Democracy

[32Bravo]

Is democracy all that we would wish it to be - how is it that politicians preach democracy and then, once in power, do whatever they wish and to hell with the electorate?

Have our politicians let us down?

Why does Obama speak of the ‘Audacity of Hope’, and why does Brown speak of his ‘Vision’?

Does the ‘Establishment’ really run our countries, thus, making a sham of democracy?

[Rising Sun*]

Denocracy?

Is this harking back to Denis Thatcher? ;) :D

Don't you wish we could edit topic titles?
I can and did - pdf27

What does any of us expect of politicians?

I'll be serious about them for a change.

I don't doubt that a good many start out with good intentions, at local community levels and working up through local councils and state or provincial government to national government.

But by the time they get to be a politician of influence, they've sold themselves out so many times to get on that they've compromised or lost whatever good intentions they started out with.

Electoral committees, run by a bunch of party drones happily free of the popular electoral process for which they select candidates, don't want to hear the truth. They want to hear the party line, as determined by the rigid party bureaucracy which selected them and keeps them in office. So the party line is what you have to spout to be a candidate. Then to be a parliamentary secretary. Then a minister. Then even a prime minister.

I've had the grand misfortune to see the junior politicians of both of our major parties at close range for the past 18 years. Occasionally there's one who's not a congenital turd, but most of them aren't worth the steam off my piss. I've seen them get on in local council, state, and a few now feeding into federal politics.

It was different, even thirty years ago, when party members were more driven by ideology and the desire to see their vision of the best world implemented. Now, apart from the often disappointing celebrity candidates, they're just party hacks of little talent and modest intelligence who've sucked arses long and hard enough to rise in the ranks.

So we end up with boneheads surrounded by spin doctors who know how to help their bosses work the press, but it's all puff and fluff.

The major parties are still ideological powerhouses, but the problem is that their ideology comes from party headquarters rather then the members and the electorate that used to inform them rather better, when politics was about a bit more than blow waved hair and a good television sound bite.

It's still a far better system than anything else I can think of, but as far as democracy representing the notion that the people determine government policy goes, that's nonsense. We just get to choose from two or three sets of carefully manufactured bullshit that evaporates as soon as the pricks are elected. Witness this cynical core versus non-core approach http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise

There's a famous line in F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby':

"The rich are different from you and me."

So are politicians.

How many ordinary, decent, worthwhile people do you know who want to be politicians?

Exactly.

I'm not denying that there are some bloody good and decent people in politics, but they're usually independents, minor party members, or rogues in a major party.

Any politician of influence, in the sense of being a parliamentary secretary, minister or party numbers man, is invariably a turd. And they're the people who run the parliamentary parties.

[No dobut eye've got a typoo or too, abouve, so go yore hardest slagginng me for it. ;) :D]

[32Bravo]

Denocracy?

Is this harking back to Denis Thatcher? ;) :D

Don't you wish we could edit topic titles?

Just a little Christmas chear - hic! :D

[32Bravo]

Denocracy?

Is this harking back to Denis Thatcher? ;) :D

Don't you wish we could edit topic titles?
I can and did - pdf27

What does any of us expect of politicians?

I'll be serious about them for a change.

I don't doubt that a good many start out with good intentions, at local community levels and working up through local councils and state or provincial government to national government.

But by the time they get to be a politician of influence, they've sold themselves out so many times to get on that they've compromised or lost whatever good intentions they started out with.

Electoral committees, run by a bunch of party drones happily free of the popular electoral process for which they select candidates, don't want to hear the truth. They want to hear the party line, as determined by the rigid party bureaucracy which selected them and keeps them in office. So the party line is what you have to spout to be a candidate. Then to be a parliamentary secretary. Then a minister. Then even a prime minister.

I've had the grand misfortune to see the junior politicians of both of our major parties at close range for the past 18 years. Occasionally there's one who's not a congenital turd, but most of them aren't worth the steam off my piss. I've seen them get on in local council, state, and a few now feeding into federal politics.

It was different, even thirty years ago, when party members were more driven by ideology and the desire to see their vision of the best world implemented. Now, apart from the often disappointing celebrity candidates, they're just party hacks of little talent and modest intelligence who've sucked arses long and hard enough to rise in the ranks.

So we end up with boneheads surrounded by spin doctors who know how to help their bosses work the press, but it's all puff and fluff.

The major parties are still ideological powerhouses, but the problem is that their ideology comes from party headquarters rather then the members and the electorate that used to inform them rather better, when politics was about a bit more than blow waved hair and a good television sound bite.

It's still a far better system than anything else I can think of, but as far as democracy representing the notion that the people determine government policy goes, that's nonsense. We just get to choose from two or three sets of carefully manufactured bullshit that evaporates as soon as the pricks are elected. Witness this cynical core versus non-core approach http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise

There's a famous line in F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby':

"The rich are different from you and me."

So are politicians.

How many ordinary, decent, worthwhile people do you know who want to be politicians?

Exactly.

I'm not denying that there are some bloody good and decent people in politics, but they're usually independents, minor party members, or rogues in a major party.

Any politician of influence, in the sense of being a parliamentary secretary, minister or party numbers man, is invariably a turd. And they're the people who run the parliamentary parties.

[No dobut eye've got a typoo or too, abouve, so go yore hardest slagginng me for it. ;) :D]


Now could we have your less serious response please? :D

[32Bravo]

Should not politicians, then, be obligated to take an oath somewhat akin to Noblesse oblige

Definition: Benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank.

[Rising Sun*]

Now could we have your less serious response please? :D

Yeah.

Dubya gets the crabs from Fat Hitler.

And that's another fine mess Dubya's got us into. :D

http://waynethomasyorke.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/L&H%20cropped%20standing%20-%20550X367.jpg

[Rising Sun*]

Should not politicians, then, be obligated to take an oath somewhat akin to ...

No.

The bastards don't honour anything, let alone an oath.

Just make them subject to what I think in the UK was once called something like the Trade Descriptions law. Usual consumer protection laws. Don't get what was advertised, the consumer's remedies are compensation for the loss or compelling the supplier to perform.

I rather like the idea of our little sawn off runt who buggered the nation for the past eleven years being ordered to go into deepest Iraq and find the weapons of mass thingy that he assured us were there. All by himself, the man dubbed the Man of Steel by Dubya. A man of steel could do it, easy.

After all, politicians are forever passing laws about how every other occupation has to perform, while carefully avoiding subjecting themselves to the same standards.

They're just another business, so why not make them subject to the usual business laws about truth in advertising etc?

[32Bravo]

No.

The bastards don't honour anything, let alone an oath.

Just make them subject to what I think in the UK was once called something like the Trade Descriptions law. Usual consumer protection laws. Don't get what was advertised, the consumer's remedies are compensation for the loss or compelling the supplier to perform.

I rather like the idea of our little sawn off runt who buggered the nation for the past eleven years being ordered to go into deepest Iraq and find the weapons of mass thingy that he assured us were there. All by himself, the man dubbed the Man of Steel by Dubya. A man of steel could do it, easy.

After all, politicians are forever passing laws about how every other occupation has to perform, while carefully avoiding subjecting themselves to the same standards.

They're just another business, so why not make them subject to the usual business laws about truth in advertising etc?



I was on a pub-crawl in London, with a few (about forty) regualr officers from my old regiment. As the afternoon wore on and we were discussing which would be our next port of call, in walks Doctor and Mrs John Reid http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-dr-john-reids-phd.html
for a quick pint.

