Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I seem to remember an article about how the Muslims in the area weren't as tolerant as popular opinion has it.
Historical "Good Guys and Regimes"
- Thread starter zoomar
- Start date
I seem to remember an article about how the Muslims in the area weren't as tolerant as popular opinion has it.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Treaties
Um, Duquesne what do you make of this website then ?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=976
The very top one includes the phrase 'ratified by the Senate'
Note - these are not the treaties I was referring to (on the page the link above takes you to) but serve pretty much to show that the statement was wrong in their being no treaties and none ratified. Why did you think that was the case ?
Grey Wolf
DuQuense said:
Um, Duquesne what do you make of this website then ?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=976
The very top one includes the phrase 'ratified by the Senate'
Note - these are not the treaties I was referring to (on the page the link above takes you to) but serve pretty much to show that the statement was wrong in their being no treaties and none ratified. Why did you think that was the case ?
Grey Wolf
Last edited:
"ratified by the senate" = legalisms
To me, it is largely irrelevant whether or not Indian treaties were formally ratified by the senate. They were presented to tribal leadership to represent the American government's solemn pledge to abide by certain agreements. If the goverment Indian agents did this with the knowledge the treaties would be ignored or broken at a later date(which I believe was often the case), the USA was displaying the same degree of honesty as Hitler's Germany.
Please note, however, I am not mentioning this to disparage the US conquest of the Indian lands, which was normative behavior by colonializing powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. It does not stop the US from being one of the chief "good guys" in history. It was perhaps "wrong", as was Hitler's lying at Munich and various similar acts of duplicity and imperialism by all powers, but was not "evil" - something I'd reserve for the deliberate murder of millions.
To me, it is largely irrelevant whether or not Indian treaties were formally ratified by the senate. They were presented to tribal leadership to represent the American government's solemn pledge to abide by certain agreements. If the goverment Indian agents did this with the knowledge the treaties would be ignored or broken at a later date(which I believe was often the case), the USA was displaying the same degree of honesty as Hitler's Germany.
Please note, however, I am not mentioning this to disparage the US conquest of the Indian lands, which was normative behavior by colonializing powers in the 18th and 19th centuries. It does not stop the US from being one of the chief "good guys" in history. It was perhaps "wrong", as was Hitler's lying at Munich and various similar acts of duplicity and imperialism by all powers, but was not "evil" - something I'd reserve for the deliberate murder of millions.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Degrees of Evil
Well, Zoomar, I would still call it "evil", and it was considered such by many Americans at the time, but I think actions have to be looked at in a historical context. The US treatment of the Indians was evil, but on a scale that pales in comparison to what the other imperialist powers did. The Unites State's death toll will never top that of, for instance, Belgium.
Well, Zoomar, I would still call it "evil", and it was considered such by many Americans at the time, but I think actions have to be looked at in a historical context. The US treatment of the Indians was evil, but on a scale that pales in comparison to what the other imperialist powers did. The Unites State's death toll will never top that of, for instance, Belgium.
The US, of course. All others pale in the face of our benevolence and grace. Britain doesn't compare. They call the US 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'. What do they call Britain? 'Perfidious Albion'.. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it doesn't sound like a compliment. How come Canada isn't on the list?
I'm sure something similar would be said about Britain in its time. I never knew the US still believed that stuff anymore, I thought it was just from the 1800s with all the immigrants.
You have to put the regimes into perspective here, the Ottomans by todays standards are evil however by the standard of their time they were good.
I say Britain for certain, what was that someone said about India in the 40s?
I think we did OK with India in the 40s, promised them independance if they helped out with the war, they did and we complied. It was the Indians themselves who couldn't agree and caused the mass population movement and all that.
Britain been on the 'good guy' side of all the major wars (I know I'm being black and white there and in many there isn't really much of a good vs. bad but we were on the better of the two)
We did much better with natives then most other nations and stood for freedom and all that.
I'm sure something similar would be said about Britain in its time. I never knew the US still believed that stuff anymore, I thought it was just from the 1800s with all the immigrants.
You have to put the regimes into perspective here, the Ottomans by todays standards are evil however by the standard of their time they were good.
I say Britain for certain, what was that someone said about India in the 40s?
I think we did OK with India in the 40s, promised them independance if they helped out with the war, they did and we complied. It was the Indians themselves who couldn't agree and caused the mass population movement and all that.
Britain been on the 'good guy' side of all the major wars (I know I'm being black and white there and in many there isn't really much of a good vs. bad but we were on the better of the two)
We did much better with natives then most other nations and stood for freedom and all that.
wow, somebody took me seriously. Leej, I was kidding... I think you were the only one on the whole list who ever took my "we're the US, we're the greatest" comments seriously 
Don't get me wrong, I still put the US at the top of the list. I'd put Canada second, but they weren't on the list (plus, they have that mildly annoying, "God save the Queen" thing). hmm... maybe Australia should be second, although they weren't on the list either. They don't have quite the same amount of "God save the Queen" attitude, and they have cool accents... however, Macsporan lives there, so that's a strike against them
On second thought, Britain should be second... they stopped the French from ruling the world, and that has to count for something....
Don't get me wrong, I still put the US at the top of the list. I'd put Canada second, but they weren't on the list (plus, they have that mildly annoying, "God save the Queen" thing). hmm... maybe Australia should be second, although they weren't on the list either. They don't have quite the same amount of "God save the Queen" attitude, and they have cool accents... however, Macsporan lives there, so that's a strike against them
On second thought, Britain should be second... they stopped the French from ruling the world, and that has to count for something....
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ahem.
Although it's difficult to put a positive spin on Vietnam, all I can say is that our intentions were not evil, and that the French are to blame.
Seriously though, the Belgians killed 10 million Congolese, purely for profit, whereas the US number was much lower, and the purpose was to defend freedom, although stupidity and military and bureaucratic inertia decided freedom lay in the Stone Age apparently, or maybe it was the "better dead than Red" thing.
Leej:
Perfidious = treacherous
Albion = an old term, used, usually poetically, for England or Great Britain.
Sheesh, the state of education these days.
Although it's difficult to put a positive spin on Vietnam, all I can say is that our intentions were not evil, and that the French are to blame.
Seriously though, the Belgians killed 10 million Congolese, purely for profit, whereas the US number was much lower, and the purpose was to defend freedom, although stupidity and military and bureaucratic inertia decided freedom lay in the Stone Age apparently, or maybe it was the "better dead than Red" thing.
Leej:
Perfidious = treacherous
Albion = an old term, used, usually poetically, for England or Great Britain.
Sheesh, the state of education these days.
Xen
Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Dont forget Eisenhower. He knew if there were open and honest elections in Vietnam that Ho Chi Minh would take them in a cake walk. He believed whole heartedly in the domino effect. In fact Eisenhower is responsible for many of the worst dictators that came to power in the Cold War. It was he who gave absolute power to the Shah killing democracy in Iran and giving birth to the Iranian Revolution, it was he who allowed Castro to come to power in Cuba when he could have easily dropped the 82d Airborne in and wiped out the communist rebels, it was he who has the bloodstains of Vietnam on his collective hands with LBJ and Nixon.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ahem again.
The number of people killed by the US in Vietnam is a tiny fraction of the number killed by Belgium in the Congo, and once again, the motives were much different.
France deserves a large share of blame, having blackmailed the US into helping them recover Indochina, then anticommunist paranoia set in.
BTW, is Castro worse than his predecessor? I don't happen to think so. And the Shah? Can you please point out the giant trend toward democracy he crushed?
And I know anti-Americanism is all the fad right now, but only an ideologue could forget all the US has done for the world.
The number of people killed by the US in Vietnam is a tiny fraction of the number killed by Belgium in the Congo, and once again, the motives were much different.
France deserves a large share of blame, having blackmailed the US into helping them recover Indochina, then anticommunist paranoia set in.
BTW, is Castro worse than his predecessor? I don't happen to think so. And the Shah? Can you please point out the giant trend toward democracy he crushed?
And I know anti-Americanism is all the fad right now, but only an ideologue could forget all the US has done for the world.
Xen
Banned
Sure, the Democracy in Iran to which I was referring was the one that was the one headed by Mohammed Mossadegh in the early 1950's. A member of the National Front Party, an organization with socialistic leanings that wanted to get rid of foreign influences that had been present since WWII, especially when it came to Iran's oil. He nationalized Iranian oil, which upset the British, the US felt he was making the country too socialistic. Both London and Washington began cooperating in planning to oust the Prime Minister, and successfully too. This opened way for the Shah to take absolute power in Iran, and proved a brutal dictator who was friendly with the west. By ousting Mossadegh it sewed the seeds of the Iranian Revolution, and opened the doors for the current troubles we are having in the region now.
