h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

I second that! (At the very least.)

"The US hasn't done anything near as bad."

Well...

Fire-bombing of Dresden, atomic bombing of Japan, defoliation in Viet Nam and Cambodia, need I go on?

Morning L-anglais

Well you could add the near extermination of the indegenous 'Red' Indian population...

But to be serious, I wouldn't use Bush's fractured rhetoric, but life in Russia, after the revolution, even pre Stalin, was pretty bloody horrible. The subsequent activities of the NKVD and KGB in repressing, exterminating and generally controlling the population were horrific.

The real problem for the Russians themselves was that they had never known democratic freedoms, and when the Czar was killed and the Bolsheviks took over, the grubby little apparatchiks took anything they could from families who had put some kind of existence together, in the name of 'equality' As usual this meant good living for those 'in' the system and to hell,or prison with the rest.Specifically anyone who spoke out against.

The 4.00am knock on the door was infamous, and thousands upon thousands disappeared under Malenkov Beria and Stalin. Saddams activities pale into almost insignificance by comparison, because it was all systematic and quietly done. Remember all the writers who ended up in asylums for example.

To visit this kind of totalitarian regime on the already crushed Eastern Europeans was IMHO a 'criminal' betrayal of whole nations. It doesn't surprise me that two Baltic States wouldn't attend the Red Square parade.

Have we forgotten East Germany and the Stazi' so quickly?

Novo

I don't think that eradicating the indigenous peoples can really be placed at the door of the Americans. It was mostly the English, French and Spanish that should be blamed. Similarly the horrendous conditions of the slave trade - although some Americans continued with both for a considerable period.

I wasn't attempting to justify the activities of various Russian dictators - just pointing out that very few politicians/leaders are really blameless. History books consist mostly of lists of horrendous massacres of defenceless civilians ordered by some power-mad bloke in control of an army.

Bush is no different. He is just following in the footsteps of his many predecessors and, in some cases, rôle models. Interesting that he feels that he has to justify himself by diverting attention to an old enemy.

Personally I do not believe I have enough info about the atrocities that occured in eastern europe under soviet domination to be able to judge on this one.

Interesting debate though.

>>"I don't think that eradicating the indigenous peoples can really be placed at the door of the Americans. It was mostly the English, French and Spanish that should be blamed."

My history is a little patchy.

The dieases that the first Europeans carried across did have a terrible toll on many native peoples, though I understood that the transmission of disease was not by any means always deliberate or even desired.

How much straight English-vs.-native genocidal warfare was there before the USA was formed, or Canada took on its present form (rather than native peoples taking sides in English vs. French conflicts, the struggles for US independence, or Europeans taking sides in pre-existing native conflicts)?

as to it being mostly the Spanish, French and English fault I think it was 80-90% of the indigenous population that was wiped out by diseases brought over by Europeans
however peoples descended from the indigenous population form a much greater part of the population of countries settled by the Spanish
because the US was settled much more heavily the indigenous population was pushed out of the areas capable of supporting a large population rather than being retained as a subject workforce
this occured largely after the US became independent and resulted in near extermination of the indigenous population in the US
most countries settled by the Spanish still have large indigenous populations

What about the famous Trail of Tears, a road on which Cherokee (I think?) people were driven out of their land - so named, obviously, because of the immense suffering they endured on the journey. They were essentially driven by the US military. They were treated brutally - especially the women; many were raped and abused - and many died on the way. They were 'relocated' eventually to the Midwest, after coming from Georgia and the surrounding area. I think.

Or should that be 'infamous'?

Infamous, I'd think.

http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html

NBY

You have eyes, i can see you.

There is no escape.



Did you get my email?

MSN

zdt

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/13/opinion/main695144.shtml

Thought I'd throw this article into the mix.