For example, the United States practiced genocide. OK, we didn’t call it that, but we did try to clear the lands of the Native Americans. Years later, we saw that the Germans were committing genocide against the Jewish people and we used that to motivate Americans to fight Hitler. The Americans had Jim Crow laws, but not long after, we condemned apartheid policies in the African Continent.
So, my question is what does your culture now accept that in the future will be rejected internationally?
Well, we didn’t call it genocide because it really WASN’T genocide…it was a basic land grab from the native peoples. We never tried to systematically kill off the native American’s. This isn’t to say that what we DID was all that wonderful (it wasn’t)…but if you want good old fashioned genocide one needs to look more to our Euro buddies for a good model. We were pikers in comparison (just look up what the Spanish did in the new world if you want some really juicy examples).
Societies move on…and what was once acceptable becomes unacceptable to later generations. Especially in non-static societies like our own. For example, since you used a WWII comparison…carpet bombing of masses of civilians was not only acceptable but expected in WWII. Every major combatant did it…and it was a race to see who could wack the maximum number of civilians at one time, culminating in the US ‘winning’ the race (in the fire bombings of Tokyo, not with the atomic bombs as most people think). Our British cousins were running a close second however.
That kind of thing is no longer acceptable however. Our society has moved on…and become better for it (IMHO).
Because by the time ‘not long after’ (i.e. by the 80’s) that kind of behavior was no longer acceptable here in the US. We had moved on LONG before we (and our Euro buddies) started to condemn the South Africans for apartheid policies.
Were I to guess, I’d say that civilian casualties will increasingly become intolerable, and greater and greater efforts will be poured into further minimizing them. Also, were I to guess I’d say that wars of agression like Iraq will probably also become more intolerable…especially for so flimsy of reasons and by individual or even small groups of nations. In future (IMHO) what we will have is only wars where there is clearly a VERY good reason…and those wars will more resemble GWI than GWII.
xtisme You are right, it wasn’t technically genocide. The appropriate term for it is ‘ethnic cleansing’, which doesn’t require the death of the group being cleansed only their removal from the land being cleansed. This can be accomplished by pushing them into refugee camps in other countries, like Canada or creating ‘Reservations’, Ghettos if you will, in your own country.
As an answer to the OP, I think that trying to force foreign countries to conform to a particular standard will be considered inappropriate in the future. Trying to remake other countries in the western image will fall out of favor.
I don’t think the US is guilty of trying to force foreign countries to conform to a standard. More like “we don’t ever want another 9/11 and we’ll do whatever it takes to ensure that never happens again.” How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since September, 2001: zero. Good on ya’ Uncle Sam. And happy birthday while we’re at it.
The environmental crusade is the one I fear most. I hope we don’t bankrupt the country attempting to reduce the 1% CO2 that we’re responsible for emitting in Canada.
Yeah, I’m glad Iraq is a Democracy now. It makes me feel so much better about those Saudi Terrorists that were training in Afghanistan and the Sudan. :rolleyes:
Before September 11th there weren’t many terrorist attacks in the US either.
Yeah, I think that we are going about this thing all wrong. Environmentalism is about decreasing individual consumption, but for some people think it’s a great time to have another rock concert orgy of consumption in order to bring awareness to the issue.
How many were there in the six years before September 2001?
As for the topic of the thread: The environment, and animal rights. I believe that in the future, people will sit around wondering how people in the past could treat their surroundings and other animals so badly. Didn’t they think?
Don’t forget about all the foiled attacks. Dirty bombs, that plan to detonate the plane over the Atlantic which led to the banning of gels and such, and all those other ones that America forgets about because Uncle Sam is doing his job.
‘hard’ (legal) discrimination against women
Wars of aggression
Death penalty
Crusades
**Formerly practiced widely, still of significant prevalence, incipient crusade against **
‘soft’ discriminiation against women
Homophobia
Second-hand smoking
Currently prevalent, possible future crusade against
Penalization of recreational drug use where no third party is victimized/endangered
Obesity (esp. under the angle that it’s a greenhouse emission promoter)
Mass meat production practices
Being promoted today, possibly future crusade against
Biofuels from crops grown for the purpose
Oh, and all the crusading issues of two centuries hence are probably totally off my radar.
