Comments on: On Civilization And Other Tidbits http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/ Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2435 stan Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:21:46 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2435 All, Native American is fine with me but they were here before America. What were they before America was discovered? Most of the North American tribes seem to have referred to themselves as "the People." Fine with them...fine with me. Jay, Madison, Jefferson, etc. WERE oppressors, categorically. Their country was built on stolen land, brokent promises, genocide and stolen labor and under the guise of Christianity. How else would you describe it? Talk and words are cheap. It took the blacks nearly 200 years to get the full rights of the Declaration and the Constitution extended to them. Re: Aptheker. Research the original documents and read other texts yourselves. There are many, many in any good library. The story will always be the same. Why this reluctance to own up to history and celebrate those among the oppressed that forced we of Euro descent to own up to our own idealistic words? I think that's a great, positive story because their efforts enriched and uplifted us all as did the 150 year struggle of women to get the vote. If Sitting Bull is your hero, great! No problem with that at all. He was a great man and the Sioux were and are a great people. There are dozens of great chiefs that would qualify. Any chief that stood up to genocide and tried to protect the women and children and elderly in his tribe should be considered a hero. Re: Sadaam's worst atrocities were commited while he was Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld's "boy". Interesting how the current Pres. Bush and his buddies were so incensed about Sadaam's past behavior that happened on their watch and with their aid. Again, Sadaam's crimes pale in comparison to those inflicted on Native Americans and blacks as a matter of practice over the space of 3 centuries. And he was "our Sunday School boy." "They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it." from the Library of Congress Stan in San Diego All,

Native American is fine with me but they were here before America. What were they before America was discovered? Most of the North American tribes seem to have referred to themselves as “the People.” Fine with them…fine with me.
Jay, Madison, Jefferson, etc. WERE oppressors, categorically. Their country was built on stolen land, brokent promises, genocide and stolen labor and under the guise of Christianity. How else would you describe it? Talk and words are cheap. It took the blacks nearly 200 years to get the full rights of the Declaration and the Constitution extended to them.
Re: Aptheker. Research the original documents and read other texts yourselves. There are many, many in any good library. The story will always be the same. Why this reluctance to own up to history and celebrate those among the oppressed that forced we of Euro descent to own up to our own idealistic words? I think that’s a great, positive story because their efforts enriched and uplifted us all as did the 150 year struggle of women to get the vote.
If Sitting Bull is your hero, great! No problem with that at all. He was a great man and the Sioux were and are a great people. There are dozens of great chiefs that would qualify. Any chief that stood up to genocide and tried to protect the women and children and elderly in his tribe should be considered a hero.
Re: Sadaam’s worst atrocities were commited while he was Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld’s “boy”. Interesting how the current Pres. Bush and his buddies were so incensed about Sadaam’s past behavior that happened on their watch and with their aid. Again, Sadaam’s crimes pale in comparison to those inflicted on Native Americans and blacks as a matter of practice over the space of 3 centuries. And he was “our Sunday School boy.”

“They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it.”
from the Library of Congress

Stan in San Diego

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2395 SCSIwuzzy Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:13:53 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2395 Ah, Amazing what coffee can do for stimulating the old brain. Esp when drank from my W mug http://georgewbushstore2.cybrhost.com/200-3001.htm Anyway, back to Stan and abortion. To equate abortion in a America with Sadam's "excesses" is a specious argument. While abortion may be immoral and murder (I think it is), it is voluntary, carried out by the mother of the child and the doctor. It is currently sanctioned, as in allowed, by the state in the US. However, the state does not drag mothers off the street and tear the babies from their wombs. That is the difference. Speaking of specious arguments...Kevin Phillips... talk about doom and gloom. All of his books are predicated on the notion that the rich get rich and the poor get poorer (socialist leaning), and the facts be damned. If his predictions had come true, we'd be in an economic crash that would make the great depression look like minor bump. That he is a flagship contributor for the American Proscpect actually says it all. "The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics" And his split with the republican party was long before the Bush ascendance, BTW. It had more to do with the growing conservative movement in party than anything else, from what I have seen. His biggest supporters are Salon and MOther Jones... former Republican (yes he was a Nixon strategist... but Dick Morris flacked for Clinton) maybe, but never much of a conservative. Esp on economic issues. Now, for someone who write about the economy (I know, you mentioned one of his non-economic titles), I prefer someone like Fingleton, an actual economist. But his political books are for those who agree with him (as so many are today), and are very short on logical discourse or actual research. He presents a notion as truth, and builds his arguments off them, rather than proving the notions. Ah, Amazing what coffee can do for stimulating the old brain. Esp when drank from my W mug http://georgewbushstore2.cybrhost.com/200-3001.htm
Anyway, back to Stan and abortion. To equate abortion in a America with Sadam’s “excesses” is a specious argument. While abortion may be immoral and murder (I think it is), it is voluntary, carried out by the mother of the child and the doctor. It is currently sanctioned, as in allowed, by the state in the US. However, the state does not drag mothers off the street and tear the babies from their wombs. That is the difference.
Speaking of specious arguments…Kevin Phillips… talk about doom and gloom. All of his books are predicated on the notion that the rich get rich and the poor get poorer (socialist leaning), and the facts be damned. If his predictions had come true, we’d be in an economic crash that would make the great depression look like minor bump.
That he is a flagship contributor for the American Proscpect actually says it all. “The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics”
And his split with the republican party was long before the Bush ascendance, BTW. It had more to do with the growing conservative movement in party than anything else, from what I have seen. His biggest supporters are Salon and MOther Jones… former Republican (yes he was a Nixon strategist… but Dick Morris flacked for Clinton) maybe, but never much of a conservative. Esp on economic issues.
Now, for someone who write about the economy (I know, you mentioned one of his non-economic titles), I prefer someone like Fingleton, an actual economist. But his political books are for those who agree with him (as so many are today), and are very short on logical discourse or actual research. He presents a notion as truth, and builds his arguments off them, rather than proving the notions.

