Just what is this “Freedom” you lay claim to and who is free to do what to whom?
Is it the “freedom” to own slaves by a few or to make certain people second class citizens?
Or is it the freedom to be have a well-payiing job with respect from your employer?
Is it the “freedom” to gerrymander voting districts to give yourselves an unfair electoral advantage?
Or is it the freedom to know that your vote will count in a fair election?
Is it the “freedom” to be free from paying taxes for all the benefits that have helped you get rich? Like public schools for educated workers, like roads to move your goods around, like courts to settle any disputes you may have, like police to investigate crimes committed against you, like fire departments to respond quickly to fires or medical emergencies?
Or is it the freedom to have all kinds of resources available that we can only afford collectively by contributing to the best of our ability?
Is it the “freedom” to have wider and wider highways to drive faster and quicker, regardless of the cost to tax bases, to individual families, or to the environment?
Or is it the freedom to be secure in your own house, knowing that the chances are almost non-existent that your house will be condemned to make room for an ever wider freeway? Is it the freedom to not have to have a car because other forms of transportation are convenient and frequent?
Is it the “freedom" to reduce your own costs by polluting the air and water?
Or is it the freedom to have clean breathable air or to have safe, drinkable water?
Is it the “freedom” to donate large sums to “elected” officials to do your bidding?
Or is it the freedom to know the candidates you can vote for have received “small” amounts of money only from the people who have a right to vote for them.
See also "The false masters of words".
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Who is the us in U.S.?
Way back when, a bunch of Puritans fled England to practice their religious beliefs. They pushed back the people who were already here. Later, they persecuted Quakers who publicly preached a different religious view.
Opportunists saw large areas of land to raise cotton and tobacco. By hook or crook they laid claims to that land, pushing back the people who were already there. To make matters worse, they bought people who were kidnapped from their homes and put on ships in chains. They put these people to hard work, whipping them if they slacked off or showed any signs of independence. They often quoted select passages from the Bible to justify the situation, completely ignoring “Do unto others…"
Later on, Irish escaped the famine brought on partly because the English took away some of the best farmland. When they came to the U.S., they were often greeted with signs “No Irish need apply!” Now people who have no Irish ancestry celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.
Swedes came in large numbers for better farmland than was available in Sweden. Because their English was not perfect they were often called “dumb Swedes”. This dumb whatever naming continued when immigrants from many other lands came to the U.S.
Russian Jews had their land expropriated by Tsarist thugs. They fled to the U.S. and made many cultural and business contributions. At the same time they were ostracized by “Christians” and kept out of many groups.
People of European descent kept pushing west taking land from Indians and Mexicans. For a variety of reasons, successive governments in Mexico were often corrupt and did not create an economy that benefited all the people. Many of these people sought jobs in the U.S., often in land that once was Mexico. They are paid lower wages than those whose ancestors took the land would accept.
The U.S. waged several wars in the Mideast to ensure a supply of oil, often corrupting or overthrowing governments to do so. Many people from these countries fled to the U.S. for a more stable life. Also large corporations hired many of the highly educated of these people because they worked for less and the corporations didn’t have to pay the taxes to educate them.
On and on it goes. “Why don’t you go back to where you came from?” This is directed at people whose families have been here for generations as well as people who have helped enhance the bottom line of large corporations. And how does one go back to where they came from if their ancestors came from many different places?
On top of all of this, the descendants of dissenters who left their homelands now want others to believe just as they do.
“When will we ever learn!”
Opportunists saw large areas of land to raise cotton and tobacco. By hook or crook they laid claims to that land, pushing back the people who were already there. To make matters worse, they bought people who were kidnapped from their homes and put on ships in chains. They put these people to hard work, whipping them if they slacked off or showed any signs of independence. They often quoted select passages from the Bible to justify the situation, completely ignoring “Do unto others…"
Later on, Irish escaped the famine brought on partly because the English took away some of the best farmland. When they came to the U.S., they were often greeted with signs “No Irish need apply!” Now people who have no Irish ancestry celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.
Swedes came in large numbers for better farmland than was available in Sweden. Because their English was not perfect they were often called “dumb Swedes”. This dumb whatever naming continued when immigrants from many other lands came to the U.S.
