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.
But you have to understand human, basic, human psychology.
When people say, "The Japs have done...maybe we should rape their women too." People of Japanese ancestry will not interpret it as "The least that people could do is acknowledge that colonialism wasn't a good thing that helped everyone and made the world a better place" They will interpret it as
"we want to kill you too."
I have gone out of my ways to debate a Neo Nazi holocaust denier when I was in Germany. The conversation was civil. I've gone out of my ways to debate a Japanese nationalist when I was in Japan. The conversation also has been pretty civil.
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. It is really a complicated issue.
The bottom line is that you cannot cure hatred with hatred.
Edit: Look at Chinese history, look at how many Chinese killed others in order to expand their territory. Somehow, they've never apologized to anybody. I am not saying two wrong makes a right, but if a japanese person pointed it out, The japanese better go to hell.
Yes, colonialism also creates deep-seated resentments that don't always manifest themselves in rational thoughts.
But it makes more sense for someone to be upset about the destruction, mutilation or suppression of their culture than for people to complain that they weren't responsible, shouldn't have to feel guilty, colonialism wasn't so bad, everyone else would have done the same, these people should have done more work to help themselves after our ancestors destroyed them, etc.
The War was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the existence of slavery? Doesn't that mean the same thing?
I didn't say it was fought "over" the existence of slavery. I said it was the "outcome" of the existence of slavery.
Fighting over something means that the fight is about that particular object. Fighting as a result of something, is something entirely different.
For instance, lets pretend that your wife's sister comes to town, and they go out shopping and spend a bunch of money.
Now, once you realize how much they spent, you might go have a talk with your wife about it, and end up arguing "over" how much money she spent. But you might also think to yourself that her spending the money was the "outcome" of the existence of her sister being in town. And thus you might say "Had the sister not come into town, you wouldn't be arguing with your wife". So who is to blame? The wife or the sister?
Lincoln said that the Civil War was not fought OVER slavery. As in, few people if any were fighting either for or against the institution of slavery itself, and that most didn't really care one way or the other.
Lincoln actually said simply, if it weren't for blacks in America, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.
So in effect, the war was the "outcome" of the existence of slavery, but the war was not fought "over" slavery.
Now, this is where I hate fighting about the Civil War. Most people want to devolve backwards and say that since the Civil War wouldn't have happened had it not been for slavery. And since the Civil War was caused by secession, and that secession was primarily for the purpose of perpetuating slavery, then you can jump to the conclusion that the Civil War was fought "over" slavery.
But there are tons of things which ultimately caused the war. I mean, someone might argue that the Louisiana purchase directly led to the Civil War, because if it hadn't been for the Louisiana purchase, there wouldn't have been a Civil War(IE no Westward expansion). Does that mean the Civil War was fought "over" the Louisiana Purchase? Or simply was the eventual "outcome" of the Louisiana Purchase?
I don't particularly like this recursive logic to prove a point.
So let me just finish with a reminder, we know that Lincoln promised repeatedly not to interfere with the institution of slavery, and until even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he was perfectly willing to allow slavery to exist "forever" in those states where it already existed(IE the south). And for that matter, he continued to enforce the fugitive-slave act in the border states during the entire war.
I didn't say it was fought "over" the existence of slavery. I said it was the "outcome" of the existence of slavery.
Fighting over something means that the fight is about that particular object. Fighting as a result of something, is something entirely different.
For instance, lets pretend that your wife's sister comes to town, and they go out shopping and spend a bunch of money.
Now, once you realize how much they spent, you might go have a talk with your wife about it, and end up arguing "over" how much money she spent. But you might also think to yourself that her spending the money was the "outcome" of the existence of her sister being in town. And thus you might say "Had the sister not come into town, you wouldn't be arguing with your wife". So who is to blame? The wife or the sister?
Lincoln said that the Civil War was not fought OVER slavery. As in, few people if any were fighting either for or against the institution of slavery itself, and that most didn't really care one way or the other.
Lincoln actually said simply, if it weren't for blacks in America, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.
So in effect, the war was the "outcome" of the existence of slavery, but the war was not fought "over" slavery.
Now, this is where I hate fighting about the Civil War. Most people want to devolve backwards and say that since the Civil War wouldn't have happened had it not been for slavery. And since the Civil War was caused by secession, and that secession was primarily for the purpose of perpetuating slavery, then you can jump to the conclusion that the Civil War was fought "over" slavery.
But there are tons of things which ultimately caused the war. I mean, someone might argue that the Louisiana purchase directly led to the Civil War, because if it hadn't been for the Louisiana purchase, there wouldn't have been a Civil War(IE no Westward expansion). Does that mean the Civil War was fought "over" the Louisiana Purchase? Or simply was the eventual "outcome" of the Louisiana Purchase?
I don't particularly like this recursive logic to prove a point.
So let me just finish with a reminder, we know that Lincoln promised repeatedly not to interfere with the institution of slavery, and until even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he was perfectly willing to allow slavery to exist "forever" in those states where it already existed(IE the south). And for that matter, he continued to enforce the fugitive-slave act in the border states during the entire war.
I would think most people in the present day think slavery was wrong - one of the worst things about our history. I would also think most people in the present day also recognize the outcome of the American Civil War was the end of slavery.
