What were the Real Reasons?

ABSOLUTELY!!! When I said "Europeans", I meant also the decendants of Europeans in other lands. The USA is one of the worst offenders. Many of our colonies were not officially colonies, but were controlled economically by the USA.

 

We agree then.

Just in passing I would mention that Churchill was always a maverick, not elected in 1940 and thrown out of office in the Socialist landslide of June 1945. I asked my father sometime ago about India and he said that everyone in the 1930s knew that it was going to get independence.

Churchill whilst revered as the War Leader, scores very low with the British public in peace time - my Grandfather never forgave him for breaking the 1926 General Strike. I think Americans tend to have a higher opinion of him than exists in this Country - where his warts were more evident. The labour leader Attlee wound up the British empire in SE Asia.

France was totally unrealistic after WW2 in trying to reimpose its empire on South East Asia and later in Algeria, both of which were extremely morally corrupting - at least De Gaulle had the good sense to end it, whatever his motives might have been.

 

Really? Care to make a case for that?

What you are describing then is something other than a colony if I'm reading right with institutions other than the US government in control. To make it fit you have to stretch the meaning of colony into something entirely different.

 

I'm not "harolds" here, but I think what was being referred to as one of "the worst offenders"; was America was the home of Eugenics driven by race, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, the Silver Shirts, and our quota driven immigration laws, and exclusion of certain people for immigrating at all. The Japanese and Chinese specifically from the Pacific area, and a very restrictive number of people from the Philippines allowed into "America" proper.

America's "ideals" and practice rarely match, and fall short of the mark more often than not if you are not a person from Northern Europe, or Great Britain and included in the Protestant Christian group. Even though race and religion are never mentioned in the immigration "quotas", the percentages of new citizens allowed from those areas (by geography) did restrict those persons in practice.

Some "waivers" were given to those who would be teachers, or working scientists. Henry Kissinger springs to mind, his family was allowed in with him as a child since his parents were educators and respected globally (it appears). This in spite of the fact that the quota number for his area had been filled for that year.

 

While I'll agree that in practice the USA's actions have often fallen short of her ideals that's not the same thing as being one of the "worst offenders" in terms of colonialism or racism. Indeed the mere fact that they were considered wrong put the US ahead of many contries in the early part of the 20th century. I guess if you mean worse in that the US didn't live up to it's ideals that might stick. Part of the reason I asked for a case is it's not at all clear to me exactly what he is talking about.

As far as the quota system goes if you think that constraints on immigration are required how do you construct a totally "fair" way to do it? Or even one that's clearly better than the quota system selected?

 

i tend to see parallels with the anti-coloniaism movement and abolition of slavery/racism.

Prior to 1914, American seemed as keen on colonies as the Europeans (happy to be corrected) and her treatment of the Filipinos and Hawai are on par with European Colonialism (but not as bad as many) - however, the anti-colonial movement seemed to gain more support and quicker in the USA than Europe.


The converse is the case with Slavery. Its trade was abolished in firstly in Denmark 1802 and then Britain 1803 and confirmed by all European powers at the Congress of Vienna 1814. It took much longer in the USA and a civil war. Consequently Europeans tend in WW1 and WW2 to see this and racism as being the blemish on the American character while Americans see colonialism and domination of subject peoples.


It was evident at Versailles. The Japanese, who wanted to be regarded as the equals of the "whites", proposed that the Racism should be part of the Constitution of the League of Nations. They easily won the vote but were opposed by Billy Hughes of Australia (at the this time there was whites only policy in Australia) and Wilson. Wilson effectively vetoed the Japanese - he was concerned with the views of California in particular where (I believe) there were various restrictions not just on immigration but on ownership of land by Japanese nationals. Overall another nail in the misunderstanding between an American pushing its power west and japan setting up a sort of Monroe doctrine in East Asia.

 

France's idea of Democracy wasn't really influenced by Wilson. The French Declaration of Human Rights stems from 1789, so they didn't wait for Wilson to show up. The U.S. however influenced this Declaration to a certain extend, but their influence was brought for example by people like by French Genenral La fayette who was a U.S. Indepedence War Veteran and very popular in both countries. One American who was higly regarded and inspired the French Declaration of Human Rights was Jefferson. The French democracy roots also lay in writers fro mthe Enlightment Century and Philosophers like Montesqieu and Voltaire. (see his famous pamphlet about Leibnitz and Friedrich II, or the defense of Calas, who was persecuted for being Protestant ) . If you dig further the roots go back as far to Philosophers like Plato and Aristote . To this extend Wilson's idea of democracy was not new, not even the self determination which the French claimed for Alsace and Lorraine.

Montesquieu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire


This also goes for the British, the enlightment Century gave them fine people like John Locke and Richard Price who influenced thinkers and democracy supporters on both sides of the Atlantic.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Price

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire




Plato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aristotle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One should relativise, from a U.S point of vieww history is about 200 years old , in Europe add a couple of centuries, if you ask the greeks add a couple of thousand years.

 

You could also add Magna Carta 1215, the English Civil War of 1640 and supremacy of parliament and Edmund Burke, Tom Paine etc

However, I do think Wilson deserves credit for getting the concept of Self Determination universally accepted. Whilst you could quibble about the poor results of Versailles, for the first time the victors and others all tried to argue their case on the basis of Self Determination. Compare it with the Congress of Vienna following Napoleon's defeat - the victors simply set out to emasculate France and share out the Spoils.

The major victor who failed to understand the change was Italy at Versailles. Originally vaguely allied to the Central Powers, she got a better offer from the Allies, joined the war in 1915 and expected to pick up major gains in the Horn of Africa and Dalmatia for her troubles. When she "only" got Trieste, and Tyrol (which on self determination was more than her due). The "mutilated peace" and a very dissatisfied country which was quickly exploited by Mussolini and the fascists.

 

Just realised that today is the anniversary of the Signing of the Versaille Treaty 28 June 1919

 

Here, let me see if I can clear this up. Brndirt1 made a good start, and his comments on the eugenics movement need to be underlined, but here are some others:

1. Our treatment of our indiginous people was a disgrace from the 1600s into the 20th century. For much of that time we practiced a policy of exterminating much of those peoples and putting those who survived into what were essentially concentration camps (reservations).

2. Slavery, which went on in the USA much longer than in other European nations.

3. Our occupation of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War was unjust and after the Moros and others revolted, our troops committed atrocity after atrocity; often massacring whole villages (shades of the German "special groups" in the East!) or perhaps just all the males in a village over the age of 10. This policy was called "civilize them with a Krag" by the soldiers. This to maintain a colony.

4. Several countries in South and Central America were controlled by US companies behind a U.S. sponsored dicatatorship with the goal of exploiting the locals as a cheap labor source-in short a colony.

5. Hawaii, our 50th state was once a colony, except in name only, which was exploited for economic interests.

Anyway, I hope you get the point. Also, I'd point out that these actions often had the approval of a majority of our citizens-the exception may have been slavery.

 

And the anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia in 1914 as well.

 

Well let's see

While I agree out treatment of the Amerindians has been a disgrace the US didn't exist for half the period you list. Furthermore there was never a policy of extermiation as you claim. If there had been there wouldn't be any resurvations today. Furthemore the resurvations are a long way for concentration camps.

But your coment was about us not living up to ideals was it not? At what point was their a consensus that slavery was wrong? Hint it was after it was abolished. Furthermore if you start comparisons to European nations you need to look a bit deeper. Did they allow slavery in their colonies? What about endentured survitude? It's also worth pointing out that they had little capital invested in the practice as opposed to the American South where it was one if not the greast accumlations of capital. Then there's the fact that the US is a collection of states and the Federal governement had limted power where a king or parliment in Europe could pass a law and be done with it. In spite of this importing of slaves was banned well before the civil war.

I'd argue that it was far from unjust although the response to the insurrection was extreme. The US wanted to leave a stable government in the Philipines that wouldn't be taken over by another power as soon as we left. From the very beginning it the intent of the US govenrment to leave. It's also woth pointing out that neither side fought clean in that war and given the time period US actions were pretty consistent with those of European powers, indeed not as extreme as some later resorted to.

True but that's not really the US not living up to it's ideals it's US company's not living up to the ideals of the country. Not something unheard of even today. Nor was this outside the norm for other world powers of the time.

Your point is? Most of the states aside from the original 13 were territories which translates pretty accurately to colony and exploited for eonomic interests.

Did they? Indeed were the majority even aware of the details of these actions?

 

I believe it needs to pointed out that the Muslim Moro Tribesmen had been battling with the non-believers ever since the Spanish arrived (1521) four centuries before they were defeated by the American forces. But they simply shifted their animosity from the Spanish (Catholic Christians), to the mostly Protestant Christian Americans. Of course American perfidy in their treaty with the Moros didn't "win any hearts and minds" either.

Soon after Spanish War, the United States decided to assume control of the Philippines archipelago which led to the Philippine declaration of war against the Americans in 1898. The United States realized it faced fierce resistance from the Filipinos of Luzon and Visayas. However the Americans learned that the Moros in Mindanao were distrustful of the Filipino Christians. The Americans decided to exploit this to prevent the Moros from joining forces with the Philippine Revolutionary Government. Thus, on August 20, 1899, US General John C. Bates and the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II signed the Kiram-Bates Treaty. The United States promised to respect and guarantee the integrity of the Moro states if the Moros would remain neutral. But the Americans never meant to keep their part of the agreement. As soon as Filipino resistance was losing against the Americans, the United States unilaterally abrogated the treaty with the Moros and proceeded with the conquest of Mindanao. The Moros fought valiantly until 1913 when they succumbed “to the superior military force of the Americans”. Besides, the Americans were also able to secure the collaboration of the Moro aristocracy. The United States gave privileges and “gifts” to the Sultanate in exchange for the access and exploitation of their lands and resources

Goto:

Causes of Conflict between Christians and Muslims in the Philippines

 

Lets return to the original question and did GB, France, USA and the democracies (say Belgium Sweden, Norway Denmark etc) indulge in genocide in this period - definitely not; repression - yes in some cases eg Lloyd Georges Black and Tans in Ireland (was it general - I would say no), did they trample on sovereign nations rights - not that I can think of. Overall maybe a 7 out of 10. There was an element of greed in the Versailles Treaty but I would suggest much less than in earlier treaties and in Europe they did try to apply the rights of a similar cultural groups rather than the right of might and conquest. The old fashioned parcelling out the spoils were more evident in ex Ottoman Empire and the mistakes made in the Middle East are still being worked out today.

Does this compare in magnitude with Japanese in China, Germany or Italy in Europe or indeed some of the internal repression that occurred in the newer European nations - I would say no.

 

A worthwhile question, but cannot be taken in any context if we ignore countries own supression of millions of their own folk during the same period..They should be included to to make sure we have an even battle field as it were. Then we are in no danger of overlooking anyone are we?

 

Welcome back mate!

In my view it is impossible to judge events from the past by using the modern yardstick. Circumstances were different in the past, tradition of particular regions should be taken into account, legal systems have changed and society, in general, has changed. I think that all these tragic events from the past were consequence of the fall of empires and subsequent rise of new sovereign nations. Advances in fields of science and technology made the number of victims and savagery even more overwhelming.

I am not sure if our society really develops or it is in decay. Moral values and faith, at least, are victims of crude materialism. Maybe Europe needs to return to genuine Christian values instead of worshiping material values.

In my modest opinion, of course.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
completely agreed, except I believe you mean a 'Kapok' life vest...
Copra life vests would make good emergency rations...

 

Too true, typing faster than checking my data. Sorry 'bout that chief.

 

How about a compromise- a combo copra & kapok lifejacket?
Youcan snack while you float

The salt water should wash any afatoxins out of the copra, & if you end up washing up in the mule corps you can make some instant best friends....
Feeding Copra