| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
 Posted: November 29 2006 at 14:29 |
 jalas wrote:
This is what I get for arguing with a lawyer. Why did I even bother? Ivan, I know you are a master at the art of spin because you are a lawyer, but you fail to see that you are attacking me about things that don't even really matter to people like you.
Well, I'm not spinning the truth, just quoting facts and not because I'm not a Socialist doesn't means I don't care for social injustice, it's only that I don't believe in a system that has proved until know being flawed.
don't think that I don't know what I am talking about because I do read books and I do find out as much as I can from both sides of the issue. I watch the news in this country which is extremely bias and I read books by Zinn and Chomsky which are extremely bias also and the middle ground that I found is where I stand now. All I want is compromise and people like you are always making it difficult.
Jalas, you started attacking without real knowledge the country that gave your father assylum.
I would have the same opinion about a person who is son of a refugee in a communist country and attacks them, because it's unfair, they received your family when you required it so the less you have to do is to be humble and thank them.
you know, that in theory, democracy works.
It works, there are countries with an impeccable record of democracy, each time a President ended his period was replaced or reelected depemnding in the Constitution.
You also know, that in theory, socialism would work.
Until now it's only a theory never has worked so why should it work?
Alone, each is very much in danger of being corrupted. Together, they can keep each other in check. I don't see what is so bad about thinking this way. I don't know why you have to take your anger out on me.
The one who expressed anger against everything are you, you hate democracy, freedom of speech, people who have more because they worked more.
But you use a democratic system to express your disagreements against the country that received your family, that's unfair.
Also, the Bible does talk about slavery, but there was a special day every couple of years where all the slaves were released. Also, slavery was different. They were not put in chains and forced to work for other people. They voluntarily became slaves because they needed food and money.
Sorry, that's wrong, if an Hebrew had an Hebrew slave (Yes they had slaves from their own race) they had to receive their freedom in six years and if the slave was a foreigner he received the freedom after a much longer freedom.
But that's not the point Jalas, I was talking about perspective of history in time, what was correct in the Old Testament days was probably incorrect in Lincoln's days and what was correct in Lincolns's days (Hey the pseudo scientists Phrenologists said black people and women had less intelligence than white Caucasian men) is absolutely wrong today.
You can't judge a society without a perspective of their time and culture, still today I find barbaric acts in the mountains of Perú and in some African tribes
It's funny that all the people that attack me are either Ivan the lawyer or Americans. This is what I have to deal with everyday.
Then don't attack, try to be fair, I disagree with a lot of things USA does, my first post in his thread was to disagree with the damn wall but I don't tollerate that our disagreement is used as an excuse to make propaganda of things I also find wrong.
Iván |
BTW JRKAsperov: Yes the term of freedom was the seventh year, but only if the slave was a Hebrew, if he was a foreigner he/she had to wait until the 50th year.
The rules were different for Hebrews and non hebrews
| If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. Exodus 21:1 |
The rule that applied for non Hebrews was in Leviticus 25:10:
| 10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. |
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 29 2006 at 21:12
|
|
|
 |
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 14:16 |
|
Exactly right, not really fair, but that's how they did it.
It was my feeling that the slavery issues under discussion in this thread were more of the "non-hebrew" type. I should have clarified that point.
Edited by Trademark - November 29 2006 at 14:18
|
|
JrKASperov
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 14:12 |
Trademark wrote:
... |
In other words, slaves are to be freed on the 50th year, except for Hebrew slaves, who are to be released on the 7th.
|
|
Epic.
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 13:56 |
thanks Ivan for defending common-sense here!
extreme right ideology brings ethnic discrimination, loss of freedom of speech/movement/association, chauvinism, bad traditionalism, military agression, tirany. extreme left ideology brings loss of private property, freedom of speech/movement/association, economic failure, poverty, tirany. they both use mass murder/emprisonment as tools.
keep the middle road and "never forget what happened in history or else you're doomed to repeat the same errors".
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 13:56 |
|
This is from the book of Leviticus regarding the keeping of slaves:
25: 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.
25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.
25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
Notice these words: "They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee" & "You may enslave them perpetually."
The Jubilee was observed every 49 years with the 50th year being called the Jubilee year (Lev.25:8-12). The entire 25th chapter of Leviticus lays out how debts and bond-service (slaveery) were to be forgiven. Pay special attention to Lev. 25:47-55 for how slaves were to be "freed" (redeemed might be a better word).
But then there's also this so I see where you're coming from:
“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. —Exodus 21:2-6.
The distinction here is the word Hebrew. People of other races could be enslaved for life, while members of their own race (Hebrews) could only be held for 7 years. In addition Hebrew slaves had better treatment conditions under these same laws.
Edited by Trademark - November 29 2006 at 14:14
|
|
JrKASperov
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 13:37 |
Trademark wrote:
The Jubilee is every 50 years
|
The freeing of slaves is every seventh year.
|
|
Epic.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 13:30 |
Forgotten Son wrote:
1962, and yes I have studied history, enough history to know that the Cuban requested Soviet nuclear weapons (Khruschev was reluctant) to protect themselves from the very real danger of US aggression. Sure it was a stupid move, but it was in no way aggressive unlike the numerous invasion and assassination attempts along with a systematic campaign of state terror financed by the US.
I don't say of Kruschev was reluctant, Cuba asked fr the missiles and USSR provided them, Cuba placed Sovietic missiles at 80 miles of USA border this an aggression and Cuba placed all the world in danger.
USSR borders were protected by several countries they had invaded at the cost of millions of lives (Remember the Praga Spring?), so they wantted to spread to Ltin America and for that reson placed their niuclear weapons in our continent.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Do you know that all the terrorist movements of South America received training in Cuba, they exported their revolution to countries that didn’t wanted it. |
________________________________________________________________
Forgoten Son replied: You mean the Cuban supported militants that repelled invasions from South Africa in Angola? South Africa, one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the developed world. South Africa that was backed to the hilt by the United States? Because that's much worse than the crimes of the United States instituted to counter the "threat" from Cuba.
Please read my post SOUTH AMERICA not South Africa. We had no Dictator in 1981 we had the most Democratic President Fernando Belaunde Terry and Cuba trained MRTA and Shinning Psath in their territory against a peaceful and democratic nation.
Now that you mention South Africa, surely you believe it was wrong to participate oin Vietnam and it's true, even USA admits it, but then it's equally wrong for Cuba to partivcipate in Angola.
50% of the population in Cambodia (I say 50% because the other 50% was killed)would wish USA would have won instead of Pol Pot's Kmer Rouge, in this case USA was fighting against the worst and genocide criminal the world has known.
USSR and Cuba supported what you call brutal and oppresive dictators, USA also fight against what they believe are brutal and oppresive dictators, it's exactly the same case, I believe no Government should mess in other countries problems unless there's an obvious genocide, but this goes to both sides USA had no businedss in Vietnam (I believe they had in Cambodia) but Cuba had no business either in Angola.
As for exporting revolution, they helped revolutionary movements in Latin America, sure, but movements against regimes far more brutal and oppressive than Fidel's, regimes, I might add that were puppets of Washington.
Were Fernando Belaunde Terry (Elected in first round agaibst the Social Democrats and Social Christians being the Communists a low minority) or the Social Democrat Alan García Perez (Elected with 58% of the votes and again the Communists a low minority) oppressive dictators?
NO, I woted for none of them (I always voted for Soicial Christians), but both were democratic Presidents, still Cuba supported the Peruvian terrorists only because non of both were communists.
BTW: Alan García broke with USA and declared a moratory of the external debt, so it would be hard to call him a Washington puppet, but still terrorists were supported by Cuba.
Cuba and their USSR allies wanted a Communist in the Government, they didn't cared what 99% of the Peruvians wanted (Democracy) they supported any communist oriented group of terrorists.
I don't see how that justifies crippling economic sanctions and campaigns of terrorism against Cuba.
The sanctions today should be suspended for humanitarian reasons, but Cuba was a danger and that is a fact.
The real problem the US had with Cuba was that it was a risk to American business interests. Cuba was spreading the idea that the people should benefit from Latin America's natural resources, not US corporations. I mean America's history in this part of the world tells a grim tale. Their objection to Castro wasn't that he was a tyrant, afterall they were propping up tyrant regimes far more oppressive and brutal throughout the world, but that he was damagnig the established order of things.
USA supporeted Fidel Castro until he declared being Communist, then many people who had fought for the Revolution as the Poet Valladeres were sent to prison accused of being anti-revolutionary, so USA obviously wouldn't support a Communist Government.
I'm not saying that Chinese and Soviet aggression didn't exist, it clearly did and should be condemned too. The fact that the Soviet Union and China invaded Afghanistan (with remarkable parallels to todays occupation, it's worth noting) and Tibet (both killing far less people than the Indonesian government) doesn't make the US' foriegn policy what it says it is, history proves otherwise. As far as foreign policy goes the US is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people, far more than those resulting from Chinese or Soviet aggression, even though both rgimes had killed millions of their own people.
It's funny, you find excuses for everybody except for USA, yes all the powerful nations usew what they have against what they don't like, it's true but then it's a flaw of the human nature and common to both systems.
BTW: How many people did Stalin killed? Are you sure of your numbers?
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They also divided Germany and Europe with a wall (A stupid mistake USA could commit now) that is worst, sometimes in politics you have to choose between two evils and stay with the lesser danger. |
_____________________________________________
Forgoten Son replied: I agree that if I had a choice between living in the US or the Soviet Union I would choose the US, domestically, it's more free. However that doesn't undo that fact that America is engaged in a campaign of neo-colonialism far more extensive than anything the USSR or CHina was engaged in and is justifying it with the flimsy suggestion that they are spreading "democracy" around the world and that they are a benevolent, humanitarian nation, a view that is not at all supported by the facts. Consequently I shall continue to criticise the US and other Western nations when they commit acts of aggressions and crimes against humanity.
You didn't answered my point, you avoided it.
BTW: USA more colonialist than USSR?
For God's sake USSR had all Eastern Europe nations as colonies or sattelite countries if you want and 12 Soviet Republics (Not counting Russia) that are now independant. How in hell do you call that?
USA doesn't have a single colony, I know that they put pressure on the countries because economic factors, but it's their money, they are not forced to give it to anybody they don't want.
Certainly cold war tension is long behind us, but there are still many threats to global survival. For instance everytime the US acts unilaterally in invading countries they encourage nations to proliferate WMD. Not to mention their persuit of the militarisation of space, something all right thinking human beings should be against.
I never said USA was perfect, far from it, but this doesn't allow us to close our eyes to reality, today a war would probably only affect USA and their allies, in the 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's a war would had affected all the world.
Sorry if this appeared overly polemical or rant-like.
No it's OK, the only problem I see is that you find everything USA does wrong and that's not correct, they commited mistakes and had abusive mesures, but they have done a lot of good too.
But at the same time you excuse all what Comunist/Socialist Governments did, judge them by the same rule.
Iván |
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 29 2006 at 13:33
|
|
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 09:37 |
|
The Jubilee is every 50 years and not every couple of years as you state. Get your Bible stuff straight or leave it out. And it's equally possible (indeed it was the rationale for many years) to say that the African slaves "volunteered" to come over for the same reasons, with similar promises of eventual freedom, but is freedom after 50 years of service worth anything at all?
Its amusing, jalas , that you think that you are the one being attacked. You make the big inflamatory (the way you present them,not necessasrily the substance of them) claims and when people point out flaws in your logic you cry foul and feel you are being attacked. Its childish, defend your position or re-formulate your approach (such as doing your research BEFORE you post as in the example abobve). That's how debate works. That's why debate works. If John Hancock had whined about everyone attacking his one bad idea there'd have been no Declaration of independence and no Constitution (just imagine what got thrown out!). They worked it out through vigorous debate and compromise. Whining doesn't encourage compromise. Clear, well supported, logical thought does.
On the other hand, if you're only upset because people don't agree with you there's not much help for it and you'll just have to toughen up.
Edited by Trademark - November 29 2006 at 10:26
|
|
jalas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 07 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 283
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 09:24 |
This is what I get for arguing with a lawyer. Why did I even bother? Ivan, I know you are a master at the art of spin because you are a lawyer, but you fail to see that you are attacking me about things that don't even really matter to people like you. don't think that I don't know what I am talking about because I do read books and I do find out as much as I can from both sides of the issue. I watch the news in this country which is extremely bias and I read books by Zinn and Chomsky which are extremely bias also and the middle ground that I found is where I stand now. All I want is compromise and people like you are always making it difficult. you know, that in theory, democracy works. You also know, that in theory, socialism would work. Alone, each is very much in danger of being corrupted. Together, they can keep each other in check. I don't see what is so bad about thinking this way. I don't know why you have to take your anger out on me.
Also, the Bible does talk about slavery, but there was a special day every couple of years where all the slaves were released. Also, slavery was different. They were not put in chains and forced to work for other people. They voluntarily became slaves because they needed food and money.
It's funny that all the people that attack me are either Ivan the lawyer or Americans. This is what I have to deal with everyday.
|
JOIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY!
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 07:32 |
Forgotten Son wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I'm not sure about very many other countries or cities in the US where poverty may be more of a problem, but where I live, there is almost always a chance for growth. It's quite easy to get a small job (unless perhaps you've been committed to a life of crime), open up a savings account, and save for a year or two and go to college, may it be community or state. It may not be easy especially in a urban area with crime and poverty, but for someone committed to achieving a better way of life, there is very rarely nowhere to turn. All it takes is effort. |
I think this is a rather naive view that conforms with popular elitist viewpoints. Ie the reason there are poor people is because people are too lazy to work and that there are people "committed to a life of crime." The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that there are growing swathes of Western (particular the US and Britain) populations that are stuck in the rut of poverty and the jobs they can get are usually appalingly payed with no chance of advancement. Sure there are a few people here and there that are gifted and lucky enough to advance in the world, but these people are rare exceptions used by ruling elites to justify and totally unjust system.
|
Not quite. Not that they're lazy, but that they don't see the direct benefits of education. Someone with a GED can get a job that pays $7-10 hourly without much trouble at all. While not very well off, this can slowly add up if the person conserves well, and then community college is an option. I added "the life of crime" thing only because many places won't hire workers if they've been convicted of a felony offense, which would make it much harder. Many of these people could advance in life, but they just don't have motivation to change from the status quo.
|
|
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 06:40 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Cuba not a danger for the region? Have you ever studied history?
Maybe
you haven’t read about the missile crisis in October 1868 because Cuba
allowed USSR to place their missiles at 80 miles from USA coasts and
place humanity in risk of a nuclear war. |
1962, and yes I have studied history, enough history to know that the Cuban requested Soviet nuclear weapons (Khruschev was reluctant) to protect themselves from the very real danger of US aggression. Sure it was a stupid move, but it was in no way aggressive unlike the numerous invasion and assassination attempts along with a systematic campaign of state terror financed by the US.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Do
you know that all the terrorist movements of South America received
training in Cuba, they exported their revolution to countries that
didn’t wanted it. |
You mean the Cuban supported militants that repelled invasions from South Africa in Angola? South Africa, one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the developed world. South Africa that was backed to the hilt by the United States? Because that's much worse than the crimes of the United States instituted to counter the "threat" from Cuba.
As for exporting revolution, they helped revolutionary movements in Latin America, sure, but movements against regimes far more brutal and oppressive than Fidel's, regimes, I might add that were puppets of Washington.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
When MRTA took hostages in the Japanese Embassy in Perú, the terrorists asked for a pass to Cuba, how casual!! |
I don't see how that justifies crippling economic sanctions and campaigns of terrorism against Cuba.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Remember
that even USA helped Fidel because he lied about his revolution not
being Communist, so I understand if USA couldn’t afford to take risks
in Nicaragua. |
The real problem the US had with Cuba was that it was a risk to American business interests. Cuba was spreading the idea that the people should benefit from Latin America's natural resources, not US corporations. I mean America's history in this part of the world tells a grim tale. Their objection to Castro wasn't that he was a tyrant, afterall they were propping up tyrant regimes far more oppressive and brutal throughout the world, but that he was damagnig the established order of things.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Now,
lets talk about Indonesia, yes USA supported them with money
(Apparently) but in the meanwhile USSR and China invaded with their
armies Afghanistan and Tibet, two countries that didn’t wanted them,
Stalin killed more people than Hitler, USSR crushed the Praga Spring
back in 1968 or 1969 with their armies in a foreign country. |
I'm not saying that Chinese and Soviet aggression didn't exist, it clearly did and should be condemned too. The fact that the Soviet Union and China invaded Afghanistan (with remarkable parallels to todays occupation, it's worth noting) and Tibet (both killing far less people than the Indonesian government) doesn't make the US' foriegn policy what it says it is, history proves otherwise. As far as foreign policy goes the US is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people, far more than those resulting from Chinese or Soviet aggression, even though both rgimes had killed millions of their own people.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They
also divided Germany and Europe with a wall (A stupid mistake USA could
commit now) that is worst, sometimes in politics you have to choose
between two evils and stay with the lesser danger. |
I agree that if I had a choice between living in the US or the Soviet Union I would choose the US, domestically, it's more free. However that doesn't undo that fact that America is engaged in a campaign of neo-colonialism far more extensive than anything the USSR or CHina was engaged in and is justifying it with the flimsy suggestion that they are spreading "democracy" around the world and that they are a benevolent, humanitarian nation, a view that is not at all supported by the facts. Consequently I shall continue to criticise the US and other Western nations when they commit acts of aggressions and crimes against humanity.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
BTW:
I’m a Latin American from the third world and I feel safer now that
there’s no USSR because I don’t have to wake every morning asking
myself if another Nixon in USA or a Bureaucrat in the Kremlin will press the damn button and blow all of us from the face of earth. |
Certainly cold war tension is long behind us, but there are still many threats to global survival. For instance everytime the US acts unilaterally in invading countries they encourage nations to proliferate WMD. Not to mention their persuit of the militarisation of space, something all right thinking human beings should be against. Sorry if this appeared overly polemical or rant-like.
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 05:59 |
stonebeard wrote:
I'm not sure about very many other countries or cities in the US where poverty may be more of a problem, but where I live, there is almost always a chance for growth. It's quite easy to get a small job (unless perhaps you've been committed to a life of crime), open up a savings account, and save for a year or two and go to college, may it be community or state. It may not be easy especially in a urban area with crime and poverty, but for someone committed to achieving a better way of life, there is very rarely nowhere to turn. All it takes is effort. |
I think this is a rather naive view that conforms with popular elitist viewpoints. Ie the reason there are poor people is because people are too lazy to work and that there are people "committed to a life of crime." The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that there are growing swathes of Western (particular the US and Britain) populations that are stuck in the rut of poverty and the jobs they can get are usually appalingly payed with no chance of advancement. Sure there are a few people here and there that are gifted and lucky enough to advance in the world, but these people are rare exceptions used by ruling elites to justify and totally unjust system.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: November 29 2006 at 02:13 |
stonebeard wrote:
... but for someone committed to achieving a better way of life, there is very rarely nowhere to turn. All it takes is effort. |
And there's the rub... 
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 23:00 |
BTW Jalas, I like your new avatar, Mons. Oscar Arnulfo Romero is a person worth to admire despite his political beliefs, he died fighting with words for the peace while Guevara died fighting with weapons to create violence.
Good for you.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65616
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:52 |
stonebeard wrote:
I'm not sure about very many other countries or cities in the US where poverty may be more of a problem, but where I live, there is almost always a chance for growth. It's quite easy to get a small job (unless perhaps you've been committed to a life of crime), open up a savings account, and save for a year or two and go to college, may it be community or state. It may not be easy especially in a urban area with crime and poverty, but for someone committed to achieving a better way of life, there is very rarely nowhere to turn. All it takes is effort. |
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:51 |
|
I'm not sure about very many other countries or cities in the US where poverty may be more of a problem, but where I live, there is almost always a chance for growth. It's quite easy to get a small job (unless perhaps you've been committed to a life of crime), open up a savings account, and save for a year or two and go to college, may it be community or state. It may not be easy especially in a urban area with crime and poverty, but for someone committed to achieving a better way of life, there is very rarely nowhere to turn. All it takes is effort.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:49 |
jalas wrote:
Then why would he say such a thing? |
You're also clueless about historicall perspective, what was correct in the 1800's iis not correct today.
Slavery and racial discriminatin was accepted then, phrenology was a science in those yearsa (Black people were said to be less intelligent than white people:
One of the major problems with phrenelogical theory was the inherent racism contained in the system, a reflection of general attitudes at the time. The forehead of "civilised" Caucasians was taken as a sign of intelligence as opposed to the sloping forehead of earlier ancestors and other racial groups. The varying shapes of skulls amongst different races was taken as
an indicator of racial character, frequently in a derogatory manner. And with their larger skulls, men were, of course, superior in many ways to women!.
|
Ths was considered a science, so why should Lincoln not believe black people was inferior if the pseudo scientists said so?
And this is not a problem of science only, read your Bible:
| "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor." (Leviticus 25:44-46) |
Hey, the Bible says slavery is right, does this mean the Bible is evil?
No in both cases, this is called historical perspective, what was correct 100 years ago is wrong today, if a woman was accused of witchcraft in the Inquisition or Salem, people would ask to burn her, if a woman is accused of witchcraft today she will probably get a talk show. 
When I was a kid back in the 70's, a kid was almost not accepted in a school because his birth certificate said "not legitimate son", then the constitution changed in the 80's and the term was changed to "extra-marital", today our Constitition accepts no mention if the kid is born inside or outside the marriage, as it should be.
And this was 25 years ago, imagine from Lincoln's time!!!!
You can't judge history by today's moral, rules change with time.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 28 2006 at 22:57
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65616
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:46 |
|
You go Arrrghus and Ivan, some people simply don't know enough history-- not their fault, they just haven't been around long enough or haven't become interested in the complexities of it. There was an excellent dramatization of the American Revolution recently on the History Channel and is a good place to start if one is really interested in what happened in this country and why. BTW, as statesmen go, Lincoln was phenomenal and one of the finest leaders the world has seen.
Edited by Atavachron - November 28 2006 at 22:47
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:44 |
|
Ivan,
For almost 19 years I worked in lumber yards as a salesman. The folks I worked with were not the most educated lot in the world. They were mostly decent people, but were pretty... Well the best way I can put it is that I worked over the years with 30 or 40 different versions of Toby Keith.
On the occasions when I tried to engage them in conversation about topics I thought they might need to alter their thinking on, they would often engage in a tactic I came to see as "He who yells loudest, wins". No amount of actual, factual , reasoned thinking would get through to these guys (and they were guys, I'm not being sexist). After a decade or so I finally gave up trying to use intelligent reasoning, but I was unwilling to joping the shouting match, so I just went along doing my job and let them rant amongst themselves.
Little Johnny here wants attention and we're giving it to him when maybe what he needs is to be ignored. Then maybe he'll have time to read a second book (we know he's read the one, he's mentioned it several times) and a third and maybe at some point rational thought will begin to grow in little Johnny's brain. Until we give him time to read, learn, and grow, he'll just keep "acting out".
Edited by Trademark - November 28 2006 at 22:45
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: November 28 2006 at 22:30 |
jalas wrote:
Also, why can't I question the government that "Welcomed" my father? The only reason I still live in this country is because My mother has most of her family here. The rest of my family on my father's side moved to Canada because they found it more accepting.
But your father was welcomed there!
He took the job that could have been taken by a natural born citizen, I don't say he diidn't deserve it (I dobn't know that) but a USA born person could use it.
He could raise you and take care of his family, then he owes this to your country,
I don't belong in a capitalist country. I don't care if I lose everything that I have because I know that there are better things that I can do with my life than indulge in luxuries. Right now, I am in school, but as soon as I get the chance, I will become a missionary so that I can help the oppressed. I do not plan to live here forever. It's against my beliefs to stay here, but please don't push me. I still have to think about money for transportation and family that I will leave behind.
Where do ou plan to gain that money? In El Salvador or in USA?
Probably working in a job that a USA citizen needs?
I don't owe this country anything. If it hadn't been for the aid that Carter and Reagan gave to the dictatorship in El Salvador, I probably wouldn't be here. I probably would not have been born, but I would have rather not been born than to know that so many Salvadorans died with US support and the American public just ignores this.
A war is a two side game, why don't you blame the guys who supported the guerrillas in your country?
You know, government can't shut me up. If I am not allowed to say whatever I want in a country, it wouldn't make a difference to me because Jesus is the only Authority that controls my life and if I die for what I say, I will only be a Martyr. I just want to serve. I think the way I do because I have a sensitivity toward the poor. My parents come from poor countries and I hate to see how this country is going through an obesity epidemic while other countries around the world are filled with starving people.
The Goovernment won't shut you up because you live in a free country.
BTW: Obesity problem is not caused by the excess of money, by the contrary, the minorities have more this problem because both parents have to work and can't prepare food for their kids so they give the children 5 buxcks or less and the only thing they can eat is junk food because it's cheap.
So obesity is a problem caused by poverty, it's obvious you don't have the slightest idea about nutrition.
sitting back and praising my country for all it's done for me is just being to pacifistic. I want to make things better for other people. besides, all the good that has come out of this country will never bring back all the lives that have been lost unjustly for the sake of democracy. I don't hate democracy, but I know it's easily corruptible so that's why I prefer socialism. Just a hint a socialism will not hurt in a democracy.
Yes and the fairies take the teeth from the kids. please don't believe in utopias, Marxism, Socialism and Communism have proved to be not viable.
Criticize your country, work to make it better, vote if you are lod enough but don't say you're ashamed of your country, it's like being ashamed of your family.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
America
