Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
gpatt0n

Speaking of humanity and brotherly love ... we've come a long way

Recommended Posts

Just read a story in today's NYT about Harvard's first female professor, Alice Hamilton.  She  was apparently hired in the 1920s because then emerging public health field of industrial toxicology because:

Quote

Hamilton explained that qualified male scientists rejected her field because it was “tainted with socialism or with feminine sentimentality for the poor.”

Alice Hamilton came to prominence because of her efforts to identify the health effects of free-base acids in the air, mercury milkshakes and the always unforgettable lead ingestion that was seemingly an elemental part of the manufacture of anything.  The industrialists of the age were seemingly stupendous advocates for their factories by pointing out to authorities that what's a few dead workers compared to the magnificent factory that employed these dredges of society. 

Really it is a good and interesting read that actually gives that missing  actuality that helps  explain how the German people were radicalized to the point of embracing Hitler. 

The history of the victors admitted that a key cause was the draconian terms of the Versailles peace treaty sighed at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month ... 

What this story tells is that the report of Ms. Hamilton denoting the policy of the west in forcing Germany to sign the treaty included months of  a British blockade that starved literally every man, woman and child in Germany as pressure to sign the treaty.  It was during that shared period of starvation that radicalized the German people. 

I still find that quote above - especially the misogynist part that suggests that real men look down on the needy and starving and consider their travails trivial and concern for them either a commie reaction or at best feminine sentimentality. 

Of course there are mitigating circumstances but the plain fact is that the blockade of Germany after the armistice lasted from Nov 1918 until June 1919 with over 100,000 Germany children starving in the interim. (the blockade had been in place since 1914 and Germany refused to allow its merchant ships to be used to deliver food aid  until late March 1919.   Wikipedia: Blockade of Germany.

gpatton

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Let's see.   

Germany attacked it's neighboring states, causing the death of nearly 17 million people over the course of the war.    Check.   

German leadership refused to accept that it had lost the war, so it preferred for it's citizens to starve so that it could keep it's merchant ships under it's control.   Check.   

German leadership was willing to kill *more* people if they thought they could win in a restart, so refused to surrender.   Check.

Allies could have restarted the war, killing their way to the leadership, but rather than risking the lives of their own solders and citizens (who BTW, *didn't* start the war), promoted a bloodless blockade that would end when Germany surrendered and released it's ships to pick up the promised food.  

The leadership didn't finally give in until food riots forced them to.  Note the Allies couldn't force them to, the people of Germany had to. 

Doesn't sound like a Allied issue to me, sounds like the German people should be more careful about who they elect to rule themselves.

However, the Germans didn't learn that lesson, raising up the radical Hitler to once again start a war killing others that just wanted to live in Peace until they lost.  No armistice this time, the Allies kept fighting until all the leadership was dead or captured.   The Allies could have gone the blockade route with Japan, it being an island, but instead, Roosevelt decided to break them quickly and the first A-Bombs were dropped in anger.  

Lesson to learn is that losing a war of aggression is hard on the land and the people. 

I read the article and applaud her work in worker protections.    There is a required balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers and it had indeed gone way off balance  in our country during those times.  Even today, in parts of the world such as Mainland China and Venezuela, it is still out of balance as the government believes it owns the Peasants and can do with them as it pleases.   They fill the air and water of their country with poisons.  Unfortunately we in the US are willing to look the other way as long as the flow of cheap plastic decorations and batteries for our electric cars keep coming our way, no matter the damage to the foreign people and property.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lets see if we can have a discussion about the article and not one's personal political beliefs. If not it's not staying.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Sound Guy said:

Let's see.   

Germany attacked it's neighboring states, causing the death of nearly 17 million people over the course of the war.    Check.   

German leadership refused to accept that it had lost the war, so it preferred for it's citizens to starve so that it could keep it's merchant ships under it's control.   Check.   

German leadership was willing to kill *more* people if they thought they could win in a restart, so refused to surrender.   Check.

Allies could have restarted the war, killing their way to the leadership, but rather than risking the lives of their own solders and citizens (who BTW, *didn't* start the war), promoted a bloodless blockade that would end when Germany surrendered and released it's ships to pick up the promised food.  

The leadership didn't finally give in until food riots forced them to.  Note the Allies couldn't force them to, the people of Germany had to. 

Doesn't sound like a Allied issue to me, sounds like the German people should be more careful about who they elect to rule themselves.

However, the Germans didn't learn that lesson, raising up the radical Hitler to once again start a war killing others that just wanted to live in Peace until they lost.  No armistice this time, the Allies kept fighting until all the leadership was dead or captured.   The Allies could have gone the blockade route with Japan, it being an island, but instead, Roosevelt decided to break them quickly and the first A-Bombs were dropped in anger.  

