Apologies...

[obfuscator]

From what I understand, A and B have already been done.

 

In terms of C, no. Extremism is in no way an attitude held or condoned by any more than .01% of citizenz of the arabic countries. It makes no sense for them to have to apologize for something they have no control over.

 

And in terms of arabic people being anti-american, I disagree. Like someone was saying, they may disagree with some policies but that is a right they have. Even if they are anti-american that doesn't matter to me - everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

For my part I have never met an arabic person who didn't carry reasonable political beleifs and treat me with respect.

[The Observer]

1. Should the US formally apologize for slavery?

 

There's no need to, even though it's already been done. As society progresses, ideologies change.

 

2. Should Germany formally apologize for the holocaust?

 

It was only a select few people who were running the holocaust, and blaming the people as a whole is wrong. Sure they did nothing, but I'm sure they were fearful for their lives.

 

3. Should the Middle East formally apologize for 9-11?

 

Once again, a select few people from a terrorist group. Blaming the Middle Eastern countries themselves is foolish.

[Zierro]

The person giving the apology would most likely be someone who didn't support the holocaust or slavery, so it wouldn't really count. I think apologies are just for admitting you were wrong. Apologies on behalf of others don't really hold any weight.

[Danqazmlp]

I don't have answers for the other two, however, i do have an answer for the American slavery one. I'm currently (as in right this second) doing an assignment based on the Slave trade and its impacts on Africa. During this, my views have totally changed on how it has been morally seen through the years.

 

A few poitns about the slave trade that you may not have learn't in school:

 

- Slaves were traded, hence the name. Africans traded their slaves with Europeans for European goods. To begin with, Europeans rarely had a need for these slaves, but with growing need for a cheap work force in the Americas, this market for slaves had what they needed. So who was in the wrong, those who needed the slaves, or those capturing and selling them?

 

- The slave trade did not start with the Europeans, slaves had been traded out of Africa to the north and east for Centuries. Should Egypt apologise for the slave trade too, as they were a large pre-European slave buyer?

 

- The conditions in Africa at the time were very barren and desolate (at least on the West coast where Europeans brought a majority of their slaves). I have just read an article which stated many Africans were living in poverty and many different from starvation and malnutrition. In the Americas they had enough food to survive (should they make it there of course). So on that aspect it could be said they had been done a favour.

 

Those are a few extra points to consider before saying America should apologise. I am not saying it shouldn't, i am simply putting out some points to show you that history which you are taught in schools can be very biased.

[archimage_a]

I agree with Danqazmlp and Zierro.

 

Slavery wasn't an evil idea, it was just an idea that prevailed at a specified time in history... Like Capitalism does today...Or leaving lights on in the 70s.... Apologising for something which was right at the time, and was later declared to be wrong, would be like arresting someone for something that wasn't a crime when they did it, but now is... Like putting a cigar in a film in Britian(Smoking ban)

 

The Holocaust....Yes it offends our sensibilites, but should we really brainwash people into thinking that they are monsters? Doesn't that kind of smack of 're-educating' Jews to think of themselves as sub-humans. The important thing is not whether or not they feel sorry about their actions, but whether we can learn from their actions and better the future.

 

9/11... Terrorism or Freedom Fighting?

If you were told tommrow that some other countries troops had arrived in your country and were now making women walk 5 spaces behind men, or arresting them...and this had been going on for fifty odd years...Wouldn't you feel slightly justified in blowing up one of the oppressors cultural monuments.

...In Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries we went over there with our 'Human Rights' and 'Equality' and 'Feminism' and started beating people up who disagreed with us, and later arresting those who disagreed with us beating them up... We have gone over there and oppressed their people and then we cry out 'Look, Look, they have attacked us for no reason!'

 

I remember having a conversation with someone who actually said 'I don't think they mind us going over there and re-educating them'....To which my only responce is and was 'If they came over here and started re-educating you, how would you feel?'

[SeanyTheSailor]

I agree with Danqazmlp and Zierro.

 

Slavery wasn't an evil idea, it was just an idea that prevailed at a specified time in history... Like Capitalism does today...Or leaving lights on in the 70s.... Apologising for something which was right at the time, and was later declared to be wrong, would be like arresting someone for something that wasn't a crime when they did it, but now is... Like putting a cigar in a film in Britian(Smoking ban)

 

The Holocaust....Yes it offends our sensibilites, but should we really brainwash people into thinking that they are monsters? Doesn't that kind of smack of 're-educating' Jews to think of themselves as sub-humans. The important thing is not whether or not they feel sorry about their actions, but whether we can learn from their actions and better the future.

