Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
What part of what I typed is inaccurate?
What part of what I typed is inaccurate?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Inaccurately suggesting the Native American situation was a genocide and comparable in some sense with the Holocaust. This whole subject was vetted here last year, at length, and I don't have the strength to go through that again. Suffice it to say, this is yet another example of the desire of some (you?) to find something, anything to criticize America about. While our treatment of Native Americans was not something to be proud of--it in no way is comparable to the Holocaust. I know it pleases some (you?) to make these comparisons, but they're false. Somehow in an odd sort of way, it's reassuring to know that every time this subject comes up, there's a line of posters who will rush to compare America with Nazi Germany.
The great "voice" for the "genocide" of Native Americans is, of course, Ward churchill. And if you can get past his plagiarism and lying, he's a pretty good source.
Inaccurately suggesting the Native American situation was a genocide and comparable in some sense with the Holocaust. This whole subject was vetted here last year, at length, and I don't have the strength to go through that again. Suffice it to say, this is yet another example of the desire of some (you?) to find something, anything to criticize America about. While our treatment of Native Americans was not something to be proud of--it in no way is comparable to the Holocaust. I know it pleases some (you?) to make these comparisons, but they're false. Somehow in an odd sort of way, it's reassuring to know that every time this subject comes up, there's a line of posters who will rush to compare America with Nazi Germany.
The great "voice" for the "genocide" of Native Americans is, of course, Ward churchill. And if you can get past his plagiarism and lying, he's a pretty good source.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Glad to hear that whatever happened to native americans it was found by the members of this board to not be genocide, nor a holocaust. As you suggest, we'll chalk it up as 'Something to not be proud of'. Just curious, does it go 1. Holocaust, 2. Genocide, 3. Something to not be proud of ...in that order, or are there other categories between Genocide and Something to not be proud of?
I would have put the AMC Pacer, New Coke and Billy Ray Cyrus in the Something not to be proud of category...I would have been way, way off I guess.
Glad to hear that whatever happened to native americans it was found by the members of this board to not be genocide, nor a holocaust. As you suggest, we'll chalk it up as 'Something to not be proud of'. Just curious, does it go 1. Holocaust, 2. Genocide, 3. Something to not be proud of ...in that order, or are there other categories between Genocide and Something to not be proud of?
I would have put the AMC Pacer, New Coke and Billy Ray Cyrus in the Something not to be proud of category...I would have been way, way off I guess.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
My last post on this subject (cheers all around). If you had already made up your mind then, why the intellectual double shuffle of submitting your first post as a question? You already "knew" the answer, didn't you Bunky? Even if we're on opposite sides of the question "how far can a reasonable person go in comparing America to the 3rd Reich?" it would be nice if you were intellectually honest about it. You and 5MM will get along famously. To put it another way: peddle your virulent anti-American crappola somewhere else. You bore me. -30-
My last post on this subject (cheers all around). If you had already made up your mind then, why the intellectual double shuffle of submitting your first post as a question? You already "knew" the answer, didn't you Bunky? Even if we're on opposite sides of the question "how far can a reasonable person go in comparing America to the 3rd Reich?" it would be nice if you were intellectually honest about it. You and 5MM will get along famously. To put it another way: peddle your virulent anti-American crappola somewhere else. You bore me. -30-
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I deliberately stayed away from the Injuns. I'll say this: there were so many different tribes that you'd have to take it case by case. In some cases, we butchered them -- or rather, some of your ancestors did, I was still mucking around in the mud in Slovakia for my Austro-Hungarian overlords. I'm sure we weren't above the occasional pogrom or gypsy murder, though, just to keep up with the Joneses. We were Not At All Nice to the Ruthenians, for instance.
In some cases, they were Terminator hunter-killers, and the rule there is kill or be killed. Those tribes were as rough on their neighbors as we were to them, and good riddance.
In most cases, we killed off their cultures by moving them around like game pieces, a treaty broken here, a nasty bit of crap Oklahoma scrub land there. Nobody was really thinking about the sanctity of aboriginal culture in the 19th century, though, so I'd chalk that up to "stuff we did then without a thought that today would be widely considered criminal." Like owning people. You know, our moral forfathers. Or rather, yours... see above.
The Indian Wars -- at least the early incarnations when there were real threats of raids on major white settlements -- remind me a lot of the GWOT. Fear, loathing, racism, indiscriminate killing, all in the name of high-sounding ideals and all bunk, on both sides. But at the same time, irritatingly, a major threat to both sides bordering on (as it turned out, for the losers) existential.
Given only two options, it's better to survive and write agonized apologies to the peoples you have killed off than to lose and be mourned. Hopefully, given some principles of law above ethnic and national interests that are now starting to penetrate mankind's eternally dense skull, those are no longer the only two options.
I deliberately stayed away from the Injuns. I'll say this: there were so many different tribes that you'd have to take it case by case. In some cases, we butchered them -- or rather, some of your ancestors did, I was still mucking around in the mud in Slovakia for my Austro-Hungarian overlords. I'm sure we weren't above the occasional pogrom or gypsy murder, though, just to keep up with the Joneses. We were Not At All Nice to the Ruthenians, for instance.
In some cases, they were Terminator hunter-killers, and the rule there is kill or be killed. Those tribes were as rough on their neighbors as we were to them, and good riddance.
In most cases, we killed off their cultures by moving them around like game pieces, a treaty broken here, a nasty bit of crap Oklahoma scrub land there. Nobody was really thinking about the sanctity of aboriginal culture in the 19th century, though, so I'd chalk that up to "stuff we did then without a thought that today would be widely considered criminal." Like owning people. You know, our moral forfathers. Or rather, yours... see above.
The Indian Wars -- at least the early incarnations when there were real threats of raids on major white settlements -- remind me a lot of the GWOT. Fear, loathing, racism, indiscriminate killing, all in the name of high-sounding ideals and all bunk, on both sides. But at the same time, irritatingly, a major threat to both sides bordering on (as it turned out, for the losers) existential.
Given only two options, it's better to survive and write agonized apologies to the peoples you have killed off than to lose and be mourned. Hopefully, given some principles of law above ethnic and national interests that are now starting to penetrate mankind's eternally dense skull, those are no longer the only two options.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
A little nuance never hurt anybody.
A little nuance never hurt anybody.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I'll bite. There's no reason to be unsure. Stewart was biased in favor of Obama, and to the extent that he was critical, it was friendly criticism from the left.
Stewart doesn't deserve credit for being unbiased. He gets credit for being genuine. When he had Huckabee on for an extended interview, it was a bona fide conversation. He didn't invite him on to score debating points, the way that someone like O'Reilly does. Thus the whole "restoring sanity" thing.
Maybe somewhere there's someone doing something to oppose the trashification of conservative media, but I don't know where. It's not on Murdoch's channel.
I'll bite. There's no reason to be unsure. Stewart was biased in favor of Obama, and to the extent that he was critical, it was friendly criticism from the left.
Stewart doesn't deserve credit for being unbiased. He gets credit for being genuine. When he had Huckabee on for an extended interview, it was a bona fide conversation. He didn't invite him on to score debating points, the way that someone like O'Reilly does. Thus the whole "restoring sanity" thing.
Maybe somewhere there's someone doing something to oppose the trashification of conservative media, but I don't know where. It's not on Murdoch's channel.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Name calling, check. Superiority complex, check. Feigned indifference, check. Demand that someone who disagrees leave, check. Your pattern is very similar to some of those you like to think are so different from you.
And don't flatter yourself by thinking I give a **** what bores you.
Name calling, check. Superiority complex, check. Feigned indifference, check. Demand that someone who disagrees leave, check. Your pattern is very similar to some of those you like to think are so different from you.
And don't flatter yourself by thinking I give a **** what bores you.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Popular Question of the week #1: Are you going to the Stewart/Colbert event?
Popular Question of the week #2: What costume are you wearing to the event?
Popular Question of the week #1: Are you going to the Stewart/Colbert event?
Popular Question of the week #2: What costume are you wearing to the event?
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
There was also Kitchner's treatment of the Boer non combatents, but we'll let that one pass, too.
Genocide, or whatever you call it is not an event restricted to any one particular culture or race.
The Japanese used our treatment of the Natives (and the native Phillipinos) to justify their actions against the Chinese, Koreans, etc. After all, if the USA could do it and get away with it, why couldn't they?
There was also Kitchner's treatment of the Boer non combatents, but we'll let that one pass, too.
Genocide, or whatever you call it is not an event restricted to any one particular culture or race.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Was planning to go to the "Colbert" rally, disguised as a sentient human.
Not looking good now, though. Taking off last weekend to fly up to ME to catch the UND-Maine hockey series was fun, but I fell behind on work. :\
Was planning to go to the "Colbert" rally, disguised as a sentient human.
Not looking good now, though. Taking off last weekend to fly up to ME to catch the UND-Maine hockey series was fun, but I fell behind on work. :\
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
...so you emulated UND and committed a lot of dumb penalties as work raced out to an insurmountable lead?
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
1. I'm "Attending" according to my Facebook agenda. 2. Since I'm not going in reality, I'm staying home to tell the neighborhood kids to "get a ***** job, and buy your own candy!"
1. I'm "Attending" according to my Facebook agenda. 2. Since I'm not going in reality, I'm staying home to tell the neighborhood kids to "get a ***** job, and buy your own candy!"
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Yes.
Whatever is warmest (it's supposed to be sunny but nippy).
Yes.
Whatever is warmest (it's supposed to be sunny but nippy).
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
As far as the Japanese are concerned, I assume you're referring to defenses given during war crimes trials. Because when they were turning thousands of captured girls into "comfort women," they weren't using that justification. And when they were beheading US prisoners who straggled behind on the Bataan death march, they weren't using that justification. When they were eating the livers of downed US flyers, they weren't using that justification. When they were using living US prisoners in "blast radius" experiments, they weren't using that justification. When they were starving and abusing US prisoners to death, they weren't using that justification.
When the Japanese created their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," they were referring to their own prosperity. They were substituting one form of colonialism for another. And their colonialism was far more abusive and brutal than anything the Brits or French had imposed.
And to suggest or imply that the savagery of the Empire of Japan was somehow similar to our treatment of Native Americans is fatuous nonsense. To say that is not a blanket defense of that treatment, or a defense of any kind for that matter. But this relativist rush to say "we're no better than they are," is simply wrong factually. By all means, let's continue to discuss the Native American experience. But let's apply some standards while we do so. Bumper sticker relativism doesn't advance our understanding of what happened. And confirms the darkest suspicions about the quality of education these days and a sort of pervasive anti-Americanism that is abroad in the land. I mean, an intellectual poseur and liar and plagiarist like Ward Churchill chaired a department at a major university and was widely read on campuses from coast to coast. The fact that he just made stuff up to advance his point of view was ignored.
As far as the Japanese are concerned, I assume you're referring to defenses given during war crimes trials. Because when they were turning thousands of captured girls into "comfort women," they weren't using that justification. And when they were beheading US prisoners who straggled behind on the Bataan death march, they weren't using that justification. When they were eating the livers of downed US flyers, they weren't using that justification. When they were using living US prisoners in "blast radius" experiments, they weren't using that justification. When they were starving and abusing US prisoners to death, they weren't using that justification.
When the Japanese created their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," they were referring to their own prosperity. They were substituting one form of colonialism for another. And their colonialism was far more abusive and brutal than anything the Brits or French had imposed.
And to suggest or imply that the savagery of the Empire of Japan was somehow similar to our treatment of Native Americans is fatuous nonsense. To say that is not a blanket defense of that treatment, or a defense of any kind for that matter. But this relativist rush to say "we're no better than they are," is simply wrong factually. By all means, let's continue to discuss the Native American experience. But let's apply some standards while we do so. Bumper sticker relativism doesn't advance our understanding of what happened. And confirms the darkest suspicions about the quality of education these days and a sort of pervasive anti-Americanism that is abroad in the land. I mean, an intellectual poseur and liar and plagiarist like Ward Churchill chaired a department at a major university and was widely read on campuses from coast to coast. The fact that he just made stuff up to advance his point of view was ignored.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/29/hazmat-incident-at-philadelphia-airport/?hpt=T1
Al Qaeda behind plot to send packages to synagogues in Chicago and other cities.
Boy, good thing Al Qaeda's no longer a threat huh?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BPfDy4u8ar4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BPfDy4u8ar4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
To be fair, that video could feature some selective editing, they kind of cut away quickly. Anyone have the context?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/29/hazmat-incident-at-philadelphia-airport/?hpt=T1
Al Qaeda behind plot to send packages to synagogues in Chicago and other cities.
Boy, good thing Al Qaeda's no longer a threat huh?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BPfDy4u8ar4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BPfDy4u8ar4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
To be fair, that video could feature some selective editing, they kind of cut away quickly. Anyone have the context?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Relativism is not a simple "we're no better than they were" that you'd get from a freshman Anthropology major any more than your argument is "my country, right or wrong." Since at least Thucydides people of deep thought and sincere intent have been trying to stake out the land in between false equivalency on one hand and sheer parochial blindness on the other.
The terrifying thing about Japanese and German atrocities during WW2 is that 99% of the people who did them weren't sociopaths, they were either fired up with the meth-amphetamine of patriotism or zombie walking through what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." If it was in them, it's in us. That's the real point of relativism -- it's a call to self-vigilance, so obviously it dwells on self-scrutiny.
Relativism is not a simple "we're no better than they were" that you'd get from a freshman Anthropology major any more than your argument is "my country, right or wrong." Since at least Thucydides people of deep thought and sincere intent have been trying to stake out the land in between false equivalency on one hand and sheer parochial blindness on the other.
The terrifying thing about Japanese and German atrocities during WW2 is that 99% of the people who did them weren't sociopaths, they were either fired up with the meth-amphetamine of patriotism or zombie walking through what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." If it was in them, it's in us. That's the real point of relativism -- it's a call to self-vigilance, so obviously it dwells on self-scrutiny.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
The Third Reich was particularly frightening to me because Germany is western and a world leader in culture and science. Yet you look at the goons and thugs who wound up at the top of that regime and it's truly astonishing. The only one of 'em with any class or accomplishment was Speer. The rest of them you'd expect to find as men's room attendants in a two star hotel. For the most part, that analysis does not extend to the miitary. Japan's behavior was somewhat more predictable, given their imperial/militaristic traditions and system.
We've all heard or read Himmler's speech about how the people who actually facilitated the Holocaust were "good men" doing a "thankless but necessary job." In "Judgement at Nuremburg" there's a conversation between the major defendants and a former camp commandant. He casually informs them that, yes, it's possible to gas and cremate thousands of people a day, you just have to work the problem.
We now know there was more opposition to Hitler than we realized at the time, with literally dozens of plots and attempts to take him out. At at the end, this pathetic, demented man was of the opinion that if the German people were going to be wiped out by the Allies then that was the judgement of history and they weren't worthy of his leadership. Sweet.
There are many "reasons" why shop keepers and bakers wound up commiting atrocities in the name of the Reich. And I agree that we must be vigilant, lest that sort of thinking take root here. On the other hand, I have great confidence in our institutions and our people. Here's an example: Nixon resigns and an un-elected Vice President takes the oath as President. He then selects an un-elected Vice President. So the top two leaders of our executive branch were unelected and in their jobs because of a scandal. What happened? Nothing. No tanks in the streets. No James Mattoon Scotts popping up to claim that THEY should be President. Nobody challenged Ford or his authority. He was President, period. We have an owner's manual and we tend to follow its instructions. Works for me.
