Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I think it is equally important that we point out that the U.S. and it's allies were directly responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Throughout their history the Germans were strong people but rarely militaristic society. They were defensive brutes at worst and philosophers at best. The west and it's imperialism was equally to blame for the rise of Japanese Militarism.
It's one thing to admit to your faults, it's another to justify your faults and only correct them after decades if ever. That is what this country does more often than not and I think that's slightly better than Chinese not admitting to its faults. Remember, the China transitioned from aristocracy to Communism fairly recently and in that process the communist pointed out the faults of the aristocracy. Communism is ultimately self-defeating the piper will be calling for the communists one of these days and the faults of the communist will similarly be pointed out. The same thing can be said about the Russians.
I was speaking of South Korea. You had people that wanted to be free and people who wanted communism. Like I said, communism is ultimately self-defeating but it's definitely nice to have altruistic help from the U.S. Hopefully that desire to help will be extend to the North Koreans one of these days.
China's human rights is just as laughable as that of the United States but you wouldn't know it talking to Americans. Human rights is somehow extended to torture and political imprisonment of dissenters in the U.S. but not to justified torture, opportunity and equality. How many people are in prison in United States again and how many innocent people are falsely imprisoned? How many egregious laws are there in the books simply because it serves a political purpose certain kinds of people?
|
The modern nation of Germany was founded based on the militarism of the Prussian aristocracratic society through political manipulation and realpolitick of Bismark. (BTW - In 1848(?), the Prussian King rejected a constitutional monarchy - preferring instead his autocratic principles). It took Bismark 3 separate wars for Prussia and it militaristic aristocracy to confirm its hegemony over Germany. -- The US and its allies "are responsible for the rise of Hitler"? Well, maybe b/c of the punitive nature of the Versaille Treaty, or b/c we failed to intervene when he violated that treaty. As I recall, however, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in '33 and subsequently granted dictatorial powers by a 2/3's vote of the Reichstag.
As to China, I cited two independent sources - Amnesty International and the Global Source both of which could hardly be labled "pro-American" and both blasted China's civil rights. Find me something, anything, that indicates America is considered to be a worse human rights violator than China in any objective sense or that, as a whole, America and China are comprable when it comes to human rights violations.
You asserted that the Chinese have changed since Mao, the cites I indicated contradict that. Again, provide something that shows, since Mao, the Chinese have made the same or better strides in expanding basic human rights to its citizens that the US has since WWII. I would suggest that a Uighur or Tibetan in China now is in a similar or worse position than he was 50 years ago. The same simply cannot be said about minorities and women in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Historically speaking we are comparing countries/societies who have existed for millenniums, lack diversity and were not found based on the ideals of equality, freedom and democracy with a country that has been round centuries, diverse, and found based on the aforementioned qualities. Obviously these countries can't adapt to change as rapidly as the U.S. but if we compare which countries have gone through a significant change for the better over their life span I don't believe the U.S. wins which is the point I was making.
|
These countries can't adapt? So our adaptability is a point against us somehow?? To be clear - We didn't start out diverse. We started out as a country of white English
men with power resting firmly in the hands of the landed and/or monied aristocracy. The fact that we can and have adapted to expand and include a multitude of different cultures and shared power with them is kind of my point. Following our founding documents is what allowed us to expand and adapt the sharing of power. That was
my original point in comparing the actions to the US took against the Guatamalans as opposed to the atrocities committed by the Nazis - One government's action was counter to its founding principles, the other government's actions were consistent with its governing principles.
In the 250 years of the US's existence, we have expanded the vote from landed white men only to every citizen over the age of 18. We have changed from a slave holding country to one which rejects slavery, in any form, as acceptable. The freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been expanded such that actions which would have been considered treasonable even 50 years ago (burning the flag, being a member of the Communist party as two examples) are now permitted and even protected. The rights of accused have been aggressively expanded so that the procedures police and prosecutors need follow would boggle the mind of Americans even 100 years ago.
Do we "win" the title of "World's Historically Most Transformed For The Better Society"? I don't know maybe, maybe not. What is clear to me is that, though we often fail, it is the US's goal, as demonstrated by our founding documents, to constantly strive to be the winner of that title. Again, that was
my original point.
You think other countries "have gone through a significant change for the better over their life span" than the US? Okay. I don't see any proof of it but, if that's what you choose to believe, okay. Good for you. I stand by my original statement that no country in history has done more than the US (warts and all) - from its inception to its current status - to promote, provide and protect human rights within and without its borders.