Fight the Right.

[cantdog]

Your author, has defined the position of the right by it's most extreme denominator and he can respond to that extreme position with ease. The more moderate and prevalent position of those n the right isn't as easy to attack and can't be summed up in simple homilies and spurious analogies.

It's a fairly sophisticated and sophistic way to keep from having to really tackle an issue.

The straw man has a long history. Learning to spot him should be taught in Speech or English or Civics or something. People need to know when they're being snowed.

The bodies of the scarecrows litter the floor most places where pundits are given a soapbox.

 

[amicus]

Again, you should read Ludwig von Mises, as I have, and even John Maynard Keynes, as I have, and make your own decisions.


You are presenting left wing rhetoric that is decades old; a little better than the left wing hippies of the 60's, but not much.

A clear example of why modern left wing liberals are indeed 'bankrupt', they have no ideas for the 21st century, just a rehashing of 1930's socialism versus a free economy.

Are you really proud that the spokesmen for modern left wingers are Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, and Barbara Boxer...how embarrassing....

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Again, a study of the era might enlighten you.

Land on each side of a railroad was offered as an incentive to the build the system.

Government, according to the Constitution, was considered a 'caretaker' of unclaimed land, to be made available as needed.

And yes, there was a 'manifest destiny' in mind in government, that 'one nation' coast to coast, should be brought into being.

Accepting the failures and weaknesses of mankind in general, to open a continent to settlement and ownership was and is a marvelous accomplishment.

Europeans by the hundreds of thousands, who never had a chance to 'own' property (as it was all owned by royalty), came to America in the hope of controlling their own future by owning their home and the land it occupied.

Even modern day Europeans really 'don't get it'.

The 'individual' reigns here; and I truly think some of you will never understand the concept of 'individual rights' as guaranteed by our constitution.

That is your loss...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas....

I think I have said before....that the 'center' or the 'moderate', does not exist; it is defined by the extremes.

I understand you do not appreciate that statement, but throughout human history, it has been those who have been passionate about an idea that have promulgated it. And it has been those who are diametrically opposed, and equally passionate that have determined the conflict.

Those who wish to ameliorate between the two extremes, are defined as 'grey', or agnostic.

Progress is defined by conflict; the conflict is seldom peaceful. I do not make these rules or agenda's, but I do have the courage to acknowledge them as absolutes.

Many mourn the destruction of a culture, the Native American culture, had it been a superior culture, it would have overcome.

It did not.

As many before...they fade into history...it is not that I say it is so, or glorify it as such, but acknowledge that human history exemplifies the progression of successful societies....

There seems to be no 'modern' extreme that personifies one side of the spectrum. Since the collapse of Socialism, only the Muslims seek total domination and subjugation to an ideology.

That in itself says something.


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

amicus, do you parcel out your errors, so many to a sentence? Or do you trowel them out more randomly, extempore?

 

[~hellbaby~]

The 'individual' reigns here; and I truly think some of you will never understand the concept of 'individual rights' as guaranteed by our constitution.

That is your loss...

Like the individual right to have your personal property and the land you thought you owned taken from you if the government sees fit to do so?

 

[rgraham666]

I like taxes. They buy me civilisation. - Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Pure]

Reply to Colly

All governments tax. Government provides essential services and those have to be paid for. And those services, because they promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense, are carried equally by all as all theoretically benefit from them.

In the narrow sense, yes. But many other entities get their hands in people's pockets for a number of reasons, e.g., the Mafia in a protected area. Around here, the gas prices go up each Friday of the summer because that's when people head for cottages. Those companies too are extracting money from people. Of course the difference is said to be related to the 'common good.'

Other than the lunatic fringe, the right dosen't hold that taxation is bad, it holds that taxation should be limited to providing those essential services.

So when I go out and work, I should se the benefits. The amount taken from me by taxes should theoretcially cover those services that I can avial myself of. Fire, police, military defense.

There are then, very few on the (true) right. Defined either as 'minimal government' or in Amicus terms, 'laisser faire' capitalism. Since Reagan in particular, the self-labeled (phoney) right is for 'strong, militarily prepared government working together with industry in nation's interest.' As you know, DeLay may oppose taxes spent for others' benefit, but not taxes spent for military bases in his constituency area.

The right, however, has a serious problem with services being paid for that the person taxed cannot avial himself of. The right has a serious problem iwith taxes sent out of the country, with tax monies spent on services thatt he average taxpayer dosen't benfit from.

Ah we get back to public schools. Is that 'enlightened capitalism' or 'early socialism.' The 'average taxpayer' without kids... does he or she benefit? (I will agree that the majority of adults probably to produce kids.)

Taxes, to liberals, are a way of redistributing wealth, giving to those who don't have by taking from those who do. The right holds that such a function is theft and those who don't have should be provided for by voluntary charity, rahter than by forced taxation.

This is a kind of 'robin hood' or "Marx the villain" view. In the 'worst' times (FDR, Johnson), from Amicus view, only a *tiny* portion of the wealth of, say the upper 10% was touched. I cannot give you a percentage, but I'd venture 5% was ever 'redistributed.' Further, that money is spent, so that the welfare person is buying groceries, furniture (on time payment plans). So s/he provides economic stimulus and profit.

The real fallacy of the 'robin hood' argument is that it ignores most actual 'takings' and focuses on the taxes. For instance, Mr. Ebbers, of World Com, in an extraordinary sentence, got 25 years for looting millions: whether did those come from? Where does the money for Fox news and Rush Limbaugh come from? Money is extracted from people is a variety of ways: lottery tickets; stocks that drop to worthless, bottles of caramel-colored sugar water being sold at 2 bucks each, etc. Not to speak of essentials like gasoline.

The phrase 'forced taxation' focuses on the IRS and its access to police and courts to take your money. Fine. That is one hamfisted way to do it. Another is to have 'Joe Camel' ads that appeal to school kids, and encourage the kids buy cigarettes instead of candy. Or to go to McDonalds for their lunch instead of carrying a bag to school.

So we ask what is the net effect of all 'takings'? Well, Amicus ideal society of pre civil war America, or British society in say 1840 is the the answer. Quite enormous concentrations of wealth. Lots of poverty including among those who work the 60hr weeks. Lets leave aside the issue of 'is this fair' and 'is this natural'; maybe it is. But lets try to agree on the facts as to where 'wealth' flows in 'minimal government' situations.

Let's even leave aside the old argument about the genetic superiority of the rich and inferiority of the poor; for the sake of argument, fine. But lets agree on how wealth 'distributes itself' under the conditions of the (true) right wing.

In the 'big government' (phoney) right wing of Reagan and GWB the effects are a more uneven; there is more profit to crony corporations, and more corruption. But this is at the expense of the middle class, among others. In any case, I think it can be demonstrated that the rich--even definite NONcronies, like the Kerry's and Heinz's-- have done quite well in the last five years, esp. the Texans and other cronies.

 

[cloudy]

Again, a study of the era might enlighten you.

Land on each side of a railroad was offered as an incentive to the build the system.

Government, according to the Constitution, was considered a 'caretaker' of unclaimed land, to be made available as needed.

It wasn't "unclaimed," it just wasn't claimed by white folks yet, that's all. How quickly we forget.

And yes, there was a 'manifest destiny' in mind in government, that 'one nation' coast to coast, should be brought into being.

And that "manifest destiny" bordered on genocide for the original inhabitants here. In California alone, there were around 300,000 people before the whites came. By the end of the gold rush, of those 300,000 original inhabitants, there were only 30,000 left. While the civil war was going on, California even legalized slavery of indians. Slave traders would follow behind soldiers, and after all the adults in a village were killed, they would grab the children, and sell them as slaves.

Custer was known as "Woman Killer" among the Sioux because he didn't have a qualm about killing women and children. The only good indian is a dead indian, right?