Lesson to learn is that losing a war of aggression is hard on the land and the people. 

I read the article and applaud her work in worker protections.    There is a required balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers and it had indeed gone way off balance  in our country during those times.  Even today, in parts of the world such as Mainland China and Venezuela, it is still out of balance as the government believes it owns the Peasants and can do with them as it pleases.   They fill the air and water of their country with poisons.  Unfortunately we in the US are willing to look the other way as long as the flow of cheap plastic decorations and batteries for our electric cars keep coming our way, no matter the damage to the foreign people and property.   

SG:

Even today in parts of the world (why limit it to mainland China and Venezuela) people are methodically burning the last remaining rain forests and pumping out oil, gas and coal in an apparent effort to see if Co2 levels reach 6 parts per million in the atmosphere, will we self immolate.   It is doing this not because they want to immolate themselves or the government thinks it owns the peasants and can immolate them if they please, but because private industry is in many cases working hard to reinforce the ignorance that has led us to abuse of tobacco, opiates, energy and chemistry for fun and profit. 

I think the real lesson is not in the pleadings for various goods or services as essential (some are and some aren't) regardless of their side-effects but in the understanding that the German people - rightly or wrongly - were 'united' by their common enemy that literally starved them.  No matter how justified or  unjustified it is any people whose hatred is cultivated by this kind cruel treatment will seek revenge and follow an idiot like Hitler in their quest for it.

I think, regardless of any other option chosen other than starving kids, if not starving the kids would have avoided WWII, it would have been worth it.

"Is this blockade, with its starving of innocents only justified if the country being so-punished is responsible for a devastating war like WWI?" 

Is what is going on in Yemen currently, therefore unjustified?

I think the real point here is whether it is ever justified to do that?

And, if you think about what happened to Germany at the end of WWI and WWII and judge it based on what was going on 20-years after that even, one might see proof of the Christian notion that is far greater to give than receive.  Twenty years after WWI when we punished the Germans with starvation, we were at the beginning of WWII.  Twenty years after WWII when we went in an rebuilt Germany with the Marshall Plan, we were in a space race to get to the moon.

Understanding those two outcomes through those two responses, I think, is critical.

gpatton

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, LPPT said:

Lets see if we can have a discussion about the article and not one's personal political beliefs. If not it's not staying.

2010513144346_cone_of_silence12.jpg

 

CONE of Silence :crazy:

NEW Password protected FORUM (yay or nay)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Caped Crusader said:

2010513144346_cone_of_silence12.jpg

 

CONE of Silence :crazy:

NEW Password protected FORUM (yay or nay)

 

 

 

Nah lets see how well they can do:crazy::crazy::crazy:

Share this post


Link to post

Pubby brought up the rain forest being burned.  It's a myth.  

I read the article and it is indeed political opinion. This can stay as a historical discussion,

Edited by LPPT
invitation to partisan debate.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

Pubby brought up the rain forest being burned.  It's a myth. 

Removed the link the remarks are no longer relevant

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CitizenCain said:

Do you intend to use an opinion piece written by a Forbes contributor as proof the Amazon fires are a myth ?

Did you read it?  The article provided facts and sources.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, LPPT said:

Should we throw some religion in here for good measure?

Rather you didn't, it's bad enough with persons adding Liberal beliefs into the conversation that have nothing to do with the article.  :)  

The article nor I said nothing of "Global Warming" and Rain Forest lost.    I said poisons and I meant that:

Quote

The affected area accounts of one-tenth of China’s cultivatable land. An estimated 6 million tonnes of food grain are contaminated by heavy metals every year, causing direct losses of 29 billion yuan (US$2.57 billion). Heavy metals (including mercury, lead, cadmium, copper, nickel, chromium, and zinc) in the contaminated soil have adverse health effects on human metabolism. Ingestion, contact through skin, diet through the soil-food chain, respiratory intake, and oral intake can deliver the toxic substances to human beings

 Zhang, Xiuying; et al. (7 August 2015). "Impact of Soil Heavy Metal Pollution on Food Safety in China". PLOS ONE. 10(8): e0135182. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135182. PMC 4529268. PMID 26252956. Retrieved 13 March2017.

As far as the original topic, what happened after WWII was very different than WWI.   For the time frame that the article references, Germany was still officially at war with the allies, having refused to sign the treaty and refused to send ship to *pick up the offered food that would have prevented the starvation!!*.  Why send food to someone who is still officially wanting to kill your citizens when they won't send ships to pick it up?   Germany was still a threat to attack if they felt they had a chance. 