 

9/11... Terrorism or Freedom Fighting?

If you were told tommrow that some other countries troops had arrived in your country and were now making women walk 5 spaces behind men, or arresting them...and this had been going on for fifty odd years...Wouldn't you feel slightly justified in blowing up one of the oppressors cultural monuments.

...In Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries we went over there with our 'Human Rights' and 'Equality' and 'Feminism' and started beating people up who disagreed with us, and later arresting those who disagreed with us beating them up... We have gone over there and oppressed their people and then we cry out 'Look, Look, they have attacked us for no reason!'

 

I remember having a conversation with someone who actually said 'I don't think they mind us going over there and re-educating them'....To which my only responce is and was 'If they came over here and started re-educating you, how would you feel?'

Forgive me if I've drastically misinterpreted this but are you saying in your second paragraph (i didn't even finish the rest of your post) that what the Nazis did was OKAY as long as they learned from it?!

 

Ok I finished reading now only more to my own peril. Third paragraph. "..In Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries we went over there with our 'Human Rights' and 'Equality' and 'Feminism' and started beating people up who disagreed with us, and later arresting those who disagreed with us beating them up..." Are you saying that human rights are wrong? and though I think in America equality has been blown out of proportion, and don't get me started on feminism my only response is, WTF. I don't want to force my beliefs on anybody but NO ONE should suffer because of ANYONE'S beliefs. PLEASE if I am misunderstanding correct me.

[Danqazmlp]

I think what he means is that apologising for it does almost nothing, whereas learning from the mistake does a lot more. At least that is how i interoperate it.

[SeanyTheSailor]

While i agree that apologizing and words in general are just about useless, the way in which he said it seemed odd if not offensive.

[Danqazmlp]

Whether or not Human rights are wrong or right is a touchy subject. To us they seem right, but to many cultures which have grown over thousands of years, some aspects of it are wrong. Which means just because we see it as right, does it mean they should?

[SeanyTheSailor]

Whether or not Human rights are wrong or right is a touchy subject. To us they seem right, but to many cultures which have grown over thousands of years, some aspects of it are wrong. Which means just because we see it as right, does it mean they should?

While i see your point and in my mind I'm wrestling with the concept. Just to help me, how can they be considered wrong? When i think of human rights i think of the right to try to improve your state of life, the right to justice(though justice is of course debatable), and I would say the right to life but if I tried explaining my views on topics involved with that this would quickly spin out of control, oh yes and the right to have control of your life (in a non-teenage "I can do whatever I want." way)

 

Essentially life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a much wiser man than me once wrote.

[Danqazmlp]

In exactly the same way that you have yourself pointed out is what i will explain it with.

 

Teenagers.

 

In our culture, we still see teenagers as people who shouldn't have the right to full self control. Because of our culture we see teenagers are rather immature and as not having the right self control to have this full control. That is something created by our western culture. If we were to have true human rights, everybody would choose their own life from the word go.

To us it seems 'right' that teenagers should not have full control over their lives until they mature. This has been built u over generations, and is now unquestionable almost.

 

This is exactly the same as it is in other cultures, except it is not only with teenagers. Because of how the culture develops, different people are seen as having different rights. This has become entrenched into them as they grow and develop. So to them, for example letting women vote would be as obscene as us letting a 12 year old vote.

[SeanyTheSailor]

In exactly the same way that you have yourself pointed out is what i will explain it with.

 

Teenagers.

 

In our culture, we still see teenagers as people who shouldn't have the right to full self control. Because of our culture we see teenagers are rather immature and as not having the right self control to have this full control. That is something created by our western culture. If we were to have true human rights, everybody would choose their own life from the word go.

To us it seems 'right' that teenagers should not have full control over their lives until they mature. This has been built u over generations, and is now unquestionable almost.

 

This is exactly the same as it is in other cultures, except it is not only with teenagers. Because of how the culture develops, different people are seen as having different rights. This has become entrenched into them as they grow and develop. So to them, for example letting women vote would be as obscene as us letting a 12 year old vote.

I see your point, but I'd also like to add that I am a teenager and I know that in our culture teenagers for the large part are immature. I suppose it is sort of foolish of me to extend this to everyone but i did so because I think that if we were given full control of our lives we would quickly "screw up" and I was thinking we should be protected from that. But then again when I adopt my regular cynical/brutal view of things I think that the more intelligent kids would recognize the value of parents and being provided for from the get-go whereas the others would no doubt soon realize this also.

