GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by island007
I noticed not one mention of the worst autrocities ummm... like the Holocaust

Originally posted by island007

I never made a refference to WWII

You do know the Holocaust occured during WWII and was part of the Nazi's agenda?

Originally posted by /-\lastor
may I remind you America was one of the last countries to outlaw slavery

That's because when America was a colony, England brought all the slaves here. England wanted cheap labor in the Americas, so they helped instigate the slave trade.

The only reason Europe gave up slavery earlier is because their economies were not nearly as reliant on it.

Convincing a farmer with no slaves to abolish slavery is alot easier than convincing a farmer whose only workers are slaves.

Incidentally, that's also the reason the country was split in two over this issue. The North took the 'humanitarian' approach because they didn't use slave labor.

No one, or rather, almost no one, back then took the 'humanitarian' perspective unless they would not be economically harmed. That includes Europeans.

*I'm not even gonna touch the rest of this thread*

Hi

Fable

As the old man said in Trademeet ( BG2 refference) "You just proved my point." As you send your bodyguard to thrust his sword through my chest.

As I come to these boards to escape academia I will keep to the game boards. And save meaningful topics like these for in person discussions with colleagues, most of whom are liberal. I will use this topic in particular your last post as a clear example of sophism.

Originally posted by island007
Hi

Fable

As the old man said in Trademeet ( BG2 refference) "You just proved my point." As you send your bodyguard to thrust his sword through my chest.

As I come to these boards to escape academia I will keep to the game boards. And save meaningful topics like these for in person discussions with colleagues, most of whom are liberal. I will use this topic in particular your last post as a clear example of sophism.

I stayed away from this thread quite some time now, but somehow I feel that this has turned from a discussion thread into a fight. It has happened before, and sadly it has often resulted in banning.
*remembers Sailor Saturn*
There have been complaints about fable before (was it fable? It was so long ago that I can't remember), that he is not suited to be a modetator because of his activeness in debates. I however do not feel that that's the case here.
Since I would hate to see this thread turning into a mod vs. member fight, can I ask you to continiue this "conversation" in PM's and leave this thread about discussion? It was an interesting debate which I was following..

Quark Slavery was outlawed in the US nearly 100 years of Independence. The colony arguement doesn't cut it after independence. Yes the Brits brought it to the US, however the american kept with the practices even after the brits left.

I agree they were dependent on Slaves for the economy, but does that mean they have to be slaves? Couldn't they be free and paid? Being a slave doesn't just mean you pick cotton. You are treated worse than common cattle. That is what was wrong with the concept. It was not a simple economic arguement.

Originally posted by Vicsun


I stayed away from this thread quite some time now, but somehow I feel that this has turned from a discussion thread into a fight. It has happened before, and sadly it has often resulted in banning.
*remembers Sailor Saturn*
There have been complaints about fable before (was it fable? It was so long ago that I can't remember), that he is not suited to be a modetator because of his activeness in debates. I however do not feel that that's the case here.
Since I would hate to see this thread turning into a mod vs. member fight, can I ask you to continiue this "conversation" in PM's and leave this thread about discussion? It was an interesting debate which I was following..

I agree that Fable does an excellent job, however one thing i would offer would be that another mod handle the mod related issues when it comes to Fable posting or debating in a thread. Like in this case, i bet all the mods are in agreement with what Fable has said, however it would seem more clear if another mod made the statements Fable has made. Because right now fable can easily be blamed for using his mod statu (which he in my opinion is not) to change and detract from the topic at hand.

@Island: The moderators here are choosen by Buck Satan and the members. Insulting a moderator by accusing him for sophism will not lead to a better debate climate. Your posts have not only been off topic, you have also posted several highly cathogorical statements that unfortunately also included factual errors.

This is a thread for discussion about the current situation between US and Europe, where the Bush administration have played a major role. Whereas some of Island007:s comments fulfills European's most negative prejudices about Americans and thus might be viewed as relevent for this thread, I agree with Vicsun that discussion concerning Island's posts should be taken to PM, and this thread kept for the topic stated in the title.

@CM:
However, our friend Quark is very correct to claim that if the northern economy had been based on a commercial, plantation-style farming economy that slavery would have continued in the northern states. The inhabitants of the north were just as racist as their counterparts in the south, they just didn't hold blacks in bondage. The abolition movement was based in northern religious groups, but without an economy that was not based on slavery, it never would have caught on.

CM is also quite right to say that is wasn't simply an economic argument because the vast majority of white southerners didn't own slaves. Of those that did, the majority only owned a handul; the number of people with large plantations (20 or more slaves) was very, very small. Southerners liked slavery because it meant that no matter how far down the social ladder a white person was, at least he/she wasn't a slave. Slave ownership was something that poor white folks could aspire to, even if they were sharecroppers or subsistance farmers themselves.

Slavery is a condition that violates the most basic human freedoms. Slaves are not people, they are property. Even though some people in the United States and the west live under conditions of wage slavery or economic indenture, they are still free.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@CM:
However, our friend Quark is very correct to claim that if the northern economy had been based on a commercial, plantation-style farming economy that slavery would have continued in the northern states. The inhabitants of the north were just as racist as their counterparts in the south, they just didn't hold blacks in bondage. The abolition movement was based in northern religious groups, but without an economy that was not based on slavery, it never would have caught on.

HDL i partially agree with that. I think it was an economic issue yes, however one can not ignore the moral and humanitarian aspect. I wouldn't just limit it to saying as the North was not dependent on slavery, they were ok without it. I say it was one reason, but not the sole reason. Was it the most important? I would not think so, but i guess we would not agree there.

@ Everyone lets try to get back to the topic.
And as always, stay civil and noninflammatory.
@ Island, if you have a problem with another member take it to pms.

About the Holocost, IIRC, Japan actually killed more Chinese then Hilter killed Jews during WW2...

*sort of back on topic*

I am glad we got a President who puts America first, he is our President.

Ah, yes, and so he has the right to go around and try to screw all the other countries in the world? Some Americans are very ignorent to the outside world. (Not intended to the Americans on this board, who do understand that there is an outside world)

Dubya's job is to look out for America's interests. Not Cambodia's. Not Namibia's. Not France's. America's. We elected him (and he wants us to elect him again). He works for us.

That said, he is an idiot to think that just because he's the President of the United States that people will simply follow his lead after making one of his "either you're with us or against us" speeches.

Each world leader has a singular obligation to serve their constituency. However, it makes a lot of sense that the best way to serve one's home country is to make sure the world is a better place for everyone. I don't believe that Dubya does a lot of things just to piss people off. I think he does them sometimes because he's had someone close to him tell him that it's a good idea and since his dad trusted that person, he should trust them too.

The United States has been immensely blessed by the oceans on each side. Our cities have never been firebombed, until 11 September terrorism was for the most part limited to Americans killing each other near abortion clinics and we generally have more than enough to go around. Our neighbours to the north are reasonably friendly (except at hockey games) and our neighbours to the south are kept out by the Border Patrol, although we let some in to do the menial jobs red-blooded Americans don't want to do.

Unilateralism comes pretty naturally to us because we've never had to truly cooperate with people who weren't like us. We stuffed the Indians away on reservations (at least those we didn't exterminate) and everyone who comes here pretty much speaks English and wants to become an American. We're the most powerful nation on the Earth, we have more stuff than anyone else and no one can challenge our hegemony.

That makes it very easy for us to expect the world to follow our lead; after all, we've either bullied or bribed you all in the past, why shouldn't that work for us still? What Dubya fails to understand is that while the United States is the only remaining superpower, being the world's leader is not the same as being the world's boss. Plus, it may not be forever and there is more to leadership than simple coercion or having everyone marching in lockstep behind the US. It is my opinion that he thinks the world needs him more than it does, and that he believes that there are no consequences to some of his actions or policies (such as his "hands off" attitude towards the middle east peace process, withdrawing from the ABM treaty, not signing the international landmine treaty and some of his protectionist tarriffs).

Reply to CM, it applies to the general statement:

In my mind, religion is the only other significant blip on people's radar besides economy. And in many cases (slavery), religion is shunned in favor of economy.

America has never voted out a president when his first term saw a 'good' economy. Then there's incidences where a Democratic congress raises taxes, and the Republican president (the old Bush) is voted out because of it.

Most wars are economic. All of those stupid Crusades were. Imperialism? Economic.

Education's overall goal is not to make people 'well rounded'. It's to get people a good paying job.

Everything in this world is economic. Money may not be the sole reason, but it is the leading reason.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Our neighbours to the north are reasonably friendly (except at hockey games).

Hey, it was Americans that booed our national anthem, and we didn't boo yours in return.

I wouldn't have blamed you if you did.

@HLD: Good post, and thank you for bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand.

As a comment to what you have already said, I'd like to underscore that it seems the Bush administrations idea about what the US people wants to hear is radically different and often conflicting with current European values. Now, I actually find it hard to believe we are that different, there must be a lot of US people who also think environmental issues, getting rid of landmines, stopping weapon sales to non stately actors and acting to decrease the AIDS-catastrophy in Africa is more worth than risking damage to US industry? Especially, like in the case with Kyoto, leading US finacial experts have calculated it would not affact US economy at all to follow the internationally set limits? As much as I despise the Bush administrations politics in these regards, I also remind myself that only 25% actually voted for Dubbayh. Which, IMO, has not sparked off enough debate and change in the US.

@Quark: Dubbayah puts a lot of emphasis on conservative christian values. What is the connection to US economy here do you think?

Originally posted by Weasel
Blood thristy I might be, but I realize in the real world, words sometimes don't get **** done. Sit down and talk with someone who doesn't care if they die and you will most likely be visiting a god.

Uhh, I was joking about the bloodthirsty part, thats why there's a smily face there.

@C Elegans:
It's a fund-raising scheme. The conservative Christians are a very influential and powerful grass-roots group not because they represent the majority of Americans (they don't) but because they are driven to push their own agenda, they vote and they make large campaign contributions. The more extreme and radical elements within society dictate its debates and its direction. Why? Because they believe in their cause more than moderate people believe in just living their lives.

Whether someone is an anti-abortion activist or environmental activist, the fact that they are active in a political movement shows that they see themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Most people are moderate in their views and they don't vote because they don't think that they can change things. People on the more radical and extreme ends of each side of the political spectrum see themselves as instruments of change. They believe that their single vote, used in conjunction with the votes of other like-minded people is a powerful tool to promote their agenda, whether its the environment, homosexual rights, gun ownershipl, anti-abortion, free trade or whatever other issue is at hand.

In the United States, the most coherent and consistant group of the last half-century has been the conservative Christian bloc led by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They have convinced their followers to push their agenda at the local, state and federal levels. They get people to the polls and they raise money in the same way the the political machines did in the earlier part of this century. That makes them a player in the political policy arena.

The Republican Party has been under the sway of the right-wing Christian factions, the NRA and a couple of other groups for several decades. They cannot afford to alienate this key constituency, who raises so much money they are able to dictate important planks in the party platform. At the same time, these groups know that they must back the Republicans because in the two-party system that the United States has, division only gets Democrats elected (ie-1992 when Ross Perot split the Republican Party and put Clinton in the White House).

I have no doubt that Dubya is a born-again Christian. I don't think that's his sole basis for the decisions he makes, though. However, by harping on that aspect of his public persona, he is telling the Republican's core constituency that he is still one of "them" and not one of the new Republicans, who is pro-choice, pro-gun control (not gun-prohibition) and socially moderate but fiscally conservative. As long as he can continue to raise money with the conservative Christians and get them to the polls, he is assured that there will be no serious challenge to his re-nomination in 2004 and that the foundation for his presidential re-election campaign is solid.

@Quark:
I had a college professor who asked the very thing you assert: Are all decisions made on the basis of economics?

My response was, "No . . . but . . ."

Not everything in the world comes down to economics. People do stupid things that don't make economic sense. For instance, after the Confederacy was occupied by the north, but before the 13th Amendment was passed, the slave owners in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland (slave states that remained in the Union), were asked if they would accept a gradual and compensated abolition. That is, a plan similar to the one instituted by the British Empire would be introduced in which slaves would be freed but not all at once and thier owners would receive a "fair market value" for them. They refused, and not just a few of them; the vast majority of slave owners wanted to keep their slaves. In the face of constitutional emancipation and de facto abolition, slave owners in the loyal slave states didn't do the smart thing and take the money.

I believe that people don't do things only for money. I don't serve on a couple of committees at my church for money. I don't take my kid to his baseball games because I believe that one day he's going to make it in the big leagues. However, money figures into every decision I make. If I couldn't pay my bills, I would get another job instead of volunteering at church. If I couldn't afford to buy my son cleats or pay his registration fee, he wouldn't be playing baseball.

You used the Crusades as an example. Most of the rank-and-file who went off to fight the Crusades did it to free the Holy Land from the heathens. That's why they went. Would the Church have waged the wars if they Holy Land didn't just happen to lie on or near important trade routes? Probably not.

I believe that while not everything happens because of money, if there is not an economic reward, short-term or long-term, tangible or otherwise, big things don't happen.

Quick reply: Many of the knights who went on the Crusades were nobles ... of large families. Being 2nd, 3rd, or worse son meant nothing back then. Going on a crusade was a nice way to earn money for yourself, since you weren't getting any from your family.

@HLD: Some of the mechanisms you describe are the same as in Europe, like the problem with the extremists voting to a higher degree that people with moderate views. This was recently examplified in France, and in France, Le Pen's surprising success seems to have acted as an alarm-clock. What happened in the US after the last election? My impression was that the debate died off quite quickly and that nothing serious happened - I believe the issue was more debated in Europe than in the US, as a general issue related both to representative democracy, the election system and the increasing amount of indifferent people in both US and Europe. However, I'm still, as always, amazed how conservative christians have become such a strong political force in the US.

@Quark: Being 2rd or 3rd son in a noble family still meant a safe, secure, lifelong income and heritage - in feudal Europe the children of noble families had a clear position is society and nobody needed to "make money on their own" - it's is not correct that they wouldn't get any from their families. Whereas I do think economic factors are extremely important, I do not agree that money is the major driving force in all situations. That would somewhat imply rational driving forces and rational (if immoral) acts, and looking back in history I can't see this as generalised as you suggest.