Top Ten Outrages of the Past Half Millenium

[mrmitchell]

The best way to rank this would be just by "people killed by or during event". Is there a ranking of the biggest deaths in history?

1. Holocaust
...duh.
2. The Rest of WWII
Nukes, firebombings, hell on both sides. It would be very reasonable to call 1933 to 1945 the lowest point in human history.
3. Slavery
Millions of people systematically oppressed...which is actually pretty common, but the same nation that did the oppression also held itself up as the shining light of freedom and democracy.
4. Treatment of Natives
I've got mixed feelings about this one. They were trampled all over, but things like treaties weren't worth as much back then anyway. Breaking treaties and stealing Injuns' land today would be a crime, but in the 1500s-1800s, it was fairly acceptable. You've got to judge things in context, or else everything that was 50 years ago is suddenly a horrible crime against humanity.
4. (tie) Stalin
:vomit:
4. (tie) ****ing up the Planet
I don't think any other species so successfully FUBAR'd Planet Earth. I give us a century before we cut down all forests, extinct major gaping holes into the food chain, or global-warm ourselves into a firey hell.

[Kuciwalker]

4. (tie) ****ing up the Planet
I don't think any other species so successfully FUBAR'd Planet Earth.

Actually, you're wrong there

Back in the "primordial soup", before we had an oxygen atmosphere, I'd say the photosynthesizing bacteria were much more "shortsighted". They created tons of oxygen, which was a DEADLY toxin to 99.99% of the species at the time

Look how that came out

[Az]

I don't think you should take the holocaust separated from WWII.

[Sava]

1. Reality TV
2. Britney Spears
3. Michael Jackson
4. Boy Bands
5. Modern Republicans
6. Modern Democrats
7. whiny parents complaining about Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt
8. D1ck Jauron
9. Greg Blache
10. Texas

[Kuciwalker]

You forgot Florida

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Bismarck's Unification of Germany

How so?

Would you rather Germany still be Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, Saxony, etc, etc.

[mrmitchell]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021018.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


This is a century old topos and not true. The Spanish relation to the Indians was in many aspects better than that in Angloamerica, they approached them in a completely different way. Yes, they were to be exploited (in the eyes of the colonizers) and in this process they suffered and in certain occasions massive deaths occured, but they were also to be considered subjects of the crown and therefore to be protected. They had special rights and enjoyed quite some autonomy and were not everytime pushed back and forcefully resettled and slayed just for being Indians in the way. The Spanish American society was never meant to be exclusively white, while in Anglo-America coexistance and mingling was never an option.

What a bunch of baloney! In the Caribean the Spaniards exterminated the Indians, plain and simple. Some may have been offered the option of being allowed to work to death before expiring, but the results were the same.
In the Andes the Spaniards opened up several mines that became infamous as death camps. Some of these mines were located at altitudes of over 17,000 feet, an altitude beyond the range of human adaptation. The Spaniards brought them up to the mine and chained them in, then retreated down to a more habitable level until the workshift was over. Few workers survived more than a month. In these mines the Spanish chewed up the entire Incan nation. The Indians currently inhabiting Peru are actually not the descendents of the Incas, but instead were brought into the area after the mines were depleted.
Recent genetic studies conducted in Columbia uncovered yet another Spanish atrocity. The mitochondria of virtually all Columbians appears to be Native American, but the somatic chromosomes are aproximately 50% Spanish. This means that at some point in the history of the area ALL of the male natives were eliminated such that the remaining people there today are the descendents of the breeding of the surviving females with the Spanish conquerers. The Spanish would have had to not only murdered the native men, but also the teenaged boys, the preteen boys, the little boys, and even the baby boys in order to have achieved this result.
In the American Southwest there are numerous reports of Spanish missionaries using Spanish soldiers to exterminate any natives who refused to submit to living at missions as converts, and of course as obligatory workers (translated as "slaves".)
In British America the bad history between the whites and the natives began at Jamestown, known as the Rebellion of Martin's Hundred, and in the Plymouth colony with King Phillip's War. Both incidents were known to have been incited by natives escaping the Spaniards. These refugees told stories about the atrocities visited upon their peoples by the Spaniards, and the natives of Virginia and Massachusetts becoming fearful that the English would eventually treat them in the same way staged pre-emptive attacks. Thus three centuries of Anglo-American reaction to native Americans was actually triggered by Spanish misbehavior.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
You forgot Florida

they would be #12... behind California at #11...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by monkspider


How so?

Would you rather Germany still be Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, Saxony, etc, etc.

Well, it would be much more colorful and charming don't you think? Think of all the little principalities, duchies, baronies, sultanates and satrapies. It would be like a giant version of Busch Garden's "The Olde Country", so quaint, almost toylike. People would pay good money to go there and ride the rides. This should be given careful thought. It sounds like a golden opportunity for the German people.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'd say the photosynthesizing bacteria were much more "shortsighted".

I wouldn't. They didn't even have the brains or sensory organs neccisary to notice what they where doing, and they didn't have anyway of stoping it, anyways, since it was simply because of their anatomy.

On the otherhand, humans can see what we are doing, and it's something we could stop doing too, but we keep on doing it. Intelligence is a funny thing.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Osweld
Intelligence is a funny thing.

Lack of it is also occaisionally amusing, but not reliably so.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld
I wouldn't. They didn't even have the brains or sensory organs neccisary to notice what they where doing, and they didn't have anyway of stoping it, anyways, since it was simply because of their anatomy.

On the otherhand, humans can see what we are doing, and it's something we could stop doing too, but we keep on doing it. Intelligence is a funny thing.

By "shortsighted" I just meant "doing something for immediate benefit that causes long-term 'harm'"

The "harm" done by those bacteria was FAR worse than any "harm" we've done.

[GePap]

Tripledoc: read what I told Q about tragedy v history.

On the Natives- no european power or their decendets treaed the natives well- I would say the French had the best relationship with native americans. Most destruction of the natives happened thanks to disease- enslavement came second, and in that respect the Spanish empire, given that it held the most significant native populations did the most damage.

The French revolution is not an outrage in any way, and honestly I don;t buy the mindset that maes it an outrage- if it is, then the American revolution must get large blame , as the ideas that lead to it and its success was an important factor for the French revolution (I never knew Drake was part of the "blame America" crowd).

[oedo]

why did no one mention women suffrage?