Top 10 Shameful Events in American History

[Mr. Hyde]

The list contains some cultural, economic, political and social developments in addition to particular "events". I think of an event as being a singular happening i.e.:

The massacre at Sand Creek
The lynching of Henry Smith
The murder of Emmett Till
The Rodney King beating
The Reginald Denny beating
The Fidel Lopez beating
The massacre at Wounded Knee
The Matthew Shepard murder
The James Byrd murder

The list could go on and on. These types of individual events portray the darkest side of our culture, not necessarily the United States as a nation or people. Some of these events took place as our cultural and social conscience was developing and therefore can be considered as catalytic events that, while extremely tragic and senseless at the time, ultimately led to positive change in our society.

America has nothing to apologize for. We're not perfect but we're a damned-sight better than anyplace else so anyone who wants to throw stones at us had better look to see what the walls of their house are made of beforehand. Similar lists could be compiled for every country on earth.

That was my thought too...saying slavery is an "event" is like saying that colonialism was an event. An event is time-specific and time-limited occurrence, like an assassination, or MAYBE a war. Slavery in the US was more like a period, or policy.

 

[meesterperfect]

Yes this is all pretty much true as I understand it, except the abolitionist wing of Lincoln's republican party started out as the minority wing, as I recall, and was a wing that most certainly didn't include Lincoln - until 1863.




Oh but they do! Thousands of volumes worth. It's one of our most treasured national ideas that we fought a war specifically to end slavery.

But as girk points out it's partially a myth, as the majority of Union soldiers didn't give two shits about the fate of the black man. That's not what the great flood tide of volunteers at the outset of the war were fighting for. The Lincoln administration grandfathered abolition in as a second war aim 2 1/2 years into the war. And as gilk also pointed out, this did not create a new wave of idealistic volunteers. On the contrary, it created a great deal of controversy, dissension, and even horrific draft riots.

but they did fight it, and they did end it, and a shitload died and suffered for it.
thats as basic as I can put it.
why debate it?

" oh well they fought it but they didnt want to so it doesn't count"
bullshit.

 

[ace.venturer]

Sorry lady, I beg to differ. How soon we forget European colonialism and the fucked up impacts it has had on other nations which are still felt today. France, for example, completely fucked over Haiti, parts of Africa, and Southeast Asia. The English, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the Portuguese also all followed the same formula of conqueror and fuck over for centuries. The Dutch and the Portuguese were the ones who started the Atlantic Slave Trade. As an American, I can't even begin to tell you the amount of residual backlash that exists in this country today with that shit being at the focal point of it all. Not trying to downplay America's role in it, but lets not forget where the practice came from. Lets also not forget our friends King Leopold II, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the great Adolph Hitler which is an indirect reason why this thread exists in the first place.

America has its hands soaked in blood no doubt, but Europe has had its entire body covered in it long before America even existed. American foreign policy isn't great, but Europeans should be the last people pointing fingers about the history of fucked up foreign policy.

Some good points there, captain. :hatsoff:

 

[girk1]

But as girk points out it's partially a myth, as the majority of Union soldiers didn't give two shits about the fate of the black man. That's not what the great flood tide of volunteers at the outset of the war were fighting for. The Lincoln administration grandfathered abolition in as a second war aim 2 1/2 years into the war. And as gilk also pointed out, this did not create a new wave of idealistic volunteers. On the contrary, it created a great deal of controversy, dissension, and even horrific draft riots.

There were many Soldiers who were disgusted by slavery & fought in hopes that it would be ended ,but early on to sell the war the battle cry was "Save The Union" & even Lincoln basically stated that he could care less whether slavery ended or not as long as the Union was Saved. But when he issued the Emancipation proclamation in January 1863 the shit REALLY hit the fan(Resentment boiled over & resulted in the draft Riots) & it was obvious that Lincoln ALWAYS abhorred slavery. The war was going badly for the North & Lincoln eventually out of necessity allowed Black Soldiers (over 250,000) to fight/serve during the Civil War as well & they helped to turn the tide of the WAr.

When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued it was obvious that this was now also a war to free slaves & not just "Saving The Union".

but they did fight it, and they did end it, and a shitload died and suffered for it.
thats as basic as I can put it.
why debate it?

" oh well they fought it but they didnt want to so it doesn't count"
bullshit.

We aren't debating it(you are here with the silly revisionism) . Just saying it was very sad that every other Nation & territory on the planet (besides Haiti where the Slaves for the first time in world history rose & defeated their masters themselves) ended slavery with ZERO bloodshed.

It was unnecessary for a shitload of soldiers to die to end slavery had it not been for silly Southern hubris , ignorance, racism & greed.


The British was the largest Empire the world has ever known & they ended the slave trade in 1808 & abolished slavery in all of it's territories in 1833(Slave Abolition act) -1835 roughly.

You know how many BRITISH soldiers died in the British Civil war to end slavery decades before the U.S.? Zero (0)

The British were thoughtful/wise/humane enough & realized that this horrible institution was untenable & simply ended it through legislation(Slave Trade Act 1807 & Slave Abolition Act 1833).


The Portuguese ended slavery in Brazil & no blood was shed. Zero(0) soldiers killed.:dunno:


Slavery was basically ended with no blood shed in every place in the Western World except for the U.S.:anonymous: And that is shameful

But for some Southerners who refused to accept that the institution was abominable, maybe the U.S could have abolished it without it UNNECESSARILY leading hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths.

 

[Moonchild22]

Must....have....last.....worrrrrd!......Must..... prove....internet...porn people....wronnnng!!!!

 

[Zolf J. Kimbly]

ok, i had the numbers wrong, it was only about 700,000 total, not each side.
happy now?

now that you feel you won something, my point was that war caused so much suffering.
there was so much sacrifice by people who never had a slave, but you never hear about them, it.
never any appreciation given.
just slaves this and slaves that.

And if you mention what I just said people on message boards get on your case about it.

so you wanna hear more about a man who fought and died to end slavery?

you wanna hear about a man that blacks still sing about in their churches even today?

there is such a man

His name was John Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

that is a man who risked everything and fought and died for what he believed in.

a hero to many

that time has not forgotten

 

[pool_hustler]

but they did fight it, and they did end it, and a shitload died and suffered for it.
thats as basic as I can put it.
why debate it?

" oh well they fought it but they didnt want to so it doesn't count"
bullshit.

?

It's not about whether it "counts" or not, it's about understanding what the actual dynamic was. Otherwise you end up embracing a whitewashed, oversimplified version of history.......a version that causes a lot of sectional bitterness to this day. why? Because northerners are portrayed as saviors while the south is portrayed as evil. And neither of those simplistic extremes captures the complex truth.

most northerners fought and died 1) because they were committed to the initial cause or 2) because they were drafted.

That slavery ended by (later) association with that initial cause is a great thing. But it doesn't change the fact that the great majority in the north were not abolitionists. Most, like Lincoln when he took office, would have been perfectly content to let slavery continue to exist where it already existed. Until the war itself caused an evolution in his thinking Lincoln only opposed the spread of slavery into new states/territories.

also.......after the war.......there sure wasn't any welcome mat thrown out for the newly freed black man who ventured north. On the contrary.... :o

 

[Ulysses31]

Sorry lady, I beg to differ. How soon we forget European colonialism and the fucked up impacts it has had on other nations which are still felt today. France, for example, completely fucked over Haiti, parts of Africa, and Southeast Asia. The English, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the Portuguese also all followed the same formula of conqueror and fuck over for centuries. The Dutch and the Portuguese were the ones who started the Atlantic Slave Trade. As an American, I can't even begin to tell you the amount of residual backlash that exists in this country today with that shit being at the focal point of it all. Not trying to downplay America's role in it, but lets not forget where the practice came from. Lets also not forget our friends King Leopold II, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the great Adolph Hitler which is an indirect reason why this thread exists in the first place.

America has its hands soaked in blood no doubt, but Europe has had its entire body covered in it long before America even existed. American foreign policy isn't great, but Europeans should be the last people pointing fingers about the history of fucked up foreign policy.

Although you are correct that Europe has far more blood on its hands than anyone else you have to bear in mind that European colonialism began in the 1400s as European countries ruled by ruthless kings/queens (which the whole country had to follow or face treason charges) sent explorers to find new lands and forge new trade routes. Even as the monarchies fell you still had ruthless dictators like Bonaparte, Mussolini and Hitler. As far as I'm aware America has always been a democracy with a President elected by the people, the whole country which founded on liberty and freedom on a clean slate as it were and I guess that's why they face more scrutiny than the other nations. Not saying anyone's more right or wrong but the differences between European empires and the United States need to be taken into consideration.

 

[meesterperfect]

?

It's not about whether it "counts" or not, it's about understanding what the actual dynamic was. Otherwise you end up embracing a whitewashed, oversimplified version of history.......a version that causes a lot of sectional bitterness to this day. why? Because northerners are portrayed as saviors while the south is portrayed as evil. And neither of those simplistic extremes captures the complex truth.

most northerners fought and died 1) because they were committed to the initial cause or 2) because they were drafted.

That slavery ended by (later) association with that initial cause is a great thing. But it doesn't change the fact that the great majority in the north were not abolitionists. Most, like Lincoln when he took office, would have been perfectly content to let slavery continue to exist where it already existed. Until the war itself caused an evolution in his thinking Lincoln only opposed the spread of slavery into new states/territories.

also.......after the war.......there sure wasn't any welcome mat thrown out for the newly freed black man who ventured north. On the contrary.... :o

I agree with the highlighted part, that was actually part of my point.

I don't know why I'm getting flak over this, I acknowledge the sacrifice, whether they were drafted, joined, forced at gunpoint or whatever.......they still did it.
How blacks were treated after, what brazil or haiti did is not relevent to my posts.

these people, the whole country went through hell and one of the reasons was to end slavery and I respect and acknowledge that sacrifice.

Over!

 

[Arden Adamz]

I wanted to add the Sacco and Vanzetti cases up in Boston...

 

[meesterperfect]

Arden Adamz[/URL][/B], post: 5613957, member: 441761"]I wanted to add the Sacco and Vanzetti cases up in Boston...

yeah were they innocent?
If so, very shameful...........bruno hauptman too.

 

[Jagger69]

yeah were they innocent?
If so, very shameful...........bruno hauptman too.

Yes. Add Ethel & Julius Rosenberg to the list as well.

wow, not only is America the greatest defender of freedom that has ever been so far, it most likely will be forever! :1orglaugh

That doesn't sound like hubris at all....

I've been out of the country doing the evil bidding of the USA :elaugh: so I haven't been able to respond to this until now so sorry for the tardiness.

You don't like my answers to your "apologies needed" criticisms of the USA. I can certainly live with that. I never intimated that we don't make mistakes. If you refuse to accept my statement that we have nothing for which apologies to anyone are in order, that's your prerogative. I stand by my comment.

It's obvious that you have an axe to grind against the United States. I can also live with that. You have lots of company. May I ask what nation you hail from, MC? Perhaps I can find some interesting mistakes that your native land has made for which I can hold you accountable. Hell, who knows, maybe you owe me an apology!! :dunno: :1orglaugh

When voters sanction policy they are just as culpable. Anything less demonstrates you struggle with concept of responsibility.

By that reasoning, the British are responsible for WW2 since they elected Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany ultimately led to WW2. OK all my Brit compadres....where's my apology?

Part of being a grown-up involves moving past the idea that bad behaviour can be excused 'cos others do it too'.

Wow. What a burden it must be to bear the responsibility of being the moral barometer of the world! :1orglaugh Aren't you being just a bit naive here, MC? Let me get this straight....you're suggesting that we should suspend our intelligence community activities because (according to you at least) it's just the right thing to do?? :surprise: Why don't we get out the beads and flowers and buy the world a coke while we're at it? Very idealistic. Also very impractical. You want to hold the USA to a higher moral standard than the rest of the world? On what grounds? Sorry man, we didn't necessarily write the rules but we sure have to play by them.

So apologies should only be issued on the basis of whether they are an act of war and not depending how much suffering they create. That's some great ethics ya got there. Much of what the US has done foreign policy wise qualifies as state terrorism rather than war.

It's amazing how indignant and outraged certain Americans can be whenever 9/11 is bought up , change the topic to some of the atrocities America has committed (which far outweigh the destruction of 9/11) and it's dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders "oh well, that's just war".

I'm not a proponent of war. Nor do I support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, these incursions were not (are not) the singular efforts of the USA. UN resolutions were adopted and coalition forces from a number of nations were (are) involved in these wars. My statement was not meant to condone warfare nor to excuse it. However, to ignore the realities of armed combat, particularly in this day and age, is also naive. If certain persons of American citizenry have committed atrocities during their service in war, they should be brought to accountability as individuals....not the entire nation. Hell, even the state-sanctioned atrocities committed by the Nazis were subsequently adjudicated at Nuremberg as individual responsibilities and were not prosecuted as the condemnation of the entire German populace. I'd expect you to show the American people the same consideration.

Or we'd have less. I can speculate too.

Hence my comment. Thanks for the validation.