Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why be pro-American Foreign Policy?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Either that's some reference I am unfamiliar with, or you are mistaking me with someone.

In either case, if you post a thread questioning the "pro-American Foreign Policy," you can't really blame me for calling you what this implies.

A little piece of advice if you want people to pay attention to your posts: Make them concise.

Mr. Rogers Neiborhood is a children's T.V. show in America, or it used to be, he died. I don't know how children's shows are in Hungary, but here all the characters are usually overly happy, optimistic, and gullible. I thinkthis is what he was referring to, but you never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Rogers Neiborhood is a children's T.V. show in America, or it used to be, he died. I don't know how children's shows are in Hungary, but here all the characters are usually overly happy, optimistic, and gullible. I thinkthis is what he was referring to, but you never know.

I see. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a libertarian in any way whatsoever, so drop the ad hominems.

From everything I have read TOC is a load of bunk that supports Christianity and a whole lot of of other nonsense. I never once advocated any anarcho-capitalist ideas (because they are stupid as Ayn Rand pointed out repeatedly). I believe 100% in the ideas of capitalism, government non-intervention in the lives of it's citizens unless it is to punish some coercive act, atheism, the law of non-contradiction, the supremacy of reason, etc. Everything I have read about libertarianism strikes me as warped and misguided from Rothbardian Libertarianism all the way to the other mixed bag crap that is espoused in other circles. I'm not calling Israel terrorists or any other silly crap that libertarians do. Israel actually has some balls when fighting terrorists (or it least it used to. read = Entebbe) and doesn't contribute to  it's own demise by providing its enemies  with weapons and training. If anything, I see Israel as being the ideal model for the U.S to follow foreign policy wise. You don't see them giving Iran light water nuclear reactors and wondering why they are now producing nuke weapons designed to hold the world hostage. I'm no Muslim apologist here. I think their philosophy is shit because it is predicated on blatant hatred of capitalism and is an anti-life philosophy that labels illogical behavior as man's philosophical ideal. Didn't we freeze Libya's assets for Pan Am 103 because they were labeled a state sponsor of terror? They didn't actually have any part of the operation, but they provided shelter to the people who funded and carried out the attack on an innocent jet liner. What about America who harbors people (government officials) who claim that they have a legitimate right to your money and a right to send it to the people who want to cut your throats like Nick Berg's?I read the indictment of Islam under the member writing of this very forum and agree 100%. Islam IS shit and I wouldn't be shedding any tears if every mullah received a bullet to their brain courtesy of the U.S government.The fact is though, I'm a big enough realist to realize that doing so would only further fuel the ranks of terrorists. What happens when you kill a Wesley Mouch? One more steps up in their place. Isn't that all we are doing here? Why aren't we shrugging and defending ourselves when there is an actual threat instead of playing the terrorist game. Why are my  tax dollars going to rebuild one more crappy third world country when that money should be given straight back to the people who put it in and never taken out of our checks to begin with? Is it in my best interest to have one more unstable country for Al-Zarqawi to run free in? Is it in my best interest to fund policies that were ultimately misguided (For the love of reason, the CIA itself has admitted it's intelligence and justification for going to war was 100% wrong).I know if asked I wouldn't have sent a lightwater reactor to Iran. I also wouldn't have funded a useless excursion into Iraq to get rid of Saddam and establish democracy (which wasn't the original argument in the first place, it was WMD's that haven't turned up which is just another example of the mixed bag philosophy that is embodied in our government). Objectivism is a closed system. It has very set and defined parameters about what it is and what it isn't. The same thing with the "trendy" people like Angelina Jolie who declare their interest for Objectivism and go work with the anti-Israeli United Nations. Ayn Rand was pro reason which meant she was pro-individualist by default because individualism is a necessary byproduct of reason and the nature of our metaphysical existence. People who go with Objectivism because "everyone else is" are rejecting the reality that Ayn Rand put a premium on reason. Thus, I don't consider how one could be Objectivist and pro-American government at the same time. It strikes me as the same problem as people who take up Objectivism as a passing fad.

1) I wouldn't classify my posts as a  rant.

That's fine, I would based on the definition rant:

[n] pompous or pretentious talk or writing

[n] a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion

[v] talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

and using the first post I quoted as my evidence.

I take attacks on my integrity very seriously which is why I responded to Dominique's assertion that I was "ranting" when in reality I'm not any goddamned Libertarian  NOR did I EVER once say that American foreign policy was MORE evil than terrorism.

If reading comprehension is a problem, try hooked on phonics before you start posting lies about what I said, ok?

[this post was probably an overreaction, but I'm seriously pissed at 2 misinterpretations of what I said coupled with an accusation that I'm a libertarian and "ranting" when I'm asking a serious question based on honest motives. I'm not some damn hippie liberal, bible thumping conservative, retarded libertarian, or some pro-Muslim jerk bag. So quit labeling me without any warrant for your labels and address my question or don't bother posting. Simple as that. If intellectual conversation/debate is too much for you, then don't do it. If you think that I'm some stupid troll, then "don't feed the troll."

Ok? I would rather that people hate me and shut their mouth or at least post some warranted and cogent reason why they hate me than post lies or misinterpret me.]

[Emphasis Added]

I never labeled you. I labeled your style of writing. I still maintain that the post I quoted is a rant. If you feel I have implied that you are a ranter i.e. someone who rants and raves; speaks in a violent or loud manner, I did not originally mean to apply the term to you the person but to your post itself. I do not see these particular things as an attack on your integrity but on the style of writing that you employ. However, we do not need to debate over whether you are or are not a ranter. It was merely an observation on my part, and an attempt to say *calm down* as your post appeared to me as irate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tryptonique, I think you'd better take back that comment where you used the words "Noam Chomsky" without the words "father of all lies."

Seriously, though, I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me a sanctioning of that man is an automatic just cause to classify you as a loony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to me how instantaneously everyone ganged up on the thread starter here.

He clearly has an understanding of Objectivist principles, and a desire to implement them properly. If you think he is failing to do so, why not try to explain to him how, since his intentions are obviously good? Why all the hostility toward him simply for questioning?

I don't agree with all of what he says, and some of it is clearly inaccurate. But he is obviously trying hard to square Objectivist ethics with reality. How could any Objectivist deny that this is admirable?

But I think many Objectivists have a tendency to whitewash American actions. We are not on the level of terrorists - this is self-evident, I believe. But some of the actions of our government have been

For example, Andrew Jackson's treatment of the native Americans was genocide. An obvious evil, which killed many more innocents than Osama Bin Laden has managed to so far. But many Objectivists claim this shouldn't be discussed because to do so would be "anti-American." This is silly, and more consistent with the irrational conservatives than supposedly rational Objectivists. Our government, drunk on its own power, has committed actions which are tantamount to terrorism. This does not mean America is an evil nation, or that we are doing these things today. What is so blasphemous about that that statement? How can you contradict it?

I also agree with the thread starter's assertion that we do not have the soldiers to take over Iran and Syria. Our only recourse would be to nuke them into oblivion. If that is what you want to advocate, then by all means do so - but don't make the indefensible claim that we could raise WWII-era troop levels without conscription. And be prepared to explain how nuking two countries whose populations oppose their governments is consistent with Ayn Rand's ethics, which says that all individuals have a right to life.

I would suggest people try to seriously answer these questions.

And while I hate Noam Chomsky, how can you claim that all his statements are lies? I believe he proceeds from real facts; it is his conclusions which are always erroneous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And while I hate Noam Chomsky, how can you claim that all his statements are lies?...

...his conclusions which are always erroneous.

Er, you said it there yourself.

I think the major issue with the poster (besides equating the pro-american foreign policy advocated by most Objectivists with universal support for Bush, which is a big mistake) is that he is taking as fact the lies commonly spread by leftists. I don't know how a person who claims to be an Objectivist can't see through them, but that does seem to be the case here. All the standard leftist myths are here, just read the thread.

The Chomsky comment, although half-toungue-in-cheek was an expression of "aha!" I mean, when I see page after page that could have been taken from Farenheit 9/11 and then I see a less-than-unfriendly reference to Chomsky... well... it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist, does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominique:

The only actual part of your definition I fit is "speaking in a noisy or excited manner".

The post that you quote as evidence of me ranting (the post you had issue with) was in reply to an outright LIE about what I said (saying that I claimed that American foreign policy was WORSE than Islamic terrorism or morally inferior) and in response to labels of "libertarian" and "anti-American" that I was charged with in place of actual arguments by those posters.

I take my integrity very seriously and do get passionate and make noise when it is attacked. I refuse to apologize for that.

Lets look at the defintions here that are part of your definition (rant):

bom·bast

Pronunciation: 'bäm-"bast

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English bombast cotton padding, from Middle French bombace, from Medieval Latin bombac-, bombax cotton, alteration of Latin bombyc-, bombyx silkworm, silk, from Greek bombyk-, bombyx

: pretentious inflated speech or writing

Main Entry: de·claim

Pronunciation: di-'klAm, dE-

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English declamen, from Latin declamare, from de- + clamare to cry out; akin to Latin calare to call -- more at LOW

intransitive senses

1 : to speak rhetorically; specifically : to recite something as an exercise in elocution

2 : to speak pompously or bombastically : HARANGUE

transitive senses : to deliver rhetorically; specifically : to recite in elocution

- de·claim·er noun

- dec·la·ma·tion /"de-kl&-'mA-sh&n/ noun

(from the rhetorical part of that definition):

2 entries found for rhetoric.

To select an entry, click on it.

rhetoricrhetorical

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric

Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

I'm thinking you meant insincere or graniloquent language. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Main Entry: gran·dil·o·quence

Pronunciation: gran-'di-l&-kw&n(t)s

Function: noun

Etymology: probably from Middle French, from Latin grandiloquus using lofty language, from grandis + loqui to speak

: a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner, or quality especially in language

- gran·dil·o·quent /-kw&nt/ adjective

- gran·dil·o·quent·ly adverb

Main Entry: pomp·ous

Pronunciation: 'päm-p&s

Function: adjective

1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>

2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>

3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT

- pomp·ous·ly adverb

- pomp·ous·ness noun

Main Entry: ar·ro·gant

Pronunciation: -g&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <arrogant manners>

synonym see PROUD

- ar·ro·gant·ly adverb

So here are your acusations:

In my writing I'm being pretentious, overly self important (arrogant), or simply overly colorful (which seems sort of arbitrary considering the fact that I'm not using flowerly fluffed up language).

If you are going to cite a definition, show how it applies.

I will address the rest of you later.

I have class to go to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would like to say to everyone is that there appears to be a simple miscommunication/misunderstanding

When I say why be Pro-American Foreign Policy I mean why be FOR American foreign policy not "Why be pro-American IN your foreign policy."

Pro means "for".

American foreign policy belongs to America (as evidenced by the word American).

So why be for the foreign policy that belongs to America?

For in this contexts means "supportive."

I figured this was sort of obvious considering the title of this thread is "Why be pro-American foreign policy?"

If it was why be pro-American IN your foreign policy the interpretations of me being some "anti-American" would be warranted and justified.

I never titled my thread "why be pro-American IN our foreign policy or IN foreign policy" though.

I think my sentiment was pretty accurately conveyed by my posts as well. I'm not for the downfall of America or The West (which is what being "anti-American" means). I'm simply for acknowledging that our foreign policy is characterized by actions that aren't "Pro-American" or "pro-American interests.

I don't think you should be anti-American in our foreign policy or in any foreign policy nor do I think you should be America-neutral.