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2387 SCSIwuzzy Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:59:17 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2387 Stan, You are the one who said we don't know our own hereos. And as I've said, I'm not the hero worshipping type. You may not like Sitting Bull that much. That's fine. But I'll always have a specila place in my heart for someone who lead my ancestors in a noble, if futile quest. The funny thing about heroes though, is that it is subjective, and we are all free to have out own. Some, like Aptheker, hold Josef Stalin as a hero. Now, speaking of Aptheker... there is such a thing as editorial bias, Stan. He may not have written everything in that book (beyond the filler), but he did select and fact check them. Given his fast and loose nature, and his willingness to exclude fact that don't support his politics, it is hard to hold up any of his works, even the one you mention, as definitive. It may be a good back up source, to buttress other references, but hardly up to the task of being the central support of any argument. When I taught, if any student used an author with such notorius bias and intellectual dishonesty as their sole source of reference, I'd send them back to library with a list of other authors to examine. For that matter, if any student came in with only one author in their biblio/reference for a paper (other than a 2 page book review), I'd send them back to the stacks. You're not implying, I hope, that Franklin, Jay and Madison were opressors? Or that the bulk of Americans, large and small, were oppressors? If you are (and I am giving you the benefit of doubt), that is rather marxist. Abortion: Always opposed it, always will. Unlike you, however, while I may advocate for change, I do not own the sins of others by mere association. I have enough of my own, thank you very much. :) Jeanie, Good points. The human race and its history are littered with the terrible things man has done to himself and his fellows. And I agree, that while we are not now perfect, and we were not then perfect, we are always looking ahead. Stan, I think that's the difference between you and I. I know my history, but I don't dwell on it. Maybe because I know as fact that my ancestors invaded, were invaded, enslaved and were enslaved. Were oppressed for their religious beliefs, and at some point prob either oppressed others or at least shat (metaphor) on another religion. They've been accused of crimes they didn't commit, and likely joined in the hyteria at some point and pointed a finger at someone. While I know their tales and learn their lessons (and try to recall them when I need them), they are not me, nor I they. I can only be me. That, and if I ever had to pay reparations... I'd just have to move money from one packet to another, and whip out a marker to label each one to make sure I got the math right, and that I didn't short change one pocket at another's expense. Stan,
You are the one who said we don’t know our own hereos. And as I’ve said, I’m not the hero worshipping type.
You may not like Sitting Bull that much. That’s fine. But I’ll always have a specila place in my heart for someone who lead my ancestors in a noble, if futile quest. The funny thing about heroes though, is that it is subjective, and we are all free to have out own. Some, like Aptheker, hold Josef Stalin as a hero.
Now, speaking of Aptheker… there is such a thing as editorial bias, Stan. He may not have written everything in that book (beyond the filler), but he did select and fact check them. Given his fast and loose nature, and his willingness to exclude fact that don’t support his politics, it is hard to hold up any of his works, even the one you mention, as definitive. It may be a good back up source, to buttress other references, but hardly up to the task of being the central support of any argument. When I taught, if any student used an author with such notorius bias and intellectual dishonesty as their sole source of reference, I’d send them back to library with a list of other authors to examine. For that matter, if any student came in with only one author in their biblio/reference for a paper (other than a 2 page book review), I’d send them back to the stacks.
You’re not implying, I hope, that Franklin, Jay and Madison were opressors? Or that the bulk of Americans, large and small, were oppressors? If you are (and I am giving you the benefit of doubt), that is rather marxist.
Abortion: Always opposed it, always will. Unlike you, however, while I may advocate for change, I do not own the sins of others by mere association. I have enough of my own, thank you very much. :)
Jeanie,
Good points. The human race and its history are littered with the terrible things man has done to himself and his fellows. And I agree, that while we are not now perfect, and we were not then perfect, we are always looking ahead.
Stan, I think that’s the difference between you and I. I know my history, but I don’t dwell on it. Maybe because I know as fact that my ancestors invaded, were invaded, enslaved and were enslaved. Were oppressed for their religious beliefs, and at some point prob either oppressed others or at least shat (metaphor) on another religion. They’ve been accused of crimes they didn’t commit, and likely joined in the hyteria at some point and pointed a finger at someone. While I know their tales and learn their lessons (and try to recall them when I need them), they are not me, nor I they. I can only be me.
That, and if I ever had to pay reparations… I’d just have to move money from one packet to another, and whip out a marker to label each one to make sure I got the math right, and that I didn’t short change one pocket at another’s expense.

