejected slavery but a large group of southern terrorists remained in power it divided the nation. america was a nation populated by large active terrorist groups the american people largely rejected those groups so did the church for the most part but the terrorists flourished and prospered and enjoyed the support of the state at many levels. the President Andrew Jackson was a terrorist. the army practiced terrorism not becuase thy thought it was ok but becuase they were an army following orders. does that excuse them|? the american people in lge numbers rejected the terorists but that didnt stop them . kinda parrallels certain situations today in other countries

as for more rescnt events re the civil rights movement no sane individual can put any logical spin of rationalization on those illegal and dispicable acts no need to even comment on that

[DuncanONeil]

I can not accept your arguments! That is because I can not accept the basis that only America is being discussed covering a time when it was little different in certain issues than the rest of the world. Taking that position and then chastizing the USA is poor discussion technique.

About the issue of other nations also commiting inhuman acts you are correct but this thread is not about other nations its about America.
On the point of it being approved by the church you are wrong at least in the american context for the time period that i quoted that is the 19th century. I am a student AmericanHistory at Fothill inCalifornia. I can assure you that the protestant church largely condemned the acts of the american government at the time in relation to the genocide of indians, the forced removal of civilized peacefull indian nations that were officially recognised by the said american government. and lastly but most importantly they almost universally opposed slavery everywhere except the southern cotton belt and even there there was opposition. in fact the us congress censured andrew jackson for breaking the law but they were too morally bankrupt to impeach him. they knew what he was doing and he knew and everyone knew it was a dispicable and reprehensible act to blatantly defy an order of the supreme court. did u know the us government ordered troops in to forcibly remove various missionaries from indian lands so that they could forcibly move or kill civilized native americans, i am not talking about bufflo hunting tribes here. the actions were known to be terrorism even if the term was yet to be coined. the american people them selves largly rejected slavery but a large group of southern terrorists remained in power it divided the nation. america was a nation populated by large active terrorist groups the american people largely rejected those groups so did the church for the most part but the terrorists flourished and prospered and enjoyed the support of the state at many levels. the President Andrew Jackson was a terrorist. the army practiced terrorism not becuase thy thought it was ok but becuase they were an army following orders. does that excuse them|? the american people in lge numbers rejected the terorists but that didnt stop them . kinda parrallels certain situations today in other countries

as for more rescnt events re the civil rights movement no sane individual can put any logical spin of rationalization on those illegal and dispicable acts no need to even comment on that

[denuseri]

It is most certianly a mistake in many historians oppinions to look at history through the rose colored glassess of contemporary society and or apply modern standards to the perspective of those who lived in the past.

It is also a mistake to try and paint any given period of history or it's people with the brush strokes of any one individual as indicative for all of the people in any given age.

Terrorism simpley did not exist in the 1830's as a consept the way it does today.

What Andrew Jackson did in his time is hardely comparable in the same all encompassing light to what Adolf Hitler did in his, at least not when one views such things using the moral perspectives of the time periods in which their respective actions took place.

By making comparrisons to other countries and the actions of other groups in the original post, (in both contemporary and pervious eras) one leaves open the door, if not invites, comparisons between the Untied States and other entities of eaither age and how they effected each other, regardles of weather or not one is speaking of the past or the present.

China is most certianly not just the USA from 50 years ago. China if anything has a longer history of being influenced by nations other than the USA historically speaking and is a richly diverse cultured nation in it's own rite, whose identity has evolved over thousands of years. It is uniquely it's own thing and it survived european contact relatively intact compared to many other people in the past.

What happened to the American Indian peoples of the "New World" over the course of the past 518 years of contact with the Europeans was in fact a constantly evolving proccess and the actions of any one man in any one single historical period cannot stand as a "catch all" to describe it, however saddening and regretable that evolutionary proccess turned out for one side or the other.

The United States of Jackson's day and age was just one of many colonial by products of Eurocentric Imperialism that has permeated the world; not only during that time period (including China) but over the course of history as it changed into its present form, which we see expressed in todays struggles between the so called "superpowers" for economic and political dominion over the world.

The Founding Fathers set very lofty goals for it's people (or any people for that matter). Goals that they themselves and their posterity have failed on many occassions to allways obtain in the spirit in which they were written, during the course of it's history perhaps, but not goals that we the people have abbandoned outright nor intend to no matter how weak our present grasp may appear to become.

[VaAugusta]

I want to respond to this thread, but I'm not exactly sure what the point is. (as to stay on topic)

[Qza]

denu my comparasion of china to america at the time one strictly in the context of being a massive trading power who undercuts free trade the world over for their own econimc benifit. the point is that america in the time ofthe cotton and textiles expolsion did the exact same thing and the world at the time viewed america as the world viewed china now in strictly economic terms i am not talking about social contexts in that issue. i would love comment in the context i intended ther comments will tend to present my point in a light that i did not intend. to your other comments the treatment of certain native american tribes in the time of andrew jackson and others was worse than the treatment of jews by hitler undere any rational faorms of measurement. and no the people did not see it as either just or justified a proper research of accounts from the time period itself will show that vast number of americans themselves condemed it as murder and genocide. and it was murder and genocide. murder and genocide is murder and genocide regardless of the time period in which it was done and human beings in all generations will condem murder and genocide even if the do nt stop it. as for terrorism not existing. what do you call holding a man at gunpoint and instructing him to leave his land that he legally bought and killing him on the spot if he did not|?
what is that|?
what about spreading the word that if you gather at your church the church will be burned to the ground and everyone children children and all will be murdered|? what about burning the said church down when you defy them and go|? whats that|? isnt that terrorism denu|? do you think the church at the time condoned those actions or the american eople did, they did not they protested tghe had rallies they complained in the news papers they had papers at the time just as we do today when various nutcases and groups today issue warnings etc. it was terrorism and terrorism existed in the 19th century americans just wont accept that they had terrorists and yes andrew jackson did use terror tactics to achieve his own ends and he used those tactics against people who were recognised by the american government you skip oer that point denu
the american government and the supreme court recoginesed the legitimacy of the civilized indian tribes at the time this is no painting by a wrong brush research and see. at the time the action was condemned it was known to be both illegal and reprehensible by all americans andrew jackson simply did not give a rats ass. terrorists usually dont. by any definition in any time period if the people arond you condem your actions if the newspapers do if your government does there is no way anyone can claim tht it was not seen to be bot illegal and reprehensible at the time and now looking back.
and i am curious denu, do you consider trans atlantic slavery, that particular variety not slavery in general, the brand tht was practiced in the southern cotten belt in the 1840s to be socially acceptable in the context of the time in which it occured|? is it your understandng that america overal vuewed that as par for the course or acceptable at the time a majority of americans considered it a crime against humanity that was incompatible with the founding principles of the nation. america is and always built on hyprocrasy. the foundation was good . the building is very shaky and remains to be so even today though i will concede structral works have been taking place not by will by force of nature.

[FrgnSwtc]

I believe the problem with comparison is that depending with the light which an issue is viewed in, the opinion on the matter changes.
The difference lays in what's justifiable in the historical context and what is not.
In the time of AJ, the slaughter of millions of native occupants of North America was justifiable, since at the same time in Europe was in full colonial fledge. That doesn't make it any less brutal.

Sadly, historical processes don't happen at once for everybody and that makes an assumption like "a certain culture being a bunch of radical nuts" very thorny and extremely short sighted. After all, every single country has gone through unstable periods and others of great splendor.

Unfortunately, some countries are more prone to flaunt the reflected glory of victories from the past. Taking these great deeds and absorb them as a sort of worldly mission to eradicate the unruly is at best a crass mistake.
Despite the efforts of the Inquisition, we're not all Catholics, despite the efforts of the Nazis Jews still exist, despite the Imperial Japan's efforts China still stands... and I could go on in this list for too long than it is worth.

The States also have their share of eradication practices and radicalism, so to be so quick in classifying some as terrorists, while broadening the definition for it stems, imho, from the same tree the previous references do: "If you're different than I am and won't do as I say, I'll kick your butt".
i.e. Macarthur and the "chasing out of communism", the witch trials in Salem, slavery and on more recent events, the Chilean and Argentinian dictatorships of the 60's and 70's, the Iran Contras scandal, the Iran Irak war, Egypt, Panama... and even more sadly, this list also could go on.
The US hand in these events is less than righteous, so the ethic foundation for separating those, in the manichean sense, between the good and the evil is more than uncalled for.