I am for American foreign policy that is Pro-American. I'm not Pro-American Foreign Policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's amazing to me how instantaneously everyone ganged up on the thread starter here.

He clearly has an understanding of Objectivist principles, and a desire to implement them properly. If you think he is failing to do so, why not try to explain to him how, since his intentions are obviously good? Why all the hostility toward him simply for questioning?

I don't agree with all of what he says, and some of it is clearly inaccurate. But he is obviously trying hard to square Objectivist ethics with reality. How could any Objectivist deny that this is admirable?

You ought to read his posts and see who's been hostile, insulting and condescending.

But I think many Objectivists have a tendency to whitewash American actions. We are not on the level of terrorists - this is self-evident, I believe. But some of the actions of our government have been.

For example, Andrew Jackson's treatment of the native Americans was genocide. An obvious evil, which killed many more innocents than Osama Bin Laden has managed to so far. But many Objectivists claim this shouldn't be discussed because to do so would be "anti-American." This is silly, and more consistent with the irrational conservatives than supposedly rational Objectivists. Our government, drunk on its own power, has committed actions which are tantamount to terrorism. This does not mean America is an evil nation, or that we are doing these things today. What is so blasphemous about that that statement? How can you contradict it?

Please provide evidence that "Objectivists claim this shouldn't be discussed because to do so would be 'anti-American.'" This is a very grave charge of dishonesty--and even more grave for you if it should turn out to be false. How do you think Ayn Rand came to support and admire the United States, despite the fact that it had sanctioned by law SLAVERY from 1776 - 1865? Was it through whitewashing and evasion? How did she ever came to call the United States "the first MORAL country on earth?" Through whitewashing and evasion? You ought to learn how she came to such conclusions. It was certainly not through ignorance or evasion; she had, afterall, majored in HISTORY.

What has been claimed is a NOT denial of such actions--but their IRRELEVANCE to the subject at hand.

I also agree with the thread starter's assertion that we do not have the soldiers to take over Iran and Syria. Our only recourse would be to nuke them into oblivion. If that is what you want to advocate, then by all means do so - but don't make the indefensible claim that we could raise WWII-era troop levels without conscription. And be prepared to explain how nuking two countries whose populations oppose their governments is consistent with Ayn Rand's ethics, which says that all individuals have a right to life.

Their right to life does NOT trump ours. If their passively harboring terrorists and passively supporting their regimes cause death and destruction to us, we have every MORAL right to nuke them to oblivion. THAT is consistent of Objectivist Ethics.

There was an essay in which Ayn Rand said something like that, but I forgot the name of the book; it had something to do with rogue nations and their non-existent right to sovereignty. She even said something to the effect that if the United States had nuked Soviet Russia and killed HER (Ayn Rand) along with everyone else, she would have considered it a MORAL act--tragic, but a moral right. That should settle the question of "innocents" in the enemy state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would based on the definition rant:

[n]  pompous or pretentious talk or writing

[n]  a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion

[v]  talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

and using the first post I quoted as my evidence.

Dominique:

Lets look at the defintions here that are part of your definition (rant):

bom·bast

Pronunciation: 'bäm-"bast

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English bombast cotton padding, from Middle French bombace, from Medieval Latin bombac-, bombax cotton, alteration of Latin bombyc-, bombyx silkworm, silk, from Greek bombyk-, bombyx

: pretentious inflated speech or writing

Main Entry: de·claim

Pronunciation: di-'klAm, dE-

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English declamen, from Latin declamare, from de- + clamare to cry out; akin to Latin calare to call -- more at LOW

intransitive senses

1 : to speak rhetorically; specifically : to recite something as an exercise in elocution

2 : to speak pompously or bombastically : HARANGUE

transitive senses : to deliver rhetorically; specifically : to recite in elocution

- de·claim·er noun

- dec·la·ma·tion  /"de-kl&-'mA-sh&n/ noun

(from the rhetorical part of that definition):

2 entries found for rhetoric.

To select an entry, click on it.

  rhetoricrhetorical 

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric

Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE 

I'm thinking you meant insincere or graniloquent language. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Main Entry: gran·dil·o·quence

Pronunciation: gran-'di-l&-kw&n(t)s

Function: noun

Etymology: probably from Middle French, from Latin grandiloquus using lofty language, from grandis + loqui to speak

: a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner, or quality especially in language

- gran·dil·o·quent  /-kw&nt/ adjective

- gran·dil·o·quent·ly adverb

Main Entry: pomp·ous

Pronunciation: 'päm-p&s

Function: adjective

1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>

2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>

3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT

- pomp·ous·ly adverb

- pomp·ous·ness noun

Main Entry: ar·ro·gant

Pronunciation: -g&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare

1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <arrogant manners>

synonym see PROUD

- ar·ro·gant·ly adverb

So here are your acusations:

In my writing I'm being pretentious, overly self important (arrogant), or simply overly colorful (which seems sort of arbitrary considering the fact that I'm not using flowerly fluffed up language).

If you are going to cite a definition, show how it applies.

I will address the rest of you later.

I have class to go to.

:):):D

And to think it just started as an innocent-*whoa there chachi*. Now we're reading the dictionary. Just forget it. I'm not here to argue you over the fine points of the definition of rant. I'll withdraw it if it's that upsetting. I haven't called you a libertarian at least :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol @ Dominique. I understand your motive...you were like "Chill out. No need to trip." I get it. I just take issues with people attacking my integrity which is why I got worked up.

I'm not upset at all at the whole definition over what a rant is. I think it is the most minor thing out of all of this. Besides, saying I ranted isn't a normative statment either way...so how could I be upset by it? I just value precision in language and speech.

I'm feeling under the weather right now and I will get back to this thread later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I say why be Pro-American Foreign Policy I mean why be FOR American foreign policy not "Why be pro-American IN your foreign policy."

OK, now I get it. I was wondering what the h-e-double-broomsticks your title exactly meant. You phrased it very counter-intuitively; if you had said, "Why be for the current American foreign policy," we'd have understood it much easier.

It would still have been incorrect, though, as we are very much AGAINST the current American foreign policy. It has been way too gunshy. America needs a REAL cowboy for President!

Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, Andrew Jackson's treatment of the native Americans was genocide. An obvious evil, which killed many more innocents than Osama Bin Laden has managed to so far. But many Objectivists claim this shouldn't be discussed because to do so would be "anti-American." This is silly, and more consistent with the irrational conservatives than supposedly rational Objectivists. Our government, drunk on its own power, has committed actions which are tantamount to terrorism. This does not mean America is an evil nation, or that we are doing these things today. What is so blasphemous about that that statement? How can you contradict it?

A better question is, how can you support it?

A terrorist knows full well that his act is murder, i.e. he knows that he is killing innocent, civilized human beings that pose no threat to him or anyone else. For the terrorist, the more unsuspecting and innocent his victims, the better, because it sends the message that no one is safe -- all may be murdered. Where is the evidence that an American president did such a thing?

Relocating tribes after it proved impossible to coexist with them is not genocide. Waging war against tribes that launched vicious attacks on settlements is not murder.

I also agree with the thread starter's assertion that we do not have the soldiers to take over Iran and Syria. Our only recourse would be to nuke them into oblivion. If that is what you want to advocate, then by all means do so - but don't make the indefensible claim that we could raise WWII-era troop levels without conscription.
In the first place, I reject your assertion that we need to “take over” Iran and Syria. We need to destroy the threat they pose, and for that we have plenty of soldiers. We have all the airpower we need to destroy these regimes and their military assets without using nuclear weapons.

We do not need WWII-era troop levels. We are fighting with vastly more powerful weapons against vastly weaker enemies compared to WWII.

And be prepared to explain how nuking two countries whose populations oppose their governments is consistent with Ayn Rand's ethics, which says that all individuals have a right to life.
An individual's right to life cannot be a shield for the evil acts of his government. Those who are killed in a retaliatory strike are victims -- they are victims of their own government that invited the retaliatory strike.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Relocating tribes after it proved impossible to coexist with them is not genocide.  Waging war against tribes that launched vicious attacks on settlements is not murder.

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing "vicious attacks on settlements." The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes. The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson's forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen. They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them. The "Trail of Tears" was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved. The State of Georgia's attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832. President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure. So much for the rule of law.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing "vicious attacks on settlements."  The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes.  The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson's forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen.  They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them.  The "Trail of Tears" was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved.  The State of Georgia's attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832.  President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure.  So much for the rule of law.

Provide detailed sources for this mis-information or withdraw it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(besides equating the pro-american foreign policy advocated by most Objectivists with universal support for Bush, which is a big mistake)

See, let me clarify. I have yet to see an Objectivist who is Pro "American foreign policy." Most of them I see are "Pro-American" foreign policy advocates.

So really, this whole thread is just a misunderstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Provide detailed sources for this mis-information or withdraw it.

Alas, I could find no sources for "misinformation." On the other hand, the information mentioned in my post can be found in Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, Eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1995). You can find a précis of the book here. On the peaceful, property-oriented nature of the Cherokee and the economic rather than defense motives behind the Indian Removal Act of 1830, see Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alas,  I could find no sources for "misinformation."  On the other hand, the information mentioned in my post can be found in Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, Eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1995).  You can find a précis of the book here.  On the peaceful, property-oriented nature of the Cherokee and the economic rather than defense motives behind the Indian Removal Act of 1830, see Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

I just glanced at you first "source" very quickly(all that was needed) and found this about half-way down the page-- Main trade: deerskins + war captives for slavery (italics mine)-- case closed. Find me a source that is not an evil leftist version of a historian and I might begin to take your non-sense seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So really, this whole thread is just a misunderstanding.

Not essentially: the poster does have a problem with the kind of foreign policy Objectivists advocate. His failure to distinguish between America's current foreign policy and the one advocated by Objectivists has no bearing on his opposition to the latter; what's more, it highlights how far his position is from both.

If I want to go to Seattle and someone asks me "Why go to Washington instead of Moscow?" it doesn't matter if in the course of the discussion it turns out that he thinks I want to go to D.C. The fact that he sees no difference between the East Coast and the West Coast only shows how far to the east his preferred destination is from both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just glanced at you first "source" very quickly(all that was needed) and found this about half-way down the page-- Main trade: deerskins + war captives for slavery (italics mine)-- case closed. Find me a source that is not an evil leftist version of a historian and I might begin to take your non-sense seriously.

If you had read carefully, you would have seen that the trade in war captives is listed under the heading, "Early contact with British about 1700"-- a mere century before Jackson's death march to the west. You would have also read, "By mid-century [1750] slave trade declined, but fur trade continued." Yes, some Cherokees did engage in slavery. And so did the white men who also occupied the Southeastern U.S. in the 1830s. Now what is your point? That it was moral to remove thousands of men, women and children because some of them owned slaves? Then what of the white men who took over the government-seized Cherokee lands and established plantations with slave labor on a far greater scale? How were they any more entitled to that real estate?

And what is the basis for your claim that Perdue and Green are "an evil leftist version of a historian [sic]." That they made no attempt to hide the fact that some Cherokees engaged in slave-holding?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not essentially: the poster does have a problem with the kind of foreign policy Objectivists advocate. His failure to distinguish between America's current foreign policy and the one advocated by Objectivists has no bearing on his opposition to the latter; what's more, it highlights how far his position is from both.

If I want to go to Seattle and someone asks me "Why go to Washington instead of Moscow?" it doesn't matter if in the course of the discussion it turns out that he thinks I want to go to D.C. The fact that he sees no difference between the East Coast and the West Coast only shows how far to the east his preferred destination is from both.

Yes, I would agree with your, more accurate, evaluation. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...