Anti-Americanism
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Anti-Americanism |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 16:59
Profile
Revisionist History Good read. I always like Orson Scott Card's work, and when I stumbled across this site today, I was pleasantly surprised. In a recent topic on these boards, it was stated and concurred by multiple members that the United States is evil and the whole world would be better off if this country had never been founded. I suggest these people read this article, as well as some others by Orson on the site. That kind of anti-American attitude not only frightens me, it also seems to be based on a pretty one-sided and unfair view. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think the United States is a pretty cool place, and the world would definitely be worse off without it: discuss. Or flame me, whatever floats your boat. [ Friday, January 30, 2004 17:01: Message edited by: *Sound Effect* ] -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 17:26
Profile
Homepage
All-or-nothingism? Lovely. I love America with all of my heart, and I wish that it would use the power it has to create a world in the image of the American dream: a world where equal opportunities exist for all, equal rights exist for all; a world where no man calls another master, a world where a man is guaranteed a good life if he works hard for it, and a world where no Einsteins and Shakespeares die in intellectual infancy on the sweatshop floor. A world without Hitlers, not a world without Roosevelts. A world without Kissingers, not a world without Allendes. I want the rape of the third world to stop. I want the continual and unrelenting hostility towards the second world, an intellectual faction grander in size than Christianity, to stop. I want the brazen hypocrisy among the first world to stop. I want America to give the dream of Jefferson to the world, starting with its own people so cruelly denied it for centuries. If believing that Iraq, a war of neo-colonialist aggression in the interests of those who need no help from the American state -- much less a carte blanche to use the world as their personal sandbox -- makes me 'anti-American', so be it. I suppose you might well have called Eugene Debs anti-American, too -- or Lincoln, or Jefferson. Too many people who are willing to question the motives of governments fast to act in the interests of their most fortunate, and too few willing to simply follow orders. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 18:27
Profile
Homepage
I'll try to point out flaws in this article as I see fit, omitting most of some paragraphs on the basis of their length- go to the site if you really need to refresh your memory. quote:When you start interpreting history and some people disagree with you, odds are they probably disagreed with you anyway- people's political beliefs deeply impact their perspectives on history. If this guy and I sat down and had a talk about history, I would most certainly walk out labeled as the enemy. I'll probably reference this multiple times with "see above" captions, because one thing that has and continues to frustrate me about many members of the far-right (not saying that it's unique to that sphere- it isn't) I have encountered is that everyone else suddenly becomes the "enemy" for disagreeing. It's irritating, because it really doesn't help either side of the argument. [quote]All that ain't-America-wonderful history ignored some important points. American Indians were pretty badly treated. American blacks were freed in the Civil War but re-oppressed by landlords and Jim Crow laws for many decades. American foreign policy saved freedom in Europe but supported dictatorships and toppled governments in Latin America and other places, often as a favor to American corporations that preferred working with bribable officials. The trouble is, the cure for that whitewashed American history has been even worse than the disease. Because now we get a version of history that's even more one-sided. In the name of multiculturalism and "fairness" and "facing the truth," we get a view of history in which America is always the villain. quote:Okay, so peoples' biases affect their interpretations of history- again, this is more of a socio-political issue than anything else, coming from the perspective of a economically right-wing, somewhat libertine society (society- not gov't). If this society were to become more authoritarian, its interpretation of history would change- Even the vaunted "Vietnam Disaster" would become acceptable for most people. Sane/rational people aside, most people would paint people of opposite alignments in a bad light. Thus, by disagreeing with historical interpretations, this article also disagrees with the politics of the more vocal Americans. Clearly, this seems to be the case regardless of using history as a backdrop. quote:Does it matter that people disagree with me? Yes it does. (I've covered this in the previous paragraph. Apparently, this author wants people to agree with him- and considering that we live in a somewhat-representative gov't, I can understand why.) quote:I agree to some extent- using the Crusades in reference to anything in the last 100-200 years is complete hogwash (although really, must Bush use so many Biblical quotes in his speeches...?). However, I also have to point out that all of the conquered lands were in Christian hands first because Christianity came 610 years before Islam. And considering the treatment Christians of all denominations did unto their own (destruction of the Spanish Armada, 100 years war, Spanish Inquisition, etc), I severely doubt that Islam in general would have been accepted in Europe in an age dominated by a dark-ages mindset. But since it has already been established that associating religions with a mostly secular government, I'll move on. quote:Keep a few things in mind- first, the "American Indians" were not one group as a whole. And that aside, if you're trying to justify the genocide of whole tribes (and North America's first recorded use of biological warfare!), robbery of land and allotment into complete destitution with the murder of a few innocent farmers done by the renegade members of a society outside of the society's control, you're batshit insane. The "Indians" were, for the most part, confused but cordial. The Americans were- and are- intolerant, and what took place in "history" was nothing but a malicious and completely unwarranted attack on a whole people. quote:Because the ENEMIES? What, the ones who have their own views? Holding radical views in either direction in regards to historical interpretation is something I can live with. I can live with being called an enemy by an extremist who seems quite bent on polarizing anyone and everyone who reads the article, but it's irritating having to deal with it in order to sift down to one's actual points. If a person sits down and argues history, I'd prefer if they defended themselves logically so I would have something to argue against, but aside from that, I don't see anything wrong with people holding their own views (perhaps biased, even- shiver in fear at the ability to express the enemy's opinions...!), and maybe even using their arguments to support that which they believe in. And if they're actually lying overtly (ie. "America killed everyone in Europe during WWII" or "Dresden never happened"), then both sides should call them out on that, now shouldn't they? Eh. A sane historical outlook is good, but calling someone an enemy is never a "good" thing. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 22:01
Profile
Based on my (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of American history, Card's interpretation is the revisionist one. His characterization of Native Americans is unduly harsh; a small percentage may have been barbaric, cruel, or excessively violent. Most held themselves to a higher standard of conduct in their wars and their diplomacy than their white counterparts. A few were at a level of civilization comparable to that of whites; the Cherokee, for instance, lived in houses, had a written constitution. When they were driven off their land, they didn't burn farmhouses or scalp innocent women and children, they took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Google "trail of tears" to see how much good due process of law did them. Similar instances apply with his other references. Just because America's foes haven't always been perfect doesn't mean that they bear as much blame for what happened as America does. Sometimes they do, sometimes the don't. To call America a good guy is naive. To call it a bad guy is naive. The world is more complicated than that. But while America's good deeds are inspiring to make speeches about, it is our missteps that we need to work extra-hard remember. Nobody forgets success, but even the best of us can be eager to sweep failure under the rug. In life or in history, we only hurt ourselves when we do. If Alec or TM or I ever seem anti-American, that's why. None of us will deny that America has gotten a lot of things right, perhaps a lot more than it's gotten wrong. Now, it's one of the best places in the world to live, by any measure. But you don't improve yourself by resting on your laurels. Anyone who wants to make himself, or America, or the world better needs to learn from history's mistakes. [ Friday, January 30, 2004 22:03: Message edited by: [Sarachim] ] -------------------- We were once Mao Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 22:51
Profile
Custer: I never accused you personally. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq doesn't make you or anyone else anti-American, not by any stretch. I never tried to say it did. It's those who view such actions as being "evil" or comparing GWB to Hitler over such an incident that I find overboard. The actions of the administration were, in hindsight, unjustified. Whether or not they were justified at the time, I am undecided. But the US didn't act in pure aggression. We didn't act because we wanted to steal their resources, or annex their land. It's those who have said that the US is the true problem in the world that i was referring to as the anti-Americans. TM: On American Indians: Isn't it pretty simple to see how a government could take such a campaign to the extreme? People felt threatened by renegade indians, and they weren't one cohesive group held together with any real ties. They didn't fight in the