Needless to say, he wasn't among friends as the political leanings of the company were somewhat more than slightly right of centre. However, John (he said to call him that - as opposed to what he might have been called) stood and held his own ground. So much so that the company were insisting on buying him drinks. Personally, after the first few minutes of alcohol induced waffle, I took to a neutral corner and had a chat with his wife (very nice lady).

[Nickdfresh]

Thread title fixed once and for all...

[32Bravo]

No.

The bastards don't honour anything, let alone an oath.

Just make them subject to what I think in the UK was once called something like the Trade Descriptions law. Usual consumer protection laws. Don't get what was advertised, the consumer's remedies are compensation for the loss or compelling the supplier to perform.

I rather like the idea of our little sawn off runt who buggered the nation for the past eleven years being ordered to go into deepest Iraq and find the weapons of mass thingy that he assured us were there. All by himself, the man dubbed the Man of Steel by Dubya. A man of steel could do it, easy.

After all, politicians are forever passing laws about how every other occupation has to perform, while carefully avoiding subjecting themselves to the same standards.

They're just another business, so why not make them subject to the usual business laws about truth in advertising etc?


So, is democracy a load of cobblers and, if so, is it right and proper that we go about the world forcing it on others, either through economic coersion, military might etc?

[Rising Sun*]

So, is democracy a load of cobblers and, if so, is it right and proper that we go about the world forcing it on others, either through economic coersion, military might etc?

Bit self-contradictory isn't it, forcing democracy onto people by any means?

First problem is, what do we mean by democracy?

A rather large variation between, say, the USA and the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, although both claimed to be both democratic and republics.

[32Bravo]

Bit self-contradictory isn't it, forcing democracy onto people by any means?




Well, I wouldn't argue with that. However, others might argue that democracies are delivering freedom to those that are controlled by tyrants, taking the power from the tyrant and placing it in the hands of the people.

We have an example of this on Chevans thread regarding Kosavo (which I don't seem able to locate just now).

[32Bravo]

Bit self-contradictory isn't it, forcing democracy onto people by any means?

First problem is, what do we mean by democracy?




Demos Cratos - I believe the ancient Greeks called it - People Power.

Unworkable in modern states with huge populations.

Representative Government - I believe we call it - of which there are many variations as you have pointed out, each of them appear flawed.

You have made some colourful, yet relevant comments regarding politicians, but what about the civil servants? Do they not advise the poiticians? Do they not manipulate the politians?

Should we be referring to representative governmant as democracy, as it seems to be more of an unobtainable ideal and an emotive, rather than pragmatic, one at that, which serves to prevent criticism of governments (by many but not all) as criticism is considered unpatriotic in some quarters? Governments appear to be able to do anything they wish providing they label it "Democratic".

A comment by Ben Franklin which I'm reminded of time and again was something in the vein of:

"Democracy is all very well, but who'll protect the minority from the majority?"

[Rising Sun*]

Demos Cratos - I believe the ancient Greeks called it - People Power.

Unworkable in modern states with huge populations.

By today's standards, it didn't work too well at source in Athens, either. Only adult males who'd done their military service could vote, as long as they hadn't done something to have their right to vote suspended.

The classical Athenian democracy bears no relation to whatever it is that we mean by that shifting, subjectively defined term today. Leaving aside the narrow enfrahchisement, the Athenians had no problem with keeping slaves, which I think most people now would think offends the notions of liberty bound up with democracy.

Our modern conceptions of democracy go way beyond mechanisms for electing and controlling governments. They embrace a whole range of personal liberties and rights. But there is no agreement on what all those things are. Witness America where 'libertarians' are routinely derided by the conservatives, and vice versa, although both claim to be upholding the finest traditions of their constitution and republic.

You have made some colourful, yet relevant comments regarding politicians, but what about the civil servants? Do they not advise the poiticians? Do they not manipulate the politians?

Not any more, at least here, at state or federal level. Sir Humphrey Appleby has been replaced by carefully selected yes men and yes women who tender the advice the government wants to hear, often filtered through ministerial advisers who are party hacks whose principal qualification for the job is that they are party hacks blindly loyal to the party, or at least to the faction of which their minister is a member.

The politicisation of our public services has been one of the least recognised threats to our form of democracy. Even a few decades ago we had public servants who gave advice without fear or favour, and who maintained continuity of administration between changes of government. It doesn't mean they were totally apolitical, but they weren't the disgusting little toadies that infest the higher levels of all our bureaucracies now.

Of greatest concern to me is the way the heads of our national police, security and prosecution authorities have jumped on various government bandwagons to pursue the recently ousted federal government's prejudices and fantasies, hounding individuals and breaking the law. Our greatest protection against their excesses is their demonstrated level of unbelieveable incompetence.

Of slightly less concern is the way governments have become much more secretive and tried to censor everything they don't like. It's got to the stage that there's a consortium of our major press corporations actively agitating against the goverment. It must be serious, because no less that Rupert Murdoch's press, an entrenched booster of the neo-cons, is fully behind it.

The regimentation of the major parties had reached into the senior levels of the public service, which is now seen as an appendage of the party rather than an appendage of the government. We used to have the Commonwealth government and the state governments, but now it's all personalised like the government is the personal property of some dictator or executive president. Thus 'the Howard government' stood for what used to be the Commonwealth government, and the same in the states. it applies whichever party is in.

Should we be referring to representative governmant as democracy, as it seems to be more of an unobtainable ideal and an emotive, rather than pragmatic, one at that, which serves to prevent criticism of governments (by many but not all) as criticism is considered unpatriotic in some quarters? Governments appear to be able to do anything they wish providing they label it "Democratic".

I think representative government is just one component of whatever a democratic state is. To qualify as a 'true' democratic state, whatever that is, requires substance as well as form. For example, Zimbabwe is in form a democratic state with a representative government, but in substance it is everything but.

In the end, democracy is something that means different things to different people, and its necessary elements change over time and with circumstance (e.g. what we'd accept in a democratic nation during peace time is different to what we'd accept during total war).

It's like fairness and justice. Nobody can define them adequately and objectively, but everybody knows what's fair and just according to their standards and feelings. But not everybody has the same standards and feelings.

A comment by Ben Franklin which I'm reminded of time and again was something in the vein of:

"Democracy is all very well, but who'll protect the minority from the majority?"

Particularly when the minority is the majority, as often happens here because our preferential voting and separate electoral district system can see a party with a primary vote in the low 40% get elected to government where they'd lose on a national, or state, proportional voting system. So much of the time we're governed by a government that up to 60% of the people didn't want. Bearing in mind that almost everybody votes here under our compulsory voting system, it's very different situation to countries with a low voter turn out.

Many of us try to balance that out by voting for one party in the lower house and another in the upper house, so that the upper house acts as a brake on the government in the lower house.

[Rising Sun*]

Well, I wouldn't argue with that. However, others might argue that democracies are delivering freedom to those that are controlled by tyrants, taking the power from the tyrant and placing it in the hands of the people.

I can't think of any example which was done on a purely, or even largely, altruistic basis.

It's usually a case of being forced to (e.g. Germany and Japan in WWII, US etc in Afghanistan currently ) or some other motive, such as oil and strategic postioning in Iraq.

Democracies are quite happy to stand by and even support tyrants, as they did with Saddam and do with Saudi Arabia, until it's not in their interests to do so.

Democracies quite happily support the suppression of the democratic rights and aspirations of people in other countries when it's in their interests, such as pre-revolutionary Iran, the French in Algeria, the Americans in Chile, and the whole sorry history of European colonial powers trying to hang onto their colonies after WWII.

I don't know that a democratic nation can always place power in the hands of the people. It's not working in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the divisions among the people and the government supported by the invaders are such that it's creating more problems than it's solving.

There's also the politically incorrect possibility, I think reality, that some peoples don't want or are incapable of operating as a democracy because its alien to everything in their culture, which is why much of black and Arab Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific which have attempted democratic government have failed at it.

[32Bravo]

Now that is what I call a good response. If ever I need a lawyer....?

Seriously, I think you've argued my case well on most points. I would disagree with your comments regarding 'Humphrey' I never was a fan of that. My curiosity was first aroused regarding interfering civil servants and the 'Establishment' when I first came accross this as a schoolboy:

Enter the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, and the BISHOP OF ELY
CANTERBURY
My lord, I'll tell you; that self bill is urged,
Which in the eleventh year of the last king's reign
Was like, and had indeed against us pass'd,
But that the scambling and unquiet time
Did push it out of farther question.

ELY
But how, my lord, shall we resist it now?

CANTERBURY
It must be thought on. If it pass against us,
We lose the better half of our possession:
For all the temporal lands which men devout
By testament have given to the church
Would they strip from us; being valued thus:
As much as would maintain, to the king's honour,
Full fifteen earls and fifteen hundred knights,
Six thousand and two hundred good esquires;
And, to relief of lazars and weak age,
Of indigent faint souls past corporal toil.
A hundred almshouses right well supplied;
And to the coffers of the king beside,
A thousand pounds by the year: thus runs the bill.

ELY
This would drink deep.

CANTERBURY
'Twould drink the cup and all.

ELY
But what prevention?

CANTERBURY
The king is full of grace and fair regard.

ELY
And a true lover of the holy church.

CANTERBURY
The courses of his youth promised it not.
The breath no sooner left his father's body,
But that his wildness, mortified in him,
Seem'd to die too; yea, at that very moment
Consideration, like an angel, came
And whipp'd the offending Adam out of him,
Leaving his body as a paradise,
To envelop and contain celestial spirits.
Never was such a sudden scholar made;
Never came reformation in a flood,
With such a heady currance, scouring faults
Nor never Hydra-headed wilfulness
So soon did lose his seat and all at once
As in this king.

ELY
We are blessed in the change.

CANTERBURY
Hear him but reason in divinity,
And all-admiring with an inward wish
You would desire the king were made a prelate:
Hear him debate of commonwealth affairs,
You would say it hath been all in all his study:
List his discourse of war, and you shall hear
A fearful battle render'd you in music:
Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter: that, when he speaks,
The air, a charter'd libertine, is still,
And the mute wonder lurketh in men's ears,
To steal his sweet and honey'd sentences;
So that the art and practic part of life
Must be the mistress to this theoric:
Which is a wonder how his grace should glean it,
Since his addiction was to courses vain,
His companies unletter'd, rude and shallow,
His hours fill'd up with riots, banquets, sports,
And never noted in him any study,
Any retirement, any sequestration
From open haunts and popularity.

ELY
The strawberry grows underneath the nettle
And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best
Neighbour'd by fruit of baser quality:
And so the prince obscured his contemplation
Under the veil of wildness; which, no doubt,
Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night,
Unseen, yet crescive in his faculty.

CANTERBURY
It must be so; for miracles are ceased;
And therefore we must needs admit the means
How things are perfected.

ELY
But, my good lord,
How now for mitigation of this bill
Urged by the commons? Doth his majesty
Incline to it, or no?

CANTERBURY
He seems indifferent,
Or rather swaying more upon our part
Than cherishing the exhibiters against us;
For I have made an offer to his majesty,
Upon our spiritual convocation
And in regard of causes now in hand,
Which I have open'd to his grace at large,
As touching France, to give a greater sum
Than ever at one time the clergy yet
Did to his predecessors part withal.

ELY
How did this offer seem received, my lord?

CANTERBURY
With good acceptance of his majesty;
Save that there was not time enough to hear,
As I perceived his grace would fain have done,
The severals and unhidden passages
Of his true titles to some certain dukedoms
And generally to the crown and seat of France
Derived from Edward, his great-grandfather.

ELY
What was the impediment that broke this off?

CANTERBURY
The French ambassador upon that instant
Craved audience; and the hour, I think, is come
To give him hearing: is it four o'clock?

ELY
It is.

CANTERBURY
Then go we in, to know his embassy;
Which I could with a ready guess declare,
Before the Frenchman speak a word of it.

ELY
I'll wait upon you, and I long to hear it.

Exeunt (my bold -32B

Harold Wilson's sudden resignation in the mid-seventies rekindled my imaginings. A better protrayal, and far more entertaining TV drama series, than the Humphry thingie, was that of A Very Britsh Coup, about twenty five years or so ago. No, I think the Establishment is alive and kicking, in the UK, anyway, and I would add that the media has become a part of that.

I must get some shut-eye now, but will continue anon.

[Nickdfresh]

Bit self-contradictory isn't it, forcing democracy onto people by any means?

First problem is, what do we mean by democracy?

A rather large variation between, say, the USA and the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, although both claimed to be both democratic and republics.


Democracy isn't just a political system. It is an outgrowth of culture and tradition, and evolutionary process not a revolutionary one. The precedent is that new democracies tend to be rather violent and unstable before they reach some form of societal accord.

Democracy also is problematic in a nation-state that is multi-ethnic. Aside from Iraq, look at the strife in post-colonial multinational-states like Kenya, where tribal mistrust filters its way into a political system. Democracy outside a homogeneous state, with a long tradition of predemocratic political plurality, is extremely difficult to achieve without bloodshed and strife, and the democratic process faces an ever existential threat in most places. Even in the places like Kenya that enjoy a decent economy, because of the ever present corruption...

[Rising Sun*]

Democracy isn't just a political system. It is an outgrowth of culture and tradition, and evolutionary process not a revolutionary one. The precedent is that new democracies tend to be rather violent and unstable before they reach some form of societal accord.

Democracy also is problematic in a nation-state that is multi-ethnic. Aside from Iraq, look at the strife in post-colonial multinational-states like Kenya, where tribal mistrust filters its way into a political system. Democracy outside a homogeneous state, with a long tradition of predemocratic political plurality, is extremely difficult to achieve without bloodshed and strife, and the democratic process faces an ever existential threat in most places. Even in the places like Kenya that enjoy a decent economy, because of the ever present corruption...

Democracies that evolved from internal overthrow of other regimes, primarily monarchies, are generally a lot stronger than ones that had it forced upon them by, say, a departing colonial power imposing Westminster government on a semi-tribal culture where family and clan obligations take priority over any concepts of a nation.

This suggests that democracies work best if they emanate from popular support (Surprise! Surprise!), whether by evolution or revolution, rather than by conquest, although examples like West Germany sit somewhere between the two.

[32Bravo]

When travelling in Egypt, recently, I was chatting about this topic with an Egyptian christian (Coptic?). He pointed out that Nasser had offered the Sudan the opportunity to remain with Egypt, or go it alone with a democratic regime. They chose the latter and ended up with various warring factions vying for power as they do today. No, he said, we are not yet ready or democracy.

By the way, was it not the French that first coined 'Democracy' to describe their post-revolution government, and the Americans later jumped on the idea as if it was theirs?

[32Bravo]

More priestly meddling:

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ!"

Pope Benedict VI

[Rising Sun*]

When travelling in Egypt, recently, I was chatting about this topic with an Egyptian christian (Coptic?). He pointed out that Nasser had offered the Sudan the opportunity to remain with Egypt, or go it alone with a democratic regime. They chose the latter and ended up with various warring factions vying for power as they do today. No, he said, we are not yet ready or democracy.

Maybe the Americans aren't, either. They've lost four of forty three presidents to assassination, and another four suffered attempts.