As for Castro, hes not worse than Batista, but he is just as bad. The recent crack down on dissenters should spell that one out. Eisenhower had the opportunity to put a real democratic government on the Cuban Island. Though I generally agree with you that America's goods outweigh its evil, our cold war policy of supporting and installing dictators over democratically elected governments who we couldn't control should be condemned. Lots of people lost their lives, and poverty still reigns in most of those countries. Now Im not saying democracy would have cured poverty, but it could have gone a long way to it and would have caused less resentment.
As for Castro, hes not worse than Batista, but he is just as bad. The recent crack down on dissenters should spell that one out. Eisenhower had the opportunity to put a real democratic government on the Cuban Island. Though I generally agree with you that America's goods outweigh its evil, our cold war policy of supporting and installing dictators over democratically elected governments who we couldn't control should be condemned. Lots of people lost their lives, and poverty still reigns in most of those countries. Now Im not saying democracy would have cured poverty, but it could have gone a long way to it and would have caused less resentment.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ooops.
Sorry, Leej, I was just defining "Perfidious Albion" for the wrong person.
I am amazed to hear Mossadegh called the leader of a democracy movement, since he seemed much more interested in siezing dictatorial powers than promoting democcracy, including the pressuring of the Majlis to give him emergency power, then rigging a referendum dissolving parliament, then trying to exile the Shah who was the only person who could stop him.
And the Shah was not exactly a "brutal dictator", or at least not by the
Sorry, Leej, I was just defining "Perfidious Albion" for the wrong person.
I am amazed to hear Mossadegh called the leader of a democracy movement, since he seemed much more interested in siezing dictatorial powers than promoting democcracy, including the pressuring of the Majlis to give him emergency power, then rigging a referendum dissolving parliament, then trying to exile the Shah who was the only person who could stop him.
And the Shah was not exactly a "brutal dictator", or at least not by the
Hmm... when it comes to deciding just who is the ultimate 'good guys', I don't think I'd pick any one nation, and just pick 'the western democracies' in general. To be sure, all of us have some bad things in our history, but to be practical, no other system on earth is as geared towards individual freedom and liberty as this group of nations. Our way of life isn't perfect, but living in one of the western democracies (any of them) is better than living in one of the other systems around the world....
Keenir
Banned
my votes are for -
well, here's my votes...sorry this is late.
disqualified, as I don't really know anything about their policies in Confucius' lifetime.
very remarkable, both for their time & since then....how many other monarchs have married outside their religions?
(the English kings married the Welsh; the Ottomans married the Armenians)
bread and circuses, the pair of them.
and, tied for the nearly-the-worst-of-the-best:
and the absolute worst:
given explosives, and they'd be indistinguishable from a modern suicide bomber.
zoomar said:
well, here's my votes...sorry this is late.
disqualified, as I don't really know anything about their policies in Confucius' lifetime.
very remarkable, both for their time & since then....how many other monarchs have married outside their religions?
(the English kings married the Welsh; the Ottomans married the Armenians)
(9) The United States[/quote]
bread and circuses, the pair of them.
and, tied for the nearly-the-worst-of-the-best:
and the absolute worst:
given explosives, and they'd be indistinguishable from a modern suicide bomber.
Keenir said:
Only by two years.
Seriously. There are people older than this thread...well...children.Straha
Banned
10 the nonviolent independence movement for india. It prevented india from having to go through a BLOODY war for independence
9 greek rationalist civilization
8 the 19th century classical liberal movement
7 people who oppose the religious right in the US
6 the people who did the scientific revolution
5 Canada for providing a good role model to the US
4 The United States
3 British empire. The empire spread the ideas of liberal democracy around the world and planted the seeds leading to the US
2 the people who were enlightenment thinkers
1 Western Liberal Democracies
9 greek rationalist civilization
8 the 19th century classical liberal movement
7 people who oppose the religious right in the US
6 the people who did the scientific revolution
5 Canada for providing a good role model to the US
4 The United States
3 British empire. The empire spread the ideas of liberal democracy around the world and planted the seeds leading to the US
2 the people who were enlightenment thinkers
1 Western Liberal Democracies