I pondered what I wrote most of the day today while at work. I was scheduled all day in poker, and today (with bad weather on an already slow Tuesday) was a quiet one, to say the least.
I stand by what I wrote, but wanted to clarify only a few points. As I said initially, I cannot be "objective" when discussing religion, because I am a Catholic to the very core of my being. I not only believe that my faith provides the fullest and clearest path to God's salvific plan for all mankind, I feel I have a "better-than-average" understanding of why that faith is right when others aren't.
The only people that can be truly "objective" about religion are atheists... and they will be unable to attest to the actual merit of any religious position because no religious position can have merit to a true atheist. So, when comparing the merits and influence that one religion might have over another (especially when one of the sides being compared is the one you are on, so to speak)... I cannot claim to be impartial or objective by any stretch of the imagination.
In short, I believe that Christianity is the shortest, surest path to God that there is... and that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity was built and is, by extension, part of that salvation plan. Divisions within Christianity only "water down" the basic principle message that Christ came to deliver... they do not separate those who raise the questions from God simply because they raise the questions.
Wiser minds than mine have determined that there is "grace" to be found in the Islamic faith... and that, to me, means that I do not have the corner on understanding God's plan for the world. What I do know is that the adage employed very often by one of our own members for decades now is still very true: There is no grace in error.
Perhaps there are many areas of "truth" that Islam shares with Christianity... I can think of a few immediately. "There is only one God..." is one of them. "Thou shall not do murder." "Love is the greatest virtue."
Where I feel my faith differs from Islam is that there is no "redemption" there. Free will is removed as a factor because it is not needed for salvation... I do not need to "believe" that praying the five daily prayers will help me get to heaven, I only need to know they need to be done. A non-believer converting to Islam to save himself from a beheading is perfectly acceptable (both now and in the past)... but ANY person (believer or non-believer) that denies the tenants of Islam is so less than worthy of life that their death has no weight on the soul of the person that kills them. Allah has no concern for the person that denies the truth of the Qu'ran... so much so that the destruction of even ONE "holy book" by an infidel is worse than the death of hundreds of non-believers who never even saw a Qu'ran before in their lives.
I understand that not every Muslim feels that what I am describing is Islam as they understand it... that is very true, but it is no less true that I assert that tens of millions of Muslims believe EXACTLY what I am describing, and would gladly cut out my heart for having written what I have already written here.
Just as my "faith" has its fringe elements... the Westboro Baptist Church followers, for example... Islam has its fringe elements, too. However, I'm not sure that the "fringe" of the Islamic world are the ones that cheer on the madmen flying planes into buildings. I think the "fringe" of that faith are the ones that feel that women have the same inherent rights, freedoms and individual value as men... or that there exists a universal right to express yourself no matter what your faith is... or that each and every person should have a voice in their government's actions... that we all have the right to CHOOSE how, when and where we will worship God, and by what name we will call Him.
Nope... on this issue, I can't be "objective".
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wow ...
I wont be accusing you of ecumenical PC anytime soon. Well layed out ... I clearly misunderstood a portion of your original post. You seem to feel that while Christian's understanding of their faith (rather then the faith itself) has "evolved", that sort of concerted effort to expand the knowledge of one's faith within Islam has not only been absent, but trended towards regression, especially in recent history.To put it in secular terms this would be akin to looking at one of our nation's founding phrases, "all men are created equal." In the Christian sense we are more fully realizing it by including women, and all races; whereas, in this scenario, Islam is not only limiting it to men via literal translation, but invoking various "scholars" of the period to further regressively refine it to only white, land owning males.
Wikileaks ... your point is valid, but thus far the exact opposite has proven to be true. The NY Times, and various other "news" sources have refused to print/release such documents (the actual classified material) as of late. And the culprit PFC's are in each case a different source. Despite their knowledge that the last is facing 50-75 years in prison, it seems it is they who keep popping up to replace each other, while Wikileaks remains the sole source of note willing to take risks other groups simply will not.
Wikileaks ... your point is valid, but thus far the exact opposite has proven to be true. The NY Times, and various other "news" sources have refused to print/release such documents (the actual classified material) as of late. And the culprit PFC's are in each case a different source. Despite their knowledge that the last is facing 50-75 years in prison, it seems it is they who keep popping up to replace each other, while Wikileaks remains the sole source of note willing to take risks other groups simply will not.
On Assange and Wikileaks...
Let's face it... we can talk all we want about having Assange indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (which makes it a crime, punishable by death and/or 30 years in prison, "... to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. ")... but that means extradition from a country that has an existing treaty with the US (and Iceland doesn't) and years and years of litigation and expense simply to try and stop what is nothing more than a symptom of a greater problem: lax security within our own Federal system.
Want the leaks to stop? Find out where they are coming from... and stop it at the source. Assange and his lackeys have a source within the US Federal system... an obvious fact... so why are we continually bitching about Assange? If it weren't him, it would be someone else, right? Arrest Assange, and someone else takes the same files from the same source and uploads them to the web from a WiFi cafe in Paris, or Stockholm, or Mexico City, or Tokyo... pick your major city.
The question shouldn't be "How do we make people like Assange not want to post these documents?" The question should be "How do we make people that are leaking this to Assange not want to take that sort of risk?"
The answer is "Hold those responsible for the leaks to date answerable to the full weight of the Law... maximum penalty as applicable under the Federal regulations."
How many Pfcs in the Army intelligence corps are going to be tempted by a $15,000 paycheck when the cost of being "caught" is 30 years in Leavenworth... or the chair?
Want the leaks to stop? Find out where they are coming from... and stop it at the source. Assange and his lackeys have a source within the US Federal system... an obvious fact... so why are we continually bitching about Assange? If it weren't him, it would be someone else, right? Arrest Assange, and someone else takes the same files from the same source and uploads them to the web from a WiFi cafe in Paris, or Stockholm, or Mexico City, or Tokyo... pick your major city.
The question shouldn't be "How do we make people like Assange not want to post these documents?" The question should be "How do we make people that are leaking this to Assange not want to take that sort of risk?"
The answer is "Hold those responsible for the leaks to date answerable to the full weight of the Law... maximum penalty as applicable under the Federal regulations."
How many Pfcs in the Army intelligence corps are going to be tempted by a $15,000 paycheck when the cost of being "caught" is 30 years in Leavenworth... or the chair?
My follow up answer(s)...
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
You misunderstood my post. I don't have a problem with comparing the relative freedoms found inherently within societies of a Christian versus a Muslim background... until that comparison makes the assumption that, since they are both "religions" they are equal from the start. The comparison is false if it is made on the understanding that we're looking at "apples and apples".
Both Christianity and Islam base their faiths on the Revelation of God to Man, and both feel this revelation was finite in its form... meaning it is NOT an ongoing process. Christ was God's final revelation to Man for Christians, and Muhammad was Allah's final revelation for Muslims. Both faiths have holy books which detail the revelation in question, form and process. Both faiths have a sort of "sacred tradition" that is part of the revelation, but might not be completely contained within the scripture. Both faiths are plagued (in the past as well as now) with divisions and inter-nicene fighting that has brought great pain and suffering to the faithful.
Christianity, in its most practiced forms, holds that while divine revelation stopped with Christ's ascension into heaven... our understanding of that revelation continues to grow and expand with each and every day that passes until Christ's return in glory. It is NOT the Christian faith that is "evolving" since early in the 1st Century, but our understanding of that faith and the manner in which we live the precepts of that faith changes as we grow and develop.
The "trend" now in Islam seems to be that, what was understood, practiced and lived in the late 9th Century by the most historically relevant Muslim authors, commentators and leaders that we still know of, is what they think they should be striving for again. No thought is given to the possibility that, since the human mind is finite and weak, those that put pen to paper early in the faith's history could have used terms, phrases or views that might lend a narrow view of a much broader understanding... because the fear of revision or "modernization" is so terrifying to them.
For centuries, the scriptural phrase "an eye for an eye" was taken literally by Christian authorities... while today, we understand that the phrase was an early form of a "statue of limitation" so that no punishment could exceed the crime committed. If, in a drunken brawl, a man injures another's eye, he shouldn't have his injured in return... but he could be made to pay a fine equivalent to the "value" of an eye to the man he injured. This is a basic tenant of law that we still recognize today... but Christ told us to look past it. He called on us to forgive the "due punishment" such an injury required, by "turning the other cheek". Our understanding of Christ's words have taken centuries to grow to what they are today... not that we are called to absolute pacifism in all situations, but when the "evil" done to us effects only "myself" and then, only to a slap, a trivial suit, an unfair labor requirement... we are called to overlook the "evil" and return it with charity and kindness. Part and parcel with the "Golden Rule"... which is found in BOTH the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) and throughout the New Testament (the Christian Bible)... but is not codified in any way, shape of form within the Qu'ran. It is mentioned by the Imam An-Nawawi in the 13th Century commentary he is remembered for, but no earlier, and his words are not considered a "remembrance" of Mohammed's.
This is but one example that I feel we can hold up to say that Christianity and Islam are not two, separate religions with equal weight and dignity... because they do not hold the same fundamental truths to be absolute. Both faiths should have the same rights and freedoms under secular law, that is absolutely true... but both DO NOT recognize the authority of secular law equally at all, either. Christianity has a long and storied history of thriving under secular authority (and Judaism puts even Christianity to shame in this light)... while Islam (in general) has utterly refused to recognize any authority but that stemming from Islam itself.
Modern, liberal terms and concepts that seek to tie the three great faiths of the Levant together are academically accurate... but no more than that. Yes, all three faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can all find common ground with the Faith of Abraham, and all have ties with the Five Books of Moses (and can thus be called the Faiths of the Book)... but the comparison dies quickly.
Judaism and Christianity share a beginning in a past that goes back at least 5,000 years. There is no single, historical person or point where one can point and say "Here is where it all began" because the faiths are based on centuries of revelation and understanding of God's plan for Man. Islam is based entirely on the sayings, actions and beliefs of one man, the 6th Century Meccan named Mohammed ibn Abdullah, as the last and ultimate "mouthpiece" of God's will on Earth.
We could spend decades talking about the theological differences between the faiths... but it is the faiths themselves and the manner in which they are lived and propagated that I feel give the best evidence of their merit and truth.
So, to sum up my point...
Societies where the most basic and fundamental assumptions are made on false premises are doomed from the start. Communism is based on a false assumption (many of them, actually) and thus, communism died a slow and costly death over the last century. Fascism did the same (just quicker). Theocracies have a long and storied tradition of dying as quickly as their leadership... with one very real exception. The Papacy. While I can't point to the papacy as a "secular power" throughout its history... it has always had an authority and influence that is undeniable, and while it has been abused by bad men, it has never failed or corrupted the "faith" at its heart. No Muslim leadership institution can claim the same, can it?
2) Yes.
You misunderstood my post. I don't have a problem with comparing the relative freedoms found inherently within societies of a Christian versus a Muslim background... until that comparison makes the assumption that, since they are both "religions" they are equal from the start. The comparison is false if it is made on the understanding that we're looking at "apples and apples".
Both Christianity and Islam base their faiths on the Revelation of God to Man, and both feel this revelation was finite in its form... meaning it is NOT an ongoing process. Christ was God's final revelation to Man for Christians, and Muhammad was Allah's final revelation for Muslims. Both faiths have holy books which detail the revelation in question, form and process. Both faiths have a sort of "sacred tradition" that is part of the revelation, but might not be completely contained within the scripture. Both faiths are plagued (in the past as well as now) with divisions and inter-nicene fighting that has brought great pain and suffering to the faithful.
Christianity, in its most practiced forms, holds that while divine revelation stopped with Christ's ascension into heaven... our understanding of that revelation continues to grow and expand with each and every day that passes until Christ's return in glory. It is NOT the Christian faith that is "evolving" since early in the 1st Century, but our understanding of that faith and the manner in which we live the precepts of that faith changes as we grow and develop.
The "trend" now in Islam seems to be that, what was understood, practiced and lived in the late 9th Century by the most historically relevant Muslim authors, commentators and leaders that we still know of, is what they think they should be striving for again. No thought is given to the possibility that, since the human mind is finite and weak, those that put pen to paper early in the faith's history could have used terms, phrases or views that might lend a narrow view of a much broader understanding... because the fear of revision or "modernization" is so terrifying to them.
For centuries, the scriptural phrase "an eye for an eye" was taken literally by Christian authorities... while today, we understand that the phrase was an early form of a "statue of limitation" so that no punishment could exceed the crime committed. If, in a drunken brawl, a man injures another's eye, he shouldn't have his injured in return... but he could be made to pay a fine equivalent to the "value" of an eye to the man he injured. This is a basic tenant of law that we still recognize today... but Christ told us to look past it. He called on us to forgive the "due punishment" such an injury required, by "turning the other cheek". Our understanding of Christ's words have taken centuries to grow to what they are today... not that we are called to absolute pacifism in all situations, but when the "evil" done to us effects only "myself" and then, only to a slap, a trivial suit, an unfair labor requirement... we are called to overlook the "evil" and return it with charity and kindness. Part and parcel with the "Golden Rule"... which is found in BOTH the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) and throughout the New Testament (the Christian Bible)... but is not codified in any way, shape of form within the Qu'ran. It is mentioned by the Imam An-Nawawi in the 13th Century commentary he is remembered for, but no earlier, and his words are not considered a "remembrance" of Mohammed's.
This is but one example that I feel we can hold up to say that Christianity and Islam are not two, separate religions with equal weight and dignity... because they do not hold the same fundamental truths to be absolute. Both faiths should have the same rights and freedoms under secular law, that is absolutely true... but both DO NOT recognize the authority of secular law equally at all, either. Christianity has a long and storied history of thriving under secular authority (and Judaism puts even Christianity to shame in this light)... while Islam (in general) has utterly refused to recognize any authority but that stemming from Islam itself.
Modern, liberal terms and concepts that seek to tie the three great faiths of the Levant together are academically accurate... but no more than that. Yes, all three faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can all find common ground with the Faith of Abraham, and all have ties with the Five Books of Moses (and can thus be called the Faiths of the Book)... but the comparison dies quickly.
Judaism and Christianity share a beginning in a past that goes back at least 5,000 years. There is no single, historical person or point where one can point and say "Here is where it all began" because the faiths are based on centuries of revelation and understanding of God's plan for Man. Islam is based entirely on the sayings, actions and beliefs of one man, the 6th Century Meccan named Mohammed ibn Abdullah, as the last and ultimate "mouthpiece" of God's will on Earth.
We could spend decades talking about the theological differences between the faiths... but it is the faiths themselves and the manner in which they are lived and propagated that I feel give the best evidence of their merit and truth.
So, to sum up my point...
Societies where the most basic and fundamental assumptions are made on false premises are doomed from the start. Communism is based on a false assumption (many of them, actually) and thus, communism died a slow and costly death over the last century. Fascism did the same (just quicker). Theocracies have a long and storied tradition of dying as quickly as their leadership... with one very real exception. The Papacy. While I can't point to the papacy as a "secular power" throughout its history... it has always had an authority and influence that is undeniable, and while it has been abused by bad men, it has never failed or corrupted the "faith" at its heart. No Muslim leadership institution can claim the same, can it?
250,000 Pages
How many times are we going to allow this Aussie, Mr. Julian Assange, to divulge classified material? There is no question that the Iraq papers put lives in danger (especially cooberating Iraqi civilians), and this leak is even bigger in scale. Among other cables whose total effect may be embarassment, there are serious breaches such as the Yemeni Prime Minister, & his #2, talking with General Patraeus. And openly admitting to lying to their own Parliament, taking responsibility for US missle strikes on terror targets. I mean, if you're a foreign dignitary how do you confide in the US when PFC dip sh*t can email them to some burnt out gen-x'er hiding out in New Zealand? And this guy claims Afghanistan & US banking documents are next on the agenda.
Whatever else it is the 250,000 pages of classified State Dept files is a national security disaster, period. In addition, we just lost a huge terror case in New York - a bomber from the Kenya and Tanzania embassies was charged on 234 counts, and convicted on one. Add to this the TSA dust up over superman scanners & pat downs that Jr. High aged males would consider second base, that I assume are the result of an Intel chain (which I should be able to read on Wikileaks in 30 days or so); as well as the pending prosecution of a Somali Muslim whom attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. The sum total of these would lead anyone to assume that the Justice Department is working overtime ... right?
Well, you'll be happy to know that Attorney General Holder is on top of it - he's flying to Switzerland today to lobby for the US to host the World Cup. Word is he's bringing Steadman ...
Whatever else it is the 250,000 pages of classified State Dept files is a national security disaster, period. In addition, we just lost a huge terror case in New York - a bomber from the Kenya and Tanzania embassies was charged on 234 counts, and convicted on one. Add to this the TSA dust up over superman scanners & pat downs that Jr. High aged males would consider second base, that I assume are the result of an Intel chain (which I should be able to read on Wikileaks in 30 days or so); as well as the pending prosecution of a Somali Muslim whom attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. The sum total of these would lead anyone to assume that the Justice Department is working overtime ... right?
Well, you'll be happy to know that Attorney General Holder is on top of it - he's flying to Switzerland today to lobby for the US to host the World Cup. Word is he's bringing Steadman ...
Monday, November 29, 2010
A follow up question(s):
Questions (answer in order, please):
1.) is "freedom " the natural state of man?
2.) is the ability to recognize, and practice, that natural state a sign of an evolved sense of reason, intellect or belief system?
Here's where Im going with this - you dont seem comfortable with comparing the state of evolution between Christianity and Islam, even with hundreds of millions of practitioners to use as generalized examples. Yet you use those same millions to compare Islam with democracy and summarily announce them incompatible. And I sort of feel in for a penny, in for a pound at this point. In addition, you aptly described the Left's inconsistency - attack Christianity & hands off Islam despite Islam's reverse policy towards them versus the benign response of Christians.
This isnt occurring in a vacuum. It appears to me to demonstrate a greater evolution in ideology within one religion, versus the other. Assuming one answered numbers 1 & 2, "yes."
1.) is "freedom " the natural state of man?
2.) is the ability to recognize, and practice, that natural state a sign of an evolved sense of reason, intellect or belief system?
Here's where Im going with this - you dont seem comfortable with comparing the state of evolution between Christianity and Islam, even with hundreds of millions of practitioners to use as generalized examples. Yet you use those same millions to compare Islam with democracy and summarily announce them incompatible. And I sort of feel in for a penny, in for a pound at this point. In addition, you aptly described the Left's inconsistency - attack Christianity & hands off Islam despite Islam's reverse policy towards them versus the benign response of Christians.
This isnt occurring in a vacuum. It appears to me to demonstrate a greater evolution in ideology within one religion, versus the other. Assuming one answered numbers 1 & 2, "yes."
I thought that salt was for my wound ...
Turns out it was to line the rim of my maragrita glass. Yes! I almost opened a new post tab, & simultaneously fired off a text to the complaint department known as Jambo, after the opening line. Here I am guarding against any jabs on my Left, and you clock me from the Right . . . nice.
Never thought I'd be accused of being "too pc" ... hehe.
Never thought I'd be accused of being "too pc" ... hehe.
Here's me playing "devil's advocate" again...
Yep... Here I go pointing out the obvious flaws in Ryan's twisted logic... AGAIN...
Ryan asks:
"... if "freedom", defined as both personal liberty and a national form of government, is the preferred state of the "evolved man", can we then say that Christianity is a more "evolved" religion? "
There is a fundamental flaw here in this sort of reasoning. You are asking for qualitative and quantitative assessment of something that can, by definition, have neither. When it comes to personal faith, even the personal faith of nearly one billion people, it cannot be qualitatively or quantitatively measured from an objective point of view.
In other words, you cannot look at it from a non-religious point of view... because then you lose all perspective of the individual's motive (even if the individuals number in the hundreds of millions). You cannot look at it from the view point of one faith versus another, because then you deny any attempt at objectivity completely.
No... the problem here is that we all have to determine what our own, personal choices are going to be. We will have to decide what we are going to allow as acceptable in our society, and what we are not... and we will need to be willing to live with the consequences of that choice.
If, as the Liberals would like, we choose to suppress the ability of the Christian majority in this nation to openly practice what they believe, while at the same time allow Muslims all the freedoms and rights that Christians are denied, then we can safely assume that we will see the gradual but inevitable shift within this country from "traditional" Judeo-Christian views to more radical, fundamental Muslim views... and this goes for everything from such hot-topic items today as capital punishment and abortion, to gay marriage and an open, homosexual lifestyle.
Far too many "liberals" in this country have forgotten that, while Christians (and not all of those) oppose abortion and gay marriage... they do so only within the bounds and precepts of acceptable legal process. They exercise their right to free speech and hold demonstrations to make their case, or will exercise their right to assemble and have a march to put a spotlight on their cause... but until the Law says something is or isn't "legal"... no one is punished for following another course of action. Far too many "liberals" haven't taken the time to imagine what would happen should the US fall under the grip of even as "enlightened" a Muslim government as that in Turkey, or Egypt, or Jordan... sodomy is a capital offense that does not require a "trial" at all... a woman can't claim to be "harmed" by a husband that beats her unless she can show that the beatings effect her ability to work and/or produce children... abortions are "sins" against the flesh of the unborn child's FATHER, so the pregnancy cannot be terminated against his wishes without the mother forfeiting her own life... both beheading and stoning are REQUIRED forms of capital punishment, in ANY Muslim state...
Ryan was right... he was being too PC by far. The problem isn't in asking whether or not Islam is a true "religion of peace" or a real "path to God"... the problem is in asking whether Islam is compatible AT ALL with what even the most liberal, progressive block head in the DNC would call the "American" ideal.
So, want my answer to Ryan's question? Well, here it is:
Nothing about what America was, is now, or ever should be in the future is in any way, shape or form compatible with Islam as 90% of its practitioners see it. If there can be no "equality between sexes" and no "equal justice under the law" and no "separation of church and state" then there can be no "America-loving" in the Islamic world.
The only thing that gives me hope is that... this wasn't always the case. Only fifty years ago, the burka-clad women of Egypt, Gaza and Lebanon were a rare sight indeed. One could have walked throughout the city of Riyadh in 1959 and not seen one in a hundred. If this is a "shift in sentiment" and not a trend that is destined to last centuries... then perhaps Islam can find it within itself to live compatibly with other nations and faiths.
I just don't see it now at all, though...
(I bet that opening line got you bent, didn't it?)
Ryan asks:
"... if "freedom", defined as both personal liberty and a national form of government, is the preferred state of the "evolved man", can we then say that Christianity is a more "evolved" religion? "
There is a fundamental flaw here in this sort of reasoning. You are asking for qualitative and quantitative assessment of something that can, by definition, have neither. When it comes to personal faith, even the personal faith of nearly one billion people, it cannot be qualitatively or quantitatively measured from an objective point of view.
In other words, you cannot look at it from a non-religious point of view... because then you lose all perspective of the individual's motive (even if the individuals number in the hundreds of millions). You cannot look at it from the view point of one faith versus another, because then you deny any attempt at objectivity completely.
No... the problem here is that we all have to determine what our own, personal choices are going to be. We will have to decide what we are going to allow as acceptable in our society, and what we are not... and we will need to be willing to live with the consequences of that choice.
If, as the Liberals would like, we choose to suppress the ability of the Christian majority in this nation to openly practice what they believe, while at the same time allow Muslims all the freedoms and rights that Christians are denied, then we can safely assume that we will see the gradual but inevitable shift within this country from "traditional" Judeo-Christian views to more radical, fundamental Muslim views... and this goes for everything from such hot-topic items today as capital punishment and abortion, to gay marriage and an open, homosexual lifestyle.
Far too many "liberals" in this country have forgotten that, while Christians (and not all of those) oppose abortion and gay marriage... they do so only within the bounds and precepts of acceptable legal process. They exercise their right to free speech and hold demonstrations to make their case, or will exercise their right to assemble and have a march to put a spotlight on their cause... but until the Law says something is or isn't "legal"... no one is punished for following another course of action. Far too many "liberals" haven't taken the time to imagine what would happen should the US fall under the grip of even as "enlightened" a Muslim government as that in Turkey, or Egypt, or Jordan... sodomy is a capital offense that does not require a "trial" at all... a woman can't claim to be "harmed" by a husband that beats her unless she can show that the beatings effect her ability to work and/or produce children... abortions are "sins" against the flesh of the unborn child's FATHER, so the pregnancy cannot be terminated against his wishes without the mother forfeiting her own life... both beheading and stoning are REQUIRED forms of capital punishment, in ANY Muslim state...
Ryan was right... he was being too PC by far. The problem isn't in asking whether or not Islam is a true "religion of peace" or a real "path to God"... the problem is in asking whether Islam is compatible AT ALL with what even the most liberal, progressive block head in the DNC would call the "American" ideal.
So, want my answer to Ryan's question? Well, here it is:
Nothing about what America was, is now, or ever should be in the future is in any way, shape or form compatible with Islam as 90% of its practitioners see it. If there can be no "equality between sexes" and no "equal justice under the law" and no "separation of church and state" then there can be no "America-loving" in the Islamic world.
The only thing that gives me hope is that... this wasn't always the case. Only fifty years ago, the burka-clad women of Egypt, Gaza and Lebanon were a rare sight indeed. One could have walked throughout the city of Riyadh in 1959 and not seen one in a hundred. If this is a "shift in sentiment" and not a trend that is destined to last centuries... then perhaps Islam can find it within itself to live compatibly with other nations and faiths.
I just don't see it now at all, though...
(I bet that opening line got you bent, didn't it?)
Post Modern Religion and the Left's blind spot ...
"Post modern?" Is that another way of saying "primitive?"
Can I ask a nominally "non-PC" question?
Let me preface it with a simple notion - as compared to our understanding of the inherent freedoms endowed by our creator, or for the secularists, our understanding of the "just state" of man and his right to liberty ... Is Islam, as practiced today, an uncivilized religion? Or shall I phrase it, a "primitive" codification of moral codes and absolutes? I hesitate to agree, if only because I'm aware that this is exactly how Left of center ideologues would describe Christianity. But I am forced to reconcile that hesitancy with some basic facts. Again, I note that "primitive" in this instance is defined as its' incompatibility with both personal and national liberty. That is to say: democracy.
In a recent Freedom House survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom score" were Muslim. Of the 46 majority Muslim nations in the world, only 3 were free. Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 percent of the population, only another 3 ranked as free: Benin, Serbia-Montenegro, and Suriname. And with France's predilection towards a lavish welfare state, and the need for young North African workers to supply the tax base, one wonders how far away they are from joining these ranks.
So let me pose this question: off the top of your head can you name one Christian majority nation that is not "free?" And prior to my naming those above (and excluding nations we have boots on the ground in) could you have named one Muslim majority nation that is free? Give yourself 3 days distance from this post and you will again probably not be able to.
So this is my concern - Christianity has seen its reformation. And I use a lower case "R" on purpose, for this is no slap at the Catholic Church (not even the Indulgence selling one of Luther's day). But rather a "reformation" that has allowed for the peaceful coexistence of a secular, pluralist society and government. In fact, one can argue that given America's rise and triumph these 234 years, the highest preforming society is one that embraces God on a personal level, and a secular democracy on the national. But again, we get back to what form that embracement of God takes. As of 2010 if its form is Christianity or Judaism it is likely, to the 100th percentile, to be "free." If it is via the worlds other major religion, of the big three, (read: Islam) it is likely to the 90th percentile to be authoritarian. Is that a problem?
Let me rephrase the question under this light - if "freedom", defined as both personal liberty and a national form of government, is the preferred state of the "evolved man", can we then say that Christianity is a more "evolved" religion? As politically incorrect as that is to say, do the numbers not bare that out as a fair assessment?
Now you can certainly argue that millions of Muslims live in democracies, etc, etc. Yes. However the vast majority of practicing Muslims do not. Period. And this has grave concerns, demographically. So to answer my own question - yes, it is a problem.
The baseline rate of reproduction is 2.1. You must have 2.1 live births per couple to maintain populations where they are, wherever that is. Greece has a fertility rate just below 1.3. They are nearly halving themselves each generation. Is there any wonder why we see riots, protests, and general unrest at the idea of cutting government benefits? People have become accustomed to them, yet there are not enough young workers to maintain the tax base to keep them in place ... enter Northern African immigrants. Italy is at 1.2 (and that's without abortion mind you). Spain 1.1. America, just for the record, is 2.1 (thank you Catholic Hispanics by the way). The birth rate among Western living practicing Muslims? 4.8%. Go outside the West and that number climbs as high as 6.2%. Anyone a tad nervous yet? Clearly Europe has an unavoidable day of reckoning. What happens when they wake up one day and the majority of their population practices a faith incompatible with a secular, free government? And this leads me to the Left's blind spot, for this should concern them above all.
"I am a social conservative. When the Mullahs take over I'll grow my beard a little fuller, get a couple extra wives, and keep my head down. It's the feminists and gays who'll have a tougher time." - Mark Steyn, British born author and commentator.
How will gay marriage look to a UK (or Massachusetts for that matter), Supreme Court if 5 out of 8 of the justices are Muslim? It is the Left above all that should be enraged at such auspices of a major, widely practiced, religion. Gays executed in Iran. Women given forced clitorechtomy's in the Northern Africa. Females condemned to death for adultery. Attacks on Danish embassies over Mohammed cartoons, and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (and they think Republicans want to censor artful expression). Yet Leftist's cries of havoc are reserved almost exclusively for practicing Christians. If I point out riots in Pakistan over the Newsweek Koran down the toilet story, I'm the nativist white Christian male racist. Yet it wasn't my ilk rioting or committing acts of violence when a Crucifix was submerged in urine and called "art." Why am I in their sights, and not the Mullahs?
Back to what this means for the near future ... Europe is clearly in dire straights. As far as I can tell, when surfing the web, "Eurabia" is all but a forgone conclusion to those Mullahs willing to speak out on the matter. Making it essential that America understand that it is not just one voice among equals. Reject that we are no more or no less then a UN filled with Sudanese human rights observers or Cuban worker's rights diplomats. It is vital that our president understand that we are the difference. That the thugs of Russia, or the multi generation planning (scheming) hard liners of China, and the 72 virgin aspiring followers of Mullah X, Y and Z are not fearful over the blue helmets of the UN. They find the EU laughable, and aren't particularly impressed with NATO, save one member's presence - America. And as the carrier USS George Washington parks itself in the Yellow Sea, sending a message to Kim Jong Jr and company, I hope that this president, and his 2012 successor, understand this. And particularly regarding the active fascists within Islam. For on our side we have every advantage in waging an effective war - wealth, vast armies, advanced weaponry, industry, technology; on the other they have pure ideology - young, reproducing believers ... and the rest, as its been proven, they can pick up at Radio Shack.
Can I ask a nominally "non-PC" question?
Let me preface it with a simple notion - as compared to our understanding of the inherent freedoms endowed by our creator, or for the secularists, our understanding of the "just state" of man and his right to liberty ... Is Islam, as practiced today, an uncivilized religion? Or shall I phrase it, a "primitive" codification of moral codes and absolutes? I hesitate to agree, if only because I'm aware that this is exactly how Left of center ideologues would describe Christianity. But I am forced to reconcile that hesitancy with some basic facts. Again, I note that "primitive" in this instance is defined as its' incompatibility with both personal and national liberty. That is to say: democracy.
In a recent Freedom House survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom score" were Muslim. Of the 46 majority Muslim nations in the world, only 3 were free. Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 percent of the population, only another 3 ranked as free: Benin, Serbia-Montenegro, and Suriname. And with France's predilection towards a lavish welfare state, and the need for young North African workers to supply the tax base, one wonders how far away they are from joining these ranks.
So let me pose this question: off the top of your head can you name one Christian majority nation that is not "free?" And prior to my naming those above (and excluding nations we have boots on the ground in) could you have named one Muslim majority nation that is free? Give yourself 3 days distance from this post and you will again probably not be able to.
So this is my concern - Christianity has seen its reformation. And I use a lower case "R" on purpose, for this is no slap at the Catholic Church (not even the Indulgence selling one of Luther's day). But rather a "reformation" that has allowed for the peaceful coexistence of a secular, pluralist society and government. In fact, one can argue that given America's rise and triumph these 234 years, the highest preforming society is one that embraces God on a personal level, and a secular democracy on the national. But again, we get back to what form that embracement of God takes. As of 2010 if its form is Christianity or Judaism it is likely, to the 100th percentile, to be "free." If it is via the worlds other major religion, of the big three, (read: Islam) it is likely to the 90th percentile to be authoritarian. Is that a problem?
Let me rephrase the question under this light - if "freedom", defined as both personal liberty and a national form of government, is the preferred state of the "evolved man", can we then say that Christianity is a more "evolved" religion? As politically incorrect as that is to say, do the numbers not bare that out as a fair assessment?
Now you can certainly argue that millions of Muslims live in democracies, etc, etc. Yes. However the vast majority of practicing Muslims do not. Period. And this has grave concerns, demographically. So to answer my own question - yes, it is a problem.
The baseline rate of reproduction is 2.1. You must have 2.1 live births per couple to maintain populations where they are, wherever that is. Greece has a fertility rate just below 1.3. They are nearly halving themselves each generation. Is there any wonder why we see riots, protests, and general unrest at the idea of cutting government benefits? People have become accustomed to them, yet there are not enough young workers to maintain the tax base to keep them in place ... enter Northern African immigrants. Italy is at 1.2 (and that's without abortion mind you). Spain 1.1. America, just for the record, is 2.1 (thank you Catholic Hispanics by the way). The birth rate among Western living practicing Muslims? 4.8%. Go outside the West and that number climbs as high as 6.2%. Anyone a tad nervous yet? Clearly Europe has an unavoidable day of reckoning. What happens when they wake up one day and the majority of their population practices a faith incompatible with a secular, free government? And this leads me to the Left's blind spot, for this should concern them above all.
"I am a social conservative. When the Mullahs take over I'll grow my beard a little fuller, get a couple extra wives, and keep my head down. It's the feminists and gays who'll have a tougher time." - Mark Steyn, British born author and commentator.
How will gay marriage look to a UK (or Massachusetts for that matter), Supreme Court if 5 out of 8 of the justices are Muslim? It is the Left above all that should be enraged at such auspices of a major, widely practiced, religion. Gays executed in Iran. Women given forced clitorechtomy's in the Northern Africa. Females condemned to death for adultery. Attacks on Danish embassies over Mohammed cartoons, and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (and they think Republicans want to censor artful expression). Yet Leftist's cries of havoc are reserved almost exclusively for practicing Christians. If I point out riots in Pakistan over the Newsweek Koran down the toilet story, I'm the nativist white Christian male racist. Yet it wasn't my ilk rioting or committing acts of violence when a Crucifix was submerged in urine and called "art." Why am I in their sights, and not the Mullahs?
Back to what this means for the near future ... Europe is clearly in dire straights. As far as I can tell, when surfing the web, "Eurabia" is all but a forgone conclusion to those Mullahs willing to speak out on the matter. Making it essential that America understand that it is not just one voice among equals. Reject that we are no more or no less then a UN filled with Sudanese human rights observers or Cuban worker's rights diplomats. It is vital that our president understand that we are the difference. That the thugs of Russia, or the multi generation planning (scheming) hard liners of China, and the 72 virgin aspiring followers of Mullah X, Y and Z are not fearful over the blue helmets of the UN. They find the EU laughable, and aren't particularly impressed with NATO, save one member's presence - America. And as the carrier USS George Washington parks itself in the Yellow Sea, sending a message to Kim Jong Jr and company, I hope that this president, and his 2012 successor, understand this. And particularly regarding the active fascists within Islam. For on our side we have every advantage in waging an effective war - wealth, vast armies, advanced weaponry, industry, technology; on the other they have pure ideology - young, reproducing believers ... and the rest, as its been proven, they can pick up at Radio Shack.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
"wealth distribution equality"
The EU thinks this is an important aspect of the economic vitality of its member states, and has (prior to 2006) held Greece and Spain as shining examples of where it wants the whole Union to be.
Since then, it has prodded and pressured states like Ireland and Portugal to institute changes that would bring about a greater degree of "WDE" in these two nations, who had enjoyed unrivalled economic growth for the decade previous to the changes.
First, Greece saw its economy collapse to the point of disaster, then Spain. They were followed by Ireland, and yesterday, Portugal decided that it might have no other choice but to take the offered "bail out" from the EU to keep its economy afloat.
In four years, the euro has gone from on-pace to be the contender for the American dollar as the global currency to watching its international value fall to well below that of the struggling dollar. Nearly one fifth of the entire European Union is facing bankruptcy if no bail out is given, and a new global recession is looming on the horizon.
Want to know why I think this is happening?
WDE
If any American candidate for office decides to use these words in any other context than a critical one... all of America should be very concerned.
Since then, it has prodded and pressured states like Ireland and Portugal to institute changes that would bring about a greater degree of "WDE" in these two nations, who had enjoyed unrivalled economic growth for the decade previous to the changes.
First, Greece saw its economy collapse to the point of disaster, then Spain. They were followed by Ireland, and yesterday, Portugal decided that it might have no other choice but to take the offered "bail out" from the EU to keep its economy afloat.
In four years, the euro has gone from on-pace to be the contender for the American dollar as the global currency to watching its international value fall to well below that of the struggling dollar. Nearly one fifth of the entire European Union is facing bankruptcy if no bail out is given, and a new global recession is looming on the horizon.
Want to know why I think this is happening?
WDE
If any American candidate for office decides to use these words in any other context than a critical one... all of America should be very concerned.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Something I don't usually associate with Thanksgiving...
Many people here (participants and readers) know that I have, over the course of my 40+ years, tied on some spectacular drunks. Back in '87, I opened and closed, in the same night, the Grundy Bar and Grill in Room 116 of Ostrander Hall dormitory. That event is still talked of in hushed and reverent tones amongst those that were there. Not many years later, we had a little "get together" at a house I was renting on US Highway 2 in northern Wisconsin... and the epic amounts of Yukon Jack that were consumed boggle even my memories. Over the course of only two days prior to my wedding to Elizabeth in 2008, Jambo, Ryan, Liz and myself (with assorted other friends and family) drank nearly the entire $1000 bar we had bought for the actual wedding and reception... and we had to go out and restock our supplies at the last minute.
Weddings, birthdays, wakes (hey, I'm Irish), christenings, graduations, anniversaries... these are events that I associate with that kind of drinking and merry-making... not Thanksgiving. But this year proved to be the exception to the rule.
We had our Bund buddy Marshall over to the house for dinner (Liz had a FANTASTIC spread), and soon after we finished, Mick and his family showed up, followed almost immediately by Super Jon and Becky (of wedding party fame). The kids entertained themselves and the adults had a blast. I can't really explain how it happened, but Jon and I consumed an ENTIRE bottle of Jameson fine Irish Whiskey betweent the hours of 6 pm and 10 pm... and by 11 pm, I was some kind of drunk, let me tell you. Waking up this morning gave new meaning to "hung over" for me.
But, I suffered through the day (relief floor in four different pits, one was poker and the another was high limit bac) and made it home. Tonight, I soak in a hot tub, drink several gallons of cold water, and go immediately to sleep.
Hope everyone else had as much fun as we did...
Weddings, birthdays, wakes (hey, I'm Irish), christenings, graduations, anniversaries... these are events that I associate with that kind of drinking and merry-making... not Thanksgiving. But this year proved to be the exception to the rule.
We had our Bund buddy Marshall over to the house for dinner (Liz had a FANTASTIC spread), and soon after we finished, Mick and his family showed up, followed almost immediately by Super Jon and Becky (of wedding party fame). The kids entertained themselves and the adults had a blast. I can't really explain how it happened, but Jon and I consumed an ENTIRE bottle of Jameson fine Irish Whiskey betweent the hours of 6 pm and 10 pm... and by 11 pm, I was some kind of drunk, let me tell you. Waking up this morning gave new meaning to "hung over" for me.
But, I suffered through the day (relief floor in four different pits, one was poker and the another was high limit bac) and made it home. Tonight, I soak in a hot tub, drink several gallons of cold water, and go immediately to sleep.
Hope everyone else had as much fun as we did...
Thursday, November 25, 2010
My brothers from another mother!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING! Having one of your troops over so she won't be alone - now that's a CO, well done sir.
And thanks to ALL THE TROOPS today, for making our everyday lives safe. And for being so good at what you do that when I mentioned to my 11 year old that North Korea was firing on an ally that maintains 30,000 US troops he smiled and said 2 words ... "big mistake."
As it's me and the boys here, I'll be cooking the bird today. A four and a half hour endeavour typically reserved for the multiple, multiple, women in my family. Not a problem though - I'm very content to be with my sons, playing football outside later in the crisp cool air, Saints playing at 1:30p Vegas time, Watching episode 7 of The Pacific later, I'm off work ... all is well.
On North Korea, Titus is curious as to why I haven't posted on that developing situation because I zipped a text to him at 4am the morning the story broke. They fired on a South Korean Island, Yeonpyeong, and that tells me something which dovetails into Titus' "pure gold" suggestion to the White House. There's a reason they didn't hit S. Korea proper - the 30,000 US troops there. They don't want to poke the bear in such a direct fashion. They know that the US and the Armistice is the only possibility of real, direct action against them. The UN Security Council is laughable on the issue - they took months to condemn the North's sinking of a South Korean war ship and even then the council condemnation didn't mention North Korea by name, what a joke.
Enter Titus' suggestion. Much like my argument against "new gun laws", we should simply enforce those laws meant to corral North Korea already on the books. It drives me nuts that politicians and pundits look for some clever third way, something "different" in our approach because the status quo isn't getting results. We aren't getting results because we aren't enforcing any of the terms of the agreement outside of the formalities involved at the guard change on the 38th Parallel! Perpetually "new" resolutions and the votes of the Security Council are the status quo, and have a proven track record of failure. We have the Armistice in place to harass the North sufficiently to back them down. The men that set that up knew what they were doing. Their successors have failed at its upkeep (read: civilian leadership, not the military). Were every step Titus mentioned employed, not only would it be effective in corralling the North, it would be 100% legal. North Korea is a signatory to that Armistice, as much as we are, the consequences should begin to reign down rather then waiting on China, whom has zero incentive to see a Western friendly unified Korea on their Eastern border.
And by the way, if the White House wants some bold, new third way while still insisting that China be the governor on Kim Jong Il, then here's how you bring the Great Wall guards in line on the issue - under the same auspices that the Chinese and Russians defend Iran's "peaceful nuclear power ambitions", the US announces Japan's need for "peaceful nuclear power", and that the pens are out to ink that contract ... that'll get Premier Wen Jiabo's attention, I assure you.
And thanks to ALL THE TROOPS today, for making our everyday lives safe. And for being so good at what you do that when I mentioned to my 11 year old that North Korea was firing on an ally that maintains 30,000 US troops he smiled and said 2 words ... "big mistake."
As it's me and the boys here, I'll be cooking the bird today. A four and a half hour endeavour typically reserved for the multiple, multiple, women in my family. Not a problem though - I'm very content to be with my sons, playing football outside later in the crisp cool air, Saints playing at 1:30p Vegas time, Watching episode 7 of The Pacific later, I'm off work ... all is well.
On North Korea, Titus is curious as to why I haven't posted on that developing situation because I zipped a text to him at 4am the morning the story broke. They fired on a South Korean Island, Yeonpyeong, and that tells me something which dovetails into Titus' "pure gold" suggestion to the White House. There's a reason they didn't hit S. Korea proper - the 30,000 US troops there. They don't want to poke the bear in such a direct fashion. They know that the US and the Armistice is the only possibility of real, direct action against them. The UN Security Council is laughable on the issue - they took months to condemn the North's sinking of a South Korean war ship and even then the council condemnation didn't mention North Korea by name, what a joke.
Enter Titus' suggestion. Much like my argument against "new gun laws", we should simply enforce those laws meant to corral North Korea already on the books. It drives me nuts that politicians and pundits look for some clever third way, something "different" in our approach because the status quo isn't getting results. We aren't getting results because we aren't enforcing any of the terms of the agreement outside of the formalities involved at the guard change on the 38th Parallel! Perpetually "new" resolutions and the votes of the Security Council are the status quo, and have a proven track record of failure. We have the Armistice in place to harass the North sufficiently to back them down. The men that set that up knew what they were doing. Their successors have failed at its upkeep (read: civilian leadership, not the military). Were every step Titus mentioned employed, not only would it be effective in corralling the North, it would be 100% legal. North Korea is a signatory to that Armistice, as much as we are, the consequences should begin to reign down rather then waiting on China, whom has zero incentive to see a Western friendly unified Korea on their Eastern border.
And by the way, if the White House wants some bold, new third way while still insisting that China be the governor on Kim Jong Il, then here's how you bring the Great Wall guards in line on the issue - under the same auspices that the Chinese and Russians defend Iran's "peaceful nuclear power ambitions", the US announces Japan's need for "peaceful nuclear power", and that the pens are out to ink that contract ... that'll get Premier Wen Jiabo's attention, I assure you.
My Turkey Day rant...
I'm surprised that no one (especially Ryan) has commented on the artillery barrage that the North Koreans laid down on a civilian-inhabited island a couple of days ago. I've been following the story closely, because I am convinced... now more than ever... that North Korea is going to be the test that makes or breaks Obama as President of the United States.
Remember Biden talking about how the "new administration" would be tested? Well, this is the test, my friends. Obama has a far greater chance here to make a real difference than he ever did in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In those two theaters, Obama is facing the ugliest part of the job... cleaning up. The "high profile" aspect of those fights are long behind us, and (for good or bad) were handled by the previous administrations.
North Korea has been a foreign policy nightmare since Reagan was in office, and since the election of Bill Clinton, the standard policy of "appeasement and containment" has been proven to be the most dangerous course to take. Both Clinton and Bush Jr. followed the "pipe-dream" course of giving in to almost each and every demand for attention, funds, technology or diplomatic concessions that North Korea made. Even after the vaunted "Axis of Evil" speech by Bush, it only took a few short years before Bush lifted the sanctions that were driving the North Koreans to their economic and diplomatic knees... the very sanctions that drove them to restart their enrichment program in the first place.
To his credit, Obama has been "tough" on Pyongyang... right from the start of his administration. He's made no overt effort to upset the status quo, but he's made no substantial efforts to appease, either... and none of the last three Presidents can say that, can they? Now that Kim Jong Il and his half-pint clone (I mean son) have decided to shell the hell out of a midsized fishing community in the Yellow Sea, even Obama has voiced what almost noone else has: This is a direct violation of the terms of the 1953 Armistice Agreement that ended the Korean War (at least the shooting part of it).
Here's my advice, if you're reading this, Mr. President:
End the training exercise delays currently holding up both the US and Korean Navy ships operating in the Yellow Sea, and keep them working within the 400 km "exclusion zone" that NK demands be recognized. No other nation on earth recognizes that expanse of exclusion (the norm is 80 miles, for safety sake)... so we shouldn't either. If NK decides that shooting is their best defense, then let them. They might be good at shelling civilians on remote islands... but taking on the most powerful naval force ever to have floated the sea is another story completely.
Reimpose the sanctions that Bush lifted in 2008... immediately. If NK hasn't proven to the world that their enrichment programs is dead and buried, then the very premise for Bush's lifting of the sanctions is null and void. Cut them off at the knees.
Stop demanding that China be the one to "muscle" its tiny neighbor into line. They won't do it... EVER. Not seriously, anyway. What possible good could come to China if North Korea and South Korea ever decided to get along? Even a Kim Jong Il ruling one half of a divided Korea is better, to them, than having a unified Korea (or even a cooperative Korean penisula) that could take matters of foreign policy and trade into their own hands. China doesn't want a unified or cooperative Korea... at all, end of story. They want the status quo... a fortified border tying up 30,000 US troops and hundreds of billions of US dollars every year that ISN'T costing the Chinese anything at all. Japanese and South Korean economic growth on the Yellow Sea will always be hampered by the chance of North Korean aggression... but that won't stop the Chinese one iota... not one. It certainly shouldn't stop us, either.
Start enforcing the UN sanctions that are STILL in place since 1953... search and seize ships bound for the North that might be carrying contraband material, and do the same with ships leaving the North that might be headed for places like Gaza, north Africa, Indonesia, or the ports that feed Yemen, Afghanistan and Ceylon terror cells and groups.
Put the pressure on the South Koreans to END the joint economic ventures that allow Western money to go north, and northern forced labor to work south. It is tantamount to indentured servitude, and I fail to see how it can be acceptable for the US to support such a policy, even if the support is de facto.
How is this tough? If someone at the White House is reading this... pay attention. This is pure gold, here.
Remember Biden talking about how the "new administration" would be tested? Well, this is the test, my friends. Obama has a far greater chance here to make a real difference than he ever did in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In those two theaters, Obama is facing the ugliest part of the job... cleaning up. The "high profile" aspect of those fights are long behind us, and (for good or bad) were handled by the previous administrations.
North Korea has been a foreign policy nightmare since Reagan was in office, and since the election of Bill Clinton, the standard policy of "appeasement and containment" has been proven to be the most dangerous course to take. Both Clinton and Bush Jr. followed the "pipe-dream" course of giving in to almost each and every demand for attention, funds, technology or diplomatic concessions that North Korea made. Even after the vaunted "Axis of Evil" speech by Bush, it only took a few short years before Bush lifted the sanctions that were driving the North Koreans to their economic and diplomatic knees... the very sanctions that drove them to restart their enrichment program in the first place.
To his credit, Obama has been "tough" on Pyongyang... right from the start of his administration. He's made no overt effort to upset the status quo, but he's made no substantial efforts to appease, either... and none of the last three Presidents can say that, can they? Now that Kim Jong Il and his half-pint clone (I mean son) have decided to shell the hell out of a midsized fishing community in the Yellow Sea, even Obama has voiced what almost noone else has: This is a direct violation of the terms of the 1953 Armistice Agreement that ended the Korean War (at least the shooting part of it).
Here's my advice, if you're reading this, Mr. President:
End the training exercise delays currently holding up both the US and Korean Navy ships operating in the Yellow Sea, and keep them working within the 400 km "exclusion zone" that NK demands be recognized. No other nation on earth recognizes that expanse of exclusion (the norm is 80 miles, for safety sake)... so we shouldn't either. If NK decides that shooting is their best defense, then let them. They might be good at shelling civilians on remote islands... but taking on the most powerful naval force ever to have floated the sea is another story completely.
Reimpose the sanctions that Bush lifted in 2008... immediately. If NK hasn't proven to the world that their enrichment programs is dead and buried, then the very premise for Bush's lifting of the sanctions is null and void. Cut them off at the knees.
Stop demanding that China be the one to "muscle" its tiny neighbor into line. They won't do it... EVER. Not seriously, anyway. What possible good could come to China if North Korea and South Korea ever decided to get along? Even a Kim Jong Il ruling one half of a divided Korea is better, to them, than having a unified Korea (or even a cooperative Korean penisula) that could take matters of foreign policy and trade into their own hands. China doesn't want a unified or cooperative Korea... at all, end of story. They want the status quo... a fortified border tying up 30,000 US troops and hundreds of billions of US dollars every year that ISN'T costing the Chinese anything at all. Japanese and South Korean economic growth on the Yellow Sea will always be hampered by the chance of North Korean aggression... but that won't stop the Chinese one iota... not one. It certainly shouldn't stop us, either.
Start enforcing the UN sanctions that are STILL in place since 1953... search and seize ships bound for the North that might be carrying contraband material, and do the same with ships leaving the North that might be headed for places like Gaza, north Africa, Indonesia, or the ports that feed Yemen, Afghanistan and Ceylon terror cells and groups.
Put the pressure on the South Koreans to END the joint economic ventures that allow Western money to go north, and northern forced labor to work south. It is tantamount to indentured servitude, and I fail to see how it can be acceptable for the US to support such a policy, even if the support is de facto.
How is this tough? If someone at the White House is reading this... pay attention. This is pure gold, here.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Of all the secular holidays, this one is my favorite. I'm running around this morning (and spent the better part of yesterday) getting things ready for our big feast, and tensions and tempers are a bit high here in NEPA... but it is a good day.
It is also our oldest's birthday today. Happy Birthday to Katey Jean! I am very thankful for you being in my life, and I am very proud of the woman you've turned into. I hope you have a great day, my love!
We'll be having roast turkey (no deep frier this year... didn't get the oil and gas in time), potatoes, lots of casseroles, pies and crisps, wine and beer, a birthday cake for Katey, and we're hoping the weather doesn't get too bad. It feels more than cold enough to snow, but it is only calling for rain.
I hope everyone reading this has a great day, and that they are surrounded by their family and friends and all they are thankful for this year.
It is also our oldest's birthday today. Happy Birthday to Katey Jean! I am very thankful for you being in my life, and I am very proud of the woman you've turned into. I hope you have a great day, my love!
We'll be having roast turkey (no deep frier this year... didn't get the oil and gas in time), potatoes, lots of casseroles, pies and crisps, wine and beer, a birthday cake for Katey, and we're hoping the weather doesn't get too bad. It feels more than cold enough to snow, but it is only calling for rain.
I hope everyone reading this has a great day, and that they are surrounded by their family and friends and all they are thankful for this year.
It was a war for sure
George Washington and the Continental Army acted on behalf of the Continental Congress, which although didn't represent the majority of the people and was not democratically elected did control the military. So I believe that the Continental Congress acting against the British Crown is government against Government. They also acted against the British Military and their agents, not the civilian population so by the definitions that we have been speaking it was a war.
One of the examples that was used in an earlier post was the French Resistence. The resistance was in my belief acting on behalf of the French Government in exile (whether they knew it or not) and if not them then the Allied effort to oust the Nazi Regime from France. They supported the war effort by aiding downed Airman escape back to allied lines and they worked to interrupt german supply lines and lines of communication. Although they used assymetrical methods of warfare to achieve their objective I wouldn't define them as terrorists.
I would say that throughout history you will find governments at war that are unpopular with the majority of the people they represent and yet those agencies still wage war on their behalf.
One of the examples that was used in an earlier post was the French Resistence. The resistance was in my belief acting on behalf of the French Government in exile (whether they knew it or not) and if not them then the Allied effort to oust the Nazi Regime from France. They supported the war effort by aiding downed Airman escape back to allied lines and they worked to interrupt german supply lines and lines of communication. Although they used assymetrical methods of warfare to achieve their objective I wouldn't define them as terrorists.
I would say that throughout history you will find governments at war that are unpopular with the majority of the people they represent and yet those agencies still wage war on their behalf.
No, I see what you're saying...
I can't even bring myself to say I disagree with you... because "war" as I define it is (typically) something waged on a national level, and without the support of a "nation" it can't be fought or won.
I'm the one that wasn't clear. The Continental Congress didn't "represent" an electorate, and they certainly didn't represent the majority of the citizens of their various colonies. That being the case, were they a "government" as you would define them? Or, was the war for American independence legitimate without the participation of a "national" government? Or even without the support of the majority of people living within the colonies?
I'm curious, that's all. This isn't something we disagree on, anyway... keep that in mind.
I'm the one that wasn't clear. The Continental Congress didn't "represent" an electorate, and they certainly didn't represent the majority of the citizens of their various colonies. That being the case, were they a "government" as you would define them? Or, was the war for American independence legitimate without the participation of a "national" government? Or even without the support of the majority of people living within the colonies?
I'm curious, that's all. This isn't something we disagree on, anyway... keep that in mind.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Apple tree vs Orange tree
Titus said: "Add up all the deaths attributed to bin Laden, the PLO, the IRA, Hezbollah, the Red Brigade, the Black Hand, or the Ku Klux Klan... and then compare it to the deaths attributed to the governments of Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Third Reich, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Franco's Fascist Spain, Khomeini's Revolutionary Iran, and Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq. Given that comparison, which is the greater threat of terror on an epic scale: terrorists or established governments?"
I still stand by the statement that "War" is waged between governments. Everything above is terror. Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam these are examples of terror being commited upon their own citizens by their own government.
I think that the Cold War would be a good example of two governments waging war by-proxy. The Americans supplying weapons to Afghan rebels so they could fight the Soviets. The soviets and Chinese supplying the North Vietnamese with not only their weapons but with our own captured weapons from Korea.
My example of state sponsored Terrorism would be Iran supplying Hezbollah with weapons so they can target Israeli civilians.
I hope this better explains my postition
I still stand by the statement that "War" is waged between governments. Everything above is terror. Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam these are examples of terror being commited upon their own citizens by their own government.
I think that the Cold War would be a good example of two governments waging war by-proxy. The Americans supplying weapons to Afghan rebels so they could fight the Soviets. The soviets and Chinese supplying the North Vietnamese with not only their weapons but with our own captured weapons from Korea.
My example of state sponsored Terrorism would be Iran supplying Hezbollah with weapons so they can target Israeli civilians.
I hope this better explains my postition
Let's look at one tree, then...
Badbboy's point is valid, and I'd like to follow it up.
Assuming a government is a requirement for a "just war" (I'm using a term that has multiple meanings here... in this case, I mean a war that is just in its aims and conduct), was the conflict that has become known as the American Revolutionary War an act of insurrection, or a war between established states? Was the American Revolution a "war" or not, as you have defined it?
I'm going to assume that you think it was, since the Continental Congress had both declared its independence and constituted a representative government out of the delegates from the thirteen colonies.
It has been postulated that as much as 50% of the living population at the time, however, considered themselves "British" well into 1777, especially in New York, New Jersey and New England. Much of Philadelphia, New York City, Trenton, and Baltimore remained staunchly "loyalist" in their views and opinions. Even Washington himself was (by his own words) fighting for concessions from Parliament and the Crown right up until May of 1776 (nearly two years into the war), and not for American independence.
What sort of "war" can we assume was being waged if the population of the various states and colonies fighting the "sovereign" empire that was Great Britain wasn't supporting the effort by even 50% as late as 1777? If the Continental Congress wasn't representing the "majority" of Americans... who were they representing, and how were the rights and freedoms of those other "citizens" being protected? How just of a war did those men and women see the fight against George III?
Don't get me wrong here... I'm not picking fights, and I'm not suggesting that the leaders of the American Revolution were terrorists. The right side won that fight, believe me. My whole point in this thread and discussion is that this is a slippery slope, and Ryan gets pissed at me all the time for saying it... but I'll say it again anyway: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Facts like "Lend Lease" aside, FDR ran a campaign of isolationism all through the Great Depression years (I still shudder to type those words)... even though he was always committed to his views that America's future was tied to that of Great Britain. He knew war was coming... but couldn't afford to lose public support for his administrations because he was willing to send Americans into another European war. Right up until Saturday, December 6th, 1941... America maintained a majority opinion that Hitler was NOT their problem, and the Japanese were not going to get past the Chinese and bother us. Was that "consensus" correct? Was the government of the US right, prior to 12-7-41? This has always been a burr for me... so many historians and pundits point fingers at Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" quote, but his position wasn't that different than anyone in Washington DC prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, was it?
I would also ask that we look at the other side of this coin:
If only governments can wage war, why then can governments be so good at conducting or supporting terror? The vast majority of terrorist crimes and atrocities that have occurred over the course of... lets say the last 150 years, have been perpetrated by established governments, and not by small groups or rogue bands of madmen. Add up all the deaths attributed to bin Laden, the PLO, the IRA, Hezbollah, the Red Brigade, the Black Hand, or the Ku Klux Klan... and then compare it to the deaths attributed to the governments of Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Third Reich, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Franco's Fascist Spain, Khomeini's Revolutionary Iran, and Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq. Given that comparison, which is the greater threat of terror on an epic scale: terrorists or established governments?
Assuming a government is a requirement for a "just war" (I'm using a term that has multiple meanings here... in this case, I mean a war that is just in its aims and conduct), was the conflict that has become known as the American Revolutionary War an act of insurrection, or a war between established states? Was the American Revolution a "war" or not, as you have defined it?
I'm going to assume that you think it was, since the Continental Congress had both declared its independence and constituted a representative government out of the delegates from the thirteen colonies.
It has been postulated that as much as 50% of the living population at the time, however, considered themselves "British" well into 1777, especially in New York, New Jersey and New England. Much of Philadelphia, New York City, Trenton, and Baltimore remained staunchly "loyalist" in their views and opinions. Even Washington himself was (by his own words) fighting for concessions from Parliament and the Crown right up until May of 1776 (nearly two years into the war), and not for American independence.
What sort of "war" can we assume was being waged if the population of the various states and colonies fighting the "sovereign" empire that was Great Britain wasn't supporting the effort by even 50% as late as 1777? If the Continental Congress wasn't representing the "majority" of Americans... who were they representing, and how were the rights and freedoms of those other "citizens" being protected? How just of a war did those men and women see the fight against George III?
Don't get me wrong here... I'm not picking fights, and I'm not suggesting that the leaders of the American Revolution were terrorists. The right side won that fight, believe me. My whole point in this thread and discussion is that this is a slippery slope, and Ryan gets pissed at me all the time for saying it... but I'll say it again anyway: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Facts like "Lend Lease" aside, FDR ran a campaign of isolationism all through the Great Depression years (I still shudder to type those words)... even though he was always committed to his views that America's future was tied to that of Great Britain. He knew war was coming... but couldn't afford to lose public support for his administrations because he was willing to send Americans into another European war. Right up until Saturday, December 6th, 1941... America maintained a majority opinion that Hitler was NOT their problem, and the Japanese were not going to get past the Chinese and bother us. Was that "consensus" correct? Was the government of the US right, prior to 12-7-41? This has always been a burr for me... so many historians and pundits point fingers at Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" quote, but his position wasn't that different than anyone in Washington DC prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, was it?
I would also ask that we look at the other side of this coin:
If only governments can wage war, why then can governments be so good at conducting or supporting terror? The vast majority of terrorist crimes and atrocities that have occurred over the course of... lets say the last 150 years, have been perpetrated by established governments, and not by small groups or rogue bands of madmen. Add up all the deaths attributed to bin Laden, the PLO, the IRA, Hezbollah, the Red Brigade, the Black Hand, or the Ku Klux Klan... and then compare it to the deaths attributed to the governments of Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Third Reich, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Franco's Fascist Spain, Khomeini's Revolutionary Iran, and Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq. Given that comparison, which is the greater threat of terror on an epic scale: terrorists or established governments?
Now that I think about it
There is another thing about war that terrorism doesn't have and that is law. There are laws and believe it or not a moral code that most government stand by when carrying out military action, for example the Geneva Convention. Terrorists will usually target anything that will bring them the most publicity or bring them closer to their end goal so there isn't much that is they won't target. Civilians and children seem to be a favorite target, the Russian elementary school that the Chechyan terrorists targeted got them a bunch of publicity and made the Russian Military and Police look like a bunch of buffoons. Law of Armed Conflict states that civilians must be avoided at all costs and houses of worship and hospitals that aren't being used for direct military action are off limits. Wounded soldiers that cannot fight are off limits and Doctors, Medics and Chaplains are non combatants and are to be treated as such. Terrorists don't live by that same code and if it will bring them publicity they will intentionally choose those targets.
I know we can pick this apart with specific episodes where these codes weren't abided by, even by the United States but as a rule we do our best to follow this code. Just remember, militaries are just an instrument by which GOVERNMENTS engage in war.
I know we can pick this apart with specific episodes where these codes weren't abided by, even by the United States but as a rule we do our best to follow this code. Just remember, militaries are just an instrument by which GOVERNMENTS engage in war.
I can't see the forest through the trees
I would just like to point out one thing, War is waged between governments. If offensive military type actions are being executed without oversight of government I would argue that it is not "Total War" but an act of terrorism. I don't know anything about Ireland in the early 20th century but I do know about Israel and I would say that the Irgun for sure and the Haganah in the end turned into terrorist organizations.
Whether you are fighting for a Communist Cuba, a free Ireland or Jewish Immigration to the Holy Land if you are not government sanctioned it's not a war.
Just my opinion
Whether you are fighting for a Communist Cuba, a free Ireland or Jewish Immigration to the Holy Land if you are not government sanctioned it's not a war.
Just my opinion
Total War
A group of militants launching assassination-like attacks against military personnel and targets and NOT blindly or randomly attacking civilian targets or personnel in my opinion doesn't qualify as terror.
Now someone on the British side may argue, and have a point. But this is my opinion. Slaughtering civilians with car bombs because they're Protestant OR Catholic, or opening fire into crowds of civilians with automatic weapons because they're parading through your neighborhood... We're getting a picture here right? Collins waged a war with all he had. The IRA later on waged a war of self-perpetuation, as did the Protestant groups.
Does that answer the question? Even the debacle that was the Easter Rebellion was an attack and an attempted hold of a government postal building... Not a bomb at a railway station or a jammed market.
Have to get ready for work, more later.
Now someone on the British side may argue, and have a point. But this is my opinion. Slaughtering civilians with car bombs because they're Protestant OR Catholic, or opening fire into crowds of civilians with automatic weapons because they're parading through your neighborhood... We're getting a picture here right? Collins waged a war with all he had. The IRA later on waged a war of self-perpetuation, as did the Protestant groups.
Does that answer the question? Even the debacle that was the Easter Rebellion was an attack and an attempted hold of a government postal building... Not a bomb at a railway station or a jammed market.
Have to get ready for work, more later.
Speaking of pubs...
Got a voice mail from Mick and it seems he's found a new Irish pub with Guinness and Smithwicks on tap... all the charm and atmosphere of "home" (for him) and hopefully quite a bit closer to home than the Banshee.
We might have new digs next time you boys show up here for a Bund reunion...
We might have new digs next time you boys show up here for a Bund reunion...
"The Troubles"
I assumed Jambo meant the era described above: 1970"s-80's (leave it to the Brits to refer to such a calamity of violence with such a subtle title). I say this because he made note of Jerry Adams' image adorning the joint, captured in background of that Bund picture in fact, when noting "a known terrorist was plastered all over the wall of that bar..." Unless Collins was there too, and if so I don't remember (little wonder why). In either event that was the era of IRA I was referencing when I noted they "did participate in terrorist attacks."
Maybe you're right about the bar tab ... in either event I'm opting to continue that complaint (he,he). Hell, it was the only quasi-complaint of the entire trip (outside of "Super John" repeatedly making my efforts to "pitch in" look pathetically anemic .... sheeesh guy, sit down next time, I'm on vacation over here!)
Maybe you're right about the bar tab ... in either event I'm opting to continue that complaint (he,he). Hell, it was the only quasi-complaint of the entire trip (outside of "Super John" repeatedly making my efforts to "pitch in" look pathetically anemic .... sheeesh guy, sit down next time, I'm on vacation over here!)
Good points, all...
Especially if you were referring to the barkeep we had the night we went to the pub shown in our Bund-pic, but I told you, she wasn't my favorite. That woman weighed as much as any two of us combined and knew how to make a night at the bar truly memorable without breaking the bank. I also sometimes wonder if you guys aren't a little TOO tough on the red-head... I know $240 is a BIG tab, but are we factoring in just how much we did drink that night? Seems to me that I recall seeing a bill with nearly 30 pints on it, plus at least Mick and I ate something (Leona, too, I think). We killed a keg of stout, for Pete's sake... and I think we only spilled the one glass. We were there nealy five hours... and with four grown men drinking, that's not that bad a bill, is it?
I'm inclined to think that a fairly strong case could be made that Collins (and I need to stress the difference here... I'm referring to Michael Collins and the IRA he led from 1917 to the institution of the Free State in 1922, NOT the IRA of the early 1970's that bombed bars, nightclubs and bus stops) did all in his power to avoid purely civilian attacks. He restricted his men (his "apostles") to a system of assassination of British officials and known Irish collaborators... he wasn't targeting shopping areas, markets or crowded buses. His attacks were brutal, merciless and fast, and most historians will agree his success stemmed from using the tactics and strategies of the British intelligence services against them... rather than reinventing methods to counter established British methods.
I guess if I had to answer my own questions, I'd say the difference was in the means by which modern terrorists attack and kill randomly, while Collins was always surgically specific in his attacks. Yes, I can agree that there is a lack of nobility and chivalry in shooting the chief British intelligence officer assigned to Dublin Castle dead in his own morning shower without a stitch of clothing on... but the man was a legitimate "military" target, yes? The man was a threat to the effort of Irish independence, and thus NOT a civilian. The man declared war on the rebellion, and paid the price for his declaration.
Furthermore, I agree whole heartedly that our "founding fathers" were NOT "terrorist"... not even of the same sort of "rebels" as Collins, in truth. Washington, Green, Knox, et al were leaders of standing army formations leading "uniformed" troops and militia (in as much as we had a uniform) into pitched battles against standing British armies. Contemporary military etiquette was followed with minute attention on both sides of the fight (with very few exceptions, again, on both sides... Tarleton on the British, Sullivan on the American), and that isn't seen at all in the Irish fight for independence outside of the surrender of the garrison at the General Post Office in 1916.
I think I was just wondering if Jambo really equated the effort of Collins and his men (and De Valera, too) with the term "terrorist" in his previous post. I'm sure he didn't, but his statement concerning the IRA was rather broad and quite general, and I wanted to be sure, that's all.
I'm inclined to think that a fairly strong case could be made that Collins (and I need to stress the difference here... I'm referring to Michael Collins and the IRA he led from 1917 to the institution of the Free State in 1922, NOT the IRA of the early 1970's that bombed bars, nightclubs and bus stops) did all in his power to avoid purely civilian attacks. He restricted his men (his "apostles") to a system of assassination of British officials and known Irish collaborators... he wasn't targeting shopping areas, markets or crowded buses. His attacks were brutal, merciless and fast, and most historians will agree his success stemmed from using the tactics and strategies of the British intelligence services against them... rather than reinventing methods to counter established British methods.
I guess if I had to answer my own questions, I'd say the difference was in the means by which modern terrorists attack and kill randomly, while Collins was always surgically specific in his attacks. Yes, I can agree that there is a lack of nobility and chivalry in shooting the chief British intelligence officer assigned to Dublin Castle dead in his own morning shower without a stitch of clothing on... but the man was a legitimate "military" target, yes? The man was a threat to the effort of Irish independence, and thus NOT a civilian. The man declared war on the rebellion, and paid the price for his declaration.
Furthermore, I agree whole heartedly that our "founding fathers" were NOT "terrorist"... not even of the same sort of "rebels" as Collins, in truth. Washington, Green, Knox, et al were leaders of standing army formations leading "uniformed" troops and militia (in as much as we had a uniform) into pitched battles against standing British armies. Contemporary military etiquette was followed with minute attention on both sides of the fight (with very few exceptions, again, on both sides... Tarleton on the British, Sullivan on the American), and that isn't seen at all in the Irish fight for independence outside of the surrender of the garrison at the General Post Office in 1916.
I think I was just wondering if Jambo really equated the effort of Collins and his men (and De Valera, too) with the term "terrorist" in his previous post. I'm sure he didn't, but his statement concerning the IRA was rather broad and quite general, and I wanted to be sure, that's all.
Not a drop of spillage!
That red head in the bar - it was a great place and all, great feel, atmosphere. But I've never been tended by a bar maid in my life that didn't keep the tab lighter the more you padded her own pocket. Next time we ask which girl in there has kids to feed at home, that's our gal.
I was thinking about this question, Titus. It's along the lines of the quintessential "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", a phrase that typically induces my eyes into a noticeable roll. You went a bit further, asking when is it simply a matter of waging "total war", as part of grand strategy. It's a good question, particularly concerning the Irish.
And I have 2 quick points that I think help identify a possible answer.
First: terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature.
Cruise the web from trusted sources, and you'll find variations on this theme, but that's the gist. Some excerpt "civilians", most do not.
With that in mind I started ticking off "groups" in my head. Al Qeada - terrorists. French underground - resistance (freedom) fighters. Nicaragua Rebels; Castro's merry band of thugs, etc, etc. And with most it was fairly easy to say "terrorists" or "freedom fighters." And I thought about why.
It seems to me that there are 2 qualifiers that more often then not get you rather quickly tossed into one group or the other (far as I can tell):
1.) It matters what type of government the "group" is attacking. In other words, I can't think of a single act of violence against a democratized nation that was NOT called an act of terrorism. I assume this is because democracies (as the West defines them today), are not (theoretically) in the business of "oppression." And the converse is true: I can't think of a single act of violence against a despot or authoritarian regime that wasn't labeled an act of "resistance" (at least until, in certain cases, the resistance fighters assumed control and asserted their own despotism). Attack a democratized "free" state and your likely to be condemned as a terrorist. Attack a dictatorship and your likely to be glorified as a "scrappy rebel."
2.) It matters what form of government the "group" is fighting to establish. If the stated goal is a representative republic, or some other form of democracy or "freedom", then obviously the likelihood is that both contemporaries and historians will judge them "resistance" (especially if that goal is carried out - it was in India, it wasn't in Cuba). If the stated goal is to form a world-wide fascistic Caliphate, well ... you see where this is going.
Again, I'm just thinking extemporaneously. But these 2 parameters seem to be fairly consistent gauges. Which is what makes the Irish question so complex - they qualify as terrorists under #1, and as freedom fighters under #2.
Just a thought...
And just for the record, the IRA did engage in acts of terrorism, which must be utterly rejected, period. But the total war question when applied to various "groups" is a much more complex narrative (i.e. I'm not going to listen to anyone call my Founding Fathers "terrorists").
I was thinking about this question, Titus. It's along the lines of the quintessential "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", a phrase that typically induces my eyes into a noticeable roll. You went a bit further, asking when is it simply a matter of waging "total war", as part of grand strategy. It's a good question, particularly concerning the Irish.
And I have 2 quick points that I think help identify a possible answer.
First: terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature.
Cruise the web from trusted sources, and you'll find variations on this theme, but that's the gist. Some excerpt "civilians", most do not.
With that in mind I started ticking off "groups" in my head. Al Qeada - terrorists. French underground - resistance (freedom) fighters. Nicaragua Rebels; Castro's merry band of thugs, etc, etc. And with most it was fairly easy to say "terrorists" or "freedom fighters." And I thought about why.
It seems to me that there are 2 qualifiers that more often then not get you rather quickly tossed into one group or the other (far as I can tell):
1.) It matters what type of government the "group" is attacking. In other words, I can't think of a single act of violence against a democratized nation that was NOT called an act of terrorism. I assume this is because democracies (as the West defines them today), are not (theoretically) in the business of "oppression." And the converse is true: I can't think of a single act of violence against a despot or authoritarian regime that wasn't labeled an act of "resistance" (at least until, in certain cases, the resistance fighters assumed control and asserted their own despotism). Attack a democratized "free" state and your likely to be condemned as a terrorist. Attack a dictatorship and your likely to be glorified as a "scrappy rebel."
2.) It matters what form of government the "group" is fighting to establish. If the stated goal is a representative republic, or some other form of democracy or "freedom", then obviously the likelihood is that both contemporaries and historians will judge them "resistance" (especially if that goal is carried out - it was in India, it wasn't in Cuba). If the stated goal is to form a world-wide fascistic Caliphate, well ... you see where this is going.
Again, I'm just thinking extemporaneously. But these 2 parameters seem to be fairly consistent gauges. Which is what makes the Irish question so complex - they qualify as terrorists under #1, and as freedom fighters under #2.
Just a thought...
And just for the record, the IRA did engage in acts of terrorism, which must be utterly rejected, period. But the total war question when applied to various "groups" is a much more complex narrative (i.e. I'm not going to listen to anyone call my Founding Fathers "terrorists").
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Question for Jambo...
Jambo wrote:
"I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable. "
Question: When is "terror" terrorism, and when is "total war" an acceptable part of grand strategy?
Michael Collins is seen (almost entirely) as either a national hero/patriot or as a war criminal/terrorist. His stated defense for his actions during the guerrilla campaign was that he was waging "total war"... and he employed terror techniques to accomplish his goals, but the terror itself was never his goal.
This is a case were we can see both the before and after of the situation. Prior to 1917, Ireland had no legitimate representation within the British government. Both Scotland and Wales today have a greater degree of self-determination within the United Kingdom than all of Ireland did prior to the Easter Rising. Because of the efforts of men like Collins, there now exists an independent, democratic republic where none existed before, and millions of people are free to exercise their rights and liberties as they see fit through a model, modern representative system of government.
Does the Irish Republic exist today because of the efforts and actions of Collins (and those like him) between 1916 and 1922, or does it exist in spite of those efforts and actions?
The definition of "grand strategy" is: "...purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community...", and Collins was the man in charge of the "security community" during the years in question. He certainly didn't deny the responsibility and consequences of his actions and decision... so no question remains as to who is responsible for what was done under the authority of the Provisional Irish Republican government. His stated intentions were to cripple the ability of the British government to administer and govern effectively... and he succeeded.
I guess my question is this: My grandfather fought with and received honors and medals from the French government for his efforts to support the French resistance movement during the last years of WWII. These men and women fought a guerrilla war that included acts of sabotage, assassinations, bombings of trains... and civilian deaths, while unfortunate, were seen as an acceptable risk by both the French and the Allies in general. Were the efforts of the French resistance better or worse than the efforts of the IRA and the Republicans between 1916 and 1922? Can one be "legitimate" and the other not?
"I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable. "
Question: When is "terror" terrorism, and when is "total war" an acceptable part of grand strategy?
Michael Collins is seen (almost entirely) as either a national hero/patriot or as a war criminal/terrorist. His stated defense for his actions during the guerrilla campaign was that he was waging "total war"... and he employed terror techniques to accomplish his goals, but the terror itself was never his goal.
This is a case were we can see both the before and after of the situation. Prior to 1917, Ireland had no legitimate representation within the British government. Both Scotland and Wales today have a greater degree of self-determination within the United Kingdom than all of Ireland did prior to the Easter Rising. Because of the efforts of men like Collins, there now exists an independent, democratic republic where none existed before, and millions of people are free to exercise their rights and liberties as they see fit through a model, modern representative system of government.
Does the Irish Republic exist today because of the efforts and actions of Collins (and those like him) between 1916 and 1922, or does it exist in spite of those efforts and actions?
The definition of "grand strategy" is: "...purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community...", and Collins was the man in charge of the "security community" during the years in question. He certainly didn't deny the responsibility and consequences of his actions and decision... so no question remains as to who is responsible for what was done under the authority of the Provisional Irish Republican government. His stated intentions were to cripple the ability of the British government to administer and govern effectively... and he succeeded.
I guess my question is this: My grandfather fought with and received honors and medals from the French government for his efforts to support the French resistance movement during the last years of WWII. These men and women fought a guerrilla war that included acts of sabotage, assassinations, bombings of trains... and civilian deaths, while unfortunate, were seen as an acceptable risk by both the French and the Allies in general. Were the efforts of the French resistance better or worse than the efforts of the IRA and the Republicans between 1916 and 1922? Can one be "legitimate" and the other not?
Part III...
The United States of America has complete sovereignty over all lands, territories, districts and holdings currently understood to be part of the US. No disputed areas exist, to the best of my knowledge.
The Federal government has the final authority over all areas and territories. All Native American lands fall currently into two categories: Federal reservations or privately owned property. In the area of reservations, the Fed is the only authority greater than the reservation itself... no State, county or municipality can supersede them.
As far as I am concerned, the settlements by the Federal government over the last 65 years has been satisfactory for both parties (the various Indian tribes and the Fed)... not because I'm an expert or an authority, but because the Supreme Court of the United States said it was. The various tribes can continue to demand that certain tracts of land be returned to the Indians and tribes, and the can continue to refuse to use the settlement moneys that are growing in trust on a daily basis, in the hopes for some future settlement for past failings or violations, but I don't think that will happen.
In this instance, the status quo is where we are supposed to be. This is one of the very few time when I can say with confidence that I think Washington would have been proud of where we are today. True equality under the law is what he wanted with the Indians, and while he (and most of his successors) failed to achieve that, there is no question that it exists now.
This begs the question of whether or not Jambo's point about "legal entitlement" is where they should be. I say yes, if for no other reason than it was a ball that began rolling with treaties and agreements made between the US government and the sovereign governments of recognized and established Indian nations. These peoples have the same rights and freedoms under the Constitution as any other American, and these "governments" have the same autonomy and authority as any other political territory within the US now... be it a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a district like D.C., or a Protectorate like the Virgin Islands or Wake Island... and I feel that is fine. They are responsible for the cost of their infrastructure now (on almost every reservation across the land) and take no money from the Fed for things like healthcare, education, housing, and roads. For the first time since the country's inception, they are "autonomous". They have their own industries, businesses, governments and schools. What more could anyone hope for a people, community or society?
I don't want anyone to think that the "obligation" for the treaties that were entered into by the Indian nations and the Fed are held by the Feds alone. In signing the treaties and agreements, the Indian governments took on a degree of obligation, too... and that is why they are American first, and "tribal" second. This might not be the mind-set of every single Native American on the map... but it is where I believe everyone should be, and that is what I think (I make no assumptions here, as per my last post) Ryan was asking me: what is MY opinion.
The Federal government has the final authority over all areas and territories. All Native American lands fall currently into two categories: Federal reservations or privately owned property. In the area of reservations, the Fed is the only authority greater than the reservation itself... no State, county or municipality can supersede them.
As far as I am concerned, the settlements by the Federal government over the last 65 years has been satisfactory for both parties (the various Indian tribes and the Fed)... not because I'm an expert or an authority, but because the Supreme Court of the United States said it was. The various tribes can continue to demand that certain tracts of land be returned to the Indians and tribes, and the can continue to refuse to use the settlement moneys that are growing in trust on a daily basis, in the hopes for some future settlement for past failings or violations, but I don't think that will happen.
In this instance, the status quo is where we are supposed to be. This is one of the very few time when I can say with confidence that I think Washington would have been proud of where we are today. True equality under the law is what he wanted with the Indians, and while he (and most of his successors) failed to achieve that, there is no question that it exists now.
This begs the question of whether or not Jambo's point about "legal entitlement" is where they should be. I say yes, if for no other reason than it was a ball that began rolling with treaties and agreements made between the US government and the sovereign governments of recognized and established Indian nations. These peoples have the same rights and freedoms under the Constitution as any other American, and these "governments" have the same autonomy and authority as any other political territory within the US now... be it a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a district like D.C., or a Protectorate like the Virgin Islands or Wake Island... and I feel that is fine. They are responsible for the cost of their infrastructure now (on almost every reservation across the land) and take no money from the Fed for things like healthcare, education, housing, and roads. For the first time since the country's inception, they are "autonomous". They have their own industries, businesses, governments and schools. What more could anyone hope for a people, community or society?
I don't want anyone to think that the "obligation" for the treaties that were entered into by the Indian nations and the Fed are held by the Feds alone. In signing the treaties and agreements, the Indian governments took on a degree of obligation, too... and that is why they are American first, and "tribal" second. This might not be the mind-set of every single Native American on the map... but it is where I believe everyone should be, and that is what I think (I make no assumptions here, as per my last post) Ryan was asking me: what is MY opinion.
Part III?
Im good with everything you wrote, but there is the matter of my question in "Part III." Im genuinely curious.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Great November Peace...
We really should start naming these moratoriums we keep having after our knock-down, drag-out, fisticuffs Bund-Brawls... something to mark the event by, you know what I mean?
Everyone knows the Treaty of Paris, or the Peace of Amiens, or the Good Friday Accords... what better way can we have to mark our "historic" moments of reconciliation and/or mutual understanding?
As regards the poster (could this be remembered as the First Poster War?), I will say this about my position within the entire debate:
I think it was in bad taste (the poster, not the debate).
I think the examples of anti-Obama posters I found were in bad taste.
I think all fit nicely in the realm of Free Speech, and none is more offensive than another (of these examples).
As regards the "questionable" title coined by Ryan:
I didn't give it another thought, past those that led me to make the comments already made. I've far thinker skin that that, and I know Ryan has a nasty temper that is rivaled only by my own (and only eclipsed by his ex-wife's). I was particularly amused by my own wife's opinion of the exchange, and think it a rather insightful look into where we all really are here at the Bund...
"You're all nerds that need to get lives."
Touche, Lizardo.
As regards Ryan's apology:
Unnecessary... now and in the future. I think I know you well enough after more than a decade to be able to tell when you are venting and when you are serious, even from the one-dimensional online environment that we almost exclusively utilize (the Bund). To put it poetically... "Your words are as the buzzing of flies to my EGO!"
In regards to Ryan's request:
I must confess that your observations concerning my using you as a "punching bag" are undoubtedly far more valid than I'd like to admit, and I will do my best to not allow myself to do that any more. I trust you understand that, upon reading your thoughts on this matter, I couldn't help relating to what you said you were feeling... meaning I can see myself feeling the same way about some of your more general assumptions and generalizations... so perhaps we can both agree to try harder to avoid "stereotyping" each other in the future?
So... what's next?
Everyone knows the Treaty of Paris, or the Peace of Amiens, or the Good Friday Accords... what better way can we have to mark our "historic" moments of reconciliation and/or mutual understanding?
As regards the poster (could this be remembered as the First Poster War?), I will say this about my position within the entire debate:
I think it was in bad taste (the poster, not the debate).
I think the examples of anti-Obama posters I found were in bad taste.
I think all fit nicely in the realm of Free Speech, and none is more offensive than another (of these examples).
As regards the "questionable" title coined by Ryan:
I didn't give it another thought, past those that led me to make the comments already made. I've far thinker skin that that, and I know Ryan has a nasty temper that is rivaled only by my own (and only eclipsed by his ex-wife's). I was particularly amused by my own wife's opinion of the exchange, and think it a rather insightful look into where we all really are here at the Bund...
"You're all nerds that need to get lives."
Touche, Lizardo.
As regards Ryan's apology:
Unnecessary... now and in the future. I think I know you well enough after more than a decade to be able to tell when you are venting and when you are serious, even from the one-dimensional online environment that we almost exclusively utilize (the Bund). To put it poetically... "Your words are as the buzzing of flies to my EGO!"
In regards to Ryan's request:
I must confess that your observations concerning my using you as a "punching bag" are undoubtedly far more valid than I'd like to admit, and I will do my best to not allow myself to do that any more. I trust you understand that, upon reading your thoughts on this matter, I couldn't help relating to what you said you were feeling... meaning I can see myself feeling the same way about some of your more general assumptions and generalizations... so perhaps we can both agree to try harder to avoid "stereotyping" each other in the future?
So... what's next?
I heard rumors ...
That Favre REALLY disliked Childress, and that the Southern MS grad has been the true leader in that locker room for quite some time. Man, did Childress go into that office and make the wrong ultimatum ... "It's me or Favre."
I found out before Jambos post though. My own little NFL hopeful, whom I got to coach this year on the same team he's been watching his big brother play on the last 2 years, woke me up, "Dad, dad, Childress was fired!" Why is he home from school? Our team entered the play offs this past Saturday. In our first game he broke 2 tackles & juked the last defender for an 80 yard TD run on 2nd down of our first drive. He went on to garner us 3 more 1st downs, one on 4th & 7, and sacked the opposing QB in over time to end the game with us up 35-28. He won game MVP. Our second round game we lost. Tough, rainy, windy, cold. 28-21 the final (yes, 2 games in 1 day, with kids that run both ways, & what's more he & our other 2 star players played every single down of both games, and special teams - tough little rascals). Later that night he wakes up with a screaming headache, nausea, the works. An ER trip & a cat scan later & it's official - concussion.
He'll be fine, couple days rest. And he really likes telling people, "Ya, I got a concussion the first game & still played the second one." Bare in mind no one knows which game it occurred ... but I figure he earned that bragadocia, hehe.
What I realized though is the sting of losing as coach is monumentally mitigated by the pure joy of being Dad & having just watched your 9 year old have a monster game ... I ask you, does it get any better then that? :-)
I found out before Jambos post though. My own little NFL hopeful, whom I got to coach this year on the same team he's been watching his big brother play on the last 2 years, woke me up, "Dad, dad, Childress was fired!" Why is he home from school? Our team entered the play offs this past Saturday. In our first game he broke 2 tackles & juked the last defender for an 80 yard TD run on 2nd down of our first drive. He went on to garner us 3 more 1st downs, one on 4th & 7, and sacked the opposing QB in over time to end the game with us up 35-28. He won game MVP. Our second round game we lost. Tough, rainy, windy, cold. 28-21 the final (yes, 2 games in 1 day, with kids that run both ways, & what's more he & our other 2 star players played every single down of both games, and special teams - tough little rascals). Later that night he wakes up with a screaming headache, nausea, the works. An ER trip & a cat scan later & it's official - concussion.
He'll be fine, couple days rest. And he really likes telling people, "Ya, I got a concussion the first game & still played the second one." Bare in mind no one knows which game it occurred ... but I figure he earned that bragadocia, hehe.
What I realized though is the sting of losing as coach is monumentally mitigated by the pure joy of being Dad & having just watched your 9 year old have a monster game ... I ask you, does it get any better then that? :-)
Hey, this is REALLY IMPORTANT!
Still haven't read the posts from yesterday but just got this on the wire...
Brad Childress has been fired as the head coach of the Minnesota Vikings.
FINALLY!!!
Brad Childress has been fired as the head coach of the Minnesota Vikings.
FINALLY!!!
SPOILER ALERT!!!
For the record... I have NOT READ any of the posts from yesterday yet! So if there is something in this post that is redundant or has already been discussed, TOUGH.
We spent damn near $400 in a bar that had every interior wall space available glorifying a late 1980s visit of KNOWN TERRORISTS to Scranton, PA.
I worked for almost five years with a kid (last name Willoughby) whose primary pastime was doing the pow-wow circuit. That's not a joke, he'd go from reservation to reservation as a part of a drum/dance team for his tribe. Won a bunch of awards. Probably has that infamous poster tattooed on his back now.
I know/am friends with/work with three guys, one named Lee, one named Nathan, one named James, all of them named after prominent Confederate Generals. When asked they will admit to it proudly.
We all were once residents in a state that has the battle standard of the Confederacy as a part of its state flag, STILL.
Now, everything I just mentioned can be seen as the same type of indictment that has stirred the pot so forcefully. As mentioned numerous times, my great great grandfather's name is on the Wisconsin memorial at Vicksburg. My friendly meathead Confederate-named coworkers occasionally talk Confederate smack when they forget who's sitting at the breakroom table with them... And I usually give them enough rope to ensure when they fall, the neck won't break so they get to Danny Deever for three minutes before the twitching stops.
I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable.
But Willoughby was a different story.
For good or for bad, and despite the many, many atrocities committed against the American Indian population, they have something no other minority in the United States has... Legal entitlement. African Americans do not have a legal right to the "40 acres and a mule." Disenfranchised Spanish/Mexican Americans, robbed of their legal land grants in a post Mexican/American War or Texan Independence, have no legal recourse nor were given any. But I know many, many people of American Indian descent benefiting from the treaty structures of today.
So when someone plasters a poster concerning Homeland Security, I have to scratch my head. In today's world, the American Indian not only gets to drink, drive and vote... They get the benefits of dual citizenship within their tribal nation AND our country. So how freaking tough is that?
My personal opinion? They want Homeland Security? Fine. Then they become NATIONS, independent nations, stand alone political entities. They LOSE citizenship within the United States. They're responsible for their own affairs, and their own security. Of course, it's my opinion... No one listens to me anyway.
Do I agree with the poster? No. Do they have the right to print/sell it? Of course. Do I feel it's an indictment of everyone not American Indian? No... I feel it is the same kind of misguided individual expression as the Confederate Flag or the Malcolm X or Che or CCCP t-shirts. I get pissed when I see them but more for the morons wearing them. (Well... Che pisses me off on principle, so that's overtime pissed)
Now that being said...
Was the curator of that museum a COMPLETE MORON? Absolutely. Was Ryan justified in his actions with said curator? Completely. Just because someone has the right to wear a swastika, or a rising sun bandanna, or anything with the CCCP on it doesn't mean he/she needs to be parading around in it at the D-Day Museum on June 6. You want to proclaim Indian Homeland Security? Do it from the Crazy Horse Monument, or a warring tribal reservation. Not from some pacifist desert tribe that died out centuries before Columbus was born. Not out of any type of context.
I hope, with all sincerity, that we get posted updates on the campaign against said museum. I would be very very interested in knowing how that turns out.
We spent damn near $400 in a bar that had every interior wall space available glorifying a late 1980s visit of KNOWN TERRORISTS to Scranton, PA.
I worked for almost five years with a kid (last name Willoughby) whose primary pastime was doing the pow-wow circuit. That's not a joke, he'd go from reservation to reservation as a part of a drum/dance team for his tribe. Won a bunch of awards. Probably has that infamous poster tattooed on his back now.
I know/am friends with/work with three guys, one named Lee, one named Nathan, one named James, all of them named after prominent Confederate Generals. When asked they will admit to it proudly.
We all were once residents in a state that has the battle standard of the Confederacy as a part of its state flag, STILL.
Now, everything I just mentioned can be seen as the same type of indictment that has stirred the pot so forcefully. As mentioned numerous times, my great great grandfather's name is on the Wisconsin memorial at Vicksburg. My friendly meathead Confederate-named coworkers occasionally talk Confederate smack when they forget who's sitting at the breakroom table with them... And I usually give them enough rope to ensure when they fall, the neck won't break so they get to Danny Deever for three minutes before the twitching stops.
I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable.
But Willoughby was a different story.
For good or for bad, and despite the many, many atrocities committed against the American Indian population, they have something no other minority in the United States has... Legal entitlement. African Americans do not have a legal right to the "40 acres and a mule." Disenfranchised Spanish/Mexican Americans, robbed of their legal land grants in a post Mexican/American War or Texan Independence, have no legal recourse nor were given any. But I know many, many people of American Indian descent benefiting from the treaty structures of today.
So when someone plasters a poster concerning Homeland Security, I have to scratch my head. In today's world, the American Indian not only gets to drink, drive and vote... They get the benefits of dual citizenship within their tribal nation AND our country. So how freaking tough is that?
My personal opinion? They want Homeland Security? Fine. Then they become NATIONS, independent nations, stand alone political entities. They LOSE citizenship within the United States. They're responsible for their own affairs, and their own security. Of course, it's my opinion... No one listens to me anyway.
Do I agree with the poster? No. Do they have the right to print/sell it? Of course. Do I feel it's an indictment of everyone not American Indian? No... I feel it is the same kind of misguided individual expression as the Confederate Flag or the Malcolm X or Che or CCCP t-shirts. I get pissed when I see them but more for the morons wearing them. (Well... Che pisses me off on principle, so that's overtime pissed)
Now that being said...
Was the curator of that museum a COMPLETE MORON? Absolutely. Was Ryan justified in his actions with said curator? Completely. Just because someone has the right to wear a swastika, or a rising sun bandanna, or anything with the CCCP on it doesn't mean he/she needs to be parading around in it at the D-Day Museum on June 6. You want to proclaim Indian Homeland Security? Do it from the Crazy Horse Monument, or a warring tribal reservation. Not from some pacifist desert tribe that died out centuries before Columbus was born. Not out of any type of context.
I hope, with all sincerity, that we get posted updates on the campaign against said museum. I would be very very interested in knowing how that turns out.
To Whom It May Concern:
Which of course, is everyone here.
Although personal, vivid derision is stock and trade in our personal encounters, Jambo was correct in pointing out that the flagrant personal attacks of my recent post title were below the standard we have each earned as participants in this Bund (read: the site and friendship). And as such, I apologize Titus. I wont, however, be removing or altering the post because I am of the belief that we are more apt to repeat those mistakes that are easily covered up.
And in that spirit, let me adress the current controversy, calm and of steady tone ...
Part I (of III):
I wasn't sure why until today (more on that in Part II), but I just couldn't figure out why you took my outrage over the poster as equal to denying the atrocities perpetrated on American Indians. One does not equate to the other. I can fully appreciate the tragedies at Wounded Knee, and who was responsible, and still find that poster outrageous.
In fact, my outrage is quite simple: I think that most Americans of reasonable faculties would agree that when one issues a message (in 2010), and 4 out of 5 of the words in that message are: "terrorism; fighting; homeland; and security" that this would tend to dredge up imagery of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, 9/11, Afhganistan, and Iraq. Can we all not agree on that simple premise? That those words will cause a particular image of Islamic Terorrism when presented in 2010?
If yes, then let me propose another simple premise we should all be able to agree on. "Since 1492" does in fact include the 234 years between 1776-2010. Does it not? By definition that is true. Right?
Ok, then my simple problem with that poster/tee was not that Indians have no legitimate beef, but rather that the proprietors of that poster and tee shirt (and I don't even know if they are Indian) expressed that beef in an inappropriate way. It was in very poor taste, inaccurate (unless there's current US Calvary raiding parties I don't know about), and when you consider honorable men are putting their lives on the line to defend all of us (including Native Americans) from the real terror of 2010, I would argue the adjective "disgusting" is more then appropriate.
Now, if we all agree on those 2 simple premises, is my conclusion and outrage over what is arguably the painting of my nation's entire history, through this very moment, as akin to Al Qeada that inconceivable?
And what's worse, it appears Titus that you agree with me, noting you found it in bad taste as well! When I read that I couldn't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning, and instead opted for typing the history of the American Indian as if I was denying those atrocities via my outrage. Then I read that "Che-tee shirt" banning comment, went back to my dead Three Card Poker table and thought, and thought ... and then it hit me. Of course, that's been it all along!
Let me explain ... Part II:
We (you and I, Titus) communicate almost exclusively electronically. No more back dock arguments or literal drive ways. This bit of disconnect, which has disallowed context born of in person contact, has opened up a template for you (I believe) that is causing much unneeded friction and unnecessary time consuming tributaries which distract from the body of any given argument (see the Obama/Mao-sign sub-thread).
I don't know how many times I've read you begin a paragraph within a post with "My problem with people like Limbaugh, Beck, Ryan, and Hannity is ..." That always bothered me a bit. This time you did it with Ayn Rand: "People like Ayn Rand and Ryan believe ..." Why? Why do you do that? My answer/theory: As you sit down at the keyboard and prepare to type up your post on subject A, B or C, it is more often then not to address or argue with this site's resident "conservative." And as you prepare to counter "the conservative", your numerous beefs, arguments and disagreements with well-known faces of the right, be it Limbaugh, Rand, Beck, and so on come bubbling up. They are conservatives after all, and you are about to do battle with one, so all of their greatest failings and ill advised positions (as you define them) are projected on to ME. Follow me here - I have never come to this site and expressed some cult like worship of Ayn Rand. I do own 2 of her fictional books, but I swear to all that is holy that I hadn't any idea that she argued ends justifying means and would entertain no criticism of her adopted country. Yet, I was treated to an entire argument that would have made sense ONLY if you were arguing with Ayn Rand, not F. Ryan. I'm reading these posts thinking "ban Che t-shirts?" When did I ever say that? That's something one might here on the Savage Nation, as Micheal has called for renewed Sedition Laws. So I thought, "aha, he's arguing with Michael Savage, not me." The Obama-Mao dust up? Perhaps the bone headed Mike Church would support that, but not I. Again, you're arguing with Church, not me.
You see friend, as you sit down to argue with me I get the distinct impression that you summon all the stereotyped conservative positions and all the arguments you've had in your head with Rand, Limbaugh et al, and you compile them into one body, call him "Ryan", and proceed.
Rather then expressing your beef with people "like" Ryan, how about arguing with just Ryan. And as such, if you're not sure about my position on Rand or any other conservative, you must first ask my position, get it on record, then assail any aspect you wish. Do you see what I am saying?
You could of ended all this controversy before it started by simply posting: "While I believe Native Americans have a legitimate beef, this poster was in poor taste.' Done, finished. I would have said I agreed and been done with it. Instead I was treated to an expose' on the history of the Indian's plight, told I've seen signs I haven't, and want t-shirts banned that I don't. All of which are arguments you need to be having with OTHER conservatives whom are on the record as supporting such things, rather then me, who happens to be this site's resident "conservative."
Titus, seriously, it is crucial that you break this habit. Were I to start numerous paragraphs with, "My problem with people like Oberhman, Pelsoi and Titus ...", and then went into the on the record opinions of Oberhman and Pelosi, I'm sure you'd soon tire of having to machete your way through the jungle of their stated opinions, just so you can have a millisecond to express your own. Likewise, this is wearing me OUT brother.
Just consider it.
Part III
I direct this question at you Titus, given it has been you throughout this thread that has repeatedly and passionately revisited the tragic history of Native Americans. And I mean this as a legitimate question, not a jab or a poke, or just trying to be cute (like I'd have to try ... hehehe ... I digress).
Given the sum total of the inhumane, forced, and treaded upon history of the Native American Indian, can you say in good conscience and with a clear consistency of intellect, that the Government of the United States of America, through this moment, is the legitimate and legal holder of the lands it considers its' sovereign territory?
And if not, what is your suggestion as to a remedy for the situation, assuming one exists?
(you see how I didn't lump you in with Ward Churchill's stated position of "giving back the land", and then ask you to defend it?)
Seriously, I'm quite curious about this one.
(PS. I'll address Andrew Jackson after you have time to repond to the III parts of this post)
Although personal, vivid derision is stock and trade in our personal encounters, Jambo was correct in pointing out that the flagrant personal attacks of my recent post title were below the standard we have each earned as participants in this Bund (read: the site and friendship). And as such, I apologize Titus. I wont, however, be removing or altering the post because I am of the belief that we are more apt to repeat those mistakes that are easily covered up.
And in that spirit, let me adress the current controversy, calm and of steady tone ...
Part I (of III):
I wasn't sure why until today (more on that in Part II), but I just couldn't figure out why you took my outrage over the poster as equal to denying the atrocities perpetrated on American Indians. One does not equate to the other. I can fully appreciate the tragedies at Wounded Knee, and who was responsible, and still find that poster outrageous.
In fact, my outrage is quite simple: I think that most Americans of reasonable faculties would agree that when one issues a message (in 2010), and 4 out of 5 of the words in that message are: "terrorism; fighting; homeland; and security" that this would tend to dredge up imagery of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, 9/11, Afhganistan, and Iraq. Can we all not agree on that simple premise? That those words will cause a particular image of Islamic Terorrism when presented in 2010?
If yes, then let me propose another simple premise we should all be able to agree on. "Since 1492" does in fact include the 234 years between 1776-2010. Does it not? By definition that is true. Right?
Ok, then my simple problem with that poster/tee was not that Indians have no legitimate beef, but rather that the proprietors of that poster and tee shirt (and I don't even know if they are Indian) expressed that beef in an inappropriate way. It was in very poor taste, inaccurate (unless there's current US Calvary raiding parties I don't know about), and when you consider honorable men are putting their lives on the line to defend all of us (including Native Americans) from the real terror of 2010, I would argue the adjective "disgusting" is more then appropriate.
Now, if we all agree on those 2 simple premises, is my conclusion and outrage over what is arguably the painting of my nation's entire history, through this very moment, as akin to Al Qeada that inconceivable?
And what's worse, it appears Titus that you agree with me, noting you found it in bad taste as well! When I read that I couldn't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning, and instead opted for typing the history of the American Indian as if I was denying those atrocities via my outrage. Then I read that "Che-tee shirt" banning comment, went back to my dead Three Card Poker table and thought, and thought ... and then it hit me. Of course, that's been it all along!
Let me explain ... Part II:
We (you and I, Titus) communicate almost exclusively electronically. No more back dock arguments or literal drive ways. This bit of disconnect, which has disallowed context born of in person contact, has opened up a template for you (I believe) that is causing much unneeded friction and unnecessary time consuming tributaries which distract from the body of any given argument (see the Obama/Mao-sign sub-thread).
I don't know how many times I've read you begin a paragraph within a post with "My problem with people like Limbaugh, Beck, Ryan, and Hannity is ..." That always bothered me a bit. This time you did it with Ayn Rand: "People like Ayn Rand and Ryan believe ..." Why? Why do you do that? My answer/theory: As you sit down at the keyboard and prepare to type up your post on subject A, B or C, it is more often then not to address or argue with this site's resident "conservative." And as you prepare to counter "the conservative", your numerous beefs, arguments and disagreements with well-known faces of the right, be it Limbaugh, Rand, Beck, and so on come bubbling up. They are conservatives after all, and you are about to do battle with one, so all of their greatest failings and ill advised positions (as you define them) are projected on to ME. Follow me here - I have never come to this site and expressed some cult like worship of Ayn Rand. I do own 2 of her fictional books, but I swear to all that is holy that I hadn't any idea that she argued ends justifying means and would entertain no criticism of her adopted country. Yet, I was treated to an entire argument that would have made sense ONLY if you were arguing with Ayn Rand, not F. Ryan. I'm reading these posts thinking "ban Che t-shirts?" When did I ever say that? That's something one might here on the Savage Nation, as Micheal has called for renewed Sedition Laws. So I thought, "aha, he's arguing with Michael Savage, not me." The Obama-Mao dust up? Perhaps the bone headed Mike Church would support that, but not I. Again, you're arguing with Church, not me.
You see friend, as you sit down to argue with me I get the distinct impression that you summon all the stereotyped conservative positions and all the arguments you've had in your head with Rand, Limbaugh et al, and you compile them into one body, call him "Ryan", and proceed.
Rather then expressing your beef with people "like" Ryan, how about arguing with just Ryan. And as such, if you're not sure about my position on Rand or any other conservative, you must first ask my position, get it on record, then assail any aspect you wish. Do you see what I am saying?
You could of ended all this controversy before it started by simply posting: "While I believe Native Americans have a legitimate beef, this poster was in poor taste.' Done, finished. I would have said I agreed and been done with it. Instead I was treated to an expose' on the history of the Indian's plight, told I've seen signs I haven't, and want t-shirts banned that I don't. All of which are arguments you need to be having with OTHER conservatives whom are on the record as supporting such things, rather then me, who happens to be this site's resident "conservative."
Titus, seriously, it is crucial that you break this habit. Were I to start numerous paragraphs with, "My problem with people like Oberhman, Pelsoi and Titus ...", and then went into the on the record opinions of Oberhman and Pelosi, I'm sure you'd soon tire of having to machete your way through the jungle of their stated opinions, just so you can have a millisecond to express your own. Likewise, this is wearing me OUT brother.
Just consider it.
Part III
I direct this question at you Titus, given it has been you throughout this thread that has repeatedly and passionately revisited the tragic history of Native Americans. And I mean this as a legitimate question, not a jab or a poke, or just trying to be cute (like I'd have to try ... hehehe ... I digress).
Given the sum total of the inhumane, forced, and treaded upon history of the Native American Indian, can you say in good conscience and with a clear consistency of intellect, that the Government of the United States of America, through this moment, is the legitimate and legal holder of the lands it considers its' sovereign territory?
And if not, what is your suggestion as to a remedy for the situation, assuming one exists?
(you see how I didn't lump you in with Ward Churchill's stated position of "giving back the land", and then ask you to defend it?)
Seriously, I'm quite curious about this one.
(PS. I'll address Andrew Jackson after you have time to repond to the III parts of this post)
I'm arguing with Kramer!
You really must stop this. This thing of telling me I have done or do believe something which I've never mentioned.
I know this is a side issue, but it ties into a bigger point in a bigger post I'm doing.
You accuse me of supporting the types of images you presented, namely Obama as Mao.
I say no, I don't support them and truthfully haven't ever seen such images.
Again, you make a post noting that I have no problem with such images, signs and the like.
Again, I say I have NEVER seen and DO NOT support such images, and quite frankly outside of your description, have no idea what you're talking about.
Then your big conciliatory post is, "well, maybe you don't support em', but you have seen them."
Enter Seinfeld: In one episode Kramer hands Jerry a present, "Happy Birthday buddy!" Jerry says, "It's not my birthday." Kramer: "Yes it is." Jerry: "I think I'd know if it was my birthday or not." Kramer: "You'd think you would, but you'd be wrong." Jerry: "Maybe it is my birthday.
Ha!
What do you want me to say? I did see a picture once, can't remember if it was Nixon or Bush, with a small mustache, meant to be Hitler. It was a clip of protesters at a G8 summit ... I think.
But I HAVE NEVER laid eyes on your images until I pulled up the Bund today. PERIOD. Now just think about that for a minute - not only have you repeatedly insisted I have seen the images, but then went so far as to assign me my position on them! Come on man, give it up already. I consume 99% of my news via online and the radio (which includes NPR & the BBC, as my many rants on their programming confirms). My TV time is reserved almost exclusively for streaming Netflix and dvd's. So I wouldn't have seen them on TV. And although google undoubtedly boasted a .7 second return when you searched these items, I can't begin to imagine how obscure a website you must have had to enter to actually find them. I don't do obscure too much (and by the by, if it was MSNBC, et al, trying to make Tea Partiers look bad, that counts as "obscure" - who watches MSNBC, have you seen their ratings?)
Now that I have seen them, do I share the same outrage as I do the Indian terror poster/tee shirts? NO. But neither did I express similar outrage over the Bush (or Nixon) Hitler sign. Do you really think me that much of a partisan hack, and that bereft in my understanding of history, to not realize that such images are the work of whackadoos? Really? That sucks.
Now, had in these images someone replaced Obama's face with say, Old Glory, or "Est. 1776", something along those lines, then my outrage meter would have went up a tick or two - that's debasing my nation, not a single, contemporary, man. Obama is a politician. Bush is a politician. Yes, presidents, but they have not reached the "sacred cow" status as say a George Washington, et al. And let me assure you, had it been Old Glory etc, with such an image, that was placed in the entrance of a museum I was attending on my kid's field trip - then damn right I would have expressed the exact same outrage via the same texts and picture that I did the Indian, "America is a terrorist state" picture.
Ok? Jeeeeeeeez.
I'll get to the rest in a second, I just had to deal with that.
I know this is a side issue, but it ties into a bigger point in a bigger post I'm doing.
You accuse me of supporting the types of images you presented, namely Obama as Mao.
I say no, I don't support them and truthfully haven't ever seen such images.
Again, you make a post noting that I have no problem with such images, signs and the like.
Again, I say I have NEVER seen and DO NOT support such images, and quite frankly outside of your description, have no idea what you're talking about.
Then your big conciliatory post is, "well, maybe you don't support em', but you have seen them."
Enter Seinfeld: In one episode Kramer hands Jerry a present, "Happy Birthday buddy!" Jerry says, "It's not my birthday." Kramer: "Yes it is." Jerry: "I think I'd know if it was my birthday or not." Kramer: "You'd think you would, but you'd be wrong." Jerry: "Maybe it is my birthday.
Ha!
What do you want me to say? I did see a picture once, can't remember if it was Nixon or Bush, with a small mustache, meant to be Hitler. It was a clip of protesters at a G8 summit ... I think.
But I HAVE NEVER laid eyes on your images until I pulled up the Bund today. PERIOD. Now just think about that for a minute - not only have you repeatedly insisted I have seen the images, but then went so far as to assign me my position on them! Come on man, give it up already. I consume 99% of my news via online and the radio (which includes NPR & the BBC, as my many rants on their programming confirms). My TV time is reserved almost exclusively for streaming Netflix and dvd's. So I wouldn't have seen them on TV. And although google undoubtedly boasted a .7 second return when you searched these items, I can't begin to imagine how obscure a website you must have had to enter to actually find them. I don't do obscure too much (and by the by, if it was MSNBC, et al, trying to make Tea Partiers look bad, that counts as "obscure" - who watches MSNBC, have you seen their ratings?)
Now that I have seen them, do I share the same outrage as I do the Indian terror poster/tee shirts? NO. But neither did I express similar outrage over the Bush (or Nixon) Hitler sign. Do you really think me that much of a partisan hack, and that bereft in my understanding of history, to not realize that such images are the work of whackadoos? Really? That sucks.
Now, had in these images someone replaced Obama's face with say, Old Glory, or "Est. 1776", something along those lines, then my outrage meter would have went up a tick or two - that's debasing my nation, not a single, contemporary, man. Obama is a politician. Bush is a politician. Yes, presidents, but they have not reached the "sacred cow" status as say a George Washington, et al. And let me assure you, had it been Old Glory etc, with such an image, that was placed in the entrance of a museum I was attending on my kid's field trip - then damn right I would have expressed the exact same outrage via the same texts and picture that I did the Indian, "America is a terrorist state" picture.
Ok? Jeeeeeeeez.
I'll get to the rest in a second, I just had to deal with that.
Give me ten minutes...
I don't want to fight for fighting's sake. Let's take a moment and let me present my case that the Indians of the colonial period were NOT the barbaric savages that so many (even today) still think they were. I'm not talking about Ryan here... I'm talking about people like Ayn Rand, Ike, and even the vaunted and much loved Reagan, who have all at some time made comments or statements hinting at the savage nature of the Native American people during the late 18th and all through the 19th Centuries.
I am convinced that the Iroquois League is the oldest extant example of a representative democracy, and that it can show a direct historic link as far back as the 12 Century (as far back as 1175 AD). Evidence that the Founding Fathers drew inspiration and guidance in drafting the original Articles of Confederation from the written laws of the League are ample and can be found HERE. These six nations formed a "union" in which people were allowed a voice, individual freedoms were recognized (even those of women and "aliens"... non-tribal members), and a "congress" of leaders met to decide issues of individual member states for all member states. This League existed for at least 600 years... longer than any other extant body of American Indian society... which tells me that they were NOT simple savages living happily off the land. They knew cultivation, metal-making skills, had a syllabic written language, and could waterproof leather containers so well that the white settlers of the 17th and 18th centuries paid top-dollar for the products because they could not duplicate the process at all.
After the formation of the United States of America, Washington, Knox, Jefferson and Madison all worked at developing Federal policies that would "incorporate" the Five Civilized Tribes into the fabric of American society as equals... and initially, it worked very well. By 1815 and the end of the War of 1812, the Cherokee people had both a phonetic written language (using the English alphabet) and a syllabic alphabet invented by Sequoyah and still in use today by traditional scholars of the tongue. Should you follow the above link, you'll find that the Cherokee nation had no fewer than four daily newspapers, and as many as 11 print and binding shops. They were renowned producers tobacco, whiskey and rye, and produced some of the richest men in the State of Georgia (Joseph Vann was a millionaire and owned more than 150 slaves on his 1,200 acre plantation before 1834... when he was forced to leave Georgia for the wilds of the Tennessee because of Jackson's Indian Removal Act). The Cherokee people fought a "war within a war" when the majority of Cherokee voted to side with the Confederacy, while a pro-Union minority took up arms (and uniforms) to fight to remain with the North. The "Yankee" Cherokee were considered by modern West Point historians to be some of the best artillery fighters of the entire century, moving batteries between distant points in such short amounts of time that even Confederate cavalry troops couldn't keep up.
The Chickasaw and Choctaw nations sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, and paid the price when the war was decided against them. However, these nations sent more than 15,000 men to defend their homes during this war, and these men fought with bravery and distinction that even Lincoln's Administration was forced to recognize. These are the ONLY Confederate pensions to be honored by the Federal government after the war (more than 1,200 of the survivors drew their pay from Federal coffers for the remainder of their lives)... while being denied the right to own land, vote or travel freely outside of the Indian Nation that is now Oklahoma. What does THAT say about the actual degree of patriotism that the Indian people showed?
This is just a small piece of the evidence that America has come to see as truth the false statements that the Indians were uneducated savages living in teepees and wigwams because they knew no better. These people, for the most part, wanted to be Americans from the start of the nation itself... but it was the nation itself that made this process of assimilation almost impossible. This is the cause of the resentment and bias that brings about posters like the one that got this whole thread started... a myopic view of history and a biased assumption of facts that do no justice to either side of the debate and only further the ignorance and intolerance that brought about the problem in the first place.
Perhaps the poster does nothing to further such debate itself... but it isn't wrong or morally objectionable simply because it refutes modern, traditional conservative views on the topic of America's role in crimes against the Indian peoples since 1776 (or 1492... as the poster says). I'm inclined to think, though, that the poster DOES further the cause and debate, because that is exactly what is happening here, isn't it? Aren't we forcing ourselves (and anyone unfortunate enough to have to read along) to look closer at the topic? Aren't we forced by the poster itself to examine what we have all taken to be "fact" in a new light?
Isn't that a good thing... no matter how distasteful we might find the impetus?
I am convinced that the Iroquois League is the oldest extant example of a representative democracy, and that it can show a direct historic link as far back as the 12 Century (as far back as 1175 AD). Evidence that the Founding Fathers drew inspiration and guidance in drafting the original Articles of Confederation from the written laws of the League are ample and can be found HERE. These six nations formed a "union" in which people were allowed a voice, individual freedoms were recognized (even those of women and "aliens"... non-tribal members), and a "congress" of leaders met to decide issues of individual member states for all member states. This League existed for at least 600 years... longer than any other extant body of American Indian society... which tells me that they were NOT simple savages living happily off the land. They knew cultivation, metal-making skills, had a syllabic written language, and could waterproof leather containers so well that the white settlers of the 17th and 18th centuries paid top-dollar for the products because they could not duplicate the process at all.
After the formation of the United States of America, Washington, Knox, Jefferson and Madison all worked at developing Federal policies that would "incorporate" the Five Civilized Tribes into the fabric of American society as equals... and initially, it worked very well. By 1815 and the end of the War of 1812, the Cherokee people had both a phonetic written language (using the English alphabet) and a syllabic alphabet invented by Sequoyah and still in use today by traditional scholars of the tongue. Should you follow the above link, you'll find that the Cherokee nation had no fewer than four daily newspapers, and as many as 11 print and binding shops. They were renowned producers tobacco, whiskey and rye, and produced some of the richest men in the State of Georgia (Joseph Vann was a millionaire and owned more than 150 slaves on his 1,200 acre plantation before 1834... when he was forced to leave Georgia for the wilds of the Tennessee because of Jackson's Indian Removal Act). The Cherokee people fought a "war within a war" when the majority of Cherokee voted to side with the Confederacy, while a pro-Union minority took up arms (and uniforms) to fight to remain with the North. The "Yankee" Cherokee were considered by modern West Point historians to be some of the best artillery fighters of the entire century, moving batteries between distant points in such short amounts of time that even Confederate cavalry troops couldn't keep up.
The Chickasaw and Choctaw nations sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, and paid the price when the war was decided against them. However, these nations sent more than 15,000 men to defend their homes during this war, and these men fought with bravery and distinction that even Lincoln's Administration was forced to recognize. These are the ONLY Confederate pensions to be honored by the Federal government after the war (more than 1,200 of the survivors drew their pay from Federal coffers for the remainder of their lives)... while being denied the right to own land, vote or travel freely outside of the Indian Nation that is now Oklahoma. What does THAT say about the actual degree of patriotism that the Indian people showed?
This is just a small piece of the evidence that America has come to see as truth the false statements that the Indians were uneducated savages living in teepees and wigwams because they knew no better. These people, for the most part, wanted to be Americans from the start of the nation itself... but it was the nation itself that made this process of assimilation almost impossible. This is the cause of the resentment and bias that brings about posters like the one that got this whole thread started... a myopic view of history and a biased assumption of facts that do no justice to either side of the debate and only further the ignorance and intolerance that brought about the problem in the first place.
Perhaps the poster does nothing to further such debate itself... but it isn't wrong or morally objectionable simply because it refutes modern, traditional conservative views on the topic of America's role in crimes against the Indian peoples since 1776 (or 1492... as the poster says). I'm inclined to think, though, that the poster DOES further the cause and debate, because that is exactly what is happening here, isn't it? Aren't we forcing ourselves (and anyone unfortunate enough to have to read along) to look closer at the topic? Aren't we forced by the poster itself to examine what we have all taken to be "fact" in a new light?
Isn't that a good thing... no matter how distasteful we might find the impetus?
True...
To be fair and just, you did not say you "supported" such posters as I have provided above... but surely you've seen them. We all have, and several are the brainchildren of conservative radio talk show hosts that we've all listened to. My point was that (I'm being very specific here) had these sorts of posters presented themselves to your attention rather than the one that did... would the same level of outrage and anger have manifested?
complete fantasy ...
I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had "no problem" with Obama being portrayed as Chairman Mao. I dont even know what you're talking about. I never said it verbally, never wrote it here at the Bund and as far as I can recollect have never even seen such an image nor one involving Hitler. Either produce evidence to the contrary or retract it.
And by the way, I dont want the Che shirts "banned." I dont want to give government those types of powers. People have a right to be half wits ... as you are so aptly pointing out with this Mao-Obama accusation.
And fear not, this ties into a much larger post I'll make after work.
And by the way, I dont want the Che shirts "banned." I dont want to give government those types of powers. People have a right to be half wits ... as you are so aptly pointing out with this Mao-Obama accusation.
And fear not, this ties into a much larger post I'll make after work.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
No one responded?
I guess I'll have to keep this going then, until someone does.
"But I get the sincere impression from you that as long as the target is one of those grave injustices, it doesn't matter to you how unscrupulous the message is. No matter how inappropriate, no matter how many sacred cows they step on in the process (9/11 references of Homeland Security for instance), no matter how much collateral damage is accumulated in their accusation (indicting all persons SINCE 1492), no matter how repugnant, how off base, how ill advised or offensive to honorable descendants of Europeans, that message is "ok" with you so long as the target of the message is one of these historical grave injustices. "
Holy non sequitur, Batman! Sacred Cows? This poster steps on on sacred cows? This poster steps on the hallowed memory of 9/11... but the image of Andrew Jackson can't be seen by descendants of the Five Civilized Tribes as offensive? Isn't that what you called "blatant revisionism" against one of the greatest Presidents this nation ever had? And you say I'm reaching? Please...
This poster indicts ALL persons since 1492, but your statement that "We all know that Native Americans of that era were profound civil libertarians. They were fighting for equality among the sexes; to rights against cruel and unusual punishment; for the right to remain silent; to uphold the right to speech, separation of church and state, and they NEVER targeted for death women and children, always taking the same care our troops do now to avoid civilian deaths ... and on and on and on." does NOT tell me you think every Indian that died as a result of the Federal government (specifically Jackson's administration) ignoring the Supreme Court's findings and injunctions got EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVED? They had no understanding of their rights under the Constitution, isn't that what you're saying? So obviously, those rights don't apply... or perhaps don't exist at all.
Your offended by a teenager wearing a "Che" backpack or having the hammer and sickle t-shirt because these symbolize people or groups that killed tons of people you never knew... but that image of Jackson is the face of a man who killed (or caused to be killed... also a "high crime and misdemeanor" in this nation) nearly 10,000 American citizens, who owned land, paid taxes, voted (at least at a local level) and took their case to the highest court in the land... AND WON... and the people that made that poster might be able to count some of those dead among their ancestors. A direct blood tie to a crime that you seem to think is far less impacting on American history than 9/11 was. We were attacked by terrorists and madmen on September 11... but those thousands killed between 1831 and 1838 were driven to their deaths by their own government, with Andrew Jackson championing the cause all the way to completion. Why is the image of Jackson any less offensive to THEM than this poster is to YOU?
I think that is a fair question, and I'd love to see a response to it.
"But I get the sincere impression from you that as long as the target is one of those grave injustices, it doesn't matter to you how unscrupulous the message is. No matter how inappropriate, no matter how many sacred cows they step on in the process (9/11 references of Homeland Security for instance), no matter how much collateral damage is accumulated in their accusation (indicting all persons SINCE 1492), no matter how repugnant, how off base, how ill advised or offensive to honorable descendants of Europeans, that message is "ok" with you so long as the target of the message is one of these historical grave injustices. "
Holy non sequitur, Batman! Sacred Cows? This poster steps on on sacred cows? This poster steps on the hallowed memory of 9/11... but the image of Andrew Jackson can't be seen by descendants of the Five Civilized Tribes as offensive? Isn't that what you called "blatant revisionism" against one of the greatest Presidents this nation ever had? And you say I'm reaching? Please...
This poster indicts ALL persons since 1492, but your statement that "We all know that Native Americans of that era were profound civil libertarians. They were fighting for equality among the sexes; to rights against cruel and unusual punishment; for the right to remain silent; to uphold the right to speech, separation of church and state, and they NEVER targeted for death women and children, always taking the same care our troops do now to avoid civilian deaths ... and on and on and on." does NOT tell me you think every Indian that died as a result of the Federal government (specifically Jackson's administration) ignoring the Supreme Court's findings and injunctions got EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVED? They had no understanding of their rights under the Constitution, isn't that what you're saying? So obviously, those rights don't apply... or perhaps don't exist at all.
Your offended by a teenager wearing a "Che" backpack or having the hammer and sickle t-shirt because these symbolize people or groups that killed tons of people you never knew... but that image of Jackson is the face of a man who killed (or caused to be killed... also a "high crime and misdemeanor" in this nation) nearly 10,000 American citizens, who owned land, paid taxes, voted (at least at a local level) and took their case to the highest court in the land... AND WON... and the people that made that poster might be able to count some of those dead among their ancestors. A direct blood tie to a crime that you seem to think is far less impacting on American history than 9/11 was. We were attacked by terrorists and madmen on September 11... but those thousands killed between 1831 and 1838 were driven to their deaths by their own government, with Andrew Jackson championing the cause all the way to completion. Why is the image of Jackson any less offensive to THEM than this poster is to YOU?
I think that is a fair question, and I'd love to see a response to it.
Quickly...
I'm out of morning now, and have to get ready for work, but wanted to say this:
"Oh yes, sure. We all know that Native Americans of that era were profound civil libertarians. They were fighting for equality among the sexes; to rights against cruel and unusual punishment (see "A Man Named Horse"); for the right to remain silent; to uphold the right to speech, separation of church and state, and they NEVER targeted for death women and children, always taking the same care our troops do now to avoid civilian deaths ... and on and on and on. "
Your sarcasm is noted, and while I find it unfortunately employed, I understand what you are saying. I think you are 100% WRONG, however. Furthermore, you are really letting your ignorance on the topic shine through...
Using the movie "A Man Named Horse" as an example of cruel and unusual punishment in the culture of the American Indians is almost beneath you. It tells me that, not only do you not understand the greater portion of the Indian's struggle, but that you have never really watched the damn movie, either.
The suffering that was portrayed in the movie was #1, completely fictional... and #2 was self-inflicted in the (fictional) attempt to show that the suffering of an individual on a voluntary basis was somehow able to extend itself to the greater suffering of the community and culture at large. Richard Harris was portraying someone who was taking on the "voluntary" role of Jesus Christ, and by hanging from hooks in the skin until the skin ripped, the suffering experienced by the individual would take away from the suffering of the group. It is a fictional story of redemption and grace, without the Christian trappings. Nothing more.
I also think your blatant refusal to see that for the vast majority of Indians that suffered under the tyranny of the Indian Removal Act considered themselves AMERICANS. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, they begged their Congressmen and Senators to speak up for them, they attempted to remove the threat by running Indian candidates for the Governorship of both Georgia and Alabama... is short, they did what the Constitution of the United States required them to do to protect and preserve their individual freedoms and rights, to no avail. None of them fought a secessionist war against Jackson... they did what the Government told them to do, and died because of it. Nearly 10,000 of them. Crazy Horse and Red Cloud were doing exactly what they were told to do under established treaty, and when the US reneged on those promises, they fought to DEFEND the treaty rights... not to become a separate country. Black Elk wanted his son to go to University and become a statesman in Washington... instead he died at Wounded Knee, because he was denied the right to travel on a train from SD to Washington. I don't know about YOU, but I'd think long and hard about taking up arms against the Government that treated ME like that... and that is a promise.
So, you can continue to hold the cultures that existed side-by-side with the Founding Fathers in the category of savages and wild men that scalped and burned women and children for the pleasure of it all you want. I choose to recognize that the US holds a debt to these cultures in the very formation of its representative system, as history demands I do.
"Oh yes, sure. We all know that Native Americans of that era were profound civil libertarians. They were fighting for equality among the sexes; to rights against cruel and unusual punishment (see "A Man Named Horse"); for the right to remain silent; to uphold the right to speech, separation of church and state, and they NEVER targeted for death women and children, always taking the same care our troops do now to avoid civilian deaths ... and on and on and on. "
Your sarcasm is noted, and while I find it unfortunately employed, I understand what you are saying. I think you are 100% WRONG, however. Furthermore, you are really letting your ignorance on the topic shine through...
Using the movie "A Man Named Horse" as an example of cruel and unusual punishment in the culture of the American Indians is almost beneath you. It tells me that, not only do you not understand the greater portion of the Indian's struggle, but that you have never really watched the damn movie, either.
The suffering that was portrayed in the movie was #1, completely fictional... and #2 was self-inflicted in the (fictional) attempt to show that the suffering of an individual on a voluntary basis was somehow able to extend itself to the greater suffering of the community and culture at large. Richard Harris was portraying someone who was taking on the "voluntary" role of Jesus Christ, and by hanging from hooks in the skin until the skin ripped, the suffering experienced by the individual would take away from the suffering of the group. It is a fictional story of redemption and grace, without the Christian trappings. Nothing more.
I also think your blatant refusal to see that for the vast majority of Indians that suffered under the tyranny of the Indian Removal Act considered themselves AMERICANS. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, they begged their Congressmen and Senators to speak up for them, they attempted to remove the threat by running Indian candidates for the Governorship of both Georgia and Alabama... is short, they did what the Constitution of the United States required them to do to protect and preserve their individual freedoms and rights, to no avail. None of them fought a secessionist war against Jackson... they did what the Government told them to do, and died because of it. Nearly 10,000 of them. Crazy Horse and Red Cloud were doing exactly what they were told to do under established treaty, and when the US reneged on those promises, they fought to DEFEND the treaty rights... not to become a separate country. Black Elk wanted his son to go to University and become a statesman in Washington... instead he died at Wounded Knee, because he was denied the right to travel on a train from SD to Washington. I don't know about YOU, but I'd think long and hard about taking up arms against the Government that treated ME like that... and that is a promise.
So, you can continue to hold the cultures that existed side-by-side with the Founding Fathers in the category of savages and wild men that scalped and burned women and children for the pleasure of it all you want. I choose to recognize that the US holds a debt to these cultures in the very formation of its representative system, as history demands I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