]]> By: Jeannie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2385 Jeannie Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:23:12 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2385 Gosh, I gotta give my 2 cents, too. Stan, I don't view your writings as ill-informed or biased. I fully believe you are and believe everything you say, just as I believe horrible atrocities were committed against slaves and Native Americans (my grandfather was a Sioux, raised on the reservation, and his opinion basically was that there's absolutely nothing that can compensate the Native Americans for what was done, and as 5th said above, PC titles are viewed as condescending. I use Native American because it's accurate and I like it :)). But horrible atrocities were and are being committed throughout the globe on many populations; look at the Ukrainians under Stalin, the Mosquito Indians under Noriega, many Native American tribes under other tribes, not to mention the fact that many African tribes themselves were responsible for selling their brothers and sisters to the white man who came ashore. The human race is replete with atrocities; this is precisely why the message of Jesus was so incredibly revolutionary, and why the USofA is so amazing (and why abortion makes zero sense, IMHO). We're a stubborn group of people willing to face death before allowing our liberties to be stepped on. Other countries don't have this Attitude, if you will (though the Australians are pretty in-your-face). It takes time to change, centuries as we've seen, but change is happening. That's pretty much the point of what I want to say. And stan, though I see you are grieving for the pain people have been through, survivors of the Holocaust will tell you to look at the bright side of things; it's what keeps you going. Read some Elie Wiesel. Gosh, I gotta give my 2 cents, too.

Stan, I don’t view your writings as ill-informed or biased. I fully believe you are and believe everything you say, just as I believe horrible atrocities were committed against slaves and Native Americans (my grandfather was a Sioux, raised on the reservation, and his opinion basically was that there’s absolutely nothing that can compensate the Native Americans for what was done, and as 5th said above, PC titles are viewed as condescending. I use Native American because it’s accurate and I like it :) ). But horrible atrocities were and are being committed throughout the globe on many populations; look at the Ukrainians under Stalin, the Mosquito Indians under Noriega, many Native American tribes under other tribes, not to mention the fact that many African tribes themselves were responsible for selling their brothers and sisters to the white man who came ashore.

The human race is replete with atrocities; this is precisely why the message of Jesus was so incredibly revolutionary, and why the USofA is so amazing (and why abortion makes zero sense, IMHO). We’re a stubborn group of people willing to face death before allowing our liberties to be stepped on. Other countries don’t have this Attitude, if you will (though the Australians are pretty in-your-face). It takes time to change, centuries as we’ve seen, but change is happening. That’s pretty much the point of what I want to say. And stan, though I see you are grieving for the pain people have been through, survivors of the Holocaust will tell you to look at the bright side of things; it’s what keeps you going. Read some Elie Wiesel.

]]> By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2375 stan Fri, 03 Sep 2004 05:42:29 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2375 Except he didn't write any of the material in the book I mentioned. All of the material in the book was taken from historical sources. You can look them up independently of his collection. The fact that you don't know the other heroes reflects more on you than on them. Oppressors are NEVER heroes. They may be famous and do some good things but they are not heroes. I don't consider Sitting Bull to be a hero. There were other chiefs that were but I wouldn't elevate him to that level. You have not replied to my comments about Sadaam and the Reagan-Bush administrations and the slaughter of millions in the womb. I suggest we all read Kevin Phillip's "American Dynasty". He is a former conservative Republican, who has become a registered independent because of the influence of the Bush family. (and I am NOT a Democrat and will not vote for Kerry) John and Charles Wesley were 18th century and go way beyond the term "hero". They were two of the greatest saints in the history of the church. I would suggest Henry Garnet, Frederick Douglass, Martin Robison Delany, and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce for starters. Abraham Lincoln would qualify because he saw the importance of preserving the Union.But on the matter of race, he was contradictory...at the same time feeling that the blacks were to be equal even though they were an inferior race. His main intention was to help them leave for Africa and Central America. He had no intention of freeing them when the war started. THis all changed when the war started because blacks saw this as their last opportunity to gain freedom and begged for the opportunity to fight for it. The opportunity only came very late in the war when several Negro regiments were formed and the soldiers acquited themselves well in spite of receiving very poor equipment and about two thirds the wages of white soldiers.This came only as a military strategy needed later when the outcome of the war was in doubt. I still consider him a hero but a very flawed one. The "Great Emancipator" only fits him in a legal way because he signed the legislation. All the pressure to do it came from blacks, especially Douglass and Delany. By the way, I do not laugh at your posts. I read them with respect and take your opinions seriously. Except he didn’t write any of the material in the book I mentioned. All of the material in the book was taken from historical sources. You can look them up independently of his collection. The fact that you don’t know the other heroes reflects more on you than on them. Oppressors are NEVER heroes. They may be famous and do some good things but they are not heroes. I don’t consider Sitting Bull to be a hero. There were other chiefs that were but I wouldn’t elevate him to that level.
You have not replied to my comments about Sadaam and the Reagan-Bush administrations and the slaughter of millions in the womb. I suggest we all read Kevin Phillip’s “American Dynasty”. He is a former conservative Republican, who has become a registered independent because of the influence of the Bush family. (and I am NOT a Democrat and will not vote for Kerry)
John and Charles Wesley were 18th century and go way beyond the term “hero”. They were two of the greatest saints in the history of the church. I would suggest Henry Garnet, Frederick Douglass, Martin Robison Delany, and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce for starters. Abraham Lincoln would qualify because he saw the importance of preserving the Union.But on the matter of race, he was contradictory…at the same time feeling that the blacks were to be equal even though they were an inferior race. His main intention was to help them leave for Africa and Central America. He had no intention of freeing them when the war started. THis all changed when the war started because blacks saw this as their last opportunity to gain freedom and begged for the opportunity to fight for it. The opportunity only came very late in the war when several Negro regiments were formed and the soldiers acquited themselves well in spite of receiving very poor equipment and about two thirds the wages of white soldiers.This came only as a military strategy needed later when the outcome of the war was in doubt. I still consider him a hero but a very flawed one. The “Great Emancipator” only fits him in a legal way because he signed the legislation. All the pressure to do it came from blacks, especially Douglass and Delany.
By the way, I do not laugh at your posts. I read them with respect and take your opinions seriously.

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2355 SCSIwuzzy Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:01:43 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2355 Stan, I've yet to get mad. I laugh every time I read your posts. You stated that most of our heroes are black (and now you've added indians) but we only know one or two. I know it has been asked, but how can they be our heroes if we don't know them? They can be heroic. But to be OUR heroes, don't we have to know them? Now, why don't you list some of the heroes that we don't know, and those we do, and show them to be ours. For me, I am not a hero worshipping type. James Madison, John Jay, Lewis and Clark, John Wesley, Sitting Bull, all men of the 1800 I respect and think helped shape our history. As for the book you mentioned (still waiting for the others), I've read Aptheker (never said I didn't). And he was most certainly a Communist (with the capital C) In fact, he was an out of the closet Stalinist. I seem to recall he went to Vietnam in '66 to coordinate the Communists in the US, the 'Peace' movements and the North Vietnamese. It is hard to take his writing seriously, esp. after he wrote 'The Truth about Hungary', where he presented the soviet invasion of said country as progressive coup. According to him, the workers and the people of Hungary welcomed in the tanks and troops, and were happy to get under the soviet yolk. Punch was serverd, everyone was happy. His ealiest book, the title eludes me at the moment (it was, or grew out of his doctorate thesis at Columbia), was the closest thing he ever wrote to a history. And even it was loaded with exagerations and repeted falshoods of previous scholars. Some were understandable errors, some were bogus to all but those singing in his choir. This is a historian that described the US-led rebuilding of West Germany as 'renazification'. I stand by my statement that he is hardly an objective source. I'll go farther to say that he had a radical agenda, and didn't mind adjusting the facts to favor that agenda. Stan,
I’ve yet to get mad. I laugh every time I read your posts.
You stated that most of our heroes are black (and now you’ve added indians) but we only know one or two. I know it has been asked, but how can they be our heroes if we don’t know them? They can be heroic. But to be OUR heroes, don’t we have to know them?
Now, why don’t you list some of the heroes that we don’t know, and those we do, and show them to be ours.
For me, I am not a hero worshipping type. James Madison, John Jay, Lewis and Clark, John Wesley, Sitting Bull, all men of the 1800 I respect and think helped shape our history.
As for the book you mentioned (still waiting for the others), I’ve read Aptheker (never said I didn’t). And he was most certainly a Communist (with the capital C) In fact, he was an out of the closet Stalinist. I seem to recall he went to Vietnam in ’66 to coordinate the Communists in the US, the ‘Peace’ movements and the North Vietnamese.
It is hard to take his writing seriously, esp. after he wrote ‘The Truth about Hungary’, where he presented the soviet invasion of said country as progressive coup. According to him, the workers and the people of Hungary welcomed in the tanks and troops, and were happy to get under the soviet yolk. Punch was serverd, everyone was happy.
His ealiest book, the title eludes me at the moment (it was, or grew out of his doctorate thesis at Columbia), was the closest thing he ever wrote to a history. And even it was loaded with exagerations and repeted falshoods of previous scholars. Some were understandable errors, some were bogus to all but those singing in his choir.
This is a historian that described the US-led rebuilding of West Germany as ‘renazification’. I stand by my statement that he is hardly an objective source. I’ll go farther to say that he had a radical agenda, and didn’t mind adjusting the facts to favor that agenda.

]]> By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2352 stan Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:17:28 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2352 When discussing abortion, I'm comparing our policies with Sadaam. I'm saying that a country that has as government policy and law slaughtered 43 million infants in the womb over 31 years better be careful before it condemns others so harshly. I don' t care what "Indians" or others think of the term "original people". It is historically accurate and I didn't get it from liberals. I am not a liberal. As for the book I recommended, read it yourself. As for hating America, I do not and I value the fact that I was born here and not somewhere else very highly. But I am not a blind patriot or partisan. I stand by the fact that the greatest American heroes of the 19th century were blacks and original people, who tried to fight off brutes of European descent who were stealing their land and labor. Why don't you give me the names of your 19th century heroes and I'll comment. I know you'll only get mad but can't we have an objective discussion about this? Sadaam's gassing of the Kurds was done while he was our ally, 3 years before Desert Storm. It didn't seem to bother President Bush then. His administration winked when Sadaam revealed his intention to go into Kuwait, which is a corrupt monarchy. Only when it seemed that he might threaten Saudi Arabia did we panic. Should we have fought Desert Storm? Absolutely! Should we forget that the Reagan and Bush administrations got us into that mess, some of whom are now back in power? Absolutely not! When discussing abortion, I’m comparing our policies with Sadaam. I’m saying that a country that has as government policy and law slaughtered 43 million infants in the womb over 31 years better be careful before it condemns others so harshly. I don’ t care what “Indians” or others think of the term “original people”. It is historically accurate and I didn’t get it from liberals. I am not a liberal. As for the book I recommended, read it yourself. As for hating America, I do not and I value the fact that I was born here and not somewhere else very highly. But I am not a blind patriot or partisan. I stand by the fact that the greatest American heroes of the 19th century were blacks and original people, who tried to fight off brutes of European descent who were stealing their land and labor. Why don’t you give me the names of your 19th century heroes and I’ll comment. I know you’ll only get mad but can’t we have an objective discussion about this?
Sadaam’s gassing of the Kurds was done while he was our ally, 3 years before Desert Storm. It didn’t seem to bother President Bush then. His administration winked when Sadaam revealed his intention to go into Kuwait, which is a corrupt monarchy. Only when it seemed that he might threaten Saudi Arabia did we panic. Should we have fought Desert Storm? Absolutely! Should we forget that the Reagan and Bush administrations got us into that mess, some of whom are now back in power? Absolutely not!

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2328 SCSIwuzzy Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:10:53 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2328 Stan, You just hate the old US of A, don't you? You do know that the host of this site, and many of the regulars, are anti abortion, right? And are you really trying to say that organized and systemic torture, rape and terrorism was the norm in America for centuries? That american indians and blacks lived in constant terror of the secret police, for centuries? Now, I believe you said you could point us to sources. You pointed to one, so far, and it is far from objective, which you (maybe unconsciously) admit by stating "Looked at in the right way, it can be very inspirational". To the right person, at the right time, so is Mein Kampf. And yes, black did make appeals to Jefferson. So did whites, of all stripes from across the nation. What about the mention from 5th about Jay, Madison and Franklin (gotta plug for the hometown boy)? You're very good and quick at pointing out the negatives in US history, but I've yet to hear you acknowledge any of the positives. And when did original people become the liberal guilt code word for the Indians? I'll agree with 5th (being part Kiowa and Crow), that I don't know any Indians that like that term. If anything, it pisses them off, since it is always used by or conjunction with, liberal pity/condescention. Indian is just fine, and if you reallyyy want to show respect, use their tribes name. Stan,
You just hate the old US of A, don’t you?
You do know that the host of this site, and many of the regulars, are anti abortion, right?
And are you really trying to say that organized and systemic torture, rape and terrorism was the norm in America for centuries? That american indians and blacks lived in constant terror of the secret police, for centuries?
Now, I believe you said you could point us to sources. You pointed to one, so far, and it is far from objective, which you (maybe unconsciously) admit by stating “Looked at in the right way, it can be very inspirational”. To the right person, at the right time, so is Mein Kampf.
And yes, black did make appeals to Jefferson. So did whites, of all stripes from across the nation.
What about the mention from 5th about Jay, Madison and Franklin (gotta plug for the hometown boy)? You’re very good and quick at pointing out the negatives in US history, but I’ve yet to hear you acknowledge any of the positives.
And when did original people become the liberal guilt code word for the Indians?
I’ll agree with 5th (being part Kiowa and Crow), that I don’t know any Indians that like that term. If anything, it pisses them off, since it is always used by or conjunction with, liberal pity/condescention. Indian is just fine, and if you reallyyy want to show respect, use their tribes name.

]]> By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2316 stan Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:32:06 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2316 "a documentary history of the Negro People in the United State" Volume 1 through 1865 It should be in most large libraries. It was published in 1951. It was edited by Herbert Aphteker, who if I remember right was a communist. Butt don't be put off by it. Everything in it was written by blacks in various conditions. Looked at in the right way, it can be very inspirational. I would post excerpts but they'd be kind of long for a blog. Better to provide you with a number of texts and let you come to your own conclusions. I was interested in how early blacks made an appeal to the Congress, Jefferson and state legislatures. They knew exactly what the Declaration and the Constitution said and wanted it applied to them. Did you know that the right to vote was denied women until the 1920s but they were still taxed during that time? Did you know that voting rights were not completely extended to blacks until the late 60s but they were still taxed during that time? Taxation without representation...isn't that the main reason we revolted from Britain? Blacks made eloquent appeals based on this injustice, also. Seems to have fallen on deaf ears in some parts of the US for nearly 200 years. “a documentary history of the Negro People in the United State” Volume 1 through 1865

It should be in most large libraries. It was published in 1951. It was edited by Herbert Aphteker, who if I remember right was a communist. Butt don’t be put off by it. Everything in it was written by blacks in various conditions. Looked at in the right way, it can be very inspirational. I would post excerpts but they’d be kind of long for a blog. Better to provide you with a number of texts and let you come to your own conclusions. I was interested in how early blacks made an appeal to the Congress, Jefferson and state legislatures. They knew exactly what the Declaration and the Constitution said and wanted it applied to them.
Did you know that the right to vote was denied women until the 1920s but they were still taxed during that time? Did you know that voting rights were not completely extended to blacks until the late 60s but they were still taxed during that time? Taxation without representation…isn’t that the main reason we revolted from Britain? Blacks made eloquent appeals based on this injustice, also. Seems to have fallen on deaf ears in some parts of the US for nearly 200 years.

]]> By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2315 stan Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:15:20 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2315 A great deal of what Sadaam did was dibe while he was being mentored and funded by the Reagan administration, especially Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld. The slaughter of the Kurds and Shiites after Desert Storm came because Pres. Bush encouraged them to revolt and then stood by and did nothing. Some of the military equipment used in the slaughter had been provided by us. Everything Sadaam did except gassing was done over and over for several centuries to blacks and original people. In addition, we have slaughtered 43 million infants in their mother's wombs since 1973. I repeat, Sadaam was our creation and a Sunday School boy compared to what was done to blacks and original people. It was THE practice of the time and doesn't require selected rare accounts to prove. I can suggest a rather good reading list if you're interested in pursuing it. A great deal of what Sadaam did was dibe while he was being mentored and funded by the Reagan administration, especially Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld. The slaughter of the Kurds and Shiites after Desert Storm came because Pres. Bush encouraged them to revolt and then stood by and did nothing. Some of the military equipment used in the slaughter had been provided by us.
Everything Sadaam did except gassing was done over and over for several centuries to blacks and original people. In addition, we have slaughtered 43 million infants in their mother’s wombs since 1973. I repeat, Sadaam was our creation and a Sunday School boy compared to what was done to blacks and original people. It was THE practice of the time and doesn’t require selected rare accounts to prove. I can suggest a rather good reading list if you’re interested in pursuing it.

]]> By: 5thSister http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2305 5thSister Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:23:37 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2305 Stan, You need to get your facts straight. The 3/5ths compromise only applied to SLAVES. The slave states at the time, particulary South Carolina, wanted slaves counted towards their representation in the House. The non slave states, esp. the smaller ones, like NJ and DE, in addition to being opposed to slavery, didn't want these states to get more representation based on a body of non-citizens. The 3/5th compromise kept both groups at the table. Now, a citizen, however, is a citizen under the constitution, even then. The argument that black citizens were counted like that is absurd, because, there were hardly any out there. As for who thought what, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay and Madison all opposed slavery, and thought it was INCONSISTENT with the DECLARATION of Independence. Members of the convention also tried to put in clauses to phase out slavery over time. Some states, like NJ and Vermont (both had abolished and emancipated by 1804), did so. Now, back to the rest of the world, it wasn't until 1792 that any of the European powers aboloshed slavery (Denmark, a non-colonial). The Brittish abolished slavery (but did not, I think, emancipate all of them) in 1807. The French, 1848. The Dutch 1863 and Brazil 1888. Full abolition in all of the US states and emancipation was in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment. Though curiously, the US had abolished slavery in 1808, but only for new states or those who had already done so. In 1818, Missouri territory, which held slaves, and Maine, which did not, applied for statehood. Rather than disprupt the balance of 11 pro-11 anti slavery states, in 1820 the Missouri compromise was put into place, stating that no slaves could be held in the new territories and future states in the recently acquired Louisiana purchase lands. Now, you say our heroes in the 18 and 19 hundreds were nearly all black, but we only know one or two... that is a non-sequitor. To be our heroes, we must know them. While there were many herioc blacks in the US at the time (and more than a few bastards and assorted cads), that is not the same as saying that the comprised most of our heroes. For your Saddam allegations... heh. Try that one on somebody whoso family didn't come off the reservations. We may have gotten screwed, but show me one man in US historty that gased us, set up institutional rape camps, tortured us, came to our homes in the night and made us watch as our kin were raped, murdered, tortured or all of the above in front of our eyes. You have to take a few centuries of US history and clip out selective moments and villians to come up with what Hussien and his posse did in a scant few decades. Churches... the Society of Friends (aka Quakers), Presbyterian and Methodist Episcopal churches all worked towards abolition and equality long before the US was anything but a collection of Crown COlonies. While you may think everything you say is from historical documents, you might try reading them sometime. And saying you can point to documents is worthless. To (mis)quote Yoda, "Do, or do not". Or to use a more Americanish phrase, put up or shut up. Stan,
You need to get your facts straight. The 3/5ths compromise only applied to SLAVES. The slave states at the time, particulary South Carolina, wanted slaves counted towards their representation in the House. The non slave states, esp. the smaller ones, like NJ and DE, in addition to being opposed to slavery, didn’t want these states to get more representation based on a body of non-citizens. The 3/5th compromise kept both groups at the table. Now, a citizen, however, is a citizen under the constitution, even then.
The argument that black citizens were counted like that is absurd, because, there were hardly any out there.
As for who thought what, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay and Madison all opposed slavery, and thought it was INCONSISTENT with the DECLARATION of Independence. Members of the convention also tried to put in clauses to phase out slavery over time. Some states, like NJ and Vermont (both had abolished and emancipated by 1804), did so.
Now, back to the rest of the world, it wasn’t until 1792 that any of the European powers aboloshed slavery (Denmark, a non-colonial). The Brittish abolished slavery (but did not, I think, emancipate all of them) in 1807. The French, 1848. The Dutch 1863 and Brazil 1888. Full abolition in all of the US states and emancipation was in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment. Though curiously, the US had abolished slavery in 1808, but only for new states or those who had already done so. In 1818, Missouri territory, which held slaves, and Maine, which did not, applied for statehood. Rather than disprupt the balance of 11 pro-11 anti slavery states, in 1820 the Missouri compromise was put into place, stating that no slaves could be held in the new territories and future states in the recently acquired Louisiana purchase lands.
Now, you say our heroes in the 18 and 19 hundreds were nearly all black, but we only know one or two… that is a non-sequitor. To be our heroes, we must know them. While there were many herioc blacks in the US at the time (and more than a few bastards and assorted cads), that is not the same as saying that the comprised most of our heroes.
For your Saddam allegations… heh. Try that one on somebody whoso family didn’t come off the reservations. We may have gotten screwed, but show me one man in US historty that gased us, set up institutional rape camps, tortured us, came to our homes in the night and made us watch as our kin were raped, murdered, tortured or all of the above in front of our eyes. You have to take a few centuries of US history and clip out selective moments and villians to come up with what Hussien and his posse did in a scant few decades.
Churches… the Society of Friends (aka Quakers), Presbyterian and Methodist Episcopal churches all worked towards abolition and equality long before the US was anything but a collection of Crown COlonies.
While you may think everything you say is from historical documents, you might try reading them sometime. And saying you can point to documents is worthless. To (mis)quote Yoda, “Do, or do not”.
Or to use a more Americanish phrase, put up or shut up.

]]> By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2300 stan Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:33:41 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2300 You have not answered my points. I am not a liberal. I am an evangelical conservative registered as an independent and a former pastor who now does spiritual/humanitarian work in Cambodia. The term original people refers to the people who were here "originally". Others have used similar terms but it is the one I have chosen because it is the most historically accurate. They are the ones who "discovered" and developed America originally, not Europeans. I am not painting the founding fathers with a wide brush. There appears to be no point at which they or their successors seriously considered extending the full rights of the Declaration and Constitution to black folk. Free blacks were counted as 3 fifths of a person. Original people were treated as if they didn't exist. I can send you to documents in which free blacks appealed directly to Thomas Jefferson and others for the opportunity to have the blessings of liberty extended to them. All the harangues against King George were hypocritical. What they were doing to the blacks was 1000 times worse than anything King George did to them. The log in their eye was so gigantic that they didn't see the hypocrisy of their position. For over 100 years, blacks appealed to whites on the basis of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bible. The story of America is the efforts of blacks to get the basic freedoms which were promised to whites extended to them. Our great American heroes of the 19th and early 20th century were nearly all black but are largely unknown except for one or two. We greatly underestimate the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. The violence perpetrated on what historical documents record as generally naive and trusting people as well as blacks far exceeds anything Sadaam ever thought about. And this was done at the instigation of churches backed by their "interpretations" of the Bible. The Southern Baptists didn't even acknowledge this until the 1990s when they used it as an opportunity to announce an evangelistic program to reach blacks. Everything I am stating is from historical documents that are self-explanatory. Take time to do some research. The truth is painful but it sets us free to make clearer and more Biblical judgments regarding what is happening to our country today. You have not answered my points. I am not a liberal. I am an evangelical conservative registered as an independent and a former pastor who now does spiritual/humanitarian work in Cambodia. The term original people refers to the people who were here “originally”. Others have used similar terms but it is the one I have chosen because it is the most historically accurate. They are the ones who “discovered” and developed America originally, not Europeans. I am not painting the founding fathers with a wide brush. There appears to be no point at which they or their successors seriously considered extending the full rights of the Declaration and Constitution to black folk. Free blacks were counted as 3 fifths of a person. Original people were treated as if they didn’t exist. I can send you to documents in which free blacks appealed directly to Thomas Jefferson and others for the opportunity to have the blessings of liberty extended to them. All the harangues against King George were hypocritical. What they were doing to the blacks was 1000 times worse than anything King George did to them. The log in their eye was so gigantic that they didn’t see the hypocrisy of their position. For over 100 years, blacks appealed to whites on the basis of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bible. The story of America is the efforts of blacks to get the basic freedoms which were promised to whites extended to them. Our great American heroes of the 19th and early 20th century were nearly all black but are largely unknown except for one or two. We greatly underestimate the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. The violence perpetrated on what historical documents record as generally naive and trusting people as well as blacks far exceeds anything Sadaam ever thought about. And this was done at the instigation of churches backed by their “interpretations” of the Bible. The Southern Baptists didn’t even acknowledge this until the 1990s when they used it as an opportunity to announce an evangelistic program to reach blacks. Everything I am stating is from historical documents that are self-explanatory. Take time to do some research. The truth is painful but it sets us free to make clearer and more Biblical judgments regarding what is happening to our country today.

