Im not incapable of reading. Your writing clearly states that Carter was responsible. You claim he oversaw it which is just flatly incorrect.

You think Im a bot because my username contains the word “bot”?

“In 1977-1978, as Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction of East Timor through massive bombardment and forced relocation of populations”

That REALLY sounds like Indonesia was responsible for the genocide they were committing. Why are you blaming an American president for a war waged by Indonesians due to choices made by the Indonesian government? Do you think Indonesia had no agency in the genocide they perpetrated?

Again it is really weird you are blaming Carter for this.

Again, that is an incredible technical achievement but it’s not inherently good or bad. A ton of problems today come from the proliferation of tech, maybe we’d be better off if he studied something else. Coming from someone who studied and can professionally appreciate his work: it’s not exactly discovering lifesaving vaccines.

He’s a relatable role model, especially for people who can are unfairly persecuted today. But that’s not the same as being a notable figure playing a role on the historical stage.

Edit: I’m not mad about down votes, but disappointed nobody has provided any argument all.

Is there any evidence that he tried to use his discovery to advance the wellbeing of the human race? Does his estate do any public outreach against the atrocities of the information age? I genuinely cannot find that. Even Alfred Nobel is still doing penance for inventing a new way to blow up rocks, and he’s been dead for nearly 130 years.

Taken alone, creating the theoretical model for modern computer science is as laudable as inventing the internal combustion engine. Both are the innocuous roots that directly sprout to massive problems in our modern world. Not sure why that in particular needs celebration?

Despite his contributions, he was forced to undergo chemical castration because of his sexuality, so it’s a pretty big deal.

That’s a claim I would LOVE for you to attempt to back up.

Just off the top of my head I would suspect UK, French, and Soviet imperialism to have been as big if not a bigger factor than the USA.

Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.

Fr, like look into the companies that get you your fruits and vegetables. You can’t escape unethical consumption.

Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him “the town destroyer”, for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).

And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.

JIMMY CARTER: “Well, as you may know, I had a policy when I was president of not selling weapons if it would exacerbate a potential conflict in a region of the world, and some of our allies were very irate about this policy. And I have to say that I was not, you know, as thoroughly briefed about what was going on in East Timor as I should have been. I was more concerned about other parts of the world then.”

https://www.democracynow.org/2025/1/10/jimmy_carter_indonesia_east_timor_genocide

That sounds like a completely believable explanation to me. I can completely believe that that the military advisors didn’t give him the full picture of what was happening there.

(1) don’t think for a second Im treating a geocities site as a real source

(2) Carter’s name is not on that page. I saw “oversaw” as the claim. If he oversaw, his name goes on the page. His name is not on the page. Ex: Kissinger is on the page, and is a war criminal and he should rot in hell.

No?

Oh its lemmygrad, that’s why you’re unreasonably hostile right out of the gate.

Sadly I wouldn’t have put it past the US.

But yeah gift shops and stuff around it is the tourist norm.

??? Do they really though? I rarely see the sentiment that literally all ill-gotten gains forming the foundation of their nation’s power and stability should be returned (and definitely not from people benefitting). Mostly it’s just tossing a few cultural artifacts, some meager reparations, and cutting back on some luxury like chocolate because it makes them feel bad. That’s the same as freeing a few slaves after you profit off them for your whole life (and we established that makes you a demon).

Or are you arguing about injustices in classes? If everyone being exploited by the rich agreed to dismantle that system it would be done by now. Doesn’t matter if you’re poor, you participate in the problem.

You probably just want your exploitation to be marginally less than the guys on the bottom, you don’t care about the core issue. Therefore being opposed to the compete dismantling of our current economic system is regressive and 90% of earth’s population are demons

Your prose belies your ideology, which indicates said ideology depends on defining those who don’t fulfill said ideology as sub-human. So far, most responses have been attempts to indirectly assert that the idea that people who were wrong about some things cannot possibly have been right about anything (and by the way, any who think otherwise are just as horrible).

I am quite aware there is nothing i could possibly say to get anybody to address the actual issue i raised, never mind “win” a debate over it.

I find it ironic that you think I am unaware of some propaganda, presumably related to this thread.

I learned about the imperfect personalities of our founders and their peers in elementary school. No passes were given. I also learned that many of the founders sought to explicitly outlaw slavery, but compromised in order to get unity vs. king Charles and a viable nation.

Had they not done that, we would have been divided against an overwhelmingly powerful existential threat and probably would have lost. It is an example of making incremental progress and postponing a conflict until later so that there will be a later.

You are missing my point. “Canceling” historical figures or rewriting history because “bad” is a disservice to everyone. Acknowledging both the good and bad is the better approach. We learn by studying history, identifying the failures and successes precisely to learn from them and hopefully do better.

Our current president is an example of what happens when we don’t learn from history. I don’t know any reasonable person who whitewashed our founders. For those people, you need to look at movements that seek authoritarian control over a population, the people who follow them, and their victims who were denied the necessary education in history and critical thinking.

Additionally, I think most on this thread need to brush up on logical fallacies. Even the best of us forget some of them, but it is endemic in these forums.

Much much worse, either villain or very minor supporting character from Harry Potter. Especially that he was member of KKK.

You are correct. The only other thing that Lincoln is criticized for is suspending habeas corpus during the US civil war. I don’t know what the person you’re commenting on is on about. They may be a confederate sympathizer.

There’s a fascinating historical nonfiction book by Erik Larson that covers the early days of the American civil war.

The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War is mostly focused on the soldiers and officers manning Fort Sumter in South Carolina, the site of the first battle of the war. But it also includes lengthy discussions of how Lincoln was vilified for things he never said and blamed for things he didn’t actually do.

The southern states, specifically the landed elite, were very interested in starting a war so they could maintain their wealth and power so they used Lincoln as a scapegoat to rouse the masses

A primer on the American Civil War, as understood by a natural born citizen of the state of North Carolina and a graduate of said public state’s school system.

The United States in the mid-1800s 1. did not yet span the entire width of the continent, this becomes important later and 2. could broadly be divided into two regions: the South, characterized by an agrarian economy featuring large plantations growing cash crops like cotton and tobacco via the labor of chattel slaves, and the North, with a more industrial economy that had abolished slave labor.

In the North, you get a lot of the day’s moralistic movements as they existed at the time. You see a lot of the Christian sects like the shakers, the early roots of the temperance movement, and most relevantly, abolitionism. People who wanted to see slavery abolished at the federal level. This became a popular political cause in the North and you start seeing legislation proposed.

Meanwhile in the South, slaves are where the money comes from, so obviously God says it’s the white man’s inalienable right to own black men.

Turns out there was pretty equal representation in congress about it; about the same number of Northern to Southern states, so nothing got done. Except remember earlier I said we didn’t span the continent yet? Well that was a project under active development at the time. Territory was being purchased or conquered, and new territories were drafting constitutions and applying for statehood. And what if more pro-abolition states than anti-abolition states joined the union?

We get a temporary pause with a compromise that states would be admitted in pairs, one free state in the North and one slave state in the South. You can still see the line they drew, the perfectly straight northern border of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. That’s why that’s like that. Notice it stops at Nevada. That’s about how far that went before war were declared.

Southern states decided to secede from the union, forming their own nation called the Confederate States of America. The South raised an army to repel what they now saw as a foreign invasion, the North deployed their army to put down what they saw as a treasonous rebellion.

During the conflict, the North passed increasingly abolitionist policy, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order signed by president Abraham Lincoln in 1863 which declared all slaves everywhere in the nation free, and the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery except as punishment for a crime (this has present day ramifications) was ratified.

On April 14, 1865, actor and confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln via gunshot to the back of the head while the President was enjoying a play at Ford’s theater. His motive, quoting directly from Wikipedia:

On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln’s last speech, in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for emancipated slaves;[18] Booth said, “That means nigger citizenship. … That is the last speech he will ever give.”[19]