Yea, I really don't disagree with you on anything said, other than I dont think that we should consider the far left ideologies to be susceptible to an individual taking over, being attributed to the ideology it self contributing to that person who took over, basiclly that, stalin, mao, hitler, Caesar, they in my opinion, would have sought out power no matter the system in place, and would rule in similar fashion, not depending on the ideology at the time. That Hitler could have very easily run the USSR just as brutal as Stalin, and vice versa, Stalin being a Fascist instead of leftist...but like I said at the top, i dont disagree with you on anything. I do however, think Americans should be opened minded when they hear the word socialism, and not immediately react, point, yell "Pinko!", the far right loves to tap into the populations fears, and honestly ignorance, and use that against them, using their emotions against them, and the more hysteria and equating socialism with statism as being one, and not something different, is making it pretty obvious that propaganda is still a driving force in 21st century America...sorry for mis spellings and all, my phone sucks...

Every state has a ridiculous number of atrocities in their past nowadays. The US does a fabulous job (or used to do a fabulous job) at making you forget that we are no different in that regard all while making the Soviets look very, very bad. That still happens today. Having seen what the Soviets did in Berlin, it's pretty clear that they had some shitty ideals, but it's not like we are squeaky clean either. Gunfighter seems unaware of this.

The Soviets are friggin' amateurs compared to the Red Chinese. Yeah, America was awful rough on the Natives for a couple of centuries, but we have never slaughtered millions of people wholesale on the scale that the Red Chinese have and continue to do.

Uhh... uhh...

UHHHHHHH....

*blows up*

Ever heard of smallpox, Gunfighter? That's a fucking slaughter. You're ignorant beyond comprehension. Use the internet. Do research. Our genocide is the largest genocide EVER.

- ehh You might wanna check your facts on that. And if you remove 100 % of so many different kind of tribes it just isn't anything to try to talk down. USA's atrocities against the indians was in their time just as brutal and systematic as Stalin and Hitler was. Futhermore no one in their right minds can say that the usage of 2 atomic bombs isn't anything to compare with Hitler and Stalins and for that matter these so called "red chinese"...

Have you heard of the Tulsa Race Riot, Gunfighter. Yeah, that was kinda horrible.

Lets be fair here, every empire that has ever existed has committed atrocities and yes the US is an empire (we just are a new version which relies on allegiance of smaller states rather than annexation). I think it becomes very subjective territory when you compare atrocities. For example a German Jew would highly disagree that the US expansion and genocide of native peoples was worse than the holocaust. The entire idea of an atrocity is that it is dependent on perspective. That's why 19th century Americans saw nothing wrong with it and why today many americans continue to see nothing wrong with it.

Now on to the discussion of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki I have spent many hours contemplating and researching that specific event for my own mind to settle, honestly I don't know where I stand, because to truly decide if those bombs were necessary or justified requires a very broad definition of the the value of human life. In one instance several hundred thousand people die and in the other several million possibly die. None of us can or will ever understand what it is like to make a decision like that and it is ignorant for us to pretend we know the answers. In the shoes of Truman he could risk a land invasion costing millions of Japanese, America, and Soviet lives; or he could drop 2 bombs that definitely kill several hundred thousand. That is a hard decision to make and I just hope no one ever has to make that decision again.

Lots of empires have had provinces and such. That's not new.

"Our genocide is the largest genocide EVER."

Cite it. Communism has killed way more people than American expansionism, and don't even try to bullshit me otherwise.

@bo- difference between a province and what the US has. A province exists for the sole benefit of the empire. The US creates alliances with economically smaller and/or militarily smaller states (Canada, Mexico, all members of NATO, Australia, Japan, S.Korea, and countless more) which exist for the benefit of themselves and their people but happen to also benefit the US' interests. Out of all of the recognized empires in history the US is the only one which owes its entirety to this process, England began this but after they built their empire on the classic process of imperialist expansion. I am not arguing that america did not imperialistically expand; I cite Puerto Rico, Guam, The Phillipines, Liberia, and various others; I however am arguing that the US derives its power from this new form of empire, while England employed it as a last ditch effort to maintain control of their empire.

