4 ms·
Everything you are saying here is oversimplified to the point of being grossly inaccurate (for example, 600,000 Americans died in a war to END slavery---why do
by javert 12y ago
Everything you are saying here is oversimplified to the point of being grossly inaccurate (for example, 600,000 Americans died in a war to END slavery---why do you ignore that?). Basically, this is an apologia for hating Americans.
It is selectively historicizing something to justify your final sentence, which is an apologia for hating Americans.
If you hate Americans, maybe you shouldn't post on a website full of Americans.
And don't say you don't hate Americans. There is no reason to present a bunch of completely slanted history and just be like, "oh yeah, this is why other people hate Americans, but they are ignorant because they are selectively historicizing it." That is clearly not your attitude or your point.
By the way,
- Natural resources do not belong to whoever happens to live near them but simply ignores them. They belong to the person who extracts them. Property rights are acquired by use, not by where you were born or by your nationality.
- There were many cases of peaceful co-habitation with Native Americans and many cases of Native Americans initiating force against the settlers. Probably these categories account for a lot more than the category of outright brutality against natives, though that did happen some, particularly under Andrew Jackson (which is relatively late in our history!).
- It is worth recognizing that Americas founders were adamant about maintaining neutrality, so foreign interference is in many ways un-American. Moreover, it is worth recognizing that America has a moral right to interfere in foreign countries that threaten force against its citizens or their property, as does any country.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jasonisalive 12y agoNatural resources... belong to the person who extracts them. Wow, you must be a legal scholar. So let's say one day you come home to find that I've demolished your house and started drilling for oil. You're cool with that, I'm sure. There were many cases of peaceful co-habitation with Native Americans and many cases of Native Americans initiating force against the settlers. Good job at whitewashing. Let's say one day you come home and I'm camped on your front lawn. You tell me to get off so I beat you and take your living room as punishment for your "bad behaviour." A few weeks later you get angry and try and force me out again. This time I kill your wife and kids and give you the basement as a "reservation." Shouldn't have initiated force against me, right? America has a moral right to interfere in foreign countries that threaten force against its citizens This is just so laughable. If you think that the history of American 20th and 21st century foreign policy is about self-protection then... well, I guess you could say all those democratically elected leaders of third world countries were sort of threatening American citizens right? Threatening them with fair prices for natural resources maybe? Maybe if you consider all resources everywhere property of America, then anyone who refuses to sell you them for next to nothing and suppress their own citizenry for kickbacks is an aggressor... I've been to America and the majority of the people I met - and this is in the nicer cities - were like big, stupid puppies, who thought America was the greatest country, and were completely confused when you said, well, no, actually... As I've said elsewhere there's no excuse for doing the wrong thing. Americans love to play the moral high card but they brutally annexed their country from a weak and vulnerable pre-existing population with much deeper historical and spiritual ties to the land. Then they've proceeded to do some of the nastiest things of the last few hundred years. Heaven forbid they be forced to admit any of that. The onus is on them though. The moral corruption of never acknowledging one's foundational guilt is inexorable.