Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
As being an American. Why do I feel like a lot of Americans want a theocracy?
Yeah, the US is a pretty great place compared to some other nations, and there are many things to be proud of. But that doesn't mean we, as citizens, have be nationalistic sycophants and turn a blind eye to our faults, or that non-citizens have nothing to be critical of, from slavery and the genocide of Native Americans to our imperialistic policies and unethical human experiments.
Jason, I consider that a fair and balanced statement.
Thanks.
You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture.
A bit of a non sequitur there, isn't it, @vinlyn? I never said that Native American tribes didn't have conflicts, nor does what I say even remotely imply that. Moreover, that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
I see no lack of right speech in Gui's and B5C's posts quoted above. I thought Gui's post showed a very sincere and heartfelt concern for the direction in which the US is going. B5C isn't alone in worrying about China gaining ascendency. That topic is standard fare in foreign policy circles. And the idea of the American empire falling has been around for decades. He's right--every empire does fall. The question is, will the US give up its dominance gracefully, or will it go down in flames?
This thread has actually been relatively mild, compared to some of our political discussions.
Dakini, I did not mention Gui or B5C in any way.
You quoted them, so I thought your comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech was inspired by the passages you quoted.
Does the fact that some tribes had a warrior culture justify what the US did to them? I'm not sure I get the drift of you post in that regard. It's not as if European tribes never waged war against each other.
pssst, @Jason--Mountains might freak if he saw that you attributed KoB's statements to him. And thanks for posting what many of the rest of us were thinking.
No, I quoted KOB who quoted them.
You see, once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said that what we did to the Indians was justified. What I said was, "You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture. "
And there is this idea that the Indians were here first. Actually, it's more accurate to say they were here before us. But several of the more war-like tribes actually come from the Athabaskan language group which is native to today's northwest Canada and up into parts of today's Alaska. They moved into area such as New Mexico and Arizona and displaced the Indians that were first.
Yeah, the US is a pretty great place compared to some other nations, and there are many things to be proud of. But that doesn't mean we, as citizens, have be nationalistic sycophants and turn a blind eye to our faults, or that non-citizens have nothing to be critical of, from slavery and the genocide of Native Americans to our imperialistic policies and unethical human experiments.
Jason, I consider that a fair and balanced statement.
Thanks.
You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture.
A bit of a non sequitur there, isn't it, @vinlyn? I never said that Native American tribes didn't have conflicts, nor does what I say even remotely imply that. Moreover, that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
pssst, @Jason--Mountains might freak if he saw that you attributed KoB's statements to him. And thanks for posting what many of the rest of us were thinking.
You quoted them, so I thought your comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech was inspired by the passages you quoted.
No, I quoted KOB who quoted them. But why did you choose that post of KoB to follow with a comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech on the part of other members? Surely you can see how people could infer you were referring to the members KoB quoted. Maybe it was just an unskilful choice on your part, these things happen.
You see, once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said that what we did to the Indians was justified. What I said was, "You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture. "
OK, I'm game--what was your point in calling this to our attention, then? Why riff on Indians at all and who was here first? It's a confusing digression.
You quoted them, so I thought your comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech was inspired by the passages you quoted.
No, I quoted KOB who quoted them. But why did you choose that post of KoB to follow with a comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech on the part of other members? Surely you can see how people could infer you were referring to the members KoB quoted. Maybe it was just an unskilful choice on your part, these things happen.
You see, once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said that what we did to the Indians was justified. What I said was, "You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture. "
OK, I'm game--what was your point in calling this to our attention, then? Why riff on Indians at all and who was here first? It's a confusing digression.
I believe it was Jason who brought Indians into the discussion, not me.
I believe it was Jason who brought Indians into the discussion, not me.
Actually, I brought up what the US did to the Native Americans in order to make the point that the US isn't perfect, and that there are things to be critical of in both our past and present.
I think there's a place for socialism, although I wouldn't want to see it totally as a way of life. But when there are resources which, in my view, belong to the nation, then I think they ought to belong...to the nation.
Me too. In fact, I was listening to David McCullough's biography of John Adams today, and there's a part where he references a line from a letter written by Abigail Adams in the spring of 1776 to her husband: "I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of theirs referring to slave-holding Virginians]. Of this I am certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us." My initial reaction upon hearing this was to wonder if the same sentiment couldn't also be applied to capital in relation to the wage labourer, at least in the sense of how the latter is coerced under the capitalist mode of production to surrender their labour-power to the former in exchange for their means of subsistence, which is always less than what they actually produces, as well as all rights over the product of their labour.
In essence, from one point of view, both slavery and wage labour can be seen to infringe upon individual autonomy in their respective ways, with former more obviously so, but the latter no less potentially oppressive. As Frederick Engels wrote in 1847, "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence."
Maybe a bit of a stretch, but something to think about.
As a staunch secularist. I don't let my Buddhist ideals try to interfere in politics which it may disagree. If I do become President (very very unlikely) I would have to choice the needs of the state even it disagrees with my philosophy.
As a staunch secularist. I don't let my Buddhist ideals try to interfere in politics which it may disagree. If I do become President (very very unlikely) I would have to choice the needs of the state even it disagrees with my philosophy.
Carter had to set aside his anti-abortion convictions as a born-again Southern Baptist Christian when he was President, and Roe v. Wade was passed.
Hey, has anyone noticed that this thread has been "sunk"?
I use to identify as a Communist, then I decided it came with too much baggage and usually ended up with me explaining to people that China isn't really Communist, Stalin was a bad communist, etc etc. So I just let my opinions on social and economic policies speak for themselves. They tend to land me in the "Far Left" camp though.
Not at all. I'm just trying to get an answer to a simple question that has profound implications. People breeze in, say "this or that should be absolute" and then don't bother to defend it.
Whenever a balance between socialism and individualism is lost... things to go off the rails. Healthy public and private spheres, with neither one running way with the ball, seems to work as well as democracy can... In recent decades socialism has been demonized as a bad word, to the point where you see poverty stricken people railing against socialist health care in support of neo-feudalism.... in the name of "freedom". I just listened to cd book on Teddy Roosevelt. By today's standards he would be seen as a socialist Occupier. It was a surprising listen... How did it get to this?
Comments
You see, once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said that what we did to the Indians was justified. What I said was, "You might, however, want to look into how various Indian tribes attacked and murdered other Indian tribes before you paint them as total innocents. There were a few alliances, but there were also many wars within the Indian culture. "
And there is this idea that the Indians were here first. Actually, it's more accurate to say they were here before us. But several of the more war-like tribes actually come from the Athabaskan language group which is native to today's northwest Canada and up into parts of today's Alaska. They moved into area such as New Mexico and Arizona and displaced the Indians that were first.
No, I quoted KOB who quoted them. But why did you choose that post of KoB to follow with a comment about lack of mindfulness and right speech on the part of other members? Surely you can see how people could infer you were referring to the members KoB quoted. Maybe it was just an unskilful choice on your part, these things happen. OK, I'm game--what was your point in calling this to our attention, then? Why riff on Indians at all and who was here first? It's a confusing digression.
I believe it was Jason who brought Indians into the discussion, not me.
I wouldn't call myself a socialist, but I have no problem with the federal government owning and controlling, for example, American oil resources.
In essence, from one point of view, both slavery and wage labour can be seen to infringe upon individual autonomy in their respective ways, with former more obviously so, but the latter no less potentially oppressive. As Frederick Engels wrote in 1847, "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence."
Maybe a bit of a stretch, but something to think about.
Hey, has anyone noticed that this thread has been "sunk"?
Well, B5C's ship.