Most oppressed people in the world?

[Oktberfest]

Who are the people most in need of liberation in the world? Will the US liberate them (as our new policy seems to be)?

[adaher]

Probably North Korea.

And there is a chance it will happen.

The US doesn't act ONLY in humanitarian interest, but there is always a humanitarian aspect to it. But there also has to be some national security rationale for it as well. The only exception I can think of is Somalia, and in hindsight even that would have served a valuable national security interest if it had succeeded.

[Dogface]

Actually, if you ask any liberal, the USA is the most oppressive country in the world.

[JThunder]

What about them muties? They keep whining about how badly oppressed they are.

[adaher]

Actually, if you ask any liberal, the USA is the most oppressive country in the world.



That would be a leftist. Liberals don't consider the US to be the enemy because their agenda is liberal democracy. Leftists have an entirely different agenda and there is no greater impediment to it than liberal democracy.

How to spot a leftist? THere are some liberals and conservatives alike who have legitimate criticism of US and Israeli policies. Leftists go a bit further. They oppose Taiwan, hate the Cuban exile community, love Hugo Chavez and applaud him in his efforts to stop the recall vote, and don't want to talk about the Iranian dissidents.

[Rashak Mani]

hhmm... do people in North Korea even know they are oppressed ? Totalitarian states tend to indoctrinate a lot.

Should we consider economic oppression ? Only state oppression ? I would say the palestinians would be on the top 3 list for sure.... economic, political and military oppression.

Gays in the bible belt ?

[adaher]

Well, North Koreans are constantly trying to escape, so I would say they know they are oppressed.

The Palestinians rank pretty far down the list. They probably the least oppressed of their fellow Arabs. If they knew that, they might not be so quick to want independence from Israel under the ironfisted rule of Arafat.

[Rashak Mani]

Poor palestinians... they are happy and dont know it ?

[adaher]

I wouldn't go that far.

But it's easy to make a case that Palestinians are less opressed under Israeli rule than Iraqis under Hussein, the Saudis under the Saud family, or Libyans under Qaddafi. Just read the comparative Amnesty International reports.

[cbm77]

I would say people convicted of felonies or worse who didn't commit the crime they were convicted of. The US justice department can really drag those individuals to the edge.
I have a family member who lives with a felony conviction. It has destroyed his life and is still destroying his life...

[CyberPundit]

"hhmm... do people in North Korea even know they are oppressed ?"
I suspect that even the North Korean propoganda machine can't cover up the mass-starvation that's killed hundreds of thousands of people in the country. So North Korea is probably the correct answer to the OP though Congo probably is up there in terms of the sheer scale of suffering.

[adaher]

True, but Congo isn't really ruled by a powerful central government the way North Korea is. It's more anarchic. In North Korea's case you can probably destroy the regime and then reintegrate it with the South relatively quickly. Congo is a mess, it would take hundreds of thousands of troops and massive money to even begin to make sense of the thing.

[even sven]

Youth.

They are universally disenfranchised and have no say in their government. They can legally be over-ridden in their decisions about such fundamental things as their own health. In many places where abortion is perfectly legal, a youth can be forced to carry an unwanted child to term- a decision with lifelong consequences. They cannot enter into contracts, be outside after nine at night (or whenever curfew is) or even legally enjoy something as fundamental as sex with another person.

I'm pretty serious here. While I don't think children should have the same rights as adults, you have to admit they (especially teenagers) get pretty shafted. Added to that is a culture that treats them as a mix of a pet and a criminal, and you have one pretty opressed group.

[Sofa King]

My vote goes for whomever is currently a sheep-herder in some wayward section of Israel/Palestine. That poor bastard likely doesn't know it, but he's the product of near-constant occupation or tributary relationship from going back to at least 61 B.C.

Someone actually came up with the bright idea to put two historically occupied and/or oppressed peoples right there next to one another, in the strategic back of the kneecap of the Mediterranean Sea.

Whoever first championed that idea should probably be noted as very unwise, since that small region has historically encouraged a victor's occupation of whomever managed to occupy and opress the people who preceded them.

[kiffa]

If you are talking oppression caused by their own govt: I would say North Koreans with Zimbabweans in second place.

If you are talking about the thugs and profiteers [ie lawless chaos with little effective spokesperson/force to protect you and yours: I would say the Congolese with Liberians in second place.

If you are talking about occupied territories: Iraqis, Palestinians, Chechnians

[adaher]

Gotta throw Cuba, Libya, China and Saudi Arabia in there for governments.

As for occupied territories, there is always going to be dispute as to what constitutes "occupied". There is no doubt Iraq is occupied, although that's a temporary situation, not a conquest. Palestine is sort of occupied, it's obvious it shouldn't be controlled by Israel, but then who should control it? That's up for questioning.

I've never heard Chechnya called "occupied" before. When was Chechnya ever independent? I guess it's more accrurately a rebellion, kind of like Eritrea/Ethiopia. Talk about your bad situations, that one had to be one of the worst.

[JThunder]

I think that Sudanese Christians (http://www.rightgrrl.com/2000/colon/gen.html) are probably up there somewhere. The situation is pretty darned bad (http://www.afa.net/journal/april/2002/sudan.asp).

[jjimm]

Don't forget the Burmese. The Chechnyans got royally fucked. And as adaher says, the Saudis, especially the women. Though I would dispute the Chinese being on the list. The government is a bitch if you cross it, and there's a lot of repression and state-sponsored going on, but it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of other dictatorships.

[Gest]

Originally posted by adaher
In North Korea's case you can probably destroy the regime and then reintegrate it with the South relatively quickly. What is your timeframe for quick? If it is to be anything like the German experience, and I suspect it will be worse, it will drain the South's economy and have social repercussions for decades at the most optimistic.