Losing close to 10% to assassination, or close to 20% subjected to assassination and attempted assassination, doesn't indicate a healthy democracy confident in the power of the ballot box.

By the way, was it not the French that first coined 'Democracy' to describe their post-revolution government, and the Americans later jumped on the idea as if it was theirs?

My recollection is that the notion in France during, although not expressed in these terms, and after was Liberté, égalité, fraternité. The French certainly knew how to apply that at home and abroad, then and now. Not unlike the Americans with the grand notions enshrined in the French gift of the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Well, the lamp ain't shining all that bright for some, 'cos they are wretched refuse that ain't gonna get past the golden door. http://www.minutemanproject.com/

[Egorka]

By the way, was it not the French that first coined 'Democracy' to describe their post-revolution government, and the Americans later jumped on the idea as if it was theirs?

Erhh....

The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek demokratia (δημοκρατία) (literally, rule by the people) formed from the roots demos (δημος), "people,"[5] "the mob, the many"[6] and kratos (κρατος) "rule" or "power".

[32Bravo]

Erhh....

The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek demokratia (δημοκρατία) (literally, rule by the people) formed from the roots demos (δημος), "people,"[5] "the mob, the many"[6] and kratos (κρατος) "rule" or "power".

Thank you for that.

[tankgeezer]

The United States are a Republic, not a Democracy, even though some functions are operated democratically.In a pure Democracy, the majority may change any aspect of the social system, economy, etc. without limit. In a Republic, all changes wrought by majority vote, Executive, or Legislative action must conform to the founding body of law.

[Drake]

Maybe the Americans aren't, either. They've lost four of forty three presidents to assassination, and another four suffered attempts.

Losing close to 10% to assassination, or close to 20% subjected to assassination and attempted assassination, doesn't indicate a healthy democracy confident in the power of the ballot box.



Or indicates that it's to easy for dumbasses to aquire guns :twisted: :mrgreen:

[32Bravo]

Not unlike the Americans with the grand notions enshrined in the French gift of the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Well, the lamp ain't shining all that bright for some, 'cos they are wretched refuse that ain't gonna get past the golden door. http://www.minutemanproject.com/


They also gave George Washington the key to the Bastille, which now resides at Mount Vernon, Virginia.

http://www.mountvernon.org/visit/plan/index.cfm/cfid/9807853/cftoken/36002646

But what's this...is nothing sacred?

The original key to the Bastille prison has been returned after it was stolen from a touring waxwork exhibition in Sydney, Australia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/384240.stm

[32Bravo]

The United States are a Republic, not a Democracy, even though some functions are operated democratically.In a pure Democracy, the majority may change any aspect of the social system, economy, etc. without limit. In a Republic, all changes wrought by majority vote, Executive, or Legislative action must conform to the founding body of law.

That probably explains why the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence didn't apply to the slaves.

Extract
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


For myself, Democracy is a 'virtuous 'Idea', which, like that other 'virtuous Idea' Christianity, has been usurped and shaped to fit the feet of those that wield power by fooling the people into believing that they have been saved from something evil.

[tankgeezer]

The many thousands of dead in the American Civil war explains why they did.....
I always find it amusing when people who have little or no idea of the nature of America will continually find fault with our ways, and system of government to the extent of attempting to define, quantify, and package these qualities into what they themselves feel they should be according to some unknown, (or uncaredfor) value system.
If so many of you folks out there feel so strongly about this subject, then please, for your own good, do not come here, not even to visit. We Americans are fine with our ways, and need no help from the outside world in governing ourselves. It seems that this thread has become a place to assail the United States in it's several aspects, and in particular, our second amendment. Its really no one's business but ours, so please keep your narrow criticisms to your separate selves. Should that be too difficult, please emigrate, and win citizenship, then at least you have a reason to blether so.

[redcoat]

I think this quote from WSC puts its perfectly

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time".

Winston Churchill

[32Bravo]

The many thousands of dead in the American Civil war explains why they did.....

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves, it was to keep the nation united.


I always find it amusing when people who have little or no idea of the nature of America will continually find fault with our ways, and system of government to the extent of attempting to define, quantify, and package these qualities into what they themselves feel they should be according to some unknown, (or uncaredfor) value system.
If so many of you folks out there feel so strongly about this subject, then please, for your on good, do not come here, not even to visit. We Americans are fine with our ways, and need no help from the outside world in governing ourselves. It seems that this thread has become a place to assail the United States in it several aspects, and in particular, our second amendment. Its really no one's business but ours, so please keep your narrow criticisms to your separate selves. Should that be too difficult, please emmigrate, and win citizenship, then at least you have a reason to blether so.

Aah, but when you go about the world forcing your version of freedom and democracy down everyones throats, then it becomes the business of the world.

Besides, I wasn't criticising the U.S. per se, it just offered an example of virtuous ideals gone wrong. The British people are also misled by their leaders and much of my remarks are all encompassing of so called democracies. Perhaps we in Britain are simply jealous of your freedom as we continue to live under the regime of a tyranical monarch?

I thank you for your comments.

[Nickdfresh]

That probably explains why the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence didn't apply to the slaves.

Extract
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


For myself, Democracy is a 'virtuous 'Idea', which, like that other 'virtuous Idea' Christianity, has been usurped and shaped to fit the feet of those that wield power by fooling the people into believing that they have been saved from something evil.

True, but both Jefferson and Washington were against slavery overall even though both owned them. Washington set his slaves free, and Jefferson wrote specific legislation designed to subvert the institution of slavery over time, as president...

And slavery, though abhorrent, was certainly no worse than the enlightened European custom of colonialism...

[Nickdfresh]

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves, it was to keep the nation united.

The division of the nation was largely the result over the issue of slavery...

[tankgeezer]

Quote: "The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves, it was to keep the nation united."


slavery was an important issue in pre war arguments between the U.S. gov't, and those States who were set to ceceed from the Union (or would attempt to.) It was not the first season on the list, but it was none the less inseparable from the other reasons.
Slavery had been practiced since long before there was an official United States, Brought by the Dutch traders who first engaged in slave trading. At first, they merely bought their slaves from tribal elders who wanted to rid themselves of the criminal, crazy, and no accounts they had among their numbers. Later, when the money proved too good to pass up, they just took whomever they wanted.
slavery rode into the U.S. on its coat tails when the country was formally constituted, and was found mostly in the south.(Central, and East) It wasnt popular in the North.
So indeed it was part of why the Civil War was fought, with many blacks joining to fight against the South.

[Rising Sun*]

And slavery, though abhorrent, was certainly no worse than the enlightened European custom of colonialism...

Don't forget that plenty of European nations used, or traded in, slaves. (My great grandfather, who was Portuguese, went to sea on a Portuguese slave ship, but deserted at the first opportunity.)

The passage of abolition statutes in Europe and England in the latter part of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries didn't stop it.

Slave ships were still being built in England, and bankrolled by English bankers and insured by English insurers.

Want to guess where 80% of the cotton that fuelled Britain's great textile industry expansion came from, even after Britain 'abolished' slavery in 1807, and then really abolished it in 1838?

Yep, slave plantations. In America.

So, despite being formally neutral in the American civil war, guess where huge financial support for the Confederacy came from?

Yep, that'd be the mill owners and others dependent upon the cotton trade in Britain.

Liverpool, the Wirral, Lancashire and most of the surrounding area, had strong political, emotional and financial connections and sympathies with the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Indeed, so strong were these connections that it has been quoted that at one time "more Confederate flags fluttered above Liverpool than over Richmond" (the Confederate capital in Virginia).1

One of the main reasons for the link was economical, based on the importance of cotton, upon which both the Southern States and the Lancashire mills depended. My bold
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/displayGuide.aspx?sid=62&mode=html&sorStr=s_id+ASC+0&serStr=&pgeInt=7&catStr=

An interesting detailed treatment of the global consequences of the cotton famine caused by the Civil War is here: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.5/beckert.html

Shows that, as usual, profit trumps principle most times, democracy or not, so far as the capitalists are concerned. Although self-interest among workers tends to have the same effect when their jobs are at risk.

