³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980815498³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980815832³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³21³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980815832³2ip³2129.97.13.70³2data³2text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980819760³2id³21076³2host³2cnts6p70.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³22³1username³2TimShell³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980819760³2ip³2216.7.146.114³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980821865³2id³21164³2host³2office.bomis.com³2revision³23³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980821865³2ip³2129.97.130.25³2data³2text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So I think the page should still be kept as summary first, subtopics second.''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980822091³2id³21076³2host³2cnts3p25.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³24³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980822091³2ip³2129.97.130.25³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.''

''A second point is that many of the categories listed are not specifically parts of American history.  Last I checked, there were many other participants in the second world war.  So the page should be changed to something like AmericaDuringTheSecondWorldWar, but that's kind of cumbersome.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.'' -- JG
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980822260³2id³21076³2host³2cnts3p25.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³25³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980822260³2ip³2129.97.130.25³2data³2text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980835432³2id³21076³2host³2cnts3p25.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³26³1username³2BryceHarrington³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980835432³2ip³264.81.18.202³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG

----
Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  

I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.

Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  

Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...

Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.

That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  

But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  

I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)

Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.

-- BryceHarrington
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980837622³2id³21108³2host³2dsl081-018-202-sea1.dsl-isp.net³2revision³27³1username³2TimShell³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980837622³2ip³224.25.202.157³2data³2text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG

----
Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  

I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.

Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  

Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...

Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.

That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  

But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  

I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)

Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.

-- BryceHarrington

----

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980837700³2id³21149³2host³224-25-202-157.san.rr.com³2revision³28³1username³2TimShell³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980837700³2ip³224.25.202.157³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG

----
Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  

I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.

Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  

Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...

Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.

That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  

But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  

I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)

Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.

-- BryceHarrington

----

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980842294³2id³21149³2host³224-25-202-157.san.rr.com³2revision³29³1username³2BryceHarrington³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980842294³2ip³264.81.18.202³2data³2text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG

----
Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  

I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.

Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  

Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...

Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.

That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  

But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  

I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)

Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.

-- BryceHarrington

----

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell

----
Yes, I use "we" a lot when discussing US history, because in reading a lot of this stuff I feel a great sense of personal responsibility about it, and assume (usually wrongly, as I repeately learn) others care similarly.  Note though that I don't think it is acceptable to 'cop out' by blaming the government.  Of course the government will do bad things; that is what governments, historically, have done.  But here in the United States, the principle is that the government 'belongs' to us.  Thus, I feel that like any manager taking responsibility for the action of his employees, or a general taking responsibility for the action of his soldiers, so too ought US Citizens take responsibility for actions of their government.  Of course, this too is my own personal political screed, and I promise to try to avoid letting 'we's slip in anywhere except in that which is merely discussion (like this).  

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the history should include not only what the government does but also what the people do.  I left out things like the civil rights movement, various rebellions and religious/moral/ethical movements just for lack of writing time.  All of that should certainly be added.  But also note that usually, when the government is repressing the minority, there is a possibility that society itself supports (perhaps even elected) the repression.

Anyway, like I said, I grant that I skipped over many essential facts.  Assume that I did this because I wanted to leave the enjoyable, ennobling writing parts to you.  ;-)

I think I'll withdraw from writing more on US history...  I have a lot I'd like to say, having studied it considerably, but it just upsets me that the more I learn, the more I see it is just repeating the patterns of older empires.  And what really frustrates me is that there seems to be little chance of avoiding making the same mistakes. -- BryceWishingForBetterHarrington
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980915808³2id³21108³2host³2dsl081-018-202-sea1.dsl-isp.net³2revision³210³1username³2PhillipHankins³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2980915808³2ip³224.190.57.186³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American.  Of course, there have been dark moments in UnitedStates history, but what about the rest?  What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men?  How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom?  How about the UnitedStates role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in WorldWarII?  Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --JimboWales

''I think the article is being remarkably fair.  What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application.  In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected.  America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism.  Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.''

''This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par.  But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like.  Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.''

''Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on HistoryOfUnitedStatesDiscussion.  Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial.  --JoshuaGrosse''

----

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias.  The way to achieve lack of bias is to ''explicitly acknowledge'' within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements.  Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil.  It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- LarrySanger

''My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached.  Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page.  Only now we have two of those....''

-----
Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

''I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view.  Especially not when the eras are so event oriented.  For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history.  But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age?  That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars.  So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.''

''As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work.  That's pretty cool.'' --JG

----
Bryce (bit confused over difference between Talk and Discussion, but figuring there's a reason) here...  

I'll be the first to admit that the original writeup focused more on negative points than on positive points, largely because the more I study US history, the more shamed I feel...  I listed particular things that have bothered me.  Maybe because they tend to get glossed over or apologized for in the history books we typically learn from, or perhaps 'cause I wanted to get a reaction out of people.  In any case, I admit that leaving out the many positive traits of US history causes it to be very unbalanced.  For instance, I mentioned nothing of the rebellion, nor the fact that the US pioneered the democratic principles that many people today have benefitted from.  I did not mention the technological achievements that its freedom allowed to occur (even though I personally don't believe we are _all_ as free as we would like to think).  And yes, I'll admit the article as I wrote it was rambling, skipping over vitally important moments in US history to focus on items of my own personal interest.  But I wanted to get it started without having to write a novel, and knew others would fill it in, given time.

Anyway, with the apologism out of the way...  You can call it biased if you want, but please do not dismiss it as false unless you have researched it more thoroughly.  I quick-checked each of the assertions against the article in the Britannica.com site (knowing it was going to sound biased, I was going to delete anything that lacked backup from an official source).  Believe it or not, the article I found on the Britannica site was even more damning than mine!!  

Also, realize that there are a TON of assertions out there about how much worse the US is than we care to believe, which appear to be true, yet which make the stuff mentioned so far seem extremely tame.  I don't want to earn the 'anti-american' label so I'll censor myself right here.  ;-)  But I encourage anyone bothered by assertions like these to please do some research on your own, and make sure to consult books that don't simply romantacize US history.  We've been very naughty...

Okay, now a couple comments about procedural things said above...  First, while it would be nice to say that one should write only the truth (and I wholeheartedly agree), it is effectively impossible to know the truth absolutely.  If a police officer asks five people at a car accident what happened, he'll get five different answers.  Second, regarding bias, I also agree it would be nice to say that "this is without any bias", but I think we must admit that every writer will be biased.  Not to say that it is not worth attempting to be unbiased, just that you should always assume everything you read is biased, figure out how it is so, and correct for it.

That is one of the things I find magical about wiki - unlike a newspaper, which could have a particular bias, and leave its readers no opportunity to point out bias and correct, here with wiki, we have the power to collectively fix that.  If I'm a boob and spout off with error after error, you can click 'edit' and fix it.  

But let me say this:  I hope that when we are done, every assertion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning, is defended with facts and proven.  And I hope that the controversial and unsettling assertions made in the original post help us go beyond just a 'nursery school' retelling of US history.  History proves that we are not the pure, wholesome, and just people that we think we are.  We're human just like everyone else on this planet; GoD did not make us better than everyone else, nor did GeorgeWashington, and we've done many bad things out of greed, fear, racism, arrogance, and plain old ignorance, that we would today castigate other nations for.  Heck, who knows?  Maybe we're still doing it.  

I'm going to cover the historical fact points brought up in this thread, over on Discussion, for no particular reason.  ;-)

Again, apologies if the original article shook people up...  But sometimes honestly pointing out flaws can be the best way to fix them.

-- BryceHarrington

----

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made.  Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history.  Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things.  It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed.  But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person.  A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things.  This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States.  It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell

----
Yes, I use "we" a lot when discussing US history, because in reading a lot of this stuff I feel a great sense of personal responsibility about it, and assume (usually wrongly, as I repeately learn) others care similarly.  Note though that I don't think it is acceptable to 'cop out' by blaming the government.  Of course the government will do bad things; that is what governments, historically, have done.  But here in the United States, the principle is that the government 'belongs' to us.  Thus, I feel that like any manager taking responsibility for the action of his employees, or a general taking responsibility for the action of his soldiers, so too ought US Citizens take responsibility for actions of their government.  Of course, this too is my own personal political screed, and I promise to try to avoid letting 'we's slip in anywhere except in that which is merely discussion (like this).  

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that the history should include not only what the government does but also what the people do.  I left out things like the civil rights movement, various rebellions and religious/moral/ethical movements just for lack of writing time.  All of that should certainly be added.  But also note that usually, when the government is repressing the minority, there is a possibility that society itself supports (perhaps even elected) the repression.

Anyway, like I said, I grant that I skipped over many essential facts.  Assume that I did this because I wanted to leave the enjoyable, ennobling writing parts to you.  ;-)

I think I'll withdraw from writing more on US history...  I have a lot I'd like to say, having studied it considerably, but it just upsets me that the more I learn, the more I see it is just repeating the patterns of older empires.  And what really frustrates me is that there seems to be little chance of avoiding making the same mistakes. -- BryceWishingForBetterHarrington

----

Tim has excellent points.  I second them.  The bit about not focusing exclusively on the government is gold.  I also think that you needn't feel responsible for the actions done many years before your birth by a government which you now have <<1/280,000,000th of a say in.  Simplifications need to be proven helpful before they are adopted.  I hold up your guilt as an example of the harm they can do.  If you feel bad that some things happened in history (and are still happening), I would think anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the victims more appropriate responses.  These can motivate one to help make things better without being such a burden.  Don't you show, by your recognition of the wrong, some distance from it?  Sorry, I just don't think you deserve the burden of guilt, so I rambled on trying to fix your psychie or something.  I appologize.

That having been said, this is a wiki.  The obvious answer, and likely among the best, has been given:  write a middle way account and people can link off to pessimistic (or optimistic) interpretations & elaborations as they see fit.  Writing the middle way shouldn't be that hard.  Let anyone add what they want, and if someone objects to something, off to another page it goes.  --PhillipHankins
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2980815498³2keepts³2980926460³2id³21156³2host³2ool-18be39ba.dyn.optonline.net³2revision³211