When did the West really get the message?

Post #114,492 by bluke 8/20/03 4:29:59 AM Reply	When did the West really get the message? After all you say it is being unlearned. When were the golden years of the US? The 1950's (or before) when Jim Crow still ruled? The 1960's with Vietnam, riots, protests, etc.? The 1970's and Richard Nixon? The 1980's, the decade of greed and Ronald Reagan? The 1990's ad Bill Clinton and polls, and spin?
Post #114,494 by deSitter 8/20/03 4:42:26 AM Reply	The message was that of Jesus It took forever to mature, but "love thy neighbor as thyself" eventually became "all men are created equal", and "My kingdom is not of this earth" became "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Now we have some jackass in Alabama who thinks God told him to erect a monument to Mosaicism in a courthouse. You guys are winning! -drl
Post #114,495 by bluke 8/20/03 4:48:02 AM Reply	Tell me when it matured Not before the 1970's in the US where Blacks were second class citizens. In fact, school prayer was mandatory and what about the blue laws? When my parents went to public school in NY in te 1950's every December there was a Christmas play.
Post #114,496 by deSitter 8/20/03 4:48:26 AM Reply	7/4/1776 -drl
Post #114,499 by bluke 8/20/03 4:52:55 AM 8/20/03 5:00:41 AM Reply	When blacks were slaves??? That was some lousy message. Slavery continued another 90 years in the US and then segregation for another almost 100 years. What about women? Do they not deserve the right to self determination? Didn't happen until 1920. What about the brutal anhilation and taking of land of the American Indians in the 1800's, what happened to their right of self determination? Do you mean to say that only white males have these inalienable rights? Are you saying that you would prefer the America of 1776 to the America of today? Edited by bluke Aug. 20, 2003, 04:57:51 AM EDT Edited by bluke Aug. 20, 2003, 05:00:41 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,501 by deSitter 8/20/03 5:00:57 AM Reply	Re: When blacks were slaves??? Yep. That was not good, and is now gone. Instead, we are now all slaves to fashion, TV, and saturated fats. BTW the slave trade was stewarded by the Semitic people of North Africa and environs - that area next to the Land of Doe Breasts and Goblet Bellies - known to everyone else as the Middle East. Do I prefer 1776 to now? Do I prefer an ice cream cone to a stab in the eyeball with a redhot eel gig? -drl
Post #114,504 by bluke 8/20/03 5:31:32 AM 8/20/03 5:32:34 AM Reply	If I understand you right You would prefer to a live in a society that held human beings as slaves solely because of the color of their skin and looked at them as sub humans rather then society of today. America of 1776 is your ultimate society. You have certainly revealed your racist true colors today. Edited by bluke Aug. 20, 2003, 05:32:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,533 by Arkadiy 8/20/03 9:46:56 AM Reply	Ah, they were shipping slaves because they vere Semitic. Not because they were greedy and it was profitable. Blame the supplier. War on drugs. You know, I'd never imagined that you'll reach dictionary-pure, animal antisemitism before some other people here. Short of formal apology, this is my last post to you. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,570 by deSitter 8/20/03 1:22:23 PM 8/20/03 1:38:48 PM Reply	Re: Ah, they were shipping slaves because they vere Semitic. "Anti-Semitism" is a euphemism for "anti-Jew" - I am not and never will be. "Semitic", as has been pointed out before, refers to the entire region in proper usage, and includes all sides of the self-destructive struggle among Arab, Palestinian, and Jew. I DO have a great mistrust of the ability of the Semitic people - all of them - to govern themselves. This is not based on opinion, but bloody history and violation of fundamental, sound principles of government. No religion can be the basis of government - it just doesn't work. It leads to disaster in every case. I will not apologize for something I did not say and do not believe. I am no more "anti-Jew" than I am "anti-Martian". I am against the religious state tyranny that is Israel. I maintain that Israel is a disaster and an enantiodromic blot on the history of the Jews. [link\|http://constitution-first.org/semite.htm\|http://constitution-first.org/semite.htm] It seems that whenever Jewish or Israeli interests are openly criticized, the perpetrator is inevitably denounced as being an anti-Semitist. The anti-Semitism flag is of course intended to shield the Zionist/Israeli agenda from accountability by branding anyone who challenges it as racists and Nazis. That is unacceptable; no nation or group of people, nor their religion or politics are beyond accountability. However, if the issue of anti-Semitism is going to get tangled up in the mix, then perhaps it is worth knowing what the term "Semite" really means. From Webster's dictionary (1957), we find an evolved popular definition of, "1. a Semitic word or idiom, 2. Characteristics of the Semites; especially, the ideas, cultural qualities, etc, originating with the Jews." Undoubtedly, this definition of Semitism fits well into the Judo-Christian scheme of things, which mythologizes the ancient tribes of Israel as the genealogical key-stone of the Middle Eastern world (the Genesis Myth and all that). Chosen people, master god, master doctrine, master race; haven't we heard this sort of thing somewhere before? In any event, the definition of "Semitic" exists in its present state only because of popular convention in Christian dominated English and thus doesn't accurately reflect historical realities (Reference), not even according to Webster. For example, the same dictionary defines a "Semite" as, 'a member of any of the peoples whose language is Semitic, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, etc; now especially the Jew'." In addition, "Semitic" is defined as, "1. characteristic of, or like a Semite or the Semites, 2.designating or of a major group of languages of south Western Asia and Northern Africa, related to the Hermitic languages and divided into East Semitic (Akkadian), North West (Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, Hebrew, modern Hebrew, etc) and south West Semitic (Arabic, Ethiopic, Amharic). Considering the extended scope of these definitions, it would seem that anyone using the term "Semitism" is invoking a definitional root that encompasses a rather huge and diverse amount of genealogical and cultural ground, of which the Jews are only a segment. As such, one might just as well accuse the Israelis and their supporters of being anti-Semitists for aiding and perpetrating Israel's colonialist aggressions against the Palestinians. It is no coincidence that the world community through the auspices of the United Nations has condemned Israel for being the most raciest state on the planet. -drl Edited by deSitter Aug. 20, 2003, 01:38:48 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #114,587 by Arkadiy 8/20/03 2:35:57 PM Reply	shun -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #114,644 by boxley 8/20/03 7:54:34 PM Reply	He's not antisemitic, he's just on a roll He will be proclaiming Custer's last Stand only happened because some Jewish Whiskey traders were directing the Cheyene and Souix or he would have beat them. :-) thanx, bill America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #114,534 by orion 8/20/03 9:49:46 AM Reply	I would choose Today's America I couldn't treat others as subhuman or unequals, I just couldn't do it. I don't feel like it is right. I have many friends from many different ethnic backgrounds. Our society has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #114,548 by bluke 8/20/03 10:50:01 AM Reply	I would hope that most people here would 18th century America was a very racist and prejudiced place (not only against blacks, don't forget the anti-Irish sentiment, the anti-Chinese sentiment, etc.). Of course the status of women was not much better. It says a lot about Desitter that he would prefer such a society.
Post #114,553 by rcareaga 8/20/03 11:26:26 AM Reply	18th century America was, bluke asserts, "a very racist and prejudiced place," and he reminds us of "the anti-Irish sentiment, the anti-Chinese sentiment." Two nits here. Anti-Irish and anti-Chinese "sentiments" did not become significant political elements until these groups began to arrive en masse the following century. The Chinese, in particular, were approximately as rare in the early Republic as Patagonians are in your neighborhood, and as such were likelier to be perceived as exotica rather than cheap labor and a threat to the urban proletariat, such as it was. It might also be observed that people in all societies and in all epochs are to varying extents unavoidably the captives, for good or for ill, of the cultures in which they are embedded. Conventional wisdom is a perishable commodity, and while we may be thankful not to share the reflexive xenophobia of some of our forebears, and comfortable with such tolerance as our own milieu has learned, we do ourselves no favors merely to indulge a facile condescension toward the attitudes of the past. The most enlightened among us (no, don't all stand up at once) might do well to scrutinize some of our own reflexive beliefs and consider that among them at least a few, however deeply held, however self-evidently true and just these may seem today, must inevitably strike posterity as outlandish at best. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #114,693 by Ashton 8/21/03 4:22:52 AM Reply	re your caveat.. .. and never trust guys with beards ;-) The popular antidote to this umm temporal malleability of something so deucedly difficult to grasp as, Treating People Decently (an admittedly highly complex involute concept): is most often nicely handed-off by reference to one's Guide to Objective Morality. (Currently we appear to be living-out the various One True Objective Morality (s) as each group attempts to demonstrate its wisdom, tolerance, forbearance and just plain Humanity, via duelling Firepower.) Given this state of affairs.. I think I'll just read another Discworld adventure. Instead. The Objective Morality implied by the writer .. but left to the reader to discern .. somehow appears a better Source than the hoary texts of the above miscreants. (Those obv haven't Worked for a full calendar year since the ink dried.. and no matter Who's calendar you go with.) Damn it's tough evaluating a species you imagine you might somehow 'belong to', yet - -
Post #114,532 by orion 8/20/03 9:46:32 AM Reply	The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in schools (new thread) Created as new thread #114531 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114531\|The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in schools] *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #114,498 by bluke 8/20/03 4:50:39 AM Reply	Love thy neighbor as thyself is not Jesus but the Bible
Post #114,502 by deSitter 8/20/03 5:04:39 AM Reply	Wrong -drl
Post #114,503 by bluke 8/20/03 5:23:46 AM Reply	Leviticus 19:18 also see Leviticus 19:34
Post #114,642 by boxley 8/20/03 7:49:59 PM Reply	Including 3/5ths of all Nigra's? America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!