Theodore Roosevelt

[codyvo]

I'm sure that many of you will despise Teddy Roosevelt simply because he was an american capitalist president but if you read up on him he wasn't that bad.
He restricted the size and power of corporations, he was nicknamed the "trustbuster."
He started the National Park Foundation and was an active enviromentalist.
And he won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese War.

So what do you think of him?

[workersunity]

the only thing i could like him for was the environmentalism, all the others were just petty reforms which he tried to get people on his side, he didnt care about the american worker

[JazzRemington]

Wasn't he the president that had anarchist literature outlawed for a time?

[LSD]

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad.

Racist, nationalist, rightist, imperialist capitalist thug.

He can take his "big stick" and...


I'm sure that many of you will despise Teddy Roosevelt simply because he was an american capitalist president but if you read up on him he wasn't that bad.

You know except for that whole hating black people thing...


And he won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese War.

:lol:

Oh yes, Roosevelt was greaaaat for East Asia, just ask the Koreans...

"hmmm, I know this here treaty says y'all japanese can't take Korea... but what the fuck have fun!"

What a charming, wonderful, lying, murderous, imperialistic, despotic, arrogant, white-supremacist prick.

FUCK HIM!!!! :angry:

[workersunity]

i was putting him down quite easily, but you basically shouted out the same thing i believe :)

[LSD]

I forgot to mention sexist, homophobic, Christian nationalist, and cultural imperialist.

One of his "brilliant" ideas being that any immigrant who, in a few years, couldn't dmonstrate proficiency in english be deported.

He also championed foreign wars of aggression and the occupation of the Philipines.

Again, I say very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad!!!

[codyvo]

I don't know where you guys are getting these lies, to say he didn't care about the workers is so far from the truth it almost makes me laugh, he had Rockefeller, the equivelent of Bill Gates, arrested which was unheard of because Rockefeller had a huge lobby in the senate.
Also if you read anything about the Russo-Japanese war you would learn that he had nothing to do with the occupation of Korea or the Phillipines.
He wasn't sexist he was friends with Lucy Laines who was one of the most active feminist of her time.
He wasn't racist, he was friends with the president of the NAACP.
And he didn't support the law about the immigrants, that was passed under McKinley.

Most importantly he helped to liberate Cuba from the oppression of the Spanish.

[LSD]

Most importantly he helped to liberate Cuba from the oppression of the Spanish.

Tell me you're joking!

The Spanish-American War?!?!?

From one imperial occupyer to another? Hardly "liberation".


Also if you read anything about the Russo-Japanese war you would learn that he had nothing to do with the occupation of Korea

In complete disregards of treaty obligations and common morality, Roosevelt secretly agreed with Japan to ignore prior arangements and allow them to occupy Korea.

"To be sure, by treaty it was solemnly covenanted that Korea should remain independent. But Korea itself was helpless to enforce the treaty, and it was out of the question to suppose that any other nation, with no interests of its own at stake, would do for the Koreans what they were utterly unable to do for themselves .. .Korea has shown its utter inability to stand by itself."


or the Phillipines.

Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy and the main proponent of occupying the Phillipines.


He wasn't racist, he was friends with the president of the NAACP.

"it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant races of the world."

Roosevelt's "New Imperialism" was just Kipling's "burden" renamed.

I don't care how many "friends" he had, his policies speak for themselves.


And he didn't support the law about the immigrants, that was passed under McKinley.

bzzz!

The first enlgish proficiency requirement was passed in 1906, that's five years after Roosevelt became president.

And the five year suggestion, that was Roosevelt's own.

[CommunistZeal]

Roosevelt made Latin America his personal playground. He should have been shot for what he did in the Philippines alone. Also a typical jingoistic militarist & virulent racist like someone already mentioned. Hate him.

[resisting arrest with violence]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:42 PM
I'm sure that many of you will despise Teddy Roosevelt simply because he was an american capitalist president but if you read up on him he wasn't that bad.
He restricted the size and power of corporations, he was nicknamed the "trustbuster."
He started the National Park Foundation and was an active enviromentalist.
And he won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese War.

So what do you think of him?
He was a THUG. How can you laud that imperialist prick who raped the Dominican Republic, stole Panama from Colombia and then proceeded to steal the canal from Panama among other nefarious actions!!!!!!!!!!!???? And the conservative William Howard Taft who was president after Roosevelt busted more monopolies than ever did Roosevelt--- Everyone knows that. Two conservative corporate thugs. Oh zoooweee! Stop reading capitalist propaganda. Read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States . :che: :cuba:

And didn't Roosevelt wanted to go after Debs and put him in jail merely for speaking out? Roosevelt deserved what he got when one of his eyes got blinded in a boxing match in the White House. He deserved much more. He was so stupid! Ambassadors and other dignitaries would come from other countries and Roosevelt---who embraced "the strenuous life" would lead them out of the White House and take them on hikes while discussing international relations and if a river got in the way of their hike Roosevelt would make them swim across it. The amabassadors and dignitaries would go back to their embassies all fucked up from the exercise and mental fatigue that Roosevelt would put them through.

[LSD]

Oh, and let's not forget that "Teddy" passed the law banning Anarchists from entering the United States, not to mention his vigorous support of racial quotas.

codyvo, I don't know how you can call yourself a leftist and support and racist thug like T. Roosevelt. (I notice you have his "big stick" quote as your signature, how nice, maybe you should add some passages from Mein Kampf as well)

[Rebel For Life]

hmmm... he was so-so i dont want to get involved in this debate

[RedStarOverChina]

A famous professor of history(who happened to be my teacher's teacher) publicly announce that according to the constitution, all presidents of the past in the US history should have been tried and hanged.
Im paraphrasing. The guy refused a CNN interview on his studies and conclusions, because if he say that in a interview that lasts 5 mins, no one will understand what he meant and will think that he's crazy. "even some of my students who spend a year or so on my course cant fully understand why that is," he said,"how could u expect the audience to understand it in less than 5 mins?"

[codyvo]

Well I will admit that some of the info I get on him is a bit leniant to the Americans but when you compare him to other US presidents he was actually a very nice and progressive man, he actually started the progressive party.
Yes I do know that he had some prejudice in him but some of those quotes I think may have been altered, also Taft did not bust more corporations then him, Theodore Roosevelt has busted more corporations than any president to date.

[refuse_resist]

Theodore Roosevelt was just another typical yankee asshole. 'Nuff said.

[NovelGentry]

typical yankee asshole.

MmmmMMMMM Xenophobia at it's best. I'm not saying he was a good man, fuck him... I'm just saying.

[Invader Zim]

Roosevelt's "New Imperialism" was just Kipling's "burden" renamed.

I take issue with that, people who attack Kiplings "The White Man's Burden", have usually not read it. If they had bothered reading it, or at least beyond the pale, then they would see it is actually an anti-imperialism poem. Actually written in critism of America's involvment in the Phillipines.

If you want proof read it, especially the verse when it says that imperialists ed up dead on the side of the road. Or the part when it says that the natives hate imperialists? Or perhaps the part where it calls upon imperialists to "Have done with childish days"?

[LSD]

Sorry, but far from "critisizing" American involvement in the Philipines, Kipling was encouraging it.

You do realize that the poem was written before the major US engagement in the Phillipines? The political debate between pro-imperialists and anti-imperialists was raging, and Kipling was strongly supporting the pro-imperialists.

If your view of Burden as an anti-colonial sature were true, then why is it that Kipling never said so? Nor was the poem so considered by any litterary analysts of the time. If Kipling was being satirical, explain Edward Morel's famous response or Senator Beveridge's vocal praise.

Certainly Kipling is stating the colonialism has a heavy cost, but his overriding theme is that despite that cost it is still the duty of the "white man", or more specfically, the US to subdue the Philipines.

[Invader Zim]

Sorry, but far from "critisizing" American involvement in the Philipines, Kipling was encouraging it.


You can be sorry all you like.

You do realize that the poem was written before the major US engagement in the Phillipines?

Yes, you see the poem was written just prior to the invasion, when the build up was clear and obvious. This was just following the USA's previous adventure against the Spanish, in an attempt to seize further land from the Spanish. Kiplings poem was an attack on further imperialism. The poem lists the results of imperialism and leaves you to make your own conculsions.

then why is it that Kipling never said so?

I think he did in the poem.

"The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you."

"Have done with childish days--"

Etc.

Nor was the poem so considered by any litterary analysts of the time.

Political climate.

but his overriding theme is that despite that cost it is still the duty of the "white man", or more specfically, the US to subdue the Philipines.

Not really, it says the result of imperialism, should the USA take up the "white mans burden". It also states how if that course of action what responsibilities the US will face. Imperialism does not involve responsibility, it involves a nation forcing its self upon another. Imperialists do not preach what Kipling did, certainly not anti-racism.

So even if you were to assume that Kiplings poem was pro-imperialist, it was not in any kind of traditional sense, quite the reverse, far more alturistic.

[LSD]

Political climate.

riiiiight... so because of the "political climate", no one could identify satire?

It isn't as though there weren't anti-imperialists, indead when Kipling wrote the poem, the debate was still raging as to intervention in the Philippines.

Don't you think that if "Burden" was satirical, one of the opponents would have siezed upon it, or at least mentioned it?


Not really, it says the result of imperialism, should the USA take up the "white mans burden". It also states how if that course of action what responsibilities the US will face. Imperialism does not involve responsibility, it involves a nation forcing its self upon another.

Colonialism, to many in Europe and America, did involved responsibility. They saw it as a sacred duty to educate the "savages". Look at all the missionaries and "reeducation" programs.

You're confusing traditional imperialism with 19th century colonialism. In post-enlighitenment Europe, they needed an excuse to justify what was clear imperialism, and they struck upon the concept of "European duty", or in Kipling's words "a white man's burden".


So even if you were to assume that Kiplings poem was pro-imperialist, it was not in any kind of traditional sense, quite the reverse, far more alturistic.

Well, it relfects the "political climate of the time".

That being that colonialism was a duty and a responsibility which Europeans must shoulder.


You can be sorry all you like.

Look, I doubt that either of us has a degree in litterary theory, so let's have a look at the writings of those who do.

I have not seen a single paper that supports your claim that Kipling was critisizing imperialism/colonalism. If you have one please post it, but if not I must wonder on what you are basing your theory.

[Invader Zim]

Well perhaps your right, then.

Well, it relfects the "political climate of the time".

Does it? The political climate of the time certainly did not support the attrocities which eventually occured in that war.

[LSD]

Of course not, but Kipling's poem wasn't about that.

You're right in that Kipling's poem wasn't "traditionally" imperialistic, but by the 19th century, traditional imperialism had all but vanished, at least in terms of moral justification.

After a hundred years of intellectual though and Western debate on the meaning of freedom and life, it was hardly possible any longer to defend foreign conquest on the basis of ...foreign conquest. Instead, it became right to "educate" and "bring up" the "savage nations of the earth".

Furthermore, they could hardly ignore that colonized peoples did tend to fight back when occupied, but in this new moral universe they were crafting these uprisings were "childish misbehaving" and the "cost" of their sacred European duty.

Or as Kipling would put it, their "White Man's Burden".