Harriet Tubman to replace Jackson on face of $20 bill

[Elfdart]

I can't wait for Theodore Roosevelt, another genocidal fuckwit, to have his mug removed from the currency too.

Yeah, 'cause it triggers me seeing his face every time I pull a $1000 bill from my wallet.

I guess you don't keep track of dollar coins.

And genocidal? What the fuck kind of bud are you smoking this morning? Hyerbolis Extremis Sativa?

I didn't realize that referring to the extermination of one-sixth of the population of Luzon, as well as hundreds of thousands more throughout the rest of the Philippines, as genocide was hyperbole.

[whackadoodle]

I can't wait for Theodore Roosevelt, another genocidal fuckwit, to have his mug removed from the currency too.

Yeah, 'cause it triggers me seeing his face every time I pull a $1000 bill from my wallet.

I guess you don't keep track of dollar coins.

And genocidal? What the fuck kind of bud are you smoking this morning? Hyerbolis Extremis Sativa?

I didn't realize that referring to the extermination of one-sixth of the population of Luzon, as well as hundreds of thousands more throughout the rest of the Philippines, as genocide was hyperbole.

Not since the credit card companies closed the travel miles scam years ago.

Unless they changed the definition of genocide, then yes, it is hyperbole. There was no deliberate effort to exterminate any of the ethnic groups in the Philippines. People were killed as part of a pacification war, and due to the diseases that inevitably accompanied warfare at that time. That counts as war. Probably a number of war crimes. But genocide? Not as it is defined.

[Patroklos]

I didn't realize that referring to the extermination of one-sixth of the population of Luzon, as well as hundreds of thousands more throughout the rest of the Philippines, as genocide was hyperbole.

You have pretty much disqualified any world leader from the 19th century, including the likes of Lincoln and Grant, as pretty much every one of them from England to Germany to the US had colonial woes with similar body counts.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, that would pretty much leave us with just puppies and butterflies. Maybe kittens, too.

[Gandalf]

I didn't realize that referring to the extermination of one-sixth of the population of Luzon, as well as hundreds of thousands more throughout the rest of the Philippines, as genocide was hyperbole.

You have pretty much disqualified any world leader from the 19th century, including the likes of Lincoln and Grant, as pretty much every one of them from England to Germany to the US had colonial woes with similar body counts.

Yeah, the C19th was a shitty time to be on land that white people wanted.

[Patroklos]

As if non white people were any better to their own and others during that time period. The only thing they lacked was technology to do the same things on the same scale, which didn't stop them from trying their best. There is really nothing to distinguish the Souix from the New Englander, Zulu from the British, etc. regarding the morality of how they treated others.

If we really held the past to the standards some want history, all of it, is a wash.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, Trump already came out and said that he is against Tubman being put on the $20 bill, and since he is the most prominent and popular Republican at the moment I'd say that kind of kills any of the claims that the Republicans would actually embrace this as an attempt to link themselves to 19th century Republican legacy.

[Flagg]

Appeals to tradition = "I can't come up with an actual reason for this other than its been done for a long time!" That's why it's a logical fallacy. Otherwise we'd still put candles on Christmas Trees.

[Flagg]

As if non white people were any better to their own and others during that time period. The only thing they lacked was technology to do the same things on the same scale, which didn't stop them from trying their best. There is really nothing to distinguish the Souix from the New Englander, Zulu from the British, etc. regarding the morality of how they treated others.

If we really held the past to the standards some want history, all of it, is a wash.

No. History is history is history. You can say "Well if China had been more advanced white's might have been slaves the way blacks were in America!" And it amounts to nothing because they weren't and they didn't. You don't just get to say "Everyone's a dick, so who cares if x was exploited by y and ultimately had their culture destroyed!?" Otherwise we don't you know, learn from our mistakes. Nihilism is dumb. Who knew?

[Patroklos]

That's not what I said. If you are a slaver you are a slaver, it doesn't matter if you had 10 or 1000 if the moral character that allows you to gleefully participate in slavery is what you object too. Which isn't to say we shouldn't weigh a Mao versus a Pol Pot regarding mass murdering when it comes to IMPACTs on history, but in the end they both were basically the equivalent morally when it comes to mass killing. That one was more successful than the other in that activity doesn't make one a better person than the other. That one culture was more successful at it than the other doesn't make one nicer when both are operating with the same moral underpinnings.

[Flagg]

That's not what I said. If you are a slaver you are a slaver, it doesn't matter if you had 10 or 1000 if the moral character that allows you to gleefully participate in slavery is what you object too. Which isn't to say we shouldn't weigh a Mao versus a Pol Pot regarding mass murdering when it comes to IMPACTs on history, but in the end they both were basically the equivalent morally when it comes to mass killing. That one was more successful than the other in that activity doesn't make one a better person than the other. That one culture was more successful at it than the other doesn't make one nicer when both are operating with the same moral underpinnings.

