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

[weirdichi]

2x

 

[weirdichi]

3x... it wouldn't load back up to the main screen after I clicked submit.

 

[Rmex]

Originally posted by: weirdichi

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...

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 agree with you. They did it, why can't we do it? That sort of thinking isn't right. As I said earlier, the reason why it's such a debate is that the American colinists used a "generational" slavery, enslaving the slaves children and the children's children as well.

To be fair here and to repeat what many many others have already said....America was not the only country that had slavery-&-Generational slavery.

Brazil had generational slavery aswell. Brazil recieved 2/3rds of all the Africans exported to be slaves, and they kept them generationally enslaved even longer than America did, abolishing slavery in 1880 or something.

Cuba, Jamaica,Puerto Rico,The Guineas of Nothern South america, The bahamas, Dominican republic,Haiti [before the revolts] and various nations in Central america ALL had generational enslavement of Blacks-who were all imported as slaves from africa to be forcefully put to work by Spaniards-French-and Englishmen.

So america is not unique at all in this respect. Hell, ill even include the Arab nations...Yemen-Saudi Arabia-Egypt, they to had black slavery-&-generational slavery, they were even doing black slavery several hundred years before any white man landed in West Africa.

The ONLY unique thing with american slavery is the One drop rule. Thats it, and admittedly it is a pretty big difference since that means if your part black [even 1/4] then you = black = you are a slave for life.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: bradruth
How about rounding up Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WWII.

That was definatly bad but I have to say that standing by and knowing all about the holocaust and still refusing to enter the war was worse.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: bradruth
How about rounding up Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WWII.

That was definatly bad but I have to say that standing by and knowing all about the holocaust and still refusing to enter the war was worse.

Not in the defense of the act but i think it needs to be specified that the american concentration camps were not as bad as the german-controlled ones. Though they definatly did not even meet teh standards held by present day hostles(where I am staying) they were not severly neglected or tortured in any way unless they had a distinct affiliation with the japanese government.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: K1052


Let me see if I understand this.

Long story short, no, you don't understand it.

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.

It was not condescending, and it was purposefully vague. If I had any desire to take anyone's hand and teach the basics of life I would have children or be teaching by now.
My reply was aimed directly at a person who read too much into a simple statement and initiated flaming my post when I had not intended it to be a flame. Any subsequent retorts on my part are in response to outright flaming directed towards me.
For the last time, it was not intended to be condescending, although if you believe yourself to be sorely lacking in the particular subject area, then it's quite understandable you would feel that way.

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.

I have not automatically discounted any such comparison. I have, in fact, encourage such comparison. My "very poor description" comes from the fact that once again, I have no desire to teach what your parents or your high school teachers should have instructed you. If you need a lesson in U.S. history (which is how I interpret your call for details) then it's obvious you don't belong in this thread.

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 am not treating the U.S. as an island with no contact with the rest of the world. If I had done so, none of my examples would have included U.S. foreign policy.

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.

The whole point of this thread is not the "startling successes" but the "shameful acts in its history." If you wish to discuss the "successful foreign policy of the United States," perhaps you should start your own thread on said topic.

 

[adams828]

hm so many to pick from... j/k i don't know, i think every country has their shameful acts

 

[K1052]

Sahakiel, your posts certainly do sound condescending regardless of you intentions. You seem to have an air of superiority around your ideas and ?education? that is clearly unjustified.

I can make vague blanket statements all day about something being shameful and then proceed to give slanted/generalized examples to back them up. Given your evasive defense of your initial statement, I think my further discussion of this topic with you is pointless.

My "very poor description" comes from the fact that once again, I have no desire to teach what your parents or your high school teachers should have instructed you. If you need a lesson in U.S. history (which is how I interpret your call for details) then it's obvious you don't belong in this thread.

This quote illustrates my point quite nicely.

Edit: Also, if you think that high school history classes are that good then you need to take a look at some of the textbooks. So much is skipped over, summarized, or even slightly slanted by the writers.

 

[aceO07]

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.

oops sorry, I haven't had time for posting lately. One of my sources was "An Enemy Among Friends" by Kiyoaki Murata. The author arrived on the west coast a couple of months prior to the bombing and he writes about his experiences during and after it. I like this source since he gives dates of notices and other observations which are not noted in other sources. I don't have the book anymore. However, he makes reference of the fact that they would be free to leave on April 1943 if they had a reference for work. This isn't a long time since the Japanese were not ALL moved to camps immediately, some were moved a few months after the first date of March 1942. Depending on their military zone, they were moved at different times. The author was relocated to a camp in August 1942.

Also, I was surprised to find out that others were interned at other locations too. Germans, for example.
link about German internment. link He makes reference to the fact that Italians needed travel permits as well.

I'm NOT trying to say that the WW2 internment was not a horrible act. I am saying that some things seemed to be misrepresented.

 

[slatr]

Laust any ideas if Red Hawk will be selling prints?

Does he have a website?

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: K1052
Sahakiel, your posts certainly do sound condescending regardless of you intentions. You seem to have an air of superiority around your ideas and ?education? that is clearly unjustified.

There's very little I can do about that given the limitations of the English language and the properties of the Internet. If a statement sounds condescending, it's probably due to the fact that I do not take the time to make it "sound nice" or "politically correct."
Regardless of my writing style, I think it's safe to say your continual insistence on emphasizing my "condescending" posts is moving away from the topic of this thread. This seems especially apparent given your reply dedicated solely towards ripping apart my credibility. If you wish to argue my character, start a new thread. Otherwise, stick to arguing the topic.
In other words, discuss the validity of my statement rather than its wording.

I can make vague blanket statements all day about something being shameful and then proceed to give slanted/generalized examples to back them up. Given your evasive defense of your initial statement, I think my further discussion of this topic with you is pointless.

Oh? I see my defense of my initial statement as anything but evasive. I have, in fact, been actively defending my stance.
However, if you see no point in continuing discussion and have decided not to continue, then it seems to me that my time has been wasted as no change in opinion has occured for either of us.

My "very poor description" comes from the fact that once again, I have no desire to teach what your parents or your high school teachers should have instructed you. If you need a lesson in U.S. history (which is how I interpret your call for details) then it's obvious you don't belong in this thread.

This quote illustrates my point quite nicely.

It seems you and I simply disagree on the level of education a high school offers. This thread is aimed at citing examples of shameful acts on the part of the U.S. governement. The prerequisite for participation in this thread is rudimentary knowledge of the history of the United States of America. If one does not know a single shred of information of the events which I describe, then it's quite obvious that further study (a high school education) is required. Note I did not say "elementary school" because it seems to me that primary school level of history is the babied and glossed over version which you seem to purport high school's to be.
If my reasoning sounds condescending, then that's unfortunate as I do not believe in dressing up an argument and therefore have little reason to put effort into making it "sound nice."

Edit: Also, if you think that high school history classes are that good then you need to take a look at some of the textbooks. So much is skipped over, summarized, or even slightly slanted by the writers.

High school history classes do provide a lot of information and, much like the local newspaper, each has its own "slant" and "skips over" various parts. That is why classes have teachers and students have individual minds. If learning history were as simple as reading a book, then there would be no need for courses dedicated to the field of study. Universities would no longer need history major programs simply because several trips to the library would be sufficient in gaining the knowledge necessary for a degree. If your assertion of the poor quality of textbooks leads to students learning material without thinking about it, then no wonder this nation is becoming the land of the sheep. Which are you, sheep or human? How do you even know my knowledge is taken directly from a textbook? How would you know that our favorite pastime during the first few days of each year was ripping apart (figuratively) each book issued to us? We knew the poor quality of the textbooks we were given. I am beginning to wonder whether you are arguing against my stance on the thread topic just to play Devil's Advocate or simply because my stance does not coincide with many (if any) history books.

To get back on topic :
You make a big deal over the "obvious slant" of my examples and the "obvious slant" of authors of history books. Well, I think after three or four posts on your part, it's time for you bring out some examples. After which, we can continue discussing the validity of my statement. I'll quote it below just so you don't have to scroll back to find it.

The question :

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

The original post :

Institution and promotion of democracy and capitalism.

If you can't understand why, I suggest getting a high school diploma.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

I'd say the mass slaughter of the Indians. Yes, I realize that without it we wouldn't have the same country we know today, but it still doesn't make it right.

 

[SSibalNom]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
it looks like most people seem to think that what happened to the real Americans is what was the worst. Well, their descendants are still around... and, casino jokes aside, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing much to help them today. Money isn't everything. I feel like we should really make efforts to address their problems today. We can't change the past, but if we can correct the present and the future, we will still make amends with ourselves... now i'm not an expert on the situation, but i'm pretty sure that we aren't doing the best we can do.

my .02

what are the problems of today? There's alcoholism, some drug problems, but those are individual choices... Receiving a check every month is about the most the govt can do anyway, at least its not coming out of our pockets, its coming out of all the people who have gambling problems, should those people be helped too?

 

[carmat4]

Bringin slaves to America
Hiroshima
Cheating Native americans

 

[Nab]

Originally posted by: MrBond
I doubt it's the things we did in the past that cause a lot of the world to hate us. Look at Germany and the holocaust. That is WAY worse than ANYTHING anyone else has done and people don't hate Germany the way they hate America.

everyone hates Germany!!

 

[Nab]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Virtual genocide of American Indians.

The US succeeded where Hitler failed.

You can hardly compare the two. It was an entirely different area and way of thinking.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Slavery

closly followed by

Native American relations (their slaughter and general screwing over)

Yea, both of these are pretty bad stains in our country's history. At least we as african-americans have gotten some breaks, I don't think the Indians have gotten any at all. And what few that are available for them, they for the most part are so removed from society they can't take advantage of them anyway. Kinda sad.

 

[Alistar7]

without a doubt the almost complete genocide of the American Indian, possibly anywhere from 15-20 million people, Stalin and Hitler combined were only half as bad by numerical comparision...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Nab

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Virtual genocide of American Indians.

The US succeeded where Hitler failed.

You can hardly compare the two. It was an entirely different area and way of thinking.

Really? Hunting the "savages" and paying a bounty for killing them hardly recommends the US policy.

Rounding them up into death marches and herding them, shooting those who tried to escape.

A different way of thinking? Different but no better. They were a nusiance and a threat that needed to be exterminated.

I have Cherokee ancestry and we lost almost everyone on the Trail of Tears.

I havent the inclination for wanting reparations. That was long ago, and I never even got around to being outraged by it, but will I not relent in calling a spade a spade. We did not call it genocide, and yet it was.

 

[Brutuskend]

How about what was done to the natives...?

 

[Siddhartha]

Slaughter of native populations
Slavery and the subsequent political and economic oppression based on race.
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and in general the bombing of civilian areas.
Deforestation of the Vietnamese jungle using carcinogenic chemicals


Yes other countries have committed these same crimes against humanity but that does not absolve the US of anything.

Is anyone morally comfortable with saying "Well, the Nazis kill millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, and other non-Nazis so it is okay or less shameful that the US slaughtered its native poplulations"?

 

[p4crusher]

Originally posted by: MrBond
I doubt it's the things we did in the past that cause a lot of the world to hate us. Look at Germany and the holocaust. That is WAY worse than ANYTHING anyone else has done and people don't hate Germany the way they hate America.

The virtual extermination of the native americans is no big deal right??

 

[p4crusher]

Originally posted by: MrBond
I doubt it's the things we did in the past that cause a lot of the world to hate us. Look at Germany and the holocaust. That is WAY worse than ANYTHING anyone else has done and people don't hate Germany the way they hate America.

The virtual extermination of the native americans is no big deal right??

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
The slavery of African-Americans?
how about railroading building done by Chinese?
How about the things we did on THEIR soil?

I want to dispel the myths and face the facts why certain shut-ins still despise America today.

discuss.

None of these.

The US government had a systematic policy for the destruction of the Native American that easily eclipses these.

 

[FredFredrickson]

Two words:
Ronald Reagan.