Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Really? I always thought the US, Canada and the Aussies were in a small group of nations that ran the natives off. Maybe I need a history lesson.
Soooo...
Who did the Chinese run (or slaughter) out of China?
The Japanese out of Japan?
The Russians out of Russia?
The Germans out of Germany?
The French out of France?
English out of England?
Indians out of India?
I remember reading about Rome trying to take over a bunch of places, didn't end well if I read correctly. And the Brits did their best at several places but they're pretty much back on the island last I heard.
|
Thus the unless they were stopped part.
Romans? Yeah, they had no impact on the world. That's why we use the Latin Alphabet. Brits? No impact their either.
Looking back at almost any region, several groups moved into a single area, lived either unknown to each other or in harmony. Until the stronger group rose up and either slaughtered or assimilated the weaker. So, which is worse, the assimilation/annihilation of a culture or what you see in modern day US, Canada and Australia? What about Mexico's indigenous people? Not a lot of Mayans and Incas running around these days.
Just because it's recent history, doesn't make it the only history.
Japan has it's own little history:
In 645, Nakatomi no Kamatari started the era of the Fujiwara clan that was to last until the rise of the military class (samurai) in the 11th century. In the same year, the Taika reforms were realized: A new government and administrative system was established after the Chinese model. All land was bought by the state and redistributed equally among the farmers in a large land reform in order to introduce the new tax system that was also adopted from China. This was after taking over several island islands now part of Japan, who did not (some still do not) consider them selves Japanese.
---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
First off, let's start with the bits of revisionist history:
The US was merely a supporting actor in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The bulk of the German army was on the eastern front, where they had more than twice as many troops as they had in the west. You might say that being ruled by Stalin's Soviet Union is not much of an upgrade over Hitler, but the fact remains.
As to the "ancestors who said fuck you," you mean other than the Natives (as already pointed out), the Africans, and the Mexicans who used to own about half the land that is now the US, right?
This isn't to deny the great things the US has done. But it has also done some pretty shitty things which also must not be forgotten.
In any case, the reform was passed through all the institutions set up by the founding fathers and so on. You can't at the same time preach about the exceptionalism and perfection of the form of government set up originally and then decry the outcome of those same form of government. This health care reform isn't an imposition from abroad, but a home grown product.
|
All history is revisionist. The victor writes history, it is never completely represented.
And you are right, Germany was getting stomped by Russia, so it is more likely Europe would be Russian speaking now.
It may sound as though I'm claiming we were the soul reason, that was not my intent. However, without us, it would have gone differently. Europe was defeated, North Africa over run. I find it hard to believe Russia would have stopped at Berlin. Why not keep pushing south all the way to Africa? The hard work was already done for them.
I'm also not defending our government, but the founding ideals of a nation. Our government went off the reservation long ago. We the people, have lost control of it and that will be our down fall. This last act is just one more in a long line of atrocities committed in the name of the American people, by a government run-a-muck.
Home grown health care? I'd say politically manipulated health care. I don't think any one believes that everyone in the Senate and Congress read and understands this 2000 page bill and it's 500 page education bill. So why would they vote for it? Not a foreign imposition? That doesn't even makes sense when half the arguments for it contain the phrase 'we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have it'. It also makes no sense in that, there are there are vastly superior alternatives that limit government involvement. Yet they've chosen to model it on existing systems. That is foreign influence.
Not to mention I find it odd, debating this with a Canadian.
Not that I dislike Canadians. I live in a border town and have as many Canadian neighbors as American. I just find it odd debating an issue with someone non-vested.
---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------
Oop, my bad Dippin. I guess 'the ether' could be in the US.