That wonderful "manifest destiny" exterminated completely entire nations of people without a backward glance, and left the rest of a race that had once been proud and self-sufficient with a long history and culture, homeless, starving, and dying of diseases handed to them with their ration of blankets. I see no pride in those actions.

Accepting the failures and weaknesses of mankind in general, to open a continent to settlement and ownership was and is a marvelous accomplishment.

Depends on who you're talking to, I suppose. It's only marvelous if you think it's fine and dandy to kill the buffalo almost to extinction to force the people already here onto small, worthless pieces of land. And I suppose that killing the people that you've already signed treaties with is marvelous too - all in the name of greed.

Europeans by the hundreds of thousands, who never had a chance to 'own' property (as it was all owned by royalty), came to America in the hope of controlling their own future by owning their home and the land it occupied.

Land that already had people living on it, and that was stolen from them. No kind way to put it.

Even modern day Europeans really 'don't get it'.

Apparently, you don't "get it" either, Ami.

The 'individual' reigns here; and I truly think some of you will never understand the concept of 'individual rights' as guaranteed by our constitution.

Sure, as long as that individual is white and male.

 

[Pure]

Quote:

Amicus: The 'individual' reigns here [US]; and I truly think some of you will never understand the concept of 'individual rights' as guaranteed by our constitution.



Cloudy: Sure, as long as that individual is white and male.

It's worth mentioning that Cloudy's point should not simply be thought of as 'sour grapes' or a complaint that the white males did extraordinarily well or 'took advantage' of others.

The US Constitution, often mentions 'persons,' but the import is quite clear:


"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned ...by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service fora term of years, and Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."

The Indians not taxed are simply 'out of the picture.' The 'other persons' would be mostly Black slaves, though such words are avoided. Those 'bound to a term of service' would be mostly white--they are counted.

It was left to the states to define who is a citizen and a voter, and all of them confined that right to white males, by and large, and further they specified property-owning requirements for voting.

What the states did is pretty clear in reading the 14th amendment (1868), which Amicus hates a lot:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ... are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside."

This makes Black former slaves, citizens. I'm unsure whether it applied to Indians generally, since Indians not taxed are excluded from the apportionment fomula in this amendment. My bet is that "Indians not taxed" would be non citizens.

but the second clause specifies a penalty for violating a right to vote:

[when that right to vote] "Is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age and citizen of the United States" [there follows the penalty].

It's clear that females do not have a right to vote.

The twentieth amendment of 1920 says,
"The right of citizens of the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state, on account of sex."

The clearly indicates a problem with exclusion, to that date, of females in almost all states.

Although the 'forefathers' were rather cagey in wording, the limitations to white, male property owners were clearly specified or indicated by the Constitution. And some of the nasty specifics were left to state constitutions (which were, of course, recognized): I.e. if a State said you were a 'non citizen' (that being your only State), then you are non citizen of the US. (Hence the 14th amendment).

 

[cloudy]

This makes Black former slaves, citizens. I'm unsure whether it applied to Indians, since Indians not taxed are excluded from the apportionment fomulat. My bet is that "Indians not taxed" would be non citizens.

Thank you, Pure.

Yep, we were non-persons, basically. We were refused sovereignity (still are, in some places), but weren't counted among the "citizens" either.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

All governments tax. Government provides essential services and those have to be paid for. And those services, because they promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense, are carried equally by all as all theoretically benefit from them.

In the narrow sense, yes. But many other entities get their hands in people's pockets for a number of reasons, e.g., the Mafia in a protected area. Around here, the gas prices go up each Friday of the summer because that's when people head for cottages. Those companies too are extracting money from people. Of course the difference is said to be related to the 'common good.'

Other than the lunatic fringe, the right dosen't hold that taxation is bad, it holds that taxation should be limited to providing those essential services.

So when I go out and work, I should se the benefits. The amount taken from me by taxes should theoretcially cover those services that I can avial myself of. Fire, police, military defense.

There are then, very few on the (true) right. Defined either as 'minimal government' or in Amicus terms, 'laisser faire' capitalism. Since Reagan in particular, the self-labeled (phoney) right is for 'strong, militarily prepared government working together with industry in nation's interest.' As you know, DeLay may oppose taxes spent for others' benefit, but not taxes spent for military bases in his constituency area.

The right, however, has a serious problem with services being paid for that the person taxed cannot avial himself of. The right has a serious problem iwith taxes sent out of the country, with tax monies spent on services thatt he average taxpayer dosen't benfit from.

Ah we get back to public schools. Is that 'enlightened capitalism' or 'early socialism.' The 'average taxpayer' without kids... does he or she benefit? (I will agree that the majority of adults probably to produce kids.)

Taxes, to liberals, are a way of redistributing wealth, giving to those who don't have by taking from those who do. The right holds that such a function is theft and those who don't have should be provided for by voluntary charity, rahter than by forced taxation.

This is a kind of 'robin hood' or "Marx the villain" view. In the 'worst' times (FDR, Johnson), from Amicus view, only a *tiny* portion of the wealth of, say the upper 10% was touched. I cannot give you a percentage, but I'd venture 5% was ever 'redistributed.' Further, that money is spent, so that the welfare person is buying groceries, furniture (on time payment plans). So s/he provides economic stimulus and profit.

The real fallacy of the 'robin hood' argument is that it ignores most actual 'takings' and focuses on the taxes. For instance, Mr. Ebbers, of World Com, in an extraordinary sentence, got 25 years for looting millions: whether did those come from? Where does the money for Fox news and Rush Limbaugh come from? Money is extracted from people is a variety of ways: lottery tickets; stocks that drop to worthless, bottles of caramel-colored sugar water being sold at 2 bucks each, etc. Not to speak of essentials like gasoline.

The phrase 'forced taxation' focuses on the IRS and its access to police and courts to take your money. Fine. That is one hamfisted way to do it. Another is to have 'Joe Camel' ads that appeal to school kids, and encourage the kids buy cigarettes instead of candy. Or to go to McDonalds for their lunch instead of carrying a bag to school.

So we ask what is the net effect of all 'takings'? Well, Amicus ideal society of pre civil war America, or British society in say 1840 is the the answer. Quite enormous concentrations of wealth. Lots of poverty including among those who work the 60hr weeks. Lets leave aside the issue of 'is this fair' and 'is this natural'; maybe it is. But lets try to agree on the facts as to where 'wealth' flows in 'minimal government' situations.

Let's even leave aside the old argument about the genetic superiority of the rich and inferiority of the poor; for the sake of argument, fine. But lets agree on how wealth 'distributes itself' under the conditions of the (true) right wing.

In the 'big government' (phoney) right wing of Reagan and GWB the effects are a more uneven; there is more profit to crony corporations, and more corruption. But this is at the expense of the middle class, among others. In any case, I think it can be demonstrated that the rich--even definite NONcronies, like the Kerry's and Heinz's-- have done quite well in the last five years, esp. the Texans and other cronies.

Pure,

I'm on the right. I have been for many years. I've moved in ciricles where the majority of the people I reacted with on a daily basis were strong conservatives and therefore strongly on the right. I think you, and sweet, and certainly the author, are making an attempt to define the right's position in it's most extreme form. Obviously, Amicus posting here is going to spur that as he gladly epouses anything that comes to mind and his mind is quiite limited.

The position that all taxes are theft dosen't come from conservatives. It's a position held by the extreme edge of the libertarians. If libertarians were willing to moderate their position, I could probably be pretty comfortable being one, but as they continue to do as the major parties and nominate whatever nut was most recently sprung from the booby hatch, they are hard to take seriously.

My post here wasn't intended to embroil me in a left vs. Right debate, I don't have that kind of time on my hands. I simply noted that the owner of the site is, as candog put it, fighting strawmen. He is defining the position of the right by the most extreme edges, rather than the more modertate, thus relieveing himself of the burden of having to really think about what he is saying and contribute something worthwhile.

If I were to create a site, and I decided to define the left by it's most extreme proponents, I could do the same thing he is. I don't however assume most of you on the left hold the most extreme position. Since I don't assume I can define your position, I assume I have to speak to you and let you define it. And because of that, debate between us is likely to be substantially less black and white, and, in the end, has the potential to be more productive in terms of you perhaps softeneing your position and I softening mine.

 

[Fenikkusu]

The argument used to justify the intentions on the expansion of the nation was:

"This had to be done to save these poor Indian people. They don't fit in the East, so we have to move them out beyond the frontier where they can do their Indian thing unmolested. This is the only possible way to save them."

The hypocrisy of this is obvious because many of the people, though not all of them, who were removed were very sophisticated and relatively "civilized" people. For example, the literacy rate of the Cherokee nation is higher than that of the white South up through the Civil War, yet the tribe was moved westward as an uncivilized people, so that their land could be open for American expansion.

Many of the tribes in the Southeast were farmers, who were very successful and "civilized," yet they were moved to Oklahoma. In Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, Native American people who were very active in trade, who were trilingual and very good entrepreneurs, were forced to the plains of Kansas. Many of the people who went into the West became Native American pioneers. They transformed the West because their cultures had been so transformed in the East that they brought many tenants of American "civilization" into the West themselves. It did have an impact upon the West. These people, however, forced many of the tribes indigenous to the region further West and South against the Mexican frontier, which created problems for officials in Mexico.

 

[cloudy]

A friend emailed me an article on Manifest Destiny (thank you ). I'm not going to paste the whole thing here, but the relevant bit (the rest can be found here ).

Manifest Destiny began as an idea, a phrase by a writer of the time, who wrote of the United States fulfilling a providence leading the nation westward to its "manifest destiny." Later this became a political slogan, the foundation of a Polk's presidential campaign and ultimately the description of an age and time of westward movement. The age of Manifest Destiny.

Manifest Destiny was not all glory, it was marked by distinctive flaws of character; flaws of ethnocentrism and superiority. The concept represented an intoxication with territorial expansion, commercial gain, national pride and a sense of civilizing mission, a mission from God. While seizing and destroying others' property Americans could justify strong-arm measures as fulfillment of divine providence.

As is well known, this period of national expansion resulted in some of the worst suffering in history for the inhabitants. The American people and government did not deal kindly with people of a different race. Manifest Destiny blinded settlers to the fact that their presence disrupted the lives of Indian and Mexican people, and it allowed a blind eye to atrocities committed in the name of progress.

Unfortunately, in some respects this attitude continues to this day. At his acceptance speech in 1845, President Polk signaled national intentions by saying, "Foreign powers do not seem to appreciate the true character of our government....Our union is a confederation of independent states, whose policy is peace with each other and all the world. To enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our government....Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains."

While it is undeniable the United States has prospered, many argue the idea of Manifest Destiny never can justify the actions of this or any other nation.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm a snarly an individual as you would ever want to come across. One of the main reasons I can't work is because trying to subsume my identity into corporate culture makes me very ill. Who I am is about all I've ever had and asking me to give it up for any reason is asking too much of me.

However, that does not free me of the obligations and duties of citizenship.

This is my problem with the nihilists, I mean the libertarians. They want all the advantages of society; protection of law, a reasonably efficient police force, a strong military, a varied and efficient public infrastructure; without any obligations or duties that go along with it.

"Nope, not paying taxes," they say, "that's stealing what's mine. And those people aren't like us, so even though they live in the same country, I have no obligation to them, not even to be polite. It's all about me! Me! Me! Me!"

Maybe they are honest about their beliefs, but I don't like selfish people and the nihilists, I mean the libertarians, have always struck me as selfish.

 

[amicus]

Long before the 'new world' the America's, north and south, were ever discovered, (by Europeans), conquest, slavery, genocide, rape pillage and plunder was practiced against indigenous peoples everywhere.

Native inhabitants from the Inuit of the north to the Mayan's of the south, were systematically eliminated or decimated or assimilated.

Slavery was common place in Africa and Asia and in Europe. The America's were colonized by Europeans, as the Romans conquered most of western europe including England.

I suppose it gives some comfort to bash America but the truth of the matter is that all civilizations did precisely the same.

Some idiot will no doubt say, 'prove it Amicus, prove it!' do your own research.

The real heart of the matter is not Native Americans at all, it is part of that left wing mantra that hates mankind in general.

They appear to desire that humans be something other than they really are. They seem to want human nature to change.

It is an interesting phenomena that many consider meat eating, barbaric. Eating the flesh of another animal as sustenance.

Also curious that they decry the 'aggressive nature' of man in general; that mankind explores and conquers and rules and eliminate those who resist.

At the core of the left is that sad contention that mankind is simply not good enough to exist in a 'sharing' society, in which all individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And earlier in the thread, was it Pure? Who made a point of saying how terrible the founding fathers, the early constitution was in terms of human rights for all people, not just white males.

What Pure and many others ignore, is that all civilizations through out preceding history did precisely the same thing.

Civilizations progress mainly through trial and error. They improve when old ways and customs are challenged through conflict between passionate opposites. Not through the 'softening of position' procedure advocated by Cloudy and others.

Conflict and disagreement, even war, is necessary if a 'truth' is to be discovered and then implimented.

You folks, almost as a group, failed to comprehend the basic, unchanging nature of man. You seem to wish for a garden of eden, where there is no evil and no conflict.

It ain't ever gonna happen.

And when we subdue all the idiot liberals on this planet, we will buzz off into space looking for someone else to beat up on.

Cloudy, I mentioned before, elsewhere, that my book on Native Americans eventually has them becoming civilized and modern before the Romans and Mesopotamians did.

They cross the oceans and colonize Europe and Africa and destroy Christianity before it ever infects anyone.

They do so because 'my' native americans chose reason and logic over faith and belief.

and thus spake Zarathustra....

 

[Fenikkusu]

Cloudy, I mentioned before, elsewhere, that my book on Native Americans eventually has them becoming civilized and modern before the Romans and Mesopotamians did.

They cross the oceans and colonize Europe and Africa and destroy Christianity before it ever infects anyone.

They do so because 'my' native americans chose reason and logic over faith and belief.

and thus spake Zarathustra....

If I may intrude sir, may I ask if the book you mention is Your book or a book of fact? I was just curious.
Thank you.

 

[thebullet]

I read a SciFi book where Columbus befriended the Indians, organized them and attacked and defeated Europe.

Fiction is what it was. I guess Amicus's book had something like that theme. Unfortunately for the Native Americans, it didn't turn out that way.

Amicus said:
'my' native americans chose reason and logic over faith and belief.

It's funny. Amicus can write about the triumph of reason over a faith based belief system. And yet he comes on this website day after day pushing his religion of unbridled capitalism against all reason.

Oh well, them that can't, write.

 

[cloudy]

Amicus, in answer to the whole civilization question, I have this quote for you (read it, and then wonder who the civilized people were):

Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.

When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent, or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to personal property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth.

We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore, we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without those fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.

~ John Lame Deer, 1903 - 1976

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Long before the 'new world' the America's, north and south, were ever discovered, (by Europeans), conquest, slavery, genocide, rape pillage and plunder was practiced against indigenous peoples everywhere.

Native inhabitants from the Inuit of the north to the Mayan's of the south, were systematically eliminated or decimated or assimilated.

Slavery was common place in Africa and Asia and in Europe. The America's were colonized by Europeans, as the Romans conquered most of western europe including England.

I suppose it gives some comfort to bash America but the truth of the matter is that all civilizations did precisely the same.

Some idiot will no doubt say, 'prove it Amicus, prove it!' do your own research.

The real heart of the matter is not Native Americans at all, it is part of that left wing mantra that hates mankind in general.

They appear to desire that humans be something other than they really are. They seem to want human nature to change.

It is an interesting phenomena that many consider meat eating, barbaric. Eating the flesh of another animal as sustenance.

Also curious that they decry the 'aggressive nature' of man in general; that mankind explores and conquers and rules and eliminate those who resist.

At the core of the left is that sad contention that mankind is simply not good enough to exist in a 'sharing' society, in which all individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And earlier in the thread, was it Pure? Who made a point of saying how terrible the founding fathers, the early constitution was in terms of human rights for all people, not just white males.

What Pure and many others ignore, is that all civilizations through out preceding history did precisely the same thing.

Civilizations progress mainly through trial and error. They improve when old ways and customs are challenged through conflict between passionate opposites. Not through the 'softening of position' procedure advocated by Cloudy and others.

Conflict and disagreement, even war, is necessary if a 'truth' is to be discovered and then implimented.

You folks, almost as a group, failed to comprehend the basic, unchanging nature of man. You seem to wish for a garden of eden, where there is no evil and no conflict.

It ain't ever gonna happen.

And when we subdue all the idiot liberals on this planet, we will buzz off into space looking for someone else to beat up on.

Cloudy, I mentioned before, elsewhere, that my book on Native Americans eventually has them becoming civilized and modern before the Romans and Mesopotamians did.

They cross the oceans and colonize Europe and Africa and destroy Christianity before it ever infects anyone.

They do so because 'my' native americans chose reason and logic over faith and belief.

and thus spake Zarathustra....

Did native Americans fight one another? Yes. Were there crimes similar in nature to those visited upon natives by the with invaders commited by one tribe against another? Yes.

Was their culture inferior? no.

Want an objective lesson? Take a look at what Crazy horse or Germonimo did to your suposedly superior cavalry. Even the great military thinkers of the day admitted there were no finer prationers of the art of small unit cavalry tactics.

You claim the superior culture won, but like most you don't care to look at why you won. It wasn't your precious technology. It wasn't your mythical intellectual superiority. It wasn't even the fact you had the numbers. It was your germs. Without smallpox, the Aztecs kick Cortez's ass right off this continent. Without it the plains tribes confound your military might, and continue to beat the living hell out of you in every battle where you face their warriors, rather than their women and children.

So basically, you rest your entire case on your germs being more virulent to Native Americans than theirs were to you.

That certainly shows how our society was suprior. We were just more used to living in fetid squalor. oops, i mean civilization.

 

[amicus]

Fenikkusu...thank you, it is a book I wrote...fiction of course http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-35000-3

Volume two is complete and undergoing final edit...at that site, you can read the first chapter on line...


Andrew Wiggins..."...It's funny. Amicus can write about the triumph of reason over a faith based belief system. And yet he comes on this website day after day pushing his religion of unbridled capitalism against all reason.

Oh well, them that can't, write...."

A free enterprise system is a logical extension of human freedom, it does not require 'faith' but understanding through reason and logic, facilities which you sadly seem to lack.

Cloudy...."...We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore, we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without those fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.

~ John Lame Deer, 1903 - 1976..."

It saddens me that you refuse all peace offerings I bring forth. While European societies from the Persians to the Greeks and Romans, began to create city states, explore science and nature, native americans were still hunter gatherers. An 8000 year stagnation, with little or no progress in terms of human potential.

I do not fully understand why that happened, only that it did.

I am aware of indian societies in Mexico, throughout central and south america, and the midwest tribes that made progress of sorts, but seemed captured by mysticism.

In my studies of the middle east development, it seems logical that sea trade around the mediterranean facilitated the exchange of ideas and products, which north americans, due to isolation by two oceans, did not have.

It has been an interesting research, the more I learn...the less I know...but...perhaps that is how it should be.

Colleen Thomas..."...Did native Americans fight one another? Yes. Were there crimes similar in nature to those visited upon natives by the with invaders commited by one tribe against another? Yes.

Was their culture inferior? no.

Want an objective lesson? Take a look at what Crazy horse or Germonimo did to your suposedly superior cavalry. Even the great military thinkers of the day admitted there were no finer prationers of the art of small unit cavalry tactics.

You claim the superior culture won, but like most you don't care to look at why you won. It wasn't your precious technology. It wasn't your mythical intellectual superiority. It wasn't even the fact you had the numbers. It was your germs. Without smallpox, the Aztecs kick Cortez's ass right off this continent. Without it the plains tribes confound your military might, and continue to beat the living hell out of you in every battle where you face their warriors, rather than their women and children.

So basically, you rest your entire case on your germs being more virulent to Native Americans than theirs were to you.

That certainly shows how our society was suprior. We were just more used to living in fetid squalor. oops, i mean civilization..."

I said nothing about germs....you did....basically I imagine it was the lack of a written language, the lack of military coordination between tribes, but essentially, I think it was the lack of science and industry.

I rather think you have idealized the life style of native americans in pre history.

I suspect also, that many places in the world where explorers visited, suffered just as native americans did from diseases such as small pox. I also do not doubt that many a lovely society has been decimated and assimilated by conquering powers.

I would be nice, I suppose, to be able to look at the history of man through rose colored glasses, seeing things as they might have been rather than how they were.

Were it that man could expand his borders peacefully and accept change easily and cooperate and grow...but it is not and never shall be so.

We are what we are and for good reason; our nature enabled homo sapiens to survive and prosper. Had the native americans at Jamestown been capable, they might have stopped or slowed european conquest.

They did not.

And that is history, not fiction.



amicus...

 

[cloudy]

It saddens me that you refuse all peace offerings I bring forth. While European societies from the Persians to the Greeks and Romans, began to create city states, explore science and nature, native americans were still hunter gatherers. An 8000 year stagnation, with little or no progress in terms of human potential.

Amicus, I don't reject your peace offerings. On the contrary, I'm trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to let you see things from the other side.

We weren't uncivilized, we were just different, and as such, were relegated to a status of less than animal, and deemed unworthy to share the land that we so willingly shared to begin with.

To you, we were uncivilized. To me, the Europeans were the ones that were uncivilized. Read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and you'll see exactly what I mean. I'm not saying it didn't happen elsewhere, but since when does that make it right? And, the fact that it happened here VERY recently, within the memory of my great-grandparents, makes it even more wrong. There's simply no excuse for an entire race of people to be purposely wiped out. People scream and rage about the Holocaust, and rightly so, but what about the holocaust that happened here?

Our civilization worked for us, whether you see it as uncivilized or not. And, the sad thing is, we were willing to share the land, and didn't realize until too late that those we were willing to share with multiplied like cockroaches, and weren't willing to share.

I'm sure your book is interesting, but your continued comments about your book being the story of us being "civilized" nearly make me cry in frustration. We were civilized - just different. We didn't need technology, or all the accoutrements that you seem to think we needed. That was the point of the quote I posted. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them.

There was nothing superior about the culture of the Europeans - nothing. Where are we compared to were we were before they came? Much worse off. How anyone can think we are better off is beyond me.

The term "manifest destiny," and the slaughter that it brings to mind, makes me sick to my stomach. Look at things from my people's perspective, just for once, and see how you would feel.

 

[cantdog]

Just ignore the asshole

What the fuck?

 

[rgraham666]

He can't see things from your perspective, cloudy. That might require him to re-examine his own thinking. And that would be tantamount to admitting he was wrong.

As one of the leading proponents of The Truth he can't be wrong, ever. If he was wrong he would be merely human rather than one of The Chosen.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever given up demi-god status once the mantle has been placed upon them.

 

[erise]

No one, to my knowledge, has ever given up demi-god status once the mantle has been placed upon them.

Only to assume an alleged god-status. These days, that level of hubris is usually laughed down, though. Unless there are too many guns involved.