Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Can America be tamed?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#121 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:30 PM

boppie---

You are a typical excessively parinoind American conditioned by CNN and its grossly exagerated view of the US.

The chances of incuring any violence racked on your self or family from posting your name on this forum is absurd.

You have a greater chance of being hit by lightning.

Pehaps you are not alone. Crime overall is down 20% but gun registrations are up by 600% in the USA ????????

Perhaps you all spent to much time in front of the TV when you were little boys & girls.

Or maybe because your society is so violent you think everybody else is as well.

Wake up and smell the roses.
  • 0

#122 Gaddock

Gaddock

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2960 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 08:19 PM

Hello Gil,
It appears that you are yet another anti American Canadian judging by your less than subtle sarcasm.

You wrote ......"You are a typical excessively parinoind American conditioned by CNN and its grossly exagerated view of the US"

Are we? how would you know. You appear rather clueless by your post. Have you ever even left Canada?

You want slanted liberally biased news ...... watch CNN in Canada! I assure you it is not the same as what is watched in the US. I do not even know anybody who watches CNN in the US anymore. This can be supported by their plummeting ratings. They made the choice to pander to viewers like yourself. It appears it was not much less than professional suicide as the average American does not concur with people like Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn and yourself.

"The chances of incurring any violence racked on your self or family from posting your name on this forum is absurd."

Agreed for the most part. If you think that certain government agencies do not keep an eye on what is being posted on our cold war enemies forum I would say that you are naive as well.

You wrote ....."Crime overall is down 20% but gun registrations are up by 600% in the USA "

Gee, how about that ........ can you guess why? Think about it ........ Gun purchases are up and crime is down ... go figure. The states that now must allow "as issued" concealed gun permits have all seen a dramatic decreases in crime. What could have caused this? Perhaps the idea that the criminal knows that if he breaks into your house in the middle of the night he may be shot? Also, we buy guns because WE CAN!

You wrote ...."Perhaps you all spent to much time in front of the TV when you were little boys & girls."

All I can say to that is you really seem like you are a pompous jack asss.

You wrote ......."Or maybe because your society is so violent you think everybody else is as well."

Well it is true with freedom comes higher crime rates. Explain this ....... WHY IS CANADA'S MURDER RATE SECOND ONLY TO THE US PER CAPITA?????????? see http://www.korpios.o...-toughcrime.htm

Wake up from your ignorance and smell the roses
  • 0

#123 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 05:42 PM

<Well it is true with freedom comes higher crime rates. Explain this ....... WHY IS CANADA'S MURDER RATE SECOND ONLY TO THE US PER CAPITA??????????>

The info I got is that the murder rate of Canada is 1/5 that of the US... Otherwise the webpage you provide is very informative.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#124 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 05:52 PM

DON Q--

I think you will find that the US citizens killed over 11,000 of thier own people last year 350.000,000 or whatever population.
This was mainly with handguns

Canadas death rate from guns in general was approx 145 people.

All this can be documented.

80% of these deaths were suicides

30,000,000 population

We have approx 8,000 guns in Canada in the hands of the people
  • 0

#125 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 06:05 PM

<I think you will find that the US citizens killed over 11,000 of thier own people last year 350.000,000 or whatever population.
This was mainly with handguns

Canadas death rate from guns in general was approx 145 people.

All this can be documented.

80% of these deaths were suicides

30,000,000 population

We have approx 8,000 guns in Canada in the hands of the people>

No, I know is much better in Canada...

There are approximately 30,000 people getting killed by guns --homicide, suicide whatever-- in America every year. I was surprised by Canada being #2. (But it could that it is a distant #2.)

What I did read in some 'Canadian source' is that Canada's homicide rate --I think it was it-- was 1/5 of the States, possibly including any other means of attack, say knives...

But I don't know why this other guy is attacking you since they promote gun control anyways...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#126 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 06:40 PM

donquijote-----

It can be very confusing. We have approx 8,000,000 guns in Canada. Not 8,000.

The Movie Bowling at Columbine made in the US probably illustrates the difference best

Download IMESH from www.download.com and then download the vidio. Very enlightning made by a good US citizen.