Respectfully,

FS

[Qza]

ok you are wrong on one point the genocide of native american civilized tribes was not justifiable. even at the time it was not seen as justifiable. the congress at the time censured andrew jackson for disobeying the law. iw was illegal at the time not just now looking back. further the supreme court of the day ruled in favor of the native americans you all dont get it. it was the decision of andrew jackson not america not the supreme courtnot the congress. no one but modern americans and others see it as justifiable. the people of the time condemned it all over america. the supreme court condemned it the congress censured him. andrew jackson by any definnition was a terrorist. and he was seen to be a brute by his own contemporaries not by me. he was seen to be breaking the law by his own supreme court he was seen to be reprehensible by his own congress why do we want to justify him when his contemporaries condemned him

as for terrorism how can u consider a group calling in a death threat to a tv station terrorism while saying threatening to burn down a church full oif kids is not terrorism where is the logic in that|? is terrorism only valid for a certain hue of people in a certian era, bullshit

[denuseri]

So the topic is Andrew Jackson's personal misdeeds?

Or is it really a responce to another thread?

Just curious as to what you intended the topic to be is all, I assumed it was supposed to be a treatise about the differences between The United States written policies, laws, and ideals etc and it's actions and that you were only using Jackson as hyperbolic subsection or example for that platform.

Clairifcation would be helpful is all.

[Qza]

you are correct in your original summation. the discussion just went off on a tangent and i wanted to clear up misconceptions. good of you to refocus though. thank you.

I maintain that the US has a history of saying and intending and claiming to believe one thing while at the same time actively doing the exact opposite of what they say or claim. the nation was founded on the concept of freedom from opression yet throught its history it have been an opressor. the monroe doctrine stated that america will defend itself from all attempts of colonization by european powers and defend its friends in the new world yet shortly after they were colonizing cuba the phillipines and overthrowing the government of hawiai. they fought against britain attacking and encroaching from the north while annexing large parts of mexico in the south. they freed slaves and a few years later implemented laws that effectively reinstated the instution in a lesser form, they condem terriosm now when they did not in the 1950s and 60s when radical militant religious groups were terrorising african americans. america has by its actions shown that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander, it is my position that it has been a nation of hyprocrites. hyprocrites who comit crimes in secret and when they are exposed act like mr nice guy. hyprocrites who use enocomic might to get their way in poor developing countries while complaining about arabian oil cartels. hyprocrites who in the 1850s we only to happy to undercut free trade and dominate the world markets but now bitch and moan when china does the same. hyprocrites who claim that if i do something it must be seen in a certain contextual light but if you do it. you are satan incarnate.

america today is making strides foward i will grant that, but facts are facts. america has been a hypocritical nation. good pople live in america but the nation historically has not practisesd what it has been preaching.

[FrgnSwtc]

I'm confused now, I was under the impression that the thread was about the reactions (finger pointing) that ensued after the South Park ban and the threats that caused it.

[TantricSoul]

There seems to be some confusion as to the topic of this thread ... understandably so.

"differences between The United States written policies, laws, and ideals etc and it's actions" (thank you denu)

^^^This seems to be the intended topic ... please stay on it.

Also please treat other members viewpoints , perceptions, and contributions as you would expect your own to be treated... with respect.

Thank you in advance,
Tantric

[TwistedTails]

I maintain that the US has a history of saying and intending and claiming to believe one thing while at the same time actively doing the exact opposite of what they say or claim.

Being a nation of ideals is difficult. Not everyone is going to share those ideals and that sometimes causes conflict. I have a personal ideal not to kick dogs, unfortunately most dogs do not understand or share that ideal. If the dog charges me I am going to kick the shit out of it in self defense. It is not a failure of my ideal, but a failure of the dog to understand that I don't want to kick it.

Perhaps part of the problem you are having reconciling American history stems from some of the misinformation you have posted above. Is this what they are teaching at Foothill College in Ca.? Perhaps the misinformation comes from..

nations that are founded on a certain religion/philosophy.

If it is Foothills I will be happy to write to the history department and inquire why they have decided to teach history that is not supported by ... history. Those other nations I cannot do much about, anyone I contaminated with my "liberal", "capitalist", "infidel" ideas would be censured, arrested, or worse.

I accept that the American Government is flawed, We remain in a constant state of civil war over interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. We just do it without killing each other. We are having our next conflict November 2 this year. Bring your ink pen it is the only weapon allowed.