Japan and Germany surrendered at the end of WWII and esp with the division of Germany into zones, we took it upon ourselves to take care of our zone, including West Berlin, which the Soviets attempted to starve into submission with a blockade after the war was over.    Totally different conditions.   Thus we and our allies provided the Berlin airlift.  (Granted, it was also a slap in the face of the Soviets, but there are often multiple reasons for doing things.)

Then you have the conditions in socialist Venezuela with the starvation there.  Our church has sent several pallets of food to the church mission there, VenezuelaNowsupplying thousands of meals to the desperate people and we are collecting food and medicine for 1 or hopefully 2 more pallets this fall from our church alone.    Some may say that kind of support enables the idiots running the place, and it might in come cases, but I think the leadership there has already been proven to be driven by their own power only and the deaths of thousands of people will not bother them or turn them from their course.  Therefore, I feel it's only moral to try to send help.   At least these pallets are getting through rather than their government burning the goods the US tried to deliver. 

Share this post


Link to post

I see this thread as a slippery slope to politics and political discussion. I don't want anyone to ever come back to p.com and see a nasty political argument. We are serous about this. We all know that history discussions can easily turn political. Frankly I don't trust anyone not to turn it. Folks can blame me for moderating harshly on this subject all they want I know the characters and I know there is no doubt that everyone in this thread with the exception of myself wants politics back on the site and wants it just as heated, insulting and nasty as ever. I have 1000's of people that agree with me on that point because that is why they are not here and may never come back. The damage that has done to the community is immeasurable but it didn't matter to the ones that wanted that huge audience for their political opinions and mean spirited arguments. The games are over. Every time it happens we have to start over building credibility in the community that it is no longer allowed here.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about religion, but semantics is in full bloom.

RE: foxmeister.

True, a decade and a half ago, the Brazilian rain forest was being destroyed at a truly alarming rate.  It is true that landowners; if you can call them that, were clearing the land at an unsustainable rate in 2004 and before as they were owning the land by destroying the forest and claiming the land.  This is how agriculture was expanded for eons.  You burn it and then a year or two later the remaining ash combines with the dirt and you've got fertile soil for a few growing seasons; then you have to go on as the land is incapable of regenerating its capacities for productive growth. (Only 3 percent of the land being claimed can be used for soybeans, according to the article.)

The point is there was a massive effort by the intellectual interest in saving the world from ancient and destructive land development practices and they worked ...  until Brazil's president decided that short term profits and more for him and his friends trumped the long-term health of the planet. 

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till its gone - Joni Mitchell

If you don't know it, sustainability is a project that we as humanity are just learning about in the greater context of the health of the planet.  Unfortunately those who acculturation was based on the preeminence of the individual, have a hard time grasping this broader, more imposing reality has already proven that mankind will have to take a broader view of our role in this physical world ... or it will surely come back to bite us hard.

Said differently, Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till its gone - Joni Mitchell

gpatton

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, gpatt0n said:

I don't know about religion, but semantics is in full bloom.

RE: foxmeister.

True, a decade and a half ago, the Brazilian rain forest was being destroyed at a truly alarming rate.  It is true that landowners; if you can call them that, were clearing the land at an unsustainable rate in 2004 and before as they were owning the land by destroying the forest and claiming the land.  This is how agriculture was expanded for eons.  You burn it and then a year or two later the remaining ash combines with the dirt and you've got fertile soil for a few growing seasons; then you have to go on as the land is incapable of regenerating its capacities for productive growth. (Only 3 percent of the land being claimed can be used for soybeans, according to the article.)

The point is there was a massive effort by the progressive interest in saving the world from ancient and destructive land development practices and they worked ...  until Brazil's president decided that short term profits and more for him and his friends trumped the long-term health of the planet. 

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till its gone - Joni Mitchell

If you don't know it, sustainability is a project that we as humanity are just learning about in the greater context of the health of the planet.  Unfortunately those who acculturation was based on the preeminence of the individual, have a hard time grasping this broader, more imposing reality has already proven that mankind will have to take a broader view of our role in this physical world ... or it will surely come back to bite us hard.

Said differently, Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till its gone - Joni Mitchell

gpatton

 

 

Pat here is the slippery sloppery slope.  Your response may be in the context of history yet the term progressives is political and a flash point. If you didn't know that now you do. Do you want to remove it or can assume that the intent is to turn it political?

 

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate that it is why I pointed out that progressive is interpreted as a political term opposite of conservative.

Share this post


Link to post

The lack of political posts is clearly working.  The non-political post count by people other than the 'Team of 9' has gone up by at least 1 (maybe 2) over the last month.

Edited by cptlo306
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please Accept To "ENTER" Have a "BLESSED Day!