Russian Jews had their land expropriated by Tsarist thugs. They fled to the U.S. and made many cultural and business contributions. At the same time they were ostracized by “Christians” and kept out of many groups.
People of European descent kept pushing west taking land from Indians and Mexicans. For a variety of reasons, successive governments in Mexico were often corrupt and did not create an economy that benefited all the people. Many of these people sought jobs in the U.S., often in land that once was Mexico. They are paid lower wages than those whose ancestors took the land would accept.
The U.S. waged several wars in the Mideast to ensure a supply of oil, often corrupting or overthrowing governments to do so. Many people from these countries fled to the U.S. for a more stable life. Also large corporations hired many of the highly educated of these people because they worked for less and the corporations didn’t have to pay the taxes to educate them.
On and on it goes. “Why don’t you go back to where you came from?” This is directed at people whose families have been here for generations as well as people who have helped enhance the bottom line of large corporations. And how does one go back to where they came from if their ancestors came from many different places?
On top of all of this, the descendants of dissenters who left their homelands now want others to believe just as they do.
“When will we ever learn!”
Monday, November 14, 2016
Why we have our electoral mess
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, supposedly in 1858. See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:547?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.
The electoral college was one of the Constitutional stratagems slave owners used to protect themselves from the North taking away their slaves. Another was counting slaves as three-fifths persons. This increased the number of representatives they got far beyond the number of actual voters. Also basing the Senate on states rather than population, these less-populated states further increased their furtive power grab.
By increasing their relative state power in presidential elections, they hoped they could keep the end of slavery at bay.
They unleashed a long bloody war to protect this despicable practice. Unfortunately, they forgot the Constitutional provision that Congress could call out the militia to suppress insurrections. (In our own time, Congress seemed to forget this provision in dealing with the Bundys.)
So, the Electoral College differs from democracy and the five victories because of the Electoral College in our country's history have differed from democracy. Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party. Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.
See also "More on the Electoral College".
See also "More on the Electoral College".
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The United States is NOT a Christian Nation
...and it was not founded as such.
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “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.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “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.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
Sunday, May 03, 2015
The Magical Marketplace Can Be Malevolent
Once again, one who lives by profits justifies wages by the magic of the market. See “Work like you mean it, and let the market set the best wage” by Scott Sayer, Star Tribune, 2015-04-20. He writes, “Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth.”
Once upon a very bad time, market forces determined that a slave should work as many hours as the master required. These masters were so determined that they were right, they were willing to wage a bloody war to protect their interests.
Once upon a bad time, market forces determined that children should work as many hours as the masters of the factories required. These masters didn’t fight a military war to protect their interests, but they bought a lot of politicians to defeat child labor laws.
Once upon another bad time, market forces determined that young women should work long hours in unsafe working conditions as the masters of the factories required. Even fires and other disasters did not stop the corruption from letting these conditions continue. Then the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, killing 145 people, mostly immigrant teen-age girls, made a bit of progress in reducing these conditions.
Even in these supposedly more benign times, market forces determine that masters’ employees should work long hours, well past their ability to function safely. How many people other than these employees have been killed by truck or bus drivers working longer hours than the drivers could stay alert? Despite these deaths, there are still masters who decry government interference with too many regulations.
Now as many call for a minimum wage of $15/hour, Sayer states “Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth.” He complains that these figures are coming “from bureaucrats who never had to sign a paycheck in their lives.” But these “bureaucrats” are officials, elected by the People, who try to follow the Constitution and promote the “General Welfare”.
And just what are these “market forces” that Sayer mentions so often? Are they many buyers and many sellers free to enter and leave the market? Do these “market forces” provide buyers and sellers with all the information they need to make an informed decision? Are all the costs of the transaction covered, or are there costs that others must bear?
There are far fewer buyers of labor than sellers of labor. The buyers of labor are free to contract or expand their work force. The sellers of labor must find buyers or be hungry and without shelter.
Both buyers and sellers of labor might not provide all the information for informed decisions. Buyers might not provide all the details of the job, including how safe it is, how many onerous rules there are, and how reliably checks are issued. Sellers might overstate their credentials, hide unsuccessful performance, or hide illness that limits their abilities.
Both buyers and sellers of labor might push off costs to others. Buyers might not have insurance to cover work injuries. Sellers might engage in theft that needs to be investigated by public law enforcement officials. Buyers might pay less than “a living wage” passing off to others the concern that sellers have sufficient food, shelter, and clothing. Sometimes these costs are borne by relatives, sometimes by governments.
These are only a few of the ways that other than “market forces” can influence labor decisions.
Sayer decries that a living wage is based on 40 hours a week, and he wonders why such a limit. He ignores that many people fought and even died to get a standard work week set at 40 hours. This push came not from bureaucrats but workers who wanted long, healthy, and enjoyable lives. They defied Adam Smith’s observation that it was legal for the masters to unite to keep wages down but illegal for the workers to unite to raise wages.
Consider that a work day is eight hours plus a half hour for lunch. Assume that a worker has a half-hour commute each way and that the other two meals also take about a half hour each. The worker has now accounted for ten-and-half hours of the day. Add eight hours for sleep and fifteen minutes each preparing for bed or getting dressed. The worker has now accounted for nineteen hours of his or her day, leaving five hours for other activities. It seems Sayer believes that the work day should use these extra hours up to give him a thirteen-hour day from his employees.
Even when I was enjoying my job, I was quite willing to go home at the official quitting time. Sure, there were times when some pressing problem needed more work or when I was so involved in what I was doing that I didn’t want to stop. In fact, I don’t think that there was an hour of the day at which I didn’t work sometime or another. Sometimes that was when the work was to be done; sometimes that was when the work just kept going. But I was always glad when work returned to a normal day-time pace.
It was not bureaucrats who decided the work week should be 40 hours, but We the People. It was We the People who decided that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Once upon a very bad time, market forces determined that a slave should work as many hours as the master required. These masters were so determined that they were right, they were willing to wage a bloody war to protect their interests.
Once upon a bad time, market forces determined that children should work as many hours as the masters of the factories required. These masters didn’t fight a military war to protect their interests, but they bought a lot of politicians to defeat child labor laws.
Once upon another bad time, market forces determined that young women should work long hours in unsafe working conditions as the masters of the factories required. Even fires and other disasters did not stop the corruption from letting these conditions continue. Then the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, killing 145 people, mostly immigrant teen-age girls, made a bit of progress in reducing these conditions.
Even in these supposedly more benign times, market forces determine that masters’ employees should work long hours, well past their ability to function safely. How many people other than these employees have been killed by truck or bus drivers working longer hours than the drivers could stay alert? Despite these deaths, there are still masters who decry government interference with too many regulations.
Now as many call for a minimum wage of $15/hour, Sayer states “Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth.” He complains that these figures are coming “from bureaucrats who never had to sign a paycheck in their lives.” But these “bureaucrats” are officials, elected by the People, who try to follow the Constitution and promote the “General Welfare”.
And just what are these “market forces” that Sayer mentions so often? Are they many buyers and many sellers free to enter and leave the market? Do these “market forces” provide buyers and sellers with all the information they need to make an informed decision? Are all the costs of the transaction covered, or are there costs that others must bear?
There are far fewer buyers of labor than sellers of labor. The buyers of labor are free to contract or expand their work force. The sellers of labor must find buyers or be hungry and without shelter.
Both buyers and sellers of labor might not provide all the information for informed decisions. Buyers might not provide all the details of the job, including how safe it is, how many onerous rules there are, and how reliably checks are issued. Sellers might overstate their credentials, hide unsuccessful performance, or hide illness that limits their abilities.
Both buyers and sellers of labor might push off costs to others. Buyers might not have insurance to cover work injuries. Sellers might engage in theft that needs to be investigated by public law enforcement officials. Buyers might pay less than “a living wage” passing off to others the concern that sellers have sufficient food, shelter, and clothing. Sometimes these costs are borne by relatives, sometimes by governments.
These are only a few of the ways that other than “market forces” can influence labor decisions.
Sayer decries that a living wage is based on 40 hours a week, and he wonders why such a limit. He ignores that many people fought and even died to get a standard work week set at 40 hours. This push came not from bureaucrats but workers who wanted long, healthy, and enjoyable lives. They defied Adam Smith’s observation that it was legal for the masters to unite to keep wages down but illegal for the workers to unite to raise wages.
Consider that a work day is eight hours plus a half hour for lunch. Assume that a worker has a half-hour commute each way and that the other two meals also take about a half hour each. The worker has now accounted for ten-and-half hours of the day. Add eight hours for sleep and fifteen minutes each preparing for bed or getting dressed. The worker has now accounted for nineteen hours of his or her day, leaving five hours for other activities. It seems Sayer believes that the work day should use these extra hours up to give him a thirteen-hour day from his employees.
Even when I was enjoying my job, I was quite willing to go home at the official quitting time. Sure, there were times when some pressing problem needed more work or when I was so involved in what I was doing that I didn’t want to stop. In fact, I don’t think that there was an hour of the day at which I didn’t work sometime or another. Sometimes that was when the work was to be done; sometimes that was when the work just kept going. But I was always glad when work returned to a normal day-time pace.
It was not bureaucrats who decided the work week should be 40 hours, but We the People. It was We the People who decided that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The myths of fighting terrorism
President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism. But these actions only foment more terrorism. In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Saints to emulate
“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, Mark Antony, “Julius Caesar”, by William Shakespeare.
Last week I wrote “Criminals hiding behind religion”, those who use religion to justify violence against others, whether physical or mental.
As an antidote I would like to write about a few people who have a view of religion as a way to help others.
What is a saint? Many individuals and institutions have their definitions, exemplary behavior, martyrdom, and performing miracles. I define a saint as one who strives to help others, whether spiritually or physically. It is these saints whose good is not interred with their bones, but lives after them.
Let’s start with the good about Islam in conflict with the bad in “Islam”.
Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on a school bus by a Talib who didn’t like her promotion of education for girls above the age of 15. She survived the attack and is still promoting education to a much wider audience. Her parents support her. Her view is that Islam is a religion of “peace, humanity and brotherhood.” To her, the Taliban are “misusing the name of Islam” and are afraid of education.
Going back over a thousand years, there is the legendary Rabia. She supposedly ran through town with a torch and a pitcher of water. She wanted to set fire to heaven and quench the fires of hell. She thought people should love Allah without the promise of heaven or the fear of hell.
The Red Crescent Societies in various Muslim countries are part of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Among recent activities are aid for Syrian refugees.
Jesus may have been a zealot as described by Reza Aslan or the gentle soul of the Beatitudes or some mixture. But we would do well to heed his words about getting along with others instead of harshly judging those who differ with us. He did warn about false religiosity, such as praying in the public square to be seen by others. What would he think of government meetings being opened by prayer? Is that “rendering unto Caesar”?
Erasmus was a sixteenth century cleric and scholar. Although he stayed within the Catholic Church, he was critical of many of its abuses. He was later accused of hatching the Reformation and his books were banned. However, his view was much wider than mere doctrine. For example, “That you are patriotic will be praised by many and easily forgiven by everyone; but in my opinion it is wiser to treat men and things as though we held this world the common fatherland of all.” See Wikipedia for more.
Dorothy Day was many things, a journalist, a socialist, a communist, a labor activist, and a convert to Catholicism. Above all else, she believed in justice and serving others. She was a founding editor of The Catholic Worker from which came a “house of hospitality”, a shelter for the poor where they could also receive clothing and food. These spread into many cities, and many of us know about the Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul.
Mother Theresa is well-known for her “helping the poorest of poor”, but I once read that her hospices had a high death rate. But then I read elsewhere that she was taking in the dying dumped in the street and allowing them to die in dignity.
Quakers and other church groups gave support to the Underground Railroad, a network to move escaped slaves north. What a contrast; slaveowners used the Bible to justify slavery and others used the Bible to justify freeing slaves.
Nelson Mandela, baptized a Methodist, became an activist against apartheid. He was sentenced to life in prison by the apartheid government and served 27 years. Much of his early time was in solitary confinement or at hard labor. Despite this treatment, when he was released and eventually became president of South Africa he didn’t seek revenge but sought reconciliation.
