Truman dropped the bomb on the Japanese, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. But we don't call him the worst president for killing them, in part because they weren't American citizens. Neither were the Indians. The interment is the worst of these acts IMO because it was perpetrated by the US government against its people.
On topic, I think people may fear Truman because he made the choice to drop the bomb. If he could choose to kill all those people, who knows what he is capable of.
War is hell. Far more people died in fire bombing campaigns throughout the war.
What was America supposed to do about the Indians though? There was tremendous pressure from citizens who wanted the land, we were much more powerful than them, and we didn't risk facing real national censure for seizing the land from them, even though they were sovereign nations. We could have warred with them and taken the land, but we still would have had to force them to completely leave. I don't see why forcing them to leave without warring with them would be worse. Ultimately, manifest destiny meant our occupation of their lands was inevitable. By contrast, the Japanese were citizens entitled to protection by the US government, and that government not only failed to protect them, but actually affirmatively violated their rights.
I guess our land shouldn't have dressed so sluttily.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
For reference, the international definition of genocide. Trail of Tears: genocide! Japanese internment: terrible and un-American, but falls well short of genocide.
You don't think it caused serious mental harm to AMericans of Japanese descent? There is a reason the US govnt payed 1.6B in reparations.
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
Smashed the Confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan - will smash Jackson. Also, real military experience rather than riding to the top of San Juan Hill with other New York gentlemen and reporters after it was taken by actual soldiers.
He was also really really squeamish in actual combat. He really didn't like the sight of blood. I remember an anecdote that he refused to eat meat that wasn't well-done because the juices reminded him too much of blood.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would think that any modern president without military experience would go down really fast here, because the world is just a safer place now than it used to be, and even an athletic guy like Obama probably has very little real world fighting experience.
Teddy gets it based not only on personal combat experience but also youth. He was only 42 when elected. Washington was 56 or 58, and those were harder years.
wait, what? I thought the constitution mandated 45 min?
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't understand this definition of genocide. Is a war of conquest automatically a genocide? Is Hamas a genocidal group, because their intent is to destroy Israel? Why is it genocide to move the Indians from their land to different land pursuant to a treaty they negotiated with the Federal government? Also, do all of the presidents in the battle royal have genocidal intentions, since they are planning on wiping out the group of "presidents of the US?"
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Nevertheless, the treaty, passed by Congress by a single vote, and signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, was imposed by his successor President Martin Van Buren who allowed Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama an armed force of 7,000 made up of militia, regular army, and volunteers under General Winfield Scott to round up about 13,000 Cherokees into concentration camps at the U.S. Indian Agency near Cleveland, Tennessee before being sent to the West. Most of the deaths occurred from disease, starvation and cold in these camps. Their homes were burned and their property destroyed and plundered.
Then they made the survivors walk 1000 miles in the winter. Along the way they were given smallpox blankets. You know, to help with the cold.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
LBJ.
Tall. Strong. From Texas. Favorite recreational activities included eating poisonous spiders, bombing small Asian countries, and outliving all the good Kennedys.
This may be late but my money is on Andrew Jackson. The man was tougher than most armies. Even had a bullet in him as president from a duel. Easily could take all comers in hand to hand. And the vitriol from his mouth would even make TR blush. Also because he was a dick.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Wait, is Grant going to be sober for this? Because that make him a tough fight for Jackson. If now, well then he gets pushed down the list. Also Lincoln may not of been a military man but he was tough.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
Cleveland, for one.
Bush 2, obviously.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
Cleveland, for one.
Bush 2, obviously.
Wasn't he in the National Guard? I'm not a Bush apologist, but someone had to serve in the guard. It's not as glorified as actually fighting, but I wouldn't go so far as to compare him to a draft dodger.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
Cleveland, for one.
Bush 2, obviously.
Wasn't he in the National Guard? I'm not a Bush apologist, but someone had to serve in the guard. It's not as glorified as actually fighting, but I wouldn't go so far as to compare him to a draft dodger.