traditional way, used guerrilla tactics, and did things to victims seen as barbaric. That's pretty comparable to terrorism in present day. I would expect many other civilizations in the world at any other time in history to respond to such a situation in the same way. My point (and, i think, the point of the article) is not to say that the US wasn't at fault at all, just that it wasn't the "evil" invaders who callously crushed a noble people without provacation. Nor, really, were any of the other supposed crimes the US has committed against the world. The point is not that the US has always been either the victim or the freedom fighter, but that the US hasn't been the melodramatic villain in every conflict, seeking only to benefit itself, and to say so is pretty inflammatory. Neither extreme is correct. As with most things, it's the grey area in the middle that's the closest to the truth, yet people still flock to the extremes to exaggurate their point. Orson isn't entirely innocent of a little one-siededness in his article, but he at least admits that the other side exists and has some legitimate points. You must admit, the article does make some good arguements. Both sides can have their extremes, and will probably use them to justify their actions, but it seems that lately I've seen a lot going anti-American and not much in defense. This article provides a bit of the other side. Yin and Yang, balance in all things. ;) quote:Not even when those views are anti-American to the point of terrorism and violence? I find something clearly wrong with taking an issue out of context and examining only 1 side of it, because that effectively is a falsification of the issue. I beleive that most of those who hate us in the Middle East and other areas do so because they've only ever heard 1 side of the issue. Misunderstanding begets fear, and fear begets hate. Deliberately contributing to a misunderstanding of the US is, in effect, contributing to hate of the US. On your last point, enemy can mean a lot of things. Someone who opposes you and represents a threat to your interests can be classified an enemy. It might not be "good" to call someone an enemy, but identifying enemies to your interests is the first step in making sure they don't succeed in their opposition of your interests. The Democratic candidates for the 2004 election are GWB's enemies to being reelected. Those who burned US flags and danced in the streets when reached with the news about the WTC incident can pretty safely be classified as enemies of the US, can't they? EDIT: Sarachim, basically that was the point i wanted to make. You do have a good point about not resting on your laurels, and seeking to eliminate injustices that may still exist. Nothing is black or white. The US isn't the cruel oppressive invaders, nor are we the proud freedom fighters. It's always a grey area, and for the most part, the US has been a presence of "good" in the world. That's not to say we haven't made mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, the US is one of the most compassionate countries to exist. And certainly, one of the best in which to live. [ Friday, January 30, 2004 22:59: Message edited by: *Sound Effect* ] -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 23:34
Profile
quote:That's true, but there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be better than we are. If you consider two criminals, is the one who's comitted fewer crimes the good guy? Of course not. Is he good? Of course not. Just because America is one of the best (which is debateable, but I'll let it slide) does not mean that it is not derelict in its responsibilites to its people or the world. Similarly, no matter how good a person is, if they wrong someone else accidentally or on purpose, it is their responsibility to fix it to the best of their ability. No matter how many things the the United States has done right or is doing right, it has a responsibility as a superpower to fix as many problems as it can. Why are we not intervening in the Congolese civil war, the greatest humanitarian crisis since Rwanda? Why is so little being done to alleviate poverty in our own country? Why is the White House and most of Congress more worried about what gay people call thier unions than the fact that thousands of Americans have no health insurance? Or that millions of non-Americans die of malnutrition and preventable diseases every year? America may be a good place. Like Alec, I love it, in my own way. But the fact that it's so good makes it ripe for criticism. We can't appeal to the humanity or compassion of the House of Saud, and we can't expect Europe or Japan to take the lead in bringing peace to central Africa. Alec and I criticize because we love. We attack the president because he's hurting the country we love. And we use history to show that America is not and has never been infallible, which is something that far too many Americans have a hard time accepting. When someone like Card attacks the people who tend to harp on America's shortcomings, they're effectively squashing the conscience of one of the few states with both the power and the potential to do good for the world. [ Friday, January 30, 2004 23:35: Message edited by: [Sarachim] ] -------------------- We were once Mao Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Friday, January 30 2004 23:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:Is that supposed to be some sort of sarcasm...? You don't exactly increase human happiness by bombing people, you know... and what's left there is, to put it bluntly, rubble. Not much use to be free if you're dead, if you ask me. -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 2773
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 01:59
Profile
Im not terribly fond of america, to put it lightly, However I am british, and there are a number of factor that lead to my dislike. -Our Prime Minister has his head up your presidents arse. -We percieve you to be big-headed, arrogent, and have a vendetta against the enviroment. -When we watch hollywood films about the first and second world war which depict all American heroes that were the saviours of us we feel bitter considering the millions of British, Russian and French soldiers that died and that have been portrayed as failures. Also when American films about the battle of britain focus on american aces etc etc. -I our eyes you think you did everything in the world and yet know nothing about it. -You always go on about how nasty the british are (as seen with the numerous british villains in your films) and then are offended when we dont like you. -Capitalism. -Their legendry inability to bomb the right targets, a popular phrase over here is, "The red cross isnt an idication of where to aim" -And I'll add more as I think of them. [ Saturday, January 31, 2004 02:04: Message edited by: Lamorak ] -------------------- If we assume that at the start of the first game, Micah has been ruling for 20 odd years, and we take into account that he was atleast 30 by the time he took the throne. If we add a year for the events of the first game, then 5 years untill the second, a year for that game and the seven years untill the begginning of the third, then take a year to account for the last one... Posts: 32 | Registered: Saturday, March 15 2003 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 06:56
Profile
I visit another board mostly populated by British adolescents of around my age. The type of anti-Americanism Lamorak displays wouldn't be out of place there, although if anything with more ignorance and worse reasons. When I called them out over this, a few had no better reasons than "they're all fat" or "they support Israel." I find it mystifying how much the British left has all the old statements against patriotism but still maintains a Little Englander viewpoint. I won't claim I'm immune either, sadly. Whilst I try to avoid it, I think it's just a national reaction to the realisation we no longer matter that much for ourselves on the world stage. America's done some fantastic things, but that doesn't mean it should be immune from criticism. Anywhere which can achieve such things has a responsibility not to rest on its laurels and where possible to help the rest of the world follow if not in its footsteps (few countries have quite such a good geo-strategic position for peaceful growth or large immigrant population to depend upon) then at least along a similar road. It's not anti-American to believe that many European nations look after their vulnerable better and that the USA could follow their example before. However, if you don't like America for such reasons as Blair's foreign policy, you're missing the point. That's Blair's responsibility. If you think Americans are big-headed and arrogant, I suggest you look closer to home. If you're offended by inaccurate depictions in films mostly aimed at a US market, you probably ought not to take things to seriously. Particularly when we Britons still don't give enough credit to the Poles who cracked the Wehrmacht Enigma in the early 30s or the thousands of Czechs, Poles, Danes, Dutchmen, Belgians, Norwegians, French and every other nationality who flew our fighters and bombers, worked as groundcrew, joined SOE or fought in the British army. And I suspect that a sizeable proportion of Americans accept Kursk and Stalingrad were the crucial battles of WW2 in Europe. Whereas we're still going on about El Alamein, a plan devised by a commander Churchill had just sacked. And if any North Americans are interested, just ask me any night and I'll provide a random list of good reasons to dislike the British. Like capitalism. Because Adam Smith was a Scot, you moronic little man. Oh, and with regard to your last point, I could give a detailed list of occasions when the British demonstrated crippling combat ineptitude. But I'll content myself with mentioning Dresden which is all the more horrifying because Harris meant to do it. -------------------- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned I'll tell you my story, man Though I wish I'd never been born I'm loose at the seams, I've broken my dreams And my hand it shakes the pen Come on, come on now baby, Let the good times roll again Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 07:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:No. If they burn people and dance on their corpses, they're enemies of the US. Last time I checked, we're free to express dislike, resentment, or even hatred of our country. Constitutionally, anyway; the Patriot Act tends to disagree. —Alorael, who needs to think before posting. Very badly, sometimes. [ Saturday, January 31, 2004 07:32: Message edited by: Alorael ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2242
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 09:50
Profile
See, I actually liked when Clinton was in office. In his case, the world was a better place as he actually tried to help the world. He actually made some progress in our economy and made some of the best attempts to make peace between the Israeli and Palestinean people. He created 6 million jobs in the first two years in office. Those are just a few of his accomplishments. Here's a link on more of them. http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm However, Pres. Bush seems to be going in the opposite direction. I'm trying to get at that right now we have poor leadership in office and looks like we may have for quite a few years. We need better leaders in office, who care a little less about ratings and political parties, and more about accomplishing things and improving our country. That's all I have to say for now. I love my country, but we have bad leaders. -------------------- "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes back into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is no dodging the quad laser." -Ugnagnok Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, November 14 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 09:57
Profile
I understand that people from USA, love USA, but I still think ist a immoral country; Fat people as a result of the style of food, the continuos war-mongering, the gun politics... Now this may of course be a result of bad leaders, but annyway. Im not in the mood of grammer checking this. -------------------- MDNZZZ ZMMMBIS WBLOONZ 33111-CRUSADER-4849 Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 10:41
Profile
A good point is made in that we shouldn't simply be content in how good we are, but should strive to be even better in the future. I don't think it's wrong to criticize the US in its actions, however there is something deeply wrong with calling the US evil and the true source of all problems in the last century (something I have heard people utter). See, this is why I posted on these message boards. There actually are intelligent people who can make good points and have constructive debates. Taron: We didn't actually declare war on Afghanistan, nor did we campaign to bomb the citizens. The article was referring to the fact that the average Afghani is somewhat better off now than they were before. Not to say we haven't neglected Afghanistan, which we have, but they are at least on the right track. Alo, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you. If someone rejoices when American citizens are killed, in my mind they have painted themselves as enemies. If someone hates our country and want every man, woman, and child dead, how can you say they aren't our enemies? -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 10:55
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 11:12
Profile
quote:And that was unique to the US how, exactly? quote:With Al Qaeda no longer raising hell, people have greater access to food, health care, they don't have to worry about getting randomly shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We didn't actually bomb them into the stone age, for the most part, the average innocent Afghani now has greater access to newer technology than they did before the conflict, because Al Qaeda no longer controls all the resources in the country. quote:Apparently this is just where we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. EDIT: And what exactly did that french phrase mean? "This animal is mean. One attacks it, and it defends itself" ??? [ Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:16: Message edited by: *Sound Effect* ] -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 11:14
Profile
Just because someone burns an American flag does not mean they want every man, woman, and child here to die. Flag-burning in America has traditionally symbolized opposition to all the negative things the flag symbolizes: oppressive foreign policy, third-world exploitation, pointlessly destructive wars, and the greed and corruption of the government. Brass and Lamorak: Learn to distinguish America from Americans. The political situation here is objectionable, sure, but a fairly small number of Americans really have anything to do with it, and quite a few dislike it as much as you do. How many Americans have you actually met? By and large, we're not so different from anyone else in the developed world, and especially not the British. Apart from Canada, we probably have more in common culturally with Britain than any other country in the world. Look beyond the stereotypes, and don't think you're justified in showing prejudice just because America is so widely disliked. -------------------- We were once Mao Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 11:46
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 11:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Isn't it pretty simple to see how a government could commit genocide on the basis of a few lone men? Isn't it pretty simple to see how America broadsidedly labeled a whole menagerie into one category and systematically grind them down into a sub-human status, among those who were left alive? No, no it isn't. quote:People felt so threatened by a few renegade men from mostly pacifist tribes that, despite the cordial and welcoming nature of the NA's, that they had to wipe every single redskin they found, only letting the submissive ones be allowed into slavery? And you're saying there weren't renegade Americans who went out and shot Indians? And on that note, I find your use of the term "barbaric" somewhat offensive. There are only different cultures- I'm sure the Indians thought aiming phallic symbols and pressing a button to kill of a man in one stroke from a safe distance was pretty arrogant- reality and interpretation is, just as I said earlier, defined by the group doing the interpreting. Can you imagine how horribly rude and dare I say barbaric we were to those deprived peoples? Clearly, America had reason to be offended by this, and had a right to approach the Indians asking what the meaning of the raid was, and perhaps even demand retribution of some sort. As far as I see, however, killing of masses of innocents isn't fair retribution by any definition of the word, and the only true reasons I can possibly notice in America's actions is racist paranoia and imperialism. "America wasn't evil?" As a whole, perhaps not. In this instance, most definitely. The article should have taken a much more borderline issue to tackle. quote:(Before I get into arguments, one thing- "You must admit?" Is that supposed to be a command of some sort? In the future, avoid that line: It sounds arrogant and audacious, regardless of its intent.) Again, read my paragraph- America was justified in seeking answers, and perhaps even making a comparable counter-raid or demand of retribution. There is no comparison, however, between the scarce raids done by renegade adolescants and the genocide of "civilized" and "mature" adults. Saying that America was not acting in an insidious manner in all of its conflicts is a blanket statement that, supposedly, you seem to be against. Spanish-American War? Slavery in the constitution (admittedly, this is only against the states- but this was because the south WAS +50% of America at the time)? Mexican-American War? I could go on, but these seem like enough counter-examples to prove that a country can and will be evil at some times in history. Perhaps the people who initiated Vietnam (well, most- more often than not, when a war is supported, some of the people who support it will be evil) were honest, if not mistaken in the eyes of many. Perhaps even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Perhaps Osama Bin Laden thought that he was doing the right thing. Still, I don't think it's accurate or even feasible to make the statement that all of the actions taken by any one nation had honest reasons in the eyes of those who made them. Some things in history, like it or not, are evil. And for the final few sentences? Well, your last paragraph also adresses this, so... quote:So wait, let me get this straight: 1) You and I and this article AGREE that interpretations are biased as per the interpreter 2) The article seeks to offer a counter-opinion? Okay. 3) The article offers a counter-opinion, however, not because of a need to enlighten, but to fight THE ENEMY, as per the article. 4) Thus, people who have different biases (ie. leftist ones) that affect their interpretations are the ENEMY. Your intent seems valid enough, but what you brought along was a fint-and-tinder, liberal-lynching and polarizing article that certainly won't help you make any friends outside of the far-right. I don't care which definition of enemy YOU use (and I'll get to that in your final paragraph), it just doesn't help you sound like a sane individual, and will significantly reduce the number of legitimate responses (ie. not in the greater interest of ending the conversation) you'll get. quote:To the point of? Are you saying that if a person holds such insanely leftist beliefs, then they are as guilty as the people who fly planes into towers and whatnot? It's called having biases, and it's not intrinsically violent, last time I checked. If someone only checks one side of an issue, that means they're ignorant. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you assume that examining both sides thoroughly and coming up with a "radical" interpretation is impossible. If someone examines the issues and comes up with a conclusion that is radical or even PROMOTES violence (assuming non-immediate following of these conclusions), does that make them the enemy? No, it makes them a person with biases and beliefs coming to a conclusion using logic. If this is the case, you can argue against them if you think they're wrong. quote:1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent 2 : something harmful or deadly 3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force Of these definitions, two involve direct violence, and the former involves revolution (which usually ends up being directly violent anyway). Yeah, the WTC bombers can be considered enemies- they fall under all three definitions of the term. Passive radicals, however, are not military adversaries, harmful/deadly or revolutionary. If nothing else, people trying to reach a solution for a better world are your allies, even if they agree or disagree with you. The Democrats in 2004 are nobody's enemy, unless George W. Bush stands more for staying in power than helping the world- but that's a whole other can of worms. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 2773