The current Dalai Lama is a man who is easy to like. He is well-known for his wide-ranging generosity on many subjects and his sense of humor. He considers himself a communist and the Chinese Communists as capitalists. That is, he puts workers before profits and would like to see the benefits of enterprises shared and the poor better cared for. On the other hand, he gets along well with all sorts of “capitalists”.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born into a Hindu family. In his resistance to British rule in South Africa and India, he practiced non-violence and encouraged others to do likewise. He sought more equity for all – women’s rights, easing poverty, and religious and ethnic tolerance. He helped achieve independence for India, but he could not prevent religious intolerance from splitting his country in two. Sadly, he was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.
I thought that the Rabbi Hillel gave a two-part statement of basic belief, but I can only find one of these in a quick search. Jesus is quoted as saying the first law is “To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”. He was quoting from Deuteronomy. Then “And love thy neighbor as thyself.” Hillel said, “That which is hateful to you do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”
Anything in “religious writings” contrary to this last quote is political.
The above was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/05/22/3416_saints_to_emulate.
Last week I wrote “Criminals hiding behind religion”, those who use religion to justify violence against others, whether physical or mental.
As an antidote I would like to write about a few people who have a view of religion as a way to help others.
What is a saint? Many individuals and institutions have their definitions, exemplary behavior, martyrdom, and performing miracles. I define a saint as one who strives to help others, whether spiritually or physically. It is these saints whose good is not interred with their bones, but lives after them.
Let’s start with the good about Islam in conflict with the bad in “Islam”.
Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on a school bus by a Talib who didn’t like her promotion of education for girls above the age of 15. She survived the attack and is still promoting education to a much wider audience. Her parents support her. Her view is that Islam is a religion of “peace, humanity and brotherhood.” To her, the Taliban are “misusing the name of Islam” and are afraid of education.
Going back over a thousand years, there is the legendary Rabia. She supposedly ran through town with a torch and a pitcher of water. She wanted to set fire to heaven and quench the fires of hell. She thought people should love Allah without the promise of heaven or the fear of hell.
The Red Crescent Societies in various Muslim countries are part of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Among recent activities are aid for Syrian refugees.
Jesus may have been a zealot as described by Reza Aslan or the gentle soul of the Beatitudes or some mixture. But we would do well to heed his words about getting along with others instead of harshly judging those who differ with us. He did warn about false religiosity, such as praying in the public square to be seen by others. What would he think of government meetings being opened by prayer? Is that “rendering unto Caesar”?
Erasmus was a sixteenth century cleric and scholar. Although he stayed within the Catholic Church, he was critical of many of its abuses. He was later accused of hatching the Reformation and his books were banned. However, his view was much wider than mere doctrine. For example, “That you are patriotic will be praised by many and easily forgiven by everyone; but in my opinion it is wiser to treat men and things as though we held this world the common fatherland of all.” See Wikipedia for more.
Dorothy Day was many things, a journalist, a socialist, a communist, a labor activist, and a convert to Catholicism. Above all else, she believed in justice and serving others. She was a founding editor of The Catholic Worker from which came a “house of hospitality”, a shelter for the poor where they could also receive clothing and food. These spread into many cities, and many of us know about the Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul.
Mother Theresa is well-known for her “helping the poorest of poor”, but I once read that her hospices had a high death rate. But then I read elsewhere that she was taking in the dying dumped in the street and allowing them to die in dignity.
Quakers and other church groups gave support to the Underground Railroad, a network to move escaped slaves north. What a contrast; slaveowners used the Bible to justify slavery and others used the Bible to justify freeing slaves.
Nelson Mandela, baptized a Methodist, became an activist against apartheid. He was sentenced to life in prison by the apartheid government and served 27 years. Much of his early time was in solitary confinement or at hard labor. Despite this treatment, when he was released and eventually became president of South Africa he didn’t seek revenge but sought reconciliation.
The current Dalai Lama is a man who is easy to like. He is well-known for his wide-ranging generosity on many subjects and his sense of humor. He considers himself a communist and the Chinese Communists as capitalists. That is, he puts workers before profits and would like to see the benefits of enterprises shared and the poor better cared for. On the other hand, he gets along well with all sorts of “capitalists”.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born into a Hindu family. In his resistance to British rule in South Africa and India, he practiced non-violence and encouraged others to do likewise. He sought more equity for all – women’s rights, easing poverty, and religious and ethnic tolerance. He helped achieve independence for India, but he could not prevent religious intolerance from splitting his country in two. Sadly, he was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.
