Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lentulusgracchus
I didn't realize I had struck a nerve.

There's no doubt that the US has done much to defend democracy in the world. But don't forget, before the US defended democracy in the world, it had to defend democracy in America: Fighting the Civil War to end slavery, giving Indians autonomy, implementing child labor laws, compulsory education, etc. Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans. Also, during the anti-conscription riot in New York during the Civil War, hundreds of black Americans were hung and burned along city lamp posts. Imagine if you will, that THOSE Americans had led the country. It easily could have happened.

A large portion of Germans were anti Semetic, but not all of them. And not all Japanese took part in propagating the suffering of others.

So, America isn't without blood on her hands. Though, admittedly, it is not on the scale of the 6 million Jews during WWII. Yet, despite the lack of complete innocence, Americans give themselves the right to accel, to study and research the sciences, to build the latest gadgets that the latest technology can build, and to build infrastructure that would give provide great mobility.

Other nations, despite their past, ought to be allowed to build their nation as well without being bridled.

47 posted on 04/23/2007 4:37:24 PM PDT by ponder life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: ponder life
I didn't realize I had struck a nerve.

More like, you shot yourself in the foot.

Fighting the Civil War to end slavery

The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.

Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans.

What? NO! The devil you say! But according to Cynthia Tucker, resident black-racist editorial-page editrix for the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, the actual number is a little over 4500, from 1866 to 1962.

On the other hand, from 1988 to 1996, during the big crack-related crime wave that saw U.S. murders spike up to 25,000/year, it eventuated that 50% of the murder victims were black, of whom 91% faced young black male executioners.

Of the 50% of murder victims who were not black, a quarter were murdered by young black males and another quarter were murdered by "persons unknown" -- which was the crime statisticians' way of politically covering up for the stranger-murder perps, who were overwhelmingly black (comparison with other, similar violent crimes in which the victims survived showed that the mystery 25% of perps were, in fact, mostly black).

So in other words, 3/4's of all the 25,000 murders/year during the high-crime years of the 80's and 90's were committed by young black men, and they committed a third of their murders on whites, Chicanos, Asians, and others.

Out of the hecatomb of 6000 non-blacks murdered every year by those young black men, how many were killed because of their race? Inquiring minds want to know -- and to compare that number, which criminology's number-crunchers are prohibited by urban politicians from sharing with us, with the number Cynthia Tucker agonized over one year, when she was adding up yet again the human cost of white racism.

Are you starting to catch my drift?

Also, during the anti-conscription riot in New York during the Civil War, hundreds of black Americans were hung and burned along city lamp posts.

And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.

America isn't without blood on her hands.

You sound more and more like a liberal every time you post. Thanks for dropping by.

Other nations, despite their past, ought to be allowed to build their nation as well without being bridled.

Take out a loan and buy a clue. Why do you think there were so many Soviet and U.S. troops in Germany for 50 years after the war? Why do you think U.S. troops are still there? To guarantee good conduct by the Germans, is why. It was the unstated cornerstone of European security policy -- and it is the ulterior political underpinning of EU security policy as well and the EU's fundamental raison d'etre. Although the French do have an ulterior policy goal of their own, viz., to break apart and supplant the Anglo-American alliance, which would allow them finally to count coup on, and dominate, their ancient adversary Great Britain at last.

The United States and the Soviet Union were the co-guarantors during all that time, that Germany would not do again what she did in 1869, 1871, 1914, and 1939. The Russians are gone, but we're still there -- and everybody wants into NATO. Hell, I think even Putin would like to join, at some level.

48 posted on 04/23/2007 11:14:58 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson