The Darkest Moment in American History: A Tournament

[Velasco]

Here's my bracket. When I genuinely couldn't decide which was worse I left it blank; of those where I did come to a decision, the ones I found hardest were Hiroshima/Nagasaki over the Mexican-American War and the Little Rock Nine over the Three-Fifths Compromise.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki is arguably one of the darkest moments in the history of humanity, only surpassed by the genocidal atrocities occurred in that period

Why I see Abu Grhaib listed among the darkest things and not Guantanamo?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Not going through everything, but I would rank darker moments which have a domestic cause higher, because "failure to save jews" is not something I hold USA responsible for, if anything without them, their fate (and of millions of other people in the resistance) would be even much worse. Hiroshima/Nagasaki might have been a necessary evil, that saved lives, instead of prolonging a war that wasn't over, as well as guaranteeing Japan didn't become part of the comintern (although that reason is both understandable but also invalid to me). But Japan would've refused to concede until every last of them would've been dead (IIRC). Correct me if i'm wrong.

Tulsa Race Riots is obviously much worse than US Capitol attack, and sounds like some sort of pogrom for Afro-Americans instead of Jews (never heard of it before surprisingly).

Allende Coup was pretty bad too. Aside of it being immoral and not justified (Allende wasn't a commie, but perhaps had a lot of commies in it's entourage), it made the world much worse, turned Chile into a brutal dictatorship and Pinochet should certainly be ranked on par with the most evil persons in the latter half of the 20st century (even though a lot of right-wingers & centrists refuse to see this, at best calling it a necessary evil).

Dred vs Scott probably darkest though.

9/11 is darkest day perhaps (but America's not responsible for that, aside of creating the sentiment that enabled the attacks) and the consequences that lead to even more destruction and the creation of ISIS (but that's represented by Iraq's justification).

BP Oil Spill over Hurricane Katrina, simply because hurricanes happen all the time, and it was it's weak response that was dark. By same logic deduction, other disasters could've named as well, like Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico recently, where I see that response as darker than Katrina's. BP Oil Spill had terrible environmental consequences and damage, and humans were to blame for it (although not deliberate, more a consequence of bad policies on the environment on a global level). But because Katrina wasn't caused by human error or bad decision-making at global level (although "human-induced climate change" perhaps made it more severe), I'd say BP is worse. Katrina's response was bad but perhaps damage could've been mitigated by better preparation as well, both short term and long term. Look no further than the Netherlands if you want to learn to do it, because they'll need it for Florida.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

[John Dule]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

A) The pipeline isn't even being built now, and

B) If it were, then that would be a good thing.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

A) The pipeline isn't even being built now, and

B) If it were, then that would be a good thing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's environmental effects are going to much worse than the BP leak, because it's over a prolonged period of time that the effects will be felt. Besides, it makes no sense to invest in a fossil fuel that is going to be depleted during our lifetime anyways, and it doesn't respect the will of indigenous people who have been mistreated by the English and Americans for centuries anyway. IMO you can not be anti-racist or pro-civil rights and be in favour of construction of this pipeline because yes it shows that they lack basic forms of respect towards autonomy and self-determination of natives.

But yeah libertarianism for whites, but not for natives is apparently your core belief?

[Santander]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

A) The pipeline isn't even being built now, and

B) If it were, then that would be a good thing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's environmental effects are going to much worse than the BP leak, because it's over a prolonged period of time that the effects will be felt.

... what?

[John Dule]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

A) The pipeline isn't even being built now, and

B) If it were, then that would be a good thing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's environmental effects are going to much worse than the BP leak, because it's over a prolonged period of time that the effects will be felt. Besides, it makes no sense to invest in a fossil fuel that is going to be depleted during our lifetime anyways, and it doesn't respect the will of indigenous people who have been mistreated by the English and Americans for centuries anyway. IMO you can not be anti-racist or pro-civil rights and be in favour of construction of this pipeline because yes it shows that they lack basic forms of respect towards autonomy and self-determination of natives.

But yeah libertarianism for whites, but not for natives is apparently your core belief?

Unless eminent domain was used to seize land for the pipeline's construction (which I'm not aware of; correct me if I'm wrong), what precisely is the libertarian argument against its construction? If it's some boo-hooing about fossil fuels, don't bother-- the pipeline already exists through another corridor, so the fuel is getting used regardless. And if it's some boo-hooing about Native religious sites, I'd give those superstitions just as much credence as I would a Christian holy site, which is to say none at all.

[Velasco]

Besides, it makes no sense to invest in a fossil fuel that is going to be depleted during our lifetime anyways

Depending on estimations, at the current rate of consumption, oil will end within a period of 30 or 53 years (BP estimate). I don't want to depress you with theories about the imminent collapse of our techno-industrial civilization (search for "collapsology" or collapsologie), but things can get pretty bad before that time (maybe within a decade). There are plenty of alarming signs and some people claim that, even undertaking immediate action, the collapse cannot be averted. Even if that's true ( and I'm becoming increasingly pessimist in that respect), the last thing that we can afford is remaining inactive. We need a radical change and develop strategies for adaptation. Sustained growth is simply impossible and soon we'll reach the limits pretty soon, I am afraid

[S019]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

I'd count the Indian Removal as part of the genocide of Native Americans or at least the start of it, there's a reason that the journey to Oklahoma is called the Trail or Tears

[John Dule]

Depending on estimations, at the current rate of consumption, oil will end within a period of 30 or 53 years (BP estimate). I don't want to depress you with theories about the imminent collapse of our techno-industrial civilization (search for "collapsology" or collapsologie), but things can get pretty bad before that time (maybe within a decade). There are plenty of alarming signs and some people claim that, even undertaking immediate action, the collapse cannot be averted. Even if that's true ( and I'm becoming increasingly pessimist in that respect), the last thing that we can afford is remaining inactive. We need a radical change and develop strategies for adaptation. Sustained growth is simply impossible and soon we'll reach the limits pretty soon, I am afraid

Ok, Malthusian. I look forward to the day when you're still saying "The imminent collapse of capitalism is just 30 years away" while we mine asteroids for platinum.

[Velasco]

Depending on estimations, at the current rate of consumption, oil will end within a period of 30 or 53 years (BP estimate). I don't want to depress you with theories about the imminent collapse of our techno-industrial civilization (search for "collapsology" or collapsologie), but things can get pretty bad before that time (maybe within a decade). There are plenty of alarming signs and some people claim that, even undertaking immediate action, the collapse cannot be averted. Even if that's true ( and I'm becoming increasingly pessimist in that respect), the last thing that we can afford is remaining inactive. We need a radical change and develop strategies for adaptation. Sustained growth is simply impossible and soon we'll reach the limits pretty soon, I am afraid

Ok, Malthusian. I look forward to the day when you're still saying "The imminent collapse of capitalism is just 30 years away" while we mine asteroids for platinum.

I am not Malthusian and you look like Donald Trump tweeting about Greta Thunberg.

I am not saying the collapse will be within 10 or 30 years, simply because I am not Nostradamus. I only say there are theories, based on scientific evidence, that point to a possible collapse of our civilization. Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to causes related to environmental changes, although there are no precedents of global civilizations to imagine the magnitude of the collapse of our society in XXI Century. Leaving aside theories or predictions, there are many signs that could alarm any informed person (climate emergency, depletion of resources, global pandemics, animal extinction and a large etc). The threats and the challenges are massive and the concern for the future of our society is unrelated to Nostradamus or Mayan prophecies

[LAKISYLVANIA]

More events concerning the disenfranchisement or genocide of native Americans should've been listed IMO as well as the pipeline being constructed in North Dakota.

A) The pipeline isn't even being built now, and

B) If it were, then that would be a good thing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's environmental effects are going to much worse than the BP leak, because it's over a prolonged period of time that the effects will be felt. Besides, it makes no sense to invest in a fossil fuel that is going to be depleted during our lifetime anyways, and it doesn't respect the will of indigenous people who have been mistreated by the English and Americans for centuries anyway. IMO you can not be anti-racist or pro-civil rights and be in favour of construction of this pipeline because yes it shows that they lack basic forms of respect towards autonomy and self-determination of natives.

But yeah libertarianism for whites, but not for natives is apparently your core belief?

Unless eminent domain was used to seize land for the pipeline's construction (which I'm not aware of; correct me if I'm wrong), what precisely is the libertarian argument against its construction? If it's some boo-hooing about fossil fuels, don't bother-- the pipeline already exists through another corridor, so the fuel is getting used regardless. And if it's some boo-hooing about Native religious sites, I'd give those superstitions just as much credence as I would a Christian holy site, which is to say none at all.

It's more than that, and if i'm correct, the new pipeline will go through the Nebraska salt fields which will increase carbon emissions because of the nature of the terrain, in addition to it being vulnerable for a leak, contaminating fresh water sources, and more (check wikipedia for controversies around the pipeline).

I'm not sure if the pipeline already exists, why we should create a new corridor.

Being anti-Islam is controversial nowadays, often a cornerstone of far-right ideologies. But being anti-native religions isn't. I wonder why that is. Look i'm not a fan of religions myself. I'm pretty much a hard atheist and dislike people who use religion to prevent progression (on social issues). But I believe we should not touch sacred land of natives, period. After all the harm we've done to them, it's the least we can do and they do have valid points. You say you don't care about Christian holy sites, but have you seen how humans responded to rebuilding the Notre Dame after it's fire? Do you think the government is going to allow destroying towns, cities, mosques, churches or cathedrals for a pipeline? Sometimes it's not about what I want, but what others want...

I hope the pipeline doesn't run through a national park itself either, but I'm not sure if that's true.