\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 http://www.ft.com/in...l#axzz2eJ8AhKYs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Speaking of WWII my wife plays violin with a Japanese woman born in China in 1945 in a Russian enclave. I'm trying to find out the story behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yeah but those Canadian comfort women sure came in handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Accurate in broad strokes - no soldiers are saints (and little-known fact: the Allied navies had a far worse record of atrocities than the Axis navies). But completely misses the difference between the individual actions of soldiers that are criminalized (as in the Allied armies), and the systemic encouragement of atrocities (as in China or Russia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 America's Manifest Destiny and the conquest of the continent are more applicable to Nazi's drive for living space and Japan's imperial drive than us in WW2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 America's Manifest Destiny and the conquest of the continent are more applicable to Nazi's drive for living space and Japan's imperial drive than us in WW2 Colonial. Colony. Colonize. What does that mean to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 War is hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Colonial. Colony. Colonize. What does that mean to you? What are you getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Attributing the the same sort of malice to Colonial America as you would to Nazi Germany is absurd, especially since you're using it as an example that is historically unique to it's time period. The truth is that the entire world worked that way during this era, which aptly begins with the "Colonial Period" in world history. You can't make the argument that America should have been hundereds of years ahead of global moral transitions without arguing for a bizarre revisionist version of American Exceptionalism. Well, you can, but that would be a terrible argument. Edited September 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Attributing the the same sort of malice to Colonial America as you would to Nazi Germany is absurd, especially since you're using it as an example that is historically unique to it's time period. The truth is that the entire world worked that way during this era, which aptly begins with the "Colonial Period" in world history. You can't make the argument that America should have been hundereds of years ahead of global moral transitions without arguing for a bizarre revisionist version of American Exceptionalism. Well, you can, but that would be a terrible argument. No, I think you are wrong. People are people. Japan and Germany in the 1930's were acting the way the west was in the 1600's through the 19th century in many ways. All those Indian Wars happened for a reason. If you asked an Apache in 1860 what he was fighting for, would it be much different from what a Russian peasant would have said in 1942? It was all about expansion. Heck, Germany was trying to catch up to us, and Japan was expanding so as not to fall behind as they saw it. Not saying its exactly the same, but many similarities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 No, I think you are wrong. People are people. Japan and Germany in the 1930's were acting the way the west was in the 1600's through the 19th century in many ways. All those Indian Wars happened for a reason. If you asked an Apache in 1860 what he was fighting for, would it be much different from what a Russian peasant would have said in 1942? It was all about expansion. Heck, Germany was trying to catch up to us, and Japan was expanding so as not to fall behind as they saw it. Not saying its exactly the same, but many similarities !@#$ you for making me say this. You're right. Seriously, !@#$ you, you !@#$ing !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 No, I think you are wrong. People are people. Japan and Germany in the 1930's were acting the way the west was in the 1600's through the 19th century in many ways. All those Indian Wars happened for a reason. If you asked an Apache in 1860 what he was fighting for, would it be much different from what a Russian peasant would have said in 1942? It was all about expansion. Heck, Germany was trying to catch up to us, and Japan was expanding so as not to fall behind as they saw it. Not saying its exactly the same, but many similarities Why don't you tell us why all those "Indian Wars" happened? While you are at it, explain what a Russian peasant would have said in 1942 that was similar to what an Apache would have said in 1860. Now why was Germany trying to catch up to us and do tell us why Japan was expanding so not to fall behind us? Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Why don't you tell us why all those "Indian Wars" happened? While you are at it, explain what a Russian peasant would have said in 1942 that was similar to what an Apache would have said in 1860. Now why was Germany trying to catch up to us and do tell us why Japan was expanding so not to fall behind us? Have fun. \ Isn't that a lot of writing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 !@#$ you for making me say this. You're right. Seriously, !@#$ you, you !@#$ing !@#$. He's not right. Not at all. He's judging historical norms of the 1750s-1850s through the moral lense of the mid-20th Century. That's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 He's not right. Not at all. He's judging historical norms of the 1750s-1850s through the moral lense of the mid-20th Century. That's just silly. Silly how? So you are saying that, for sake of argument, an Indian killer in 1850 isn't as bad as a murderous Nazi in 1940? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Silly how? So you are saying that, for sake of argument, an Indian killer in 1850 isn't as bad as a murderous Nazi in 1940? That's correct. Just like slave owners of the 1800's aren't despicable, as they would be today; and totalitarian Royalty of the 1300's who ruled by the Divine Rights of Kings, or Egyptian Pharaohs aren't to be judged by the same modern standards we use to condem the recently deposed junta in Mayanmar. You can't judge individuals based on a moral code that wouldn't come into existance for another 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 That's correct. Just like slave owners of the 1800's aren't despicable, as they would be today; and totalitarian Royalty of the 1300's who ruled by the Divine Rights of Kings, or Egyptian Pharaohs aren't to be judged by the same modern standards we use to condem the recently deposed junta in Mayanmar. You can't judge individuals based on a moral code that wouldn't come into existance for another 100 years. Many people didn't care what the Nazis were doing in 1940 and But many people in 1850 deplored what was happening to the Indians and didn't approve of what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Silly how? So you are saying that, for sake of argument, an Indian killer in 1850 isn't as bad as a murderous Nazi in 1940? Was a settler killer who burned white men, women and children at the stake after opening up their bellies and scalping them any worse than a murderous Nazi? Explain your prior statements re Russian peasants, Apache Indians, Germany and Japan or just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Many people didn't care what the Nazis were doing in 1940 and But many people in 1850 deplored what was happening to the Indians and didn't approve of what happened. The difference is that one went against globally accepted western moral norms, and one didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The difference is that one went against globally accepted western moral norms, and one didn't. So if everyone agrees murder is cool, its cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts