HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: One year of YELTSINOMICS!
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:31:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In TALK.POLITICS.SOVIET, BADERTINOVS%NEWS@adminb.rferl.org () says:

>Some thought on Yeltsinomics:
>
>I think that instead of tampering with the financial system while
>basically preserving the centralised, state-controlled economy,
>Yegor Gaidar should have started with privatisation. Of course, it's
>a difficult task. But he could have started with privatising small
>factories and small unprofitable farms.
>
>That would ensure the smooth transition to the market economy.
>In Kadar's Hungary, private producers (who made up no more than
>2% of all the workforce) accounted for 2O-4O percent of all
>agricultural output. In other words, even if a tiny part of the
>economy is privatised, the benefit from that is tremendous.
>At the initial stage, you don't even need the appropriate financial
>system. In Kadar's Hungary such a financial system didn't exist.
>In modern China it is the same.
>
>In short, Gaidar overestimated the importance of Western financial
>help and yielded to the demands of the IMF. The tragic economic
>situation in Russia is basically the result of his mistake, not
>the result of the general transition to the market economy.
>
>The former autonomous republic of Tatarstan is an excellent
>example of how the reform should be implemented without too
>much pain. President Shaimiev started a policy of "smooth
>transition to the market economy" a couple of years ago. Now
>the prices in Tatarstan are the lowest in the former USSR.
>At the same time, it privatised bigger part of the economy
>per capita than did Russia. Now Kazan (the capital of Tatar-
>stan) is inundated by people from many regions of Russia who
>are eager to learn the Tatar experience.
>
>Unfortunately, the Civic Union and the conservatives in Russia
>don't want a smooth transition to the market economy. They just
>want to slow down the reform altogether. So, on the one hand there
>is a president incapable of conducting the reform in the right way,
>on the other, there is an opposition unwilling to conduct any
>reform whatsoever.
>
>Sabirjan.
>
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: asp+@cs.cmu.edu (James Aspnes)
Subject: Justifying genocide
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:14:37 GMT

In article <C0FwGI.8JK@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <C0EKsr.C9D@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>>      A poster just claimed that he believes the genocide of the American
>>Indian at the hands of Anglo-Americans was less immoral than that which
>>was engaged upon the Jews by Hitler!  Why would this be true?
>
>There was never any general organized attempt to kill off the Indians,
>although there were certainly local activities of this type.  There was
>more in the nature of land grabs.  This would have probably happened to
>the Plains Indians anyhow in a few more generations, as organized settlement
>is in essential conflict with a society which insists on land being left
>permanently unsettled except for hunting rights.
>
>And this large killing off would have happened even if there was absolutely
>no attempt to kill any except in self-defense.  Disease was the great killer;
>there are now quite a few islands in the South Pacific abandoned because
>measles killed off too much of the native population.  In Latin America,
>the larger survival of American Indians was because relatively few
>Europeans came over for the purpose of settlement, rather than exploitation.

Recently I was reading _The Third Chimpanzee_ by Jared Diamond (a
great book, especially if you like the sort of semi-informed
speculation that contributes so much to Usenet traffic), in which at
one point he talks about the reasons why Americans don't see the
Indian tragedy as very disturbing, compared to, for example, the Civil
War.  Some of the rationalizations he describes are remarkably similar
to the ones listed above.  I'll quote briefly part of his refutation:

  Although some Indians in the U.S. were seminomadic hunters without
  agriculture, most Indians in the U.S. were settled farmers living in
  villages.  disease may well have been the biggest killer of Indians,
  but some of the diseases were intentionally transmitted by whites, and
  the diseases still left plenty of Indians to kill by more direct
  means.  It was only in 1916 that the last "wild" Indian in the United
  States (the Yahi Indian known as Ishi) died, and frank and
  unapologetic memoirs by the white killers of his tribe were still
  being published as recently as 1923.
  
Unlike most people that write about this sort of thing, Diamond
doesn't seem to be trying to score anti-American points.  Some of his
many other examples of "genocide" (which he interprets rather broadly)
include Stalin's purges and mass starvations, the Katyn forest
massacre, and Muslim-Hindu violence following Indian independence.
His goal in discussing the Indian slaughter (a "conflict more
accurately described as one race of civilian peasant farmers
exterminating another") is more to show that genocide (as he defines
it) is actually quite commonplace and is often quickly forgotten or
rationalized by third parties.
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:02:26 GMT

In article <dliebman.36pg@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
>karen
>>>>>      Many of you have posted, or written me personally, to comment on
>>>>>the difference in the "systematization" of the genocides between Hitler's 
>>>>>attempted extermination of the Jew and the American relatively successful
>>>>>extermination of the American Indian.  Regarding this, I say they are
>equally
>>>>>immoral.
> 
>CMK
>>>>why? you admit he was more systematic. that means his primary intention
>>>>was to murder. this makes his actions more reprehensible in my mind.
>>>>that is the reason we have first-degree murder, second-degree murder,
>>>>and manslaughter.
> 
>DL
>>>surely this particular aspect of the legal system was not devised
>>>purely to correspond with the contents of your mind?
> 
>CMK
>>well, you only included one small section of my point. the main point
>>was made in my previous post . the above was just an analogy.
 
DL
>you did not offer any explanation of why the relative reprehensibility
>of an act depends on 'primary intention', other than your opinion on
>the matter.

well, i will just point out for the record that Karen didn't explain
why she considered the two cases to be equal. but since she hasn't
explained *any* of her positions validly, i will defend my claim.


(and much further down):

>i grant you the point here because i am not, as you say, arguing that the two
>cases are equal.  in fact, i am not even interested in debating the issue
>of degrees of morality.  i was simply responding to your assertion that
>intention was a valid concern here.

OK, that is the essential point here. i *do* believe it is a valid
concern. and it is not just my opinion on the matter. from my American
Heritage Dictionary:

genocide. n. the systematic and planned extermination of an entire
             national, racial, political, or ethnic group

and:

systematic. adj. 1. of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
                 2. carried on using step-by-step procedures. 3. purposefully
                 regular; methodical.

i would say that these definitions clearly imply intent.
if you reject these definitions, please explain why. if you don't, you
cannot argue that intent is irrelevant in determining genocide.

of course you can argue that the US *had* intent to exterminate all the
Indians. i don't agree, but that is a valid argument, and the right
way to argue Karen's claim, in my opinion. dismissing intent is not,
unless we disagree on the definitions of the words "genocide", 
"systematic", or "intent".

--
charles
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:20:49 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>[someone else]
>>the government of the united states was, as
>>karen has noted, fully aware of the homicidal implications of its
>>annexation policies.

>when? when they came over from Europe or 200 years later?

I thought most of the killing began in the 1700's, and that it
only became policy under the US government.

>remember -- i am not even *close* to defending what happened to the
>Indians.

Fair enough.  But:

[Jackson]
>the war with the Indians was unjustified looking back on the overall
>history of the conquest. at the time, all he probably saw was a threat.
>remember, the war had started scores of years before. even though
>the Europeans had started it, should they have let themselves be
>killed by the Indians? of course not.

They didn't have to have a policy of killing.

>what they *should* have done was to make peace with the Indians,
>giving them their rights, and setting aside *substantial* amounts
>of land that they would not colonize. they did not do this.

They *did* do this.  Then they broke their treaties and started
killing and taking land once more.  Look at the treaty with the
Sioux, and what happened when gold was found in the Black Hills.

>instead
>they let themselves war with the Indians over territory. that still
>is not the same thing as systematically rounding up Indians and
>torturing and killing them.

Unfortunately they did that as well.  Not a pleasant part of
history, especially because so much of it was politically motivated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5588 talk.politics.misc:66281 alt.conspiracy:13732
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:00:17 GMT

In article <C0EKsr.C9D@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:

			........................

>      A poster just claimed that he believes the genocide of the American
>Indian at the hands of Anglo-Americans was less immoral than that which
>was engaged upon the Jews by Hitler!  Why would this be true?