The actual death rate last year was about 165 people killed.

These deaths were due to all types of guns 80% were suicides.

The US had over 11.000 people killed due to Handguns only. The highest rate in the world. All other countrrys were under 200 killed.

I believe that the American people are not the problem. It is thier Govt. controlled by big buisness interests. They are lied to and manipulated and brainwashed from the time they are little children in school singing do the flag every day. Govenment and Country are Great nomatter what. We can do no wrong. Our President is always right and if you don,t agree with him you are not a Patriot. BS double BS
  • 0

#127 Guest_Monktavian_*

Guest_Monktavian_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:57 PM

Can America Be Tamed?




No one has the balls to try.



Next Question?
  • 0

#128 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 11:19 PM

<I believe that the American people are not the problem. It is thier Govt. controlled by big buisness interests. They are lied to and manipulated and brainwashed from the time they are little children in school singing do the flag every day. Govenment and Country are Great nomatter what. We can do no wrong. Our President is always right and if you don,t agree with him you are not a Patriot. BS double BS >

OK, you convinced me :)

It's so funny that in America the sick don't want healthcare for everyone; the crime victims don't want gun control; the mothers don't want free child care; the cyclists don't want bike lanes; the religious want war, and the people of other countries are 'slaves'.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#129 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 11:34 PM

<No one has the balls to try.



Next Question? >

I believe a lion can tamed without resorting to violence. The lion wants that but the nonviolent monkeys know better.

We turn to the experts, like M.L. King...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#130 Guest_Monktavian_*

Guest_Monktavian_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2003 - 05:41 PM

My God.... you people really have NO IDEA.




LOL!



Tell me more about how the Gov't (The one that changes -completely- every 4 years) Lies to us.

Then couldya please explain why the different administrative gov'ts (that come in every 4 years) cooperate with eachother in keeping up "The Big Lie" even though these outgoing/incoming Gov'ts usually hate eachother.

Because the American people are fickle and don't like any one ideaology to control the country for too long.




BUT yaaaaa.....it's all a conspiracy.
Probably those wacky Jews behind it, right?

Jesus Christ you people sound like you're talking out of your asses.

And Martin Luther King was chronically cheating on his wife and eventually caught Herpes from one of his ladies.
He suffered with Herpes very severly because there were few Drs in the US that would treat him in confidance.

And in the end, MLK was killed and now over 40 years later his dream remains a dream.

And as for the Bowling for Columbine thing.
The man who made that movie makes many such TV shows in the US. His name is Micheal Moore and he's NEVER had a job. He went straight from college which his parents were wealthy enough to buy for him-- straight into "news"

Micheal Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth" had one episode about how Black Americans shouldn't trust the police because the police supposedly have something against them.
THE NEXT EPISODE was about how there are too many guns in the US and people need to throw them away and rely on the Police to protect them.

Which is it Micheal Moore?
He's such an idiot.
  • 0

#131 Mark7567

Mark7567

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 08 May 2003 - 07:20 PM

No need to stereotype everthing.


Was it not Shakespeare who said that nothing lasts for ever.



In however long a time and whatever political developments happen, America shall be tamed.


It has happened to al the global powers in human history. When the under developed countries rise to superpowers they shall first complain about the current state of world politics then they shall exert there influence.




At this time, we as people, as people, shall have to make a choice on whether this is the right way to go. And I know all the Philistines are going to accuse me talking conspiracy and other crap, but I don't care. People can choose to go down one of two routes:


1. Being the way we are going at the moment, with world politics, which is only going to lead to war on a scale that is unimaginal except to the youngest of children. 'I do not know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones'-Albert Einstein.
With new weopans and richer nations to buy these weopans becoming more apparent, where will the war end?


2. The other choice we have as a human race, I mean all cultures, is to have closer ties and become more involved with the development of this planet. So in the case of unsuspected things, like asteroids hitting the Earth we are more prepared.
I'm not saying the world should have one government, I'm suggesting something more like the UN but with more powers to act, but with the same amount of power in the right of every nation, none of this security council mince.




At the end of the day, maybe what I'm saying is complete drivel, but I say, and I believe, we need to move on now to concentrate on things that really matter e.g Science, Space Exploration and making people all over the world lives better.
  • 0

#132 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 08 May 2003 - 07:20 PM

Monktavian--------

We know what side your on anyway.

If guns were protecting so many people how come your population is killing so many innocent people with them?

I agree more police is not the answear. They never get involved untill the crime has been commited and everyone is dead.

I do think the right to bear arms is OK but what kind of arms? WMDs. Handguns and assault rifles. Automatic weapons all these should be banned to make America a safer place 10 years in jail for possessing a banned weapon.

The American people can,t handle these weapons. I doubt that one in a hundred would know what to to if confronted, If they did shoot they would miss because they would be full of fear.

I don,t care about Mike Moores history it is irrellivant.

He is into the big bucks now and much of what he says is true..

If you didn,t insist on electing radicals like george bush you wouldn,t need to have the right to bear arms to protect your rights and freedoms. By the way your not doing so good beware of Herr! Ridge and others like him.

We in Canada like to live beside a free country.

Remember McArthy the get all the Communists man!!!!!

Your currant Govt. is one of the few in the world who still KILLS its criminals. I hope there right about guilt 100% of thr time. Of course any innocent US citizens killed would be considered colateral damage.

Big buisness runs your country and at this point they have the US consuming 55% of the worlds resourses. We in the rest of the world find that a little disturbing.

You are less than 5% of this planets population.

The only thing that keeps you safe and able to do whatever you want is 60,000 Nukes and thousands of other WMDs
Having been the only country that has ever used them you can understand the concern of the rest of us. I wonder how many nukes you have to detonate to cause a global nuclear winter ??

George Bush has your counrty on a down hill slide to He-l
ll s
  • 0

#133 the jack attack

the jack attack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 09 May 2003 - 03:31 AM

Nice article.

It goes back the old saying:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

To me, that sums it all up. I hate it when people say that the guns are "responsible" for killings. As if they, the guns, are sitting around plotting how they might make their next kill... absurd.

Similar topic: The airplane security has really been beefed up to the point where you can't even take a nail file on board. This is crazy to me. Some people have the ability to kill you with a straw, and others by flicking you with their little fingers.

What if you are a black belt in karate? Do you have to board handcuffed... what about their feet? The day will come when we will all have to ride in airplanes naked and shackled... It's all ignorance.

Until people realize that it is PEOPLE and not the instumentation, we will make a lot of stupid law and do many ridiculous things.
  • 0

#134 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2003 - 06:39 PM

<It goes back the old saying:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

To me, that sums it all up. I hate it when people say that the guns are "responsible" for killings. As if they, the guns, are sitting around plotting how they might make their next kill... absurd.>

True, guns do not kill people by themselves... people left behind, people in the ghetto, uneducated people, people fed on violent TV pull the trigger...

No wonder Switzerland --with a highly educated people, even though it allows rifles-- got such a low crime ratio... (Rifles are not so much a problem as handguns, for the obvious reason they can't be concealed.)

<Similar topic: The airplane security has really been beefed up to the point where you can't even take a nail file on board. This is crazy to me. Some people have the ability to kill you with a straw, and others by flicking you with their little fingers.

What if you are a black belt in karate? Do you have to board handcuffed... what about their feet? The day will come when we will all have to ride in airplanes naked and shackled... It's all ignorance.

Until people realize that it is PEOPLE and not the instumentation, we will make a lot of stupid law and do many ridiculous things.>

Rather ridiculous argument: If guns don't kill, welcomed them in airplanes :) (You go and fly...)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#135 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2003 - 07:51 PM

Violence is the American Way

By Ira Leonard, AlterNet

(snip)

The overwhelming majority of American historians have not studied, written about, or discussed America's "high violence" environment, not because of a lack of hard information or knowledge about the frequent and widespread use of violence, but because of an unwillingness to confront the reality that violence and American culture are inextricably intertwined.

Many prominent historians recognized this years ago.

In the introduction to his 1970 collection of primary documents, "American Violence: A Documentary History," two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Hofstadter wrote: "What is impressive to one who begins to learn about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue." Indeed, Hofstadter wrote the "legacy" of the violent 1960s would be a commitment by historians systematically to study American violence.

But most American historians have studiously avoided the topic or somehow clouded the issue. In 1993, in his magisterial study, "The History of Crime and Punishment in America," for example, Stanford University Historian Lawrence Friedman devoted a chapter to the many forms of American violence. Then, in a very revealing chapter conclusion, Friedman wrote: "American violence must come from somewhere deep in the American personality ... [it] cannot be accidental; nor can it be genetic. The specific facts of American life made it what it is ... crime has been perhaps a part of the price of liberty ... [but] American violence is still a historical puzzle." Precisely what is it that historians are unwilling to discuss? Basically, there are three forms of American violence: mob violence, interpersonal violence, and war.

What is the extent of mob violence?

Indiana University Historian Paul Gilje, in his 1997 book, "Rioting in America," stated there were at least 4,000 riots between the early 1600s and 1992. Gilje asserted that "without an understanding of the impact of rioting we cannot fully comprehend the history of the American people."

This is a position that director Martin Scorsese just made his own in the film, "Gangs of New York," which focuses on the July 1863 Draft Act Riots in New York City as the historical pivot around which America's urban experience revolved. However, occasional gory movie depictions of violent riots, or Civil War battles, as in "Gods and Generals," provide little real understanding of a nation's history.

M.I.T. Historian Robert Fogelson, in his 1971 book, "Violence as Protest: a Study of Riots and Ghettos," concluded that "for three and a half centuries Americans have resorted to violence in order to reach goals otherwise unattainable ... indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the native white majority has rioted in some way and at some time against every minority group in America and yet Americans regard rioting not only as illegitimate but, even more significant, as aberrant."

Part of the fascination with group violence is the spectacle of mob rampages. But for historians there is more; group violence is viewed as a "response" to changing economic, political, social, cultural, demographic or religious conditions. Thus, however violent the episodes were, historians could see larger "reasons" for these group behaviors; somehow, these actions reflected a "cause."

(This might be likened to the way many American historians still view the southern secession movement and Civil War. Seeking to maintain their institution of human slavery, southerners started the bloodiest war in American history which almost destroyed the union. But because they claimed to be fighting for their "freedom," historians have treated their action as a legitimate cause, whereas in other nations such action is ordinarily viewed as treason).

Now, to the nitty-gritty: How many victims did riots and collective violence claim over the 400-year American historical experience?

This can never accurately be known, considering it includes official and unofficial violence against Native American Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asians and untold riots, vigilante actions and lynchings, among other things.

But a conservative guesstimate of, perhaps, about 2,000,000 deaths and serious injuries between 1607 and 2001 (or about 5,063 each and every year for 395 years) seems a reasonable - and quite conservative - number for analytical purposes, until more precise statistics are available.

At least 753,000 Native American Indians were the intended victims of warfare and genocide between 1622 and 1900 in what is now the United States of America, according to one scholar. The number for African-Americans might equal or exceed the estimate for the Indians, 750,000.

The total number of deaths for all other forms of collective violence seems well under 20,000. The greatest American riot, the New York City Draft Act riots of July 1863, resulted in between 105 and 150 deaths, while the major 1960s riots (Watts, Los Angeles, Newark, N.J., and Detroit, Mich., accounted for a total of 103 deaths, and the 1992 Los Angeles riot claimed 60 lives. The estimate of deaths from the 326 vigilante episodes is between 750 and 1,000. Approximately 5,000 individuals were known to have been lynched between 1882 and 1968, and about 2,000 more killed in labor-management violence.

Horrendous as this sounds - and it is horrendous - this 2,000,000 figure pales when compared to the major form of American violence which historians have routinely ignored until very recently. Historians of violence have largely ignored individual interpersonal violence, which, in sharp contrast to group violence, is very frequent, sometimes very personal - and far deadlier than group violence.

