US "Most Violent Country in the History of Civilization?"

" @rybrad said:

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" Cause you know we love sacrificing random people several times a day atop our massive ziggurats by cutting them open with obsidian rocks and ripping their still-beating hearts out, flaying them and then wearing their skin to dinner. "

Your neighborhood sounds nice. "

Funniest thing I've read all day.  Thanks. "

" @Fajita_Jim: You can't separate these words from the rest of the sentence. The United States may have deliberately killed many Native Americans but it never deliberately attempted to destroy the Native Americans as a group nor did it attempt to destroy any part of that group. And "systematic" does not mean "this shit keeps happening" it means there was a system put in place specifically to iradicate the Native Americans which there was not. "

" @VWGTI said:

" How about Africa or Pakistan? "

I'm assuming this is a joke. "

" @Mr_Pips said:

" I swear, some of you people seem to think the Indians where just dancing around all sunshine and lolly pops when the white man came and just decided to kill them. That's not even remotely what happened. Early Indians were not peace loving people, they were at war with the colonists and the colonists were at war with the Indians. It's not he colonists fault that they were better war. Besides, that all took place before founding of the country and while still under British rule. "

What's in contention here is the treatment of Natives after the establishment of the US. And the Natives weren't all peaceful, but especially in the New England area, they had established the first modern democracy (yes, before the US). In fact, their 'Record of Rights' began "We the people, to form a union...."  sound familar?
 
How do you think the United States would react if some Muslims came over here and sat up shop on our land and started forming their own government, completely ignoring the fact that we have already settled this land. With guns and grenades most likely, yes?
 
And before you say that oft-repeated cop-out "Well the natives didn't claim the whole continent":
 

"

  I've heard it argued that were living in the most peaceful time in human history because per capita deaths caused by other people was much higher in preindustrial societies.  

America is far from the most violent civilization ever. If we want to go with length, then you could technically hand it over to China, since it is technically the longest surviving civilization succeeded by numeral dynasties. More notable violent acts in short lengths would be the Mongol hordes and Nazi Germany (though that's not really a "civilization" as much as it is a nation)

No one's trying to say that what the United States did to the Native Americans wasn't atrocious, just that it wasn't genocide. Following your example, if the U.S. tried to fight back against the Muslims that were taking their land but lost that wouldn't be genocide, that would be a successful invasion. "

Hollywood people saying ridiculous things = old news.

... Really?
He really is a film maker; only looking at the big names. The world consists of more than just the major countries, Lee!

" @SuperBuster said:

" @Fajita_Jim: You can't separate these words from the rest of the sentence. The United States may have deliberately killed many Native Americans but it never deliberately attempted to destroy the Native Americans as a group nor did it attempt to destroy any part of that group. And "systematic" does not mean "this shit keeps happening" it means there was a system put in place specifically to iradicate the Native Americans which there was not. "

You don't think we destroyed the Native Americans as a group? /looks around/ Okay. Then I guess there was no Genocide against the Jews because they still survive.  We destroyed them as a people, that doesn't mean we eradicated them from existence. They may be still sitting on reservations but their culture is gone. Reservations are not the culture of Natives.  As for Systematic, thanks for proving my point. Yes, 'This shit keeps happening' because it's symptomatic of the attitude of government and the governed. It wasn't like people occasionally decided to kill natives, it was an out-right encouraged activity. "

" @SuperBuster said:

No one's trying to say that what the United States did to the Native Americans wasn't atrocious, just that it wasn't genocide. Following your example, if the U.S. tried to fight back against the Muslims that were taking their land but lost that wouldn't be genocide, that would be a successful invasion. "

What makes what the US did genocide is that these people were persecuted simply for being who they were. If they were white people no one would have asked them to leave their land.
 
If the US invaded a Muslim nation and forced the Muslims out or killed them because they were Muslims, yes that would be genocide.
 
Do you really think our founding fathers had good intentions? Let's read a quote from good old Ben after finding out the Natives had as their form of governance a democracy:
 
 It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union - Benjamin Franklin "

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @SuperBuster said:

" @Fajita_Jim: You can't separate these words from the rest of the sentence. The United States may have deliberately killed many Native Americans but it never deliberately attempted to destroy the Native Americans as a group nor did it attempt to destroy any part of that group. And "systematic" does not mean "this shit keeps happening" it means there was a system put in place specifically to iradicate the Native Americans which there was not. "

You don't think we destroyed the Native Americans as a group? /looks around/ Okay. Then I guess there was no Genocide against the Jews because they still survive.  We destroyed them as a people, that doesn't mean we eradicated them from existence. They may be still sitting on reservations but their culture is gone. Reservations are not the culture of Natives.  As for Systematic, thanks for proving my point. Yes, 'This shit keeps happening' because it's symptomatic of the attitude of government and the governed. It wasn't like people occasionally decided to kill natives, it was an out-right encouraged activity. "

You're not reading my sentence correctly, I specifically stated that the United States deliberately killed many Native Americans but these destructive actions were never aimed at the Native Americans as a group. The many deaths of Native Americans had a negative impact on Native Americans as a whole but it was never the intent of the United States to destroy the Native Americans. Culture doesn't fit into the genocide equation.  As for the "systematic" question you're just wrong. The people of the United States did, indeed, occasionally decide to kill natives. The government did not institute a policy of seeking out natives, rounding them up and killing them until there were none left in a systematic fashion. There was no order behind the deaths of natives, they were only killed when they got in the way of expansion, randomly by random settlers. "

" Merriam-Webster said:
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @SuperBuster said:

No one's trying to say that what the United States did to the Native Americans wasn't atrocious, just that it wasn't genocide. Following your example, if the U.S. tried to fight back against the Muslims that were taking their land but lost that wouldn't be genocide, that would be a successful invasion. "

What makes what the US did genocide is that these people were persecuted simply for being who they were. If they were white people no one would have asked them to leave their land.
 
If the US invaded a Muslim nation and forced the Muslims out or killed them because they were Muslims, yes that would be genocide.
 
Do you really think our founding fathers had good intentions? Let's read a quote from good old Ben after finding out the Natives had as their form of governance a democracy:
 
 It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union - Benjamin Franklin "

No, I'm pretty sure the U.S. would have expanded even into white territory. People have fought wars over territory since the dawn of humanity, it's not genocide to force people to leave their land. By your logic with the Muslim situation every single war in which people died and territory was taken from one nation or group and given to another would be genocide. Did Alexander commit genocide against the Persians? Did Rome genocide Carthage? How about every other war in history? "

  “Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.”

" @Fajita_Jim: Man, you made that sound fucking badass.  "

Times like this i wish we had time machines, so then we could impression him back to when the Mayans existed, his head would be cut off and rolled down a pyramid faster then he could say "Violence."

" Times like this i wish we had time machines, so then we could impression him back to when the Mayans existed, his head would be cut off and rolled down a pyramid faster then he could say "Violence." "

Hard to verify something like this without a solid definition of what would constitute "violence" or a "country".

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @EpicSteve said:

" U.S. has never committed genocide like other countries and empires. "

Excuse me what? Ever hear of Wounded Knee and everything going on around it, like, say...Manifest Destiny?  "

You could make arguments for and against that. Regardless, saying the U.S. has been more violent than Axis powers, the Roman Empire, and Darfur is wrong. "

" @SuperBuster said:

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @SuperBuster said:

" @Fajita_Jim: You can't separate these words from the rest of the sentence. The United States may have deliberately killed many Native Americans but it never deliberately attempted to destroy the Native Americans as a group nor did it attempt to destroy any part of that group. And "systematic" does not mean "this shit keeps happening" it means there was a system put in place specifically to iradicate the Native Americans which there was not. "

You don't think we destroyed the Native Americans as a group? /looks around/ Okay. Then I guess there was no Genocide against the Jews because they still survive.  We destroyed them as a people, that doesn't mean we eradicated them from existence. They may be still sitting on reservations but their culture is gone. Reservations are not the culture of Natives.  As for Systematic, thanks for proving my point. Yes, 'This shit keeps happening' because it's symptomatic of the attitude of government and the governed. It wasn't like people occasionally decided to kill natives, it was an out-right encouraged activity. "

