Hacker News Reader

Comment by viggity | Hacker News Reader

I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd.

1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.

1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? It sucked for the people while it happened. But the world is a better place because of it. Do you hear the british complaining about the Roman's pillaging the country side? nay. As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare.

3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.

View on HN

Oh, I'm not. I fucking love America. I especially agree with your last point.

I'm sure Germans love Germany, but the holocaust and the Nazi regime are something that is discussed at their national level and therefore, they're able to move forward as a nation instead of ignoring their past. These are things that need to be discussed. I'm not talking about reparations or anything. The way mature people, and the same goes for nations, is to say, "Well, we sure fucked that up. Sorry, we won't do it again." I'd like to hear that statement about the NSA thing and drone bs from our President.

Why should we love our countries unconditionally? Why be brain-washed like that? We are all intelligent people here, surely we know better than to be slaves, even to an idea?

Now, I am no anarchist; no mindless rebel.

I know what team I play for, and I try to do the right thing by them, and play by the rules of the game, but I definitely don't love my country unconditionally; nor do I shy away from speaking out when criticism is due.

I am not perfect, nor is my family, community or country. We have done evil things in the past, and we continue to do them today: the state commits some grievous crimes, but frequently we have no choice, caught as we are between a rock and a hard place. Only be acknowledging the evil can we hope to counter it. If pride makes us shy away from understanding our faults, then we are doomed.

So, my loyalty to my state, morally dubious organ that it is, is entirely contingent on it being the least-worst option available; on showing at least some promise of improving over time, and on us collectively having the self-awareness and the humility to acknowledge failure when it occurs, and to recognise evil when it breeds.

A self-aware and enlightened populace is necessary, but not sufficient, for a self-aware and enlightened state.

Why should you love your family unconditionally? Arguably, you shouldn't. But something is wrong if your family has a number of merits, is fairly normal as a family, and yet all you do is dwell on its flaws - let alone exaggerate, guess, or make up flaws; let alone badmouth it to everyone else at little provocation, suggest it should be destroyed, or believe fervently that anyone working against it is right and good.

We are being manipulated not just by US propaganda and partisan propaganda but also by propaganda of other countries such as Russia, China, Iran... it's ridiculous to ignore this as if it were impossible, assume everything you are told is correct if it is anti-US, and tell yourself that an uncritically contrarian or hostile view is "honest criticism".

I wish this would ever be acknowledged, and I wish that contrarian and hostile claims were held to the same standard of evidence as patriotic claims. The reality is that here on HN, they aren't. Gossip is as good as truth as long as it cuts in the right direction.

I would claim that unconditional love in relationships and family is one of the pillars of civilization; there is also ample evidence that there is a natural neurological predisposition in humans towards such forms of love.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_love

The problem is that it tends to be untenable at scale, it also requires reason as a counter-balance when one member of your family is abusive. Which is why unconditional love for country/nation is usually destructive (see nationalism).

You can still love the ideal of America. That doesn't mean blind patriotism to the existing state.

As a product of the American public school system, I assure you that American slavery is something that is very present in the national consciousness.

> I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd.

Pointing out the true history of the United States is one of the best ways to learn from the mistakes of the past. Don't mad at people for talking about this, get mad that colonialism exists and its affects, past and present, continue to shape US society in the negative.

> 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.

This is no way excuses any injustice brought about via military and armed conflict/occupation.

> 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism?

I hear this sentiment a lot in various forms, that somehow people in the past who were violently and systematically oppressed and violated should be grateful to their oppressor. This is utter nonsense, the effects of colonialism are not over and continue to affect and harm those people you believe only to have been affected in the past.

> 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare.

This fact was exploited in warfare and policy against native peoples in the United States and this is not something that excuses violent invasion and occupation.

> 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

The legacy of colonialism and slavery still exist today and some kinds of people still directly benefit from that legacy. To deny that is the wipe the current day experiences and issues that affect native and black folks away so you can feel better about yourself/your country/your society.

> 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.

This is debatable, however even if good deeds have been done, that doesn't change the history of the horrible things done by the United States and we should most certainly not forget that or ever stop talking about that legacy and how it shapes society today.

New Zealand has spent a lot of time agonising over its past treatment of the native Maori and is slowly paying for land taken and righting some of the historic wrongs. It had been politically difficult, with the right wing parties very much against this, but it has gone on a while now. Repairing the damage that nearly destroyed a race may not be possible, but the state that did it should at a minimum try.

So you're saying it makes since to take money from people that were not involved in harming people & giving it to people that were not harmed makes up for something that happened centuries ago?

There are two separate issues here.

* taxpayer money being allocated on the basis of race, e.g. a Maori television station. That is morally wrong. I think that's the situation you're referring to, and completely agree with you.

* the Crown (now Government) signed the Treaty of Waitangi with almost all of the Maori tribes in New Zealand, essentially pledging to leave their land alone. Then, in many cases, they took it anyway. That is something for which reparation is entirely appropriate, as the entities involved (tribes, and Government) are still extant today.

I'm not sure if your referring to New Zealand or not, but the harm was happening in NZ up until quite recently - and arguably still is. I live on land that was once part of a local tribes area, I have dug in the garden and found old shell fish quite deep down in what was once a waste pit. My father has found old adze heads in a relatives garden. I believe that I am benefitting from living where I do, and am more than happy for my taxes to go to those who are descended from those who's land was swindled/stolen from them. The long term effect on a people who's land, lives and social systems have been damaged by colonization is often (always?) bad - and if a small change to me can result in a positive change for them, I don't see the problem.

1. You could use that rationale to defend anything e.g. "Children have been raped in every land at every point in history. It is human nature. Deal with it."

1.a. Michelle Knight's family is highly disfunctional and poverty stricken, and might get the help it needs as a result of the attention that her horrific experiences with Ariel Castro brought them from the media. Is that a defense of Ariel Castro?

2. The amount of people who died of natural causes last year in the US dwarfs the number of people who are murdered. Does that mean that murderers should go unpunished?

3. Nobody cares about you personally. We live in a capitalist society in which wealth is passed down to the next generation. An awful lot of that money was made from slavery.

4. America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does good things is not an excuse for censoring bad things.

>"Children have been raped in every land at every point in history. It is human nature. Deal with it."

Yes, and you shouldn't blame a nation where no one from the time period when that was acceptable is still alive and no on alive still condones that behavior. How long can you hold a grudge against a nation when that nation still exists in name only?

That's the whole point. Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past doesn't do anyone any good.

Yes, and you shouldn't blame a nation where no one from the time period when that was acceptable is still alive and no on alive still condones that behavior.

On the other hand, lots of people from that nation say that whatever that nation does today is good - and the proof is that it has always been the "good guy" throughout history. That's not true, and demystifying this myth of the US exceptionalism is fundamental if we want to have a rational discussion about current issues.

Just one example: I remember someone saying here on HN that even in the war of 1812 the USA wasn't the aggressor...

>no on alive still condones

This is not true.

>Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past

There are people alive who are still dealing with devastating consequences from the past. There are also people who are living pretty comfortable lives because of the past. It's a lot easier for the beneficiaries to deal with it.

I always hear this, but I'm never sure what the solution should look like. I mean this completely seriously: what is the expected stance to take? I'm white, middle class, lived a life without serious struggles, college degree, living alone, big screen TV, new car, great neighborhood etc. So clearly, I'm one of the beneficiaries, and I mean that too, completely, seriously. Please don't take this as sarcasm; I'm merely trying to make sure we're on the same page about how many benefits I enjoy.

That having been said ... What is expected of me? How should I act? How should I feel?

When people get angry about this subject, I understand their feelings and I don't think for a minute that everyone was born with equal opportunity -- but, should I be throwing money at people? Should I give up my life dreams to go even the odds? I'm not sure what the expected response is? Is it enough if I hang my head at my ancestors, pay my taxes, and do my best to not sound entitled? I'm quite serious, because for all of the complaining about how good people like me have it, I never hear a series of actions that makes my life "acceptable" instead of "something that just causes seething rage in people when they think about it."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand what the appropriate response is when someone says, "You don't own slaves but that doesn't mean you didn't get the benefits from it!". Is the answer "yes", "no", "I see", "I'm sorry"?

Generally those who look to apologize for their white/male privilege say "I'm sorry" through support for a Rawlsian redistribution system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate...

Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.

Hmm, I've never heard of John Rawls (but I'm not too keen on political theory, either). Thanks, this the first time anyone has ever answered my query in a helpful way. I guess I'll have to see he has to say on the matter.

I took some political science and philosophy courses in college which exposed me to him.

Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going.

Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today.

Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples.

As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.

I see distinct parallels with your comments of "What can I really do in this situation?" as I do with people espousing "Rape culture".

Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male.

What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"

Self-flagellation is certainly not the answer.

But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"

I'm not suggesting self-flagellation and I'm not suggesting everything is "all better now". I'm aware that there is a great disparity. Like I mentioned before, all of my questions were completely serious and not meant to demonstrate a point -- I really want to know what the answer(s) are / could be.

In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.

Why don't you focus on the people alive who condone something, rather than an entire nationality or ethnicity or religion including a majority of people who do not condone that?

Why don't you focus on helping people who are disadvantaged with respect to their current disadvantage, rather than on shaming or punishing categories of people resembling abusers of the past?

If a Puerto Rican living in the US has been crippled by corrupt police, it becomes irrelevant that Puerto Ricans were not as historically disadvantaged as blacks. That person should be helped as a person, not moved down in priority for being a Puerto Rican. And so on.

1. It doesn't defend anything. But a $NATIONALITY implying that the US is worse than their country, or most countries, should acknowledge other countries' abuses from hundreds of years ago when they are complaining about US abuses from hundreds of years ago. Otherwise that comparison and that criticism is not very honest and should be replaced by more broadly scoped statements rather than singling out the US in a way which is essentially dishonest, for propaganda.

Important corollary: it certainly doesn't defend current misbehavior of any other country to invoke ancient problems of the US. If you pay attention, you will see many examples of this. The status of the US as 'world police' seems to make it attractive to defend anything you're doing by saying the US is worse anyway.

1a. No, but that's irrelevant. The US is not Ariel Castro. You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.

2. How do you propose to 'punish' the US? Who will carry out the punishment? Do you think doing this will improve the US somehow?

If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders, but a choice between two interventions of the same cost should be made based on benefit.

Punishment after the fact is not a reform, it is at best a deterrent and more typically revenge. Applied to international interactions, your 'punishment' is liable to be a war in which atrocities are committed against the 'prosecuted' nation.

If you are going to justify war or massive sanctions against the US then please come out and do so openly rather than beating around the bush with stupid metaphors.

3. When you blame 'Americans' you blame all the Americans. Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.

4. America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.

>they are complaining about US abuses from hundreds of years ago

The range is from zero to two.

>You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.

I'm going to ignore the tautology here and say that "on par" is a stronger statement than "similar." The US is also not the Hendersons.

>How do you propose to 'punish' the US?

I have no interest in punishing the US.

>If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders

Why doesn't it mean that?

>Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.

Only if you require that I blame every American, like you just did. I thought I was simply blaming the people who did it, and the people who benefit from it.

>America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.

I don't hear anyone upset about people saying nice things about America (unless they are factually incorrect.)

Are you proud of your country? Why? It's not like you're the one who committed those acts of bravery and sacrifice.

If you can't deal with the shameful aspects of our history, you have no right to celebrate the good stuff. They all belong to us.

How does criticizing America ever, or at all, equal "blame America first"?

every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.

It's human nature to be a country and invade other countries? How come all that living in peace with neighbours stuff? How come America is so warlike?

Oh, maybe because it was never invaded/occupied/taken over. Maybe because you haven't got the faintest fucking idea what it's like to have done to you what you do to others. Not really, and not at scale.

3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

Oh, don't worry, otherwise you could just claim it's "human nature", huh? If anyone needs further confirmation for George Carlin's claim that "Germany lost WW2, fascism won it", then one doesn't need look further than this whole "being a fearful aggressor with nothing but BS for arguments is human nature" thing. That's one straight copy if I ever saw one.

America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.

Yeah, it's literally impossible to resist being free and wealthy when the saints come marching in. Nevermind that even in America itself anyone but the rich has been stagnating, if not declining for the last 30 years, much less the rest of the world. All those free trade agreements, all those credits which only serve to undermine American power and give away free opportunities.

> 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it.

What kind of argument is this? Would you be ok with China conquering the United States? What if it was after 90% were wiped out by SARs?

> I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

Of course you didn't. But slavery and the dispossession of native lands created a status quo that benefits you.

Would you be OK with China intentionally displacing natives of one of its provinces with Han Chinese? Today, in the modern era, as opposed to hundreds of years ago?

No one can seriously dispute how bad the Native Americans got it (ANYWHERE in the Americas), and no one can undo that now. But we all just look the other way about ongoing activities in (say) China because what can you do and besides, they brought development to the benighted natives ruled by tyrants, and anyway, Edward Snowden?

Murder, rape, theft, and so on are also "human nature." But civilized societies repress them, and mostly succeed.

but all the rapes and murders of the 1700's don't get heaped on me because I identify as a human. But yet when I identify as an american, well then we get to bring up slavery and killing the native Americans. It's bullshit. I didn't have anything to do with it and when weighed with the rest of America's contribution to the world (economically, philosophically, scholarly), the bad barely registers on the scale.

America is the A+ student, who volunteers at the homeless shelter and teaches at-risk kids how to read. But the only thing that certain people can ever bring up is that it shot a squirrel once with his BB gun when he was five years old.

Don't get me wrong, I have very serious concerns with the way civil liberties are being treated as of late and we should absolutely make sure the abuses and wrongs are taken care of now. But constantly bring up shit from 200 years ago is what bugs the hell out of me.

> America is the A+ student, who volunteers at the homeless shelter and teaches at-risk kids how to read.

Do you really see the US this way, honestly? A country that's basically been terrorizing other countries almost non-stop since the 50's/60's. The last "A+" assignment the US had was World War II. There have been quite a lot of squirrels getting shot ever since.

I find the discussion about slavery to be pretty pointless too, mostly because all it accomplishes is to take people's attention away from the pretty obvious truth that the US has been 'raping and pillaging' almost constantly for half of the last century. To borrow your high school (I guess?) analogy: America is the former A+ student that helped (greatly) to bring down the high school bully, then slowly started transforming into that bully, only with less anti-semitism and quite a bit more islamophobia.

> 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

When people talk about privilege (though often in a gender context), this is exactly what they are talking about. Or th joke about George Bush being born on third base, thinking he hit a triple.

Those past actions by other people put you in a position of wealth and power >90% of the world's people, and you didn't do any of it, you just received the benefits, and (probably, I don't know you personally), haven't returned ill-gotten gains that came to you. As such, non-Americans have every reason to be displeased with modern Americans.

Can you name a culture in human history that has NOT tried to conquer other lands, take their stuff, or otherwise do things to native people? I imagine one exists(-ed?), but I sure cannot think of any other than the few tribes in the rain forest who have had no human contact, or perhaps the Inuit.

The vast majority of people on this planet are descendants of cultures that, at some point, were dominant in their area by conquering their neighbors. Vikings, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Russians, Inca, Aztecs, Spanish, French... I'm sure others can give more examples. Given human history, I'm pretty sure that those who did not (or have not) done so failed due to a lack of _means_, rather than will.

Yes, I'm sorry that the founders of this country completely screwed the natives. That was a terrible thing to do. (My ancestors didn't come here until a century later.) What would you have us do? How can one meaningfully repair those wrongs? We've seen in Israel the extreme difficulty of resolving the "I was here first" group's claims with "But my family has lived here for hundreds of years" group. It's like someone coming to take your house because you bought it from someone whose great-grandfather stole it from his great-grandfather.

It saddens me that we, as humans, seem to be unable to agree on a way to live together harmoniously. I'm sure that advocating forgiveness for past wrongs is a position that I only take because I am not from the group that was wronged, but ... where does one go?

+1 This is exactly my question in a different reply. I wish I could have been a liberator of slaves or an advocate for native Americans' rights a long time ago, but now it seems that all I can do is live a moral and cognizant life, and give back when I can. Far from miracle working and not likely to cause a major change. :\

I find it interesting that 'non-Americans' like the Belgians or Dutch are, in your mind, entitled to be displeased with modern Americans about slavery, simply because they are not American.

A very large number of Americans are descendants of Native Americans, or blacks. Possibly also 'whites' at the same time (though many of those 'whites' were later non-Anglo arrivals).

So you are in the odd position of justifying anger by (say) Dutch people against Americans who are related to them, or to Italians who arrived in 1920, or hispanics or blacks or Native Americans.

Because, don't you know, non-Americans have every reason to be displeased with modern Americans on account of things some Americans did a long time ago. But the Dutch (as one example among many), of course nobody of that nationality did anything back then.

> 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world.

America has been an overwhelming force for its own self interests. These are the kinds of statements that show why so many people in the rest of the world are mad about US foreign policy.

Our own self-interests have pushed the state of science and technology forward quite a bit in the world, I say to you over the internet. He said nothing about motivations, only end result.

The self-interests of the Soviet Union also pushed the state of science and technology forward a huge amount, probably more than any other country except the USA itself.

Self-interests are what drives all foreign policies, regardless of country.

It's a competition/race, and America has been winning at it for the last century.

The others' moral opposition and distaste with the USA is a product of them not finishing first in this race.

Abstractly, perhaps, but I think we can say that there are more concrete reasons why a nation may dislike the USA. I'm not arguing for or against the USA as a power here, just that this just seems too much of an oversimplification of the issue. This isn't a board game with scores and tokens. Mapping the complexities of nations over a 100 years into such an analogy just doesn't fit right in my head.

I'm sick of so-called patriots who can't be bothered to actually serve.

I'm sick of the idea that there is anything particularly patriotic about getting paid to kill and be killed. This glorification of the military needs to stop.

If you think being in the military is just about being 'paid to kill and be killed', you have a childlike sense of morality.

I served 6 years relatively recently and went to West Point, and in hind sight my opinions are at this point in time, joining the military is :

-a job with risks, rewards, and reasonable compensation -not intrinsically more patriotic than a variety of other jobs (although the culture is designed to make you think it is) -I have contributed far more to America outside of service than I did inside it -I left service convinced that patriotism is not really a value worth caring about. It is like "team membership" like being a Yankees fan.

I'll agree with that (four year military veteran here). You serve your country by striving to make it better.

I guess to me patriotism isn't telling everyone else how much better you are than other countries, it's constantly reminding yourself how much better your country can be, and striving to make it happen. Don't need to be in the military to do that, and sometimes going into the military might be counter productive to that goal.

What is a patriot then? Someone willing to die for their country or someone to makes sacrifices for their country? Just last week, I painted a school (volunteer work) and I currently fix up donor computers to give to underprivileged youth. Am I not acting patriotically, or am I just helpful? Because I understood that to mean that I was trying to build a better future, in a completely non-partisan, non-policy, not-subject-to-interpretation, way.

I'd like to think that selfless and concrete action is also patriotic. Is that not the case? If not then... well.. I'm not terribly skilled with weapons, not that strong, not that athletic, and my eyesight is kind of meh -- I'm not sure I can be that kind of patriot.

You are indeed a patriot. If I could've reasonably joined say the Peace Corps I might have.

It was an intentional dig at this guy who did ROTC but couldn't be bothered to commission.

> Nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves.

Honest question without a clear answer: If your grandparents had robbed a bank, killing innocents in the process, and left millions for you in a secret untraceable trust fund, would you accept the money?

That's the real moral issue underlying social justice. While I wasn't responsible for slavery or genocide, I still profited from it. I don't claim there's a clear solution, or any intrinsic culpability, but it is reality. While I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the bank-robbery money, I would certainly advocate for giving some/all to charity or to the descendants of the victims.

You are quite correct on [2], by the way, which deserves to more widely known. However, that still doesn't justify all the broken treaties and other abhorrent behavior.

> blame America first crowd.

Let's be fair: this is more accurately described as the "Blame the powerful first" crowd. It simply happens that America is really, really fucking powerful.

"nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves."

Actually there are many people held as slaves in the U.S.

Examples I can speak of are generally women held as slaves in circumstances in which men pay another man (the "slaveholder") for his permission to rape said slaves. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other kinds of slavery too.

England's treatment of India made the world a better place? Please do explain.

in short - massive investment in infrastructure.

As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

This is a convenient justification that paints the British as 'bringers of light' rather than the oppressors they were.

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism13.htm

Can you please tone down the aggression and swearing in the future? It just promotes hostility. Take that to Reddit.

This is a guy whose Twitter profile photo is of "Don't Tread On Me", background is a photo of the American flag, and first word in his bio is "freedom." Subtlety is not exactly his strong suit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com