NationStates Jolt Archive

American history textbooks are morality plays in which the world’s nation are judged according to the standards of 20th century American values. There is nothing particularly unique in this. I‘m sure every nation uses its history textbooks to reinforce its own values and “rightness.” The Japanese continue to be criticized by China and the Koreas for sanitizing their atrocities in World War II.

The answer may be obvious, but do the people of nations judged “evil” know at the time they are evil? Did the German people in the 1930s or even the 1940s think they were part of an evil regime? Do people living in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea feel they are part of an axis of evil?

I think not.

Which is brings me to my point. If people living in nations later judged by history as evil don’t think they themselves are living in an evil country, could it be that we Americans are living in a nation engaged in evil and if so, would we know it?

Historically, Americans have engaged in both genocide and slavery, two things which, if applied to other nations, many Americans would call evil. However, Americans do not need to look to a distant past to find examples of actions that, if undertaken by America’s enemies, we would almost certainly characterize as immoral, at best:


Over the past 50 years the U.S. has supported and even installed fascist military regimes in Indonesia, Brazil, Guatemala, Uruguay, Philippines, Chile, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on, which have murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people. During the Cold War the United States armed many of this century's most notorious and brutal dictators ignoring their abuses - as long as they supported U.S. policy or had the raw materials the U.S. needed.

The United States left tens of millions of landmines in Vietnam and Cambodia that continue to kill children to this very day.

The United States engaged in atrocities in Vietnam and continues to do so today in Iraq.

America has been a pioneer in the development of biological and chemical weapons and has the world’s second largest stockpile of chemical weapons.

The United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons, including approximately 10,600 intact warheads, and remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons on another country, killing mostly civilians.

The United States is the world's biggest arms dealer. Eighty percent of current recipients of U.S. weapons are unelected governments, and about 2/3 of them are in the State Department's public record of human rights abusers.



This partial list does not even get into the morality of our disproportionate use of the world’s resources and our equally disproportion production of the world’s pollution. Of course many people will automatically call this America bashing and begin to provide a litany of things the U.S. has done right in the world, as well as attacks on the messanger instead of addressing the message. I’m sure the people of North Korea or even Nazi Germany could do the same.

Please do not think I am comparing the U.S. to either of those regimes or even engaging in “America bashing.” What I am saying is can we, as Americans, objectively evaluate and judge our own misdeeds? Perhaps people can never adequately judge the actions of their own country, but in my lifetime I have never experienced less tolerance for dissent, nor less objectivity on the part of my fellow countrymen in viewing the dark side of our nation.

Good post.
I think history is written by the winners, and up to this point, the US has won. It may well take a defeat, or a few defeats, for the US to come to terms with its history. And it doesn't help that there seems to be an insularity about the US at the moment, a lack of awareness of anything else having existed in time or space.

This is something, along with the need for an "enemy," reminds me of 1984. The fact that yesterdays enemy can become todays friend, and vice versa, supports that.


Over the past 50 years the U.S. has supported and even installed fascist military regimes in Indonesia, Brazil, Guatemala, Uruguay, Philippines, Chile, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on, which have murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people. During the Cold War the United States armed many of this century's most notorious and brutal dictators ignoring their abuses - as long as they supported U.S. policy or had the raw materials the U.S. needed.
You forgot deposing/assassinating democratically elected leaders and governmets, such as the Sandinistas or Lumumba.

agreed, if I was on the outside looking in I coudl easily justify an evil tag on this nation. I doubt most germans realized how bad it would become. I usually believe most of the evil comes from the top. You don't get to the top because you are nice or moral but because you possess a certain desire to be top dog. I think most people in all "evil nations" are kind of left out of the loop.

I usually believe most of the evil comes from the top. You don't get to the top because you are nice or moral but because you possess a certain desire to be top dog. I think most people in all "evil nations" are kind of left out of the loop.

So would you say average people are obsolved from responsibility for the actions of their government? Certainly that is the argument Germans made after WWII, but can we argue the same thing in a democratic society?

My guess is that the "evil" dictators are morally apathetic and just don't worry about morals. That's a good question, though, something I've thought about every now and then.

History is written by the western world for the western world. America isn't going to teach their kids about how horrible they are. Just like China and any other country aren't.

agreed, if I was on the outside looking in I coudl easily justify an evil tag on this nation. I doubt most germans realized how bad it would become. I usually believe most of the evil comes from the top. You don't get to the top because you are nice or moral but because you possess a certain desire to be top dog. I think most people in all "evil nations" are kind of left out of the loop.

There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is labeling nations as "evil," an entirely subjective term.

It's been well said that a nation gets the leaders it deserves. Leaders arise out of the general population and either sieze power or have it handed to them. By either endorsing an "evil" leader outright, or allowing him/her to be leader by default, the population still participates in the establishment and continuation of leadership.

There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is labeling nations as "evil," an entirely subjective term.


Certainly the use of the term "evil" is subject. The writing of history is somewhat subject. However, that does not prevent leaders (or textbook writers) from using the term or applying the concept. Who could deny that a great deal of the support for the American invasion of Iraq came about because of more than a decade's worth of media exposure depicting Saddam Hussein as evil? A modern day Hitler, I believe the elder Bush said.

Was it not Reagan who coined the term "evil empire?" Bush the Younger's most memerable statement to date certainly has to be his characterization of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "axis of evil." We apply the term to other countries. Does it apply to some of our own actions as well?

History is written by the winners; and complained about by the losers.

The United States is the world's biggest arms dealer. Eighty percent of current recipients of U.S. weapons are unelected governments, and about 2/3 of them are in the State Department's public record of human rights abusers.

This part mildly shocked me. I knew supplied a lot of dictators, but 80% or our weapons exports. Amazing.

So while we eliminate one human rights violating dictator, we are busy making the rest of them stronger.

This part mildly shocked me. I knew supplied a lot of dictators, but 80% or our weapons exports. Amazing.

So while we eliminate one human rights violating dictator, we are busy making the rest of them stronger.

The depressing thing is you were making him stronger as well until he became a nuisance :\

I like it call it political evolution. In which the politicians select what parts of history survives to the next generation.


The United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons, including approximately 10,600 intact warheads, and remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons on another country, killing mostly civilians.
But it did a job that outweighed the senseless death of civilians, it ended the war with Japan. Which saved more lives then it destroyed.

I don't think evil nations know their evil, I think they think they're good and their enemy is evil instead.

The secret is to be always beyond Good and Evil.

EVIL? How dare you judge me by the standards of others?!? *Nukes your dog*

So would you say average people are obsolved from responsibility for the actions of their government? Certainly that is the argument Germans made after WWII, but can we argue the same thing in a democratic society?
If by average you mean disconnected from the government in any significant way then yes. The average citizen does not know the depths of the government's intrigues. To have culpility an individual must have the power to act.

For the umpteenth time, our so called democratic society is not democratic but is a republican society. Indeed, about 49% of the popular vote and 47% of the electoral vote disagreed (at least) with the conduct of the Bush administration. Where is their culpability?

An ordinary armchair 'America First' nationalist is no more culpable in the behavior of their government than a know nothing, do nothing individual. The ruling class is running a smoke & mirrors game from either side with the poor schnook in the middle with no power to affect them in the least. Where is their culpability?

What would happen to an individual who said no to the death camps? They would have been interred in one!

<bump>

Evil and good are relitive, neither actually exists. They are simply views of one group on another, just because one says somethings evil and one says somethings good dosent necesarely mean either is right, or wrong for that matter. And yes, i would go as far as to say that you can apply this to ANY situation. (btw, a commonly held view of someone being evil or good dosent make it so, only to those people.)

Evil and good are relitive, neither actually exists. They are simply views of one group on another, just because one says somethings evil and one says somethings good dosent necesarely mean either is right, or wrong for that matter. And yes, i would go as far as to say that you can apply this to ANY situation. (btw, a commonly held view of someone being evil or good dosent make it so, only to those people.)

Evil and good are relative; neither actually exists. They are simply views held by one group about another. Just because one group says something’s evil and one group says something’s good doesn’t necessarily mean either is right. I would go as far as to say you can apply this to ANY situation (a commonly held view of someone being evil or good doesn’t make it so to anyone other than those who hold that view).

You didn't know it, but you wanted an editor.

Cheers to Assortedness. What can you consider 'Evil'?

Even ethnic cleansing can be considered 'Efficient', rather than 'Evil'.

Cheers to Assortedness. What can you consider 'Evil'?

Even ethnic cleansing can be considered 'Efficient', rather than 'Evil'.
See, I think evil is a poor choice of words, however it has been made pertinent by the tendency of certain governments to use it in describing their enemies.

I think anything that impinges in an intentionally harmful way on the rights of another can be considered 'evil.'

Although how do you define rights?

Maybe rights is the wrong word... How about a non-consensual action with the intention of causing harm?

*chuckles* yes, I know I suck at all the conventions n' stuff, thanks for the edit.

If you want to say what works twords the general well being is good and what dosent isnt then that is simply a skewed view in my opinion. What the "evil" side consideres "good" is probebly diffrent from the "good" sides view of whats "good", and thus, each side considers the other evil. Even if something is absolutely horrendus in one person's or group's eyes it probebly isn't (or is but nessesary) in the view from the other side.

I would also like to throw in that ANYTHING is Justifiable, just not nessesarely in ways that would make people be simpithetic.

I think there are two sorts of people, the SS-officer in Auschwitch and the average german voter (in this example). I doubt that other than part members actually thought the Third reich was good, what we must understand is that patriotism and obedience were forces to count more than today then. Still I can't agree to that people outside the building of parliament are irresponsible for their governemnt, Hitler won in a democratic way and by openly preaching genocide and racial biology, that is something I think we must never forget.

To label a country as "evil" is a mistake. Would Noraway and Sweden be eil because of the acts of burning, rape and pillage commited by the Vikings? The acts of a country are strongly based on the views of the leadership. As far as "Evil Acts" commited in Iraq I would like to know specificly which acts these are? At what point does one nation cease to be "evil". If the US is spreading evil here then are the terrorist regimes which are killing the people they claim to be liberating and executing unarmed civilians on the side of good?

Or are all countries to some extent evil?

If by average you mean disconnected from the government in any significant way then yes. The average citizen does not know the depths of the government's intrigues. To have culpility an individual must have the power to act.

For the umpteenth time, our so called democratic society is not democratic but is a republican society. Indeed, about 49% of the popular vote and 47% of the electoral vote disagreed (at least) with the conduct of the Bush administration. Where is their culpability?

An ordinary armchair 'America First' nationalist is no more culpable in the behavior of their government than a know nothing, do nothing individual. The ruling class is running a smoke & mirrors game from either side with the poor schnook in the middle with no power to affect them in the least. Where is their culpability?

What would happen to an individual who said no to the death camps? They would have been interred in one!

1 How much power?
2 Could have enlightened the rest. The nation made a choice.
3 The schnook? No culpability, all the more for those who do know.
4 It is not so bad yet is it?

Did anybody else ever have to take intro to Sociology in college? Do you remember what that really, really unethical experiment was called where some sociologist wanted to find out if in the aftermath of WWII if Americans were capable of Nazi like behavior so they divided up a group of volunteers into "prisoners" and "guards" and set up a mock prison in the school, and before long all the prisoners were getting horribly abused by their own classmates who were just following orders and the sociologist had to shut down the experiment?

There was another experiment where sociologists told volunteers they had to shock a person who was sitting on the otherside of the wall if he answered a question wrong by pushing a button. The shocks would increase each time and eventually the other person--actually an actor--would beg for his life and then eventually "die" and the volunteer would ussually keep shocking him.

Those experiments were cool becasue they showed how basically anyone has the capacity for "evil" even believe it or not Americans.
Anyway I don't really believe in evil (I don't even know what it means)but I think most actions consdiered evil have pretty rational explanations.
What pisses me off more than anything though, is when people commit attrocities and don't appologize or learn from them. I mean the Germans are very ashamed of themselves for the holocaust, Kruschev denounced Stalin for the Great Terror after his death-- but has American ever apologized for the genocide against the native americans? Have we ever really apologized to blacks? There are few exceptions to this american refusal to apologize for anything, one is where Clinton apologized to Japanese Americans who were imprisioned durring WWII but that is the only one I can think of.