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.
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.
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. 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.
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”.
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.
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.
**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.
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 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…
Exactly. Such a test has never been tried, AFAIK, precisely because so many people believe “You have to draw a line somewhere.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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]
People who live under dictatorships. Lots of women.
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.
Dogface, next time, try reading the thread. You’ll see no liberal has posted any such thing.
WAL-MART WORKERS!!!
heeheehee:D
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.
Yes, because that’s the only possible conclusion to criticizing the United States. :smack:
Posted by Dogface:
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:
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.