Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. I don't know (and don't assert) why, how much, what side of and etc. Anyhow, the indifference can't cause a postings.
Google any part of the quote.
Your point have a right to exist. I think I could give the link or don't, as the case may be (a message board differs from a scientific work). But you walk away from the topic.
Back on track, 'the American Goodness' is definitely bad for the national elites. At first the Americans should think about it. A people differences or culture differences are not so important.
Ahhh... I think I finally understand where the confusion is coming from.
I used "American goodness" in totally different context, it had different meaning, not the one you ascribed to it.
It didn't have anything to do with politics/ideology in this case; I was referring to certain set of beliefs shared by many ( not all of course) Americans about the goodness of human nature ( they are optimists, you see, ) and coincidentally this is the country where Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is taught as part of basic psychology.
( Just in case you are not familiar with it, here is the link)
The way I see it, he (Maslow that is) simplifies a very complex issue, and this simplistic understanding mixed with belief in goodness of human nature is part of what I've referred to as "American goodness."
You in your turn ( as clueless as you are, obviously, ) thinking about this expression strictly in political terms, keep on sending me to read Stalin's works and insisting on discussion pertaining to the well-being of "national elites."
That is totally unrelated subject, so it's you, not me who is "walking away from the topic," but since half of people who participate in this thread are basically clueless as well, I already don't care.
It's not like I didn't hint to OP to not to ask Russian questions on American forums.
(The basic understanding of psychology differs quite a bit, and so are certain implications.)
Napalming Vietnamese villages was a common practice. If planes and helicopters do it, it's much more civilized death, as we all know. Those Japanese savages. Don't forget A-bombing of two Japanese cities of zero military importance. Fire bombings of Japanese and Germans cities was even more murderous. And starting from 1990 until now it's just one big war crime hell knows in the name of what.
I spent 2 tours in Vietnam from 68-70, the "Napalming of villages" was not common practice. You imply that we see a village we burn it to the ground, if you tried that in Vietnam you'd be sent to a federal prison after your court marshal. Did you ever go into a Vietnamese village after the NVA had been there? Did you ever see the atrocities they inflicted on their own people? Yes, some Vietnamese villages were napalmed, not because it "was the thing to do" it was because it housed the NVA or the VC. If you understand battle tactics you first deny your enemy of any refuge.
As for the A-bombs on Japan cities, there was a combination of about 250,000 killed, Nanking there was about 700,000 civilians killed by the Japanese and that was just one city in China. Again, battle tactics agree that you inflict the most damage to take away the desire to wage war. Yes, it is brutal, but that's war and there is absolutely no glory in war just ask anyone who has fought in one.
Interesting. I think I would agree with what most have already said - humanity can be terribly savage at times, it's not our best nature, but our need to develop an "Us" and "Them" allows for very regretful violence throughout our history.
The "our" bit seems to be lost. At some point this all becomes our history. Hitler and Pol Pot, Wounded Knee and Nanking. Nationality and family are closer, personal levels of identity, but one's humanity should be another.
By the way he didn't lie.
Your assumption is based on limited understanding of the word "inherently," because if you look it up, one of its meanings is precisely that;
"involved in the constitution or essential character of something" which is pertaining to what you've just said - "depend on the environment and culture you grew and live in"
I don’t think neither he nor I need an attorney here. You can interpret the word in different ways. I believe he meant “inborn”. You can disagree though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Another thing - it's downright impolite to accuse someone of "lying" on public forum. People might be mistaken or they might have misunderstanding. I don't think you wanted to be rude intentionally, so give it a bit of consideration next time pls.
He has accused me of so many things already. Am I supposed to humbly deal with it?
Modern Japan makes me wonder though, it's a truly dystopian society, even more dystopian than USA.
The most prosperous country of the world cannot be a dystopian society. The dystopian society is the one that poor and where human rights are infringed. There are a lot of dystopian societies in the world but the USA.
In reality, the Germans had a long history of Aryan superiority theories and also anti-Semitism among its German intellectuals. But don't let that stop you from trying to blame the United States for Hitler's bizarre theories and prejudices.
Anti-semitism has always been present in most of the countries where Jews are known. So, Germany was not unique in this sense.
Anti-semitism has always been present in most of the countries where Jews are known. So, Germany was not unique in this sense.
That's an awfully good point. Jews were forced out of their long occupied villages (schtetls) all over Eastern Europe and Russia. That was long before Hitler came to power. See "Fiddler On the Roof".
And where did so very many of them go? America. We welcomed them and they prospered.
Interesting. I think I would agree with what most have already said - humanity can be terribly savage at times, it's not our best nature, but our need to develop an "Us" and "Them" allows for very regretful violence throughout our history.
The "our" bit seems to be lost. At some point this all becomes our history. Hitler and Pol Pot, Wounded Knee and Nanking. Nationality and family are closer, personal levels of identity, but one's humanity should be another.
I think that is already happening in Europe, a sense of huge loss, at least with regards to WW1. However I still its going to be along time before the British and French see Hitler as "our Hitler" lol.
I don’t think neither he nor I need an attorney here.
You don't? Then don't be rude - it's pretty simple. On Russian political forum I frequent you'd be banned for two weeks for being rude to other posters right away, here they give you a slack for obvious reasons.
Quote:
He has accused me of so many things already. Am I supposed to humbly deal with it?
So that brings the question why do some nations tend to be more cruel and atrocious while some more humanistic, tolerant, and peaceful? What makes some nations indefinitely inhuman on the regular basis?
I sure respect the question posed here though I'd have to suggest that these nations are all 'moving targets' when it comes to how they manage their morality in the conduct of the world. Actions all exist in context of human nature, culture and social norms as noted. However, beacuse all that is malleable I just don't see how one can say one nation is MORE atrocious than another. Where is the definition? Who makes the decision on what constitutes 'atrociousness'? Who say are the 'atrocious' police? If anybody examines any nation on the face of the earth what are the odds that not one would be accused of 'atrociousness?' at any time in its history? We need sun and water to grow stuff. Same I'd say for 'atrociousness'. If the conditions are right, no nation is immune....ever from the foibles of man and his quest for power. And I think there's always a sword sharpened somewhere They had plenty of them during the Empire. When the Pax Romana flourished, I'm sure it was reviled in some corners of the Empire notwithstanding its 'goodness' towards those in mankind. Who woulda thought it? Nations just like man have the poisons always within. I don't think any nation can tame it. The only thing is to have an antidote ready just in case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and coincidentally this is the country where Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is taught as part of basic psychology.
) thinking about this expression strictly in political terms, keep on sending me to read Stalin's works and insisting on discussion pertaining to the well-being of "national elites." 