The point bum brings up relates to some controversy that arose in 2004 regarding whether or not Pres. George W. Bush fulfilled his the terms of his six year service obligation. There's a few things about his service record which I think are questionable, but I wouldn't call it draft dodging. Primarily because I think that terming that draft dodging cheapens the degree of draft dodging that his running mate, Dick Cheney, sunk to.
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
You're missing the intent bit in the opening clause, which makes it an argument again.
... it seemed pretty intentional.
EDIT
To expound on that a bit, I don't really think the Trail of Tears was to wipe out Indians, but to deal with a problem (Indians had land and we had to do something to get that land and clear them out) while culling them... which is more horrific than internment camps to be sure, but it was also at a different time. Similar to how calling someone the N word 2 centuries ago has more to do with the social envirnoment than it would be now, where you're probably just a racist.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I think all the draft dodger presidents might get taken down hard and fast by the military men. I would imagine TR, Washington, Grant, Jackson etc. would be disgusted by that behavior.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
Cleveland, for one.
Bush 2, obviously.
Wasn't he in the National Guard? I'm not a Bush apologist, but someone had to serve in the guard. It's not as glorified as actually fighting, but I wouldn't go so far as to compare him to a draft dodger.
The point bum brings up relates to some controversy that arose in 2004 regarding whether or not Pres. George W. Bush fulfilled his the terms of his six year service obligation. There's a few things about his service record which I think are questionable, but I wouldn't call it draft dodging. Primarily because I think that terming that draft dodging cheapens the degree of draft dodging that his running mate, Dick Cheney, sunk to.
Pulling strings via your daddy to get in the national guard is dodging the draft.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
You're missing the intent bit in the opening clause, which makes it an argument again.
... it seemed pretty intentional.
EDIT
To expound on that a bit, I don't really think the Trail of Tears was to wipe out Indians, but to deal with a problem (Indians had land and we had to do something to get that land and clear them out) while culling them... which is more horrific than internment camps to be sure, but it was also at a different time. Similar to how calling someone the N word 2 centuries ago has more to do with the social envirnoment than it would be now, where you're probably just a racist.
Also, the Japanese were citizens, and the Indians were not. . . That seems pretty important to me.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
You're missing the intent bit in the opening clause, which makes it an argument again.
... it seemed pretty intentional.
EDIT
To expound on that a bit, I don't really think the Trail of Tears was to wipe out Indians, but to deal with a problem (Indians had land and we had to do something to get that land and clear them out) while culling them... which is more horrific than internment camps to be sure, but it was also at a different time. Similar to how calling someone the N word 2 centuries ago has more to do with the social envirnoment than it would be now, where you're probably just a racist.
Also, the Japanese were citizens, and the Indians were not. . . That seems pretty important to me.
It shouldn't.
It's not less genocidal just because they can't vote.
President Obama carpet nuking China (assume that no one retaliates via MADD or international sanctions) is worse than him directing the NSA to read all email from Arab Americans [T/F]
Trail of tears was more an ethnic cleansing with genocidal tendencies
Forced migration constitutes genocide - per definition of the word. So yeah, it was.
...aaaaactually, it doesn't.
I'm not going into SKFM's deliriums here (yeah, as AMFE, let Obama nuke the Chinese because they're not citizens), but "genocide" is somewhat of a poisoned word. If you follow the legal definition of the word "genocide", Stalin's killings in Poland and Ukraine (with the partial exception of the Holodomor) aren't "genocide", since the killings were politically motivated.
Long story short, IMHO Timothy Snyder had the right idea when he wrote Bloodlands: discard the word entirely, and describe mass killings as, well, mass killings.
+1
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I can't find it now, but I can swear I have seen it included in the definition when this discussion was last going on.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
You're missing the intent bit in the opening clause, which makes it an argument again.
... it seemed pretty intentional.
EDIT
To expound on that a bit, I don't really think the Trail of Tears was to wipe out Indians, but to deal with a problem (Indians had land and we had to do something to get that land and clear them out) while culling them... which is more horrific than internment camps to be sure, but it was also at a different time. Similar to how calling someone the N word 2 centuries ago has more to do with the social envirnoment than it would be now, where you're probably just a racist.