I thought that the Rabbi Hillel gave a two-part statement of basic belief, but I can only find one of these in a quick search. Jesus is quoted as saying the first law is “To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”. He was quoting from Deuteronomy. Then “And love thy neighbor as thyself.” Hillel said, “That which is hateful to you do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”
Anything in “religious writings” contrary to this last quote is political.
The above was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/05/22/3416_saints_to_emulate.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Back to the original Constitution? Be careful what you ask for!
In April, I submitted a letter to the Duluth News Tribune in response to a letter suggesting we should return to the original Constitution. I think the complaint was all the various Supreme Court decisions.
My letter hadn’t been published and I assumed it was not going to be. But then the Chuck Frederick, the opinion page editor, found some space, cleaned his desk, and published more than the usual number of letters on May 13.
Mine was:
My letter hadn’t been published and I assumed it was not going to be. But then the Chuck Frederick, the opinion page editor, found some space, cleaned his desk, and published more than the usual number of letters on May 13.
Mine was:
A letter writer recently stated, “Maybe we should go back to the original Constitution and what it stood for.” Be careful what you ask for. There is plenty that was added that many would not like to see removed: Bill of Rights, abolition of slavery, and the vote for women.I had thought of submitting a short additional paragraph, but never found a round tuit. That paragraph is:
Even those who were in politics at the time of the writing of the Constitution could not agree on its meaning. Thomas Jefferson (in France during the Convention) and John Adams had a long falling out over its meaning. Adams wanted a strong central government; Jefferson feared a strong central government.
Could these views on the central government be influenced by the facts that Adam abhorred slavery and Jefferson was a slave “owner”?Do these attitudes still persist? In the South there is still lingering resentment against desegregation. In West there is resentment against restrictions on using public resources.
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Resolutions, predictions, and premonitions
First, here are my guaranteed true predictions:
I won't break any of my New Year’s resolutions.
The stock market will go up and the stock market will go down.
The nation-wide turnout for the November elections will definitely be less than 70% and maybe even 60%.
There will be no new major national political party. I really hope I am wrong on this.
There will be updates for major fixes in almost all major computer software.
The first prediction is easy. I won’t break any New Year’s resolutions because I don’t make them. I do make plans and to-do lists, some of which I accomplish or do, but too often the items get pushed down and forgotten.
I have made a major commitment to be on a plant-based diet, aka vegan diet. In one of those little bits of randomness, when I saw the animation in the DVD “Forks over Knives” of plaque going off an artery, I was hooked on trying it. Essentially it’s avoiding meat, eggs, and dairy. There went yogurt on my oatmeal and my once a week omelet.
For the most part I’ve stuck to it. Within a week of starting, a friend sent us some Alaskan salmon. It is a standing joke with my wife and I that I get the bones and she doesn’t. Would you believe that almost every piece I ate had a bone and one had three!
The Freethinkers had their December monthly social at Gannucchi’s. Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat. So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get. The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January. I think I better call ahead to Gannucchi’s.
We have our three-year-old grandson from Japan with us. At one visit to the grocery store, he chose a sushi tray. Four of the pieces had salmon. But then he didn’t want those. He wanted only the rice under the salmon. So, Grandpa “had to eat” one of those pieces of salmon.
I hope I don’t get stuck in any of these situations again before my next cardiologist visit. I would like to see an improvement in my flow rate.
The prediction on turnout is easy, because we have so many people who don’t bother to show up, even when they have registered to vote. I don’t know if they are just plain lazy or don’t like any of the candidates. They don’t seem to realize that by not voting, they increase the odds of seeing the candidate they favor least elected.
There will be no new major party unless some national leaders create it. The Green Party has been around for years, but it has not become a major force in politics. The Independent Party of Minnesota has been around since Jesse Ventura won as a Reform Party candidate. There will be a “Forum for Building Progressive Political Power” on January 11 at “Copper Top”. But will the usual “liberal” suspects be able to engage more than each other? The only real hope is that a large number of “moderates” at the national level say enough is enough. It happened in 1854 with only thirty people meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin. The result was the Republican Party had a winning presidential candidate in 1860. Aren’t we past due for a re-alignment? Wouldn’t those who met in Ripon because they didn’t want to compromise on slavery be surprised to learn that their party has morphed into a party that doesn’t want to compromise on corporate interests?
