He never ruled India. But are we only allowed to view western imperialist contemporaries within the time frame of his presidency? Being a war lover is not contextual. There have been peace lovers in all times.
Yes there have been. But they had no real influence until--well--until about the time of Ghandi. Here's a question, SAM, have you ever even bothered to read ANYTHING on TR. Anything objective? Any biography? Or are you arguing facts as provided by Wikipedia and filtered through your myopic "hate everything American" lenses? ~String
Nice dodge, Sam. As usual, you're just playing games. Fine. Whatever. I'm willing to have the focus remain on Roosevelt. The man was involved in one war in his lifetime, and he viewed it in emancipatory terms.
This isn't a question about judging the man - that's my point. I do think he believed he was fighting a good fight. Does that mean he does not fit the definition of a war monger? Of course not - the two are unrelated. You are trying to point out how positive his actions were and that has nothing to do with this at all. And yes, he was most certainly a contemporary with Gandhi. Gandhi began his work that led to Satyagraha in 1894 and returned to India with his revolutionary actions in 1915.
Killing for peace. Kinda like raping for love. Were the emancipated sufficiently well behaved in the aftermath?
The same argument can always be applied to the other side. It's the old adage "The Grass looks greener on the other side of the fence." Although in this instance we aren't talking about how plush a field is, but how bloodied it is, there is a certain amount of neglect about the field you are viewing from.
I believe your question was sufficiently answered in this thread before you asked it. If you disagree with what was said, cite what you had a problem with and respond to it.
More to the point, the conception of what was involved with "war" was a lot different back then. This was before the world wars introduced industrial destruction into the equation; back in those days, most of the casualties were soldiers, and there were no aerial bombardments, gas chambers, nuclear bombs, etc. Heck, they didn't even have tank battles. War was not seen as the supreme crime it is today, and the charge of "warmonger" would not have carried anything like the weight it does today (not that it would have been a complement, but still).
So, in other words, we should judge the man by the era he lived in! I don't think you'll find a person who would deny TR's faults. Shit, I can list them for you. But how were those faults less or more than the other men who ruled the world at the time? And what were his strengths, in comparison to the rest of the world's great leaders of his era? When a rational comparison is made to his contemporariesº, one realizes how much Teddy was an intellectual revolutionary. We're talking about a guy who had ideas on race that befuddled people on all continents, who moved the government to protect individuals from predatory corporations, who fought to illegalize child labor, who fought to bust trusts, who fought for coal miner's rights, who institutionalized the first health codes in drinking water, who mediated wars, who legitimized the International Court of Arbitration. He was a radical progressive! And yet, he fought in one war, a war he believed was being fought to free a colonized and oppressed nation, and he's labeled with a modern term that just doesn't apply to his age. ~String ________________________________________________ ºGhandi may have lived in his time, but he was not a "contemporary". TR's contemporaries are other men who ruled nations and set international affairs. In this, TR had few equals.
Even if you eliminate all the lowly leaders who used different methods to spread democracy, in the final analysis, everyone else being an equal war mongerer, TR was just another war mongerer. That doesn't make him unique or distinctive, not even a radical thinker or one who thought out of the box. In the context of his contemporaries, he thought carrots and sticks were for people, not donkeys. It just makes him one more guy who thought might is right and violence silences dissent. Thats been the way from the days of cavemen. Now Gandhi, on the other hand...Vaishnava Jan To Tene Kahiye, Je Pir Parayee Jaane Re...[a civilised man is one who recognises the pain of others]
This is utter bullshit, and your inability to judge people as unique or distinctive, you decision instead to lump them into boxes and label them as just another something or other (fill in the blank), shows a lack of intellect and nuance or your part. Labeling is the crudest form of analysis. What's more your entire argument rests one quote you pulled out of context. You will need to better if you ever hope to be taken seriously.
and your argument rests on what? What SAM says is true, you are defending democracy because you know no other and afraid of a different political structure.
Draq, learn to read. Nobody is defending democracy. Some people are, however, defending Roosevelt. Seriously, you are out of your league little boy. Go somewhere else and play. ~String
String and I have posted more factual material and arguments about the man and his deeds than anyone in this thread. What we've got from the dissenters amounts to his was warmonger because we say so. Oh, I forgot the cartoons...