]]> By: LB http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2294 LB Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:25:58 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2294 It's convenient to look back on history and castigate the white men who put this country together. Slaveowners or not, look at the bounty we've all inherited from them, for crying out loud! We can respect the accomplishments of all, Stan, and <em>that</em> should have been part of your very first comment (which is also the very first comment) instead of immediately pointing out that those men didn't include blacks and women. The modern and western notion of freedom is an inheritance <em>all</em> Americans share, whether are not they choose to take advantage of it and America's opportunites. That's on <em>them</em> It’s convenient to look back on history and castigate the white men who put this country together. Slaveowners or not, look at the bounty we’ve all inherited from them, for crying out loud!

We can respect the accomplishments of all, Stan, and that should have been part of your very first comment (which is also the very first comment) instead of immediately pointing out that those men didn’t include blacks and women.

The modern and western notion of freedom is an inheritance all Americans share, whether are not they choose to take advantage of it and America’s opportunites. That’s on them

]]> By: 5thSister http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2279 5thSister Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:32:54 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2279 Jeannie, Too right. Stan, While you have some points, like Jeannie said, you can't paint all of the founding fathers (and the nation as a whole) with the same brush. Also, what's with the original people stuff? Seriously, ask most of us, and the term Indian or American Indian (when we need to be clear that while we may shop at a the new deli, we do not descend from New Delhi),is the way to go (ok, I am more of a pinkskin than a redskin). Native American and Original People are white-liberal-guilt code words, TYVM :) As for naive and trusting? Hardly. Dealing with some concepts that were foriegn to them, surely. And dealing with a group of people that had a level of organization and tech that was far beyond most tribal nations (all of them really, to different extents). Oh, and these new folks carried all kinds of nasty plagues with them to boot... Back to being students of American history (the hyphens you toss in are redundant), I am sure you know that some Constitutional delegates were for abolition? And of course, at the time, while slavery was on the decline, it was hardly odd that it was still practiced in the 1780s newest nation. Regretable, but still true. As for the USofA of that time being an all white man thing... well, they did say all men, didn't they. Who, at the time, had really envisioned and implemented gender equality. ANd for white men... that still depends on the place. There were citizens who werent white. And noplace in the Constitution does it say whites only. Jeannie,
Too right.
Stan,
While you have some points, like Jeannie said, you can’t paint all of the founding fathers (and the nation as a whole) with the same brush.
Also, what’s with the original people stuff? Seriously, ask most of us, and the term Indian or American Indian (when we need to be clear that while we may shop at a the new deli, we do not descend from New Delhi),is the way to go (ok, I am more of a pinkskin than a redskin). Native American and Original People are white-liberal-guilt code words, TYVM :) As for naive and trusting? Hardly. Dealing with some concepts that were foriegn to them, surely. And dealing with a group of people that had a level of organization and tech that was far beyond most tribal nations (all of them really, to different extents). Oh, and these new folks carried all kinds of nasty plagues with them to boot…
Back to being students of American history (the hyphens you toss in are redundant), I am sure you know that some Constitutional delegates were for abolition? And of course, at the time, while slavery was on the decline, it was hardly odd that it was still practiced in the 1780s newest nation. Regretable, but still true.
As for the USofA of that time being an all white man thing… well, they did say all men, didn’t they. Who, at the time, had really envisioned and implemented gender equality. ANd for white men… that still depends on the place. There were citizens who werent white. And noplace in the Constitution does it say whites only.

]]> By: Jeannie http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-2278 Jeannie Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:49:56 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/29/civilization/#comment-2278 Stan, much as I think we need to remember the points you bring up, we need to remember that not all white men were cruel slave and spouse owners. Many white men broke the law and taught their slaves to read and write, and many of these men also debated ideas openly with both their slaves and their wives and sisters. Just as I can't blindly accept the words of our Constitution without considering the political and legal context, I also think we should remember the human context. As the mother, wife and daughter of white men of exceptionally high morals (for which my very vocal father suffered much criticism during the 1960s), I do not think for a moment that their morals would have been different in a different time, despite the opinions of the majority. Hey, my dad's not afraid to choose ethics over the majority - he's the only one of 6 kids to become a Republican. He says his father made him one by forcing him to tag along to union meeetings... Stan, much as I think we need to remember the points you bring up, we need to remember that not all white men were cruel slave and spouse owners. Many white men broke the law and taught their slaves to read and write, and many of these men also debated ideas openly with both their slaves and their wives and sisters. Just as I can’t blindly accept the words of our Constitution without considering the political and legal context, I also think we should remember the human context. As the mother, wife and daughter of white men of exceptionally high morals (for which my very vocal father suffered much criticism during the 1960s), I do not think for a moment that their morals would have been different in a different time, despite the opinions of the majority. Hey, my dad’s not afraid to choose ethics over the majority – he’s the only one of 6 kids to become a Republican. He says his father made him one by forcing him to tag along to union meeetings…

]]>