Defending your countries' history

[Dragonlord]

Inspired by the current 'Germany had it worse in WWII' thread, which degenerated into a 'how many German women were raped by Russian soldiers' thread, I'd like to ask some questions of the posters in the History forum:

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

3) If yes to one or both: why?

Just some examples, not meant for discussion:

- Russians defending occupation of Eastern Europe after WWII, denying mass rapes, defending occupation of Poland
- Americans defending atomic bombings, defending genocide of Native Americans
- Turks denying Armenian genocide
- Germans insisting WWII atrocities were committed by only a few monsters in the SS, the Wehrmacht's hands were clean

Please don't start discussing the specific examples. I just mean them to show a common factor: a countries' deeds/history which are widely held to be wrong or immoral in some respect by an overwhelming majority of non-citizens of that country, but which are routinely and stubbornly defended on these forums (and elsewhere, of course) by citizens of that country.

To make it easier, let's concentrate only on historic deeds, as in the examples, deeds for which posters here are unlikely to bear any kind of personal responsibility.

What interests me is this: What drives some people to defend their countries' deeds, no matter what?

Personally, I have no problem at all admitting and deploring Germany's misdeeds in WWII. I only start getting defensive when generalizations are made, on the order of "All Germans are militaristic" or whatever - because that touches on me personally.

I feel no personal responsibility for the misdeeds of a previous German generation, most of whom are dead by now. Since I am not responsible, what need would I feel to defend those deeds?

Others seem to feel otherwise... why is that?

 

[Masada]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

Generally no, although I do make an exception for Americans for the simple reason that most of what we did they did worse.

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

It's invariably wrong. But most Antipodeans can't form a cognizant historical argument on any respectable level either. I give them points for trying.

What interests me is this: What drives some people to defend their countries' deeds, no matter what?

Nationalism, ******ation or both. USA #1.

 

[red_elk]

1. Only if from my point of view, criticism is erroneous.
2. No.
3. Both sides may gain knowledge, find out new facts. In some cases, eventually come to an agreement.

 

[privatehudson]

Interesting topic

I generally feel compelled to correct inaccurate statements whether they be criticism or otherwise.

I think it may come across sometimes that people tend to defend their country more simply because they will tend to be more familiar with the country they associate with. I know very little about the history of the Far East for example so I rarely comment on debates related to that region. On the other hand I'm fairly familiar with most periods of British history, even if I don't especially study it. I'm therefore far more likely to be able to reply to unfair criticism of Britain than most other countries.

On the other hand being fairly familiar with British history I'm quite happy to admit that this country has a fair few skeletons in its closet, so I don't feel any particular need to defend Britain on everything other than to perhaps point out mitigating factors.

I generally couldn't care much whether the critcism comes from a British person or not. If I feel its unfair I'll say so, if I feel its fair but there was mitigating circumstances I'll say so. The only difference might come that if I was dealing with someone from another country I might be inclined to point out parallels with that country.

As to why a part of me likes debate subjects and another part doesn't likes to see people spout of things that I suspect or know to be false.

 

[Plotinus]

This isn't really a question about history. It's about people's attitudes towards their own countries. So I don't think it belongs in the History forum.

Moderator Action: Moved to OT.

 

[Godwynn]

I don't defend countries, only attack British and Russian history.

 

[Tani Coyote]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

Yes.

Unlike my perfectionist left-wing friend, I do not say we are a nation founded on greed(because of the taxes in the revolution), nor are we evil simply because we condoned slavery at first. I defend the keeping of slavery at first as it helped create a solid union; the Constitution was written so that it could be abolished eventually anyway. It may have been more prudent to strike it down at day one, but if I recall, the slave states were more wealthy and powerful at that time... meaning slavery would have persisted even longer. The abolition had to wait until the time was right.

I defend the dropping of the atomic bombs, as those prevented greater loss of life. I never understood why people become so uptight about that, considering they would have been developed eventually anyway. But hey, if they'd rather a bunch of troops pointlessly die storming the beaches of Japan... Also factor in we could have dropped them on larger cities, but we did not. Minimising losses on both sides.

I cannot defend the slaughter of Native Americans, even for the sake of expansion. Invasion and annexation is one thing, just slaughtering people left and right for their land is another. Annexation of territory should benefit the well-being of the conquered peoples as much as the conqueror's.

I am neutral on internment. While I can certainly see the rationale for imprisoning people who COULD harbor enemy loyalties, I am sure there was a better way to keep an eye on them without stripping them of all they had and forcing them to live in camps. Just because the camps weren't death camps doesn't change the fact they're still very controversial.

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

Yes.

3) If yes to one or both: why?

Patriotic symptoms aside, it is also part of the fact more often than not, the foreigners' country has done the same thing when it was their time in the Sun.

Criticizing America for embracing slavery at an earlier point is pointless, considering you could attack many countries for embracing slavery at one point - and not just of blacks, of people in general, regardless of background. Criticizing countries based on their historical actions often makes no sense, as very often, your own country was guilty of the same actions.

But hey. People will only tell half the truth if it fits their agenda.

What interests me is this: What drives some people to defend their countries' deeds, no matter what?

It probably has to factor into the defense of one's own deeds, or maybe even one's family's deeds. No matter how wrong a family member will go, people will often still side with them. Similarly, people often side with their country, regardless how controversial its actions may be. That doesn't mean one sides with the government, however.

 

[warpus]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

I feel obligated to correct historical inaccuracies, if they come up, such as the fact that Polish cavalry never charged German tanks during ww2, as many people think is the case.

As for warranted criticism, I might get a bit defensive from time to time, but if my head is clear, and the criticism is warranted, I'll probably agree with it. If it's unwarranted I'll jump in and try to clear things up..

I try to be unbiased, but it's not easy to do..

 

[Kal'thzar]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

They are what they are; I've had no part in them. What I do defend against and dislike strongly is attributing malice or evilness to certain acts when they were more likely a result of something else. British Concentration camps in the Boer War; Evil or simply an attempt to combat guerrillas gone wrong? Was it bad? Yes and more could certainly have been done, but not evil.

Emotion often clouds judgement and more importantly understanding of the past; I try to be critical of myself as well but the whole thing really irritates me.

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

Only if at the same time they give the impression that the country where they are from has done no wrong, not so common in Germans. VERY common in Americans I have talked to. Probably a failure of the education system.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

If I believe it to be unfair, sure. If it is justified, I either am able to contribute to the historic background or I'll just nod and say "Yea, humans are bastards".

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

No, when the criticism is from a dickhead.

3) If yes to one or both: why?

There are not enough Godwyns on this board to defend Germany if no German will. Or at least there are not enough on the world.
Ever citizen represents his or her nation in the end. This is just a fact. I acknowledge it by occasionally trying to set the picture right If I deem it to be necessary. Saying I accept my responsibility to represent my nation and to judge the deeds of my national ancestors. What I don't accept is a direct responsibility for their actions, because really - there is no good reason for it.

@Taniciusfox
A big LOL at your petty try to let slavery look good. Just say it sucked, you hate it and be done with it. Because that is what people do and always will do again. Stuff that sucks and which is to be hated. And as nations are full of people, that is what nations do and always will do.

If others have not realized that yet, explain it or laugh at them for their ignorance.

But don't pretend that there was some highly moral and brilliant plan behind slavery

 

[Berzerker]

no
no

morality is not defined by geographic borders

 

[Lillefix]

No I won't. Like Warpus I will correct inaccuracies, but I won't defend any dubious decisions made by Norway(or the Vikings).

 

[Godwynn]

decisions made by Norway(or the Vikings).

Which was awesome by the way.

We have to teach the world to fear those blue-eyes from the North.

 

[Tani Coyote]

A big LOL at your petty try to let slavery look good.

Where do I try to make it look good?

A quick overview of my thoughts is that the Confederacy sucked in its entirety, both on policies of states' rights and slavery.

Just say it sucked, you hate it and be done with it.

Sure, I've always thought slavery sucked.

But I'm not so morally righteous I'd, say, advocate for its abolition from day one; it wouldn't have been practical in the then-current state of affiars and could have in fact made things worse.

But don't pretend that there was some highly moral and brilliant plan behind slavery

Never said there was. You are horribly misinterpreting my position.

My position was that while the Founders themselves may or may not have wanted to abolish slavery, they did nonetheless write the Constitution so that people COULD change things in the future. Including the legality of slavery. Shoveling the issues of today onto the people of tomorrow and all that.

 

[Takhisis]

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

Not terribly.

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

Not much. I'm not too much of a nationalist prick- wanting to have our own parliament is an entirely different thing.

3) If yes to one or both: why?

I've lived in many countries and have found out that people are people everywhere. Their origin doesn't bother me much.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Taniciusfox

If somebody calls the US evil for not abolishing slavery right away they are trying to damage the US-American moral credibility. Hence this is what you defend: the moral credibility.
Now a moral action is only moral if one is consciously aware of the morality behind it. Otherwise it is just a lucky accident. Which is nice, but which will serve you nothing in the effort to defend the moral credibility.
So either you totally failed in defending the moral credibility of the US without even realizing it or you claim that it was a highly moral brilliant plan.

Since you say the latter was not your intend, you still totally failed and I am happy to have informed you about it.

 

[GoodGame]

Inspired by the current 'Germany had it worse in WWII' thread, which degenerated into a 'how many German women were raped by Russian soldiers' thread, I'd like to ask some questions of the posters in the History forum:

1) Do you feel compelled to defend your countries' historical deeds against criticism?

2) Does the defensiveness grow when the criticism is from foreigners?

3) If yes to one or both: why?

Just some examples, not meant for discussion:

America on Atomic Bomb: It was a carefully reached decision, based on casualty estimates. I believe the decision reached was that less casualties would have been reached via an atomic bomb than conventional fire-bombing, or by an invasion that would probably prompt widescale guerilla fighting/civilian suicides in urban environments.

America on mistreatment of Native Indians. This is difficult because you have a pre-DOI America, and a post-DOI America. Things like the settlement of California, Ghost-Dance massacres, resettlement of Cherokee (trail of tears), etc... I don't think any of those are really justified. They assumed racial superiority, by and large.

pre-DOI America, I can justify as simply those were more free-wheeling times. There was a power vacuum, and many forces strove at once to fill it. Unifying just the East coast of America involved many wars, etc... with the USA as the end result of amalgamation. I think blaming modern USA for that is like blaming the EU for the past centuries of bloodshed in Europe; it's simply anachronistic.
If I refuse to be racist, then I don't see the need to justify any racism performed by other members of my 'race' well before the nationstate of which I'm a citizen, even existed.

I think defensiveness is largely a natural human response. If it grows with criticism by foreigners, I think that implies some xenophobia.

 

[Karalysia]

I'm more likely to criticize my countries history than defend it. Only when glorious socialism is embraced can the country be beyond reproach. But until that point it is built on exploitation, and suffering, be they necessary exploitation to move through the stages of history or not, feudalism is still feudalism, capitalism is still capitalism, and they are evils.

 

[Tani Coyote]

If somebody calls the US evil for not abolishing slavery right away they are trying to damage the US-American moral credibility. Hence this is what you defend: the moral credibility.

Oh that's an easy one. All nations are made of human beings and all make the same mistakes. You can tear just about any nation's moral credibility apart if we're going by being able to cherrypick from history. Now, MODERN moral credibility is different, since you have to go by the current state of affairs, where things are much more complicated and it's not so easy to dismiss a nation as "good" or "evil."

So either you totally failed in defending the moral credibility of the US without even realizing it.

Well yeah. I wasn't aware I had to defend the moral credibility of the US. Past and present, no less.. So I'm not aiming for success or failure in that case. My thoughts are trying to justify past actions, not morally justify them.

Since you say the latter was not your intend, you still totally failed

How can I fail if I never was even trying to defend the moral credibility to begin with?

Again, I was never trying to defend American moral credibility... I'm here to justify actions. Not morally justify. Justify in terms of logic and reason.

and I am happy to have informed you about it.

I'm glad you're happy, even though you informed me about nothing by merit of having nothing to inform me about.

 

[Phrossack]

I usually try to present the other side of the issue, but when foreigners criticise the US, I tend to defend it, as I can't help but feel that their negative perception of my country extends to me.

That being said, blind devotion to and obsession with one's country is extremely bad and exceptionally obnoxious. It tends to be accentuated by the internet, which oft brings out the worst in people and the worst people. Generally, such people come from somewhat small and insignificant countries. True, there are a lot of irritating American supernationalists, but they aren't as flat-out stupid as people who say, "TURKEY IS THE BEST! TURKEY SHOULD UNITE WITH OUR TURKIC BROTHERS! TURKEY!!! TURKEY!!! AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!!!!!!

Often, hypernationalism derives from insecurity about one's country and pride in the accomplishments of one's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.