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 12:16
Profile
I understand that the british are by no means perfect, and in many cases a bunch of uptight snobs and can also be very arrogent and ignorant. But just cause I'm being hypocritical, dosen't mean I have to like America. And I suppose, yes, it's because we realise how pathetic and puny we are to America, we resent them. As you may have gathered I don't particularly like Britian at the moment either. Lets just go live on a island somewhere. -------------------- If we assume that at the start of the first game, Micah has been ruling for 20 odd years, and we take into account that he was atleast 30 by the time he took the throne. If we add a year for the events of the first game, then 5 years untill the second, a year for that game and the seven years untill the begginning of the third, then take a year to account for the last one... Posts: 32 | Registered: Saturday, March 15 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 12:35
Profile
Sometimes it's difficult to remember that inflection and body language carries as much weight as it does. I don't want to come across as hostile if at all possible. :) TM: I was saying that among the genocides committed throughout history, that committed by the US at least had *some* provocation. It was bad, but it was no Holocaust. Yes, what happened was wrong, but it doesn't make the US the source of all problems in the world. Yes, the author probably could have made a better point with a different example where we <didn't> slaughter most of a population of people. On the word barbaric: First, i understand that it was not widespread, and that sometimes the small things get blown way out of proportion, but scalping, eating fallen enemeis hearts, and mutilating the bodies of victims does strike me as being barbaric, culture or not. quote:As opposed to the rational, calm, and fair representation typically put forth by the far-left? :rolleyes: Yes, I do think that logically examining every side of the issue and coming to the conclusion that the US is the source of all problems in the world and should be destroyed is a bit of a stretch. 1 : one that is antagonistic to another Seems to fit my purposes. It's a matter of interpretation, and that's how I interprate it. As for the democrats and Bush thing, I had a list of examples but eliminated them for fear they would stray from the main point of the thread, and that stayed in a little erroneously. Custer: quote:My definition of enemy, or the "to each his own" mentality in general? -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 13:09
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1723
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 13:56
Profile
How so? -------------------- "... and approximately one sea turtle." Posts: 277 | Registered: Tuesday, August 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 13:58
Profile
Homepage
They support the fighting enemy, thus they are enemies themselves. Enemies must be destroyed. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Plenty of People X support the fighting enemies; in fact, everyone you meet among People X. People X are therefore enemies and ought to be shot on sight. It's a short jump. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 14:10
Profile
quote:This is why I stick around and listen to Alec. I love it when he's like that! :) -------------------- I want my Desert Plah back, (Drakey, check your PM's.) "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Saturday, January 31 2004 14:29
Profile
Homepage
Hmmm. I probably shouldn't reply to this topic, but... "Barbaric"? Hmmm... It IS a really political word, but if it has to be used, I'm considering enslaving and slaughtering just as barbaric as "eating fallen enemies' hearts". It doesn't justify an invasion that there is resistance to it. History is written by winners and that's why it's necessary to examine it all over again, always. I'm definitely not saying that US "is the source of all problems in the world". Saddam Hussein's Iraq wasn't either. Neither was Hitler's Germany. But it's one one thing to say "US is not the source of all problems in the world" and quite another to claim that its foreign policy is justified because the other side kills, too. I certainly don't wish the US to be destroyed. I wish a peaceful end to its world leadership. For a start, I wish it was a nation more equal to the others, not above or leading other nations. I wish there was real equality inside it. I wish its leadership to be more diverse in its opinions. For example, there are just two parties leading the whole US and I don't see much ideological difference between them. [ Saturday, January 31, 2004 14:31: Message edited by: Milu ] Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2