What is America's most shameful act in its history?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Everybody who said something about slavory needs to realize that the U.S. wasn't the first nation to incorporate the use of entire races as slaves. Nor were we the last. Nor were we the only one to do it on such a large scale. Jeez...
rolleye.gif

To say, another country had slaves does not resolve the US of the fact it was wrong. The title of this thread is "What is America's most shameful act in its history?"
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86
Originally posted by: K1052

"Massive destruction to ecology of the United States. Destruction of various game. Destruction of the majority of forestry in the continental United States."

This statement infers that the U.S. is somehow unique in these areas.

Allow me to repeat for the last time : There is no intentional implication of the U.S. being unique in any of my statements.

Many of the other forms of government have been far more brutal over time. National Socialism, Communism, and Dictatorships are responsible for many of the worlds worst atrocites.

There have admittedly been some misguided and bad attempts to introduce our values onto other people. Though definately no more than any other form of government. It has worked to some very good results in several places.
It seems to me that you've missed the blatant hypocracy. Let me see if I can explain my stance in a different manner.
First, start by explaining exactly why "our values" are worthy of "introduction" to other people.
Second, start looking at U.S. history and foreign and domestic policy from the eyes of a foreigner or even the eyes of oppressed U.S. citizens past and present.
Now try explaining how it's no more misguided than any other form of government.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Everybody who said something about slavory needs to realize that the U.S. wasn't the first nation to incorporate the use of entire races as slaves. Nor were we the last. Nor were we the only one to do it on such a large scale. Jeez...
rolleye.gif

To say, another country had slaves does not resolve the US of the fact it was wrong. The title of this thread is "What is America's most shameful act in its history?"

i'm PRETTY sure you mean ABSOLVE
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Everybody who said something about slavory needs to realize that the U.S. wasn't the first nation to incorporate the use of entire races as slaves. Nor were we the last. Nor were we the only one to do it on such a large scale. Jeez...
rolleye.gif

To say, another country had slaves does not resolve the US of the fact it was wrong. The title of this thread is "What is America's most shameful act in its history?"

There is also the finicky issue with defining "race." Throughout history, racial division has changed as peoples' view of the world expanded. Perhaps the best examples most U.S. residents can understand is the original view of the Irish as a seperate race during the mid-1800's flood of immigration. Along the same lines, Italians were once considered seperate ethnic groups before the unification of Italy and racially distinct from the White America due to, surprise, surprise, skin color. For a long time, the U.S. population in general literally considered Eastern European immigrants as vulgar and subhuman, utterly lacking in significant intelligence. In fact, one need only look at the history of U.S. immigration and Census information to plot the last century's changes in definition of racial groups.
Given a history of dynamically changing racial delineation, it's not hard to wonder if some of the more well-known historical examples of slavery involved entire races of people as defined in those times. It doesn't seem too difficult to imagine defining race based on geographic location.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Rmex
This thread should be renamed to "what is the White man's greatest atrocities in history" instead of what it is now.

Done by White americans =
Slaughter of Native americans = Done by WHITES
Enslavement of African Americans = Done by WHITES
Putting AMERICAN people of Japanese ancestry into CONCENTRATION camps = Done by WHITES
Guantonomo Bay = Done by WHITES
FORCING Native americans off THIER land = Done by WHITES
STEALING Mexican Land in the South west and then slaughtering Mexican/Native Americans [yes we mexicans are mostly native american] = Done by WHITES
Taking advantage of Mexico's poor economy and causing more poverty through NAFTA = Done by WHITES
FORCING Mexican tribes [the southern apaches] in the South west to go to Mexico = Done by WHITES
NUKING Hiroshima & Nagasaki [instead of Berlin or some other WHITE city due to racism] = Done by WHITES

And on and on, dont even ask about Europeans...lol. That would include the HALOCAUST, the crusades and on and on.
Whites are no more inherently evil than any other race. Africans were enslaving themselves before anybody from Europe was. The Japanese were horrific to their POWs in WWII. Oh yeah, and native americans were ravaging themselves before Europe ever came over here too.
NUKING Hiroshima & Nagasaki [instead of Berlin or some other WHITE city due to racism] = Done by WHITES
That's upsetting to see somebody write something so ridiculous. Germany had surrendered by the time the US had the nuke.. So, you can scratch that off your list
rolleye.gif

