I don’t know, any number of the ones who didn’t commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of… *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn’t commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn’t start and couldn’t stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn’t as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.
Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for… Well, anyone. We haven’t really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
When they say “with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous” they do that by actually removing the people from the region instead of forcing them into camps in the region and then letting them out again.
The Japanese internments were interesting, in a historical perspective, in that the idea to imprison Japanese Americans was broadly popular but the genocidal aspects normally associated with the similar practices were never discussed, at least at a policy level.
There were no disposal or relocation plans drawn up (that I’m aware of anyways, feel free to source otherwise), FDR’s administration literally just said “throw all the Japs in prison until we’ve won, it’ll be good for the polls!”
Which is honestly pretty weird, because they called them “relocation camps” at the time but seemed to mean it as “we’re relocating you to this camp.”
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn’t sound like long enough people weren’t that bad? That’s a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There’s plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
I didn’t really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I’ll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don’t want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
See, that wasn’t so hard and I actually agree with you too. Now why couldn’t you have given the other user the curtesy of answering their question and having a discussion in good faith instead of ranting about their opinion without addressing anything they said?
I don’t know, any number of the ones who didn’t commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of… *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn’t commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn’t start and couldn’t stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn’t as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
Oh beg pardon. “Ethnic cleansing.”
Not that either. A grave injustice that could very easily have become such, one that corrupt local officials certainly abused, but there were no death marches, no mass executions, and no cultural extermination.
Misuse of the term genocide dilutes the impact of the accusation, and you should just be generally careful of trying to tear down one of the few presidents who tried to make things better for… Well, anyone. We haven’t really had one since before Reagan that did more than talk a good game and then stab labor in the back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Remove the Japanese from society.
When they say “with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous” they do that by actually removing the people from the region instead of forcing them into camps in the region and then letting them out again.
That and, you know, mass murder.
Ah right, they totally planned to let them out again. They never bothered to tell them that, but…
They did, actually.
But so did the Nazis.
The Japanese internments were interesting, in a historical perspective, in that the idea to imprison Japanese Americans was broadly popular but the genocidal aspects normally associated with the similar practices were never discussed, at least at a policy level.
There were no disposal or relocation plans drawn up (that I’m aware of anyways, feel free to source otherwise), FDR’s administration literally just said “throw all the Japs in prison until we’ve won, it’ll be good for the polls!”
Which is honestly pretty weird, because they called them “relocation camps” at the time but seemed to mean it as “we’re relocating you to this camp.”
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn’t sound like long enough people weren’t that bad? That’s a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There’s plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
I’m saying maybe we shouldn’t judge ethnic cleansing by the “merits of the time.”
They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn’t even pick one?
I didn’t really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I’ll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don’t want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
Doubling down I see. It’s an opinion and while I may not agree with whoever you think is the best president you can’t really be wrong.
I’m just annoyed at people who rant about other peoples opinions but refuse to offer their own when asked. You aren’t arguing in good faith here.
For the record I don’t think FDR was the best president but I also disagree with some of your characterizations.
Fine. Jimmy Carter. But I’m not interested in discussing why with you, especially considering your attitude.
See, that wasn’t so hard and I actually agree with you too. Now why couldn’t you have given the other user the curtesy of answering their question and having a discussion in good faith instead of ranting about their opinion without addressing anything they said?
Because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion. It was an attempt to sidetrack into talking about someone else. Why is that not clear to you?