showa58taro wrote:
You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.
I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.
well, i did (and do) agree that these things should be acknowledged, so that we can learn and grow as a society. so that we don't repeat them in the future. we can look back on it, as a bad point that we can improve from. (or in some cases have moved from)
and i think that it gets tricky, when you try to determine if and how much our culture / society benefited in the current form, from slavery. and again, you're extending the sins of the father, to his great grandchildren. it's so far removed at this point, that i don't think you can fairly cast that blame.
Is it fair to blame the US for atrocities in Vietnam?
I guess if you do not understand the war it is...
Why not blame China? Why not blame the Soviet Union? Why not blame the Vietnamese?
Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.
They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.
it seems kind of an odd concept to me, honestly. but it could be a nice gesture to help out after a conflict.
Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.
They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.
Usually as a concession from the loser to stop the war.
Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.
They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.
Usually as a concession from the loser to stop the war.
that seems even more odd to me, unless the loser is also the one who declared the war, or was the aggressor.
Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.
They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.
Usually as a concession from the loser to stop the war.
that seems even more odd to me, unless the loser is also the one who declared the war, or was the aggressor.
Foo wrote:Do you think Lincoln viewed himself as an aggressor?
no. i don't think hitler considered himself an aggressor either. or kim jong un. no one considers themselves as the bad guy in reality.
Since we are living it now, would you say Kim jung un is an aggressor? Or could we be the victims of reading our own news and wanting to see it this way.
Foo wrote:Do you think Lincoln viewed himself as an aggressor?
no. i don't think hitler considered himself an aggressor either. or kim jong un. no one considers themselves as the bad guy in reality.
Since we are living it now, would you say Kim jung un is an aggressor? Or could we be the victims of reading our own news and wanting to see it this way.
I think the answer is less than clear.
that is entirely possible. dennis rodman seems to think that he's a pretty decent guy,
Even beyond that. We tend to demonize their missile tests and such, basically striving for the same technology that we possess because we took similar steps.
Would you know the difference between legitimate act in North Korea and hostile acts without the filter of the western media? I wouldn't.
Look at the flip flopping our politicians do on Russia. It all depends on who is in power and who can gain political capital.
i do think that we play up the threat of north korea. i've stated before that i feel like america uses them as both a punching bag and a bogeyman. but even beyond the united states, he has a negative reputation. which, still, could be misleading, but it's something more to go on, at least.
zombie wrote:i like this kind of discussion from you though. it's nice to get you questioning some official united states narrative, regarding our "enemies".
Want me to start questioning the climate change narrative? I just want to make zombie happy!!!
zombie wrote:i like this kind of discussion from you though. it's nice to get you questioning some official united states narrative, regarding our "enemies".
Want me to start questioning the climate change narrative? I just want to make zombie happy!!!
that's something specific to liberals. you question that kind of thing all of the time.
Headhunter wrote:Let's be real for a sec. The amount of "point and laugh at this batshit liberal story" posts would look pretty tame at times if we did the same thing with their right-wing counterparts. I try to avoid it because it's a non-starter for everyone here while the reverse is a pastime in these threads for the usual suspects. I got no problem with that though.
Soo, what's the problem?
Who said there was a problem? I'm just pointing out there's a false reality presented every time you guys choose to point out the worst from the left and every time we choose not to do the reverse for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with it, just an observation. Carry on.