That, plus virtually every german city (every city with more than 50000-100000 inhabitants) was flattened - that is why german cities are so ugly nowadays. Btw, more ppl died in the Dresden Bombing night than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nukes are horrible, but death is death no matter what brings it.
PS: I am not complaining, after all we started the war
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
The eradication of the Native Americans was by far the worst atrocity. What Germany did in WWII pales in comparison. There are soooo many examples of horrible atrocities committed by our government. Often, entire villages would be wiped out. (I took a grad class on the issue.) In California, they would go to the Indian villages, set them on fire, and shoot anyone running out. Well, almost anyone. The small children would be thrown into the fire to save ammunition. Scalping wasn't invented by Indians... rather, it was invented by (French? British?) as a way to prove an Indian was killed. (bounties)
That grad class was one of the most depressing classes I ever took. I never knew how badly the Indians were treated.

Incidentally, prior to 1492, I believe the population of North and Central American Indians exceeded the population of Europe. They also had the largest city in the world at that time. Now, ask yourself, where'd they all go?

Slavery wasn't nearly as bad. Sure, it's immoral. Slavery is wrong, period. But, it wasn't *that* horrible. They didn't round up slaves and kill them for the fun of it. Slaves represented a sizeable investment for the owner. Just as a farmer might use work horses to plow a field, slave-owners would use their slaves to do gruelling manual work. It wasn't an easy life, but they were provided with some degree of care, food, and shelter. There were of course cruel things that happened, I'm not denying that.

In the context of moral values and culture of the times they occured, extermination of Indians was far worse than slavery. In fact, slavery was even allowed per the Bible. In fact, the Bible goes into quite a bit of detail over what is and isn't allowed for slavery.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Hiroshima was a terrible thing (that will hopefully never need to be repeated), but it was in no way a shameful thing on the part of the US to do.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
For those of you bemoaning the plight of black slaves in America, I would encourage you to read up on the treatment of Irish and Chinese immigrants during their respective times of immigration. Black slavery absolutley pales in comparison. At least black slaves had monetary value.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
For those of you bemoaning the plight of black slaves in America, I would encourage you to read up on the treatment of Irish and Chinese immigrants during their respective times of immigration. Black slavery absolutley pales in comparison. At least black slaves had monetary value.

But the blacks push their bullsh|t so much, you'd think the Chinese and Irish were standing there next to good ol' whitey!
 

kami333

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2001
5,110
2
76
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: SuperMachoMan
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: novon
Hiroshima

gimme a break. that was neccesarry to end the war without a million combat casualties + additional civilians

you need to think of the lives SAVED by the bomb, rather than lost. that was the problem with the atom bomb, and thats the problem with iraq. thousands of people are being indirectly saved by having saddam removed, you just see the lives that are lost.

This is absurd.

The Japanese in a hapless position. They had no food or oil. It was only a matter of time before they surrendered. The main stumbling block was the deposition of the Emporer who was a religious figure to the Japanese people.

In the words of Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower -
"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn?t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.?
Exactly! Dropping the bomb after the Japanese had pretty much already lost... now that is absurd.

Interesting side fact: A greater number of Japanese people died from regular bombings on Tokyo than were killed by the a-bomb in Hiroshima.

There were also political issues involved as well, mainly whether the Soviet Union would believe that the US would have the balls to use such a weapon, "Dirty Japs" or not.

My honors thesis was on the implications of dropping the atomic bomb in Japan:)
 

kami333

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2001
5,110
2
76
Originally posted by: SuperMachoMan
Originally posted by: aceO07
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They were allowed to leave (after a while), however many choose to stay.
I wonder how much was because of the anti-japanese sentiment that was probably around back then?

I wish I got more in dept into my research. I would assume it had a lot to do with them staying. However, it was free and each person got a monthly allowance along with whatever earnings they got from their jobs. Americans were actually complaining that the Japanese got it easy and were living off them. 110k people cost $50k to feed daily.

One interesting quote I found was by J.P. Envoy The taxpayer may wonder how an industrious productive group that has $200,000,000 in property holdings and an annual agricultural production of $100,000,000 in California alone could be changed overnight into wards of the government and guests of the Treasury at a time when the industry and agriculture suffer from a manpower shortage.

