US 1.4% of white Americans owned slaves

[FortyTwo]

Neither Hitler nor Mao have any impact on the world today. If you can explain otherwise, I'd love to hear it since you obviously didn't give an explanation.

Adolf Hitler created the Third Reich, which managed to kill over six million people that would have otherwise continued existing if he hadn't killed them. He effectively began the second world war, which caused both widespread devastation in the Western world (and the Eastern world, let's not forget about Japan and what happened to China, as well as the Korean/Vietnam wars, both of which directly stem from WWII and wouldn't have happened if Hitler didn't work to form the Axis Powers) as well as major leaps in technological advancement. Without Hitler, there would be no WWII, at least not in the form we know it today. Without WWII, there would be no need to decipher complex codes, there would be no need to develop computers, faster airplanes, advanced radar... It's really hard to think of something that wasn't affected by Hitler's rise to power, and as a result exists or does not exist today.

Mao Tse-Tsung (sp?) was a Stalinist dictator who set the nation of China on the course of Communism. China today, at least most of it, is still Communistic. Granted, it has become more Capitalistic in the last few decades, but why? That's right - because WWII opened up a greater frontier of contact between world powers and set globalization on the level we know it today into effect, and, as a result, putting China in a position of being one of the most economically involved countries in the world, with outsourcing, for better or worse, being done there in huge amounts.

As one who considers a farm animal's life to be equal with a human life, it's hard for me to have anything close to an obsession with one individual. Both promoted a lot of evil but would a chicken look at them as being two of the worst humans ever? No.

You don't have to believe that chickens are somehow below humans to acknowledge that humans have more input on human culture than chickens do. A chicken wouldn't look at either of them as being the worst humans ever because it's a chicken. The chicken doesn't care about the intricacies of human culture. That doesn't make the chicken any less than it is. We all have different interests, and, speaking from both a logical and biological standpoint, chickens are extremely unlikely to look at any human being as "the worst human ever" or anything akin to that.

I wish we'd hear more about today's events. 7 billion people in the world and the problems that is causing. Amazing animal cruelty that goes on. The oceans going through horrible problems. Resources being depleted. We'd hear a lot less about race, and a lot more about some of the issues that are being ignored today. Talking about historic leaders gets us nowhere so they should be talked about far less. When the inevitable crisis happens, you know future generations will talk about much different issues than we talk about today. Rightfully so.

You don't understand that the past is not some separate entity from right now. History isn't broken up into little isolated chunks, it's one flow of events which gradually cause more and more things to happen as a result of the past things. That's just how time works. Causality and all that jazz.

We need to hear more about race because it is an issue that is ignored today, largely in the name of this stupid "color-blindness" movement that conveniently ignores all societal privilege and cultural boundaries on part of the oppressed.

Yes, it'd be great to hear more about the oceans and resource depletion and animal cruelty, but knowing about the past and knowing about the present are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to understand the present, you have to know what happened in the past, or otherwise you're just going to make the same dumb mistakes on a devastating scale all over again.

Plus, I've never heard anyone say "modern day issues need to be ignored in favor of historical knowledge," which seems to be the argument you are hell-bent on countering. I don't think you'll get that from anyone here. Nobody's making that argument. What you seem to be doing over and over is creating threads that state some controversial historical thing, citing a few dubious sources, and then defending your statement to the death, even though nobody's really even certain what you're trying to say in the first place and where you get the urge to bring these things up. I'm not attacking you at all here, just openly wondering about your methods and what you're trying to achieve here.

Good day.

 

[Mischief]

Thank you, Nightshade and Forty Two, for the above two posts, which are much better written than I could do. I have nothing to add to either, other than a resounding "Exactly!"

 

[Clueless Git]

It starts by acknowledging the privilege that certain groups have ...

My dear old Dad has a similar theory to that one.

He reasons that everything would be better if people just acknowledged God rather than panzying about with less important stuff like;

1. Does God actualy exist.

2. If so, what can we be certain of about the true nature of her.

Point simply being that my dad and I disagree over wether the best starting point is acknowledgement or making sure we actualy have the best possible idea as to exactly what it is we are talking about.

 

[Clueless Git]

Neither Hitler nor Mao have any impact on the world today. If you can explain otherwise, I'd love to hear it ..

Would the p-poor analogy "ripples in a pond can spread long after the stone has sunk" make any sense at all?

 

[FortyTwo]

My dear old Dad has a similar theory to that one.

He reasons that everything would be better if people just acknowledged God rather than panzying about with less important stuff like;

1. Does God actualy exist.

2. If so, what can we be certain of about the true nature of her.

Point simply being that my dad and I disagree over wether the best starting point is acknowledgement or making sure we actualy have the best possible idea as to exactly what it is we are talking about.

Except privilege is not something abstract like God? It's tangible and noticeable and its implications are far-reaching. To deny it is to deny everything about how our society works.

Would the p-poor analogy "ripples in a pond can spread long after the stone has sunk" make any sense at all?

Yes, actually. Would you like a cookie?

 

[Clueless Git]

I think that was clear from my post.

Yes it was. I apologise for ignoring what you actualy said and infering that you had said something you hadn't.

That was an incredibly rude, ignorant and entirely disengenious thing I did there.

 

[FortyTwo]

Yes it was. I apologise for ignoring what you actualy said and infering that you had said something you hadn't.

That was an incredibly rude, ignorant and entirely disengenious thing I did there.

This still hasn't actually happened.

 

[rainforests1]

I'm not sure where to start. Hitler was the product of World War 1. If France, England, Russia, or Germany had decided to pack their bags early on in the war rather than wanting glory and the bragging rights to say "we won", history may have been much different. Maybe 80 million deaths directly from the two World Wars with possibly tens of millions dying indirectly. All racial groups have been the victims and aggressors at some point. With the World Wars it was primarily whites who were the victims of their own governments. It started in 1914(not 1939) and possibly long before that. One of the French leaders wanted Germany's economy destroyed. He got his wish, and Hitler was the result. Oops.

According to the book I'm reading now, there was a lot of starvation in Asia and Brazil in the late 1800's. Not a fun time to be a human. As a whole blacks had life more difficult in the United States than whites did. You'd have to include the many cases of slaves being tortured which was horrible. I'm surprised the question would even be asked.

The media can only talk about so many subjects. My view is historians should talk about the past, while the media talks about the present and future. If a person wants to read about history, they should go to their library or buy a book. A few years of history class is probably enough. We'd have to give both sides of history rather than one. Maybe even debate the way a truly free society would. Resources have the potential to cause our society to crumble and therefore should be the subject we talk about over and over and over again. Conservatives like to talk about abortion, while liberals like to talk about race and to a lesser degree income equality and gay rights. Ultimately resources will prove to be more important than any of those. By the time we care it may be too late. The earlier we realize the amazing importance resources have the better off we will be.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm not sure where to start.

Three possibilities there ...

1. First cause; Adam & Eve/delinquent pond-slime/whatever.

2. Today.

3. Some dumbassed arbitary point somewhere in between.

 

[rainforests1]

Three possibilities there ...

1. First cause; Adam & Eve/delinquent pond-slime/whatever.

2. Today.

3. Some dumbassed arbitary point somewhere in between.

When you can't refute anything a person said, insult them. Seems mature.

 

[Clueless Git]

When you can't refute anything a person said, insult them. Seems mature.

I addressed that to you because I read you as understanding that first cause and arbitary historical cut off dates were both nonsenses (who-owes-who-what wise), the same as I do.

Did I get that bit right or did I get it wrong?

 

[beancounter]

Mod Post
Some of us are strolling on the edge. Please continue to keep things civil.

 

[FortyTwo]

I'm not sure where to start. Hitler was the product of World War 1. If France, England, Russia, or Germany had decided to pack their bags early on in the war rather than wanting glory and the bragging rights to say "we won", history may have been much different. Maybe 80 million deaths directly from the two World Wars with possibly tens of millions dying indirectly. All racial groups have been the victims and aggressors at some point. With the World Wars it was primarily whites who were the victims of their own governments. It started in 1914(not 1939) and possibly long before that. One of the French leaders wanted Germany's economy destroyed. He got his wish, and Hitler was the result. Oops.

Yes, World War I spawned World War II. Exactly. History flows from one event to another with no separation in-between. That's what I was trying to illustrate.

According to the book I'm reading now, there was a lot of starvation in Asia and Brazil in the late 1800's. Not a fun time to be a human. As a whole blacks had life more difficult in the United States than whites did. You'd have to include the many cases of slaves being tortured which was horrible. I'm surprised the question would even be asked.

This is true.

The media can only talk about so many subjects. My view is historians should talk about the past, while the media talks about the present and future. If a person wants to read about history, they should go to their library or buy a book. A few years of history class is probably enough. We'd have to give both sides of history rather than one. Maybe even debate the way a truly free society would. Resources have the potential to cause our society to crumble and therefore should be the subject we talk about over and over and over again. Conservatives like to talk about abortion, while liberals like to talk about race and to a lesser degree income equality and gay rights. Ultimately resources will prove to be more important than any of those. By the time we care it may be too late. The earlier we realize the amazing importance resources have the better off we will be.

So, let me get this straight. We need to talk about modern issues more than history, because they're more important. But some of the important modern issues aren't important enough to be discussed?

Honestly, all most people get unless they go into history specifically is a few years of it in school. What you're proposing is no different from what's already happening. Also I fail to see what it has to do with collective guilt.

 

[das_nut]

We'd have to give both sides of history rather than one.

Why do you want to have a history of the Holocaust include the claims of Holocaust deniers? Or the history of Jim Crow south including claims from those who paint the KKK in a favorable light (Birth of a Nation, anyone)?

The idea we need all sides (there's almost never just two) is spineless and lazy. There's a place for multiple viewpoints in history. But there's also plenty of wacko nutjob revisionist "historians" whose claims don't need to be repeated.

 

[Nightshade]

My dear old Dad has a similar theory to that one.

He reasons that everything would be better if people just acknowledged God rather than panzying about with less important stuff like;

1. Does God actualy exist.

2. If so, what can we be certain of about the true nature of her.

Point simply being that my dad and I disagree over wether the best starting point is acknowledgement or making sure we actualy have the best possible idea as to exactly what it is we are talking about.

I have absolutely no idea what you're implying by this. Why are you conflating the questionable existence of a deity with the fact that pretty much most of the atrocities in the world perpetrated against other humans are committed by the alpha group, i.e. the people with privilege? Are you in denial about that?

 

[Clueless Git]

Why are you conflating the questionable existence of a deity with the fact that pretty much most of the atrocities in the world perpetrated against other humans are committed by the alpha group, i.e. the people with privilege?

Is not everything questionable for as long as unanswered questions remain?


I'm going to break my rule of never posting more words that I can get away with to try and cast light on something on my mind ...


Spent a fair part of my life as a troubleshooter in small businesses. A job that was always had the least possible time and disruption as it's two main criteria.

Always the problems that needed to be sorted were people based problems and had long long 'histories' of whom had done what to whom.

Blame cultures, basicaly, and the history of blame was always unravelable in any way that was not going cause as many greivances as it solved.

Fix always the same:

Put the past to rest; Forgive in return for forgiveness; Agree new strategy for benefit of all; No looking back; Move on.

 

[rainforests1]

Yes, World War I spawned World War II. Exactly. History flows from one event to another with no separation in-between. That's what I was trying to illustrate.



This is true.



So, let me get this straight. We need to talk about modern issues more than history, because they're more important. But some of the important modern issues aren't important enough to be discussed?

Honestly, all most people get unless they go into history specifically is a few years of it in school. What you're proposing is no different from what's already happening. Also I fail to see what it has to do with collective guilt.

If you're trying to claim that history flows, then the World Wars started in 1914(or before) and ended in 1945. Nothing started in 1939. Other claims I could make:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/29/world/a-fund-is-planned-by-us-companies-for-nazis-victims.html
Even the New York Times acknowledges American businesses were aiding Germany, mentioning the same companies conspiracy theorists mention. We shouldn't have aided him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany
It's believed that the English and French blockading Germany(causing 400,000-700,000 civilian deaths) played a big role in Hitler's living space policy. If they had just simply been kind to their civilians, the events after may not have happened.

If Czar Nicholas II had kept Russia's military at home and out of the war to fight against the Bolsheviks, it's very likely Lenin(10 million deaths) and Stalin(15 million deaths) never become leaders. He deserves a lot of the blame for the events in Russia. Does the media criticize him? No. Once again, there's a lot more to the wars than what we're being told.

Much of what I'm suggesting is the opposite of what is happening. The media goes on and on about history when I'm saying the historians should be the ones talking about it. Smaller population uses up less resources, and our population continues to grow without even a word about the potential problems. It's the media that promotes collective guilt, so if they stopped talking about history there wouldn't be much collective guilt.

 

[rainforests1]

Why do you want to have a history of the Holocaust include the claims of Holocaust deniers? Or the history of Jim Crow south including claims from those who paint the KKK in a favorable light (Birth of a Nation, anyone)?

The idea we need all sides (there's almost never just two) is spineless and lazy. There's a place for multiple viewpoints in history. But there's also plenty of wacko nutjob revisionist "historians" whose claims don't need to be repeated.

The media promotes Churchill and Roosevelt(together responsible for the deaths of millions of people). I don't see how the opposing side could be much worse. If there was a debate and they looked bad, we wouldn't hear much from them after that. I believe in consistency, so all historical events should be treated the same way.

 

[FortyTwo]

If you're trying to claim that history flows, then the World Wars started in 1914(or before) and ended in 1945. Nothing started in 1939.

No, that's not how it works. World War II still started in 1939. You just need to acknowledge that everything connects from the past to the present to the future and we can't ignore these links, considering modern issues are things that arose from other things that happened in the past. I'm a little bit baffled that I have to explain this because it's literally how time works.

Omitting your other claims because I'm not sure what they have to do with the subject at hand.

Much of what I'm suggesting is the opposite of what is happening. The media goes on and on about history when I'm saying the historians should be the ones talking about it. Smaller population uses up less resources, and our population continues to grow without even a word about the potential problems. It's the media that promotes collective guilt, so if they stopped talking about history there wouldn't be much collective guilt.

I still don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. There isn't some massive issue where the media goes on and on about history. It mentions history whenever history comes up, usually in relation to a modern issue, such as a new finding or a missing link that brings light to something going on right now.

 

[FortyTwo]

The media promotes Churchill and Roosevelt(together responsible for the deaths of millions of people). I don't see how the opposing side could be much worse. If there was a debate and they looked bad, we wouldn't hear much from them after that. I believe in consistency, so all historical events should be treated the same way.

You don't see how the opposing side could be much worse? So, the Nazis!? The Japanese camps full of unethical experimentation?

Look, I can appreciate the sentiment that leads to the conclusion that killing in any situation is wrong, and certainly that's how it should be, but if you can't understand that the Allies in World War II were fighting a necessary war, deaths and all, then I don't know what I can do for you.