While the English cotton workers suffered greatly, some expressed solidarity with the slaves in the South, an event that Karl Marx made much of.

In September 1862 US President Lincoln had issued his Proclamation of Emancipation. On New Years Eve 1862, Lancashire cotton workers attended a public meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester. A letter was drafted and sent to President Lincoln. An excerpt reads:

"...the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity - chattel slavery - during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards."

This letter travelled from Manchester across the Atlantic and elicited a considered response, drafted by a President at war- all in little over 2 weeks.

Abraham Lincoln’s swift reply acknowledged Lancashire’s hardship as a result of the Cotton Famine:
"...I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was likely to obtain the favour of Europe.
"Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.
"I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual." http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/manchester/2007/11/384980.html

That event is remembered in a statue in Lincoln Square in Manchester, presented by an American couple.

[Rising Sun*]

The original key to the Bastille prison has been returned after it was stolen from a touring waxwork exhibition in Sydney, Australia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/384240.stm

Well, what do you expect from a nation of convicts?

What do you think we're going to do when we see a chance to nick a key to a prison?

Mate, the liberator of the key (who in other nations, with forgetful memories about how they were staffed originally, might be called a thief) couldn't help it. It's in our genes.

;):D

[32Bravo]

True, but both Jefferson and Washington were against slavery overall even though both owned them. Washington set his slaves free, and Jefferson wrote specific legislation designed to subvert the institution of slavery over time, as president...

And slavery, though abhorrent, was certainly no worse than the enlightened European custom of colonialism...

My understanding is that Washington freed the slaves after his death stating that they were to be freed after the death of his wife. Imagine these people taking sidelong glances at her and considering which poison to use.

Both Jefferson and Washington didn’t just keep slaves - they bred them from their own loins.

[Rising Sun*]

I always find it amusing when people who have little or no idea of the nature of America will continually find fault with our ways, and system of government to the extent of attempting to define, quantify, and package these qualities into what they themselves feel they should be according to some unknown, (or uncaredfor) value system.



It cuts both ways.

Americans who want to present some version of what America is, as just one set of beliefs and attitudes (like the bullshit we've had here in recent years with our thankfully just voted out neo-con national government carrying on about 'Australian values' are as if we all agree on what they are, when nobody does among real people), are just as far off the mark in missing the diversity of America.

For example, who has the better claim to representing the real America? The NRA or the ACLU? Aren't they both American organisations, asserting the constitutional rights of Americans?

Here's something I posted in another thread, the title of which shall remain a secret ;) as some Americans confused a question with an allegation or call for support, which outlines the diversity of America and Americans.



Originally Posted by royal744
America is a stunning patchwork of people and races, languages, religions and beliefs.

Here's the substance of a recent article by a senior Australian journalist, and former editor of the paper the article appears in, which confirms that comment from the outsider's view.



Some particularly wise person once said that if you are going to write about America, you should do so after a short stay, maybe a few weeks, before you are overwhelmed by its diversity and the sheer size of the place, with all its contradictions, excesses and complexities.

I fear that I have failed to convey the complexity of America, but if I have failed I am not alone. My view is that most of the reporting of the place by most foreign correspondents — British, European and, yes, Australian — fails the complexity test.

This, of course, is not unique to the coverage of the United States. Shortly after I arrived in Washington, David Broder, the veteran Washington Post columnist, having spent a few days in Australia, mainly in Sydney, wrote a column in which he described a country that to me was barely recognisable.

Broder's Australia was an earthly paradise, beautiful beyond imagining, with few economic or social problems, rich and prosperous and peaceful; Australians were friendly and unpretentious, larrikins it is true, but lovable larrikins, a country of men cut from the same cloth as the Crocodile Hunter.

Broder couldn't get past the cliches and prejudices about the place that he had brought with him to Sydney. How much harder is it then, for foreign correspondents whose job it is to cover America to get past the cliches about the place they have grown up with and the prejudices they have brought with them.

The baggage we bring with us is considerable. American popular culture has long been globalised. And American junk food has taken over the world. For much of my time here, America felt like a giant movie set. And sometimes it felt as if I was in the middle of a TV sitcom. It is so easy and so tempting to describe and report on an America of gun madness, violence, junk food-fed obesity, scary religious fundamentalism, sickly sentimental patriotism and swaggeringly stupid politicians such as George Bush.

That America exists, no doubt, but it is not the whole story. It is not even half the story. Perhaps the best time I had in America was when I was able to travel across the country, to what is often described as the heartland — the Midwest and the plains states and the South-west.

I remember a Saturday night dinner at an old hotel outside a small town in Kansas where all the townsfolk, grandparents and their children and their grandchildren, gathered each week for a fried chicken feast, a place that felt as if it was still living in the 1950s, and where we were made welcome, we strangers, and even invited into people's homes for a visit.

This happened everywhere, at baseball games, on train journeys, even in coffee shops; people offering hospitality and actually meaning it. Even in Washington, that most competitive of cities where everyone, it seems, is out to become a master of the universe, there was a real sense of neighbourhood and neighbourliness.

Once, when we had been away a few weeks travelling, we returned a few days before Christmas to find our front door decorated with holly and a note welcoming us back home. America is probably the most welcoming place in the world, where millions every year come to seek a new start and where there is no test of blood or tribal connections they have to pass to become Americans.

It is not without significance that, unlike Europe's Muslims, America's 2.5-million-strong Muslim community is highly assimilated, an economic success story and, overall, slightly more optimistic about America's future than the general population, according to recent research by the Pew Research Centre. And an overwhelming majority of American Muslims — more than 90 per cent — are opposed to Islamic extremism.

Much of American popular culture is trashy, of course, and much of its commercial media is mindless and fixated on celebrity, but the best of American journalism — print and broadcast — is better than anything I have found elsewhere, British journalism included.

America is a place full of contradictions that it would take a lifetime to unravel. For instance, while the Bush Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans was inept and heartless, there was a great outpouring of generosity from Americans, who donated several billion dollars to support the mostly poor, black victims.

And tens of thousands of displaced people from New Orleans and the Mississippi coastal region were welcomed and resettled in cities in Texas that were not renowned for their history of great race relations.

I think that we foreign correspondents in America often deliver a cliched and a one-dimensional sense of this place, of this superpower that will play a major role in determining the future of all of us.

Me, I have grown to love the place, for all its failings. I will miss writing about it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...205073484.html

Post #51 at http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4747&highlight=hates+americans&page=4

[32Bravo]

My understanding is that Washington freed the slaves after his death stating that they were to be freed after the death of his wife. Imagine these people taking sidelong glances at her and considering which poison to use.

Both Jefferson and Washington didn’t just keep slaves - they bred them from their own loins.

Washington and Venus

In 1998, a story that had persisted for some 200 years, a story dismissed as rumor, gossip and worse, was finally proven true by science. Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings. The story forced new public consideration of Jefferson, and America's mixed race past.
For one particular group of women, however, the final truth about Jefferson encouraged them to believe the nation might be ready to hear their own family story.
LINDA BRYANT
When was a little girl, my mother // My mother told me and my siblings that we were related to George Washington, that he was our fifth great-grandfather.
JUDITH BURTON
My grandmother told us that we were related to George Washington and I remember how I felt, kind of in awed, you know in awe and I just couldn't fathom that but she said it a lot. She told us all the time.
Linda Allen Bryant and her sisters Joy and Janet are from Illinois. Their distant cousin Judith Burton lives in Virginia. Until recently they did not know one another, but they each grew up on stories of George Washington and a slave named Venus.
LINDA BRYANT
We were told that Venus was asked to comfort George Washington, she was probably a young teenage girl, around 15, 16 years of age, she was a house servant of his brother's. And when he became president, he no longer associated with her.
Put yourself in my position: sitting and learning about your grandfather, learning about that he couldn't tell a lie when he chopped down the cherry tree and his father asked him, and that all the great and wondrous things that he's done for this country, but no one in the country knew that he had a son and that that son was black.
West Ford was Venus's son. His descendants say that George Washington was his father and that he knew and cared for West.

[Nickdfresh]

My understanding is that Washington freed the slaves after his death stating that they were to be freed after the death of his wife. Imagine these people taking sidelong glances at her and considering which poison to use.

I believe he freed most of his slaves during his lifetime after retirement, which ultimately led to his death since he was too old to preform the daily upkeep at Mount Vernon. But I could be incorrect on that...

Both Jefferson and Washington didn’t just keep slaves - they bred them from their own loins.

As was the custom of the day, and we can point to several accepted, unspoken practices of the time that today we find repulsive, such as pedophilia in the British Army and the like...But that changes nothing into what was the insight into their views

Washington I can't speak for, but I've never heard that though it's pretty clear he was in love with another woman who wasn't his wife, but she was an upper class white woman...

Yes, Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemings, but it appears to have entailed a strong emotional attachment and she was more of a mistress than a "breader"...

Of course he was a hypocrite to some extent, but there is evidence that he actually attempted to force a gradual ending of slavery via something he did legislatively, but it was very subtle and is often missed. In any case, he did speak out against slavery:

Thomas Jefferson wrote “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Jefferson was very outspoken against slavery. In 1779, Jefferson proposed a law that was intended to provide for gradual emancipation in Virginia. In 1787, he published the most eloquent denunciation of slavery of any of the founders in “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In 1807, as President, he publicly supported the abolition of the slave trade.

Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence read that blacks were “men” and slavery was wrong.

1. “He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere…. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.”

http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/lecture%20notes/PROBLEM%20OF%20SLAVERY.htm

[Rising Sun*]

Aah, but when you go about the world forcing your version of freedom and democracy down everyones throats, then it becomes the business of the world.

Steady on, old chap.

Anyone would think you're opposing democracy being imposed on people who don't want it.

Surely you see that being made to be democratic is the greatest gift one can receive, whether or not one wants it.

That's what international democracy is all about. The freedom to be made into a democratic country, without consultation or plebiscite, by invasion if necessary, for your own and your family's good.

If any of you survive being made democratic.

[Rising Sun*]

As was the custom of the day, and we can point to several accepted, unspoken practices of the time that today we find repulsive, such as pedophilia in the British Army and the like...

I don't know if the British soldiery were into buggering boys (public school - e.g. Eton - officers might be, but they were trained for that at school ;)), but the ancient Greeks were as a military tradition, which illustrates one of the problems in applying today's standards to a different era.

Many people assume that there are moral absolutes, but I don't know that there's much that wasn't acceptable somewhere at some time.

Same problem with democracy. What it means has to be viewed in the light of the time.

However, just in the interests of balancing the British army's ledger, let's not forget the famous line that the Royal Navy was based on rum, buggery, and the lash.

Not much different to Christian Brothers' schools in the mid 20th century, really.

[32Bravo]

Quote: "The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves, it was to keep the nation united."


slavery was an important issue in pre war arguments between the U.S. gov't, and those States who were set to ceceed from the Union (or would attempt to.) It was not the first season on the list, but it was none the less inseparable from the other reasons.
Slavery had been practiced since long before there was an official United States, Brought by the Dutch traders who first engaged in slave trading. At first, they merely bought their slaves from tribal elders who wanted to rid themselves of the criminal, crazy, and no accounts they had among their numbers. Later, when the money proved too good to pass up, they just took whomever they wanted.
slavery rode into the U.S. on its coat tails when the country was formally constituted, and was found mostly in the south.(Central, and East) It wasnt popular in the North.
So indeed it was part of why the Civil War was fought, with many blacks joining to fight against the South.


Good morning, how are things in 'Pleasantville' today?

Slavery was an issue, I wouldn't contest that. But I would argue that it was more of a contest for ascendency between Federal and State government, the slave economy of the south being the issue that brought the contest to the fore. Pity that, even after the war and emancipation, it didn't really achieve much in improving the lot of the former slaves as they became share-croppers etc.



Britain also had slave colonies and was arguably the most efficient trader in the Atlantic Slave Trade up until about 1807. There are great debates as to why Britian gave up slavery, some say it was about the fall in the demand for sugar on account of sugarbeat being grown in Europe. Others argue that it was to ruin the French economy as it was so wealthy from its planataions in San Domingo. Not many arguments about freeing the slaves for humanitarian reasons.

My sentiments regading the Declaration of Independence remain unchanged.

[32Bravo]

I think this quote from WSC puts its perfectly

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time".

Winston Churchill


Probably the most sensible comment on the world in which we live.

[32Bravo]

As was the custom of the day, and we can point to several accepted, unspoken practices of the time that today we find repulsive, [B]such as pedophilia in the British Army and the like...

That sounds juicy - please elaborate.

As we all know, the British Army, unlike any other army, only recruits pedeophiles. They are promised 22 young boys if they die in battle (young girls if there are a lot of casualties and, hence, a shortage of boys), so the recruitment centres were, and remain, overwhelmed.

Having been educated at an Irish-Catholic school, I can appreciate indoctrination, that's why all of my American cousins (and I have a fair number of them) have my heartfelt sympathy.

[32Bravo]

It's in our genes.

;):D

So, that explains that protrusion? :)

[Rising Sun*]

So, that explains that protrusion? :)

Huh?

It explains prostitution, for sure.

We don't protrude in our jeans, mate, we bloody explode out of them.

You don't wanna be around when the pin is pulled on the undies grenade, unless you're a sheila. Even then, it's best not to be around, if you want to be able to have children in the rest of your life. Or even a leak.
;) :D

[32Bravo]

Huh?

It explains prostitution, for sure.

We don't protrude in our jeans, mate, we bloody explode out of them.

You don't wanna be around when the pin is pulled on the undies grenade, unless you're a sheila. Even then, it's best not to be around, if you want to be able to have children in the rest of your life. Or even a leak.
;) :D

Presumably, you also keep the amber nectar in your jeans. :eek:

[Rising Sun*]

Presumably, you also keep the amber nectar in your jeans. :eek:

Only on the exhaust side, and only if I forget about that metal tooth thingy that lets you open up your trousers. Or the buttons on the fly thingy. Have to remember which one I have, or precious time is wasted trying to operate non-present technology.

Or it doesn't matter if I can't be bothered getting out of bed, which is why I like foam mattresses, because they're easier to squeeze out.

Anyway, seriously, many, many moons ago I worked with a bloke (who'd had his ?18th ? 21st birthday in a weapon pit in the islands upsetting the Japs and who died some time back) who used to belt a few in every lunchtime and spend the afternoon very relaxed. Sometimes he was even awake. You have to understand how comfortable the public service was then.

Anyway, one day there was some send off or something and pretty much all of us got extremely relaxed during a fairly short lunchtime.

The magic moment occurred in the urinal, where said bloke was one of a number doing what one does.

Until he said something like

"Ahhh. Shit."