You're not reading my sentence correctly, I specifically stated that the United States deliberately killed many Native Americans but these destructive actions were never aimed at the Native Americans as a group. The many deaths of Native Americans had a negative impact on Native Americans as a whole but it was never the intent of the United States to destroy the Native Americans. Culture doesn't fit into the genocide equation.  As for the "systematic" question you're just wrong. The people of the United States did, indeed, occasionally decide to kill natives. The government did not institute a policy of seeking out natives, rounding them up and killing them until there were none left in a systematic fashion. There was no order behind the deaths of natives, they were only killed when they got in the way of expansion, randomly by random settlers. "

How were they not aimed at Native Americans as a group? Read the articles of the Indian Removal Act. How is that not targeted directly at the Natives? 
 
The Government response was: Move them, if they don't move, kill them. THAT IS GENOCIDE. Germany did the same thing. They told the Jews to leave years before they started killing them.
 
So because Germany gave the Jews a chance to leave, and because the original German plan was not extermination (I believe it was Himmler who said 'A civilized nation  would not resort to outright murder' - paraphrased and I stand to be corrected on the individual but I think that's right) but only resorted to extermination after no other country would accept the Jewish population, means that what Germany did wasn't Genocide?
 
Because the US followed the same procedure: Leave. If you don't leave, we'll kill you. THAT IS GENOCIDE! And it's genocide because it was directed toward a single group of people, rather than a generalized population.
 
And if they were only killed when they got in the way, explain Wounded Knee? Explain the Yellow Creek Massacre. Explain the Chehaw Affair. Let's take another  one of these examples and look at what happened.
 
 Bloody Island Massacre:     The murder of 60-100 Pomo people on Bo-no-po-ti island near Clear Lake, (Lake Co., California), by Nathaniel Lyon and his U. S. Army detachment, in retribution for the killing of two Clear Lake settlers who had been abusing and murdering Pomo people. (The Island Pomos had no connections to the enslaved Pomos). This incident led to a general mass killing of native people all over Northern California.  Yup, that's genocide. "

Oh Spike Lee, you can be soo intelligent and incite great discourse one moment and then say something like this a few seconds later. The NRA is fucking retarded though (just my opinion).

" @HarlequinRiot said:

" @Fajita_Jim: Man, you made that sound fucking badass.  "

The thing is, I'm not making that up. Here's a clip from the Aztec Foundation Story:
 
 In 1323, they asked the new ruler of Culhuacan, Achicometl, for his daughter, in order to make her the goddess Yaocihuatl. Unbeknownst to the king, the Mexica actually planned to sacrifice her. The Mexica believed that by doing this the princess would join the gods as a deity. As the story goes, during a festival dinner, a priest came out wearing her flayed skin as part of the ritual. Upon seeing this, the king and the people of Culhuacan were horrified and expelled the Mexica.
 
 Forced to flee, in 1325 they went to a small island on the west side of Lake Texcoco, where they began to build their city Tenochtitlan, eventually creating a large artificial island. It is said that the Aztec god, Huitzlipochtli, instructed the Aztecs to found their city at the location where they saw an eagle, on a cactus, with a snake in its talons. The Aztecs, apparently, saw this vision on the small island where Tenochtitlan was founded. "

" @SuperBuster said:

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @SuperBuster said:

No one's trying to say that what the United States did to the Native Americans wasn't atrocious, just that it wasn't genocide. Following your example, if the U.S. tried to fight back against the Muslims that were taking their land but lost that wouldn't be genocide, that would be a successful invasion. "

What makes what the US did genocide is that these people were persecuted simply for being who they were. If they were white people no one would have asked them to leave their land.
 
If the US invaded a Muslim nation and forced the Muslims out or killed them because they were Muslims, yes that would be genocide.
 
Do you really think our founding fathers had good intentions? Let's read a quote from good old Ben after finding out the Natives had as their form of governance a democracy:
 
 It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union - Benjamin Franklin "

No, I'm pretty sure the U.S. would have expanded even into white territory. People have fought wars over territory since the dawn of humanity, it's not genocide to force people to leave their land. By your logic with the Muslim situation every single war in which people died and territory was taken from one nation or group and given to another would be genocide. Did Alexander commit genocide against the Persians? Did Rome genocide Carthage? How about every other war in history? "

 You're still focusing on territory. That's your confusion. War over land is not genocide, however, the persecution of a people upon DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOU is genocide.   Why didn't the Roman Legions commit genocide when they took territory? That depends, sometimes they did. Where they waylaid whole cities: that's genocide. But that wasn't the Roman way. The Roman Way was to take over territory and make people within that territory Roman Citizens. That is not genocide.   You see the difference? Genocide is when a people are persecuted for WHO THEY ARE, be it race, culture, religion, etc. Thus, there can be genocides of Mulsims (religious), Native Americans (Racial), or  North Irish (cultural).  All of these are genocide.   IT ISN'T THAT WE TOOK THEIR LAND THAT MADE IT GENOCIDE IT'S THAT WE PERSECUTED THEM FOR BEING 'SAVAGES' THAT MAKES IT GENOCIDE!   Why do I feel like we're going in circles? I'll paraphrase that so you understand this time:   We want your land = not genocide We want your land and we want you gone or dead because you aren't us = genocide   Is what the US is doing in Iraq genocide? We're killing Muslims. No, it's not. We're not killing them BECAUSE they are Muslim, we're killing them because they are attacking us, and are trying to help the friendly Muslim people build a working government so they can be in peace.   Now, if it were genocide, then the US forces would be killing every Muslim who doesn't convert or forcing them out of the country. THAT would be genocide, and that's exactly what the US did to the Natives. We forced them to either convert (assimilate) or else. Yes, yes, that is indeed genocide.  "

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @HarlequinRiot said:

" @Fajita_Jim: Man, you made that sound fucking badass.  "

The thing is, I'm not making that up. Here's a clip from the Aztec Foundation Story:
 
 In 1323, they asked the new ruler of Culhuacan, Achicometl, for his daughter, in order to make her the goddess Yaocihuatl. Unbeknownst to the king, the Mexica actually planned to sacrifice her. The Mexica believed that by doing this the princess would join the gods as a deity. As the story goes, during a festival dinner, a priest came out wearing her flayed skin as part of the ritual. Upon seeing this, the king and the people of Culhuacan were horrified and expelled the Mexica.
 
 Forced to flee, in 1325 they went to a small island on the west side of Lake Texcoco, where they began to build their city Tenochtitlan, eventually creating a large artificial island. It is said that the Aztec god, Huitzlipochtli, instructed the Aztecs to found their city at the location where they saw an eagle, on a cactus, with a snake in its talons. The Aztecs, apparently, saw this vision on the small island where Tenochtitlan was founded. "

Wasn't that the Spanish lead by Cortes? "

Yo look at mexico right now? Mexico has been extremely violent even when it was inhabited by native americans, consistent warfare, rebellions and most recently drugggz

Not enough racism in here. I'm disappointed.

" I would not agree however they are very militaristic. Soldiers are held up as heroes and seem to get more credit than they really deserve from what I have seen of American TV,news  and media. "

Thats the most fucking retarded statement ever. There were whole civilizations built around constant war, rape, conquering, and pillaging. 
 
America is kind of bad, but there are many third world countries that are in a state of constant civil war. Sure there are 0.00001% crazy murderer psychopaths in the USA, but how about stepping outside and getting shot just because somebody felt like it. 
 
So America is possibly a bit more dangerous, for a industrialized modern country when compared to other first world countries. Saying its the most violent country in this history of civilization is one of the stupidest things I have heard in a very long time.
 
(Full Disclosure: I'm Canadian, never been to the USA.)

" Hard to verify something like this without a solid definition of what would constitute "violence" or a "country". "

" @ShaneDev said:

" I would not agree however they are very militaristic. Soldiers are held up as heroes and seem to get more credit than they really deserve from what I have seen of American TV,news  and media. "

There is definitely truth to what you say but probably not to the level that you think.  We do hold a lot of our soldiers as heroes but our media likes to over exaggerate things. They make everything seem like a bigger deal then it really is in order to make the news more interesting and get higher ratings. It actually really pisses me off.  As for the most violent country in history, hmm... I'm not really sure, I haven't brushed up on my history in a while. I don't think its the US though. "

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

" @mazik765: Why would that be a joke?  Rwandan Genocide - One example of Homicide in Africa...estimated 800,000 people killed. "

I am lucky to still be alive in this deadly country

99.999999% of Americans can walk down the street without fear of being murdered, raped or mutilated. There were plenty of nations in the past and ARE plenty of nations currently where this is nowhere near the case. Discussion over.

" @Mr_Pips said:

" I swear, some of you people seem to think the Indians where just dancing around all sunshine and lolly pops when the white man came and just decided to kill them. That's not even remotely what happened. Early Indians were not peace loving people, they were at war with the colonists and the colonists were at war with the Indians. It's not he colonists fault that they were better war. Besides, that all took place before founding of the country and while still under British rule. "

What's in contention here is the treatment of Natives after the establishment of the US. And the Natives weren't all peaceful, but especially in the New England area, they had established the first modern democracy (yes, before the US). In fact, their 'Record of Rights' began "We the people, to form a union...."  sound familar?
 
How do you think the United States would react if some Muslims came over here and sat up shop on our land and started forming their own government, completely ignoring the fact that we have already settled this land. With guns and grenades most likely, yes?
 
And before you say that oft-repeated cop-out "Well the natives didn't claim the whole continent":
 

"

" 99.999999% of Americans can walk down the street without fear of being murdered, raped or mutilated. There were plenty of nations in the past and ARE plenty of nations currently where this is nowhere near the case. Discussion over. "

This also happened in central and south America and they happened prior to any kind of "United State" existing and they often happened with the aid of allied native tribes. People so badly want to put all of this on America alone. Meanwhile, in South America, fully established EMPIRES were destroyed. Have any foul words for Spain or Mexico? You so badly want to make it seem like one brand of human is more despicable than another, but plenty of genocides were founded on the idea of singling out one group and saying "that's the problem". All humans are capable of this and that's why ALL HUMAN EMPIRES HAVE DONE IT. You want to act like if Rome never happened and the Inca became the most advanced civ, they wouldn't do something similar when they landed in China or Europe. Its endemic to the hierarchy. Its embedded in every human. You care about your family more than your tribe, your tribe more than your race, your race more than your species, your species more than others. "

" U.S. has never committed genocide like other countries and empires. "

Your source is Spike Lee, and Meridith Veira?  Wow.

Spike Lee is a massive idiot who had one good movie( Do the right thing.. maybe Inside Man as well) but anyways ancient Greece or Rome???

Blatant hyperbole is blatant.

Columbia.

Why would anyone pay attention to the opinions of a guy like Spike Lee?

Yo dawg, I heard you liked acting shocked, so we put easy access in your guns, so you can be shocked by senseless acts of violence while not tightening restrictions!. 
 

Well, Spike Lee is quite the historian...

No.
But then again, I don't agree with most things Spike Lee says as he seems to think portraying his own cliches in reverse somehow make him better.
 
Sorry, im blaming him for his movie making process. I should look at this another way.
 
I can not say the US has never known violence. This is hardly the case, but for him to sit there and not acknowledge violence in all of the world is absurd. Iraqi torture of their own people (which I saw the aftermath of first hand), Jewish concentration camps by the Nazis, British Dictatorships; need I go on? I don't mean to bring up horrible history, nor do I think anyone living in this generation deserves to be blamed for those mistakes, but the ignorance and blindness of blaming one culture for it stupidity and violence is just as short sighted as saying racism no longer exists. Or whites are the only racists.
 
It's absurd and short sighted to believe these things.
 
I love this new saying by famous people. "What we do goes out in the universe..." What saddens me is how powerful that statement is and how much Spike, at least in this documentation of his conversation, suggests he doesn't actually fully comprehend that concept.
 
Bah, I'm blowing this out of proportion anyway, as he said it as a throw away comment. I guess my only real point here is the comment is shallow, stupid, and short sighted. I'm sure conspiracy theorists will love it.