Puerto Rico, Guam, The Phillipines---was probably the most imperialistic war that America ever fought. Some people may argue that it wasn't the most but it was one of them
Liberia---Well, America formed it for the free slaves. Not really a similar case.
It does have much more "soft power" than countries have historically had.

The suppression of the Indians was a horrible act but not nearly as bad as the Nazis. The Nazis were much more systematic and much more cruel. The plague wasn't really a immoral act or a "genocide". It was technically a genocide but not in the sense that the word is currently used. The atomic bombs were horrible and now, probably correctly, considered war crimes to use. I think Truman made the correct choice. His job was to protect american lives and he was fighting a war. He wasn't really in a "normal" circumstance

"It does have much more "soft power" than countries have historically had." was discussing america and should have been in the following paragaph

SamH- we both can't respond logically, haven't you learned on this forum as soon as 2 people use logic the rest stop arguing.

I don't think it is limited to this forum.

Gunfighter: Communism in China has killed, but unintentionally. Therefore it can't register as genocide. All intentional deaths in those countries (from the Purges to Tiananmen) were not motivated by Communism, they were motivated by power. You can't give their credit to Communism. Well, technically you can give the Revolutions in those countries to Communism, as they killed very much in the name of Communism. China's "Great Leap Forward" is probably where your point has its best roots. 45 million deaths from a program to spur industrialization in China through Communism. I'm necessarily arguing with you, just qualifying your statement.

@Gunfighter ... sure.

Here's a line from David Stannard, author of "American Holocaust":

[The indigenous in the Americans underwent the] "worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people." He estimated the death toll to be approximately 100 million over 400 years.

For the other side of things I'll cite reason.com, a source I hate but I figure you like, which says that the various communist regimes killed 94 million.

So what do you say, even fight? I'll say give or take 6 million because I can't even begin to comprehend how something so stupid kills 6 million people, so let's just assume that both are at 94 flat for your sake even though that's probably generous on both ends.

@CB ... you're defining an ally, not a state. I don't know how you consider Japan, Australia, and South Korea to be our states - they are our allies. Numerous empires have done that. Most of them haven't over a third of a continent to themselves, but sheer size hardly seems to matter nowadays anyway.

@bo- *Facepalm* just re-read my posts. I never said that those are "our" states. the word state is used my mildly smart people to refer to international bodies. I was saying that we make other nations our allies and then use them for our benefit. SamH called this "soft power".....................

You said this, while talking about the US:

"we just are a new version which relies on allegiance of smaller states"

Here, I'll name some states:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

A good portion of those broke their allegiance in the mid-1800s and formed another country, so yeah, we depend on their allegiance in order to maintain the union.

I'm pretty sure that with globalization, everyone is dependent on someone else. Besides, you forgot the nation that we are truly dependent on - China - not our ally at all.

Bo you are literally ignoring the primary definition of "State" in the rest of the world.... yes here in america we call those listed places states but the states I was referring to were the ones THE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD, calls states. You seem to be the only FUCKTARD who doesn't understand that difference in definition even after I BLATANTLY explained it to you. So just to clarify here is the definition of state that I meant: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 'Germany, Italy, and other European states'
synonyms:country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
'an autonomous state"

Now I will politely ask you to very very kindly.... fuck off.

You should list all of the United States again just to clarify my understanding of your fucking stupidity because I am quite lost as to how stupid you are and a list of the 50 states again should suffice to gt me more clear on that. Maybe you should include territories in that list as well. and just so I know there aren't any overlaps can you list all of the international states as well. Just want to clarify your stupidity.

All right, just ignore the fact that the main premise of your entire point is wrong because you excluded China, the only country that actually matters when discussing the United States dependencies, and yell at me through a computer screen.

I wasn't listing countries the US is dependent on I was listing countries that are dependent on the US or act dependent on the US.

I would hesitate to classify American expansionism as a genocide, because it was more of an open war over territory on numerous occasions. Some shit was really fucked up (smallpox blankets; arguably a primitive form of biological warfare), but suggesting that America killed 100 million people wholesale in a systematic fashion is disingenuous.

Furthermore, suggesting that the Native Americans were helpless victims is an outright lie and an insult to their warrior culture, not to mention an insult to the memory of countless NA warriors and US servicemen/settlers who fell on both sides during the 302 years of intermittent conflict.
__

I will also concede that I cannot accurately classify Red Chinese/Soviet actions as "genocide", when "mass murder" and "politicide" are more accurate terms. However, I stand behind my assertion that totalitarian communism is by far the most homicidal form of government in existence. The active effort to hide Red Chinese atrocities from public memory represents a horrific and racist double standard. I guess millions of dead guys only matter if they were white.

I agree with almost everything you said Gunfighter. The murder of the native americans was not systematic, it was sporadic, and generally fought through wars, at least at the beginning, though in those wars the Native Americans were treated worse than many enemies would have been treated at that time. However "The active effort to hide Red Chinese atrocities from public memory represents a horrific and racist double standard. I guess millions of dead guys only matter if they were white. " -----I don't think anyone is trying to hide the atrocities. At least not where I live(which is in the US)

Everyone squabbling over the Native Americans' death toll...

What about the Slave Trade?

Not to diminish but rather to ADD to the claim that the US--as with just about every empire in history, East and West--racked up a pretty high body count.

So even if the death tolls of Native Americans don't get us ranking up their with other states, Gunfighter...the Slave Trade and the hundreds of millions sold into slavery and who died as a result of sea voyages, working conditions, even crueler working conditions, just being treated as, you know, a slave...

Native Americans + Slavery HAS to = A pretty big death toll for the US. Again, to be fair, we can pick on just about anyone here...the UK in India and Ireland, Europe in general when dealing with Africa, what the Ottomans did to the Armenians, etc. I think (to return to the start of this thread) to equate nationalism with imperialism and atrocities as these UC Irvine kids did is foolish, but as I said above with expansion, just because it doesn't follow as a necessity doesn't mean it can't occur anyway.

Nationalism does not and should not be equated with genocide or imperialism, but it CAN play a large part in those things occurring...on the other hand, it can also be used to unite peoples, from Gandhi in India to the US Founding Fathers to the sort of proto-nationalism we see reflected in epics such as the Iliad, Aeneid, and Henriad.

"I would hesitate to classify American expansionism as a genocide, because it was more of an open war over territory on numerous occasions. Some shit was really fucked up (smallpox blankets; arguably a primitive form of biological warfare), but suggesting that America killed 100 million people wholesale in a systematic fashion is disingenuous."

Kinda torn on that argument, to be honest, Gunfighter...I wouldn't classify expansion as genocide, either. ...That being said, there's likewise nothing stopping me from saying we expanded and *also* committed genocide, rather than saying one was the same as the other. We just happened to do both.

Then again, I find the whole concept of "we" problematic when we talk about nations and genocides and all that...I mean, none of us were there, obviously...and lineage-wise...well, I'm curious--who among us has American ancestry which would've stretched back far enough to play a role in either slavery or attacking the Native Americans, and how many are more recent immigrants? My family came from Poland, Russia, Austria, etc., around 1890-1900, and stayed in New York until the 1950s-60s...so yeah, we weren't here for that, so I and most American Jews, Greeks, Poles, and other groups who came over in the Ellis Island years wouldn't be included in the cultural "we" of what "we" did to the Native Americans, since strictly speaking...we weren't here yet and had no say in the matter! :p That was actually a running joke a friend and I had with our Native American Literature professor--that me being in part a Jew of Polish/Russian descent and she Armenian, we weren't here..."we" were both busy running away from Russians, just in opposite directions!

So while I think there needs to be change in how American history is taught as to what happened to the Native Americans and who did what, I also can see why people take issue with saying "we" did that when...well...

America's pretty diverse now, it's had a TON of immigrant groups come over the last 125 years alone, and so there's something of an inherent logical flaw in referring to all American history with a collective "we" that way.

"Furthermore, suggesting that the Native Americans were helpless victims is an outright lie and an insult to their warrior culture"

1. No, it's suggesting that in many cases, we DID round different tribes up and systematically go after them...and yes, there are cases where we did not and the story was different, but it's fair to say there were plenty of times we did just that, and that since "Native Americans" is an extremely broad, umbrella term covering hundreds of different ethnic tribes...yeah, still genocide against at least one ethnicity then, yes, out of all the tribes we cut down? Which brings me to...

2. You do realize there were many, many different Native American cultures, and not all of them therefore had a "warrior culture?" But in fairness, and to hit back at the other side, that leads me at least to...

3. I'd frankly like to see Native Americans taught more as distinct tribes and cultures in some history classes, rather than under such a broad umbrella term, because A) It'd be kind of nice to, you know, recognize people that spanned a whole freaking continent had different traditions and were extremely diverse and emphasize as well as celebrate that diversity, and B) Because too often, I think (well-meaning) textbooks try and go too far the other way and depict pre-Columbian North America as an Edenic paradise.

Spoiler alert: it was not. As most anywhere else during the first few thousands of years of human civilization, where there was diversity there was inevitable conflict and war and atrocities all the same.

Now, let's make it clear--THAT DOES *NOT* excuse or erase or in any way diminish what European settlers and Americans settling the land did either. They killed (however you want to construe it, Gunfighter, genocide or wars or anything in between) hundreds of millions in hundreds of different tribes.

All I'm saying is that it kind of feeds into a white-constructed, Dances with Wolves/Pocahontas/Avatar ideal of what Native Americans were, rather than...you know...actually experiencing those cultures for what they actually were. I mean, that's a stereotype as much as Gunfighter's assertion of their all having a "warrior culture."

Gunfighter: You classified it as "totalitarian communism" being the most homicidal. But that lies almost lies in "totalitarian" or possibly "authoritarian." It's the human desire to retain power the way I see it, which is why I don't consider things like the Tiananmen Square Massacre or Stalin's Purges to be killing them with communism. But, again, I would count things like the "Great Leap Forward," which was in every right its own disaster. And if you're going to put the word totalitarian in, implying they already have power, then we might as well not count the Revolutions, which I would have otherwise counted.

I think all three of those comments were actually logical. The slave trade was certainly unexplainable. There war a few mass murders/genocides of various tribes but for the most part these were committed by specific people. A lot of the Native American tribes take offense at being grouped with the other tribes because of how different they were and the fact that many of them were not friends. The thing about who in america is guilty I don't think is relevant. I don't see why heritage should be linked to blame. The question is whether or not America has committed atrocities, which is has, and whether or not that should affect our current perception of America, which I believe it should only to the extent that it is useful. Also the best goverment would be a benevolent communist dictator. Note the benevolent. Communism has a tendency to create dictators and dictators have a tendency to be really bad for the people in their country because they aren't really benevolent. Also please note that this is sort of an intentionally dramatic statement. The Great Leap Forward turned China into a superpower at the expense of its people. I think TrPrado is correct on the issue of communism vs totalianism but the argument seems irrelevant. So far we have decided that a) america has committed atrocities. b) atrocities are not uncommon in the world in general. c) Despite times when America has been more imperialistic there have been times where it favored soft power(arguably now, most people would argue that it currently favors soft power but a tiny portion of the population might disagree). d) some people don't know the definition of state. e) nationalism(even if it i cultural or political) tends to be needed for a genocide, atrocity and imperialism and imperialism itself tends to encourage atrocities and genocides.