 

I suppose in the end it is an un-winnable argument for either side and I appreciate you patience in helping explain the viewpoint to me. Though I still think the holocaust thing is out of line.

[The Dark Lord]

1. Should the US formally apologize for slavery?

 

2. Should Germany formally apologize for the holocaust?

 

3. Should the Middle East formally apologize for 9-11?

 

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No.

 

No nation should be held responsible for an atrocity that happened in the past. That is as ridiculous as forcing a person to apologize because their ancestors conquered another people group 1000 years ago.

[Zierro]

If we were to have true human rights, everybody would choose their own life from the word go.

 

If toddlers were allowed to drive, they would be infringing upon the rights of others, constantly! :ugeek:

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

For number 1 and 2....

 

If these things were 10 years ago, and the countries were ruled by the same people that ruled at the time of these things, yes. However, we are not responsible for what happend before we had control of it. It's like my apoligising because my grandfather hit somebody.

 

For number 3...

 

Should they have to? No. But if they think it'll stop more people from killing some more, by all means, send us flowers.

[Dizzle229]

 

For number 3...

 

Should they have to? No. But if they think it'll stop more people from killing some more, by all means, send us flowers.

 

I already sent you flowers <3

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

 

For number 3...

 

Should they have to? No. But if they think it'll stop more people from killing some more, by all means, send us flowers.

 

I already sent you flowers <3

 

Damn it, those were from you? I thought it was a cleverly disguised bomb from the middle east, because I disagreed with someone.

[archimage_a]

Forgive me if I've drastically misinterpreted this but are you saying in your second paragraph (i didn't even finish the rest of your post) that what the Nazis did was OKAY as long as they learned from it?!

 

Ok I finished reading now only more to my own peril. Third paragraph. "..In Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries we went over there with our 'Human Rights' and 'Equality' and 'Feminism' and started beating people up who disagreed with us, and later arresting those who disagreed with us beating them up..." Are you saying that human rights are wrong? and though I think in America equality has been blown out of proportion, and don't get me started on feminism my only response is, WTF. I don't want to force my beliefs on anybody but NO ONE should suffer because of ANYONE'S beliefs. PLEASE if I am misunderstanding correct me.

 

I don't think I said what the Nazis did was ok. I think I said we shouldn't brainwash people into thinking they are monsters. Which is rather different.

My point was that the Nazis thought the Jews(and others) were 'Wrong' and needed to be punished. We think the Nazis were 'Wrong' and need to be punished. See the similarities there... Either we repeat their mistake and go around condeming people and then forcing them to accept our views or we say 'Look, we disagree and in time I hope you see that what you are doing now is wrong.'

 

In the third part the same point holds true.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The second sentance of article two of the Declaration of Human Rights is wrong, otherwise I agree with the concept. Article two states that Human Rights can be forced on all people, regardless of if they want them or not.

You and, somtimes, I may see Human Rights are a wonderful thing, but take article 16(See the link above for the declaration). What about Polygamists? Or Homosexuals...Where are their human rights? Or Article 18? What about Extremists or Satanists, or Pagans? What about people who do not believe in money? Article 19, what about Racism and Sexism, or even freer issues like obsenities? Article 20, what about Nazis or Communists or people who believe 9/11 was a good thing? 21, What about prisoners, lunatics and immigrants.

My point is that Human Rights are not universally accepted by the people who created them, let alone other countries. We cannot....should not.... go around declaring nations to be an affront to human rights when they are only doing what we do - protecting their cultural beliefs and national institutions in a manner which they choose. You and I might see Sexism as totally beyond reproach, but considering how freely people issue forth obsenities in front of children and we do nothing to stop them, even if we don't (as I don't) swear personally, and see people who do as wrong.

 

Feminism is a touchy subject and to be honest I am an equalist....Rather than giving Females specific rights I would prefer to give both sexes specific rights because, as a male, I see the male suffering cause by our pigheadedness and feminism. I, as a male, cannot chose to stay at home with my kids(Ok I am 19 and don't have kids but principly) because the standard of living requires both parents to work. I, as a male, cannot speak my mind without being condemned as a chauvenist(When I am not, I am an equalist...Celebrating both sexes for their differences). I, as a male, have no control over my children before they are born, should my wife/partner whatever, chose to have an abortion. I, as a male, have very little control over my children after they are born, since the state near universally sides with the female.

I see very little equality in feminism, I just see a female form of chauvanism and am equally disgusted by both principles

....I don't want women to be tied to their stoves I want the right to chose to be tied to the stove if I want to. I don't want women to be seen but not heard, I want to speak my mind without fear of condemnation. I don't want women to be forced to have children, but I want equal input in the decision. I don't want women to have their children taken away from them, I want the state to see me as a human being, not a man.

 

I don't see Human Rights and Feminism as great liberators of people, I see them as idea that people have had and are now unfairly forcing on other nations and powers, in exactly the same way Ayranism, Christanity and Chauvanism were forced on the world before them. I see the attacks in Iraq and other countries, before 9/11, as akin to the Spanish Inquisition, the Purges in the USSR or the Holocaust in Germany.

I don't see ANY of these actions as right, and I would resent Human Rights and I do resent Feminism if and when they are forced on me...But in 20 years(supposing the world has become more like me) would I ask Feminists for an apology for making me suffer the deaths(hypothetical) of my children or the 15 years I missed out of the ones that were born? If I had had Human Rights forced on me would I demand one for destroying my culture, subjecting me to beatings and rapes because I said that feminism had taken away my rights? No. I would understand that the people who had done those things to me had been trying to their best for me or for humanity as a whole*. I would definately resent them for doing it and an apology might make me feel better... but to demand one? To stand in front of my torturers, to look them in the eye with a feeling of superiourity, or to beat, or berate, them until they felt inferior to me and finally apologised, not because they had learnt from their actions, but because they wanted the pain to stop....It would make me no better than them...Each time I beat or bertated them I would not be lowering them to my level, but lowering myself to theirs until we were finally on the same level.

 

*To address Slavery consider Rudyard Kipling and his statement on India(Which was basically a slave to Britian until 1947):

"The Sewage system is under the control of regional power and see what a squalid mess they have made of it. The stench of effluance is overpowering and proof that they still need Britian's hand to guide them"

Actually that is from memory, the actual quotation can be found in Cornell, L. Kipling in India (London ; New York : Macmillan : 1966) pages 151-152

Kipling did not see Britian as a slave driver in India, he saw Indian people trying to be British and failing and felt that India needed Britian to take it by the hand and lead it into prosperity and out of the squalid mess which they had managed to get themselves into.

I don't agree with that at all. I see Britian as forcing India to expand and grow far too fast and the Indian people could not keep up or did not want to keep up with Britain's 'guiding hand'

 

It is equally true that some, not all - but some, slave owners saw them as raising the Black Man out of the 'mess' of Africa....Even some black people felt that this was true, Booker T. Washington for example making his Atlanta speech in 1895 said:

http://www.africawithin.com/bios/booker/atlanta_compromise.htm

A ship lost at sea for many days suddenly sighted a friendly vessel. From the mast of the unfortunate vessel was seen a signal, Water, water; we die of thirst! The answer from the friendly vessel at once came back, Cast down your bucket where you are. A second time the signal, Water, water; send us water! ran up from the distressed vessel, and was answered, Cast down your bucket where you are. And a third and fourth signal for water was answered, Cast down your bucket where you are. The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River. To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the Southern white man, who is their next-door neighbor, I would say: Cast down your bucket where you are cast it down in making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom we are surrounded.

 

To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race, Cast down your bucket where you are. Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. Cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labour wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities, and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the South. Casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them as you are doing on these grounds, and to education of head, hand, and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste places in your fields, and run your factories. While doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. As we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick-bed of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one. In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.

 

Instead Black people fought for freedom and White people fought to keep them oppressed... They refused to work together for a common goal. The Black people didn't need to prove they were equal to White people, but if they had would not the white man accepted that they were equal? We(Well America, I am a British Person living in Britain) have had over a hundred years since that speech and still black people are treated differently to white people and still power lays with one group and not the other. True that the situation has reversed, now it is the White man who sees himself as oppressed and the Black man who sees himself beyond reproach(this is a generalisation, the opposite is also still true, but very few places in America actually have equality between the races, places where Whites and Blacks work together, side by side, and joke about their differences, rather than feel afraid to comment.)

This quest humanity has embarked on, this quest to better other people forcibly, has only lead to trouble and strife, what small advances have been made have been made by co-operation, by politians 'Casting their bucket down' to draw up the waters of the Black Voter and Black Civil Rights Campaigners working with the politians for their mutual betterment.

But in near every other walk of life this has not occured by any large measure.

 

____

 

We can argue endlessly whether one of us is right, and I will, it is my nature, simply because you have no experianced my life. You have not experianced the men and women who have been oppressed by the systems you and I accept so readily.

I have experianced the people who have benefitted from the rights as well, but I cannot, in good conscience say that their happiness is equal to the suffering caused. Any more than the happiness of the Nazi family is equal to the Jews who were percecuted.

And I accept that you have probably experianced things that I have not and that these things that I know not what are have shaped your outlook and may have shaped my outlook similarly.

 

I don't want to offend anyone, I just see the suffering and the simiarities between one case and other and I tell people about it. It is up to them to make up their own minds as to whether or not they agree with my results.

*Weak smile*

[obfuscator]

So Arch, do you write essays like that for every one of your 7k posts? ;)

 

Agreed with the feminism bit - women have long been maligned by society but a "reverse effect" propogated by extreme feminists won't solve the problem. Feminism should be about equality, but often it becomes about preferential treatement.

 

In terms of the human rights deal - yes, right and wrong can been seen from certain perspectives but it stands to reason that certain things should be unacceptable. Nazi's have been treated humanely and given fair trials - and you can't possibly say the Nazi viewpoint of the Jews as "wrong, and needing to be punished" as fair.

As far as the human rights declaration goes, its an interesting issue. How is it possible to cater to everyone? People have different views of what rights they want and often they come into conflict. I suppose as in the past, the "majority opinion" should prevail but then we see the minorities being effected negatively, such as polygamists.

[archimage_a]

(this is not me being hawkish, I have literally just logged on)

In fairness it was only 2k words, 522 of which were directly quoted. =P...But yeah, if I feel strongly.

 

Human rights deal- Who's reason? (Before I start offending people these are not my beliefs, they are a mix of facts and Nazi Opinion)

Jews were not hated just because they were Jews...They were hated because something like 75% of the top 10% of jobs were controlled by Jews. Alot of Bolsheviks were Jews and Jews were very much commited to helping each other out, in a similar way to how masons help each other out. Jews also never 'died' when the nation they were 'infesting' died(Can't think of any examples but its what the Nazis believed). Further the Jews didn't have a homeland, having been driven out each time by the 'rightful' owners of whatever nation...So the Nazis were simply continuing the historical trend....Which had been very harsh to the Jews before now, you only need to look at Imperial Russia's responce to them, as well as most Europeans' responces...The Nazis were only killing Jews because the other nations would no longer accept them (Should we apologise for this?) and they were fighting a war in which they could barely afford to feed the Ayrans, why would then try to feed the Jews when they were going to die out(from sterlisations) after the war anyway...The Jews stabbed Germany in the back in World War 1(No idea where that came from but it was cited as a reason). Jews killed Christ. Jews didn't try intergrate...in the same way that Gypsies and Homosexuals didn't. The latter of which had been percecuted, beaten and killed for the best part of a millenia....The former being moved along, beaten up and raped for a similar length of time.

 

The Nazis, from their point of view, were acting reasonably...It was, from their perspective, fair.

 

As for us given them fair trials and human treatment...We blew up as many of their monuments as we could, we shot their leaders, marched around their cities and then split their country with the aim of turning it into a 19th century story book country with green grass and no factories ever.(course that went out the window in the cold war but the principle remains...we were willing to sell the entire country into agriculture indefinately.) The allies and soviets also engaged in the age old practice of raping as many of their men, women and children as possible...so its not like we were particuarly fair...Fairer, but not fair.

 

Yes, I agree we didn't beat the hell out of them, we didn't torture them in any significant way(outside of the raping and pillaging and such)...But those arn't the only ways of hurting people...Take Rudolf Hess...Barely even related to the Holocaust, yet was imprisoned indefinately because he was a Nazi...that is not fair(Makes a lot of sense though, he could become the next Hitler, given time... The point remains, the only reason he was imprisoned was because he was a Nazi, not because of War Crimes or any other reason).

 

The way to a better future was set out by Booker T. Washington... Work together and butt out of people's personal lives. It doesn't matter how I live my life as long as I leave your life alone, or better yet, we talk about our lives, in active discussion so that we can understand each other's point of view...I don't have to agree with it to understand it and you don't have to agree to my views to understand them.

But such discussion should be natural, not forced...

You might not want to talk about your life, but why is that? Typically people are either ashamed of themselves and think they are going to be ridiculed if they talk about their lives(As many other Homosexuals seem to be <_< ) or they don't understand their beliefs themself.

Its a shame and can only be changed one person at a time.

[K4ylan]

Well, no no one should apologize. We all know what happened, no need to bring it back up. And as for the Middle East, it isn't like the entire middle east is against us. Not even close.