|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Europeans participants, ... do your schools teach your nation's ugly past, or do they whitewash like americans. Can you name an example? I remember two pieces of ugliness from our past being taught at school. One was the slave trade, but we then covered the abolitionist movement and the fact that the British Empire abolished slavery relatively early. The other was the history of Anglo-Irish relations, which was one of the modules our school chose for our GCSE course (ages 15-16) - this was a fairly even handed treatment of the topic, if I remember rightly. We were also given fairly unflattering accounts of Cromwell in Ireland as part of 17th century British history at A-level (ages 17-18). I imagine everywhere teaches history at least to some extent as part of their nationalist narrative, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: But how would you see the endpoint of invading Afghanistan? What ultimately needs to be achieved in order to justify the intervention in the first place? Dogma writes: The intervention is justified when the horrific-ness of the regime is abated. Dogma writes: It may be that we are just too different to integrate. The most intolerable offences are at the heart of the Taliban ideology. Even moderate sharia law offends most non-muslim people. Of course, the fact that we let our women roam around with their ankles showing is offensive to the Taliban. It is nothing less than a clash of cultures. The logical conclusion of your combined statements is that the conflict will only be over when Islamic fundamentalism has been eradicated. Do you think this is a realistic goal?
Dogma writes: I do think that it is unreasonable to vilify the US for it’s behaviour in the war with Afghanistan when 55 other nations also took part. I don’t know of any nation that isn’t desperately trying to end it’s involvement.
Dogma writes: Real countries with real armies and really smart people in positions of authority. How moral is it to abandon them to their fate? How moral is it for them to be there in the first place? What are they trying to achieve and how morally justified is that aim? That is the question you (and they) should be asking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Europeans participants, ... do your schools teach your nation's ugly past, or do they whitewash like americans. Can you name an example? While there was some degree of positive painting, it wasn't the blind jingoistic 'patriotism' I sometimes hear about from American students. The fact that we carpet bombed Dresden and other cities is not apologised for. British share of blame for the whole middle east fiasco is confronted. The short sightedness of Chamberlain, the war mongering colonialism in the pre-war years and so on and so forth are taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Thanks for the examples caffeine.
caffeine writes: . . . given fairly unflattering accounts of Cromwell . . . Hmm, . . . "unflattering accounts"? Besides the slavery example, is that one of the best examples you can remember of non-white-washed schooling? Doesn't the British empire in the 1700s and 1800s have a lot of imperial history that was quite barbaric and cruel and filled with atrocities. Since I am not very familiar with British history (1000 years of!!!), I will not argue this point. As a comparable example, american schools whitewash the native-American genocide. Millions of native-Americans were slaughtered. I often wonder if americans had a more empathetic schooling, perhaps more americans would question american foreign policy that is clearly criminal. For example, how many americans know or care that obama is continuing in a long line of presidential actions, violating the War Powers Act (regarding Libya)? Edited by dronester, : less snarky sounding
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Thanks Modulous,
Your examples were more of what I was looking for. Would you agree the scales/examples below, while simplistic, are somewhat accurate, AND that the conclusions that could be drawn, self-evident?: HISTORY WHITEWASHING/PROPAGANDA usa high, Britian medium, Germany low TODAY'S ATROCITIES usa high, Britian medium, Germany low
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I can't speak for Germany being low on national whitewashing (or rather beschnigen, 'making it shiny' or 'gloss over'), the only warts I know of that they openly admit are those that cannot be denied (legally!), but maybe they are equally open to criticising their pre-great war colonialism, the HRE and any other dark shadows in German history I'm not personally up to speed on (abe: oh yeah - their actions on the Crusades).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Drone writes: Europeans participants, ... do your schools teach your nation's ugly past, or do they whitewash like americans. Can you name an example? My history at school included a project on Ghandi. He came out as a definite hero whilst the British imperialists were the definite bad guys of the story. That was when I was 14. Generally - Educated Brits are probably a bit embarrassed by our colonial past. We feel the need to constantly apologise for it. We certainly are not taught it as something to be unquestioningly proud of. Quite the opposite. More generally - Acts of overt nationalism are rare. They are broadly associated with extreme right wing nutjobbery. With the exception of sporting events and (to a much lesser albeit internationally hyped extent - royal wedding nonsense) we rarely do the whole jingoistic thing. Certainly the American idea of school children pledging allegiance to the flag is pretty alien. And the idea of having symbols like a flags decorating one's desk at work or outside one's house would be considered totally weird and somewhat disturbing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
I probably know even less about German history than British.
![]() The reason I used them in my example is because the Bush Jr. regime denigrated Germany as an example of "old Europe" because Germany did not join the highly illegal and immoral US coalition to invade Iraq. As you wrote, if not from the pre-great war colonialism, then it seems at least most Germans are correctly informed and mortified from the Hitler years. It's a stain they can't possibly run away from (it doesn't seem necessary there should be actual laws about it). So, the German education system and/or media couldn't white-wash it if it tried. So, if Germans are less propagandized / less misinformed, then it would be reasonable to assume that they are more educated/informed then americans/Brits. This tentative conclusion is the reason why I would hypothesize that Germany is lower in current world wide atrocities than the Brits or the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
hey Strag,
First, see my post to Mod above. I appreciate your school experience of Ghandi, but if that type of factful schooling was large scale in Britian . . .
Strag writes: Educated Brits are probably a bit embarrassed by our colonial past. "past"? The more illuminating point would be: What PERCENTAGE of Brits are embarrassed by their colonial past? You and I argued over the whether the BBC is a propaganda machine a year or two ago. It would seem that if the Brits were really "educated"/informed by the BBC and factual schooling, then they couldn't have possibly been hoodwinked by immoral simpleton Bush Jr. into illegally invading Iraq. And it wouldn't have taken the Brits so long to remove war criminal Tony Blair from office. And war criminal Tony Blair would be in prison/executed by now. Do you agree? I don't have the actual percentages, but I would predict the population percentage of usa, Britain, and Germany, who WANTED to invade Iraq, to be high, medium, and low respectively. Would you agree? Edited by dronester, : replaced "and British media" with "factual schooling" for better argument Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Drone writes: The more illuminating point would be: What PERCENTAGE of Brits are embarrassed by their colonial past? Successive prime ministers have felt the need to apologise for Britain's past for various reasons. Link. Whilst this may blatantly be PM's telling people what they want to hear whilst on foreign trips it could hardly be accomplished if back home there was a widespread feeling of betrayal at the idea. Can you imagine if Obama started making apologetic announcements to the various countries the US has interfered with? He would be hounded down as anti-American. Yet when our PM does that the vast majority of people here give a kind of resgned shrug. I think you have to go back to my grandfather's generation to find a majority of British people who actually defend Britain's colonial past as doing the world some kind of favour.
drone writes: It would seem that if the Brits were really "educated"/informed by the BBC and factual schooling, then they couldn't have possibly been hoodwinked by immoral simpleton Bush Jr. into illegally invading Iraq. And it wouldn't have taken the Brits so long to remove war criminal Tony Blair from office. And war criminal Tony Blair would be in prison/executed by now. Do you agree? Many were not "hoodwinked". That we were following a lunatic American cowboy playing oil games with all the gung ho verve of a teenager with a new Nintendo game was a very common feeling. There was widespread public resistance to the Iraq war in Britain at the time of it's conception and the whole debacle is ultimately what turned public opinion against Tony Blair. I was personally on this demo: 2003 Link As it turns out our goverment effectively (even if not technically in a legal sense) lied through it's teeth to get us into that war.
Drone writes: I don't have the actual percentages, but I would predict the population percentage of usa, Britain, and Germany, who WANTED to invade Iraq, to be high, medium, and low respectively. Would you agree? Not really. This is from Feb 2003 when Blair was still trying to get a 2nd UN resolution.