Another poster brought up the holocaust. I don't think there are many people making a case to justify the holocaust or to blame it on the existence of Jewish people in Germany.
It's a very strange logic. & one that makes me uneasy in the present day. I don't think it's necessary to feel guilt as if you were alive at the time but to recognize it was wrong? What does it take?
Another poster brought up the holocaust. I don't think there are many people making a case to justify the holocaust or to blame it on the existence of Jewish people in Germany.
In a heartbeat I would undo the "discovery" of the so-called "New World" (that name itself makes me vomit) by Columbus, and the ensuing slaughter of Native Americans (to call them "Indians" is an insult, although some of them prefer that term) and destruction of their habitats and culture by Europeans. Yes, I realize if I "undid" this, I wouldn't be here today, nor would the culture that I identify with.
I also am disgusted that Americans boast of "liberty" and "freedom" that they DO NOT have and NEVER DID have. Americans from all walks of life, both liberal and conservative, talk about how they have a "Constitutional right" to do this, or a "Constitutional right" to do that... this is all in their imaginations, and every American except me seems to have some ridiculous fantasy about what the Constitution says, using the very word "Constitution" in a sentence when trying to persuade anyone to accept a political point.
Here's what the Constitution actually is: a document written by SLAVEOWNERS (yes, they were white supremacists, and "all men are created equal" did NOT apply to non-white races in the view of these slaveowners). Also, the right-wing religious folks who insist the "Founding Fathers" (again, they were glorified slaveowners) envisioned America as a "Christian nation" are just plain mistaken, or even worse, are trying to rewrite historical facts. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, who believed a "creator" existed, but believed the same "creator" had no vision for the future of humanity. And guess what... Deism is now an almost entirely extinct religion because basic science eventually led Deists to become either atheists or agnostics. Why we in this country still adhere to an intellectual document written by people of an extinct religion and culture that NO (okay maybe two or three folks out in North Dakota somewhere) Americans today believe in is beyond me.
I'm not necessarily trying to destroy any American's fantasy about their country's history (in fact, Mormonism is a religion based on the notion that God directly had a hand in leading whites to eventually conquer the Americas), but I wish people inspired by the ACLU and other activist groups would stop b*tching about "The Constitution". People love to put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers and are crying because maybe white police officers were disrespectful to an African American (which I'm sure does indeed happen, and it saddens me) but nothing in the Constitution should make us be surprised about that. And no, the Constitution doesn't entitle people to UNLIMITED gun rights, unlike the baloney and mumbo jumbo preached by the NRA. And these are just two examples of delusions held by both conservatives and liberals alike.
In a heartbeat I would undo the "discovery" of the so-called "New World" (that name itself makes me vomit) by Columbus, and the ensuing slaughter of Native Americans (to call them "Indians" is an insult, although some of them prefer that term) and destruction of their habitats and culture by Europeans. Yes, I realize if I "undid" this, I wouldn't be here today, nor would the culture that I identify with.
I also am disgusted that Americans boast of "liberty" and "freedom" that they DO NOT have and NEVER DID have. Americans from all walks of life, both liberal and conservative, talk about how they have a "Constitutional right" to do this, or a "Constitutional right" to do that... this is all in their imaginations, and every American except me seems to have some ridiculous fantasy about what the Constitution says, using the very word "Constitution" in a sentence when trying to persuade anyone to accept a political point.
Here's what the Constitution actually is: a document written by SLAVEOWNERS (yes, they were white supremacists, and "all men are created equal" did NOT apply to non-white races in the view of these slaveowners). Also, the right-wing religious folks who insist the "Founding Fathers" (again, they were glorified slaveowners) envisioned America as a "Christian nation" are just plain mistaken, or even worse, are trying to rewrite historical facts. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, who believed a "creator" existed, but believed the same "creator" had no vision for the future of humanity. And guess what... Deism is now an almost entirely extinct religion because basic science eventually led Deists to become either atheists or agnostics. Why we in this country still adhere to an intellectual document written by people of an extinct religion and culture that NO (okay maybe two or three folks out in North Dakota somewhere) Americans today believe in is beyond me.
I'm not necessarily trying to destroy any American's fantasy about their country's history (in fact, Mormonism is a religion based on the notion that God directly had a hand in leading whites to eventually conquer the Americas), but I wish people inspired by the ACLU and other activist groups would stop b*tching about "The Constitution". People love to put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers and are crying because maybe white police officers were disrespectful to an African American (which I'm sure does indeed happen, and it saddens me) but nothing in the Constitution should make us be surprised about that. And no, the Constitution doesn't entitle people to UNLIMITED gun rights, unlike the baloney and mumbo jumbo preached by the NRA. And these are just two examples of delusions held by both conservatives and liberals alike.
Well, you can't go back so you're stuck living here now with the rest of us and the stew we're all in together at this point.
Count yourself fortunate. You could have been born in Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East and wouldn't that just put a knot in yer knickers...
Sounds to me like you've spent too much time in liberal anthropology departments.
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.
) by Columbus, and the ensuing slaughter of Native Americans (to call them "Indians" is an insult, although some of them prefer that term) and destruction of their habitats and culture by Europeans. Yes, I realize if I "undid" this, I wouldn't be here today, nor would the culture that I identify with.