[Gest]

Anyway, I'd like to offer up Aceh and West Papua. Their people are subject to the usual TNI and police atrocities but they have the additional slap in the face of hosting American companies like Freeport and Exxon. So when the Indonesian government call GAM and OPM terrorists, obfuscation and whitewashing from Western governments give such claims the appearance of credibility.

[adaher]

Don't forget the Burmese. The Chechnyans got royally fucked. And as adaher says, the Saudis, especially the women. Though I would dispute the Chinese being on the list. The government is a bitch if you cross it, and there's a lot of repression and state-sponsored going on, but it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of other dictatorships.



Well, I'm going by Freedom House ratings and Amnesty International reports, and China ranks pretty high. Oops, forgot Iran, but it looks like they might finally be coming out of the dark.

What is your timeframe for quick? If it is to be anything like the German experience, and I suspect it will be worse, it will drain the South's economy and have social repercussions for decades at the most optimistic.

Full integration would take decades. I was mainly referring to the situation being under control, which would be within months of Kim's toppling. It's not like Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be much simpler. Just let South Korea govern it pretty much immediately and handle security. After total defeat I doubt the Communists would be nearly as fanatical as the Islamists. It would probably be a total collapse and the security situation would be fairly easy.

Anyway, I'd like to offer up Aceh and West Papua. Their people are subject to the usual TNI and police atrocities but they have the additional slap in the face of hosting American companies like Freeport and Exxon. So when the Indonesian government call GAM and OPM terrorists, obfuscation and whitewashing from Western governments give such claims the appearance of credibility.



I'm not well informed on this, so could someone answer a couple of questions?

1) Isn't the Aceh revolt about trying to set up an Islamist theocracy in the area? And isn't Indonesia democratic, if not exactly liberal yet?
2) Although American companies still do business and participate in atrocities, didn't Clinton end military support for the Indonesian government?

[Gest]

Isn't the Aceh revolt about trying to set up an Islamist theocracy in the area? And isn't Indonesia democratic, if not exactly liberal yet?[/B
]The Acehnese want to revert to a sultanate but more importantly, they want an end to the rapes, ethnic cleansing and massacres. Their best best bet in achieving these ends is in doing away with Jakarta based rule altogether. Their movement isn't fired by any kind of zealous Islamic fundamentalism. SE Asian Islam traditionally hasn't been about that. However, the TNI (army) backed militias are the new breed and they are Islamist. They are more or less the same people who pillaged East Timor, West Papua and rattling sabres at the West now. Jemaah Islamiyah have al Qaeda, TNI and goverment connections... and the fuckwits in your administration are indirectly helping them! They still don't understand that you need to see both sides of Megawati's face when she speaks.

[b]Although American companies still do business and participate in atrocities, didn't Clinton end military support for the Indonesian government?
Well never completely and he soon eased those restrictions with Bush then continuing and increasing the pace of normalisation regarding military aid.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:GDLCa8jp4EIJ:www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/asia/indonesia/reports/A400658_21052002.pdf

[Gest]

Sorry about the coding. How's that for an atrocity?

[Marley23]

Well, North Koreans are constantly trying to escape, so I would say they know they are oppressed.
The New Yorker ran a very interesting piece on Kim Jong Il and North Korea a few months back, I wish I could quote it here. But they say that people who get out of NK to China are often deeply shocked when they find out how different the situation in the country really is from what the government has told them. People do try to escape, so perhaps some know- but they'd still get my vote to be the most oppressed. I wouldn't want to go to China or Iran either, but there seems to be some hope for those countries for one reason or another. Seems like the best thing that can happen to North Korea is things get so bad that the regime collapses, which would surely not be any fun.

[Gest]

OK one more time... http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:GDLCa8jp4EIJ:www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/asia/indonesia/reports/A400658_21052002.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Desmostylus]

Just trying to help Gest out here:

RESUMING U.S.-INDONESIA MILITARY TIES (http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/asia/indonesia/reports/A400658_21052002.pdf) (warning, .PDF)

That's the link that Gest is trying to provide.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Oppressed by governments, though there are many oppressive regimes in the middle-east, only the Kurdish people treatment by Turkey is comparable with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The Russian treatment of the Chechychans also has strong paralells with the above two cases.

North Korea is probably the worse with possibly millions of people of dying of starvation there.

Probably the worst place to live currently would be in the Congo were currently violence simlair to that which was seen in neighbouring Rwanda during the genocide there, though most of the violence is being carried out by factions commanded by warlords and split along ethnic lines.

[Rashak Mani]

Checyna is worth at least a second place... those Russian troops are running roughsod all over the place raping and bullying all over. North Koreans are certainly "oppressed" by govt and famine.

[sleeping]

Originally posted by even sven
Youth.

They are universally disenfranchised and have no say in their government. They can legally be over-ridden in their decisions about such fundamental things as their own health. In many places where abortion is perfectly legal, a youth can be forced to carry an unwanted child to term- a decision with lifelong consequences. They cannot enter into contracts, be outside after nine at night (or whenever curfew is) or even legally enjoy something as fundamental as sex with another person.

I'm pretty serious here. While I don't think children should have the same rights as adults, you have to admit they (especially teenagers) get pretty shafted. Added to that is a culture that treats them as a mix of a pet and a criminal, and you have one pretty opressed group.

Second that.

I guess it depends on what qualifications you use. Does the number of people in said group matter? Are you considering the world as a whole or a specific group within one country?