No, it's exactly what you said.

As if non white people were any better to their own and others during that time period. The only thing they lacked was technology to do the same things on the same scale, which didn't stop them from trying their best. There is really nothing to distinguish the Souix from the New Englander, Zulu from the British, etc. regarding the morality of how they treated others.

If we really held the past to the standards some want history, all of it, is a wash.

So, yeah.


Who gives a shit? Stalin killed more than Hitler, but he didn't have systematic death camps trying to wipe out a specific group, so Hitler = worse. And you flat out said that everyone was an asshole specifically mentioning the Souix and Zulu who got wiped out.


Whackadoodle
And as for Teddy Redrum Roosevelt, who cares what the legalistic term for genocide is? After all, shepherds pie is made with lamb, as opposed to cobblers pie which is beef, but try to find any shepherds pie in America without beef. Language changes.

[K. A. Pital]

Not since the credit card companies closed the travel miles scam years ago.

Unless they changed the definition of genocide, then yes, it is hyperbole. There was no deliberate effort to exterminate any of the ethnic groups in the Philippines. People were killed as part of a pacification war, and due to the diseases that inevitably accompanied warfare at that time. That counts as war. Probably a number of war crimes. But genocide? Not as it is defined.

Uh... Actually, the US committed war crimes of grand scale giving orders to kill everyone older than 10 years that amount to ethnic cleansing at minimum and can fall into the ethnocide category if one was willing to consider the specific targeting of some groups.

[Patroklos]

That's not what I said. If you are a slaver you are a slaver, it doesn't matter if you had 10 or 1000 if the moral character that allows you to gleefully participate in slavery is what you object too. Which isn't to say we shouldn't weigh a Mao versus a Pol Pot regarding mass murdering when it comes to IMPACTs on history, but in the end they both were basically the equivalent morally when it comes to mass killing. That one was more successful than the other in that activity doesn't make one a better person than the other. That one culture was more successful at it than the other doesn't make one nicer when both are operating with the same moral underpinnings.

No, it's exactly what you said.

As if non white people were any better to their own and others during that time period. The only thing they lacked was technology to do the same things on the same scale, which didn't stop them from trying their best. There is really nothing to distinguish the Souix from the New Englander, Zulu from the British, etc. regarding the morality of how they treated others.

If we really held the past to the standards some want history, all of it, is a wash.

So, yeah.


Who gives a shit? Stalin killed more than Hitler, but he didn't have systematic death camps trying to wipe out a specific group, so Hitler = worse. And you flat out said that everyone was an asshole specifically mentioning the Souix and Zulu who got wiped out.

You quoting it over again doesn't magically transform it into what you imagine it is.

So because you and yours got wiped out all the horrible things you did in life are forgiven? Why is that relevant to to the personal moral failings of individual people or peoples? The Nazis got wiped out after all, are you sympathetic to them over the Maoists simply because they did not? Is a Souix raider who burns down a neighboring village after killing or enslaving its inhabitants somehow excused for that because his culture is gone over a ISIS dude who did the same thing yesterday? You would happily sit down with the first and laugh about it over a beer? How many people you have to murder or enslave before it triggers your "bad person" reflex? Mine is at about 1 as a modern human being.

Not since the credit card companies closed the travel miles scam years ago.

Unless they changed the definition of genocide, then yes, it is hyperbole. There was no deliberate effort to exterminate any of the ethnic groups in the Philippines. People were killed as part of a pacification war, and due to the diseases that inevitably accompanied warfare at that time. That counts as war. Probably a number of war crimes. But genocide? Not as it is defined.

Uh... Actually, the US committed war crimes of grand scale giving orders to kill everyone older than 10 years that amount to ethnic cleansing at minimum and can fall into the ethnocide category if one was willing to consider the specific targeting of some groups.

How does that work? Were those under 10 somehow a different ethnicity? If the orders explicity tell you not to kill all of an ethnicity it really can't be ethnic cleansing. A war crime and dick move yes. Motivation sort of matters here too, because if you are in a homogeneous country any massacre you conduct is probably going to affect on ethnicity. Given the Americans were trying to rule the Philippines with the Filipinos still there claiming they wanted to cleanse the place falls flat in its face.

[Thanas]

How does that work? Were those under 10 somehow a different ethnicity? If the orders explicity tell you not to kill all of an ethnicity it really can't be ethnic cleansing.

Bosnia and Srebrenica disagree.

[K. A. Pital]

Philippines was not an ethnically homogenous nation FFS. God learn some fucking history and then come back to me.