quote:I am not in this thread arguing FOR communism, I am arguing FOR China regardless of the form of ideology it takes and correcting the misinterpretations of the misinformed.
Blayne, really —
your version of 'correction' is to replace a nuanced perspective with blatant pro-Maoism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No, if correct misinformation with fact, or at least an explanation of fact that was easily misinterpreted. Example, Jiung Chiang or whatever that b*****s name is claims that Mao "killed" 80 to 90 Million people.
This is number range complete and utter fiction based on fairy land evidence and yet there's dozens of people I've seen who use this source as if it were the Bible, despite the massive criticisms on its sourcing methodology and bias and compete fiction the writers churn out for large sections of the book.
I think I have never actually argued a defence of Maoism directly.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I certainly apologize for the longwindedness of my communism analysis and whether or not China's form of government falls under a Marxist system or not.
But I do still think there are three key things from your last post that does contest with the statement "China first, Communism Second" (ETA: Your last post in reference to me.)
1st, Mao was anything but a pragmatist. He was an idealist to a fault wherein his complete devotion to the revolution resulted in him harming the people. His Great Leap Forward attempted to make their agriculture sector more communistic in nature by removing private ownership of farms. Those who resisted were killed. The agrarian system that was created did not supply the people of china and resulted in millions of deaths by starvation. He did all of this because he put his beliefs in communism first, and not China. You can further dislodge notions of a pragmatic Mao with his attempts at bringing the people of China into government. That is, when he fired all of the top level bureaucrats and replaced them with farmers. This resulted in an administrative collapse where the bureaucracy was rendered unable to provide for the people. Again, putting his communist ideology first, and not China.
I suppose my point about "Free Tibet" wasn't as obvious as I had hoped. You talked about how Mao 'unified China' but certain parts of the Chinese State do not agree to being considered a part of the Chinese Nation. My example was Tibet, which proclaimed independence from China in the early 1900s (I want to say 1913?). Mao would later institute an invasion into Tibet (1950?) and try to reclaim them as a part of China. Now, I'll grant that this gives credence to your argument that Mao intended to put China first and Communism second, but like my previous post stated I believe that with history we should look at the consequences of a person's actions and not the intentions. When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China. I would further argue that Mao did not act in the interest of 'China' because of the PRC's attitude toward the ROC.
The last point is on Mao in general. In regards to your quote, that's a nice speculation, but the fact of the matter is Mao did NOT die in 1950 or 1960. He died in '76, and if we are going to evaluate his life, we should do it based off of what he did from start to finish. Mao was an ideologue who forwent practicality and rationality in an effort to indoctrinate his views in the general population. He was not interested in 'China' so much as the movement. This was demonstrated by his actions throughout his life which would result in the loss of millions of lives.
And a final point, by arguing 'FOR' China, does that mean you're arguing for the ROC? Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
Blayne a person can do a great many terrible things with the belief that it would be good for ones' country when it fact it was absolutely terrible for the country.
And Pre-1949? The KMT didn't actually leave China fully until 1949. It was when Mao had the reigns of power that he demonstrated his true colors.
And it does not take a Jung Chang to conclude that throwing away all your iron to make low quality steel and setting aside too much of your peasant population to quit the fields in order to do it is a terrible idea. Even the official government tally estimates 14 million dead in The Great Leap, scholars place it between 20 and 43 million. Why do you think Mao was essentially forced to resign his position of State Chairman of the PRC? Not that it did anything, he had a terrible habit of killing off his opponents, even those who were just as patriotic as he claimed to be. Why don't you go read about Peng De Huai and Zhou En Lai.
If you'd like to argue that Jung Chang suffers from a bias, that is a perfectly acceptable position to take seeing as how she and her family were directly affected by Mao and his programs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China.
An odd line of argument, while the Chinese colonization of Tibet sucked for the Tibetans, I find it hard to see why it would be a net negative for the people of China on the whole by any pragmatic measure. Between Tibet's resources, its strategic location, and the relative ease of occupation it seems to have been a pretty good deal for the Chinese.
As a similar trade-off: colonization of America, crappy for the native Americans, great deal for the illegal immigrants arriving by boat.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China.
An odd line of argument, while the Chinese colonization of Tibet sucked for the Tibetans, I find it hard to see why it would be a net negative for the people of China on the whole by any pragmatic measure. Between Tibet's resources, its strategic location, and the relative ease of occupation it seems to have been a pretty good deal for the Chinese.
As a similar trade-off: colonization of America, crappy for the native Americans, great deal for the illegal immigrants arriving by boat.
Fair point. My argument on why it was a net negative comes from the international perception. Granted a lot of the frustration from the international community is directed at the leadership, I feel that it does also hurt the people. I don't think that the "strategic position and relative ease of occupation" helps the people so much as the leadership of China, which was my original point.
But I think I'll concede this one in general though because I don't think the international pressure and anger at China has harmed the people in any measurable sense. (That is, unless there are tariffs and other trade limitations I don't know about.)
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm wondering if she'd still consider a run for the senate even if she took this post. If so, I'd imagine that that means Obama plans to have his healthcare plan passed through Congress in the next year. Sebelius is pretty much the only chance Democrats have at capturing what will be an open senate seat when Republican senator Sam Brownback retires. Much like Janet Nepolitano was considered the only reasonable chance to pick up Arizona's senate seat from John McCain.
Appointing her will also throw Kansas to a Republican turned Democrat until the next election. I'm not positive as to her particular credentials in the healthcare field however. If anyone has info on that, feel free to share.
I'm willing to bet that his comment will be misconstrued by the right, and I'm sure Fox news is all over it already. But in context, I'm curious to hear the arguments that oppose him. Despite the strong language (maybe America could use some strong language when we're looking at OUR mistakes rather than tough talk in foreign policy), he's probing into an open wound that most Americans like to pretend doesn't exist. I fear however that a black AG appointed by a black president stirring up race relations, will rub a lot of people the wrong way. But often I think without agitation, a lot of this stuff never gets solved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
That's pretty much my sentiments as well Mucus.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem. Would Holder say this was hypocrisy or hopefulness? If the former, then he is saying the vote by many for Obama was a mistake.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A "main" reason? And where did you pull this from, Ron? Anything at all to back it up?
I'll agree that one of the reasons I was excited that he won (not a reason I voted for him) was that it was a step in the right direction. Even a big step is not the whole journey.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem.
I don't buy that assertion at all, Ron.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was his appeal as hyped by virtually all the mass media talking heads, and I think they were right. Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
Why do Obama supporters keep denying reality, even when it is so obvious? How many more of his cabinet picks have to resign because of tax problems, and how many more of his actions as president will have to be seen as ill-informed--like his attempt to close Gitmo "immediately"--and how glaringly obvious must Congressional Democrats make the fact that they do not really view him as the leader of their party?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
Because many people disagree with these characterizations?
quote:Why do Obama supporters keep denying reality, even when it is so obvious?
Just a guess here, but because it's not so obvious? Reasonable people can come to different conclusions and all that jazz. Remember that over half of the US voting population are Obama supporters. That seems to argue somewhat against the obviousness claim.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, do you and your fellow knee-jerk naysayers and compulsive hecklers have anything substantive to say?
MattP, when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Pay attention Ron. I didn't day the majority indicated correctness. I was talking about obviousness. If most people don't see what you see, then what you see is definitionally NOT obvious.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: But in context, I'm curious to hear the arguments that oppose him. Despite the strong language (maybe America could use some strong language when we're looking at OUR mistakes rather than tough talk in foreign policy), he's probing into an open wound that most Americans like to pretend doesn't exist.
He is quite simply wrong that we are a nation of cowards who don't talk about race. Race is discussed constantly in our country. I don't have a transcript of exactly what he said to keep everything in context about what specific aspects of race are being ignored because they are uncomfortable.
quote: The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."
Without a transcript or clarification I don't know what he is referring to with that quote. I do think he picked a very poor way to express his point especially since he is from the Obama "Hope and Change" team. The article made things sound like doom and gloom but I grant that could be the article's take on his speech.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem.
my google-fu is limited at this moment but there has to be some polling data about this somewhere. It would be an interesting poll to have taken right before the election, now, and next year to see if opinions would change over time on why they voted for Obama
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record ...
Sometimes I wonder if Ron would spontaneously implode if he set foot in Canada.