The Third Reich was particularly frightening to me because Germany is western and a world leader in culture and science. Yet you look at the goons and thugs who wound up at the top of that regime and it's truly astonishing. The only one of 'em with any class or accomplishment was Speer. The rest of them you'd expect to find as men's room attendants in a two star hotel. For the most part, that analysis does not extend to the miitary. Japan's behavior was somewhat more predictable, given their imperial/militaristic traditions and system.
We've all heard or read Himmler's speech about how the people who actually facilitated the Holocaust were "good men" doing a "thankless but necessary job." In "Judgement at Nuremburg" there's a conversation between the major defendants and a former camp commandant. He casually informs them that, yes, it's possible to gas and cremate thousands of people a day, you just have to work the problem.
We now know there was more opposition to Hitler than we realized at the time, with literally dozens of plots and attempts to take him out. At at the end, this pathetic, demented man was of the opinion that if the German people were going to be wiped out by the Allies then that was the judgement of history and they weren't worthy of his leadership. Sweet.
There are many "reasons" why shop keepers and bakers wound up commiting atrocities in the name of the Reich. And I agree that we must be vigilant, lest that sort of thinking take root here. On the other hand, I have great confidence in our institutions and our people. Here's an example: Nixon resigns and an un-elected Vice President takes the oath as President. He then selects an un-elected Vice President. So the top two leaders of our executive branch were unelected and in their jobs because of a scandal. What happened? Nothing. No tanks in the streets. No James Mattoon Scotts popping up to claim that THEY should be President. Nobody challenged Ford or his authority. He was President, period. We have an owner's manual and we tend to follow its instructions. Works for me.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Me too. I watch a lot of Dragnet. Bear with me. I love the show (particularly the radio version) because it has the beautiful, spare writing style of a Raymond Chandler novel or a Charles Lederer screenplay. But I also really admire the clean, Aristotelian logic that comes out in Joe Friday's thinking and his (frequent) speechifying. There's that same backbeat of rationality and appealing to the angels of our better nature in the great westerns and the great political dramas of the 1950's and 1960's. And that was the mental furniture of my father's and older brother's and to some extent my generation.
Now, does that still exist? Sure, it must -- someplace, although I don't see it on the small or large screen (but I'm probably not looking in the right places). People have been decrying the role models of the young for as long as there have been the young. Since those role models are now... gulp... us, I hope we try our best to display some of that clean and solid logic, tempered by patience, generosity of spirit, and empathy. Better to be too soft than too hard. The Nazis didn't come from nowhere -- they had 50 years of a slow, conscience-dulling drumbeat of ideological preparation for their crimes, and most of their philosophical precursors would have been horrified by what they did. Across multiple generations an entire nation acted out the plot of "Rope" -- the calm professors playing with a hypothetical and the eager young students taking it to heart and, finally, making it real.
Me too. I watch a lot of Dragnet. Bear with me. I love the show (particularly the radio version) because it has the beautiful, spare writing style of a Raymond Chandler novel or a Charles Lederer screenplay. But I also really admire the clean, Aristotelian logic that comes out in Joe Friday's thinking and his (frequent) speechifying. There's that same backbeat of rationality and appealing to the angels of our better nature in the great westerns and the great political dramas of the 1950's and 1960's. And that was the mental furniture of my father's and older brother's and to some extent my generation.
Now, does that still exist? Sure, it must -- someplace, although I don't see it on the small or large screen (but I'm probably not looking in the right places). People have been decrying the role models of the young for as long as there have been the young. Since those role models are now... gulp... us, I hope we try our best to display some of that clean and solid logic, tempered by patience, generosity of spirit, and empathy. Better to be too soft than too hard. The Nazis didn't come from nowhere -- they had 50 years of a slow, conscience-dulling drumbeat of ideological preparation for their crimes, and most of their philosophical precursors would have been horrified by what they did. Across multiple generations an entire nation acted out the plot of "Rope" -- the calm professors playing with a hypothetical and the eager young students taking it to heart and, finally, making it real.
Last edited:
- Status