Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
131
-
41
-
36
-
35
-
22
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
@11kravitzn
You are sorely misinformed about the histories of the Democrat and Republican parties. The Republican Party formed in 1854 to fight against slavery, specifically the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854. The act was to create the territories of Kansas and Nebraska and would repeal the Missouri Compromise, allowing slavery to part of those 2 territories. This act was drafted by Stephan Douglas, a Democrat Senator. This started a series of conflicts against that act and the idea of allowing slaves in the new territories. The Republican Party was formed to fight against that act that allowed slavery.
When the Civil War started, there was no Republican representation in the Southern states. None. After the Civil war, segregation was enforced by the Klu Klux Klan, an arm of the Democrat party. It was a Democrat, George Wallace, that delivered the famous line "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in 1963. Wallace ran, in the presidential primaries, through the 70s, as a Democrat and as a staunch supporter of segregation. He fought against Civil Rights and against the integration of blacks and whites students in public schools.
I don't know where you got your information but a simple google search will confirm everything that I told you. Blacks started to vote Democrat in the 1930s because of Roosevelt's "New Deal", for the first time in American history. Before that, they'd always voted Republican and the Republican Party had grown in the south after the Civil War because of the Black Republicans. The New Deal was the big shift in black politics, yet it was mostly Democrats that fought against the repealing of the Jim Crow laws thirty years later.
Don't believe me. Learn about American political history. These are facts that Democrats like to keep hidden and one can hardly blame them for that. It might be time to stop pointing fingers and to take responsibility for ourselves as individual human beings instead of aligning ourselves into groups who will say anything to malign their opposition.
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
@michaelpalmieri7335
When Obama was first elected, I did think that this was a turning point for race relations in the US. Was I right but not in the way I thought.
Obama was in the unique position of being the one person who could have brought some sense to the discord after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson. Instead, he basically said nothing and let that city burn, even though it was found that the "hands up, don't shoot" was false. By the time it was done not only Ferguson was burning, so were parts of Milwaukee, Baltimore, Minneapolis and Dallas. People were marching in the streets, some even calling for the killing of ordinary and random police officers and 5 officers in Dallas and 2 in New York were brutally murdered in response to the anti-police rhetoric of the press and certain leaders. One was a young black officer, mother of 2, who was waiting in her police vehicle and was executed with a bullet to the back of the head. Obama did nothing and the reason for that was simple. There was an election coming and he didn't want to upset the black voters. Race relations have been at their worst since the sixties. That was Obama's legacy and not one that he should be proud of.
I would agree that Trump should never have praised Gianforte for body slamming that reporter however he did NOT mock that reporter for his handicap. The media gave the impression that the reporter Serge Kovaleski had cerebral palsy, a disease in which the sufferer loses body control. Kovaleski does NOT have cerebral palsy so he does NOT suffer from the lose of body control that one would see if he were afflicted by that disease. He speaks quite normally. Trump was mocking his fluster at being caught in an awkward stance on a claim he made. This is Kovaleski and how he normally talks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ45EsD2Gc0
These are examples of how Trump mocks people who get caught in a lie and acting flustered. He has done it many times in the past. No one is going to claim the Ted Cruz is handicapped or even himself, years before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AedzsWd-ME
Maybe Trump could have handled it better when he did find out the guy did have a bad arm but he wasn't mocking him for that. He was mocking him for getting caught in saying something that wasn't true by using exaggerated antics that a flustered person might use. To say that he was mocking his handicap is being disingenuous, at best, dishonest at worst.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@shaniajackson7864
You can't even tell which brand of Christianity is the correct one. Is it the Roman Catholic Church? The Presbyterian Church? How about Calvinism or the Amish? Millions died and were persecuted trying to sort that out. Furthermore, it's the belief in God that matters, not the ideology. Ideology is the man made construct and Christianity has splintered into all kinds of factions. We, as humans, don't have the wisdom to distinguish each facet of the teachings of the Bible and 2 people could read the same passage in their Bible and come to different conclusions to its meaning.
That's was a major reason why the founding fathers of the US allowed freedoms. They wanted to avoid the endless wars and deaths that plagued Europe for centuries. Freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, all the basic principles of the Constitution, that will allow us all our own path to live our life the way that God granted us. The Apostles never once advocated that Christians force anyone to believe in Jesus. The only thing important was faith and that was something that was lost in the Middle Ages and was slowly brought back, starting with the Reformation and culminating in the American Constitution.
Also, the Kingdom of Heaven will never be attained on earth. Jesus told us that, explicitly. Any attempt to force it or say that Christianity is the only way, negates the fact that we're still human and as such we will pervert his way. That's a guarantee. The realisation will come with the Kingdom of Heaven, not by the Evangelicals, who believe that they have the right to tell me how to believe or what to believe.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I've always said that socialists are transgressing one of the Ten Commandments, the Big Ten, as I like to call them. It took me years to understand the significance of this commandment but it's when I began to study economic ideologies that I began to understand. Coveting inspires resentment, than anger, then rage and finally retaliation. It doesn't build, it takes from those that their rage is directed at. I'm not religious at all, but it amazes me that people, living well over 2000 years ago, understood this basic principle of the human condition. Yet, in spite of numerous examples, of the relationship between coveting and socialism, people still don't get it, today.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ShnoogleMan
There is only one issue that I have with your argument. There are a lot of people that didn't think that the statue of Lee should have been removed. Not Nazis, not white supremacists, but ordinary people who believe that ALL aspects of our history should be honoured and remembered, even the negative. It should be remembered because it highlights that we are all human and the fight for human rights took hundreds, thousands of years and is still ongoing.
Are you seriously saying that because Nazis have their own reasons for letting that statue remain, these ordinary citizens can't have their own, separate opinions on the subject? The US is still a free country and people can believe as they want and not be pigeonholed into categories by those who would use it against them. They had every right to voice their opinion and they have every right to oppose Nazism and white supremacy, as well.
You painted a lot of people with a wide brush and not only is it unfair, it's dogmatic in nature. Like that woman, described in the NY Times, who went there and was NOT a part of the "Unite the Right" rallies, she has EVERY right to feel that the statue should remain. To call her a de facto Nazi is nothing but an attempt to silence an argument that might have merit.
4
-
@ShnoogleMan
There were NO peaceful conservatives at the events at Charlottesville? You know this how? All those who were in favour of keeping the statue of Lee standing were all violent Nazis. That's quite an assumption and you have no way of proving that.
Statues can bring about conversations and spark an interest in the time or the statue and the struggles involved. Not everyone is a reader and I've spent hours, in museums, staring at paintings and sculptures of people and events of the past, some of which I hadn't heard of before and I'm an avid reader. It brings into context history, human frailty, struggle and pain. It also helps to bring understanding instead of a pervasive atmosphere of fault and blame. History, the world and humans are complex and we need to see it from ALL angles, not just the preferred narratives of those with agendas. It's why freedom is so important.
Lastly, Trump explicitly denounced Nazism and white supremacy. Whether there were good people on both sides are irrelevant if he believed that not all people on the 2 sides were there for violence and hatred. Basically saying that just because you believe that the statue must go or stay, doesn't automatically make you an evil person.
Then you bring up the Nazi statue argument. My family suffered greatly under the heel of Nazi occupation. My mother nearly starved to death over the winter of 45, eating only pencil sized eel for days at a time. I went, with my uncle, to the Jewish detention camp at Westerbork, a camp he was imprisoned in for almost 6 weeks and he told me of the horrors that he endured and witnessed. He wasn't Jewish so he went to a POW camp and was forced to work in the kitchens for 2 years. However, I had to work with a man who was in the SS as did others who were wounded fighting the Nazis and lost family to them. Was it our duty to hate this guy until the day he died? The war was over and we had to lay down our arms, in reality and metaphorically. We had to work together, sit together and talk to one another and try to understand why it all had to happen. Either that or we become the executioners, open our own death camps and or maybe just stew in our hate till the day we die. The victims of those times chose to forgive and live on. Of course not all of them but the large percentage of them did. What's really ironic is that those who were the direct victims of Nazi actions are more willing to forgive than those who've never had a Nazi hand raised to them.
Also, it isn't as if America invented slavery. Slavery has been an accepted part of humanity for thousands of years and endured through that millennia. The 19th century saw the end to slavery as being culturally and socially accepted. It was a terrible struggle, not just in the US, but in many other places. It might be more advantageous to offer an olive branch towards one another instead of fighting that war into eternity. Let's try to remember those that lived in those times with understanding, instead of hatred and anger. Not one of us lived their lives or experienced those times and have no right to judge them as our inferiors.
Do I like Nazi ideology? No, emphatically.....NO. However, I would never show up at a Nazi rally, today, armed with clubs, mace and or any weapons, ready to fight. I might decry what they're trying to accomplish, but, right now, we're not a war and I would hope that we, as civilised humans, have progressed enough to fight them with logic and reason and not with brute strength. Reserve that as the last option. Antifa tactics are not the way to defeat ideology and I stand against them as strongly as I do Nazism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Leo Weisberger
Socialism definition:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
An economy owned or regulated by the community. That's socialism. What I described was a social program. No nation can exist without social programs. The military, transportation, a court system and more, are programs that are not best to the whims of powerful individuals but as the purview of elected officials, chosen by people as their representatives.
However, the economy, should be at the direction of those same people, based on the will of a free market and those who would answer the needs of those individuals, in the market, who choose how those needs are met. Socialism, as stated in the definition that I copied from a dictionary, does not meet the standards that I just set.
When Bernie Sanders said the he wanted to change the US into a socialist state, similar to that of the Scandinavian countries, the Prime Minister of Denmark informed him that Denmark was NOT a socialist country. He said it was a free market system with strong social safety nets.
In Canada, we have a social medical system, as it is felt that our health has no market value. I cannot use my health as collateral to get a loan and a country does not assess its financial status using the health of its citizens as a financial asset. Assets are judged on production of market goods. If the market is controlled by the people, ostensibly, by the government as their representative, it is a socialist system. If it's a free market system, beholden only to the market itself and the rule of law, then it is NOT socialism.
I advocate for a free market economy. I also acknowledge that a community must also pool together to support the areas that cannot be at the whims of a free market, the areas not involved in the production of goods that accrue wealth.
I paid into my pension. It's mine, NOT the government's. I'm owed it because I paid into it, just like any other pension.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Sylvertaco
They wrote the Constitution under their understanding of society of that time. An understanding that was the norm for a couple of thousand years. Many of the founding fathers were already anti-slavery but to mount a good defence against the British, they had to compromise to the states that wanted slavery. It was a bone of contention right from the get go. 20 years after independence, the Atlantic slave trade was abolished and it was a step by step progression towards the end of slavery which was finally achieved. It wasn't easy and yet, any reading of the Constitution, as it is written, had to acknowledge the rights of all humans. Those who supported slavery and were against women's suffrage, didn't go by what the Constitution actually said but by tradition and their belief on what the founding fathers meant. In other words, they didn't want to accept that Africans were men and that went against both fact and the Bible, in fact, the belief that even Africans had a soul. If they have a soul they had to except that they were also men.
I'm not saying this out of a Christian belief system. I'm saying this from what is taught in the Bible and the idea that all men are created equal before God. They had to face the fact that if there was only one way to interpret the Constitution and to dispute it, they would have to accept the idea that Africans were not humans or subject to the grace of God.
3
-
3
-
@TheRed02151
I'm NOT a Trump fanatic so there goes THAT assumption. If you made that assumption about me, then what assumptions have you made about Sorbo. Now, YOU'RE the one being careless.
I don't care for Obama, either. His "hope and change" slogan happened all right. By the end of his presidency, major cities were being burnt in a wave of racial strife. I had sincerely thought that his presidency would improve race issues but it made it even worse...by far. However, as much as I don't like Obama, the immigrant thing is ridiculous. You see, I can separate people from ideas....something that you can't seem to do. I don't like Trump but I agreed with quite a few of his programs. NOT ALL OF THEM!!!! Get that straight. Some I didn't like at all but most of all I didn't like his personality.
You see, I can separate the person from ideas and I don't judge a person on single issues. Life is much more complex than that. I didn't support the Democrats in the last election but I fervently wished that it had been someone else, besides Trump, running for president. You see ....ONCE AGAIN.... I can separate people from ideas and one wrong idea doesn't say everything about a person. People are too complex to do that and only the most simplistic of people judge a person on a single issue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dillon Duncan
Way to go with the demonisation of one side. Just to emphasise how "horrible" the Israelis are, you throw in the "murder children" phrase, insinuating that killing Palestinian children is an Israeli tactic. Hyperbole like that should really help negotiations and understanding.
Israel isn't going deeper into Palestine at all. They fought a war against outsiders, Jordan, Egypt and Syria with help from various other Arab countries and eventually took this land over. Israel actually gave Egypt back the Sinai Peninsula and voluntarily allowed the Gaza strip to become solely under the control of Palestinians. Did they take advantage of it? NO. Instead, the Palestinians there, Hamas and the PLO, took money, given from outside sources, and bought military goods with it and lined the pockets of top Palestinian leaders. If you would EVER get into all the times that the Palestinians were offered an independent state of their own, you'd know that they refused EVERY time. Yet, they don't need to have it.
There are nearly 2,000,000 Muslims, called Palestinians, living in Israel proper. Not in Gaza or the West Bank, but in Israel. They have full citizenship, able to vote, have sat in the Knesset, joined that Israeli military and police, own land and businesses. They have every right that an Jewish Israeli has. However, the Palestinians don't want that. They want to RULE the Levant and have said so repeatedly. In other words, the Dimmi state, where Muslim rule supreme and others live there under conditions set by the Muslim leaders, the clerics.
There has NEVER been an independent Palestinian state in the Levant. It has always been controlled from outside. The British, the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian Mamluks, the Mongols, the Kurds, the Crusaders, the Arabs, the Byzantines, the Romans. The last time the area was independent was under the rule of the Maccabees, over 2000 years ago. They led a Jewish rebellion against a Greek ruler, Antiochus IV. The inhabitants of the Levant have always been diverse, including local Muslims, Jews, Christians and pilgrims from various religious orders. The Jews didn't start to dominate till after they migrated there due to persecution in Europe and other countries, starting when the Ottomans controlled the region and growing when the British had it for a short time. Under the British, the local Muslims, were offered a homeland, TWICE, but the Muslims turned the offers down both times. In spite of the fact that Jews and Christians had always lived there, the Muslims wanted complete control for themselves.
This is history and the facts.
Also, it seems that you've conveniently forgotten all the rocket attacks by Palestinians. Forgotten the 25,000 dollars, American, the Saddam Hussein, would give to the families of suicide bombers, who would strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in busy shopping malls and markets. None of that counts for you or you've ignored it.
I don't think that Israel should be expanding into the West Bank. They should have done with that area the same as they did the Gaza strip and allowed the Palestinians to live there, independently. However, that was a decision they made after Palestinian leaders REJECTED the offer of a Palestinian state in the region. So what do the Israelis do now? Leave the area in limbo or every Jew in Israel, all 6 million plus, get out because that's the only thing that would satisfy Palestinian leadership.
3
-
3
-
@july6949
Really? Neo-liberal capitalism did that? You do realise that this capitalism that you're speaking of is an idea, don't you. Ideas don't build bombs. People do. So....what you're saying is that some people, who believe in the idea of capitalism, ideologists, killed him in the name of Capitalism? That's seem hard to believe.
Was this bomb blast in a western capitalist country? A country that respects the rule of law? If it did, it wasn't capitalism that killed him, it was people protecting their own self interest and they committed a crime and should face the consequences of that crime.
However, I don't know the specifics of this incident because you're claim is too broad to truly assess what the motives were. Had you given the details, like location, the motive of the perpetrators and why they'd set off a bomb, we could all see how true that claim of yours truly is. Without it, I'd say it's just hyperbolic nonsense, prompted by an ideological mindset.
3
-
@july6949
I'm truly sorry for your loss but I strongly disagree with your assessment of capitalism and how it killed your friend.
Capitalism is an economic system. It's a means of production, a way to create value through labour and creativity by allowing the individual the freedom to operate their economy within bounds. Those bounds being the rule of law. Capitalism is implemented by people and those people are bound by that rule of law. It doesn't matter under what system of production that is being used. If you do something that contravenes that law, you are now acting outside the acceptable behaviour of your political entity as enshrined in your legal code.
Columbia is a western country but when I used that term, I was referring to the first world countries that pattern themselves after the type of government the US has. This would be Canada, Britain, Japan, South Korea, western Europe, etc....
Columbia is NOT included in this group. They are a developing country with a mid range economy at best.
You may ask why I stress the importance of the rule of law and the reason is this. Capitalism, indeed any society, will only reach success if their set of laws are fully respected, understood and implemented. That clearly didn't happen in the case of your friend. Every person is bound by the legal code of their country. The central theme being that everyone has the right to their personal freedom as long as it doesn't impose on the freedom of others. That has NOTHING to do with capitalism, except the freedom to conduct personal economy as one sees fit.....as long as it doesn't contravene the law and principles of human rights. Owning my own company does NOT release me from any obligation to the law or the freedom of others.
Your friend died, not because of capitalism, but because there were those who believed themselves free of the obligations of the law or the preservation of human rights. They killed him for personal interests, no different than had I entered my neighbour's home and killed him to obtain his property. If the government, in effect, those who are a part of the government, allows it to happen, indeed sanctions my actions, then they too are violating the personal right of my neighbour to own his property, legally attained and to his life.
If the Columbian government, the individuals the run that government, allowed and sanctioned the murder of your friend, they violated his human rights. They did it for self interest. That's not capitalism. It wouldn't matter what economic system they believed in. They broke the law. Had they been socialist, they still broke the law. Had it been a huge company that sanctioned it, the law is still broken. Had they been a religious faction, Catholics, Muslims, Zoroastrians or whatever, they broke the law.
This is why, in the United States, an incoming president swears to uphold the Constitution. It is vital to the freedom of individual rights. He doesn't swear to protect capitalism because capitalism is an expression of those individual rights, the freedom of the individual to create value. If the president acts against that Constitution, he breaks the law.
We have laws because we understand that humans are flawed and will act in their own self interest, even if it means violating the self interests of others. Everyone, operating in a capitalist economy, is still bound by those laws. The economy doesn't rule. It is still subservient to a Constitution and the guidelines that allow human rights for all.
To finish, Capitalism did not kill your friend. People, working outside the law with no regard for human rights, killed your friend.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billpracells8876
I've watched this video before. This doesn't prove that Trump supports the alt-right at all. It's trying to prove that PragerU is mistaken about how the MSM didn't report Trump's condemnation of Neo-Nazis and advance the insinuation that everyone that went there to protest the removal of the statue had to be alt-right and Nazi sympathisers.
You've already been shown that General Lee did NOT support slavery. So why did he fight on the Confederate side? He did it because he was loyal to the state of North Carolina and because the Civil War was more than a fight over slavery. It was a fight over state's rights, as well. In fact, the slaves weren't set free until AFTER the war had started, almost 2 years later and Lee opposed the war but reluctantly joined because he felt a loyalty to his home and his state.
People fought for the south for various reasons, NOT just to fight for slavery. In fact, most Confederate soldiers never owned a slave. Why would they fight and die for something that they would never have? Why would Lee fight for a cause that he had openly opposed for years?
That's why that statue shouldn't be removed. People, like you, want everything to be simple. "He's evil and he's good" and there's always that implication that you're good, as well, because you support the "good" guy. The world is more complex than that and so are people. That's the discussion that we should be having. We should be trying to understand the world of the time and the motivations of all the combatants, on both sides, and not turn it into a proxy war today of "good vs evil". That's a childish view of the world. Worse.....it implies that you'd never be on the side of evil...EVER.
Nietzsche once wrote "Whoever fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." You could become that monster in a zealous rage.
That's why the statue shouldn't be torn down. It's to remind us that this conflict was more complex than we can know and that we have to discuss the frailty of the human heart. It's to prevent us from vilifying one another through full understanding.
The protests about the statue had been ongoing. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists went there to advance their own agenda and because of a disagreement, over that statue, that was already in progress and had been for a long time.
I know this is a long comment but life and people are more complex than. "They're EVIL!!!!". That simplistic AND dangerous.
2
-
@billpracells8876
I never ONCE said that I supported slavery. What I said is that history and the people that lived it are complex and we should try to understand them, instead of categorising them into good and evil. It's how we understand ourselves.
In fact, that's what you're doing to me, right now. You're not making any points on the complexities of history. You're just trying to win an argument by vilifying me. It's not a discussion, it's just more accusations.
My father grew up 30 miles east of the German border, in the Netherlands, during the war. How much different his life would have been had he been born, 35 miles east of where he grew up. He's have been in Germany. Why did that line on the map destine him to be one of the good guys, yet his counterpart, 35 miles away, was marching with the Hitler youth? Would YOU, living in central Germany, in 1935, refused to join the Hitler youth? Would you have been that special that you would have went against your family, your friends, teachers, neighbours and community and defied them all by tacitly rejecting the Nazis?
I doubt it. I'd like to think that I would and so do you, but the reality is that we'd have both been proudly goose stepping beside one another, proudly carrying the Nazi flag in our Hitler youth uniforms. To not admit that, is a refusal to understand yourself and how the human mind works and it's a discussion we should all have about ourselves and human history. Also, you don't know what your feelings would have been about slavery had you not the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to be virtuous when you don't have to live it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raulcantu9142
Look at the "Yellow Vest" protests in France. It's directly due to a carbon tax that raised fuel prices, dramatically. Suddenly, the reality of it hit the average person. Rich people in France, they can pay it but what about the average person. How are they going to heat their homes, get to work. They can't afford the fuel. That's the reality of it. The rich, the elite, they have the money. Most people don't.
And it even goes deeper than that. More people have been raised from abject poverty, over the last 20 years, than at any time in history. The major reason for that is fairly cheap energy. Now, they're driving first world poorer people down the poverty pipe. What's going to happen to these newly developing countries? It will devastate them. These added taxes may well cause more turmoil and migration than the climate change does. Their solution might be worse than the problem they're trying to solve....but the media, Hollywood types, academicians, politicians and upper middle class keep telling the ordinary person that he's the problem and he's the one that going to suffer most from their solutions.
If we don't allow ourselves to be able to talk honestly about the problem, we're in for a bad time of it, but it's like a religion to them. Question their dogma and you're a heretic. Go to any university, in the first world, and start questioning the politics of climate change. They'll shut you up and quick.
2
-
Terry Tater
Being a country guy, I can tell you how frustrating it is to see these city folk move into our neighbourhoods. They come in and are surprised that the country isn't what they expected and then try to change it to the image they have in their heads....meaning, they try to change us.
Yes, I'm conservative. I'm about self reliance, personal responsibility, individual rights and sovereignty, hard work, and judging others on their character and integrity. I don't decry the actions of others when I'm guilty of those things myself.
I try to say what I mean and conversely, mean what I say. It's how people of integrity should try to live their lives. I don't always succeed, in fact, I'm a failure a good part of the time but I recognise the weaknesses the reside in me. That's why I take umbrage in the defensive stance of this woman. She won't take responsibility for her part in what she sees as a problem. She wants it to be about everyone else BUT her. Had she admitted her role in this perceived problem and how difficult it will be to change the mindset of the average person, the conversation could have went in a more positive direction. But she wouldn't do that. All she wanted to do was identify the bad guy and then exert control.
My ego isn't so grand that I think I can change the world but I do know that I can try to control my own actions. Worse, I don't have the right to control them anyway. Change, positive change, comes through a cultural renaissance, led by consciences of individuals, acting on their own free will. It's no different that the cultural change that the internet brought about. Individual decisions to use the new technology, no one being forced into it but a silent, yet overwhelming force of personal choices.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AUmapathi1
I don't want to lesson the impact the loss of the Arawak people or others had on them or even begin to suggest that it's a good thing. However, as an impact on world history, it's not that big a deal. Peoples have come and gone for tens of thousands of years and they include in the Americas. These are people that were already gone when the Europeans arrived there and whose existence will likely be forever lost in human memory. This has happened all over the earth. Their extinction had a huge impact on them at the time, but to us it's barely a footnote if anything at all. It's just a continuous pattern of human existence which ends with us.
Columbus was one of those rare men who really changed the course of history. There are very few of those. Mohammed, Jesus (if he existed) or those that wrote the Gospels, Confucius, Guttenberg, Pasteur and Newton are others. They all had impacts on human life that had lasting effects and whose life's work will always have the distinction of changing the world.
That doesn't mean that they were always good people. They weren't, just like the rest of us. The capacity for good and evil lies within us all. That's a given, like it or not and Columbus is no different. One of the biggest lessons we learn from men like that is not just the big contributions that they made but also in the realisation that they are ordinary men who did things that were out of the ordinary and that potential is in all of us, just like the potential to commit horrendous acts. Too many people want to vilify instead of learn. It's as if they're really saying how good they believe themselves to be and that is one of the biggest mistakes any person can make.
2
-
2
-
@JhutaNabi
Of course Columbus was controversial in his time. He was an Italian, getting exclusive licences to operate in the New World, in Spain. The members of the Spanish Court were envious of a foreigner getting these potentially lucrative deals. Also, Columbus was bull headed and ambitious and that would add to the bad feelings about him. Another factor was the tendency for other Europeans to vilify the Spaniards, including Columbus as he worked for the Spanish crown, in a movement known as the "Black Legend". This was a strong bigotry against anything that was Spanish.
I think that it's laughable when I say that the anti-slavery movement started in the late 1700s and then you prove it with your reference to a paper wrote in 1836, when the abolitionist movement was starting to gain traction in the US. It uses new interpretations of the Bible to refute slavery. That's what the Reformation was all about....new interpretations of the Bible that forced people to question the dogma of the church and it all started AFTER Columbus died.
I will give you another short example. My father was born 10 miles west of the German border, in the Netherlands. He was 8 years old when the Nazis invaded and him and his brother hid in a ditch, terrified, as the German army marched passed them. Yet, had he been born 20 miles to the east of where he had hidden, he'd be German and marching proudly, pretending that he was off to fight for the fatherland and dreaming of the day that he would be one of those soldiers. He's told me that many times. The difference between him hating the Nazis and being a good guy and loving them and being thought of as a monster, was defined by a line on a map. That's it. He knows that he'd have been just as susceptible to the lure of Hitler that all his school mates had been.
What's really strange is that you hardly ever hear about the atrocities of the Aztecs and how they'd capture slaves to sacrifice to their Gods. These were blood baths and Cortez and his men were horrified at the carnage. Why aren't we talking about that?
All people are doing is congratulating themselves on how moral they are by comparing themselves to those of the past who we now see as taking part in things that we feel are now wrong. Telling ourselves that we're better than they are when in reality we're not. We just live in a time and place in which we were taught to vilify these things because our ancestors started to question their beliefs....a product of our times. We're like my dad was, born on the right side of boundary that was set by others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sylvertaco
Because you can't have an Einstein day and an Aristotle day, Darwin day, Pasteur day, Newton day, Copernicus day, Martin Luther King day (ok, you can have that one), Aquinas Day, Thomas Payne day, Adam Smith day and on and on, because it is unworkable. Columbus was one of the biggest and for some reason, through a kind of social evolution, people thought his accomplishment was bit enough to remember. It became a tradition. Suddenly, some people think traditions aren't worth having or they've decided that this person isn't perfect so that day should be eliminated. As a matter of fact, that's exactly why some KKK members fought the idea of a Martin Luther King day. They pointed out that he made mistakes and that eliminates his ideas as worthy.
I wasn't around when Columbus Day was celebrated. People had their traditions back then. We still celebrate those traditions today. It's the same with Christmas. They are the result of tradition and heritage. They don't just pop out of the air like someone waved a magic wand. It's a remembrance of something worth remembering.
You're making too big a deal out of it. You're telling people that their traditions are bogus because you don't get it. The answer is this. YOU don't celebrate it. Let others do as they will. I have no more right to tell others what is important to them than anyone else has to tell me what is important to me. If people want to celebrate Columbus, have at er. Now, I'm going to celebrate Thanksgiving....another day some people are now criticising. Also, a day that took place because a group of people heard about a land that lay to the west, across the ocean, and decided to got there. A land discovered by Columbus. See how that works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Explain to me why it is only certain speakers that aren't allowed to speak at universities? If I have the nerve to suggest, in some blogs, that BLM may not be the correct way to go to solve racial difficulties, I get creamed for it. If I say Serena Williams acted like a spoiled child at that tennis match, even though I also McEnroe also behaved like a spoiled brat in his time, I'm a racist and sexist. This is the group that has infiltrated the Democratic party and allowed Hillary to say that white people have to learn (fill in the blank) and that white men have to do (again, fill in the blank) and the party that suggested that the right are nothing but a bunch of bigoted hillbillies.
I've always supported left wing ideas, until the end of the Obama era. It was then the left started to support violence, doxing commenters on social media, vilifying the male patriarchy, protesting speakers and smashing private property and threatening people they don't like. Wear a MAGA hat on campus at many colleges and you risk being attacked. Show a small segment of a debate on public TV, like Lindsey Shepherd did, and be reprimanded before a tribunal and told that you may have broken the law. Comedians don't even do colleges anymore because of the reactions of left wing students who shut up anyone that displeases them.
I'm now a centrist, hoping that someone starts a movement of a group that allows freedom of expression and won't tell me that I have no right to free speech and doesn't carry the victim mentality that has permeated left wing thinking.
I'm not even sure what strawman points I've made. Maybe you should be a little specific when you make those accusations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sylvertaco
Would the theory of evolution always be a mystery had Darwin not put it out as a theory. I doubt that very much....but he was the one that did it. Similarly, I'm sure eventually someone else would have crossed the ocean and discovered the new lands.....but that didn't happen. We're not talking about the hypothetical here. We're talking about what DID happen.
I've shown you all kinds of sources of why people don't want to celebrate Columbus or have a day for him, all of which are ideological. This is the source of these changes. Now, maybe you have another reason, like thinking that celebrating the life of a non-American is weird. I don't know but that would seem a little shallow and elitist, as if to say non-Americans should have nothing to offer Americans and should not be celebrated. I can't help but wonder though that it is an attempt to cover up the ideological and try to impress with reasons outside of the ideological to prove that it has no effect on you.
I'm also putting out the idea that things don't happen in a vacuum and that if the only argument was that it's weird, you wouldn't be so deeply vested in getting rid of this holiday. It's like the feminist who's trying to say that we should get rid of father's day and then saying it has nothing to do with her ideology but more to do with some other vague reason.....like, it's weird.
My issues with the left is that it has become ideological and rigid and that if you don't meet their standards of perfection, you must be vilified. That standard is completely arbitrary and anyone could be victims of its application. Find the flaw in the individual and then attack him/her for it. If you can't find the flaw, go to the one sure way to tear him down. Accuse him of a sex crime which must be believed. The flaws of Columbus were easy. The flaws of others might be a little harder to find but we still have the MeToo thing. You can always defeat the enemy that way.
The new left has adopted a method to ensure compliance with their ways. The Columbus Day debate is only a small manifestation of how they think. Dare to step out of line and they will destroy you. It's a type of authoritarian rule that is based on group identity (celebrating the life of a non-American is weird, as an example) that is so powerful that there is no one immune to it's far reaching tentacles, including the most ardent left leaning ideologue. Just say the wrong thing and you could be their next victim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sylvertaco
Wow...that is about the most smug and arrogant thing I've read in a long time. This whole thing came from a time when the average person had very little education and what they had was very limited. They learned the big moments of the past from the dozens of books, if they were lucky, that they had, and you have the absolute, unmitigated gall to call them "dumb".
This was how, most of whom didn't get past a grade 5 type education, learned and appreciated the things of their history.....but they were "dumb". I suppose it was similar to my mom and dad, who back in the thirties, didn't get past grade 6 in school, dumb people.... or my grandparents, one of which left school when he was nine to go to work......what a dumb ass.
It a simpler time. You are applying your.....OUR world view onto people who lived completely different lives than we do, but they're "dumb".
My God. What absolute and complete arrogance. No respect for the past or for the lives they had to live. Just your own complacence and belief that you know how "dumb" the people of those times were. Wow....just Wow.
Maybe, for just one moment, you could realise what life was like for those "dumb" people, you'd feel a little empathy for them and the lives that they had to endure. But no....they're just a bunch of "dumb" hillbillies. How arrogant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
irishque halim
It was never a Palestinian state, either. In 1516, the Ottoman Turks conquered the region and it belonged the Ottoman Empire until the end of WW1. It was overtaken by Egypt in 1832 and land was given to Egyptian Arabs and soldiers in what is now coastal Gaza and Israel, the first of many migrations into the area including Jews. In 1840, Britain intervened and gave the land back to the Turks.
The late 19th century saw the immigration of many Arabs and Jews into the region. The Arabs didn't mind if the immigrants were Muslim but they didn't want Jewish immigrants, but they came anyway. That is the crux of this entire problem. It's the religious problem. If the Jews would embrace Islam, there would be no issues in that region.
After the WW1, Britain took over the region and held it for almost thirty years. That's when they offered the 2 state solution. Many of the citizens of the area had only had a history in the region for less than 100 years, yet the Arab immigrants were considered to be full Palestinians while Jews were not. That's why the 2 state solution was rejected by the Arabs, including Arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria, who really have no interest in the area except their rejection of anything Jewish. Once again, only Muslims were wanted by the local Arabs.
What's troubling is that the same people that support Muslim immigration to Western countries, particularly Europe, reject Jewish immigration to the Levant. I'm seeing a double standard here. If there has never been a country in the area, ran by the locals, how could one segment of the locals feel that they only have the right to rule the area and to set immigration policies.
Right now there are 1.8 million Muslims in what we now call Israel. They have been offered full citizenship and many have accepted the offer. They can vote, hold office, own land and businesses, have even joined the Israeli army and been elected to the Israeli Knesset. They enjoy a better life standard than the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and what's even more perplexing is that the Palestinian leadership, Hamas, has received huge amounts of cash from oil rich Muslim countries, yet these countries have never even offered to take in Palestinians to live in their country. Strangely, places like the US has allowed them into their country. Activist, Linda Sarcour is Palestinian and living in New York. Where are the Palestinians that could be in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries?
This has everything to do with the religion of Islam and nothing to do with cooperation or understanding. The Muslims of the region must win. Calling them Palestinians is a red herring. It has nothing to do with Palestinians. It's about Islam....that's all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrendyStone
We can't read minds but we can imply what he meant when it's put into context. If he wasn't talking about Nazis and white supremacists, who was he talking about? Who else was there? If no one else was there, he's covering for himself, basically lying. If there were others there, then we can, by implication, conclude that the ones he was talking about, on that specific side, were those people. Not the Nazis but those who were advancing their own beliefs in what was happening that day, specifically, that we shouldn't tear down monuments to history. That's the logical approach.
1
-
1
-
@billpracells8876
“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,”. - Robert E Lee 1856
I copied and pasted this from a comment made by Trendy Brown which was directed at YOU. You either didn't read it or are wilfully ignoring it. In case you think this was made up, here's the evidence that it is FACT.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-e-lee-was-not-a-proponent-of-slavery/2013/12/12/9fe474c2-626b-11e3-af0d-4bb80d704888_story.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/arlington-bobby-lee-and-the-peculiar-institution/61428/
This is a known fact that will be lost when we wilfully erase Lee's real life and feelings,from history, and replace it with vilification and denigration.
Slavery wasn't just an American phenomenon. It's 10,000 years old and has been a part of human history all over the world. To reduce it to a moment of time, to a single era, is reducing it to a childish view of humanity and to a simplistic understanding of the human psyche.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnEusebioToronto
And if you'd have fought for the Confederacy, it might be YOU that would be vilified today. "That General John Eusebio was nothing but a disgusting racist" would be the cry.....but life is much more complex than that. You may have even doubted why you're doing what you're doing but who doesn't do that? What I think is important is not just what you did, but how you got to be in that place to where you ended up at.
History isn't just about knowing how to spot the bad guys and to "learn from history", as they say. It's a mirror that you hold in front of you to see that reflection of all that came before you that made you who you are today. That's both the good and the ugly. Not only are you Lee but you're Grant. You're the man looking for the witch and you're the witch being burnt at the stake. You have to know that the potential to be either one is there within you. If you only view it as "This guy good" and "That guy bad", you learn nothing about yourself and humanity. People are so much more than that and I find the idea of vilification extremely dangerous, just as I find the idea of sanctification of heroes to be dangerous.
That's why I want to remember Lee as a human being, not just as a Confederate General and a racist, white supremacist and just plain awful. People cared about him. He had family, maybe a dog, neighbours that looked up to him and people that couldn't stand him. We NEED to know him as a man....NOT just as that General that was fought for the wrong side.
I learned that from my father who grew up a short distance from the German border during the war. That stupid line in the map, allowed him to be one of the "Good guys". That's it. Had he been born that short distance, to the east of his home town, he would have marched with the Hitler Youth and be forever be stigmatised with the Nazi label. It was that easy.
Please try to understand that history is about people....REAL people, who need to be understood. Those people that are tearing down his statues aren't interested in understanding. They're possessed by a hatred, a sanctimonious hatred that may, in the end, may have more casualties than General Lee ever even thought of. It's the evil of good intentions and it's frightening.
1
-
@JohnEusebioToronto
If you take down the statues and only speak of their evils, you'll never hear about the humanity within them, either. It's the "hate the sin but love the sinner" ideal put forward by some religious leaders.
What I'm seeing is hatred and it's coming from those who are obsessed with racism, white privilege, colonialism, sexism and how THEY are the ones combating evil. I know someone else who thought they were combating evil. They were the Inquisition, who saw evil and were going to fix it and became evil themselves. They were the communists, who saw the Bourgeoisie as the evil oppressors and killed women and children, in their belief that once they were gone, the world would be better. What I see, right now, are self righteous do gooders, knowing deep in their hearts, that if only those evil doers were gone, destroyed and controlled, the world would be a better place and they're tearing the country apart. My nephew, a factory worker, had to go to a meeting, that told him and his co-workers that they were part of an oppressive system and that they had to change who they were to make for a better workplace and world. It reminded me of going to church and the preacher telling us how evil we were and how we must repent to be saved. He told me that a lot of his co-workers were resentful and felt as if this guy had no right to make assumptions about their character or intentions. This is what all this is doing and is about.
"White fragility". How we're all guilty and you'd better follow the rules, say the right things, don't use the intersectional swear words or the "God" of Equity will get you fired or worse. They're fixing the world through vilification and hatred and it's not going to work. In fact, it's killing people as we speak.
1
-
1
-
@JohnEusebioToronto
Both Hitler and Davis were responsible for horrific wars and actions, but alone, they were nothing. Without the help of millions, those wars would never have happened. They embodied the dark entity inside of us all and, even though they led the insanity, they are just another spoke in the wheel. Hitler is the face of it, the man that makes that entity real but he's no different than you or I had we that moment of opportunity, darkness and power. Like it or not, Hitler is still you. It's the demon that can be released at any time. Hating Hitler isn't what saves you in the end. It's knowing that he's not that special a demon and we're no better than he is and we'd better realise that all it takes is the right motivation to release that demon. Hate is what it lives on and hating a man, even one like Hitler, opens that door, just another crack, so that demon escape. Hate what he did, feel pity for the man. He's us.
1
-
@JohnEusebioToronto
The statue for Lee was part of a healing process between 2 factions of one country. It does no good to anyone to continually vilify one side, the south, as if they're not fit to exist, to talk to or acknowledge. It's there to say, to each other that this is over and we need to work TOGETHER, to make this a country of understanding and to put those differences in the past by forgiving. All that you're doing, by taking those statues down is pouring salt on a wound that was healed years ago. Slavery has been over 160 years ago. Time to let the war come to an end. Time to say, to each other that we know that we disagreed on this and now we'll move forward, AS BROTHERS AND COUNTRYMEN, not as winners and losers, saints and murderous animals. That's not healing. That's being spiteful from a victor who thinks himself morally superior and continuously jabbing those who he feels superior to.
It's not saying that you approve of slavery. It's saying that you're ready to move on. Apparently, you're not ready yet. Let it go. THE CIVIL WAR IS OVER. THE SLAVES ARE FREE. No one in America wants to see slavery return. Quit beating a dead horse.
1
-
@JohnEusebioToronto
You really DO want to fight, don't you. All right then. What party supported the KKK. THE DEMOCRATS. They were against the black vote and many of the KKK leadership were also high in the Democrat party. The KKK formed to prevent blacks from voting Republican in the south. Blacks voted Republican because they were the ones that freed them, gave them full citizenship and then gave them the vote. The first 30 plus black Congressman were all Republicans. When Republican Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House for supper, it was Democrats who were enraged. The KKK didn't rise in the twenties....they re-emerged. The KKK started after the Civil War. Then, in the fifties in sixties, when blacks were fighting for Civil Rights, it was Democrats that fought against it. It was a Democrat governor that refused to integrate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was Democrat Governor, George Wallace, who cried "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in the sixties. I remember it like it was yesterday. 80% Republicans supported Civil Rights, 70% Democrats opposed it. Guess who wants to repeal the State Civil Right's Act in California? The Democrats. Guess who supports Blacks only graduations at Harvard....the new segregation? The Democrats. Guess who supports blacks only dorms at universities.....the Dems. Who's against school choice for inner city kids....you know who. Yet they send their kids to the best schools in the country.
Who lied about Nick Sandman and ignored the slanders of the Black Jewish Israelites? Who lied about Jussie Smollett and his MAGA country story? Who lied about about "hands up, don't shoot"? Who withheld the body cam footage of George Floyd? Who said that Antifa and the riots are a myth? Who couldn't wait to use the incident in Kenosha to their advantage? Who holds the "deporter-in-chief" to near sainthood? Who refuses to acknowledge the horrific crime rates in the inner city? Who wants to defund the police and then pretends the burgeoning crime rates aren't happening?
You want to see all the negatives and I've held off. I want to see healing...you want to fight, vilify, use hate when it suits you, deflect and ignore when it doesn't. I want to promote healing. You just want to fight some more. The riots, the destruction, the anger, the hate....you want to perpetuate it. You won't reach out in friendship. NOOO. HATE. MORE HATE. "Them deplorables" don't deserve your time.
You're so filled with self righteousness that you can't see the destructive forces that are being unleashed in the name of your hatred. Worse.....you can't see that Trump will be re-elected because the peace relative peace that was descending on the country 20 years ago is being disrupted by left wing rhetoric calling everything that walks racist and white supremacists. Who would even call conservative black people the most vile names. Names that I wouldn't even repeat on this comment thread.
What's happening in the US right now makes me sick to me stomach and you're displaying a symptom of what's causing the violence. I'm almost 70 years old and I've never seen hate like I'm seeing now, as I am from those who act like you do.
Oh yeah.....the Democrat Convention, in 1924, was called the "Klanbake" as KKK supporters fought Catholics and Jews for control of the Democrat party. It all culminated in a cross burning.
You wanted truth....here you go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco
The enlightenment period took place in the 18th Century, the same century as the writing of the Constitution. It was, in fact, a part of that enlightenment. The enlightenment wasn't a collective slap on the forehead with a "Now, I get it" It was through a long process of which the drafting of the Constitution was a part of. Some might even say the culmination of that enlightenment.
"We the People of the United States" That's the preamble to the Constitution. Either those slaves were people or they were not. Nowhere, in the Bible, could the slavers find that justification that the slaves were primitive and it was all a part of God's plan. That was their own rationalisation. The contradiction was that in that argument, they still acknowledged that the slaves were people and the first sentence in the Constitution does not distinguish the race, religion, ethnicity or gender of the "we the people". Those Amendments were added to ensure that the slaves, women and all were included in that preamble, that all were included when it was said "we the people" and it does give equal footing for all. Those Amendments are an assurance of that very first sentence. In reality, they are redundant if you acknowledge the humanity and equality of all.
The early Constitution doesn't mention slavery at all so it neither legitimises it or condemns it. For many it was the inconvenient truth that slavery contradicted the very essence of the Constitution and when the Amendments against slavery were made, it was to clarify what they had ignored when the Constitution was written. Many of the founding fathers knew that slavery contradicted what the constitution said but were powerless to enforce it because they needed the support of all 13 colonies to succeed in the rebellion against Britain. The Constitution put the wheels of Abolition in motion and was the very first step towards the freedom of the slaves.
Slavery was to old and complex and issue for it to disappear in an afternoon. Ben Franklin wasn't just going to stand up and say. "Slavery is wrong" and all Americans would collectively say "Why hasn't anyone told us this before? It all makes sense now". The seeds were sown in the Constitution and it became more and more apparent from the Constitution and from the religious beliefs of the time that slavery was an affront to the idea of "We the people" or human dignity.
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco
You seem so critical of the Constitution yet you haven't cited one thing of the original text that you would heartily criticise. Not what it doesn't say but what it does say. This was the first attempt at a document to set standards of rule to make a better society and you're disappointed that it wasn't perfect yet you have yet to offer ONE thing that is says that is overtly wrong.
Also, most people were illiterate in the year 1500 and the first English Bibles were not in any kind of circulation for over 100 years after that. Before that, the Bibles were in Latin and Greek. Literacy rates were rising as printing presses became more efficient but it still wasn't as if millions of Bibles were being printed every year. It wasn't until 1800 that literate people started to become the majority, in the west and it was at that time slavery was ending, one nation at a time.
Yes, the Roman slaves valued the idea of life after death but if God values their lives that much in heaven, how could anyone, as a man, devalue that life on earth. That was the primary idea behind the abolition of slavery. The dignity of human life in heaven and on earth.
It wasn't just that the majority were illiterate 300 years ago. It was also the fact that transportation put limits on the circulation of new ideas. A letter could take weeks, even months to be delivered. You're taking the conditions of today and wondering why those people couldn't get it right 300 years ago under conditions that you or I can hardly imagine today. We have better health care, you and I, not the elites, but just average guys in the west, than King George the Third of England had when the American colonies revolted. That is just the tip of the iceberg. They had everyday survival concerns that we never think about today.
It's so easy to sit in judgement, lazing on our comfy couch in front of our computer. Maybe a little less moral superiority and a little more humbleness and appreciation of the hardships our ancestors had to live through so we can prattle on about our beloved ideas.
Point out, at least one thing in the first Constitution that is blatantly wrong and I'll discuss it. You haven't done it yet.
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco
And yet, you still refuse to mention what was wrong with it without the Amendments. If you took the original Constitution and applied it today, would it legitimise slavery? I say no. The only reason slavery held on was because it existed at the time. Today, that original document has enough to deem slavery unconstitutional. There is nothing in it that allows it. Had slavery not existed in 1776 or ever in American history, no one could institute it today as a new social norm. That original Constitution would be the strongest argument against the idea of creating slavery.
The only reason that slavery endured at that time was because it had existed in human history for thousands of years.....not because that original Constitution allowed it. The only reason that the 13th Amendment was necessary was to reinforce what the preamble had already said but in a more specific manner. It stands alone in it's power but it had enormous pressure not to be followed in the spirit in which it was written.
However, even if I concede that it wasn't complete, you'd have to honour it as the first real attempt to the concept of human rights. Only the most naive would expect such a revolutionary document or ideals to arrive, fully formed, in perfection, right from the beginning. That original document is the foundation of all that came after.
Think of it. Those ideals have never been put to paper in the thousands of years of human civilisation. Thousands of years of human history and you're upset that it took 80 some years to specifically mention slavery. Like I said earlier, so easy to judge from the perspective of today. I'm sure that you wouldn't have been so fully enlightened in those days.
To give an example. My dad grew up in the Netherlands, 30 kilometres west of the German border. He had to live through the Nazi occupation and it wasn't easy for him or my family. Yet, he has wondered what his attitude towards those Nazis would have been had he been born 50 km. east of where he was born. Would he have joined the Hitler youth, raised is arm in salute to the Fuhrer and marched to the glory of the Fatherland? He says he likely would have, just as he hated the Nazis because he was born on the other side of that border. You're judging the founding fathers from a vantage point that they didn't have and then vilifying them for the flawed people that they were. No nuance, no understanding, no appreciation on what it took to write that revolutionary document.
We're not as good as we like to think we are. At least try to admire what they were trying to accomplish and give them and there work the admiration it deserves instead of finding fault with what you perceive as imperfections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reptard6833
The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were rival Marxists groups in the Soviet Union. They were both communists but still had philosophical differences.
Socialism definition:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Fascism allows for private ownership but the owners are under control of the Party. The Party is, who they call the people. Any citizen can join the Party and you can work your way up, even to become supreme leader. In fact, China is now the closest country to a Fascist country there is. An authoritarian government, with privately owned businesses, under the control of their government. Their companies act as arms of the state just like the companies of Nazi Germany did. Germany abolished unions. They were redundant once Party members took the place of union stewards. They'd hold regular meetings with ALL levels of management in attendance, ensuring full loyalty to the Party, even owners and management. Not much different than China. Just look at how Huawei and other companies have been involved in industrial and political espionage. It's a BRAND of socialism, a step down from communism. Mussolini started out as a Marxist and reshaped his thinking into Fascism after he became disillusioned with the ineptness of his fellow Marxists. It's nothing like right wing American thinking or Conservatives. They believe in the Constitution, individual freedom and that all men are created equal and little to no interference in the affairs of private business. Any company tries to follow those principles in China or in Nazi Germany would see it's owners and management system replaced and likely arrested.
Also, I came to this conclusion on my own, after reading extensively on Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The similarities were striking other than the way they treated private property. When China started to relax their rules on private property, they slowly morphed into a Fascist state, akin to Nazi Germany. A nationalist state that's trying to dominate the world economically and politically. They couldn't be more alike had China used Nazi Germany as a blueprint to economic power. The only difference is that China doesn't emphasise, as a propaganda tool, the glory of the state like Germany did. It's still there but not as overt.
Next time try discussing this topic, instead of reacting in anger and with insults. It makes it seem as if you have an agenda and that you hate to have your agenda challenged, sort of like a religious fanatic.
1
-
@reptard6833
If the American right, represented by the Republican Party, is so similar to Fascists, why do they support limited government, less government control over the lives of the people and a free, market drive economy? Also, why aren't the Republicans sending Party members to our places of businesses to ensure loyalty to the state and maintain the purity of Party values in our corporations and businesses? That's what Fascists did.
Why is there no call to control education. In fact, the right wing Republicans support school vouchers, separate schools and homeschooling. Fascists took over the schools and amalgamated youth groups into Party machines like Hitler youth. In fact, it's the American left that doesn't like school independence and supports the idea that ALL schools be government controlled with no choice for parents or students.
Also you've not mentioned one word on how the definition of socialism doesn't line up with the way the Fascists controlled the economy. Instead you advance the horseshoe model of political systems but you ignore my example how China has changed from a Marxist state into a Fascist state without going through the full Capitalist economy of the west industrialised nations. It seemed to have skipped right over it.
Most of your argument isn't built on the discussion of ideas but on mockery and put downs. This idea isn't new and even if it wasn't that doesn't devalue the efficacy of the idea. Ideas are to be discussed, not sneered at. The search for truth isn't about finding a consensus but an examination of ideas and thoughts through the lens of facts and perspectives. Mussolini must a Marxist, whose ideas devolved into Fascism. The Chinese Marxist government has changed it's ideas to devolve into a Fascist type state. I don't see the horseshoe model here. I see a straight line evolution. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd prefer to be shown how that's wrong instead of your mocking tone. I learn through discussion. All mocking accomplishes is resentment.
1
-
1
-
@reptard6833
Morality is everything to those who are religious. They believe that abortion is wrong and they're afraid that a teacher, an extremely powerful influence on children, would use that influence to teach their children that abortion is an acceptable solution to a problem that, quite often, occurs when who is engaging in another, to them, immoral and irresponsible act of sex before marriage. It's a matter of perspective to them. It matters, to them, if it is taught in a manner of acceptance or whether or a manner of choice and responsibility to their faith, their partner, the child that is an inevitable outcome. It matters to them because they don't want that person of influence to be the arbiter of how the morality of sexual behaviour is taught to their children. They don't like the idea that the state is a "co-parent" to their children. Faceless state reps, labeled as teachers, who come into the children's lives for a semester or 2 and disappear from their lives, forever.
The claim that you've sat on education boards in no more than an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. It means nothing.
If you can't see how sexual behaviour and morality is intricately woven, to people of religious faith, then you don't understand religion, AT ALL.....and it's not just Christianity, either. Muslims are even more concerned with the morality of sexual practices than Christians and Hindus have their own traditions regarding sex and the marriage bond. They don't want it reduced to a "one size fits all" type of ideology. To then sex and the family bond is the cornerstone of society and teaching it as a generic practise is not only wrong but damaging to the young.
I'm saying this as an atheist. I'm saying this as one who believes that parents are the most important factors in a child's life and that the most important ideas of the family should be taught by the family. It's the diversity of thought and lifestyle that parents possess and they believe should be taught to their children....not in school but in the home.
That's the morality of sexual behaviour they believe in and they don't want strangers influencing the morality of sex to their children.
1
-
@reptard6833
Just because abortion is legal, that doesn't mean it's moral or right. I don't need the government to tell me what I should believe or think. Remember, slavery was once legal, too. Legal does NOT mean moral.
Also, it's not that some conservatives don't want their children to know about sex before marriage. It's the context in how sex is portrayed. They don't want 8 year olds to be influenced to view sex as recreational, that it has no consequences and there is no responsibility to your sexual partner or to any consequences that may result from unconsidered sexual behaviour.
Another fallacy is that just because one believes a practise is wrong, that doesn't automatically imply hatred of the person who commits that practise. Which is something else that is a popular belief in popular culture and encouraged in schools. Conservative beliefs are so vilified in the education system that students feel quite comfortable suppressing any ideas expressed that don't line up with their own and will even resort to violence to shut down any ideas that they don't like, behaviour fully supported by the school, itself. Evergreen College is the most egregious example of this type of indoctrination but not nearly the only one.
Also, you're ascribing the behaviour of some conservative types to the ALL conservatives. No nuance, no diversity of thought, all EXACTLY the same. That's the major objection of conservatives. The Westboro Baptist Church is considered a whacked fringe group by almost ALL conservatives, even those that are religious and disapprove of premarital sex, including that of homosexuals. And Chick-fil-A wasn't donating to anti-gay organisations. They were donating to groups that thought that they could change gays into straight people if that's what an individual wanted for their life. A naive idea but not necessarily hateful. In fact, Chick-fil-A has gay employees and has never discriminated against any gay customers. A trans person can go, any time they want, and buy a chicken sandwich.
I'll tell you what's really strange. It's strange that when the conservative is Christian, there is all kinds of vitriol thrown at him but when that person is Muslim and espouses the same ideas, the left make excuses for them. Which brings me to another point. No school should EVER, as an official stance, support left or right causes or ideals. They are there to teach the young how to read, write, understand mathematics and the facts of history, science and the world. If they teach evolution of the species, they should NEVER tell the children that the religious beliefs of their parents is wrong whether they're Christian, Muslim or whatever, although many teachers would never dare to say that to a Muslim child due to the prevalence of identity politics in the education system. That's another ideology that shouldn't be taught in school. Beliefs systems are personal and shouldn't be supported or discouraged by the state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democrats, in California, want to repeal the State Civil Rights Act. That's the act that mimics the Federal Civil Rights Act that Dr. Martin Luther King worked so hard to bring to the United States.
Why would they do that? Simple. There is no affirmative action in California. They can't because the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against, or preferential for, any specified demographic. To get around this, the Civil Rights Act must go.
A group of Asian students took Harvard to court, claiming discrimination due to Harvard's affirmative action policies. Massachusetts does not have a State Civil Right's Act which means that the Asian students lost their case. Now they have one option left. They must go to the Supreme Court of the United States and they will win. They'll win because the Civil Right's Act will not allow treatment according to demographic, in this case, Asians.
Where does that leave those who support Affirmative Action? They have to get rid of the Federal Civil Right's Act. Which party supports Affirmative Action? Democrats. It will be Democrats who will repeal the Civil Right's Act, if it ever gets repealed any time soon. First, they will have to find a way to vilify Dr. Martin Luther King. I've been waiting for that to happen for a couple of years, now. Ironic, the only politicians to oppose the Civil Right's Act in 1964 were Democrats. Legal discrimination will be allowed if that Act is repealed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmays8974
And if you'd sailed with Columbus, you'd have been complicit with Columbus. People LOVE to think that they're SO good but it's damned easy when you don't live in a time or situation where these things were happening.
My parents grew up in Nazi occupied Netherlands. Do you know who the Nazi soldiers were? They were ordinary people, just like you and me. One time farmers, shop keepers, factory workers, living ordinary lives and they found themselves doing some of the most atrocious acts in our recent history. These same ordinary Germans went into my mother's home when she was 11 years old and took ALL their food. They almost starved to death. Had you or I been one of those soldiers, we'd have done the same. We're just not in that situation.
The Spanish had no problem with slavery. No one did at the time. It was a part of life all over the planet. The Aztecs were taking slaves and them brutally murdering them in religious ceremonies and doing it by the hundreds. Funny how NO one calls that brutal. Columbus wrote that the native Tainos had told him about the fierce and warlike Caribs, who used to raid the Tainos for cannibalistic rituals and capture and enslave their women. Once again, I don't hear you complaining about THEIR brutality.
No one is perfect and that includes you. If you think that you wouldn't have been goose stepping in the Nazi ranks had you been born in Germany in 1925, you're only kidding yourself. Any honest person has to admit that they'd have done the same. It's the dishonest ones who puff out their chest and point fingers at everyone else thinking that they're better than others. Once you believe that, and it appears that you do, you'll find that you'd be quite ready and willing to do horrific things to those who you believe are worse than what you are. It's the way of humanity all through history. You haven't learned a thing except to believe that you're superior to "those people" over there.
1
-
@micahlucero8123
That's a great appeal to emotion. My parents grew up in the war in the Netherlands. My grandfather had to be institutionalised due to severe mental illness and left 4 small children alone with my grandmother. They had little to nothing to eat, yet Nazi soldiers would take half of the little food that they had left for the war effort. They would live on eels, caught in the canal across the road, for weeks at a time. She hated fish till the day she died. My mother left home at 12 to work for food and lodging at another couple's home about 30 miles away. If she didn't, she may have starved to death.
Human history sucks. We have to know about it, learn about the mindset that brought it about. Your rant is why people build the resentment that keeps them locked within themselves and when they find the power, to react viciously. My mother experienced the wrath of the German people, who resented those who kept them poor and struggling for centuries. My parents didn't let their experience turn them into resentful and vengeful people. They immigrated to Canada, worked their butts off to provide a good life for me and my siblings. That's how you defeat "oppression".
I know indigenous Canadians who went to those schools. They've done well for themselves. Built their own families, homes, had good careers and aren't railing on about how tough they had it. They talk about the schools.....the good, the friends they made but also the bad. They don't let it define them. They're strong, living their lives in dignity and appropriate pride. Others don't and I see them living lives of resentment and addiction. You can blame others but others aren't going to fix life for you. My parents and my native friends, who've been successful and lived full lives, prove that. Resentment can bring as much misery as any "oppressor"
Don't become your own subjugator. You may find that oppressor the most difficult one to escape from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orkhepaj
You're assuming that she was forced to do this. You don't know that. My cousin wanted to play guitar. It's all that he ever did, much to his parents dismay. He'd wake up, in the morning, put his feet on the floor, grab his guitar and start playing. He'd play before school, after school, after supper and well into the night. He took every music course possible at school and both guitar and piano lessons on his own free time. His parents were proud of him but they were also worried that he was too driven.
There are people, even children, that are driven to succeed and they don't need to be forced to work hard. Don't make assumptions that you can't possibly know and don't take away from the work that she had put into becoming the best that she could be. You're buying into a stereotype and assuming that's who she is. It isn't fair and it robs her, and others, of the right to follow their dreams.
1
-
1
-
@Dillon Duncan
It isn't Palestinian territory and they've never had that territory. The Ottoman Turks controlled the area for almost 400 years and they got it through military dominance. During that time, the area was populated by Muslims, Jews and various Christian sects. Then the Turks lost WW1 and the British took over. The British were the ones that suggested the 2 state option. Why? Because the land that they controlled, the Levant, was populated by these various groups. This has NEVER been Palestinian land, exclusively. Also, it isn't about ethnicity. It's about religion and if every Jew in Israel converted to Islam, the conflict would be over. In fact, Gaza is an Islamic state and Islam is the official religion. It is guided by Islamic law and it is a separate entity and self governing. Israel is not encroaching on Gaza. It's accused of building settlements on the West Bank, also never a part of Palestine.
The West Bank was taken from Jordan in the 6 Day War and has been controlled by Israel ever since. If anything, that area should be returned to Jordan, just as the Golan Heights, also taken from Syria in the 6 Day War, would be returned to Syria. The West Bank is where Israel has been building settlements.....no territory taken from Jordan. It's NEVER been Palestine, either.
Also, this thing about the Jews and financial success is the same logic SJWs use against white people and colonial success. It's bigotry disguised as righteous grievance against historical events and progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevincoleman-tammen1266
However, declaring, on the internet, that your piety is the reason why God is providing for you, that is a show of pride.
Before you get to full of your own sanctity, there are people, burning and looting cities right now, across the US, who go home to a warm bed with a full stomach, every day. Is their devotion to God the reason for that as well?
Be grateful. That's it. Don't qualify it by telling us that God has deemed it well deserved, due to your devotion to him. Your belly is just as full as the guy that just robbed and looted a store.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@communist_man_of_pesto401
No, it's not. When Jacob worked hard, in the service of God, he was rewarded with larger flocks. The parable of the talents, those who worked hard and increased the talents, left in their charge, were rewarded and the one that hid his talent was heavily chastised.
Money reflects the value of products produced by your hard work. It's the inevitable result of a nation's labour. Without the freedom to grow and prosper, we diminish and wither. Capitalism is a co-operative economy, where people make agreements with one another to trade and grow their enterprises. True socialism is a command economy, where we're told what we need, by the state, and they set the quotas for the people. This leads to stagnation.
An economy either grows and flourishes or it languishes. The status quo can never be maintained. That's why the richest nations, the ones with the best standards of living, are all Capitalist countries.
It's how it was done in Biblical times. Individual freedom to allow one to make his own destiny become reality. In Socialism, there is no personal destiny. It's all bestowed on you by the state. No reward from God.....notice how socialists deny God and no hope to plan for your own financial future.
1
-
@Halcon_Sierreno
The Germans laid the foundation for the nuclear bomb. Funny thing is, they thought that they were doing the right thing in preserving civilisation and that the "other", less sophisticated people, would be the ones to destroy mankind. So, the Nazis set upon a quest to prevent it from happening, by destroying the less viable nations, and creating a 1000 year nation that would bring peace and prosperity. The point to remember is that they felt that this peace and prosperity wouldn't happen without the distraction of those inferior nations.
Sort of like wishing that the "evil" Americans didn't exist. If only they were gone, the world would be saved. No matter how things change, they remain the same. Hatred, and the self aggrandisement that go with it, always seem to rule the hearts of humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nono-hp5kx
I never said he was perfect. He was a product of his times and those times included the enslavement of those who couldn't defend themselves. It was a way of life. Had you lived back then, you may well have been a slave owner yourself.
People owned slaves throughout our written history. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that the anti-slavery movement started in earnest. The entire idea of individual rights for all is a new concept, that developed slowly when the printing press was invented and Bibles were written in the languages of the average person. The idea of individual salvation in heaven slowly morphed into the individual rights and freedom here on earth, eventually settling into an idea that was separate from religious thought and applied to everyone on earth, no matter what religion or ethnicity. However, it was a slow evolution. It's so easy to sit here, on our computers, to rag on people who lived in a different time, under different circumstances and life pressures. Almost every person in antiquity was a monster by our standards. That's a reality and it's arrogance to believe that we would have behaved any differently than they did.
All of that has no bearing on what Columbus achieved. When he returned to Spain and told everyone of what happened on that journey, human history changed. It was one of the biggest moments in our history. It has affected almost every human living on earth today. Columbus was not this big leader that invented slavery. Read the story of Spartacus and how prevalent slavery was during the Roman Empire. Columbus was just acting as normal people did in those times.
We learned about Columbus is schools but it was just the main events. The year, what islands he discovered, the names of his ships and how many voyages he led. There is so much that has to be taught that only the superficial is covered of almost every topic. We learn the nuances of our own accord and interests. Ultimately, we learn the things we do, not just as a tool for survival, but as a mirror to hold up to ourselves. We're learning about ourselves. How we got to where we are today. Why we think and act as we do. How vulnerable and corrupt we can be, yet deeply caring as well. If you can't learn that from a good education, it's wasted on you and worse, it becomes a weapon to use on others. That's when the conflicts begin, today. Self professed morality fighting the evil others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erenjaeger1738
"why can you admit there's never such a good thing as "christian nation"
Why can't you admit that there's no such thing as a GOOD nation. The only things that separate the Christians from others is the scale of their evil side. The only difference between the, for the example that we've been using, is that the Spanish had a greater population, more advanced weaponry and a degree of immunity to diseases that the Aztecs didn't possess. Had the advantages been the other way around, do you really think that the Aztecs would be no less brutal than the Spanish. It's a matter of scale.
I'm NOT Christian. I want you to understand that. I'm looking at this from the outside. There's one thing that Christians are supposed to do and that is to "love they neighbour". Not your Spanish neighbour or your Aztec neighbour, or Dutch, Bantu or Libyan neighbour. You're to love your neighbour, no matter what. "Love thine enemy", "Turn the other cheek", "Bless those who curse you". If someone, who calls themselves Christian, kills for personal gain, to appease his God or out of national interests, he's not following the tenets of the faith as it is written in the Christian Bible.
So why do they do those crimes anyway? Because they're human. Humans will destroy what they touch and Christianity makes that very clear with the words "Man is born in sin". It's the only religion that carries it that far. That's why we can call out both Cortes along wit his men and Montezuma and his nation of Aztecs. Both groups are human and as such they are failures in doing the right thing. However, the tenets of Christianity does offer an understanding of human good and evil. It's why the abolition of slavery was initiated by those who were Christian. It was their Holy book that made them realise that slavery was an affront to human dignity.
That doesn't mean that a Christian nation is going to be good because that's impossible. It will not happen. All we can hope for is to try to do better and to STOP pointing at others as the evil ones. That in itself is evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@odenpetersen6028
Actually, I'm not sure that we can ever share a truth. Empirical truth is demonstrable and is fact, no matter who is assessing that fact. I have 2 tomatoes on my fridge. That's an empirical fact or truth. This isn't open to opinion and a group of individuals can never, correctly, share a truth that says there are 3 tomatoes on my fridge. It's not a truth to say it and it's demonstrably false.
Coban uses this politically sensitive issue because it has become so contentious. Gender has always been expressed in 2 ways. Male and female. DNA has confirmed that this is consistently true. A male ALWAYS has a y chromosome. Even those with the rare xxy chromosome are seen as male due to the y chromosome present. If one takes and tests the piece of skin for gender, it will always show that it will be purely xx or xy with a rare extra x thrown in. That's empirical data, yet to say that it is an empirical truth, that would be deemed heretical.
One has either male, with a y chromosome or female, without the y chromosome. There is no variation. To say that this is the truth puts you exactly where Winston found himself, trying to defend the empirical 2 plus 2 equals 4.
That's not to say that people don't have gender dysphoria. I know for a fact that they do. However to ignore certain facts about gender, limits discussion and study into how and why it exists in the first place. The academic has the metaphorical cage of rats tied to his face to force him to discard the heresy of this truth and forced to adopt the new "shared" truth.
Young children are undergoing radical treatment due to an acceptance of the idea of relative truth. I fear for these children because the stages of growth and sexual development in humans has been in place for millions of years. This could end quite badly in the future and it's all due to an acceptance that truth is fluid and empirical truth doesn't exist as fact. 2 plus 2 does equal 5 in this realm....but does it really. Are we really going to deny the evolutionary reality of human growth over an ideological vision of what is truth? I'm not sure that this is such a good idea and it would seem that Copan feels the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@odenpetersen6028
However, is "are trans women real women" a problem of semantics? What if that is at the very heart of the problem that causes a high suicide rate? That statement alone differentiates them from "real" women. They'll never feel what a woman feels during menstruation or deal with the unique issues that a "real" woman deals with at that time of the month. They'll never experience an orgasm the way a "real" woman experiences it. She'll never feel what it is to be pregnant, to feel the dread for their future while waiting for the pregnancy test to give its results or the joy of seeing the result that one is wishing for. Never feel a baby's kick in their stomach, never endure the pain of child birth or the closeness of holding that baby to her breast to feed. How many "real" women are devastated when they find out that they are unable to have their own children, yet a trans woman KNOWS that this will never be a consideration for them....never feel the devastation or loss when realising their own sterility.
They may feel like a woman, dress like one, talk like one, detach body parts and add new ones, but that basic aspect of female identification will never be reached. Gender is the primary force behind human survival, not just human but for all advanced life. Without that primal need that each gender has, we will die off as a species. It's a path to biological extinction if those primal urges and needs aren't met and is a major element of human psychology.
Yet.....we are not to speak of it. We're not to explore the psychological aspects of it. It's easier to lay blame and a lot more satisfying to reach a conclusion of moral superiority when we can point to those who we deem to be at fault for the complexities of that issue. The devil is in the details and you're saying that we can't point out that specific devil or detail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1