What else can I predict than the no-brainers above?
No major advances will be made on abating global warming, at least at the government level. Many people will do their part on using less energy, but these people will only make a small dent in the emissions. Some municipalities or counties will plant more trees to absorb some of the carbon dioxide.
The sleeper may be China. As the complaints increase about the air pollution in many Chinese cities, the authorities may make a major push for alternative energy sources. This might include major grants to universities and companies to produce more efficient and cheaper energy sources. If they do so, the United States will be a major loser on the manufacturing side. Something the U.S. should have taken seriously, would you believe, in Jimmy Carter’s presidency!
There probably won’t be any major wars, but there will be plenty of local wars and terrorist attacks. Let’s hope Russia can take sufficient steps to thwart any who want to upset the Winter Games at Sochi.
I seriously doubt that there will be any major propaganda push to negate the appeal of hardline Islamists. The Qu’ran, like the Bible, certainly has many passages that call for peace and warn against violence.
My premonition is that China and the U.S. will continue their power play to assert their authority wherever they think their “vital interests” are at stake. Even though it is much more in either’s interests to avoid conflict, hardliners in either capitol could escalate the situation to the point of open war. Think Sarajevo and World War I.
I doubt if any leaders are going to step forward and say “enough”. “We really need to cut down on military expenses. We all could make better use of our resources.”
To end on a brighter note, may you have a happy and prosperous new year!
This was published in the 2014-01-02 edition of the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/02/2696_resolutions_predictions_and_premonitions.
I won't break any of my New Year’s resolutions.
The stock market will go up and the stock market will go down.
The nation-wide turnout for the November elections will definitely be less than 70% and maybe even 60%.
There will be no new major national political party. I really hope I am wrong on this.
There will be updates for major fixes in almost all major computer software.
The first prediction is easy. I won’t break any New Year’s resolutions because I don’t make them. I do make plans and to-do lists, some of which I accomplish or do, but too often the items get pushed down and forgotten.
I have made a major commitment to be on a plant-based diet, aka vegan diet. In one of those little bits of randomness, when I saw the animation in the DVD “Forks over Knives” of plaque going off an artery, I was hooked on trying it. Essentially it’s avoiding meat, eggs, and dairy. There went yogurt on my oatmeal and my once a week omelet.
For the most part I’ve stuck to it. Within a week of starting, a friend sent us some Alaskan salmon. It is a standing joke with my wife and I that I get the bones and she doesn’t. Would you believe that almost every piece I ate had a bone and one had three!
The Freethinkers had their December monthly social at Gannucchi’s. Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat. So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get. The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January. I think I better call ahead to Gannucchi’s.
We have our three-year-old grandson from Japan with us. At one visit to the grocery store, he chose a sushi tray. Four of the pieces had salmon. But then he didn’t want those. He wanted only the rice under the salmon. So, Grandpa “had to eat” one of those pieces of salmon.
I hope I don’t get stuck in any of these situations again before my next cardiologist visit. I would like to see an improvement in my flow rate.
The prediction on turnout is easy, because we have so many people who don’t bother to show up, even when they have registered to vote. I don’t know if they are just plain lazy or don’t like any of the candidates. They don’t seem to realize that by not voting, they increase the odds of seeing the candidate they favor least elected.
There will be no new major party unless some national leaders create it. The Green Party has been around for years, but it has not become a major force in politics. The Independent Party of Minnesota has been around since Jesse Ventura won as a Reform Party candidate. There will be a “Forum for Building Progressive Political Power” on January 11 at “Copper Top”. But will the usual “liberal” suspects be able to engage more than each other? The only real hope is that a large number of “moderates” at the national level say enough is enough. It happened in 1854 with only thirty people meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin. The result was the Republican Party had a winning presidential candidate in 1860. Aren’t we past due for a re-alignment? Wouldn’t those who met in Ripon because they didn’t want to compromise on slavery be surprised to learn that their party has morphed into a party that doesn’t want to compromise on corporate interests?
What else can I predict than the no-brainers above?
No major advances will be made on abating global warming, at least at the government level. Many people will do their part on using less energy, but these people will only make a small dent in the emissions. Some municipalities or counties will plant more trees to absorb some of the carbon dioxide.
The sleeper may be China. As the complaints increase about the air pollution in many Chinese cities, the authorities may make a major push for alternative energy sources. This might include major grants to universities and companies to produce more efficient and cheaper energy sources. If they do so, the United States will be a major loser on the manufacturing side. Something the U.S. should have taken seriously, would you believe, in Jimmy Carter’s presidency!
There probably won’t be any major wars, but there will be plenty of local wars and terrorist attacks. Let’s hope Russia can take sufficient steps to thwart any who want to upset the Winter Games at Sochi.
I seriously doubt that there will be any major propaganda push to negate the appeal of hardline Islamists. The Qu’ran, like the Bible, certainly has many passages that call for peace and warn against violence.
My premonition is that China and the U.S. will continue their power play to assert their authority wherever they think their “vital interests” are at stake. Even though it is much more in either’s interests to avoid conflict, hardliners in either capitol could escalate the situation to the point of open war. Think Sarajevo and World War I.
I doubt if any leaders are going to step forward and say “enough”. “We really need to cut down on military expenses. We all could make better use of our resources.”
To end on a brighter note, may you have a happy and prosperous new year!
This was published in the 2014-01-02 edition of the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/02/2696_resolutions_predictions_and_premonitions.
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Declaration of Independence is still a work in progress
For its July Fourth celebration of 1852, the city of Rochester NY invited Frederick Douglass to speak. Danny Glover gives an impassioned reading of that speech.
The accompanying notes intimidate the speech didn't go over so well but gives no further information.
But according to one account, it went over quite well. A letter to Douglass was "Dear Sir-The Ladies of the "Rochester Anti Slavery Sewing Society," desire me to return you their most sincere thanks for the eloquent and able address delivered in Corinthian Hall, on the 5th of July. Anticipating its speedy publication in Pamphlet form, they request that you will furnish them with one hundred copies for distribution:
In behalf of the Society,
SUSAN F. PORTER, President.
See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2945
As I suspected, the Danny Glover version is a shortened version of Douglass' speech. Few 19th Century orators would give an eight-minute speech.
I admit it, my 20th Century eyes don't have the patience to read through the complete speech. Now, will I get back to it before I read all the Federalist Papers or the Wealth of Nations? I have my doubts I will read completely through any of the three.
The accompanying notes intimidate the speech didn't go over so well but gives no further information.
But according to one account, it went over quite well. A letter to Douglass was "Dear Sir-The Ladies of the "Rochester Anti Slavery Sewing Society," desire me to return you their most sincere thanks for the eloquent and able address delivered in Corinthian Hall, on the 5th of July. Anticipating its speedy publication in Pamphlet form, they request that you will furnish them with one hundred copies for distribution:
In behalf of the Society,
SUSAN F. PORTER, President.
See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2945
As I suspected, the Danny Glover version is a shortened version of Douglass' speech. Few 19th Century orators would give an eight-minute speech.
I admit it, my 20th Century eyes don't have the patience to read through the complete speech. Now, will I get back to it before I read all the Federalist Papers or the Wealth of Nations? I have my doubts I will read completely through any of the three.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
If we change Lake Calhoun's name, then…
we have to change the names of thousands of other places.
Once again someone is calling for changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis because John C. Calhoun, for whom it was named, was proslavery.
If we do this then we must change the names of everything named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; after all, they both owned hundreds of slaves.
Even the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, waffled on the issue. He said slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, but only if the people wanted it. He would say in an election speech in northern Illinois that "all men are created equal" and say later in southern Illinois that "… I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races". See "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn, page 188. Honest Abe?
Once again someone is calling for changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis because John C. Calhoun, for whom it was named, was proslavery.
If we do this then we must change the names of everything named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; after all, they both owned hundreds of slaves.
Even the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, waffled on the issue. He said slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, but only if the people wanted it. He would say in an election speech in northern Illinois that "all men are created equal" and say later in southern Illinois that "… I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races". See "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn, page 188. Honest Abe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)