Also, the Japanese were citizens, and the Indians were not. . . That seems pretty important to me.
It shouldn't.
It's not less genocidal just because they can't vote.
President Obama carpet nuking China (assume that no one retaliates via MADD or international sanctions) is worse than him directing the NSA to read all email from Arab Americans [T/F]
It depends. If it helps America to nuke China to hell, then that is better than breaching the rights of US citizens as an action by the POTUS. As a man, maybe he is worse for carpet bombing China, but as the president, he absolutely has to put American citizens first.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I can't find it now, but I can swear I have seen it included in the definition when this discussion was last going on.
What happened to the Native Americans can almost certainly be counted as a genocide, but I guess if we want to boil it down to legaleze, the trail of tears itself isn't.
To my mind this is a retarded splitting of hairs, but this is where we find ourselves.
But more to the topic, since it's been a couple pages since I said it.
Theodore Roosevelt.
Always Theodore Roosevelt.
+1
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Actually at the time of Japanese internment the general notion of 'if you aren't white you aren't one of us' was still pretty goddamn overwhelmingly common so even I by law they were citizens it doesn't mean they were viewed by society as 'us'.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Actually at the time of Japanese internment the general notion of 'if you aren't white you aren't one of us' was still pretty goddamn overwhelmingly common so even I by law they were citizens it doesn't mean they were viewed by society as 'us'.
All of our citizens are entitled to protection under the law, not just the popular ones.
What do people who think we were wrong on the trail of tears think we should have done? We were stronger, we wanted the land, they had. The rest of the world was not going to censure us for taking it. Should we have just let them keep it forever? Were we equally wrong for strong arming Spain into giving us Florida?
Jackson always makes top 10 lists, and I'm pretty sure most of the time it isn't because he was an unkillable demon of a man.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Yeah we could have let them keep the land, it's called the right thing to do. You're basically advocating israeli policy on settlement camps.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
What's the story with GM. I keep seeing people saying that GM is dying again.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually at the time of Japanese internment the general notion of 'if you aren't white you aren't one of us' was still pretty goddamn overwhelmingly common so even I by law they were citizens it doesn't mean they were viewed by society as 'us'.
All of our citizens are entitled to protection under the law, not just the popular ones.
What do people who think we were wrong on the trail of tears think we should have done? We were stronger, we wanted the land, they had. The rest of the world was not going to censure us for taking it. Should we have just let them keep it forever? Were we equally wrong for strong arming Spain into giving us Florida?
Jackson always makes top 10 lists, and I'm pretty sure most of the time it isn't because he was an unkillable demon of a man.
You've got a lot of nice things. If I'm stronger than you and no one is going to stop me, can I just come into your house and take them?
You're a lawyer, you should be able to suss out why people are having this reaction.
Actually at the time of Japanese internment the general notion of 'if you aren't white you aren't one of us' was still pretty goddamn overwhelmingly common so even I by law they were citizens it doesn't mean they were viewed by society as 'us'.
All of our citizens are entitled to protection under the law, not just the popular ones.
What do people who think we were wrong on the trail of tears think we should have done? We were stronger, we wanted the land, they had. The rest of the world was not going to censure us for taking it. Should we have just let them keep it forever? Were we equally wrong for strong arming Spain into giving us Florida?
Jackson always makes top 10 lists, and I'm pretty sure most of the time it isn't because he was an unkillable demon of a man.
You've got a lot of nice things. If I'm stronger than you and no one is going to stop me, can I just come into your house and take them?
You're a lawyer, you should be able to suss out why people are having this reaction.
You won't because I will call the police and they will apprehend you for violating the law. International law doesn't really work that way even now, and it certainly did not then.
The US government could have declared war on each sovereign tribe and conquered them all (again) and kicked them out. Instead, we pursued a diplomatic solution.
I ask again, we're we wrong on Florida?
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Posts
I guess our land shouldn't have dressed so sluttily.
You don't think it caused serious mental harm to AMericans of Japanese descent? There is a reason the US govnt payed 1.6B in reparations.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
He was also really really squeamish in actual combat. He really didn't like the sight of blood. I remember an anecdote that he refused to eat meat that wasn't well-done because the juices reminded him too much of blood.
And you seem to be ignoring
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Which would qualify it as genocide...
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Because the move itself was deadly.
Then they made the survivors walk 1000 miles in the winter. Along the way they were given smallpox blankets. You know, to help with the cold.
Tall. Strong. From Texas. Favorite recreational activities included eating poisonous spiders, bombing small Asian countries, and outliving all the good Kennedys.
You're missing the intent bit in the opening clause, which makes it an argument again.
Which presidents were draft dodgers besides Clinton?
Cleveland, for one.
Bush 2, obviously.
Wasn't he in the National Guard? I'm not a Bush apologist, but someone had to serve in the guard. It's not as glorified as actually fighting, but I wouldn't go so far as to compare him to a draft dodger.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The point bum brings up relates to some controversy that arose in 2004 regarding whether or not Pres. George W. Bush fulfilled his the terms of his six year service obligation. There's a few things about his service record which I think are questionable, but I wouldn't call it draft dodging. Primarily because I think that terming that draft dodging cheapens the degree of draft dodging that his running mate, Dick Cheney, sunk to.
... it seemed pretty intentional.
EDIT
To expound on that a bit, I don't really think the Trail of Tears was to wipe out Indians, but to deal with a problem (Indians had land and we had to do something to get that land and clear them out) while culling them... which is more horrific than internment camps to be sure, but it was also at a different time. Similar to how calling someone the N word 2 centuries ago has more to do with the social envirnoment than it would be now, where you're probably just a racist.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Pulling strings via your daddy to get in the national guard is dodging the draft.
Also, the Japanese were citizens, and the Indians were not. . . That seems pretty important to me.
Forced migration constitutes genocide - per definition of the word. So yeah, it was.
It shouldn't.
It's not less genocidal just because they can't vote.
President Obama carpet nuking China (assume that no one retaliates via MADD or international sanctions) is worse than him directing the NSA to read all email from Arab Americans [T/F]
...aaaaactually, it doesn't.
I'm not going into SKFM's deliriums here (yeah, as AMFE, let Obama nuke the Chinese because they're not citizens), but "genocide" is somewhat of a poisoned word. If you follow the legal definition of the word "genocide", Stalin's killings in Poland and Ukraine (with the partial exception of the Holodomor) aren't "genocide", since the killings were politically motivated.
Long story short, IMHO Timothy Snyder had the right idea when he wrote Bloodlands: discard the word entirely, and describe mass killings as, well, mass killings.
It depends. If it helps America to nuke China to hell, then that is better than breaching the rights of US citizens as an action by the POTUS. As a man, maybe he is worse for carpet bombing China, but as the president, he absolutely has to put American citizens first.
What happened to the Native Americans can almost certainly be counted as a genocide, but I guess if we want to boil it down to legaleze, the trail of tears itself isn't.
To my mind this is a retarded splitting of hairs, but this is where we find ourselves.
But more to the topic, since it's been a couple pages since I said it.
Theodore Roosevelt.
Always Theodore Roosevelt.
All of our citizens are entitled to protection under the law, not just the popular ones.
What do people who think we were wrong on the trail of tears think we should have done? We were stronger, we wanted the land, they had. The rest of the world was not going to censure us for taking it. Should we have just let them keep it forever? Were we equally wrong for strong arming Spain into giving us Florida?
Jackson always makes top 10 lists, and I'm pretty sure most of the time it isn't because he was an unkillable demon of a man.
You've got a lot of nice things. If I'm stronger than you and no one is going to stop me, can I just come into your house and take them?
You're a lawyer, you should be able to suss out why people are having this reaction.
You won't because I will call the police and they will apprehend you for violating the law. International law doesn't really work that way even now, and it certainly did not then.
The US government could have declared war on each sovereign tribe and conquered them all (again) and kicked them out. Instead, we pursued a diplomatic solution.
I ask again, we're we wrong on Florida?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/
You know. They could.
You're looking to bring us down a specious garden path, I'm not feeling like going for a walk just now.