In 1997, two distinguished legal scholars, Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, compared crime rates in the G-7 countries (Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) between the 1960s and 1990s in their book, "Crime Is Not The Problem: Lethal Violence In America Is." Bluntly, they stated their conclusion: "What is striking about the quantity of lethal violence in the United States is that it is a third-world phenomenon occurring in a first-world nation."

(snip)

More Americans were killed by other Americans during the 20th century than died in the Spanish-American war (11,000 "deaths in service"), World War I (116,000 "deaths in service"), World War II (406,000 "deaths in service"), the Korean police action (55,000 "deaths in service"), and the Vietnam War (109,000 "deaths in service") combined. ("Deaths in Service" statistics are greater than combat deaths and were used here to make the contrast between war and civilian interpersonal violence rates even clearer.)

So, what accounts for the American ability to overlook collective violence, interpersonal violence, and war?

The explanation lies, first, with historians' abdication of responsibility systematically to deal with the issue of violence in America ... and, second, with the American population's refusal directly to confront any very ugly reality - which came first I do
not know. This is what historians refer to as " mutual causation."

(snip)

So, for the most part, Americans, laymen and historians alike, have been able to practice what some historians have termed "selective" recollection or "historical amnesia" about the violence in their past and present. Since the 1960s, historians' works, cumulatively, have demonstrated a causal connection between American culture and the American predisposition to use violence. We might now be experiencing yet another by-product of this national penchant for violence - a willingness to engage in a major war without asking very many hard questions. It's the American Way.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#136 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 01:37 AM

Don,t read to well? Try less cartoons on TV oh shallow person
  • 0

#137 Guest_Tony Stark_*

Guest_Tony Stark_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 May 2003 - 01:46 AM

Originally posted by donquijote
Violence is the American Way

By Ira Leonard, AlterNet

(snip)

The overwhelming majority of American historians have not studied, written about, or discussed America's "high violence" environment, not because of a lack of hard information or knowledge about the frequent and widespread use of violence, but because of an unwillingness to confront the reality that violence and American culture are inextricably intertwined.

Many prominent historians recognized this years ago.

In the introduction to his 1970 collection of primary documents, "American Violence: A Documentary History," two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Hofstadter wrote: "What is impressive to one who begins to learn about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue." Indeed, Hofstadter wrote the "legacy" of the violent 1960s would be a commitment by historians systematically to study American violence.

But most American historians have studiously avoided the topic or somehow clouded the issue. In 1993, in his magisterial study, "The History of Crime and Punishment in America," for example, Stanford University Historian Lawrence Friedman devoted a chapter to the many forms of American violence. Then, in a very revealing chapter conclusion, Friedman wrote: "American violence must come from somewhere deep in the American personality ... [it] cannot be accidental; nor can it be genetic. The specific facts of American life made it what it is ... crime has been perhaps a part of the price of liberty ... [but] American violence is still a historical puzzle." Precisely what is it that historians are unwilling to discuss? Basically, there are three forms of American violence: mob violence, interpersonal violence, and war.

What is the extent of mob violence?

Indiana University Historian Paul Gilje, in his 1997 book, "Rioting in America," stated there were at least 4,000 riots between the early 1600s and 1992. Gilje asserted that "without an understanding of the impact of rioting we cannot fully comprehend the history of the American people."

This is a position that director Martin Scorsese just made his own in the film, "Gangs of New York," which focuses on the July 1863 Draft Act Riots in New York City as the historical pivot around which America's urban experience revolved. However, occasional gory movie depictions of violent riots, or Civil War battles, as in "Gods and Generals," provide little real understanding of a nation's history.

M.I.T. Historian Robert Fogelson, in his 1971 book, "Violence as Protest: a Study of Riots and Ghettos," concluded that "for three and a half centuries Americans have resorted to violence in order to reach goals otherwise unattainable ... indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the native white majority has rioted in some way and at some time against every minority group in America and yet Americans regard rioting not only as illegitimate but, even more significant, as aberrant."

Part of the fascination with group violence is the spectacle of mob rampages. But for historians there is more; group violence is viewed as a "response" to changing economic, political, social, cultural, demographic or religious conditions. Thus, however violent the episodes were, historians could see larger "reasons" for these group behaviors; somehow, these actions reflected a "cause."

(This might be likened to the way many American historians still view the southern secession movement and Civil War. Seeking to maintain their institution of human slavery, southerners started the bloodiest war in American history which almost destroyed the union. But because they claimed to be fighting for their "freedom," historians have treated their action as a legitimate cause, whereas in other nations such action is ordinarily viewed as treason).

Now, to the nitty-gritty: How many victims did riots and collective violence claim over the 400-year American historical experience?

This can never accurately be known, considering it includes official and unofficial violence against Native American Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asians and untold riots, vigilante actions and lynchings, among other things.

But a conservative guesstimate of, perhaps, about 2,000,000 deaths and serious injuries between 1607 and 2001 (or about 5,063 each and every year for 395 years) seems a reasonable - and quite conservative - number for analytical purposes, until more precise statistics are available.

At least 753,000 Native American Indians were the intended victims of warfare and genocide between 1622 and 1900 in what is now the United States of America, according to one scholar. The number for African-Americans might equal or exceed the estimate for the Indians, 750,000.

The total number of deaths for all other forms of collective violence seems well under 20,000. The greatest American riot, the New York City Draft Act riots of July 1863, resulted in between 105 and 150 deaths, while the major 1960s riots (Watts, Los Angeles, Newark, N.J., and Detroit, Mich., accounted for a total of 103 deaths, and the 1992 Los Angeles riot claimed 60 lives. The estimate of deaths from the 326 vigilante episodes is between 750 and 1,000. Approximately 5,000 individuals were known to have been lynched between 1882 and 1968, and about 2,000 more killed in labor-management violence.

Horrendous as this sounds - and it is horrendous - this 2,000,000 figure pales when compared to the major form of American violence which historians have routinely ignored until very recently. Historians of violence have largely ignored individual interpersonal violence, which, in sharp contrast to group violence, is very frequent, sometimes very personal - and far deadlier than group violence.

In 1997, two distinguished legal scholars, Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, compared crime rates in the G-7 countries (Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) between the 1960s and 1990s in their book, "Crime Is Not The Problem: Lethal Violence In America Is." Bluntly, they stated their conclusion: "What is striking about the quantity of lethal violence in the United States is that it is a third-world phenomenon occurring in a first-world nation."

(snip)

More Americans were killed by other Americans during the 20th century than died in the Spanish-American war (11,000 "deaths in service"), World War I (116,000 "deaths in service"), World War II (406,000 "deaths in service"), the Korean police action (55,000 "deaths in service"), and the Vietnam War (109,000 "deaths in service") combined. ("Deaths in Service" statistics are greater than combat deaths and were used here to make the contrast between war and civilian interpersonal violence rates even clearer.)

So, what accounts for the American ability to overlook collective violence, interpersonal violence, and war?

The explanation lies, first, with historians' abdication of responsibility systematically to deal with the issue of violence in America ... and, second, with the American population's refusal directly to confront any very ugly reality - which came first I do
not know. This is what historians refer to as " mutual causation."

(snip)

So, for the most part, Americans, laymen and historians alike, have been able to practice what some historians have termed "selective" recollection or "historical amnesia" about the violence in their past and present. Since the 1960s, historians' works, cumulatively, have demonstrated a causal connection between American culture and the American predisposition to use violence. We might now be experiencing yet another by-product of this national penchant for violence - a willingness to engage in a major war without asking very many hard questions. It's the American Way.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote



My, my. You sure do know how to cut and paste. If you look at HUMAN history you would see that it is filled with violence so the question is what is your point? You should be asking can human nature be tamed?

-Tony
  • 0

#138 Gil Hughes

Gil Hughes

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1232 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 01:55 AM

Tony Stark------

I think his point is as you put it is that Americans a re probably inclined to be the most violent people on the Planet.

Or did I misread his paste.

The truth hurts
  • 0

#139 publius

publius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 02:00 AM

< The truth hurts >

truth? on just what are you basing this claim?
  • 0

#140 publius

publius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 02:07 AM

< The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. >

< Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S. >

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=21902

- admittedly two years old but any change would likely favor the US as crime rates have dropped over the past couple of years.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru