This "European" recognizes lands Original heritage

[Darrik 0]

I think some people might find that poem a bit offensive. I mean A) Muslims is misspelled, and B ) the comment about the Jews...

I copied it off of google, so the muslim was just lasy speel cheking.

 

As for the Jew bit, I feel that it's okay to make fun of myself.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Everyone thinks the US government was started on such high moral standards and integrity. We just dont know the half of it.

 

Got a question! The official reason of the original 13 colonies uprising against England was extreme taxation on the part of the home country.

 

Should the original 13 (American) colonies NOT have risen up against England? Would this have made a difference in the long run regarding the wipe out of the native tribes?

[Tachyon 0]

Muslims is misspelled

"Moslem" is actually a technically correct spelling, although the term is discouraged due to the fact that when pronouncing it, the word can sound like the Arabic term for "oppressor." The joke was probably created before this term fell into disuse.

[Nemesis 0]

Got a question! The official reason of the original 13 colonies uprising against England was extreme taxation on the part of the home country.

 

Should the original 13 (American) colonies NOT have risen up against England? Would this have made a difference in the long run regarding the wipe out of the native tribes?

Yes it would've made a difference for the First nation tribes would be protected under British law. The Ohio valley would not have succumbed to American colonization and been left to the first nations. There also probably wouldn't be a Canada and an America so then those treaties that basically enslaved natives would never have existed and there would not exist what has been term the North American Aparthied.

[Grom 0]

Lets remember and not forget how this land was obtained.  Indians were'nt merely culturally conformed, but were overtaken completely by Europeans.  Its too bad they didnt decide to just exist outside of each others territories and leave each other alone.  Its just like that old sayng, "Cant we all just get along?" 

 

What do you think?  Perhaps it's time for our (in our, I mean, human beings) OWN Prime Directive?

 

((Lets have healthy discussion here.  No slander.))

::grin::

 

I will say that we who would disagree with you probably haven't posted due to the opening dialogue. A healthy discussion should ackowledge that there are opposing view points which may or may not be correct. From what I have read here, the original premise that the Indians were "completely overtaken by the Europeans" is first, in my opinion, an inaccurate generalization and second, even if had some elements of truth, the events of history are far more complicated that they can't be surmised in one sentence.

 

Second, I would contend, contrary to the current revisionist history trends, that the United States, at least, was founded on extremely high moral principles. All one needs to do is to read some of the ratification debates to get such an idea.

 

Finally, the source of conflict among humans is not whatever scapegoat you can pin it on (religion was mentioned, lack of optimism/Kantian worldview also mentioned). It is, rather, the nature of mankind. Humans will always lump themselves into some sort of likeminded group. The "us" vs. "them" mentality is probably, in my opinion, the single most reason why nation states haven't yielded their power to an international authority. Call me a pessimist, but I think it's unrealistic to think that humans will ever think with such a global perspective. The family is the building block of the community. The community is the building block of the region. The region is the building block of the nation. The nation is the building block of the world.

[knlwtchr 0]

Cool. OK, I liked that post, Grom. Makes you think. Now, please dont make me think again! =0]

 

I would tend to agree with you in atleast one area, that being that human beings will never think globally. Sin gets worse, not better. Its just a nice thought to think it would actually turn out as "StarTrek" did.

 

Just ignore me, Im daydreaming. =0]

[Kansas_Jones 0]

I would tend to agree with you in atleast one area, that being that human beings will never think globally. Sin gets worse, not better. Its just a nice thought to think it would actually turn out as "StarTrek" did.

 

Just ignore me, Im daydreaming. =0]

 

There is nothing wrong with daydreaming or dreams; dreams bring hope.

 

Kansas >^..^<

[Darrik 0]

dreams bring hope

...and false hope brings disapointment

[STSF NDak 0]

But being nothing but a critic gets you no where fast :D

[Darrik 0]

But being nothing but a critic gets you no where fast

I'm perfectly content staying in my chair.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

Just ignore me, Im daydreaming. =0

Nothing wrong with dreaming. You just shouldn't forget living in between. :D

[Images 0]

More people have been slaughtered in the name of Atheism in the last one hundred years than in the name of Christianity in the last one thousand.

Woah woah woah there, thats a bit heavy handed. And without anything like an attempt to justify the statement I find it quite rude.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

Atragon9 Posted: Jul 6 2005, 01:38 PM 

Okay folks, let's be very careful here. Discussions of religion, politics, death penalty, right to life/choice, etc. are Extremely touchy and can spark strong opinions all around. Please speak gently or we will have to close the topic. Thanks.

 

 

All right kids...let's all calm down. As stated else where by A-9 (see above), with touchy topic such as religion, etc. we need to be aware of not tredding on other peoples shoes. If we can't do that, then the thread will be closed. Thanks. :D

[knlwtchr 0]

 

All right kids...let's all calm down. As stated else where by A-9 (see above), with touchy topic such as religion, etc. we need to be aware of not tredding on other peoples shoes. If we can't do that, then the thread will be closed. Thanks. :D

Yes, thank you, Corizon. I started this thread, not to slander (as I warned against in the beginning) but for healthy discussion about human beings inability to get along and our national history. Please, keep it kind hearted, informative, and upbeat. We have some very interesting posts here about our history. Lets not turn it into a bar fight. Thanks. =0]

[Dumbass 0]

Should the original 13 (American) colonies NOT have risen up against England? Would this have made a difference in the long run regarding the wipe out of the native tribes?

Actually, if you want the truth, the colonies were not rebelling against England per se, just the heavy hand of Parliament. Right up until 1775 the colonists (or a majority of them at least) still considered themselves Brittish subjects. The First Continental Congress drafted a letter to King George III protesting Parliament's heavy taxation (which were actually quite meager compared with the taxes of today) and asked the King to intervene. They disbanded and agreed to meet again in 1776 to receive the King's response. (Remember, this was at a time when it would actually take a year for a document to reach another coast and get a reply.)

 

Fast forward to 1776. The King's responce was to support the taxes imposed by Parliament. It was at this time that the Second Continental Congress decided "Hey, the King isn't helping us, and our tax protest letter sparked a full-scale war with the largest military power ever! If we want to win this war we need help!" It was at that point that we saw cries of independance from England and the King was used as a rallying point to enlist the common population, who already distrusted richness and nobility in all forms, into the war effort.

 

My point here is that the American Revolution did not have it's roots against King and country, just Parliament.

[LoAmi 0]

I copied it off of google, so the muslim was just lasy speel cheking.

 

As for the Jew bit, I feel that it's okay to make fun of myself.

I wouldn't be too hard on the "poem" -- Unless it was borrowed from an earlier source, it comes from an amusing Tom Lehrer satirical song called National Brotherhood Week.

 

As for history, we have to remember that we're judging it from a 21st century perspective. That's not to say what people in the 18th-19th centuries did was *right*, only that they probably had an entirely different worldview. Indeed, the US was founded on "high minded" principles. But, it would take two centuries for those principles to be extended to all the governed. "People" no longer means "property owning white men." [Vague Political Flamebait -> And we still have some ways to go with regards to refraining from restricting other people's rights, let alone granting them.] History is no different from the present -- it's full of moral gray areas; and, we in the present sometimes have the unfortunate consequence of benefiting from the wrongs of our forebears.

[Grom 0]

Indeed, the US was founded on "high minded" principles.  But, it would take two centuries for those principles to be extended to all the governed.  "People" no longer means "property owning white men."  [Vague Political Flamebait -> And we still have some ways to go with regards to refraining from restricting other people's rights, let alone granting them.]  History is no different from the present -- it's full of moral gray areas; and, we in the present sometimes have the unfortunate consequence of benefiting from the wrongs of our forebears.

Rather than going through point by point, I'd just like to stay that I disagree with every statement that I have quoted. Loami is not alone in his point of view, though. This is what's taught in the modern American public school, but in my opinion, it is revisionist history.

 

I'd like to recommend a book called "Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class and Justice in the Origins of America" by Thomas G. West, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas and Director of the Claremont Institute. The author has extensively researched several subjects including slavery, property rights, women and the right to vote, property requirements and the right to vote, poverty and welfare, and immigration. The book is very thought provoking and most of his points are exhaustively supported by primary sources.

[Nemesis 0]

So, even though most of the founding fathers had slaves they disagreed with slavery? Even though women weren't given basic rights until well into the 20th century, they agreed with equal rights between the sexes? I don't understand...

[Cptn Corizon 0]

So, even though most of the founding fathers had slaves they disagreed with slavery? Even though women weren't given basic rights until well into the 20th century, they agreed with equal rights between the sexes? I don't understand...

 

That's correct, to at least a point. The Founding Fathers, were for the most part extordinarly progressive, but the nation as a whole wasn't, and in order to unite the people enough to make a nation, some things...such abolishing slavery would have to put off the table and left for later generations to deal with. However, revisionest history serves it's purpose. History is a fluid and flowing document, and if it means portraying our past in not the best light, I am all for it. Americans tend to have a complex that we have never done wrong, and...that...is sadly not the truth.

[Grom 0]

So, even though most of the founding fathers had slaves they disagreed with slavery? Even though women weren't given basic rights until well into the 20th century, they agreed with equal rights between the sexes? I don't understand...

 

1. Most of the Founders did not own slaves.

 

2. As the author contends, women had "basic rights" even in the Founding Era, including the right to vote in the majority of states.

 

 

It's important, when studying history, especially, to take into account as much as you can as to what went on. This means, if possible, digging through primary sources (documents, letters, anything in a recorded form). As Loami mentioned, worldview is another very important thing to take into account. Without getting the whole story, it's hard to draw serious conclusions.

[Grom 0]

The Founding Fathers, were for the most part extordinarly progressive.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, progressive not in the sense that the term means today (i.e. TR, FDR, Wilson) but in the sense that the American form of democracy was an experiment (and it still is) that was based off the concept that the governement runs with the consent of the people.

[LoAmi 0]

Rather than going through point by point, I'd just like to stay that I disagree with every statement that I have quoted. Loami is not alone in his point of view, though. This is what's taught in the modern American public school, but in my opinion, it is revisionist history.

And I would alternatively state that American triumphalism is "revisionist history." I might have to read the book you referenced, though.

 

I'm not sure where the author would have gotten support for women having the right to vote in the Founding era in the majority of states. The only state I know of where it was explicitly permitted was New Jersey -- there, women were explicitly excluded from voting in 1807. After that, women's suffrage wasn't granted in another state until 1890 (ref). Property requirements for voting were formally ended by the 24th Amendment (1964) (ref).

 

And, I would think it completely dishonest to completely vindicate the Founders from a 21st century moral perspective. As I tried to say before, they were progressive from an 18th century perspective. And, it took the evolution of the foundation they set up to develop the idea of universal rights as many Americans understand them today. And, I think that the idea is still under development. After all, issues of universal rights are at the center of most of today's hot-button political issues.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Something else popped into my head regarding all this.

 

I am of mostly Irish descent, third gen on mother's side, but going back much further on father's and mother's father sides. The main reasons for both families migration to US was I assume the potato famine, better chance of working, etc.

 

While I probably wouldn't realize it, I wonder what my life would be like if America was not discovered, colonized, and settled. I admit, I DO like living here, even with all of the past (past being key word there; I for one worry about the future, it's more important right now then dwelling on the past) issues and problems and mistakes from US history. I am glad that the US was colonized, because...I am now living here as an American.

 

:D?? Thoughts?

Edited July 8, 2005 by Kansas_Jones

[Darrik 0]

Something else popped into my head regarding all this.

 

I am of mostly Irish descent, third gen on mother's side, but going back much further on father's and mother's father sides. The main reasons for both families migration to US was I assume the potato famine, better chance of working, etc.

 

While I probably wouldn't realize it, I wonder what my life would be like if America was not discovered, colonized, and settled. I admit, I DO like living here, even with all of the past (past being key word there; I for one worry about the future, it's more important right now then dwelling on the past) issues and problems and mistakes from US history. I am glad that the US was colonized, because...I am now living here as an American.

 

:D?? Thoughts?

well, if America was never colinized, I would probably have been eaten by the Indians by now. Although perhaps that would be a better reality.

[Nemesis 0]

Something else popped into my head regarding all this.

 

I am of mostly Irish descent, third gen on mother's side, but going back much further on father's and mother's father sides. The main reasons for both families migration to US was I assume the potato famine, better chance of working, etc.

 

While I probably wouldn't realize it, I wonder what my life would be like if America was not discovered, colonized, and settled. I admit, I DO like living here, even with all of the past (past being key word there; I for one worry about the future, it's more important right now then dwelling on the past) issues and problems and mistakes from US history. I am glad that the US was colonized, because...I am now living here as an American.

 

:D?? Thoughts?

I have the very simple answer of what your life would have been like, completely non-existant for the whims of the universe in which brought you here would not have happened, therefore you would not have been concieved.