posted
I don't feel guilty, I don't think I should feel guilty.
I have only two responsibilities to my predecessors, and this is NOT confined to race. Honor/Remember what they did right. Do better than them when they erred. Thus I feel absolutely no compulsion or need to do anything to make up for the mistakes of those that came before me, my only job is not to do wrong what they did wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I cannot lay my hands on links as I am pressed for time, but I also believe that some Eastern Europeans had robot forced on them pretty much their entire lives and were, in fact, slaves.
It is also a point in fact that some black people were slave owners.
Now, who amongst is descended from slaves or from freemen, or a combination of the two?
You say that we should only concern ourselves with America, but it is precisely factual that many white people were slaves in the Americas, while, though it is certainly factual that there aren't as many in America, some black people are descended from slave owners.
My point in all of this isn't to say that white people weren't responsible for all of the slave owning in America. That would be absurd.
My point is that it might serve your argument more if you acknowledged that slavery is a universal vice practiced by everyone, everywhere, at some time, and that you might find more support if you surrounded your arguments in universal issues of power and (perhapes) class that we can all probably agree on rather than say that the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons--which very few people will agree with, because who wants to cart around their old man wherever they go.
Anyways, maybe all this should have its own thread.
As to your bit about Romney, eh. The bottom line i sn't that well known, isn't that original in his policy to merit any significant attention, and, most importantly to the GOP, isn't governer of an important electoral state.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I think that business leans towards moral corruption and most attempts to solve political problems with a business methodology is morally reprehensible.
Right, I understand that about you. I think you illustrated this most clearly in your reluctance to read 7 Habits because it's been used so extensively in business. To a point, I agree with you. A business model is not the best model for government--the two have fundamentally different goals and functions.
However, my point is that I don't quite agree with the slant the article is taking. I don't believe that an analytical approach has anything to do with a business approach. The article has married the two concepts. I work for the most corporate of corporate America and often the business solution is anything but analytically based on what will be best for the most people and the company long term, but instead how can we meet the bottom line this quarter.
I would rather have a 'detached' analytical statesman who gets things done than one who gives fiery, passionate speeches yet nothing changes or changes things for the worst based on whims brought on by the passion of the moment.
I think there is a false dichomotry presented in the article that what is analytical cannot also be compassionate. It all depends on your ranking of the criteria in your analysis.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