This drew the attention of his associates on either side. Their attention was focused more acutely by his following comment:

"I've pissed meself."

He was so relaxed that, while holding it, he forgot to take it out of his trousers.

It's not a good look on light grey slacks.

[32Bravo]

Don't forget that plenty of European nations used, or traded in, slaves. (My great grandfather, who was Portuguese, went to sea on a Portuguese slave ship, but deserted at the first opportunity.)

The passage of abolition statutes in Europe and England in the latter part of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries didn't stop it.

Slave ships were still being built in England, and bankrolled by English bankers and insured by English insurers.

Want to guess where 80% of the cotton that fuelled Britain's great textile industry expansion came from, even after Britain 'abolished' slavery in 1807, and then really abolished it in 1838?

Yep, slave plantations. In America.

So, despite being formally neutral in the American civil war, guess where huge financial support for the Confederacy came from?

Yep, that'd be the mill owners and others dependent upon the cotton trade in Britain.

My bold
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/displayGuide.aspx?sid=62&mode=html&sorStr=s_id+ASC+0&serStr=&pgeInt=7&catStr=

An interesting detailed treatment of the global consequences of the cotton famine caused by the Civil War is here: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.5/beckert.html

Shows that, as usual, profit trumps principle most times, democracy or not, so far as the capitalists are concerned. Although self-interest among workers tends to have the same effect when their jobs are at risk.

While the English cotton workers suffered greatly, some expressed solidarity with the slaves in the South, an event that Karl Marx made much of.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/manchester/2007/11/384980.html

That event is remembered in a statue in Lincoln Square in Manchester, presented by an American couple.


Nick, being a Mancunian I can say – hand on heart – that we Mancunians will be eternally grateful for all that you Amercians (and particularly the Confederacy)
did for us poor oppressed folk living under the Monarchial yoke perhaps I’ll be able to organise an embassy to come over and prostrate themselves.

We in the Northwest of England are pretty clued-up on the Triangular-trade (Atlantic salve trade). By the way feel more strongly about events pertaining to ‘Peterloo’ rather than Lincoln Square.

Note the link is Liverpool mueseums. We don't run away from our history, and we can handle a little criticism, however much our heads are up our arses.

[mike M.]

For example, who has the better claim to representing the real America? The NRA or the ACLU? Aren't they both American organisations, asserting the constitutional rights of Americans?





Depends on what someone likes to read or look at, The ACLU's position on Child Porn is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. And the ACLU fulfills its agenda using my tax money.
So the answer is easy for me..on this one issue alone..the NRA has the better claim

[32Bravo]

.... And the ACLU fulfills its agenda using my tax money.



Would you consider that undemocratic?

Would you prefer to live in a society where one didn't have to pay taxes (after all, you do have representation)?

"Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose!'" Kris Kristofferson

Personally, I prefer the Janis Joplin version. :)

[32Bravo]

Goodness me, where did that pip come from? Does somebody actually approve of my postings?

At least, now, I wont have to listen to RS insisting that I salute and call him 'Sir' whenever he apears on a thread (Don't tell me, - you have seniority?).

Time I considred an addittion to my signature, gentlemen.

[mike M.]

Would you consider that undemocratic?

Would you prefer to live in a society where one didn't have to pay taxes (after all, you do have representation)?


Are you asking if I concider not being able to look at child porn Undemocratic? No..I dont

My point with the taxes was..the NRA does not received tax money. The ACLU when it sues a town or city for having something they dont like, heres just two examples.

California taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve.

Another when San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.

That money comes from taxpayers..

[32Bravo]

Are you asking if I concider not being able to look at child porn Undemocratic? No..I dont

My point with the taxes was..the NRA does not received tax money. The ACLU when it sues a town or city for having something they dont like, heres just two examples.

California taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve.

Another when San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.

That money comes from taxpayers..


California taxpayers - by that I presume you mean that the State of California lost a law suit and had to pay up?...ditto with the other case?

So, what's the problem here? Is it that the case was lost, or should never have been contested in the first place? If so, isn't the paying up a matter of course and shouldn't your argument be with the people that lost the case?

Not much on abreviations myself, not being an American or residing in America, what is ACLU and NRA?

By the way. Regarding: child porn - should have their balls cut off in the first instance and then perhaps continue with a little disembowlment before we really get started. If you get my meaning?

[Nickdfresh]

That sounds juicy - please elaborate.

As we all know, the British Army, unlike any other army, only recruits pedeophiles. They are promised 22 young boys if they die in battle (young girls if there are a lot of casualties and, hence, a shortage of boys), so the recruitment centres were, and remain, overwhelmed.

Having been educated at an Irish-Catholic school, I can appreciate indoctrination, that's why all of my American cousins (and I have a fair number of them) have my heartfelt sympathy.

LOL

That's not what I am saying. I should have put a disclaimer and drank more coffee before I wrote that, but I think there was a perception that some of the British mid-level officers kept boy pages. Perhaps that was a bad example, as of course many of the senior officers on both sides had mistresses which was considered the norm for the upper classes in both the colonies and in Britain...

My point is that the case of Jefferson and Hemings was an actually affair and a matter of the heart and not just the case of Jefferson using his slave as a concubine as would have been the norm in Roman times. Although I think it is a bit shameful that Jefferson's white descendants have largely ostracized his black descendants and there seems to be a bit of conflict between the two groups.

As far as George Washington, well anybody can say they were direct relations with little or no proof. You do realize that there are no more Washingtons in the US left that are white? at least last I heard. It was a very popular name for freed African Americans to choose as their last names since they often had none prior to being freed...

I'm not trying to defend the actions of either. Of course they were both imperfect hypocrites and products of their time. But I think we need to understand them in the proper context...

[32Bravo]

LOL

That's not what I am saying. I should have put a disclaimer and drank more coffee before I wrote that, but I think there was a perception that some of the British mid-level officers kept boy pages. Perhaps that was a bad example, as of course many of the senior officers on both sides had mistresses which was considered the norm for the upper classes in both the colonies and in Britain...

My point is that the case of Jefferson and Hemings was an actually affair and a matter of the heart and not just the case of Jefferson using his slave as a concubine as would have been the norm in Roman times. Although I think it is a bit shameful that Jefferson's white descendants have largely ostracized his black descendants and there seems to be a bit of conflict between the two groups.

As far as George Washington, well anybody can say they were direct relations with little or no proof. You do realize that there are no more Washingtons in the US left that are white? at least last I heard. It was a very popular name for freed African Americans to choose as their last names since they often had none prior to being freed...

I'm not trying to defend the actions of either. Of course they were both imperfect hypocrites and products of their time. But I think we need to understand them in the proper context...


I don't judge either of them. In fact Jefferson was, in my opinion, the best of the American presidents, including Lincoln.

I'll have to explain my point later as I'm in need of some sleep.

By the way. In English Public Schools (Private schoos) of that time, the head boys had younger boys to run about and 'Fag' (valet) for them. These younger boys were usually known as 'Fags' (recommend Tom Brown's School Days) and when they became senior boys, they too would have Fags. So, it's easy to see why the officers had boys serving them. These days, their valets are known as 'Batman'.

[Nickdfresh]

Don't forget that plenty of European nations used, or traded in, slaves. (My great grandfather, who was Portuguese, went to sea on a Portuguese slave ship, but deserted at the first opportunity.)

...

Let us also not forget that many black Africans engaged in slave trading and often provided the "product" to the Euro/American slave traders...

The image of Kunta Kinte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta_Kinte) being chased through the plains by white men with nets in the iconic American miniseries "Roots" was not always the correct image. It was often rival tribes abducting their enemies and selling them out of their homelands...

[32Bravo]

Let us also not forget that many black Africans engaged in slave trading and often provided the "product" to the Euro/American slave traders...

The image of Kunta Kinte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta_Kinte) being chased through the plains by white men with nets in the iconic American miniseries "Roots" was not always the correct image. It was often rival tribes abducting their enemies and selling them out of their homelands...


Quite right, and for a dramatisation, try the film Amistad.

[mike M.]

Not much on abreviations myself, not being an American or residing in America, what is ACLU and NRA?

By the way. Regarding: child porn - should have their balls cut off in the first instance and then perhaps continue with a little disembowlment before we really get started. If you get my meaning?


ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union / NRA Nation Rifle Association

I agree..that's why I picked the NRA well above the ACLU.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the 50's & 60's civil rights movement defending these people, and we can't turn our back on that. We have to give credit where credit is due." "But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present, it's totaly out of control now.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't judge either of them. In fact Jefferson was, in my opinion, the best of the American presidents, including Lincoln.

I'll have to explain my point later as I'm in need of some sleep.

By the way. In English Public Schools (Private schoos) of that time, the head boys had younger boys to run about and 'Fag' (valet) for them. These younger boys were usually known as 'Fags' (recommend Tom Brown's School Days) and when they became senior boys, they too would have Fags. So, it's easy to see why the officers had boys serving them. These days, their valets are known as 'Batman'.

And to clarify, I'm calling enlightenment era (or otherwise) British officers "fags" nor am I disparaging gays in the service. In fact the Prussian soldier Baron Von Steuben, who laid much of the foundation US Army's training and drill and ceremony, was strongly rumored to have been gay. He was also a brilliant officer and warrior...

[Rising Sun*]

And to clarify, I'm calling enlightenment era (or otherwise) British officers "fags" nor am I disparaging gays in the service. In fact the Prussian soldier Baron Von Steuben, who laid much of the foundation US Army's training and drill and ceremony, was strongly rumored to have been gay. He was also a brilliant officer and warrior...

I don't think you'll get much stranger than this. One of my favourite military oddities. The story, not the person.

"An incident is just now [1865] being discussed in military circles so extraordinary that, were not the truth capable of being vouched for by official authority, the narration would certainly be deemed incredible. Our officers quartered at the Cape between 15 and 20 years ago may remember a certain Dr Barry attached to the medical staff there, and enjoying a reputation for considerable skill in his profession, especially for firmness, decision and rapidity in difficult operations. The gentleman had entered the army in 1813, had passed, of course, through the grades of assistant surgeon and surgeon in various regiments, and had served as such in various quarters of the globe. His professional acquirements had procured for him promotion to the staff at the Cape. About 1840 he became promoted to be medical inspector, and was transferred to Malta. He proceded from Malta to Corfu where he was quartered for many years... He there died about a month ago, and upon his death was discovered to be a woman. The motives that occasioned and the time when commenced this singular deception are both shrouded in mystery. But thus it stands as an indisputable fact, that a woman was for 40 years an officer in the British service, and fought one duel and had sought many more, had pursued a legitimate medical education, and received a regular diploma, and had acquired almost a celebrity for skill as a surgical operator." http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/barry.html

[32Bravo]

And to clarify, I'm calling enlightenment era (or otherwise) British officers "fags" nor am I disparaging gays in the service. In fact the Prussian soldier Baron Von Steuben, who laid much of the foundation US Army's training and drill and ceremony, was strongly rumored to have been gay. He was also a brilliant officer and warrior...

I would suggest the American usage of the term 'Fag' has a different meaning to the way we in Britain use it. Generally speaking, it's just a slang term for a cigarette.

Tankgeezer states that we have little understanding of the U.S., but we probably have a clearer understanding of the U.S. than the people of the U.S. have of the British. Consider, we grow up seeing many of your most popular TV and film productions (and have done so for decades. We also see how these productions portray life here and, indeed, the British people - quite) and with satelite/cable we can pick up your current affairs and news programmes. Add to that that people travel, in both directions. So, their is contact and interaction at all levels of society.

By the way. I have to ask, what is a 'Cockney geezer' (Cockney being a person from east London and Geezer being cockney slang for a guy), presumably built like a tank, located in the U.S., doing defending Truth, Justice and the American way?

[32Bravo]

I don't think you'll get much stranger than this. One of my favourite military oddities. The story, not the person.

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/barry.html

It makes sense, it was more of a "Man's" world then than it is now. In just the same way women used to use male pen-names to have books published. How she managed to get away with it might be more obvious if we were able to see her physicla appearance and hear her speak. Some of the posturing peacocks of society of those times could probably have quite easily posed as women. Visitin the National Army Museum, Chelsea, London, and viewing some of the officers' uniformms of that day, they appear to be rather slight and short in stature.

[Rising Sun*]

I would suggest the American usage of the term 'Fag' has a different meaning to the way we in Britain use it. Generally speaking, it's just a slang term for a cigarette.

Nick's reference was to the English public school system of fags, which held well past WWII.

http://www.archivist.f2s.com/cpa/written/fags/fagmaster.htm

[Rising Sun*]

32Bravo

Mate, try a space before the exclamation mark in your new officer's signature.

"I'll get my man to clean your kit!"

I read it initially as "I'll get my man to clean your kill".

I thought: How disappointing, the chap gets a pip and he's become a savage. :D

[32Bravo]

32Bravo

Mate, try a space before the exclamation mark in your new officer's signature.

"I'll get my man to clean your kit!"

I read it initially as "I'll get my man to clean your kill".

I thought: How disappointing, the chap gets a pip and he's become a savage. :D

Yes. I noticed that, but considering all the talk of kilts I thought I'd wait ot see if anyone picked up on it. :)

I should also put on my glasses before reading and responding.

[32Bravo]

I thought: How disappointing, the chap gets a pip and he's become a savage. :D

True to the norm. :)

[32Bravo]

Nick's reference was to the English public school system of fags, which held well past WWII.

http://www.archivist.f2s.com/cpa/written/fags/fagmaster.htm

I really ought ot stop rushing.

I didn't attend a Boarding School, but I was certainly familiar with being on the receiving end of that cane depicted on the link, and blood was drawn on more than one occassion, but we pupils accepted it as the norm.

[Rising Sun*]

... but we pupils accepted it as the norm.

Would this be the same norm that turns men into savages when they get a pip? ;)

[32Bravo]

Would this be the same norm that turns men into savages when they get a pip? ;)


No, it's the Oirish in me that does that. :)

Spare the rod and spoil the child. :)

Fortunately, it's offset by having an Anglo-Saxon mother. :)

One of my coleagues, Bev, has gorgeous, red hair. One day she was in a pub when an Irish fella approached her and said

"What beautiful red air you have, do yeh have any Oirish in yeh?"

"No!" replies Bev.

"Would yeh loik some?" :)

[Rising Sun*]

One of my coleagues, Bev, has gorgeous, red hair. One day she was in a pub when an Irish fella approached her and said

"What beautiful red air you have, do yeh have any Oirish in yeh?"

"No!" replies Bev.

"Would yeh loik some?" :)

Ah, the language of love!

How little the dagoes know! :D

[32Bravo]

To get back on topic for a moment - before I wet myself.

We Brits set much store in our civil liberties and freedom of speach.

Traditionally, that which has become most symbolic of freedom of speach, in Britain, is 'Speakers Corner' in Hyde Park, London, where anyone can go, get up on their soapbox, and speak on any topic they wish without fear of arrest, tar and feathering (the police are there to protect th speakers but usually people walk away from mindless rantings) etc. etc.

http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/speaker-s-corner-hyde-park

Do others have their equivalent in their country?