There was never any general organized attempt to kill off the Indians,
although there were certainly local activities of this type.  There was
more in the nature of land grabs.  This would have probably happened to
the Plains Indians anyhow in a few more generations, as organized settlement
is in essential conflict with a society which insists on land being left
permanently unsettled except for hunting rights.

And this large killing off would have happened even if there was absolutely
no attempt to kill any except in self-defense.  Disease was the great killer;
there are now quite a few islands in the South Pacific abandoned because
measles killed off too much of the native population.  In Latin America,
the larger survival of American Indians was because relatively few
Europeans came over for the purpose of settlement, rather than exploitation.

			...........................

>      Additionally, the poster claimed that America prospered far greater than
>Europe because it was the pioneer in industrial development.  This is not true.
>Most if not all of the industrial advancement in America was on the coattails
>of British and German science and technology. 

Science yes; technology no.  American science was in a very poor state before
the latter part of the 19th century.  But its technology was right up there.
While it may be disputed, the steamship is generally considered an American
invention.  Possibly more important was the clipper ships, sailing vessels
which cut months off the transpacific journey.  American railroading was
not far behind Europe.  The sewing machine and the typewriter were American
inventions.  Morse did not invent the telegraph, but he did come up with the
idea of a simple on-off code to make it easy to use.  Interchangeable parts
were at least an independent American invention.  Vulcanization of rubber,
making rubber tires and implements possible, was American.  The "Bessemer
process" which accelerated the use of steel was independently invented by
an American.  Metal warships were invented in the US.  All this is 19th century.  
Then also there is the incandescent lamp, the practical uses of electricity,
the telephone, invented in the US by a Scot, as well as the phonograph,
motion pictures, the airplane, and many others.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:09:20 GMT

In article <C0qnMK.L0p@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>Gary, 
>      Guess what?  I didn't leave.

well, your last post was five days ago, you have ignored the *real* argument
going on by third parties, and the last three words of your last post
were "I now close". i'd have concluded the same.

>I sat back and read the many responses that
>were being posted by others.

and either attacked them personally or ignored them. but never addressed them.

>Now, before YOU put more words into my mouth, 
>I'll answer the poster's question.
>
>      The original point of this thread was to argue that the death of the
>American Indian at the hands of generations of settlers WAS GENOCIDE, and that
>as such it was equally as abhorrent as the Jewish Genocide at the hands of the
>Nazi's.

fine, except for your misuse of the word "argue". you have argued nothing.
you have made a lot of claims. back them up!

she also conveniently omits how she started this by asking what appeared
at the time to be a genuine question, let Gary and myself waste time
crafting answers, then flamed us and "closed". not the height of logical
argument processes IMO.

>Karen (not gone)

too bad.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:47:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.064014.15487@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>gf> Gordon Fitch
>
>gf> Can someone tell me what the point of this thread is?
>
>  It was, apparently, for the sole purpose of one person to climb on a soapbox,
>  state her opinions, and disregard any counterarguments, then leave in a huff.

yes and no. it *did* eventually spawn some real discussion amongst others
who support her claim in some way and are willing to back it up with
intelligent argument.

>gf> What proposition are we arguing?
>
>  That the (US) "genocide" of the American Indian was more evil than the Nazi
>  genocide of Jews.

to be fair, i believe she was claiming only that it was just as evil, not
more evil. (unless i am wrong here too).

>  Apparently, if one disagrees with this proposition, one
>  is defending all the acts committed against the Indians, and is on the same
>  kind of level as those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. At least,
>  that's what Karen told me I was doing and that's the kind of person I am.

same here. although there are some who are trying to validly criticize
some of the thoughts used to oppose Karen's position -- which *is* fair,
unlike the way she attempted to argue.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:23:06 GMT

Gary, 
      Guess what?  I didn't leave.  I sat back and read the many responses that
were being posted by others.  Now, before YOU put more words into my mouth, 
I'll answer the poster's question.

      The original point of this thread was to argue that the death of the
American Indian at the hands of generations of settlers WAS GENOCIDE, and that
as such it was equally as abhorrent as the Jewish Genocide at the hands of the
Nazi's.

Karen (not gone)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:51:17 GMT

In article <C0rEvK.9uE@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Gordon Fitch:
>Well, then -- what you all need is an agreed-upon way of 
>evaluating genocides.

ummm.. is there some point you're trying to make here?
or was it just a joke? i mean, your comment is obvious from the
discussion, no?

or are you referring to the macabre subject matter? if so, i agree.
--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:11:43 GMT

Gordon Fitch:
| >gf> Can someone tell me what the point of this thread is?

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|> It was, apparently, for the sole purpose of one person to climb on a soapbox,
|> state her opinions, and disregard any counterarguments, then leave in a huff.

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
| yes and no. it *did* eventually spawn some real discussion amongst others
| who support her claim in some way and are willing to back it up with
| intelligent argument.

gf:
|> What proposition are we arguing?

gary:
| >  That the (US) "genocide" of the American Indian was more evil than the Nazi
| >  genocide of Jews.

cmk:
| to be fair, i believe she was claiming only that it was just as evil, not
| more evil. (unless i am wrong here too).

gary:
| >  Apparently, if one disagrees with this proposition, one
| >  is defending all the acts committed against the Indians, and is on the same
| >  kind of level as those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. At least,
| >  that's what Karen told me I was doing and that's the kind of person I am.

cmk:
| same here. although there are some who are trying to validly criticize
| some of the thoughts used to oppose Karen's position -- which *is* fair,
| unlike the way she attempted to argue.

Well, then -- what you all need is an agreed-upon way of 
evaluating genocides.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:27:10 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Can someone tell me what the point of this thread is?
What proposition are we arguing?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:57:06 PST
Organization: BBS

karen
>>      Many of you have posted, or written me personally, to comment on
>>the difference in the "systematization" of the genocides between Hitler's 
>>attempted extermination of the Jew and the American relatively successful
>>extermination of the American Indian.  Regarding this, I say they are equally
>>immoral.
>
CMK
>why? you admit he was more systematic. that means his primary intention
>was to murder. this makes his actions more reprehensible in my mind.
>that is the reason we have first-degree murder, second-degree murder,
>and manslaughter.

surely this particular aspect of the legal system was not devised
purely to correspond with the contents of your mind?

the argument of means versus ends is typically deployed in the service
of murderous politics.  the government of the united states was, as
karen has noted, fully aware of the homicidal implications of its
annexation policies.  as far as the united states penal code is
concerned, this consitutes premeditated -- first-degree -- homicide.
the distinction you refer to is not one of ethics, but rather of
semantics: it is the difference between 'we will kill them in order
to occupy the land' and 'we will kill them in the process of occupying
the land'.  the relevent linguistic phenomenon here is the auxiliary
verb 'will'.

>>The end result is not, in any way, lessened by a lack of intent
>>on the part of the European settlers.  It was official government policy >>
that
>>what the Indians would not trade, the government would take "even if every >>
last
>>Indian must die" (President Andrew Jackson).
>
>because he considered the US to be at war with the Indians. that war
>was unjustified, as i have said before, but unjustified war is not
>the same thing as genocide.

but jackson presumably believed that the war was justifiable.
similarly, hitler believed that the killing of jews and gypsies and
homosexuals was justifiable on the grounds that should be familiar
to you; stalin was a paranoid ideologue, and so forth.  all three
of them were in error -- why should jackson's error be any greater
excuse for clemency?

>>Would you argue that genocide should be abhorred more for its
>>means of systematization or for its success?
>
>a far more logical argument than basing it upon success or lack thereof!
>words such as "abhorrent" and "immoral" are indicators of the mental
>intent of the action. success is irrelevant.

intention is pernicious.  the _knowledge_ of the agent is relevent to
an ethical analysis of her actions.  come on, charles -- if i saw you
loitering beneath my sixteenth story window, and i knew that if i
dropped that piano i was planning to drop on the street it would
certainly squash you, would you deem your squashing less immoral
or abhorrent when i claim that i was simply intending to dump my
steinway?

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory