backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 166 comment(s) - last by Smiting Eye.. on Apr 10 at 8:32 PM

IBM's "Hollerith" machine found in museum in Germany. It is similar to the ones said to be used by Nazi officials during the Holocaust.  (Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) claims Google and other IT companies block politically sensitive information in "repressive" countries, relates it to IBM aiding the Holocaust

Dot-coms mix with politics just about as well as oil does with water.  American internet companies were placed under the microscope this week for involvement with countries that do not hold up human rights standards.

During what started as a relatively routine hearing on Museum of the History of Polish Jews, House Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) took the opportunity to berate IBM for its involvement in selling and programming equipment to Nazi officials leading up to and during World War II. 

"Did you ever wonder why the Gestapo always had all of those very well-laid-out prints of where the Jews lived, because IBM made it happen," he said. He continued to discuss the finer points of his bill, the Global Online Freedom Act.

Smith made it a point to limit and impose standards on corporations doing business in countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Instead of IBM, he alleges Google, Yahoo, Cisco Systems and Microsoft release personally identifiable information about internet users to repressive governments.

“History shows that U.S. companies have at times in the past provided the technology to crush human rights. For instance, IBM were good soldiers with the Gestapo. Now, U.S. companies, that originally thought they were helping bring freedom have found themselves — wittingly or unwittingly — part of a regime,” Smith said during committee consideration of his legislation.

The bill authoring started with the arrest of Shi Toa, a Chinese journalist arrested after authorities in China acquired personally identifiable information with the supposed help of Yahoo.  Smith cites and emphasizes these incidents to build ammunition to propel his Global Online Freedom Act.

“Shi Tao is unjustly serving time in prison as a result of information Yahoo provided to Chinese authorities. Moreover, Yahoo officials who came before my committee — during a hearing I chaired — in sworn testimony said they knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao. The Global Online Freedom Act will prohibit U.S. technology companies from cooperating with repressive regimes so that others do not meet Shi Tao’s fate,” claimed Smith.

Smith charges that these corporations not only aided “repressive” regimes, but did all they could to cover up business dealings in order to continue their business in these countries.  He demands that Congress pass the act so that American IT companies cannot commit these “shameful” acts.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Par for the course
By themadmilkman on 3/21/2008 5:59:55 PM , Rating: 4
Just another 2-bit politician trying to get camera time so he can get reelected.




RE: Par for the course
By jadeskye on 3/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By bupkus on 3/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By rudy on 3/22/2008 3:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
No clearly it came from IBM


RE: Par for the course
By paydirt on 3/24/2008 9:26:43 AM , Rating: 3
Do corporations have freedoms too? Repressing the freedoms of corporations to answer to governments (including the U.S.) is still a repression of freedom--just the freedom of corporations instead of the freedom of individuals.


RE: Par for the course
By Ryanman on 3/22/2008 2:33:48 PM , Rating: 5
no he's not saying that. Don't be an idiot.
He's saying that in HITLER'S mind there were justifications. Any reasonable human knows that killing 6 million people is beyond all rationalization.
You're taking advantage of an off-color comment to get uprated and I think it's kind of gross.


RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 6:42:14 PM , Rating: 1
You can't agree that someone is a "bad man" and then point out that he may have been justified. He was either bad (and did things that were unjustified or unjustifiable) or he was good in killing all the jews.

In other words, it sounds like your just trying to make a point in defense of Hitler while at the same trying to agree he was bad.


RE: Par for the course
By Alexstarfire on 3/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 10:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
Millions of people all across Europe lay dead. Fatherless, Motherless, Childless. All their property up in a flash of a german Bomb. Other countries had their economies ruined and their citizens lives in shambles. Their currency devalued as their GDP dropped like a rock. Their lives turned to hell as the depression of War must have sunk in.

But hey, Germany did gain some things out of all that for awhile, with them inflicting all the above on the rest of europe.

You have a gift for looking on the bright side.

I've just said a prayer for you.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By sh3rules on 3/21/2008 10:34:05 PM , Rating: 3
It’s interesting that we survived the Red Scare without becoming a police state (in the sense of 1984). We’re going in that direction again, but we’re not there yet.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By psaus on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By Ryanman on 3/22/2008 2:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
by saying you'll rate him up, you will get rated down.

Hitler did the same things FDR did except he did it with bigotry, hate, and scapegoating. Nobody here is denying that he's an evil man and stands to be one of the worst in humankind's history. Stop acting like the posts above me are trying to put Hitler on a pedestal.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By TerranMagistrate on 3/21/2008 10:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't meaning "Jews" once in his reply. It's clear he meant human genocide. It's not wise to go off assuming in an attempt to support your warped personal views...


RE: Par for the course
By GodisanAtheist on 3/22/2008 12:14:46 AM , Rating: 1
Try 30 Million Russians. For a sense of scale for the "ostfront", more Russians died during the 900 day siege of Leningrad than all other allied loses combined.

Hitler also killed 12 million in the holocaust, of which 6 million were Jews (the rest being mentally disabled, gypsies, political prisoners, homosexuals etc...). Jews constituted the largest denomination in death camps, which is why they get so much attention.

Jews have "marketed" the holocaust almost too expertly, however, so as when they legitimately defend their country from aggression and blow up civilians, they get intense amounts of political flak.


RE: Par for the course
By BZDTemp on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:16:07 AM , Rating: 1
You probably also believe that people don't have a right to defend their home with a firearm. Or believe that homeowners should be sued when a home invader gets injured in a robbery attempt. Very 'progressive'.


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think the website " Jews For The Preservation of Firearms" would probably disagree with you......

http://www.jpfo.org/


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 12:34:56 PM , Rating: 1
Munitions then... allow firearms to exist, but prohibit munitions. That's a good compromise, right? Give them the guns, but no bullets!


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
That is the lamest response you might have given I think. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They don't need guns to do it either, they can use knives, bats or the like, and especially cars when they get drunk. Wait.......they don't even have to be drunk to kill someone with a car, just very irresposnible. Shall we outlaw cars since more people are killed by them every year than by guns. Shall we outlaw alcohol because drunk drivers kill more people every year than smoking does. One freedom goes, another has to go as compensation. In other words, I'll give up my guns just as soon as they outlaw alcohol again. Fair enough?


RE: Par for the course
By psaus on 3/22/2008 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
"THE" Prohibition, and gun-prohibition? Again eye smite, props to you... not a more apt comparison.


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to learn about guns. I got one put in my hands when I was 7 yrs old. I'm 38 now and have been shooting ever since. Wow, does that mean I should have killed someone by now? Penalizing everyone for the actions of a few is the most assenine thing you could do. Taking away a freedom established when this continent became a country negates every other freedom we enjoy. I repeat myself again, guns do not kill people. I have never seen a pistol jump up off a table and shoot someone all by itself. People kill people. The Korean guy.....that's a failing of his family and friends that knew he wasn't taking his medication to keep him from getting wiggy, and how many people could he have killed with a car during class change at the campus on the sidewalks? BTW, saying guns don't kill people, people kill people isn't the worlds dumbest quote. It just happens to be the truth. One day you might gleen some insight into how things really work, and I'll still own guns and be shooting them on the land my family owns.


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/24/2008 10:35:50 AM , Rating: 3
and this is where your logic is flawed. The key words in your second sentence are can kill. Just as many people can be killed by cars and alot faster as well. Have a look....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvjHEgo8I10

So again, you're making comments based on the actions of a few, not the more than 50% of Americans that do own guns. If everyone with a gun killed at least one person in there lifetime here in this country, wouldn't our population be more like 80 million or less instead of 300+ million?


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
Cars are being engineered to become safer every day. When's the last time you've heard about a gun being designed to be nonlethal? At least the attempt is being made.

What makes my logic sound is that a world without guns would see far fewer deaths by guns. True, wars can be fought with swords, bows and arrows, knives. However, going postal with a knife will have a significantly different outcome than going postal with a semi-automatic.


RE: Par for the course
By seraphim1982 on 3/24/2008 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well put....


RE: Par for the course
By MikieTImT on 3/22/2008 12:42:20 PM , Rating: 3
I really hope you're kidding. If a person stops and thinks logically for a second, the only thing that firearm bans accomplish are making sure that those who have them have no respect for the law, such as criminals or politicians. I'd have a problem with criminals being better armed than me, because my dad was a policeman, and, as he stated, almost without exception, by the time a cop comes around, the crime has already been committed. By then, it's too late. He and nearly all of his policeman friends are strong proponents of firearm ownership.


RE: Par for the course
By jlips6 on 3/22/2008 2:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
lol, read a lot of terry pratchet MikieTImT? Your point is perfect. I would rate you up to a 6 if I could. Criminals don't follow the law, duh. It is a requirement for the job I understand. So why would they follow a law requiring them to get rid of their guns? Another problem: we are trying to take the guns away from people who, well... have guns. Inherently problematic. It makes me laugh in the face of all the people who actually want to ban guns. Oh, and I'm a democrat, and a liberal, but the gun control law is idiocy. Maybe more control in tracking who has guns, but actually trying to take them away? That's why I wanted John Edwards for president. To bad he had no chance of winning.


RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
Logically that makes perfect sense. Lets talk some more logic though. Logically speaking if American soliders hadn't had guns when they went over there to help your country, there would be no S.Korea. Logically speaking if the US had not supplied S.Korea with arms, they wouldn't have even been able to defend themselves during that conflict. Logically speaking right now there should be no N.Korea/S.Korea, it should just be a communist Korea completely. Now, I'm glad you get to enjoy all your freedoms, and I hope that continues for a very long time. However, the day you forget how those freedoms were gained, kept and preserved for so long, you're giving up those freedoms. If by your statitistics we lose 43k+ people in gun related incidents every year vs 300 million people in this country.........that is an incredibly small number compared to how many people own guns in this country. Lets say 50% of Americans own guns, that's 150 million people. Has there ever been that many people in S. Korea? Also, smuggling guns wouldn't be that difficult considering we have a virtually open border to Mexico and Canada. There is no system that is perfect, and I don't think there ever will be. I can almost guarantee you though there would be another civil war in this country if they tried to take all our guns away. Crime in certain states has actually gone down as a result of licenses giving people the right to carry a concealed handgun. Thieves and murderers don't know who has a gun and who doesn't and generally don't take the risk.


RE: Par for the course
By BikeDude on 3/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think that America brought freedom to S. Korea? S. Korea only won freedom in 1987. Only in the last 5 was it even legal to talk about communism or Kim Jong Il. The dictatorships that sprang in S. Korea were absolutely brutal. Korea still doesn't have a strong sense of its own identity between the occupation of Japan, the US, and communism. I'm speaking as someone who has become slightly informed over the 2 years I've lived here. Korea isn't my country. I just work here. My country is the shadow to yours known as Canada. Except for Quebec, you wouldn't be able to tell where the US ended and Canada began. In any case, that's not important to the discussion except to say that I'm not a patriotic Korean.


RE: Par for the course
By jlips6 on 3/23/2008 11:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are missing the point. You're statistics and things make sense, but please remember, when you say: if we melted down all the guns... that would mean that we need to get all the guns first, and therein lies the problem. see Miki TImT above or my post for details.


RE: Par for the course
By Ryanman on 3/23/2008 2:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
that was pretty gay. I won't lie to you.


RE: Par for the course
By BZDTemp on 3/24/2008 9:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
I am all for defense but I don't see how that plays in here. Care to explain?

The massive amount of civilians killed by the allies in WWII was not defense it was revenge or to use different words simply unjustified slaughtering of innocent humans. Even if you say the civilians in Germany and Japan was somehow part of their war machines surely you cannot say so about the children!

And as for Israel how does defense come in to play? How can you even consider talking about them as defenders since they are occupying a neighboring country. Just look at the settlements where the Israeli take the best land and import Jews from Russia to live on it.

May I suggest that you start getting your news from other sources than Fox. Perhaps the BBC would bring you some perspective.


RE: Par for the course
By callmeroy on 3/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By DASQ on 3/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 10:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
What are some of the good things Hitler did?


RE: Par for the course
By James Holden on 3/21/2008 10:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
The American and Russian space programs


RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 11:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh.... what?


RE: Par for the course
By AntiV6 on 3/21/2008 11:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Brought Germany and America out of a depression. Made the Americans push for the first Nuke, gave us extremely knowledgeable people like Einstein. Allied soldiers found many extremely advanced designs like the jet engine. Helped us accidentally discovered the Microwave. Hitler was also nominated for a freakin Nobel Peace Prize as well.

But yea, I still hope Hitler is getting a pineapple shoved up his keaster like in Little Nicky.


RE: Par for the course
By seamonkey79 on 3/22/2008 1:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The American and Russian space programs


quote:
Uhhh.... what?


Much of the US' rocketry was developed from and BY German scientists smuggled out of the country so as to keep them from the war crime trials that took place after the war. The guy who 'invented' the V-1 and V-2 bomb/missile/rockets that went into Britain during the Battle of Britain designed the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon.


RE: Par for the course
By AraH on 3/22/2008 6:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
pwned


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 3
Here you got watch this one then look up the scientists responsible for the Saturn V rocket launched in 1969.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifTqqxrxuGU


RE: Par for the course
By Tsuwamono on 3/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By SiN on 3/22/2008 2:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry to say it but he, more specificly the Nazi, regeim put beleif and money into the reaserch for war, and they came up with an awful number of inventions/advancements.

Ultimatly there has not ever been or since been that level of speed in technology advancement. I could almost go on to suggest we would be 50 years behind technologicly if it were not for such atrocaties.


RE: Par for the course
By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To everyone who met him, John Wayne Gacy seemed a likable and affable man. He was widely respected in the community, charming and easy to get along with. He was a good Catholic and sharp businessman who, when not running his construction company was active in the Jaycees and was also a Democratic Party precinct captain, when he had his photo taken with then First Lady, Rosalynn Carter. He also spent much of his free time hosting elaborate street parties for his friends and neighbors, serving in community groups and entertaining children as "Pogo the Clown". He was a generous, hard working, friendly, devoted family man, everyone knew that


RE: Par for the course
By boogle on 3/22/2008 5:16:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I've just said a prayer for you.


Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Did you say that to make yourself look like a 'better person'? Or because you don't believe prayers work?

I just don't understand why you would say that, because if prayers work there's no need to mention you did that short of stroking your own ego.

And how is saying a prayer going to help anyway? God (or whoever you worship) is going to come down and reprogram his brain? Or you're trying to get him into heaven? If you're saying that your little prayer can influence an omnipotent being to change someone else (or their own plans of sending that person to hell) just because you said so - well that's supremely arrogant isn't it?

Now wait for the down-modding because I questioned religion and prayer!


RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 1:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
What I'm terribly curiuos about is how you think I'm so misguided? If you consider researching the reasons behind Hitlers actions to learn the full historical lesson so that it's not repeated again, or committed in my own life, which one of us is truly misguided? Or perhaps you're seeing what you want to see in my post and not really reading it for what it is? I used to have a bumpersticker on my car that said " Jesus protect me from your followers". Now believing in Christ and God, you might think I'm a hypocrit or confused, maybe even naive. I'll tell you exactly why I had that bumpersticker on a car I no longer own. Have you ever seen Christians pull out of the church parking lot on Sunday? How they cut you off, tailgate you, change lanes cutting you off, and generally not pay attention to what they're doing because they just got absolution at the chapel? I NEED protection from those people so they don't get me killed. It's all in your perception isn't it. It's just like the Roman Empire were not conquerers. They were Real Estate developers.....digest that one. lol


RE: Par for the course
By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some people just have astronomical delusions


RE: Par for the course
By psaus on 3/22/2008 1:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I must be too new to Rate comments, so I will post instead.

Duwelon, you completely proved Boogle's "you're supremely ignorant" suspicion with this response. Well done.


RE: Par for the course
By boogle on 3/22/2008 6:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to make myself look like a better person. I really think he/she is misguided and it's a way to point that out.


That's fine, next time try saying 'I respect your opinion and right to freedom of speech. I however, disagree with you, but hope you give me the same courtesy and respect my opinion and freedom of speech'.

Saying you'll pray for someone is offensive to many non-christians, and even some other christians for that matter.

Would you like it if I said 'You are so wrong that I fear for your soul, I prayed to almighty deity for you' to something you said?


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 6:35:57 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, nope.....the way I read it, he was trying to get a rise out of me by saying he'd pray for me. Let him pray for me, I could use the help. Ultimately he's saying he doesn't understand any of the points I'm raising and that he suffers from some extreme perception issues. That's typical of most people in the good ole USA, and they let these people vote. That's what scares the hell out of me.


RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/22/2008 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just because something is offensive, doesn't mean it's not cruel to keep it from them. If I saw someone about to bungie jump knowing that they didn't prepare correctly, knowing they would be offended at my correcting them, it would still be cruel not to inform them.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
Duwelon, you didn't offend me in the slightest. Your statement though was made from ignorance and prejudice. You didn't understand the question I posed and you thought I was misguided for asking it. You instantly jumped to the conclusion that I was defending Hitler or bashing the jews and christianity, and I'm sorry, that's not what I was doing at all. I asked the question I did because Hitler wasn't the only one to blame for all that happpened. This happens to be the problem with most people for......oh say the last 3k yrs or so. It doesn't matter if your Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Bhuddist, Orhodox or Wiccan. If you don't learn the lessons of your past, the lessons of history, you are doomed to repeat it, because you'll never see it coming. Herein lies the lesson. The whole article was not about labeling IBM as a Nazi supporter. It was exemplifying their otherwise seemingly normal business practices as irresponsible. If companies are just about making money and not taking the time to ask why, they in turn get the stick rammed up the backside and become a pudding pop. There is a moral and ethical responsibility that companies have when conducting business. Its very apparent these days that isn't being followed and capitolism is clearly winning over democracy. My parents worked most of their lives at one job. The old man spent 41 yrs at his job, got a nice pension out of it. The old lady, she spent 21 yrs at the same company, got a decent pension herself. They got those nice jobs and were able to stay there because companies had some symbolance of ethics and values, something I will never see from any company in my lifetime. When did it all change and how far do we let it go before we say enough is enough? To answer that question, you better know your history and realize how close we are to being back in the same ruts our ancestors in this country already went through. Nuff said.


RE: Par for the course
By clovell on 3/24/2008 1:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: Par for the course
By adam92682 on 3/21/2008 11:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
World War 2 also got the US out of its depression.


RE: Par for the course
By tdawg on 3/21/2008 7:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious to hear what "motivations" drove Hitler to do what he did. You can't say something like that and not answer your own question. Please, tell us what you feel his "motivations" were?


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By TerranMagistrate on 3/21/2008 10:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
You fail to elaborate on a arguably provocative statement like:

quote:
...have you ever stopped to consider where his motivation came from to do the things he did?


And then you imply that the responses are childish. That's pure irony.

Why would anyone need to take into consideration the motivation behind the Holocaust? Is there perhaps an important enough reason for it to have happened that we may be unaware of? That's what you seem to insinuate.


RE: Par for the course
By rippleyaliens on 3/22/2008 1:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
Motivation? EASY, HE was trying to Win a WAR. The Killing of your Enemy Period.. IF the Jews were his perceived Enemy, then so be it.
The US in 1945, killed over 100,000 Instantly, and well over 100,000 over 20 years, with just 2 bombs. Was it morally wrong, yes. BUT The killing of the Enemy is WAR!!..
Seriously.. Russians did the same thing.. In War, Death is a guarantee. Killing your Enemies is only way to Win a war. IF it came to killing just to not feed them SAME THING..
AND -- The US has preformed its own holocaust.. It just chooses to forget it. Over 12 million Slaves lost JUST in Transport to the US, and over 300 years of Forced Slavery.. well Holocaust describes that to me.And that wasnt Warfare... So Nazi Warfare = WARFARE...


RE: Par for the course
By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:29:14 AM , Rating: 3
I forgot the US invented slavery thousands of years ago. Then single-handedly created slave factories in Africa, brainwashed Africans to round up other Africans, and sell them to the rest of the world. My textbooks were used, so that page must have been missing.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Par for the course
By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe you should read what I wrote again S-L-O-W-L-Y. Here is a hint. The US wasn't around thousands of years ago.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 12:31:17 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should read a bit more yourself as the slavery you described wasn't around thousands of years ago either.


RE: Par for the course
By psaus on 3/22/2008 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
reword from Thousands to multiple hundreds of years (300+), and I think the comment is correct. He was going for affect (funny or otherwise) and went so far it made it too incorrect.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:22:39 AM , Rating: 1
Let me copy and paste part of an article for the 1590s up to the civil war in N. America for you.

Finally, it is also important to keep in mind that yet a third group of people--in this case Africans--played an active role in the European invasion (or colonization) of the western hemisphere. From the very beginning, Europeans' attempts to establish colonies in the western hemisphere foundered on the lack of laborers to do the hard work of colony-building. For the most part, Europeans were not especially picky about who did the work, as long as it wasn't them. The Spanish, for example, enslaved the Indians in regions under their control. The English struck upon the idea of indentured servitude to solve the labor problem in Virginia. Virtually all the European powers eventually turned to African slavery to provide labor on their islands in the West Indies. Slavery was eventually transferred to other colonies in both South and North America.

Here's the link, read on it.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/colo...


RE: Par for the course
By jlips6 on 3/22/2008 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
saving private Rian anyone? war is about killing the enemy true. But Hitler in killing the jews, the homosexuals, the gypsies, the disabled, was not trying to win the war. He was trying to create an idealistic society of Arians. It would've been much better for him military wise to try and recruit them, but he couldn't have done that anyway because of political views of the people. He blamed the jews for all the problems in Germany, and that's how he came to power. I think he got caught up in his own propaganda and really did believe the jews were responsible for everything. Either that or he believed in his views before he spread his propaganda. Either way his ultimate goal was to cleanse society and make it perfect. The holocaust was not war. It was engineered hell designed to kill those who he deemed unworthy. seisatsu yodatsu. What he failed to realize is that it is not up to us to decide that unless it is life or death.


RE: Par for the course
By seraphim1982 on 3/24/2008 11:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly, props to Eyesmite and Wordsworm! If I could bump you I would. Props to Jlips6 as well.

Firstly, I don't wanna sound inconsiderate, but Jews and the Holocaust, aren't the only people to die in WW2. Almost as many Chinese and Russians died horrible deaths as well, yet the Holocaust has much more exposure. Just pointing it out. Jumping BACK on topic, this congressman is trying to use this as a ploy to get more popular. About IBM selling that stuff to the Germans, its not IBM who decides to sell it, its probably some dude in the IBM office at the time. Also, if you really do want to rant more about IBM and their business practices during the, then you should add a LONG list of countries and companies to that list, cause they did the exact same thing. WAR can be EXTREMELY profitable.
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, NOT the KILLING EQUIPMENT.

I also remember some noob, talking about Pearl Harbour and how it was unprovoked. Actually, when a country that claims neutrality, yet provides another country's enemy with supplies and weapons, the neutral country really isn't neutral. Also, the Americans knew in advance of the attack, THERE were NUMEROUS clues and indications that an attack was coming They let it happen, it was the catalyst to unify the people in mass support. The Japanese did a pre-emptive strike on the Americans, so it would take them out of the picture a while, so they could amas resources and territories in the Pacific first. But Credit, the Americans and their industrial power of the time. The Japanese did not expect the Americans to come back with such a rapid striking blow.


RE: Par for the course
By fic2 on 3/22/2008 2:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hitler started the war and got Italy and Japan to join him. Japan attacked the U.S. If none of that happened the U.S. wouldn't have killed anyone.

My opinion is that if you get attacked you can do what ever the hell you want to defend yourself. Pretty much like if someone invades your home. I would have no problem killing someone that invaded my home.


RE: Par for the course
By tigen on 3/24/2008 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty naive. The US was already involved in Asia. There was tension with Japan before Pearl Harbor. It's not like Japan just went and did that for no reason at all.


RE: Par for the course
By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Par for the course
By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 11:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you so angry about people ragging on Hitler? Obviously, he wasn't the only person responsible but he was a very instrumental part of Nazism to say the least.


RE: Par for the course
By