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by Dogface
Actually, if you ask any liberal, the USA is the most oppressive country in the world.
Get that off a bumper sticker, Dogface? When you have an informed opinion, come back. :rolleyes:

The trouble with the question is that both "oppressed" and "people" are not clearly enough defined. How does long term economic or political oppression compare to long term physical oppression? By "people" do we mean religious, ethnical or nationalistic groupings?

[BrainGlutton]

For oppressed nationalities, I'd nominate the Kurds, who have been taking it on the ear a lot longer than the Chechens. The Iraqi Kurds are no longer oppressed, or at least they think they're not (see the website of the Kurdistan Regional Government http://www.krg.org/), but the Turkish and Iranian Kurds still get stomped on by their governments whenever they start talking about independence or autonomy. Other obvious choices are the Tibetans and the Inner Mongolians (honestly!). I would add the Manchurians, but their territory has been so heavily colonized by Han-Chinese since WWII that it is probably meaningless to talk of a Manchurian nationality as even existing any more.

For a comprehensive list of national minorites with perceived grievances, see the "Sedition and Exile Groups" page of the Micronation and Sovereignty Website Index, http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/exile.html. Some examples there are pitiable, and some are surprising (did you know some Shi'ite Arabs in southwestern Iran want to secede and form an independent "Arabistan" or "Khuzestan"?), and some are just plain amusing (the Kingdom of Frisland, Rockall Island!).

I notice nobody has mentioned any of the surviving American Indian nations. Perhaps you all think these are not "oppressed" because they get to live as house minorities in a free republic? I would be inclined to agree with that, actually, but some Indians don't see it that way.

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by adaher:

Liberals don't consider the US to be the enemy because their agenda is liberal democracy. Leftists have an entirely different agenda and there is no greater impediment to it than liberal democracy.

How to spot a leftist? THere are some liberals and conservatives alike who have legitimate criticism of US and Israeli policies. Leftists go a bit further. They oppose Taiwan, hate the Cuban exile community, love Hugo Chavez and applaud him in his efforts to stop the recall vote, and don't want to talk about the Iranian dissidents.


Speaking as a member of the Socialist Party and of the Democratic Socialists of America, I must tell you this characterization is at least partly confused. Except for actual Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries, who are extremely rare even on the left, most leftists of my acquaintance think liberal democracy could be their best friend, if only it were a bit more liberal and a bit more democratic. Read Daniel Lazare's The Frozen Republic. His thesis is that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to the implementation of socialism because it isn't democratic enough. (I think he's being too optimistic about what the left's prospects would be in a genuine national majoritarian democracy, but that's another discussion.)

As for specifics, I have nothing against the Taiwanese and I don't know any leftist who does. Most of us would be tickled pink [rimshot] to see the Communist regime on the mainland go down, and we would not want to see China take over Taiwan unless that happened first. I do hate the Cuban exile community, but that's just because they're such assholes. If they would only shut up, we could normalize relations with Cuba, open the door to trade, and hasten the end of its Marxist-Leninist regime. Why can't they see that? Iranian dissidents were profiled in depth, very sympathetically, in a recent issue of The Nation, and I think I recall some pieces on them in recent broadcasts of Democracy Now or the Pacifica Network News, not sure which. I didn't know Hugo Chavez was involved in efforts to stop the California recall, but if he was, more power to him; the recall was a stupid idea. Chavez is an entirely admirable person otherwise, in his history as a labor organizer.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
hhmm... do people in North Korea even know they are oppressed ? Totalitarian states tend to indoctrinate a lot.

So a person is not oppressed if he/she doesn't know he/she is oppressed? Uh-uh.

Gays in the bible belt ?

You know I was talking to this gay Texan the other day and he was telling me how he was trying to get a visa to live in North Korea to escape the oppression he experienced in "the bible belt".:rolleyes: I hope you were kidding with that one...

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by even sven
Youth.
While I agree with everything you say about the oppression of youth, I think I'd rather be a teenager in America than a peasant in North Korea... although I suspect the U.S. will liberate the North Korean peasants before its own youth.

[adaher]

About the Chechens: Russia gave them autonomy, but Islamist freaks started bombing Russian targets, forcing them to intervene to stop the terrorism. Sound familiar? I think it's time to stop blaming the victim. It seems to be fashionable nowadays to automatically consider the stronger party the aggressor and the weaker party the victim. That's not always the case. If the stronger party was attacked first and is still fighting with one hand tied behind it's back while the smaller foe uses all means possible to attack, the stronger foe is the victim.

[pervert]

Originally posted by even sven
Youth.
I'm pretty serious here. While I don't think children should have the same rights as adults, you have to admit they (especially teenagers) get pretty shafted. Added to that is a culture that treats them as a mix of a pet and a criminal, and you have one pretty opressed group.

OK, someone has to say this. This is silly. I understand what you are saying, I used to feel similarly when I was a teenager. And I do understand that some teenagers are completely capable of making good decisions. However, to suggest that as a class they are opressed "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority" goes too far.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Originally posted by adaher
About the Chechens: Russia gave them autonomy, but Islamist freaks started bombing Russian targets, forcing them to intervene to stop the terrorism. Sound familiar? I think it's time to stop blaming the victim. It seems to be fashionable nowadays to automatically consider the stronger party the aggressor and the weaker party the victim. That's not always the case. If the stronger party was attacked first and is still fighting with one hand tied behind it's back while the smaller foe uses all means possible to attack, the stronger foe is the victim.

Idoicy Adaher, the rise of islamic extremism in Chechenya was entirely preciptated by the actions of the Russian troops there, prior to this the Chechens were not noted for being a particularly religious people. I think it's time YOU stopped blaming the victims.

[adaher]

I don't deny that the original Russian intervention led to a rise in Islamic extremism.

But the Russians withdrew and Chechnya had what they wanted. It was over. Then terrorists started slaughtering Russians and it all started again.

The war was over, the Islamic extremists fired the first shots in the new war. Russia was the aggressor the first time, no doubt, but they are now the victim.

[adaher]

The invasion of Chechnya was prompted in 1999 by terrorist bombings that killed 217 Russians, plus the invasion of Dagestan.

Chechnya initiated the second war. Russia is the victim.

Even the first war was preceded by a wave of kidnappings and violence against Russians.

Now a common defense is that the Chechnyan government wasn't responsible. Well, tough cookies. If you can't prevent such things from happening, you don't deserve independence and the victim nation has the right to intervene to restore order so they can live in peace.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/timeline8.html

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

And of course you ignore everything that happened before 1999.

[bbart4]

Adaher,

The Chechens wanted independence and they only got "autonomy." There's a big difference between independence and autonomy.

Why don't you read up some background facts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2565049.stm) about Chechnya.

The latest election (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48980-2003Oct5.html) was a farce orchestrated by Putin in which a Kremlin handpicked candidate was chosen as its leader.

If you bother reading a little about Chechnya you'd find that they have been resisting occupation. Your bit about who's firing the first shot may or may not be true but clearly it isn't the point as the first shot was fired in Chechnya.

[bbart4]

As MC Master of Ceremonies suggested, it started way before 1999.

[Gest]

The Chechen and Acehese situations raise a fundamental issue here. The autonomy offered by the Russians and the democracy offered by the Indonesians were/are a sham but even then they are beside the point. Autonomy and democracy are a little like national security in that they are offered up as justification for myriad abuses. For example, in the US all kinds of freedoms are being whittled away in the name of national security as the primary objective. Freedom of speech, association and expression cultural identity (amongst others) are primary objectives.

We usually accept that autonomy and democracy are the best way of ensuring self-determination and freedom from oppression and we can look around the world for confirmation of this. But as we can see in Central and SE Asia, these guarantees have been worthless in truly liberating the oppressed. Having a Chechen born president or Acehenese voting for a parliament over a thousand miles away counts for zilch when the Russians still napalm you and the Indonesians still burn your schools.

[bbart4]

In the case of Aceh, a status of 'special region' was offered and accepted in the early 60's. The problem was that all the promises were just a sham. Aceh, which is rich in natural resources, was pretty much there as a cash cow to the central gov't in Jakarta. The region has been relatively poor compared to other provinces in Indonesia.

With the fall of Suharto in 1998--it was during his regime that the most horrible atrocities were committed by TNI--and the subsequent independence of E. Timor, it seemed that there was hope to end the conflict. Especially that TNI (Indonesian Armed Forces) did seem to have lost some of its political power in the parliement.

However, it wasn't to be. Abdurrahman Wahid, the previous president, seemed to have good intentions but he miscalculated the apparently still strong elements of TNI. When Megawati came to power, things got worse as she does have strong support from TNI. With the Indonesian national election looming, she probably thought that she would gain popularity by launching an all out war a few months ago. Things, however, have dragged on without an end in sight (reporters have been banned from the area after actually being embedded with Indonesian troops at the start of the war).

To make matters worse, GAM (the Acehnese rebels) haven't been behaving in the most positive ways either. The political leaders are nationalistic and idealistic but they all live in exile in Sweden (most are Swedish citizens by now). They don't seem to see what's really happening on the ground. Some rebels do commit atrocities against their own people; some are just thugs. Of course their acts are nothing compared to the atrocities committed by TNI.

The Acehnese are caught in the middle and they are basically just fed up by the worsening situation. I do think that the gov't would soon run out of money and wil be forced to negotiate. Such are the sad facts of this conflict.

[casdave]

I think that the Sahrawi peoples of the Western Sahara sadly deserve a mention in this context.

They have been occupied for centuries either by France or Spain as the centuries have passed, being used as a source of slaves in the colonies of those nations or second rate peoples in thier own land.

Currently Morocco is continuing the same unpleasant colonial role as the previous tenants, but due to the poor showing by their military against the main resisitance group - the Polisario Front, Morocco is simply bulldozing the peoples into the sea.

What is happening is that a huge barrier is being raised, and this is being used to push the Saharawi living on the land off it.

Naturally this causes resentment an unrest and simple tribesmen are giving the Moroccan army a hard time, but withou subsistance land to sustain them they could well be doomed as they as slowly but surely dispossed.

When the Israeli 'fence' is seen on news reports, where there is enclosure of former Palestinian land taken by settlers, it has a pretty unpleasant echo of what has been happening in Western Sahara for 20 years or more.

The following is a rather dry account of what is going on,

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Mar-summary-eng

Unfortunately when you look for information on this issue you tend to get a lot of Marxist groups, along with assorted nutjobs, and not enough factual information, the situation is pretty horrific there but you will need to sift through an awful lot of crap to find thoughtful reports.

[Wesley Clark]

i'd say north korea. Intense repression and starvation are rampant. North korea is so bad people try to escape into China. Considering China is considered one of the worst countries on earth in regards to freedom by Freedom House that is saying alot.

[bojon]

Anybody think about the caste system in India? I wonder what is like to be on the bottom of the bottom? Absolutely no chance? How many tens of millions?

[milroyj]

Originally posted by pervert
OK, someone has to say this. This is silly. I understand what you are saying, I used to feel similarly when I was a teenager. And I do understand that some teenagers are completely capable of making good decisions. However, to suggest that as a class they are opressed "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority" goes too far.

Not only silly, but also insulting to those who are truly oppressed. No matter what perceived indignities American teenagers face, it aint oppression, like the North Koreans face, to pick just one of many examples given in this thread.

[mascaroni]

An Article about the Hmong tribe of Laos, from today's Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-840615,00.html)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I agree with Even Sven that youth are oppressed in the US (and FTR, I'm coming up on my never-to-be-trusted-again thirtieth birthday). I agree with other people that they're nowhere near as oppressed as your average peasant in your average dictatorship.

North Korea would win my vote.

I was going to make a snarky comment about how some US Conservatives (and Libertarians) are convinced that Christians are the most oppressed group, but I see Dogface has already made this thread's mandatory obnoxious irrelevant partisan attack, so I'll forbear, and apologize for this elided reference.

Daniel

[Super Gnat]

Originally posted by bojon
Anybody think about the caste system in India? I wonder what is like to be on the bottom of the bottom? Absolutely no chance? How many tens of millions? The Untouchables mass defected to Buddhism ('http://www.lightwatcher.com/old_lightbytes/hindus_convert.html') about two years ago. Good for them (though I personally wish they had gone to Christianity).

[even sven]

Actually, the untouchables were saved not by religion, but by Ghandi- who devoted a good part of his energy eliminating the idea of Untouchables, the Indian government who abolished the caste system, big cities where nobody has room to care what caste you are, and finally one of the world's best and most extensive affirmative actions programs. There is still class prejudice to be sure, but it is gone as official policy, pretty much elminated economically and culturally negligable in this cities.

I still stand by youth. What class cannot vote, anywhere? What class does not have the integrity of their body, health, and sexuality? Which class can (in some places) be married off, indentured to work, deprived of money they have worked for, restricted from movement, banned in many places, not allowed to buy many things, hit, sent to private prison camps for commiting no crimes- with no judge and no jury (that happens in the US), and otherwise made to suffer indignities and lacking in self-determination.

[pervert]

OK, sven, but where do you draw the line at youth which should have all these rights. 2, 10, 14, 17?

The number itself does not matter too much. It has to be drawn somewhere. The alternative is some sort of means test whereby you prove you are able to handle your affairs before you are allowed to.

You can't be arguing that all 13 year olds are sufficiently educated to vote?

Meanwhile, this really is nothing more that teenage hubris. Young people in this country are more free than most of the worlds population.

I'll agree that we do not do the best possible job of preparing our youth for adulthood, but to suggest that they are oppressed (in the same sense that christians are in china for instance) because they cannot vote at 13 is just silly.

[DSeid]

Will the US liberate them (as our new policy seems to be)?
Don't you love when a sarcastic post gets a serious discussion going? ;)

No, Ocktoberfest, not too many people really believe that the US policy for military intervention and spending Billions of dollars is liberating oppressed people. As you obviously intended, the well informed members of this board can come up with many examples of oppressed peoples (and a quick purusal of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch's sites can find many more) and many of them committed by our allies with our support. When running Bush was quite clear that the US should not be in the business of solving humanitarian problem across the world with our military power, but that instead US power should be applied exclusively for the furtherance of US interests. Period.

Lots of peoples more oppressed than the Iraquis were, as awful as their treatment was. But no oil.

[adaher]

That's a bit simplistic coming from people who claim to be well informed.

Just becuase we can't liberate everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't liberate anyone.

And what were we doing in Somalia? Stealing their guano? Or Lebanon? Or Bosnia and Kosovo? Or Haiti?

I won't say we do things strictly for humanitarian reasons. But that aspect is part of our foreign policy.

[DSeid]

Those were specifically what GWB was objecting to and what he said his foreign policy wouldn't do.

[Fang]

Originally posted by even sven
Which class can (in some places) be ... deprived of money they have worked for
The wealthy?

Seriously, this position is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, voting is a civil right, not a natural right, meaning it exists as part of a system which ultimately protects people and their natural rights. It would be absurd to allow the young to vote, since the younger they get, the less capable they are of making intelligent decisions about themselves, certainly about politics. Some of arguments have some merit, but I would generally say that the rights of children can be controlled for them for their benefit. I think abortion should be legal, but a 13 year-old girl should not have an abortion without her parents knowing, since she cannot be expected to act in a fully rational manner, with all medical and ethical considerations in mind. So children's rights are denied in some cases around the world, but would you rather be a randomly selected child or a randomly selected North Korean?

[adaher]

Those were specifically what GWB was objecting to and what he said his foreign policy wouldn't do.



If you're only referring to Bush I'll concede the point. Just don't try to tell me that the US in general doesn't do humanitarian missions.

[t-keela]

Oppressed is a term which may be a little hard to pin down.


(relevant or not)

The United Nations 2003 Human Development Reports indicates that Sierra Leone is the WORST country in the world in which to live.

[DSeid]

adaher,

I was mostly referring to the current stated justifications for this particular war by this particular administration. Since there have been no WMDs found a lynchpin of the retroactive rerwrite is that we did it mainly to liberate an oppressed people. Aren't we great?

Historically we have had our moments. I don't really know how much we should be in the business of using our military might to achieve putative human rights gains, and when we should do so if it is not also in our own percieved national interests. I think that it has been the exception when human rights was a prime motivating force. Generally it is added on after our leadership has decided upon military intervention for other reasons. But exceptions have occurred.

I would love it if human rights was more of a consitent motivating force behind our foreign policy and if that policy was implemented without the use of force excpt under extreme exceptional circumstances when there is no other option and then with international backing even if that means you wait a while to do it. But I see a long term track record of supporting despotic governments if our leadership believes it is in our short term best interest to do so.

[t-keela]

One could probably argue that Native Americans have been and in many ways still are the most oppressed people in the world.

As I see it, historically... most displaced indigenous natives are typically treated as sub-human.

[adaher]

I agree with you on all but the last part DSeid. When a human rights crisis is going on, we should not wait for the wankers of the world like France and Russia to throw a wrench in the works. When it's a situation where every day waiting means hundreds dead, there is no excuse for waiting except to make preparations to do it right.

[Abe]

Originally posted by adaher
When a human rights crisis is going on, we should not wait for the wankers of the world like France and Russia to throw a wrench in the works. When it's a situation where every day waiting means hundreds dead, there is no excuse for waiting except to make preparations to do it right.

It's tedious to read this kind of thing over and over, Adaher, stuff like the above proclamation as well as the outrageously simplistic "view" of Chechnya you espoused earlier. Since a lack of rebuttals to criticisms suggests you admit to ignorance of the Chechnya situation, perhaps you can now begin work on that tendency to lecture on topics you display little understanding of.

If by "wankers" above you are referring to the anti-war/better-evidence-is-required position of a sizeable portion of the planet (not just France and Russia as you imply) earlier this year, get ready to establish your arguments seriously rather than employing the hand-waving allegations of vague wrong-doing or human rights abuses that you have used so far. And read up on the discussions you've missed, because a lot of the same items come up again and again. For example, whether France was being a "wanker" was discussed starting months ago a number of times, most clearly in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185&perpage=50&pagenumber=2). Link is to the second page where the France discussion properly begins. You can't just allude vaguely to assertions that have been discredited numerous times on these boards, not without first addressing the question in better detail than a passing mention that takes your preferred answer for granted.

[adaher]

What I was referring to was French behavior during the first Gulf War, the Balkans crisis, Rwanda, and finally the current Iraq war. They were at best unhelpful, at worst obstructive. Russia especially was unhelpful during the Balkans crisis.

Now, as for Chechnya, was there or was there not peace in 1998? Who broke that peace? If your position is that every Chechen action in the present and future is justified by the original Russian sin of the first war, then you are in essence supporting perpetual war, or at worst for Russia to just "take it".

[Abe]

Originally posted by adaher
What I was referring to was French behavior during the first Gulf War, the Balkans crisis, Rwanda, and finally the current Iraq war. They were at best unhelpful, at worst obstructive. Russia especially was unhelpful during the Balkans crisis.

You are alluding to behaviour you consider objectionable, but I'll need a bit more setup for your argument rather than more casual mentions. The Balkans crisis is a particularly poor example to pick, since it's not clear that bombing the shit out of Serbia accomplished anything at all except transferring the atrocities from Milosevic's forces over to the KLA, that is it made common Serbs in their own land the target of ethnic cleansing by terrorists and criminals who were effectively empowered by the actions of NATO (the KLA thought they were so successful that they went on to attempt a similar trick in Macedonia, part of their Greater Albania agenda). Maybe Russia was right to resist the insensate NATO attack, since it accomplished little and especially considering that the Serbian people eventually deposed Milosevic by themselves once they were able to start putting the pieces of the puzzle together.

As for Chechnya, if I am not mistaken links have been provided for you. To assert that this issue began in 1999 is simply wrong, since (if nothing else) the issue of independence/autonomy had been simmering years before that -- just like Kosovo.

Now, as for Chechnya, was there or was there not peace in 1998?

There wasn't, unless you are referring to a rather short intermission in between the slaughter. The issue goes back to at least 1991, when the winner of a questionable election declared Chechnya independent. In 1994 Russia invaded Chechnya, but couldn't overcome guerrilla opposition in the South -- thousands died. In 1996 the rebels gave the Russians a thrashing and retook Grozny. After a peace accord, Russia agreed to withdraw and discuss independence in five years' time. In 1999 a Chechen warlord tried invading a neighbouring state, and Russia also blamed Chechnya for a number of apartment bombings in Moscow: so Russia invaded once again and once again people died by the thousands. Like Kosovo and most of history, the situation is rather more complex than a single date or cut-off point.

You seem to be arguing that human rights is a leading cause of foreign military intervention and the reason behind the wars of the US, which are obstinately opposed by the "wankers" France and Russia and whoever else thinks the plan of the day is a bad idea. Human rights usually have depressingly little to do with it.

[adaher]

In 1999 a Chechen warlord tried invading a neighbouring state, and Russia also blamed Chechnya for a number of apartment bombings in Moscow: so Russia invaded once again and once again people died by the thousands. Like Kosovo and most of history, the situation is rather more complex than a single date or cut-off point.


Sure it is, but as I have maintained, the peace was broken by Chechnyan terrorists and Russia had the right of self-defense.

Sure, the issue is complex. But once things settle down and there is peace both sides have an obligation to keep it that way. The Chechens failed to keep their end of the bargain.

[bbart4]

Originally posted by adaher
Now, as for Chechnya, was there or was there not peace in 1998? Who broke that peace?

This is truly a disingenous question. Was there not peace in Tito's Yugoslavia?

Even if one were to try to answer your question, Chechnya had been pretty much unstable leading up to 1999 anyway. But the point is you can't just pick a year and use it as a starting point without at least trying to understand the context.


If your position is that every Chechen action in the present and future is justified by the original Russian sin of the first war, then you are in essence supporting perpetual war, or at worst for Russia to just "take it".

If your position is that every Russian action in the present and future is justified by the Chechen 1999 "sin", then you are in essence supporting perpetual war, or at worst for Chechnya to just "take it".

See, this is pretty much a meaningless argument...

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by pervert
The number itself does not matter too much. It has to be drawn somewhere. The alternative is some sort of means test whereby you prove you are able to handle your affairs before you are allowed to.
Exactly. Such a test has never been tried, AFAIK, precisely because so many people believe "You have to draw a line somewhere."

You can't be arguing that all 13 year olds are sufficiently educated to vote?
Who says they all need to be "sufficiently educated" in order to have a say in their government? We don't impose that restriction on anyone else, as long as they've reached a certain age.

I'll agree that we do not do the best possible job of preparing our youth for adulthood, but to suggest that they are oppressed (in the same sense that christians are in china for instance) because they cannot vote at 13 is just silly.
Suppose a city had a law that said no Christians were allowed to go outside between 8 PM and 6 AM. The law was justified on the grounds that Christians were more likely to commit crimes, so it was better for everyone's safety that they stay inside at night. The law passed, of course, because it just so happens that Christians aren't allowed to vote. Wouldn't you consider that oppression?

What you're doing is justifying the oppression. You can come up with reasons why it might make sense to strip a group of their rights, but the fact remains that they are stripped of those rights.

[pervert]

Perhaps we need a unique thread for a full discussion of this. But for now, I'll make a couple more points then let you have the last say.

Originally posted by Mr2001
Such a test has never been tried, AFAIK, precisely because so many people believe "You have to draw a line somewhere."

Well, you do. Do you let non citezens vote? Animals? Dead people? Infants? Fetuses? The phrase simply means that you have to define what a voter is. Using an age is much simpler and more egalitarian than any other possible system. It is not perfect, but neither is it arbitrary.


What you're doing is justifying the oppression. You can come up with reasons why it might make sense to strip a group of their rights, but the fact remains that they are stripped of those rights.
No, I am suggesting reasons why these realities might not rise to the definition of oppression. When I looked it up in a couple dictionaries I found that all of them included things like "unjust" or "unreasonable".

Can you explain why it would be reasonable to for infants to vote?

OK, that's all for this hijack. I'll give you the last say.

[Marley23]

I would also add that even in the countries where they cannot vote, youth can receive benefits from social programs, which is a big plus. In the US, public education is essentially free, for example. While they're denied the right to vote in this country, there are also laws protecting their rights. And I can't say they're exploited these days the way a lot of the other people listed in this thread are.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by pervert
Do you let non citezens vote? Animals? Dead people? Infants? Fetuses?
Of course not... animals, dead people, and fetuses aren't bound by the law, and it wouldn't be hard to concoct a means test that excluded infants.

Originally posted by Marley23
I would also add that even in the countries where they cannot vote, youth can receive benefits from social programs, which is a big plus. In the US, public education is essentially free, for example. While they're denied the right to vote in this country, there are also laws protecting their rights.
One man's protection is another man's prison. The only free public education is the kind that kids are forced to attend, and it's hard to call that a "big plus".

But that's really a subject for another thread. ;)

[Marley23]

The only free public education is the kind that kids are forced to attend, and it's hard to call that a "big plus".
No, I know. I'm 21 and find it weird that I'm defending public education to some extent. But I'll go so far as to say even in a poor condition, it's better to have it than not to have it.

One man's protection is another man's prison.
I'm not talking about protections like bans on buying porn, cigarettes and alcohol. I'm talking about things like child labor laws. They're a good thing. So are laws against exploiting and beating children. Unlike some laws that ostensibly protect oppressed people in other countries, these are actually enforced in the US and the West in general.

[Dogface]

People, haven't you been reading the SD message boards? As all liberals will tell you (the whole "liberal democracy" squeal is just a dodge), the USA is the most oppressive nation in the world. Our government is the most fascist and centralized in the world. Our president is an absolute dictator and anybody who even THINKS of disagreeing with him is publically executed, right? Am I right? Just ask all those liberal "experts" on US politics who hang out on the SD boards. The USA is the most oppressive nation on earth. There are no human rights, whatsoever, here, not at all.

[Zoe]

Dogface is apparently one of those posters who has to completely misrepresent those who disagree with her or him in order to have any point at all.

I am a liberal. I lived in the United States where there are an abundance of human rights so precious they require constant safe-guarding. We are not perfect and there are always concerned citizens on all sides of the political spectrum working to make it better. [/that particular hijack]

As of about twenty years ago, a public school education was worth about $100,000 over the lifetime of the graduate. I don't know what that figure is now. [/end another hijack]

Even Sven: What class cannot vote, anywhere?

People who live under dictatorships. Lots of women.

What class does not have the integrity of their body, health, and sexuality? Which class can (in some places) be married off, indentured to work, deprived of money they have worked for, restricted from movement, banned in many places, not allowed to buy many things, hit, sent to private prison camps for commiting no crimes- with no judge and no jury (that happens in the US), and otherwise made to suffer indignities and lacking in self-determination.

Islam women. And most U.S. teenagers don't have to wear burkas to school. Most U.S. teens have their own beds to sleep in, plenty of electricity, hot baths and food on the table. Child labor laws protect most from exploitation in the workplace.

Some teenagers are oppressed. These are physically, mentally, emotionally or sexually abused. Many, many teens have a hard time struggling through their adolescence years. That does not mean they are oppressed.

Look, we've all been adolescents. It is tough. But try to give it a little perspective in light of what is going on in the rest of the world.

[Marley23]

Dogface, next time, try reading the thread. You'll see no liberal has posted any such thing.

[xanadu]

WAL-MART WORKERS!!!!! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=216614)
heeheehee:D

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Marley23
Dogface, next time, try reading the thread. You'll see no liberal has posted any such thing.


Is this the only thread in all of the SD?

I've seen the USA ripped up and down all sides by liberals. It's obvious that they are of the opinion that the US is the most evil place in the world and the origin of all evil.

[Marley23]

I've seen the USA ripped up and down all sides by liberals. It's obvious that they are of the opinion that the US is the most evil place in the world and the origin of all evil.
Yes, because that's the only possible conclusion to criticizing the United States. :smack:

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Dogface:

I've seen the USA ripped up and down all sides by liberals. It's obvious that they are of the opinion that the US is the most evil place in the world and the origin of all evil.


*Sigh.* No, Dogface. Some radicals and "revolutionaries" in the '60s and '70s used to talk that way. I suppose a few still do, but that kind of thinking has mostly passed from the scene. Right now, for instance, the three most popular (and funny) radical books on the stands are Thieves in High Places, by Jim Hightower; Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken; and Dude, Who Stole My Country? by Michael Moore. These books justly excoriate the Bush administration, Republicans and conservatives generally, and the corporate ruling class; but I defy you to find one paragraph in any of them that could be construed as characterizing the United States as "the most evil place in the world and the origin of all evil." As Franken put it in L&TLLWTT:

If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America. That we "blame America first." That we're suspicious of patriotism and always think our country's in the wrong. As conservative radio and TV personality Sean Hannity says, we liberals "train our children to criticize America, not celebrate it."

They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticized Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.

That's why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good.

When liberals look back on history, we see thing's we're very proud of. And we also see some things, which might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but turned out to be mistakes. And some things we did, well, they were just bad. That doesn't keep us from loving our country -- it's part of loving our country. It's called honesty. What do you think is more important to a loving relationship: honesty or lies?

* * * * *

Salem with trials -- bad

Revolutionary War -- good

Slavery -- bad

Ending slavery -- good, but hard

Civil War reenactments -- weird

Massacring Native Americans and breaking our treaties with them -- bad

Indian casinos -- ?

Child labor during the Industrial Revolution -- bad

Child labor mowing lawns and baby-sitting -- character-building

Labor movement creating the weekend -- good

Land grand universities -- hot

Rural electrification -- hotter

Social Security -- hottest!

Dictating pop culture for the world -- mixed

Selling Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, in the eighties -- in retrospect, bad

Louisiana Purchase -- bargain

Grand Canyon -- wonderful, though we really can't take much credit for it -- no, wait:

National park system -- really good

Leading human genome project -- probably good

Genetically engineering super race of unstoppable killers -- bad, but probably inevitable

Winning World War II -- wow!!

Creating democracy in postwar Germany and Japan; laying groundwork for European peace and prosperity in second half of twentieth century -- right on!

The Greatest Generation -- greatest!

The Greatest Generation -- bestseller

Liberty -- good

Justice for all -- would be nice

Bill of Rights -- great! but Second Amendment could have been clearer

Putting man on the moon -- awesome, if true

Supporting vile dictatorships in Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Congo, Paraguay, Haiti, El Salvador, Bolivia -- bad

Parades -- wholesome fun for the whole family

Gay parades -- exuberant expressions of individuality often featuring highly imaginative floats and costumes

Conducting horrific medical experiments on African-Americans in Tuskegee -- bad

Japanese internment camps -- good. Wait, what were these?

Truman Doctrine -- smart

Vietnam -- mistake

Winning Cold War -- credit all around, to postwar Republican and Democratic presidents alike

Gross human rights violations in name of winning Cold War -- credit all around, except to Jimmy Carter

Women getting the vote -- good . . . for women! Just kidding. It's good for everybody!!!

African-Americans getting the vote -- good . . . for African-Americans! Kidding again. Good for Democrats!

Making mistakes -- bad, but inevitable

Correcting mistakes -- good, but not inevitable

Calling those who point out mistakes "unpatriotic" -- itself unpatriotic

Owning up to our mistakes -- brave

America -- home of the brave

[istara]

Youth aren't really comparable with peoples and nations of the world, because membership is temporary. You don't stay "youth" for ever.

Given that we have all been "youth", the fact that there are still laws to protect and nurture "youth" - including such things as education, not being allowed to drink and smoke at the age of seven, etc etc etc - suggests that the situation of "youth" is not really an oppressive one.

Any more than "parents" are an oppressed class because they are forced to care for "youth". "Youth" have plenty of rights, they just don't have all the rights of full-grown adults. But they have some rights that full-grown adults don't have (at least in certain countries) - the rights to greater protection under sex crimes laws, rights to free food, health, housing and clothing, and many other things.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by istara
Youth aren't really comparable with peoples and nations of the world, because membership is temporary. You don't stay "youth" for ever.

Given that we have all been "youth", the fact that there are still laws to protect and nurture "youth" - including such things as education, not being allowed to drink and smoke at the age of seven, etc etc etc - suggests that the situation of "youth" is not really an oppressive one.
Are you suggesting that poor treatment doesn't count as "oppression" if it's only temporary, or if everyone has to go through it at some point?

['possum stalker]

Wow, that's a lot of balloon juice up there, kids.

Anyway, the Congo sounds very, very bad. some serious genocide is going on over there. Too bad the international community doesn't seem to give a shit.

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1561.cfm

[Isabelle]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and China moving slowly towards a more capitalist state…

It would either be people in African nations ruled by tribal war lords, with AIDs, hunger etc…or Middle East nations where
Women are more or less second class citizens…

The US should not open more war fronts than its capable of supporting…we will probably only go after nations perceived as
A threat…like North Korea etc…I doubt we are interested in tribal Africa etc.

[NurseCarmen]

Wow dogface, at least put forth a better argument than an inferred strawman. Heck, even your strawman is so weak that you have to infer opinions from the nameless faceless masses.