The vast majority of Japanese Americans at the time were either farmers or small businessmen. They were given very little notice before being hauled off, thus many of them had to forfeit all of their land and property (or sell it at a pittance). Although racism was prevalent on the West Coast, the fact of the matter is that many of them had no place to go back to. Imagine having your home seized and then thrown into a camp for three years. Where would you go when they said one day "you are free to go"?

That being said, I think you are overstating things a bit when you say :many" chose to stay.

Indeed. I'd like to know his resources. I think he forgets to mention that "after a while" is in late 1944, more than 2 years after the internment started.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Grand Wizard says what?
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Originally posted by: Orsorum
For those of you bemoaning the plight of black slaves in America, I would encourage you to read up on the treatment of Irish and Chinese immigrants during their respective times of immigration. Black slavery absolutley pales in comparison. At least black slaves had monetary value.

But the blacks push their bullsh|t so much, you'd think the Chinese and Irish were standing there next to good ol' whitey!

 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: kami333
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: SuperMachoMan
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: novon
Hiroshima

gimme a break. that was neccesarry to end the war without a million combat casualties + additional civilians

you need to think of the lives SAVED by the bomb, rather than lost. that was the problem with the atom bomb, and thats the problem with iraq. thousands of people are being indirectly saved by having saddam removed, you just see the lives that are lost.

This is absurd.

The Japanese in a hapless position. They had no food or oil. It was only a matter of time before they surrendered. The main stumbling block was the deposition of the Emporer who was a religious figure to the Japanese people.

In the words of Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower -
"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn?t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.?
Exactly! Dropping the bomb after the Japanese had pretty much already lost... now that is absurd.

Interesting side fact: A greater number of Japanese people died from regular bombings on Tokyo than were killed by the a-bomb in Hiroshima.

There were also political issues involved as well, mainly whether the Soviet Union would believe that the US would have the balls to use such a weapon, "Dirty Japs" or not.

My honors thesis was on the implications of dropping the atomic bomb in Japan:)


I think droping the bomb was the right thing to do. Japan clearly was refusing to surrender even after we made one city dissapear over night they still didn't surrender. Then after the second bomb a coup failed to prevent the surrender.

If we didn't nuke them and were forced to invade the main land japan would have end up like germany half in control of USSR and half in control buy the USA.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: kami333
Originally posted by: SuperMachoMan
Originally posted by: aceO07
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They were allowed to leave (after a while), however many choose to stay.
I wonder how much was because of the anti-japanese sentiment that was probably around back then?

I wish I got more in dept into my research. I would assume it had a lot to do with them staying. However, it was free and each person got a monthly allowance along with whatever earnings they got from their jobs. Americans were actually complaining that the Japanese got it easy and were living off them. 110k people cost $50k to feed daily.

One interesting quote I found was by J.P. Envoy The taxpayer may wonder how an industrious productive group that has $200,000,000 in property holdings and an annual agricultural production of $100,000,000 in California alone could be changed overnight into wards of the government and guests of the Treasury at a time when the industry and agriculture suffer from a manpower shortage.

The vast majority of Japanese Americans at the time were either farmers or small businessmen. They were given very little notice before being hauled off, thus many of them had to forfeit all of their land and property (or sell it at a pittance). Although racism was prevalent on the West Coast, the fact of the matter is that many of them had no place to go back to. Imagine having your home seized and then thrown into a camp for three years. Where would you go when they said one day "you are free to go"?

That being said, I think you are overstating things a bit when you say :many" chose to stay.

Indeed. I'd like to know his resources. I think he forgets to mention that "after a while" is in late 1944, more than 2 years after the internment started.


Wow they really suffered two whole years? lol and you think that is the most shamefull?
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
here's another vote for the treatment of native americans. That was a problem in Canada too though, just we didn't wage full scale war against them, we just made them sign treaties and dumped them on cheap land.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,091
47,226
136
Originally posted by: Sahakiel
Originally posted by: K1052

"Massive destruction to ecology of the United States. Destruction of various game. Destruction of the majority of forestry in the continental United States."

This statement infers that the U.S. is somehow unique in these areas.

Allow me to repeat for the last time : There is no intentional implication of the U.S. being unique in any of my statements.

Many of the other forms of government have been far more brutal over time. National Socialism, Communism, and Dictatorships are responsible for many of the worlds worst atrocites.

There have admittedly been some misguided and bad attempts to introduce our values onto other people. Though definately no more than any other form of government. It has worked to some very good results in several places.
It seems to me that you've missed the blatant hypocracy. Let me see if I can explain my stance in a different manner.
First, start by explaining exactly why "our values" are worthy of "introduction" to other people.
Second, start looking at U.S. history and foreign and domestic policy from the eyes of a foreigner or even the eyes of oppressed U.S. citizens past and present.
Now try explaining how it's no more misguided than any other form of government.

Let me see if I understand this.

You make a vague and condescending statement about democracy/capitalism being the most shameful act in U.S. history. Then you reply with a list of examples clearly skewed by your personal views while insulting the person who replied to your condensing post.

You list of examples clearly invites comparison with other countries and political systems. However, you seem to automatically discount any such comparison. Not to mention your very poor description of the supposedly heinous acts.

You can't treat the U.S. as an island that has no contact with the rest of the world. We have tried to bury our heads in the sand before and it did not work. Events elsewhere in the world, that the U.S. has absolutely no control over, affect its course through history.

I have always admitted that the U.S. has made serious mistakes and compromises in its foreign and domestic policies. Again, I state that we are no more guilty for this than any other country in the world. American foreign and domestic polices have had some startling successes, but that obviously has no interest or value you.

 

Ynog

Golden Member
Oct 9, 2002
1,782
1
0
Some interesting posts here.

Going back in through history, I think what we did to the Native Americas was unfortunate.
However, I would like to note, that Native American tribes had been waring and trying to
kill each other off for some time as well.
Nevertheless, some of the tactics to kill off indians was horrible (like false good will
gestures, ie, diseased blankets) and massacring innocent people should never happen.
But, I would also like to note that throughout the beginning of our countries history, and
even when we were still a part of Britain, Native Americans were used by all sides vying for
colonizing this continent, French, British, and even Spanish, to attack the other sides colonials.
They used Native Americans, who gladly participated, as mercenaries, who ruthlessly killed men,
women, children. Now I don't want to say that they deserved to be moved off their land, and in
some instances killed, but I will say that they weren't rounded up in concentration camps and
later killed.
It was a gradual process, and while maybe not the best part of our history, it definately cannot be
considered the most shameful. And also, I ask this simple question, as time has passed on this world,
there has always been someone or something that occupied a certain area, and when someone new
comes into that area, they either fight if off, or are fought off. Now as horrible as it was, without it
happening this country wouldn't exist today.


As far as slavery in general goes, it was and in some cases today still is a horrible practice.
However when our country first started off, it was an excepted practice. Yes we probably
were alittle slowing in outlawing it completely, the North did outlaw slavery before the Civil War.
However the practice wasn't started by us. It was other Africans who were selling off people
as slaves. The most deplorable situation was the slave trade itself. Because while this was
going on, slaves were considered expendable. However once the slave trade was outlawed, which
did happen well before slavery, slave treatment was greatly improved. Because they were no longer
considered expendable, and while this still doesn't make it any better, it explains that during the Civil
war some slaves fought against the north, without being ordered to by their masters.
I actually find the treatment of blacks in america during the 1900's to be considerably more shameful.
I would like to note that when Roosevelt commented to Hilter about his treatment of the jews prior to
WWII, Hilter responded that it was no different than our treatment of blacks, which at the time was
correct.
I hate to say it again, but without slavery this country wouldn't exist today. And as I said before
that doesn't make it acceptable, however I think it elimiantes it from being the most shameful thing
we have done.


I would like to comment about WW2 in the fact that droping of the atomic bombs was not shameful.
People make the comment that Japan was close to surrender, well, they had 2 days after the first bomb
hit they had not surrendered and Russia declared war, and they did not surrender. The next day we dropped
the second bomb and they didn't surrender until Aug 15. So I am not sure how close they were to surrendering.
Even though they were without food. Obviously you wish it never had to be done. You never want war, however
more american, japanese would have died, and far more civilian causilities would have resulted from an invasion of
Japan, than because of the two atomic bombs being dropped.

However I really feel that the treatment of the Japanese on the west coast was the most shameful thing in this countries
history. Because of the paranoia resulting from Pearl Harbor, someone though it was a good idea to put them in concentration
camps. Now they might not have been the worst conditions, and it may have been done to stem anti-Japanese sentiment
throughout the west coast, but let me ask you, what would you think if I said, people don't like you so we are putting you in a
prision for your own protection, where you cannot leave, until people will accept you again.

Now i think the biggest thing when your looking at the most shameful thing in a countries history you have to balance it off
of what was acceptable at the time. You cannot fault people for doing things that were considered acceptable. Because
who knows, in 100-200 years, everything we do now could be considered shameful by their standards. Thats why when
you consider this, you have to consider things in terms of that. Otherwise, there are things that happened on this Earth,
that far outweigh anything the US has ever done, in terms of shame.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Ynog
Some interesting posts here.

Going back in through history, I think what we did to the Native Americas was unfortunate.
However, I would like to note, that Native American tribes had been waring [sic] and trying to
kill each other off for some time as well.

Nevertheless, some of the tactics to kill off indians was horrible (like false good will
gestures, ie, diseased blankets) and massacring innocent people should never happen.
But, I would also like to note that throughout the beginning of our countries history, and
even when we were still a part of Britain, Native Americans were used by all sides vying for
colonizing this continent, French, British, and even Spanish, to attack the other sides colonials.
They used Native Americans, who gladly participated, as mercenaries, who ruthlessly killed men,
women, children. Now I don't want to say that they deserved to be moved off their land, and in
some instances killed, but I will say that they weren't rounded up in concentration camps and
later killed.

What?? The same could be said of ANY culture, for that matter.

The various tribes were not bent on killing each other off. Sure, there were territorial battles and fights over food and hunting grounds but the various tribes were not trying to wipe each other out.

Take the Nez Perce, for instance. They were a very peaceful tribe and never once killed a white man. However, the U.S. government didn't care about that when they wiped them almost completely off the face of the earth!
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ynog
Some interesting posts here.

Going back in through history, I think what we did to the Native Americas was unfortunate.
However, I would like to note, that Native American tribes had been waring [sic] and trying to
kill each other off for some time as well.

Nevertheless, some of the tactics to kill off indians was horrible (like false good will
gestures, ie, diseased blankets) and massacring innocent people should never happen.
But, I would also like to note that throughout the beginning of our countries history, and
even when we were still a part of Britain, Native Americans were used by all sides vying for
colonizing this continent, French, British, and even Spanish, to attack the other sides colonials.
They used Native Americans, who gladly participated, as mercenaries, who ruthlessly killed men,
women, children. Now I don't want to say that they deserved to be moved off their land, and in
some instances killed, but I will say that they weren't rounded up in concentration camps and
later killed.

What?? The same could be said of ANY culture, for that matter.

The various tribes were not bent on killing each other off. Sure, there were territorial battles and fights over food and hunting grounds but the various tribes were not trying to wipe each other out.

Take the Nez Perce, for instance. They were a very peaceful tribe and never once killed a white man. However, the U.S. government didn't care about that when they wiped them almost completely off the face of the earth!

making excuses is one way of lessening the guilt, isn't it?
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Most shameful act...tough to choose. Not cause theres so many to choose, but they are all excusable in some way.

Slavery sucks, but the world seems to forget that slavery didnt start with america. Slavery has been around since ancient times. Even the black slave trade of the 16-800s wasnt entirely dominated by the US. 2/3rds of black slaves went to south america. Besides, its been 300 years. It is in our past, and its time to get over it.

As far as american indians go, its not even in the running as far as Im concerned. Yes we killed them all, and took over their land, but if I had a dollar for every time a nation conquered another Id be a very very rich man. When did nations start apologizing for imperialism? This is absolutely nothing new or amazing that other countries havent done before. Yes, we did it very unhonorably, but we did it well in the end, didnt we?

Internment camps are one thing, and even though it was probably unnecessary, it was done for a military reason.

Iraq is a pretty bad precedent, but regardless of its questionable motives, more good than bad will probably stem from it in the end.

Atomic bombs are effectively canceled out by pearl harbor, and dresden by the holocaust.


Id say the award has to go to how seriously bad we are destroying the earth, because that effects EVERYONE, and its done strictly from greed. Unless we invent some amazing rejuvenative technology or go back to old ways, this isnt going to change. The worst part about it is how removed every individual citizen is from the situation. Everyone can diffuse responsibility on everyone else, and 90% of the population of the US thinks their life is "normal", while they yap on their cell phone in the SUV.