BigJKU316 wrote:That is a really silly criticism, considering that slavery was pretty much common practice at the time and had only been abolished in a handful of nations at that point. Certainly the US record is not sparkling in that regard but neither is that of most other nations.
How does the behaviour of other nations change the fact that the actions and statements of the early US were reprehensible? Disregarding the fact that other nations didn't declare "all men are created equal" while holding huge numbers of slaves.
The result in the end was overwhelmingly in the positive for the colonies in particular and really the world as a whole.
Unless you happened to belong to one of the many tribes the US wiped out. Or were one of the slaves who died in the three decades US independence extended slavery in the Americas by. Or were one of those slaves shipped from Africa in those three decades because the slavers used the stars and stripes to get past the Royal Navy's West African Squadron.
That is why I said overwhelmingly and not absolutely. There were certainly many negatives that came out of the events around the American revolution and if we wish to sit and list them all out we could certainly do so. I am just saying that on the basic question of "are things better off for the United States existing than if it did not" then the answer is clearly yes.
The US not existing would have done nothing to stop the Indian Tribes from losing their land. Europe would go on to basically colonize all of Africa and much of Asia by the end of the 19th century. The same thing that happened to those cultures would have happened here.
Were the men and what they did flawed? Sure as all men are. But they still should be judged in the context of their times rather than by modern standards.
BigJKU316 wrote:...But they still should be judged in the context of their times rather than by modern standards.
This, I agree with.
I still want my f*cking land back, though.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
BigJKU316 wrote:
That is a really silly criticism, considering that slavery was pretty much common practice at the time and had only been abolished in a handful of nations at that point. Certainly the US record is not sparkling in that regard but neither is that of most other nations.
I always find it silly when people go out of their way to either bash or build up historical figures. The Founding Fathers had a variety of motivations, some more pure than others, that caused them to do what they did. The result in the end was overwhelmingly in the positive for the colonies in particular and really the world as a whole.
Whatever their faults and personality traits it certainly seems silly to get up in arms about what these people set in motion.
Who's up in arms? I posted the article because I thought it was funny.
I think that's a bit off, but close enough for satire.
However if you view them to ridged modern standards, historical people and even moreso leaders and societies can all pretty much be catagorized into dicks, failures, and servents.
Since the United States is a strong independent nation today, our historical leaders must have been dicks by modern standards.
BigJKU316 wrote:
That is a really silly criticism, considering that slavery was pretty much common practice at the time and had only been abolished in a handful of nations at that point. Certainly the US record is not sparkling in that regard but neither is that of most other nations.
I always find it silly when people go out of their way to either bash or build up historical figures. The Founding Fathers had a variety of motivations, some more pure than others, that caused them to do what they did. The result in the end was overwhelmingly in the positive for the colonies in particular and really the world as a whole.
Whatever their faults and personality traits it certainly seems silly to get up in arms about what these people set in motion.
Who's up in arms? I posted the article because I thought it was funny.
Not really talking about anyone in particular just the idea in general where people get really mad about slavery and how people dealt with it at that time. I think a better criticism of the US is that they were unable to muster the political will to deal with it in the 1820 to 1840 time frame when many other nations did so. They went so far as to stop further importation but were unable to muster the resolve (basically the senate votes) to move any further.
BigJKU316 wrote:...But they still should be judged in the context of their times rather than by modern standards.
This, I agree with.
I still want my f*cking land back, though.
Yeah, that is just the story of human history though. One tribe conquers another and another and becomes a kingdom. That kingdom becomes a nation-state and so on. The consolidation of power is always a nasty business for the most part, the only problem is it is nearly unavoidable. If one group does not knock off a weakling someone else will if they think they can get away with it.
Yeah but it was done particularly badly in North America, rather then make an attempt to assimilate the First Nations, we shoved them onto Reserves to rot.
By "assimilate", do you mean "brainwash their children" or "offer bounties for their scalps"?
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Cpl Kendall wrote:No I mean what the English did with the French after conquering Upper and Lower Canada, let them live amongst us as normal.
Ah, now I see how I misread that; I thought you were referring to the way America handled the Native problem.
Personally, I think Canada did a way better job of it.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Well we didn't murder them outright but TBH, I'd rather be dead then live on the Res. I never thought folks could live like that in Canada.
The Inuit...man I feel for them. They had the run of the land until the mid-fifties and then half starved cause of a warm winter, and we shoved them on Reservations "for their own good", ie: we look bad if it happens again.
Cpl Kendall wrote:...TBH, I'd rather be dead then live on the Res...
Seconded. I could get an all-expenses paid scholarship if I lived on the Res, though.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
