| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| We don't have to do anything of the sort. Stop apologizing |
I completely agree with you, it's pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When they kicked people of European stock out during Boxer Rebellions it was cleverly coined 'anti-imperialism'. When Americans kicked anyone else out it was called 'racism'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the one hand the act was pretty terrible, so the government should give an apology. But it should only be a minor line, not a major issue.
I do agree with Titus, that there is no reason any American should have to apologize for anything. People deserve neither blame nor credit for their country's past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| On the one hand the act was pretty terrible |
It wasn't pretty terrible. It was the normal pattern of social and political organization. It isn't now, but will be again in the future. America is Balkanizing. The UK is Balkanizing. France is Balkanizing. Hell, the Balkans are Balkanizing (see Serbia's new president). I'm confident that 100 years from now it will no longer be called Balkanizing but instead Americanizing.
History is men organizing themselves into groups to defend their interests.
History isn't over (I can't believe that sentence even makes sense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This discussion reminded me of a quote from the late Joe Sobran:
| Quote: |
"Liberal: one who can be open-minded about anything except the past; about that he is strictly a bigot." |
When looking for the exact wording I found a collection of his definitions:
| Quote: |
bigot: one who practices sociology without a license
diversity: a euphemism for discrimination against whites
human needs: socialist or redistributive programs
isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries
labels: clear identification. People in the Hive like to say they reject labels.
multiculturalism: the refusal to take any culture seriously
notorious: having only detractors
opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors
peace: enfeeblement of nonsocialist powers
priorities: subordination of anti-socialist to pro-socialist tendencies
psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people
public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks
rich: politicians' nickname for "other people"
voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth |
End hijack.
I am giddy with anticipation at what the regime will apologize for next. I put my money on Operation Wetback. Democracy demands it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| On the one hand the act was pretty terrible |
It wasn't pretty terrible. It was the normal pattern of social and political organization. It isn't now, but will be again in the future. America is Balkanizing. The UK is Balkanizing. France is Balkanizing. Hell, the Balkans are Balkanizing (see Serbia's new president). I'm confident that 100 years from now it will no longer be called Balkanizing but instead Americanizing.
History is men organizing themselves into groups to defend their interests.
History isn't over (I can't believe that sentence even makes sense). |
Pat Buchanan fan?
I will agree with that too. What I'm saying is that it's an apology that gets brought up and tacked on the end of some bill and is simply "a matter of record", not some self-flagellating teachable moment. This wasn't a Rape of Nanking or unprovoked invasion or deliberate dumping of known toxic waste. It was a mildly racist policy in a very racist time. Heck, by the standards of the day, it was probably 'neutral' ("Hey, we aren't kicking them out and slaughtering them")
So the apology should basically be-
"We apologize. Alright, next on the order of business..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A world in which we follow late-period Samuel Huntington off his cliff is a world in which we all end up dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
This discussion reminded me of a quote from the late Joe Sobran:
Quote:
"Liberal: one who can be open-minded about anything except the past; about that he is strictly a bigot." |
I would say the time period received a balanced treatment in this thread, with special emphasis on the rather neutral truth that those who lived then are all dead now. The most condescending comment about the period came after your unpertinent observation:
| Steelrails wrote: |
| It was a mildly racist policy in a very racist time. Heck, by the standards of the day, it was probably 'neutral' ("Hey, we aren't kicking them out and slaughtering them") |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| A world in which we follow late-period Samuel Huntington off his cliff is a world in which we all end up dead. |
Do elaborate, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| A world in which we follow late-period Samuel Huntington off his cliff is a world in which we all end up dead. |
Do elaborate, please. |
Read Samuel Huntington and get back to me. It's right up your alley, trust me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| A world in which we follow late-period Samuel Huntington off his cliff is a world in which we all end up dead. |
Do elaborate, please. |
Read Samuel Huntington and get back to me. It's right up your alley, trust me. |
I have read Mr Huntington, though it was sometime ago. What exactly do you mean by 'following late-period Samuel Huntington off his cliff' and how exactly does it relate to this debate? From what I remember, one of the key points in "Who are we?" was that--as Titus alluded to--continued diversity, fueled by never-ending immigration, would lead to conflict and balkanisation. Presumably, you disagree with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Huntington's later works are highly speculative by the standards of IR and the policy proposals stemming from them are unrealistic in a globalized world. No longer is it possible to close your shutters and keep the world out. A knee-jerk antagonistic approach to foreign policy (and domestic policy) is short-sighted and essentially renders already difficult policy tasks essentially unsolvable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the policy proposals stemming from them are unrealistic in a globalized world |
Could you be any more vague?
| Quote: |
| No longer is it possible to close your shutters and keep the world out |
It is indeed possible to have a strict immigration policy if there is the political will to do so. The 'no longer possible' shtick is a smokescreen, designed to convey to the ignorant proles the message that "we would really like to do something about all these foreigners coming into the country, but we simply can't"; when, in fact, those that say such things are usually open-borders internationalists who know very well that very few people share their outlook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:17 am Post subject: Re: US apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Here's a round-up of Chinese press reactions.
|
" U.S. House of Representatives apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act (pg 21)
People's Daily/Renmin Ribao (Daily, circ. 2.4 million):
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the NO. 683 proposal and decided to apologize for the acts of excluding Chinese, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. The article pointed out that five days after the U.S. Senate apologized for the Chinese Exclusion Act last year, an act to force the RMB to speed up its appreciation was approved despite strong opposition internally and externally. The article commented that the U.S. is still using beautiful words to cover its purposes of excluding China, restricting China politically and economically. "
That part is probably true, now. This was during the Qing dynasty when America was still a bit isolationist and foreign powers were secretly meddling in China. China was at a weak point then. It was nothing compared to what other nations elites had done to China at the time and were plotting to do - namely parts of Europe, Russia and Japan. The US was angel-like compared to them in those times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
As ugly as the U.S policy was it was nothing compared to what the British did to a peaceful nation with a well behaved literate sophisticated population
The Brits basically curb stomped China and treated the Chinese as less than human. This does not justify the U.S. actions but t there were worse things being done to the Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