Feb 2003 Newspaper article writes: The rift between Tony Blair and the British public over war against Iraq is today confirmed by an opinion poll which shows for the first time that a clear majority of British voters now oppose a military attack.The survey, taken over the weekend, reveals that Mr Blair has sustained significant political damage from the debate over Iraq. His personal rating has dropped through the floor to minus 20 points, the lowest level since the petrol crisis two and a half years ago. This month's Guardian/ICM poll also shows that at least one person from 1.25 million households in Britain went on Saturday's anti-war march in London, confirming estimates that between one million and two million people went on the march. The poll shows it is the prime minister's personal standing rather than the Labour party which has suffered the wrath of anti-war voters. Labour's standing is down four points from 43% last month to 39% this month but the government still maintains a healthy eight-point lead over the Conservatives. Opposition to the war has risen five points in the past month to 52%, with support for the war falling to 29%, the lowest level since the Guardian's tracker poll started last August. Link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Drone writes: This tentative conclusion is the reason why I would hypothesize that Germany is lower in current world wide atrocities than the Brits or the US. Don't forget that post WW2 America engaged itself in superpower supremacy and the arms race with the USSR, Britain tried to cling onto fading military might of the past and Germany was forced to stop any activites that could be utilised to wage war (having just lost). This, as much as anything, accounts for current differences of view on military spending and interventionsim between the three countries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
dronester writes: Of the many items, which particular items on my list do you find dubious? I am thinking at least some of the points were "un-contestable" to moral and intelligent people. How can winning WW2 be considered 'immoral' after the rape of Nanjing and the Bataan Death March? Do you actually think that when one considers Makin, Tarawa, Pelieu, Saipan, and so on, the military under the Japanese Empire under the false doctrine of Bushido were just going to surrender en mass, like the Germans? They fought to the death. Learn some history, a lot of mine is oral and firsthand. Are you unaware of Kamakaze pilots? There is some debate over the use of the atomic bombs, however, I have studied this problem and feel the solution, considering both military and political considerations, was unfortunately inevitable. One article against the collective judgment of the people who were there at the time hardly constitutes a refutation of their decisions. Yeah, I wish it didn't happen, but to argue that it made no difference is easily shown as being false. You don't have to take my word for it, ask Hirohito. Yeah, I'm an idiot. I hope this post absolves me of having to go chapter and verse, but if necessary I will. There is a lot of documentation concerning the surrender of Japan other than Zinn. Ever heard of General Anami, the last shot revolt, the Hirohito speech, the hassle over its recording. Of course not, as I am more stupid than Palin according to you. Let's rock, self-appointed badass. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Straggler points out, among other things, that we should not:
forget that post WW2 America engaged itself in superpower supremacy and the arms race with the USSR. In fact, I am fairly sure that nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki were also, in the eyes of the top military US officials all the way up to Truman, "convenient" demonstrations to the Russians that the US also had their ass, should they ever get out of line. Of course, soon after, the USSR got the bomb, too, and the MAD escalation began. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
xomgsmith writes: In fact, I am fairly sure that nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki were also, in the eyes of the top military US officials all the way up to Truman, "convenient" demonstrations to the Russians that the US also had their ass, should they ever get out of line. My understanding is ultimately Truman felt the taxpayers bought it therefore use it. Midwesterners may lack subtlety, but they make up for it in practicality, even when the the moral issues are difficult. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I don't mean to derail this thread but i do feel I must respond to this one point.
Straggler writes: Certainly the American idea of school children pledging allegiance to the flag is pretty alien. And the idea of having symbols like a flags decorating one's desk at work or outside one's house would be considered totally weird and somewhat disturbing. In the first year of high school, my daughter and one other student refused to 'pledge allegiance to the flag' of either the USA or Texas on the grounds it amounted to the worship of a woven image (wonder where she got that idea?). However the principal had one up his sleeve. They were excused from the pledge but had to go to the main office to sit it out. By the time they went to the main office, it was over. Oh, BTW, at the time my daughter self-described her religious position as atheist, today she self-describes as agnostic (naturally in defiance of the language police as well as the false patriotism police). Edited by anglagard, : Previous title, upon reflection, a bit over the top. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024