Any classification scheme that classifies Obama as "extreme" must have amazing difficulty in classifying the differences between the Liberal party, the Bloc Quebecquois, and the New Democratic Party.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina said Thursday that GOP governors who oppose the stimulus bill are giving African-Americans “a slap in the face.”
quote: Clyburn has been sparring with his state’s governor, Republican Mark Sanford, who has been a leading voice of opposition to the stimulus package. But the highest-ranking African-American in Congress said his frustration with the bill’s opponents isn’t limited to Sanford.
I wonder if AG Holder meant people like Clyburn in his 'nation of cowards' statement? Clyburn is absolutely using race to put pressure on his political opponent to get his way. Shouldn't this action be condemned?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find just as many people voted for Obama in spite of his race as did because of it. I think the majority of people that voted for Obama because of race would have voted for Clinton as well, not because of race, but because they view their policies as beneficial to their race or to the issue of race.
I'm very, very doubtful of the supposed large number of whites that voted for Obama just so they could claim some sort of healing on the race issue. When most people were polled on their major issues, things like healthcare, the economy, energy, the Iraq war, terrorism and even the budget were winners. Race relations was a statistical blip.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looked at from a different point of view, it makes his remarks all the more compelling.
Race relations weren't a statistical blip because we're a race blind utopia of acceptance. They were a blip because people for the most part live in voluntary (white suburbs) or involuntary socioeconomic (black inner cities) segregation and either don't recognize that there are problems or actively ignore them in favor of other problems.
In other words, to view Holder's comments with respect to the lack of importance of race as an issue in this most previous election, you would either have to accept one of two premises (or a couple variations that fit under these premises): 1. That America doesn't have any race problems, so why would they be an issue? or 2. That there is a problem, and we don't care about it very much.
There is, or there isn't a problem. If there's a problem and it's not an issue, we must not care about it very much, or care about talking about it very much. So, I think to argue that Holder's comments are untrue and concerning, you have to make the argument that America doesn't have a race problem. Good luck with that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is quite simply wrong that we are a nation of cowards who don't talk about race. Race is discussed constantly in our country.
I think Eric Holder may have found a better way to communicate his point, but I believe his point is valid. Our problem is not that we don't talk, our problem is that we don't talk about the right things or act on anything really helpful. We talk about the things that are comfortable, we claim that we talk about race all the time, and yet, what we really do is hide behind those programs and ideas that are safe and easy. Of course, it's the same thing with everything else, whether it's sexism or the economy or politics, we hide behind what's easy and fail to become better because we are to content to allow others to make the bold decisions that can make us better.
quote:MattP, when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
You know what I find hilarious? Someone who makes this claim and then forgets to place a dash between semi and literate.
I was thinking today about something someone said on CNN, I believe it was Bill Bennett, who claimed that Republicans were against the Stimulus Bill because they trusted the American people and small businesses to stimulate the economy through tax breaks. Inherently, that is not a completely incorrect nor implausible position to take, but the problem I have is that what I see in the position is hypocrisy. Trust in the American people is a beautiful thing as long as we don't have to trust them to make the correct moral decisions about gay marriage, for instance. For that, you need a constitutional amendment. Which makes me wonder why economic matters require trust in the people and social matters require Constitutional lawyers to keep the people from degeneration, and the only solution I can find is that when trust benefits someone, then economic policy means as little regulation as possible. As long as some don't have to deal with those poor people or those who cannot pull themselves up by their boot-straps (even, you know, if they have never had boots) or those who disagree with them socially, then everything is correct in the world. But get in the way of that agenda, and the very tools they rail against suddenly are good and useful in keeping the illiterate and stupid masses from messing with the ubermensch on top.
Boy, it's a good thing I dove into that mess...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was thinking today about something someone said on CNN, I believe it was Bill Bennett, who claimed that Republicans were against the Stimulus Bill because they trusted the American people and small businesses to stimulate the economy through tax breaks. Inherently, that is not a completely incorrect nor implausible position to take, but the problem I have is that what I see in the position is hypocrisy.
I know that I am both
1. cynical, and 2. definitely against the republicans
but I feel it is entirely fair to state: the GOP has rather correctly figured that if this whole stimulus thing WORKS, the Democrats get all the credit. Ergo, they should oppose it — even if (especially if!) the GOP thinks it will work.
The GOP knew that the stimulus bill was inevitable. Were Bush still in charge (or, were McCain to have won) and the GOP was a legislative majority, they would have proffered over 60% support of it, and Bush would have supported a stimulus bill of similar size.
Because they knew the bill was assured, this gave them an opportunity to hedge their bets rather than dare give Obama support over this issue. So they decided to play a little game theory by "embarrassing" Obama over his "failure" to bring about any degree of harmony in the senate.
Rationally, it makes sense for the sake of the party, but not necessarily for the sake of the nation were they to have actually had filibuster power.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: You know what I find hilarious? Someone who makes this claim and then forgets to place a dash between semi and literate.
quote:. Trust in the American people is a beautiful thing as long as we don't have to trust them to make the correct moral decisions about gay marriage, for instance. For that, you need a constitutional amendment. Which makes me wonder why economic matters require trust in the people and social matters require Constitutional lawyers to keep the people from degeneration, and the only solution I can find is that when trust benefits someone, then economic policy means as little regulation as possible.
The Constitutional amendment is trusting the people, it goes on the ballot and is voted upon. The constitutional lawyers are on the other side trying to get rid of it. I'm certainly not of the believe that Republican politicians, unlike their Democrat counterparts, are motivated solely by the good of the country any more than I think the reverse. However, gay marriage amendments have been the will of the people. My understanding is that the only state that didn't approve a definition of marriage amendment that came to a vote was Arizona, which just reversed that in the last election. I didn't research though so someone please correct me if I'm wrong!
posted
Humean316, language is continually changing. Many words that used to be hyphenated have become one word. Such as "extraordinary." Either I am ahead of the times, or you are behind them. If you will check Webster's Online Dictionary, "semiliterate" is now considered properly one word, not hyphenated. Thanks Mike, for providing the link.
One other admittedly nit-picky point--the proper term would be hyphen, not dash, if "semiliterate" were hyphenated. A dash in most typefaces is the same width as the letter "M," and so is called the "em dash." That is, maximum width for the typeface. In a 12-point typeface, the dash would be 12 points wide. A "short dash" or "en dash" is half as wide--the width of the letter "n" in most typefaces. The hyphen is shorter still. Here is what Wickipedia says: "A dash is a punctuation mark. It is longer than a hyphen and is used differently. The most common versions of the dash are the en dash (–) and the em dash (—)." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen
I used to work in a printshop.
MattP--what is "obvious" does NOT depend on how many people see it, it depends on what is logical to those who are logical. That would seldom be the majority.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, things that are logical to logical people are logical things. There's another definition we use for "obvious," and that isn't it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A professor, in the course of teaching a class, claims that a certain step in a proof is obvious. One of the students queries him on this. The professor leaves the room and 45 minutes later (two minutes before the end of the lecture) the professor returns and declares that the step IS obvious.
If anyone finds this amusing I also have one about visualizing 3-manifolds.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. That America doesn't have any race problems, so why would they be an issue? or 2. That there is a problem, and we don't care about it very much.
or 3. America does have some race issues but the issues are not severe as they have been in the past. Holder even says that in the workplace things are fine or much improved we just don't associate outside of work as much as he feels we should be doing. So we do care but is not a gigantic issue facing the nation.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're pretty much choosing option two, but you're trying to spin it in a more positive way.
Sure we've come a long way since the 60's, obviously since the 1860's, and measurable progress since the 1960's, and we have a black president, huzzah. What about urban poverty that overwhelmingly is suffered more by blacks than whites? What about black graduation rates? Imprisonment rates? Mandatory minimums that effect blacks more than whites on certain drug related crimes? Inner city violence?
It's easy to call a lot of these problems "black problems" and foist the issue off as something other than race, but whites don't have to deal with a lot of these things nearly as much because we fled the to the suburbs en masse in the 60's and made it impossible for blacks to follow us. Yeah I know we also moved to the burbs as early as the 1880's and 90's, and it picked up dramatically when returning GIs in the 40's and 50's took home loans from the government to get their little slice of the American Dream, but the final nail in the coffin came in the 60's, and racist lending rules and intimidation made kept blacks stuck in the inner cities. Holder's point now is as much social as it is anything else. We live in a state of voluntary segregation (of course this diverges when you consider inner city poverty, where I'd call involuntary), where whites happily separate themselves from blacks, and proclaim that all our race issues are solved, but only because they don't have to deal with blacks face to face. If I could wave a magic wand and ensure that every white person in the country lived within a couple houses of a black person, I guarantee you we'd see a whole new side to the problem erupt that you claim is of minute importance.
We've segregated ourselves from the problem and from the discussion, like religious figures who become recluses to remove the temptation of sin, it's easy to pretend there isn't a problem when you create a social norm that insulates you from ever having to confront it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth is out. Why don't I trust the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party?
quote: when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
So, what are we to do--replace our democracy with what? A Ron-Lambert Dictatorship? A Theocracy of Christian Ministers? A Oligarchy of Business Interests? An Aristocracy of Republican families?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The truth is out. Why don't I trust the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party?
quote: when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
So, what are we to do--replace our democracy with what? A Ron-Lambert Dictatorship? A Theocracy of Christian Ministers? A Oligarchy of Business Interests? An Aristocracy of Republican families?
An excerpt from the 2006 Texas Republican Party platform: "We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state."
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: A joke about obviousness in math:
A professor, in the course of teaching a class, claims that a certain step in a proof is obvious. One of the students queries him on this. The professor leaves the room and 45 minutes later (two minutes before the end of the lecture) the professor returns and declares that the step IS obvious.
Will you think less of me if I admit I don't get it?
quote: It's easy to call a lot of these problems "black problems" and foist the issue off as something other than race
I may not be understanding your point here. They are not "black problems" as many inner city whites, hispanics, and others face the same issues.
quote: but whites don't have to deal with a lot of these things nearly as much because we fled the to the suburbs en masse in the 60's and made it impossible for blacks to follow us.
Whites made it impossible for blacks to move to the suburbs? There are no blacks in the suburbs? Really? 40 years there was a much bigger race problem than there is today. Whites are not keeping blacks out of the suburbs today. 'Racism' does still exist and will always exist to some extent in America. Most people are more comfortable in familiar surroundings regardless of race.
quote: We live in a state of voluntary segregation (of course this diverges when you consider inner city poverty, where I'd call involuntary), where whites happily separate themselves from blacks, and proclaim that all our race issues are solved, but only because they don't have to deal with blacks face to face.
I have never said that all our race issues are solved. No one is saying that. ('No one but Jayne is saying that' if you understand the reference) But you are limiting yourself too much with that statement. What about the hispanics? Asians? Arabs? or is it just whites shutting blacks out of the suburbs? Are you sure that similar people don't choose to live together? Similar cultures and backgrounds tend to stick together. For example, we have an area with primarily people of Arab descent living in it and in that area is a large sub-area of Syrian immigrants. No one forced them to live in a small area. Whites did not push them into this area. They chose to live close to each other because of similar cultures, languages, and backgrounds. Stores with Arabic language first signs are predominant there because of the local unique culture. Should that be destroyed because of racism? Should we erase little Italy or Chinatown in Philly because they are not ethnically diverse enough?
quote: If I could wave a magic wand and ensure that every white person in the country lived within a couple houses of a black person, I guarantee you we'd see a whole new side to the problem erupt that you claim is of minute importance.
What new side would that be? How sure are you that the blacks would not be the ones outraged having to live with whites and having white culture forced upon them? This goes both ways. I live in a diverse neighborhood ethnically (my family is definitely in the minority) but we are all similar in backgrounds and middle class status. The complaints of my black neighbors are the exact same as those of my white and hispanic neighbors...inner city 'thugs' and the violent, selfish lifestyle they lead and bring to our streets. That and bad dog owners who let their dogs poop in someone else's yard and don't pick it up. I've been chased after and thanked profusely for cleaning up after my dog.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, while you are right that certain problems do disproportionately affect blacks, I think ultimately the solution has to be dealt with as a class issue. I have white friends who deal with the effects of poverty and drugs while I have black friends who live extremely privileged lives. While these may be outliers, it builds resentment when someone who is poor watches a rich spoiled brat get the college scholarship because they are of a specific race. We also need to eliminate the idea that being poor is a choice or a sign of a defect.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree, it's not solely a minority issue, and there are plenty of whites that live in poverty as well. And I think a lot of the problems we have are going to have to be tackled more as socioeconomic problems than as racial ones.
DK -
It's a long story. Yes, whites were initially responsible for keeping blacks out of the suburbs. They used lending practices that denied loans to blacks who wanted loans to buy homes in the suburbs, and for the few who made it in, largely using black banking institutions, they were intimidated until they were forced out. Is it the same problem today? Of course not, but the damage was done. Having been stuck in the inner city for a generation or two has crippled them with poverty rather than race. Now it's not a matter of racial barriers but economic ones.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm disappointed. I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system. They ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in that they should have charges brought against them. If you can't come up with a good reason for their detainment other than 'they were on the battlefield,' then it's not right to keep holding them captive. If the detainees officially declared prisoners of war, that would be one thing. But as it is right now, they're in a legal grey-area that I don't like where we can hold them indefinitely without charge. I know it's a bit of a stretch to imagine, but I don't like the precedent that's being established where the government can detain you for the rest of your life and you're never given the opportunity to prove your innocence or even find out why you're being held.
I grant that many, if not a great majority of those detainees ought to be held because of their activities, but the burden should be on us to prove their wrong doing.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system.
I'm not sure what sort of system could handle that many people. When virtually all of your enemies fight without a uniform, you get a glut of enemy combatants. Allowing every individual prisoner to contest their being held would be a huge mess.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system.
I'm not sure what sort of system could handle that many people. When virtually all of your enemies fight without a uniform, you get a glut of enemy combatants. Allowing every individual prisoner to contest their being held would be a huge mess.
I agree, but then again, I think this whole situation is a mess right now.
I think it would be completely infeasible for the courts to handle the burden. At the same time, I think military tribunals don't work either for reasons of objectivity. But I do think we need some sort of system that fairly objective. Maybe make a commission that functions as a grand jury or something and assign a federal judge, a person in uniform, and an independent observer together who just hear whether we have reason to hold this person. If the military can't make a compelling case to continue their detainment, that detainee is allowed to challenge their detainment in an actual trial procedure. If the commission finds reasonable proof of actions that were incriminating, their detainment is upheld.
I don't think my solution is perfect, or even that good, but we need something.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves.
Many people complain about the "Liberal Elitism". This is the idea that East Coast Liberals patronize the working class who don't know any better.
Then we get quotes like this that I can only describe as Republican Elitism. This was a hallmark of President Bush's failures--he didn't believe that the People could understand why he was doing what he was doing, so he kept many many things secret. This is the idea that some great Conservative thinkers have the answers and their Business Experience allows them a special ability to do what is right beyond what the majority can comprehend.
Combine this statement with your earlier one:
quote:Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
And what do you get? You get the idea that any person who voted for Obama was selfish, ignorant, and unconcerned with issues outside their own lives.
I voted for Obama.
I did so for reasons that were not selfish. I researched the issue and the positions so I was not ignorant. I thought that his positions would help with issues that were far outside my own private life.
Your description of President Obama however, shows ignorance, selfishness, and a concern for issues only dealing with your private life.
Just because people don't think like you do does not mean that they are not thinking.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Please keep your hocus pocus myths out of our real world politics.
IP: Logged |
I'm disappointed. I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system. They ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in that they should have charges brought against them. If you can't come up with a good reason for their detainment other than 'they were on the battlefield,' then it's not right to keep holding them captive. If the detainees officially declared prisoners of war, that would be one thing. But as it is right now, they're in a legal grey-area that I don't like where we can hold them indefinitely without charge. I know it's a bit of a stretch to imagine, but I don't like the precedent that's being established where the government can detain you for the rest of your life and you're never given the opportunity to prove your innocence or even find out why you're being held.
I grant that many, if not a great majority of those detainees ought to be held because of their activities, but the burden should be on us to prove their wrong doing.
Shouldn't they be treated as Prisoners of War?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Please keep your hocus pocus myths out of our real world politics.
Cut it out Blayne, if you could be so kind.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You talked about how Mao 'unified China' but certain parts of the Chinese State do not agree to being considered a part of the Chinese Nation. My example was Tibet, which proclaimed independence from China in the early 1900s (I want to say 1913?). Mao would later institute an invasion into Tibet (1950?) and try to reclaim them as a part of China. Now, I'll grant that this gives credence to your argument that Mao intended to put China first and Communism second, but like my previous post stated I believe that with history we should look at the consequences of a person's actions and not the intentions. When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China. I would further argue that Mao did not act in the interest of 'China' because of the PRC's attitude toward the ROC.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
