View Full Version : God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free
"God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free"
I saw the above bumper sticker today while waiting at a traffic light. After thinking on that simple thought--American History and such--I came to the conclusion that this is true. "God, Guts & Guns" really have purchased our freedom. They are part of our national heritage...sacred really.
------------------
It's all very large.
A lot of the anti-gun hooplah today conveniently ignores the responsible gun owner. They just don't make the news. It isn't sensational to hear that someone's kid didn't blow his own head off.
Although I am an atheist, it seems that a fair amount of God was implied along with our quest for freedom. It was quite a driving force.
Guts there is no substitute for. Even if you're smart enough to figure a non-combative way out of a situation, do you have the guts to go for it? Would you have stayed through Valley Forge? Would you have hit the beach on D-Day? Would you have lost your lunch just thinking about it? Would you have remained in your bus seat, like Rosa Parks? Would you have promoted civil rights in the deep South during the 60s?
I guess there's no way to deny it. The statement is true.
It is true. It's funny how such a simple statement can have so much meaning. It really is far-reaching and induces a lot of thought.
<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">
------------------
It's all very large.
I'm just curious what happens next. I mean ... sure, the statement is true, but that fact has utterly no significance I can figure. On the one hand, it might merely be perspective. To the other, it might not.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
"God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free"
Today, they are being percieved as an evil element in our society. Despite the above statement and its truth.
------------------
It's all very large.
So is the "truth" of said bumper sticker the only way to regard the elements of that truth?
Guns, God, and Guts have done a great deal of evil, as well. That's why the statement has such ambiguous impact on me. It's like: Great ... and they haven't done hideous, hideous damage, either?
I guess in that case, it's the people wielding them.
So would it be better, then, to say that "God, Guns, and Guts enabled a generation of human beings to achieve a limited convention of liberty"?
Don't get me wrong ... I get the implications of that bumper sticker; when did the freedom begin, and for whom?
For instance ... if we read Cabeza de Vaca's La Releacion, we find out how much Guts it took to demand in a foreign language that a person submit to you, and then to shoot them upon their hesitation to prostrate themselves, regardless of whether they understood you, or even heard you. God, guns, and guts, all in one loud boom! ;)
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Cable Man
09-19-00, 02:46 AM
Bowser-
You said it induces a lot of thought. Put into words as many thoughts as you can...even if they are seperate and do not fit next to each other. Would you go for it? You can edit it later.
Cable Man,
I would be here all night trying to write all of the thoughts which come to mind when I think of how those three things won our liberties and the liberties of others. I leave that to others to find for themselves. It doesn't require more then shallow knowledge of American history.
Tiassa,
"So is the "truth" of said bumper sticker the only way to regard the elements of that truth?
Well, the message was specific, but if you want to explore the negative, then you should. We all understand that Good and Evil occupy the same space; however, the message was a reflection of only the good which came from those three things.
------------------
It's all very large.
[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 19, 2000).]
Cool w/me ... I wanted to make sure we weren't taking the good aspects as gospel and hold them up exclusively.
Otherwise, I'll shut up. ;)
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
"Cool w/me ... I wanted to make sure we weren't taking the good aspects as gospel and hold them up exclusively."
No, you are right to point at the negative. It is there. We have done much harm to others with the above three. I suppose that we could weigh the two...Good and Evil, but we would be here for ever, debating over...a bumper sticker.
"Otherwise, I'll shut up."
<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> I doubt there's much probability of that ever happening; but then, these threads wouldn't be very interesting if you held your thoughts.
Take care.
------------------
It's all very large.
Cable Man
09-25-00, 05:48 AM
Tiassa
When I first came on board you drove me nuts. You would take something I percieved as good...mention all the bad points then chop up the good stuff analitically in such small pieces that they weren't good for anything anymore. Today I'm making a little more since out of it.
CableMan--
I actually could go on for hours about why I'm such a nitpicking twit about certain things.
I would hope it would suffice to say that it stems, on the one hand, from a tired observation that we do or do not engage in certain acts because they are good or bad, though we never stop to care what good or bad is. To the other is the fact that I'm an American, and very symptomatically.
We fight over abortion in this country; it's right to protect a woman's rights ... it's right to protect the unborn. And all the while neither side cares what factors contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country.
We argue about violence & guns. Our kids are dying in the streets, says one camp. Rights are rights are rights, says the other. Yet how many people are looking beyond music, video games, and television to explain what's going on?
It's that sort of thing. It isn't that I deny the good in something, but that I'm afraid to let that stand independent of its negative remainder. The average American's attention span is somewhere shorter than seven seconds. The American memory seems even shorter.
We secured liberty in the US through revolution. But we had to do it again eighty years later. Having resolved liberty then, we would engage the process again only a few decades later. Now that everyone could vote, so to speak, we're doing it all over again in other ways. The Civil Rights movement; the struggles in The Castro ... all because we never looked seriously at the downside we're creating with our best intentions.
The most naked idea I can conceive would be encomienda, in which Spanish missionaries would enslave indigenous Americans with the intent of Christianizing them and saving their souls. Sure, you're doing a nice thing by helping them toward heaven, but you're also enslaving people.
That sort of thing.
Wow ... I could ramble all day, indeed. I'll stop now. ;)
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
I Have the tattoo that reads:
God, Guns, and Guts...
...Made America Free
I am a Big gun Enthusiast,
I strongly believe this is true
How perceptive :rolleyes: . God, Guts & Guns made a lot of things. How typically American to presume that those three things, taken together or induividually, are exclusive to America.
JJJ ... let me guess, you were doing a google search on your tattoo: "god guts guns" and it landed you here. Then, you decided to register. right?
welcome to sciforums.
Ophiolite
12-13-04, 03:40 PM
Strange. Based upon the number of times I have been told by well meaning persons - "You don't want to go there", or "You certainly don't want to go there after dark" - I wonder just how free you are.
Clockwood
12-13-04, 04:10 PM
Immensely free... in comparison to most of the world and most of history. Considering what we chave to go on and who our rolemodels were, we are doing -great-.
Undecided
12-13-04, 04:27 PM
What's funny is that America was founded by a bunch of religious zealots, and communists...;) food for thought.
How perceptive . God, Guts & Guns made a lot of things. How typically American to presume that those three things, taken together or induividually, are exclusive to America.
Where in the statement...
"God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free"
...does it imply that those are exclusively American? Speaking of presumption.
guthrie
12-13-04, 05:03 PM
Well, if your going to define freedom as what the USA has just now, and accept the centrality of killing other people to the conquest of the American continent, let alone the importance of it abroad, and the way that God is so great that the constitution separates church and state, then, sure, god guts and guns made the USA.
Look folks, its a bumper sticker. Its not made to spark deep thought, its meant to demonstrate the owners beliefs.
Ophiolite
12-13-04, 05:08 PM
Immensely free... in comparison to most of the world and most of history.
Setting your sights quite low then? Wouldn't that constitute an un-American activity?
Not as free, I would venture, as most of Western Europe.
Where in the statement...
"God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free"
...does it imply that those are exclusively American? Speaking of presumption.
The statement is presumptuous. The fact that it is written on a bumper sticker implies that the USA is special because it was made free by god, guts and guns. In reality, every war and nation is won by those 3 things. What is also presumptuous is how Americans take ownership of the word “free” or “freedom”. Every single war is fought to achieve freedom. Sure the statement is true, but there’s nothing special about it. It’s intended to stir up pride and patriotism and that is presumptious.
Clockwood
12-13-04, 05:35 PM
They are not exclusively ours... but we are one of the few countries to have all three throughout their history. Most lose one or all at some point in their development.
The bumpersticker served an important role. So many people had forgotten that bit of truth.
Setting your sights quite low then? Wouldn't that constitute an un-American activity?
Not as free, I would venture, as most of Western Europe.
Where you can't own a gun, piping must be put on the outside of a building, light switches must never be installed inside a bathroom, cameras are everywhere, plug heads are only sold separately from household appliances, you can't find a pizza above personal size, and you get in trouble for making a sign in the wrong language.
The statement is presumptuous. The fact that it is written on a bumper sticker implies that the USA is special because it was made free by god, guts and guns.
It only implies that the writer of the bumper sticker quote believes that America was founded upon God, Guts and Guns. You're the one presuming that the writer implied that it makes the US unique.
What is also presumptuous is how Americans take ownership of the word “free” or “freedom”.
Assuming this were even true, this bothers you because...?
Every single war is fought to achieve freedom. Sure the statement is true, but there’s nothing special about it. It’s intended to stir up pride and patriotism and that is presumptious.
So explain to me how an American displaying pride and patriotism by displaying a bumper sticker is being presumptious.
By all means, don't let reality get in the way of your anti-Americanism.
What's funny is that America was founded by a bunch of religious zealots, and communists...;) food for thought.
So which ones were which?
Ophiolite
12-13-04, 07:35 PM
Refering to the alleged greater freedom in Europe
Where you can't own a gun, piping must be put on the outside of a building, light switches must never be installed inside a bathroom, cameras are everywhere, plug heads are only sold separately from household appliances, you can't find a pizza above personal size, and you get in trouble for making a sign in the wrong language.
Where you can't own a gun: Well although I don't want to I can, and if I were a Swiss male I would be obliged to.
Piping must be put on the outside of a building: Huh!!
Light switches must never be installed in a bathroom: Ah. You got me there. We have lost the freedom to enjoy accidental electrocution while bathing.
Cameras are everywhere: I'm an exhibitionist. So sue me.
Plug heads are only sold separately from household appliances: as opposed to only sold attached?
Can't find giant pizza's: You're looking in the wrong places son.
Signs in wrong language: No, you lost me there.
Now to be serious. I posted my original comments to introduce the point of view that not all Europeans consider the US free in ways that they find attractive. These may reflect personal and regional preferences, certainly. I am not actually claiming that Europe is freer than the US, though it might be. How do you measure freedom? But I certainly reject the implication in many of the other posts in this thread that the US is the epitome of freedom.
Red Devil
12-13-04, 10:59 PM
"God, Guts & Guns Made U.S. Free".
hmmm, nothing to really brag about if you ask me.
1. god. Americans throughout their short history have claimed god on thier side as they used their
2. guns. to massacre indians, each other, foreigners, and thereby ensuring
3. guts. spilt on foreign soils both theirs and so called enemies.
I am not anti american but your history is nothing to brag about.
madanthonywayne
12-13-04, 11:20 PM
What's funny is that America was founded by a bunch of religious zealots, and communists... food for thought.
You are referring, I assume, to the Mayflower compact? You neglected to mention the fact that the pilgrims soon figured out that communism didn't work and started the US on the path to prosperity: Capitalism.
Gravity
12-14-04, 12:09 AM
I guess God, Guts and Box Cutters make the 9/11 guys successful then?
madanthonywayne
12-14-04, 01:53 AM
I believe it was Satan, insanity, and box cutters
surenderer
12-14-04, 09:00 AM
I wonder how Native Americans feel about that bumper sticker......or Africans from slave ships.... how about their desendents ? Why does America have affirmative action if it is free? This bumper sticker seems to speak not to all Americans but to only the ones of Euro-Desent. I bet a million dollars that it wasnt a minority that had that bumper sticker on their car.....but hey I'm a minority in America so what do I know? <shrug>
It only implies that the writer of the bumper sticker quote believes that America was founded upon God, Guts and Guns. You're the one presuming that the writer implied that it makes the US unique.
Why would you have a bumper sticker that does not say something unique or special? Would anyone have a bumper sticker saying "America is normal"?
dsdsds: What is also presumptuous is how Americans take ownership of the word “free” or “freedom”.
Spyke: Assuming this were even true, this bothers you because...?
It makes Americans falsely beleive that they are the pioneers of freedom. It also blurrs the reality and difference between "personal" freedom and "national" freedom.
So explain to me how an American displaying pride and patriotism by displaying a bumper sticker is being presumptious.
I already did. Again, American wars/victories/defeats are not any more Godlier, Guttier, and Gunlier than any other. Other than presumptious, it is bad to take pride in anything which is derived by "guts & guns". It implies that violence is needed and good for America. It implies that guts need to be spilled. The bumper sticker is displaying blind patriotism and counterproductive to achieving success ("freedom") through communication and peace.
By all means, don't let reality get in the way of your anti-Americanism.
.. with you or against you, huh?
Why would you have a bumper sticker that does not say something unique or special? Would anyone have a bumper sticker saying "America is normal"?
So you believe that bumper stickers have to be unique? That they can't simply be an expression of someone's own belief?
It makes Americans falsely beleive that they are the pioneers of freedom. It also blurrs the reality and difference between "personal" freedom and "national" freedom.
With a small group of Americans perhaps, I'll grant you that, but the bumper sticker itself represents an individual American's belief in how America's freedom was gained and maintained. Granted, I disagree to a degree with the thought represented in the sticker, but I'll defend anyone's right to dsplay it. Personally, I think it should have read more like 'Guns, Guts and the Fortunes of Geographic Location Made America Free', but it wasn't my bumper sticker.
I already did. Again, American wars/victories/defeats are not any more Godlier, Guttier, and Gunlier than any other.
No, you didn't, because once again, you only told me what your own assumptions about the statement were.
Other than presumptious, it is bad to take pride in anything which is derived by "guts & guns". It implies that violence is needed and good for America. It implies that guts need to be spilled. The bumper sticker is displaying blind patriotism and counterproductive to achieving success ("freedom") through communication and peace.
Look, it's a meaningless bumper sticker. If it was the mission statement on a government website I might say you had a point.
.. with you or against you, huh?
I don't care one way or the other if you're 'with me or against me'. I simply find it funny that you make such a sweeping assumption of a statement on a bumper sticker, and then claim the bumper sticker statement is 'presumptious'. But I suspect that was the intent of the original poster anyway. To rile up up some of the usual suspects among Sciforums posters.
Perhaps, I'm taking this more seriously than I should. I do believe in anyone's right to display and express anything on a bumper sticker. I guess I am repulsed and afraid that maybe shit like this is becoming ingrained in America's subconscious. For f@ck's sake, some idiot tattood this on his skin!
Undecided
12-14-04, 02:23 PM
Ah yes the pretentiousness of American nationalism, but to be fair almost every nation on Earth acts this way, the reason why Americans are the most arrogant about it is because instead of actually learning history, they learn propaganda. Americans learn from the white perspective of history, while the founding fathers were bleating about freedom, the blacks were still slaves, untold thousands of natives were being killed in genocides, it is known that the American war of independence actually held back emancipation for blacks for generations. America is a country founded and fed on principles to cover up the reality, America the land of the free in theory surely in reality not really. Americans are feed this constant belief that America is truly great, and America is always right no matter how genocidal their actions maybe. To be fair America is a nation freer then most, America was the world’s first suffrage based “democracy” (loosely used word term), but it was not a liberal democracy until well after WWI. I think looking back on American history, the concept of American freedom reached an apex btwn 1945 and 1980, when the barriers of American society came crumbling down. Now from the Reagan years America is sadly regressing, well behind Canada, and other western liberal democracies. The world is moving on from America, Europe is seen as the new area of freedom, with the most extensive human rights code on Earth. America Clockwood is a verge police state, you don’t think you are being watched? Don’t be so gullible, you don’t think the US gov’t can’t just look at your e-mails, if they “suspect you of terrorism related activities” whatever that may ultimately mean. Read the Patriot Acts, which to me show the gullibility of the American people so well. The phrase “Patriot Act” shows how the gov’t can cover up these fascistic laws with a “patriotic” rhetoric. It would seem if you disagree with the Patriot Act you aren’t a Patriot. Absolutely amazing use of ignorance, and gullibility for the majority of Americans. American history is written by the white man, and his victories who knows how many died for your “great country”. But to be fair that goes for virtually all American countries, mine included. America is a nation like any other, but the difference is the intensity of that nationalism that irks so many.
You are referring, I assume, to the Mayflower compact? You neglected to mention the fact that the pilgrims soon figured out that communism didn't work and started the US on the path to prosperity: Capitalism
It doesn’t matter what the consequences were, those people were communists and came to America to establish a religious communistic way of living which still exists in the Amish country. America was founded by communists. Ask any high school graduate, they wouldn't know that.
spidergoat
12-14-04, 02:35 PM
"God, Guts & Guns" really have purchased our freedom...
...with a little help from smallpox, slavery, and slaughter.
Gravity
12-14-04, 05:51 PM
I believe it was Satan, insanity, and box cutters
OMG, are you that much of a walking stereotype?
Listen, I don't think it was really ''God'' that was telling them to pull 9/11, or ''Satan''. Anymore than I think it was anything more than imagination when Dubya said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did"
Anymore than I think it was really God (or Satan) telling Jim Jones to serve ******** Kool-Aid to all those people. Anymore than I think it was God telling that woman to kill her children in Texas a few months back, and etc.
Whether or not we have been justified in our actions is a completely different thing than arguing that some ''loving'' god is ordering anybody to kill anybody, or that the same ''all-powerful and loving'' god would be allowing ''Satan'' to pull that crap either.
You are an easily manipulated tool if you buy into that garbage.
For f@ck's sake, some idiot tattood this on his skin
I'll admit that is idiotic.
It doesn’t matter what the consequences were, those people were communists and came to America to establish a religious communistic way of living which still exists in the Amish country. America was founded by communists. Ask any high school graduate, they wouldn't know that.
As you said, the Puritans "came to America to establish a religious communistic way of living". The traditional religious communism of some religious sects, based on the communism of the Jerusalem Church and mentioned in the book of Acts, in no way resembles the arbitrary 20th century communism, so I'm not sure of your point about irony.
Incidentally, upon arriving in America at Plymouth, while the Pilgrims initiated traditional communism with the idea that for seven years there was to have been no private ownership of land, and everyone was to have been fed and clothed from the common stock, they abandoned that very quickly. Just like anyone today in a democratic, capitalistic society, the Puritans bought and sold goods and made profits on their earnings.
As far as the Amish, I wouldn't consider them founders of America. The first groups of Amish, or Mennonites, didn't even come over and began to settle in Pennsylvania until the early 18th century, a full 100 years after the first colony was founded at Jamestown. Most of the original 13 colonies were already established by that time, Georgia and Delaware, I believe, being the two exceptions.
Listen, I don't think it was really ''God'' that was telling them to pull 9/11, or ''Satan''. Anymore than I think it was anything more than imagination when Dubya said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did"
Anymore than I think it was really God (or Satan) telling Jim Jones to serve ******** Kool-Aid to all those people. Anymore than I think it was God telling that woman to kill her children in Texas a few months back, and etc.
Or God telling President McKinley, when he got down on his knees and prayed for direction, to annex the Philippines. However, I bet it was really Satan speaking throught that German Shepherd telling David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz to shoot all of those young couples. :cool:
Gravity
12-14-04, 06:52 PM
Or God telling President McKinley, when he got down on his knees and prayed for direction, to annex the Philippines. However, I bet it was really Satan speaking throught that German Shepherd telling David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz to shoot all of those young couples. :cool:
Well, you might have something there. Though BOB whispered in my ear that it was actually Shiva at fault for that one.
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics11/CLASSIC_SUBG_ART/Classic-Art-of-SubG-II/thumbnails/TrueDobbshead-ScanFrmOrig.jpg
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics11/CLASSIC_SUBG_ART/Classic-Art-of-SubG-II/image-html/WellmanBottom.html
guthrie
12-15-04, 01:39 PM
Stupid me, I forgot about the fourth G! Theres one missing from the trilogy.
Undecided
12-15-04, 03:07 PM
The traditional religious communism of some religious sects, based on the communism of the Jerusalem Church and mentioned in the book of Acts, in no way resembles the arbitrary 20th century communism, so I'm not sure of your point about irony.
Firstly there are major problems with this line of argumentation which you present, no where did I assert that Marxist communism was used to establish the Pilgrims, so I don’t see why you are bringing it up. Secondly if you cannot see the irony of communists setting up in America which today is the anti-thesis of those values then are you sure you live in the reality we do?
they abandoned that very quickly. Just like anyone today in a democratic, capitalistic society, the Puritans bought and sold goods and made profits on their earnings.
Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America, and turned capitalist. Also those values still exist very strongly in Pennsylvania.
As far as the Amish, I wouldn't consider them founders of America.
Do quote where I said they were?
Ophiolite
12-15-04, 04:10 PM
The traditional religious communism of some religious sects, based on the communism of the Jerusalem Church and mentioned in the book of Acts, in no way resembles the arbitrary 20th century communism, so I'm not sure of your point about irony.
Two points:
what characteristics of '20th Century Communism" render it arbitrary?
No country in the 20th century was communist. Yes. You read that correctly. I'll repeat it. No country in the 20th century was communist. If you are going to knock, directly or indirectly, a philosophy it behoves you to have at least a marginal understanding of it. Perhaps the clue is in the names: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism was a step on the road to communism, just as capitalism was. No country ever made that final step.
Undecided
12-15-04, 04:47 PM
Nevermind that the communist revolution cannot happen until the capitalist revolution is over...so to those who its dead...think again.
Firstly there are major problems with this line of argumentation which you present, no where did I assert that Marxist communism was used to establish the Pilgrims, so I don’t see why you are bringing it up. Secondly if you cannot see the irony of communists setting up in America which today is the anti-thesis of those values then are you sure you live in the reality we do?
What's ironic about that? A religious group who believed in a communal practice who quickly abandoned it for capitalism shortly after arriving on the shores of America. Yeah, that's ironic. :bugeye: Never mind that they weren't even the first group to settle here anyway. The Jamestown colony, which was established pretty much to establish a profitable colony in the Americas to challenge the Spanish, beat the Separatists here by over a decade anyway, so they were the earliest founders.
they abandoned that very quickly. Just like anyone today in a democratic, capitalistic society, the Puritans bought and sold goods and made profits on their earnings.
Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America, and turned capitalist. Also those values still exist very strongly in Pennsylvania.
Their communal practice had nothing to do with them coming to America. They came to America because they thought the Dutch were too lax in their religion, because they were afraid their children would adopt Dutch culture, and because they feared that sooner or later that Catholic Spain would attack the Netherlands, and they didn't want to attempt to resettle in England and face persecution.
As far as the Amish, I wouldn't consider them founders of America.
Do quote where I said they were?
Well, let's see. You said it was ironic that America was founded by communists and then proceeded to use the Puritans and the Amish as your examples. So why did you bother to bring up the Amish then in the thread?
Ophiolite
Two points:
what characteristics of '20th Century Communism" render it arbitrary?
Arbitrary, as in dictatorial.
No country in the 20th century was communist. Yes. You read that correctly. I'll repeat it. No country in the 20th century was communist. If you are going to knock, directly or indirectly, a philosophy it behoves you to have at least a marginal understanding of it. Perhaps the clue is in the names: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism was a step on the road to communism, just as capitalism was. No country ever made that final step.
Well, my oh my, aren't we the condescending one? I've never heard that before. :rolleyes: But you answered your own question as to what I meant by arbitrary communism. 20th century 'communism' was nothing more than arbitrary totalitarianism, which might explain why I said it was not comparable to the 'communism' of the Puritans. And, by the way, I'd venture I understand communism as well as you do.
Ophiolite
12-16-04, 01:57 AM
Well, my oh my, aren't we the condescending one? I've never heard that before. :rolleyes:
If you create an impression of ignorance, of certain facts, in your posts you may expect someone to attempt to educate you as to these facts. Naturally, if you actually know what you are talking about you will feel this free lesson to be patronising. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
But you answered your own question as to what I meant by arbitrary communism. 20th century 'communism' was nothing more than arbitrary totalitarianism
Since you say earlier that arbitrary=dictatorial, then arbitrary totalinarianism = dictatorial totalinarianism. Is there some other kind?
And, by the way, I'd venture I understand communism as well as you do.
I've no doubt you do, which makes your misapplication of the term even more regrettable.
If you create an impression of ignorance, of certain facts, in your posts you may expect someone to attempt to educate you as to these facts.
Well, you were the one that was apparently confused by the application of the term 'arbitrary', which led to your misunderstanding of the intent of the rest of the post. Looks like it went down hill from there.
Since you say earlier that arbitrary=dictatorial, then arbitrary totalinarianism = dictatorial totalinarianism. Is there some other kind?
You tell me. You're the one giving free lessons, although I would suggest an oligarchy could be rather totalitarian in nature. I would also suggest that following the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union, with its ruling elite, could be considered much closer in nature to an oligarchy than a dictatorship. But then, you're the one giving lessons.
I've no doubt you do, which makes your misapplication of the term even more regrettable.
Yes. Very unfortunate. Next time I'll be sure to make use of those little quotation thingies when referring to 'communism', or even better, maybe even italicize the word and give a wink as well, 'communism' ;), so as not to confuse anyone about whether I'm referencing 20th century 'communism' ;), or true communalism.
guthrie
12-16-04, 01:22 PM
The fourth G = Greed!
Undecided
12-16-04, 02:59 PM
What's ironic about that? A religious group who believed in a communal practice who quickly abandoned it for capitalism shortly after arriving on the shores of America.
Hmmm…you cannot be this slow can you Spyke? Let’s see what are American taught en masse what the country was founded on, freedom, and capitalistic entrepreneurship (I realize French words like that are taboo), when in reality it was founded on communism and the belief in shared responsibility…hmmm does that sound somewhat contradictory? I don’t care if they “turned capitalist” whatever that may mean, the consequences happened after they arrived in the Americas, thus the country was not founded on capitalism comprende? Is this to hard to understand if so, too bad.
Never mind that they weren't even the first group to settle here anyway. The Jamestown colony, which was established pretty much to establish a profitable colony in the Americas to challenge the Spanish, beat the Separatists here by over a decade anyway, so they were the earliest founders.
To bad they basically all died…the first successful immigrants I would suppose. Let’s say they were the first to actually make it.
Their communal practice had nothing to do with them coming to America. They came to America because they thought the Dutch were too lax in their religion, because they were afraid their children would adopt Dutch culture, and because they feared that sooner or later that Catholic Spain would attack the Netherlands, and they didn't want to attempt to resettle in England and face persecution.
That’s doesn’t mean that one of their founding principles was not communism…stop the tangents here, that was a couse of their migration and I never asserted otherwise, stop rationalizing its getting sad now. America was founded by a bunch of Utopian communists. If you cannot see the irony in that, I will show you. (http://www.monmouth.com/~cathygrim/mccarthy.jpg)
Well, let's see. You said it was ironic that America was founded by communists and then proceeded to use the Puritans and the Amish as your examples.
Ok that’s illogical now…what’s ur reasoning here A+Z= C? You still have to show outside illogical conjectures where I said whatever nonsense you lied and said I asserted.
So why did you bother to bring up the Amish then in the thread? A miniture Cornelius you are! (http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/smyth/images/baby%20monkey.jpg)
Ophiolite
12-16-04, 04:03 PM
We can trade 'clever' put downs ad infinitum. Somewhat boring. I'll address a final point.
Next time I'll be sure to make use of those little quotation thingies when referring to 'communism', or even better, maybe even italicize the word and give a wink as well, 'communism' ;), so as not to confuse anyone about whether I'm referencing 20th century 'communism' ;), or true communalism.
'Communism' has become a label with a host of attached prejudices and perspectives, often inaccurate, frequently emotional. It is often used as a bogie-man in debates, in preference to well considered argument. In my opinion such looseness serves no one well, at any time. It should be countered. That was the purpose of my original post. I regret that you chose to take it as a personal attack, and, from the tenor of the quotation above, intend to use it as a 'label' in the future.
What's ironic about that? A religious group who believed in a communal practice who quickly abandoned it for capitalism shortly after arriving on the shores of America.
Hmmm…you cannot be this slow can you Spyke?
I can be slow on a lot of things, but not this.
Let’s see what are American taught en masse what the country was founded on, freedom, and capitalistic entrepreneurship (I realize French words like that are taboo), when in reality it was founded on communism and the belief in shared responsibility…hmmm does that sound somewhat contradictory? I don’t care if they “turned capitalist” whatever that may mean, the consequences happened after they arrived in the Americas, thus the country was not founded on capitalism comprende? Is this to hard to understand if so, too bad.
The idea was to settle America because James I wanted to imitate Spain and create an empire in the new World. To make a profit for the Crown. That was the reason for the first settlement (that survived at any rate, since Roanoke failed somewhere between 1588 and 1591) in America at Jamestown. And for that matter, the Dutch established the New Amsterdam at roughly the same time as the Separatists were settling Plymouth, 1620 for Plymouth and 1624 for New Amsterdam, and the latter was purely for the fur trade, a capitalist venture. And let's not forget the oldest community in the US, St. Augustine, FL, settled by the Spanish. It was a base for the Spanish to seek treasures in North America. And then the Maryland and the Carolinas were not far behind the Puritans in Massachusetts. While Maryland was chartered to a Catholic and Pennsylvania to a Quaker, both expected to make a profit by selling land to settlers. Neither were communal in nature. So we're left with only one of the many early colonies were established by Utopians. So how do we make the jump to "America was settled by communists"?
Never mind that they weren't even the first group to settle here anyway. The Jamestown colony, which was established pretty much to establish a profitable colony in the Americas to challenge the Spanish, beat the Separatists here by over a decade anyway, so they were the earliest founders.
To bad they basically all died…the first successful immigrants I would suppose. Let’s say they were the first to actually make it.
I already did say they were the first to actually make it, at least English. And not all of them died. While a majority died each year for the first few years, each year the numbers were reinforced and it survived.
Their communal practice had nothing to do with them coming to America. They came to America because they thought the Dutch were too lax in their religion, because they were afraid their children would adopt Dutch culture, and because they feared that sooner or later that Catholic Spain would attack the Netherlands, and they didn't want to attempt to resettle in England and face persecution.
That’s doesn’t mean that one of their founding principles was not communism…stop the tangents here, that was a couse of their migration and I never asserted otherwise, stop rationalizing its getting sad now.
You never asserted otherwise? Really? Well who was it that said this:
"Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America,..."
That's a pretty assertive statement, despite being completely untrue.
America was founded by a bunch of Utopian communists.
No, it wasn't. Only one of a number of communities was settled by Utopians. Of course, one could argue that the original settlers, the Native Americans, were the first communists to establish communities here.
If you cannot see the irony in that, I will show you. (http://www.monmouth.com/~cathygrim/mccarthy.jpg)
So what's a picture of Joe supposed to show me?
Well, let's see. You said it was ironic that America was founded by communists and then proceeded to use the Puritans and the Amish as your examples.
Ok that’s illogical now…what’s ur reasoning here A+Z= C? You still have to show outside illogical conjectures where I said whatever nonsense you lied and said I asserted.
Getting past the fact that last sentence made absolutely no sense, you stated that America was founded by communists, and then used two groups as examples, the Separatists at Plymouth, and the Amish in Pennsylvania. When I noted that the Amish didn't come to America until a century after the first settlement, so how could they be considered founders, you claimed you weren't implying they were. So I asked then why bring them up in the first place? Speaking of slow...
So why did you bother to bring up the Amish then in the thread? A miniture Cornelius you are! (http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/smyth/images/baby%20monkey.jpg)
You lost me. The link is bad and I have no idea who Cornelius is, much less a 'miniture'[sic] Cornelius. I guess I'm slow. ;)
We can trade 'clever' put downs ad infinitum. Somewhat boring.
True enough, and I'm sure both of us already know we're clever. ;)
I'll address a final point.
'Communism' has become a label with a host of attached prejudices and perspectives, often inaccurate, frequently emotional. It is often used as a bogie-man in debates, in preference to well considered argument. In my opinion such looseness serves no one well, at any time. It should be countered.
I understand, but undecided and I have had such 'discussions' before, and there have been numerous threads on this forum strictly on what is, and what isn't communism. So you'll have to forgive my informality when I was intent on making another point to another poster.
That was the purpose of my original post. I regret that you chose to take it as a personal attack,...
You mean it wasn't supposed to be a personal attack? Well, then, I stand corrected, but, upon taking another look-see...
No country in the 20th century was communist. Yes. You read that correctly. I'll repeat it. No country in the 20th century was communist. If you are going to knock, directly or indirectly, a philosophy it behoves you to have at least a marginal understanding of it.
...so how did you intend for that to be taken? Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly thin-skinned, but at the same time, when someone feels they are being talked down to...
...and, from the tenor of the quotation above, intend to use it as a 'label' in the future.
Lest I offend anyone, yes.
Undecided
12-16-04, 04:48 PM
The idea was to settle America because James I wanted to imitate Spain and create an empire in the new World.
Sure that goes for the entire continent really, since the concept of America was not as it is now. So to assert that “the United States of America” was based on that is a stretch. Secondly the Pilgrims are generally regarded as the people who were the first to make American settlements, and their religious piety is always repeated to the world as one of the founding principles of America as we now know it today.
That was the reason for the first settlement (that survived at any rate, since Roanoke failed somewhere between 1588 and 1591) in America at Jamestown. And for that matter, the Dutch established the New Amsterdam at roughly the same time as the Separatists were settling Plymouth, 1620 for Plymouth and 1624 for New Amsterdam, and the latter was purely for the fur trade, a capitalist venture.
But again you are going on to tangents in reality, those early failed settlements mean nothing, are you speaking Dutch? No, thus another irrelevancy it was those pilgrims that made what we would consider America, America. Of course the British crown which was behind virtually everyone at that time in Empire building wanted a mercantilist colony, but the pilgrims were not there for those reasons.
And let's not forget the oldest community in the US, St. Augustine, FL, settled by the Spanish. It was a base for the Spanish to seek treasures in North America.
Tangent…and irrelevant…although nice tid bit of useless history.
Neither were communal in nature. So we're left with only one of the many early colonies were established by Utopians. So how do we make the jump to "America was settled by communists"?
Because they were the first people to settle in America to make America what it is today, and they were here because of their beliefs one of which is communism.
You never asserted otherwise? Really?
Really, why are you making up arguments that aren’t there, I am even agreeing with you yet you insist on disagreeing with me…sad?
"Why focus on the consequences, if they didn’t have those communistic values they wouldn’t have even gone to America,..."
That's a pretty assertive statement, despite being completely untrue.
Were not these people fleeing from religious persecution, and one of their core religious beliefs was communism? So the only untrue thing here is your spinning.
No, it wasn't. Only one of a number of communities was settled by Utopians. Of course, one could argue that the original settlers, the Native Americans, were the first communists to establish communities here.
Oh please…I won’t even go there.
So what's a picture of Joe supposed to show me?
Irony which so escapes you (which mystifies me to a large extent since you aren’t an idiot). I don’t think “Joe” was chasing after capitalists…
When I noted that the Amish didn't come to America until a century after the first settlement, so how could they be considered founders, you claimed you weren't implying they were.
No I wasn’t all I said was that the traditional religious communistic way of living is still strong in the US Amish communities, no where did I say they found the nation. Sorry if you have a disorder when it comes to interpreting sentences but that is not my problem.
You lost me. The link is bad and I have no idea who Cornelius is, much less a 'miniture'[sic] Cornelius. I guess I'm slow. ;)
Indeed…you seemed to have never watched planet of the apes…you damn dirty ape!
The idea was to settle America because James I wanted to imitate Spain and create an empire in the new World.
Sure that goes for the entire continent really, since the concept of America was not as it is now.
The 'concept' of America now is much closer to the Crown's desire to turn a profit than it is to the communalism of those few Separatists.
So to assert that “the United States of America” was based on that is a stretch.
Much less a stretch than attempting to say the United States of America' was based on that one small group of Separatists.
Secondly the Pilgrims are generally regarded as the people who were the first to make American settlements,
Generally regarded by whom? History regards the Jamestown settlers as the first to make a successful American settlement.
and their religious piety is always repeated to the world as one of the founding principles of America as we now know it today.
Some of their governmental practices, yes, such as town meetings, etc, and religious beliefs, of course. But since their communalism didn't even stand the test of time, since they qabandoned it, why would you even attempt to pretend it was a founding principle in America?
That was the reason for the first settlement (that survived at any rate, since Roanoke failed somewhere between 1588 and 1591) in America at Jamestown. And for that matter, the Dutch established the New Amsterdam at roughly the same time as the Separatists were settling Plymouth, 1620 for Plymouth and 1624 for New Amsterdam, and the latter was purely for the fur trade, a capitalist venture.
[quote]But again you are going on to tangents in reality, those early failed settlements mean nothing, are you speaking Dutch?
All of those failed communities? Last I looked, Maryland was still there. Same for Pennsylvania. Same for St. Augustine. New Amsterdam changed ownership, and withstood a name change, but it's still there as well.
No, thus another irrelevancy it was those pilgrims that made what we would consider America, America.
Maybe they teach that in Canadian history books. Or maybe you're just winging it as you go. The Jamestown settlement established the first representative assembly, the House of Burgesses, with a governor and an advisory council. The assembly met for the first time in 1619, a year before the Pilgrims even landed at Plymouth. The Pilgrims have their place in American history, yes, but to assert that they defined what is America is bordering the absurd.
Of course the British crown which was behind virtually everyone at that time in Empire building wanted a mercantilist colony, but the pilgrims were not there for those reasons.
No they weren't, but they were only one very small community, which was soon absorbed in to the larger Massachusetts colony.
Neither were communal in nature. So we're left with only one of the many early colonies were established by Utopians. So how do we make the jump to "America was settled by communists"?
Because they were the first people to settle in America to make America what it is today, and they were here because of their beliefs one of which is communism.
I'm not really sure why you keep clinging to that. The settlers at Jamestown were the first to settle in America, and they are much closer to what America is today than the Pilgrims, who abandoned their communal values anyway, so what you are arguing is moot. But then, I think you realized that several posts back.
That's a pretty assertive statement, despite being completely untrue.
Were not these people fleeing from religious persecution, and one of their core religious beliefs was communism? So the only untrue thing here is your spinning.
Actually, no. One of their 'core' religious beliefs was not communism. They didn't practice it in England. They didn't practice it in the Netherlands. They practiced it briefly when they first came to America, and I suspect it was an attempt to keep the settlement from starving out.
No, it wasn't. Only one of a number of communities was settled by Utopians. Of course, one could argue that the original settlers, the Native Americans, were the first communists to establish communities here.
Oh please…I won’t even go there.
Well, I was trying to throw you a bone.
So what's a picture of Joe supposed to show me?
Irony which so escapes you (which mystifies me to a large extent since you aren’t an idiot). I don’t think “Joe” was chasing after capitalists…
Oh, I know who Joe was after. I just don't understand what he had to do with your argument about the Separatists. If you're implying that he was a 'communist' ;) witch-hunter, yes, so what? Is it your assertion now that 'communists' ;) in America in the 1950s somehoiw have a connection with the Separatists? Surely not.
When I noted that the Amish didn't come to America until a century after the first settlement, so how could they be considered founders, you claimed you weren't implying they were.
No I wasn’t all I said was that the traditional religious communistic way of living is still strong in the US Amish communities, no where did I say they found the nation. Sorry if you have a disorder when it comes to interpreting sentences but that is not my problem.
If so, I stand corrected. However, if that was your intent, to what purpose? There have been groups like the Mennonites all thorugh American history, some religious, some just looking to drop out of mainstream. The 19th century saw a number of them, Brooks Farm, New Harmony, the Oneida community, Nashoba. Hell, during the 60s and 70s you had a number of hippies 'drop out', by farms, and establish communal living. There's a community of former hippies not far out of Nashville that has survived since the early 70s. I used to buy their products at the Farmer's Market when I lived in Nashville. So communal societies like the Amish exist in America. It's irrelevant to the argument. They represent a tiny minority. It's a much greater truth to say the Jamestown community was the first settlement and there are still many more communities like it today than those very few isolated utopian communities.
You lost me. The link is bad and I have no idea who Cornelius is, much less a 'miniture'[sic] Cornelius. I guess I'm slow. ;)
Indeed…you seemed to have never watched planet of the apes…you damn dirty ape!
Sorry. I haven't seen that movie in years. I was disappointed though that the remake left out that line, which was the best part of the original.
Undecided
12-16-04, 07:49 PM
The 'concept' of America now is much closer to the Crown's desire to turn a profit than it is to the communalism of those few Separatists.
It is interesting to speculate what New England might have been like if the Pilgrims had been the only people on the Mayflower. After all they were not just fundamentalists; they were also in a literal sense communists, who intended to own their property and distribute their produce equally. In fact only around a third of the 149 people aboard were Pilgrims: the majority responded to the Virgina Company’s advertisements, and their motives for crossing the Atlantic were more material then spiritual. (Ferguson 52).
Now this throws American history on its face, firstly if the mayflower had been totally communistic, then the assertion that they turned "capitalist" would be fallicious. Now the assertion made in the US which you towed the line as well was that the Mayflower was primarily a pilgrim based settlement, and here it even asserted that if the ship had been totally Pilgrim based the colony would not have been capitalistic.
Generally regarded by whom? History regards the Jamestown settlers as the first to make a successful American settlement.
I already agreed with that statement why, I should have said North of Virginia.
But since their communalism didn't even stand the test of time, since they qabandoned it, why would you even attempt to pretend it was a founding principle in America?
I’m getting really tired of bleating out the same Kantian principle here…the motives not the consequences matter especially when dealing with the motives of settlement…hello…I should not have to repeat the same thing over and over again.
All of those failed communities?
Show me where I said they were failed communities? Stop with the dyslexia.
Last I looked, Maryland was still there. Same for Pennsylvania. Same for St. Augustine. New Amsterdam changed ownership, and withstood a name change, but it's still there as well.
None of those are regarded as the pillar of “Americana”, so again tangents. You see America works that way doesn’t it, at least the education system. Pennsylvania came way after anyways as did Maryland to be of any relevance to this discussion, and Spain in Florida was a abortive adventure in the end.
The Jamestown settlement established the first representative assembly, the House of Burgesses, with a governor and an advisory council. The assembly met for the first time in 1619, a year before the Pilgrims even landed at Plymouth. The Pilgrims have their place in American history, yes, but to assert that they defined what is America is bordering the absurd.
Why? You don’t see Jamestown day do you? You see thanksgiving, who is absurd I or the American conception of history like “Columbus day”? Look I don’t think you get the concept here that facts in romanticized history mean very little, yes Jamestown was great while more then half its population was dying of Yellow Fever or whatever they had there. The American perception of fact is that you celebrate the Pilgrims are the true first Americans as evidenced by your holiday’s. They are what generally define America as America; the place of refuge for these folks Jamestown did no such service.
No they weren't, but they were only one very small community, which was soon absorbed in to the larger Massachusetts colony.
See me caring? Stop with the consequences now, its getting old.
Actually, no. One of their 'core' religious beliefs was not communism. They didn't practice it in England. They didn't practice it in the Netherlands. They practiced it briefly when they first came to America, and I suspect it was an attempt to keep the settlement from starving out.
Tell me why they choose America?
Oh, I know who Joe was after. I just don't understand what he had to do with your argument about the Separatists. If you're implying that he was a 'communist' ;) witch-hunter, yes, so what? Is it your assertion now that 'communists' ;) in America in the 1950s somehoiw have a connection with the Separatists? Surely not.
I assert that although they believed in wildly different forms of communism surely they were both communists, and it was one of America’s founding principles the Jamestown colony did not really have those principles, they were nothing but Brits who still pledged allegiance to the King, is that a principle of America today Spyke? No tolerance (was) one of America’s principles, and surely the Jamestown colony was not very tolerant.
If so, I stand corrected. However, if that was your intent, to what purpose?
Needless to say u wouldn’t understand…
Sorry. I haven't seen that movie in years. I was disappointed though that the remake left out that line, which was the best part of the original.
Ok I understand...this world can be strange. (http://www.terra.es/cine/especiales/elplanetadelosimios/pics/cornelius.jpg)
Now this throws American history on its face, firstly if the mayflower had been totally communistic, then the assertion that they turned "capitalist" would be fallicious. Now the assertion made in the US which you towed the line as well was that the Mayflower was primarily a pilgrim based settlement, and here it even asserted that if the ship had been totally Pilgrim based the colony would not have been capitalistic.
Throws American history on its face? Are you serious? You act like you've pulled a rabbit out of the hat. The fact that the Separatists weren't alone on the Mayflower is not exactly some secret history that everybody but Americans apparently know about (God, the misplaced arrogance on this board slays me sometimes), and can be found in most any college text. The number of Puritans on the Mayflower is most usually set at 40 members. Yes, there was a majority of non-Puritans on board, and the disagreements between the two groups started almost immediately. And I'm really not sure how you state that the assertion that had the ship been totally Pilgrims and thus would have not been capitalistic helps your argument. Quite the opposite. It helps mine. It supports what I've been saying. Not only did 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement not share the Puritans' beliefs, they came to America in search of the opportunity to make a profit. Too funny. So we have the Jamestown community that was here to make a profit, and established America's first representative government, and 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement was here to make a profit, and then we have a small group of 40 Separatists that tried, and failed, to establish a communal society. My point is made. Thanks.
already agreed with that statement why, I should have said North of Virginia.
Would it somehow make a difference if the Puritans had settled south of Virginia?
But since their communalism didn't even stand the test of time, since they qabandoned it, why would you even attempt to pretend it was a founding principle in America?
I’m getting really tired of bleating out the same Kantian principle here…the motives not the consequences matter especially when dealing with the motives of settlement…hello…I should not have to repeat the same thing over and over again.
It's really quite simple even if continues to fly over your head. If you're going to continue to argue that America today is based on the Separatists, then it can only be based on what the Separatists actually passed down through the generations. Correct? Their communal society didn't survive. Failed motives or intentions of settlement are not legacies that get passed along. What was passed along were values that actually survived the initial settlement, which did not include communalism.
All of those failed communities?
Show me where I said they were failed communities? Stop with the dyslexia.
>>>"But again you are going on to tangents in reality, those early failed settlements mean nothing, are you speaking Dutch?"
None of those are regarded as the pillar of “Americana”, so again tangents. You see America works that way doesn’t it, at least the education system. Pennsylvania came way after anyways as did Maryland to be of any relevance to this discussion, and Spain in Florida was a abortive adventure in the end.
Then I can just as easily say that Plymouth is inconsequential. Maryland was chartered only 12 years after the Separatists landed at Plymouth, which is a slightly shorter amount of time than the 13 years between Jamestown and Plymouth.
Why? You don’t see Jamestown day do you? You see thanksgiving, who is absurd I or the American conception of history like “Columbus day”? Look I don’t think you get the concept here that facts in romanticized history mean very little, yes Jamestown was great while more then half its population was dying of Yellow Fever or whatever they had there.
Again. Are you serious? You're actually trying to tell me that Jamestown is romanticized history? The original Jamestown may not exist as anything more than an archaelogical site, but what Jamestown represents to the US, representative government and the first working state assembly, is significantly more important to what is America than Thanksgiving, and certainly carries more weight than some failed communal experiment. And for the record. The Jamestown population was dying of starvation and malaria, which ultimately led to Yellow Fever.
The American perception of fact is that you celebrate the Pilgrims are the true first Americans as evidenced by your holiday’s. They are what generally define America as America; the place of refuge for these folks Jamestown did no such service.
What we are talking about here is what America is today, and where that legacy comes from. Right? America is a representative government, whose laws are created by an assembly of representatives by a bicameral congress. Is that best reflected by the representative government established at Jamestown, or the very short-lived communal society a very small group of Separatists attempted? Don't think too long. I don't want you getting a headache. :p
No they weren't, but they were only one very small community, which was soon absorbed in to the larger Massachusetts colony.
See me caring? Stop with the consequences now, its getting old.
The point you obviously missed is that the Separatists were soon absorbed by the larger Puritan community, who were not radical Separatists, and who actually held the charter to Massachusetts. And they definitely did not practice communalism.
Actually, no. One of their 'core' religious beliefs was not communism. They didn't practice it in England. They didn't practice it in the Netherlands. They practiced it briefly when they first came to America, and I suspect it was an attempt to keep the settlement from starving out.
Tell me why they choose America?
Because they had already tried the Netherlands, which was the most religiously tolerant country on the Continent, and that didn't work out. America was the only real choice left for them.
I assert that although they believed in wildly different forms of communism surely they were both communists, and it was one of America’s founding principles the Jamestown colony did not really have those principles, they were nothing but Brits who still pledged allegiance to the King, is that a principle of America today Spyke? No tolerance (was) one of America’s principles, and surely the Jamestown colony was not very tolerant.
I would suggest you stop with the assertions and actually study up a bit more on both the Separatists and Jamestown. Communism is not a founding principle of America. Period. And if you think the Jamestown settlers weren't tolerant, you should read up more on the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of hanging Quakers. And one of the big problems those non-Puritans had with the Separatists at Plymouth was the latter group's intolerance of others. They called themselves 'Saints' and the rest of the group 'Strangers', and established minority rules for the 'Strangers', despite the fact that they themselves were the minority group. No wonder their experiment with communism failed.
If so, I stand corrected. However, if that was your intent, to what purpose?
Needless to say u wouldn’t understand…
Smells like a cop-out to me.
Odin'Izm
12-17-04, 02:19 PM
I just have one question .. which i couldnt get a proper anser for.. from any american i'v asked.
What exactly are americans free from??????????????????????????
Maybe that's because you've phrased the question wrong.
Gravity
12-17-04, 03:03 PM
A really fun question to ask, is when you see an American moron say "America is #1" - ask, what are you number one at? Start looking for answers. Look at illiteracy, crime, murder, rape, suicide, gap between rich and poor, lack of health-care access and more . . . .
Undecided
12-17-04, 03:30 PM
The fact that the Separatists weren't alone on the Mayflower is not exactly some secret history that everybody but Americans apparently know about (God, the misplaced arrogance on this board slays me sometimes), and can be found in most any college text.
Yes see the problem there Spyke? Don’t you see how the vast majority of Americans will never know that fact because it is lodged deep in a college text? How many Americans take American history in College, how many Americans actually go to college? I would say not enough, and as a result this would be quite a revelation, some high schools in the US don’t even teach history anymore so yes it would turn the American idea of history on its face. Look there are things you keep on misunderstanding, the American people don’t know what you know about America, they know VERY little, they probably still think that the Boston tea party was more then a bunch of angry tea smugglers, no they were freedom fighters…so yes Spyke dumbing down American history is what I pointing to here, and romanticizing it for the masses helps create the nonsense of this “free America” ever so heroic.
And I'm really not sure how you state that the assertion that had the ship been totally Pilgrims and thus would have not been capitalistic helps your argument. Quite the opposite. It helps mine. It supports what I've been saying. Not only did 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement not share the Puritans' beliefs, they came to America in search of the opportunity to make a profit.
The puritans did not come to America for profit, and most Americans would say this:
“The Mayflower brought over the persecuted from Europe to America.”
That is what I would imagine what most Americans would say…disagree? Note no mention of those others onboard, you know why because it’s not in the interests of the gov’t to talk about those people.
Too funny. So we have the Jamestown community that was here to make a profit, and established America's first representative government, and 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement was here to make a profit, and then we have a small group of 40 Separatists that tried, and failed, to establish a communal society. My point is made. Thanks.
Ah no its not, because the American people would state that coming here was not for profit, but for freedom. This is the reality in their minds, and they associate that with the Mayflower, and the pilgrims who were communist, something Thanksgiving leaves out. If your “point is made” don’t take it up with me, take it up with the bewildered American public.
Would it somehow make a difference if the Puritans had settled south of Virginia?
Only if that would be Spanish held territory.
Their communal society didn't survive. Failed motives or intentions of settlement are not legacies that get passed along.
Again that is irrelevant to the founding principles of a nation, do you understand what founding principles mean? This flies over your head child not mine.
Then I can just as easily say that Plymouth is inconsequential.
I really don’t see how.
Maryland was chartered only 12 years after the Separatists landed at Plymouth, which is a slightly shorter amount of time than the 13 years between Jamestown and Plymouth.
Yah…wow more irrelevant facts thanks…anyways 13 years is a long time don’t you think especially considering the life span of these people.
Again. Are you serious? You're actually trying to tell me that Jamestown is romanticized history?
No dyslexia boy I am saying the exact opposite. Re-read what I wrote.
The original Jamestown may not exist as anything more than an archaelogical site, but what Jamestown represents to the US, representative government and the first working state assembly, is significantly more important to what is America than Thanksgiving, and certainly carries more weight than some failed communal experiment.
Where’s the celebrations? Where are the Yellow Fever mascots? Where are the Jamestown bark eating contests? Jamestown to the VAST majority of America means little to noting compared to Plymouth.
What we are talking about here is what America is today, and where that legacy comes from. Right?
No…perception not reality that is what really matters…comprende?
The point you obviously missed is that the Separatists were soon absorbed by the larger Puritan community, who were not radical Separatists, and who actually held the charter to Massachusetts. And they definitely did not practice communalism.
That’s grand…doesn’t change the historical facts friend. :D
Communism is not a founding principle of America. Period.
Let me put like this…was refuge a founding principle of America…if so as is communism.
And if you think the Jamestown settlers weren't tolerant, you should read up more on the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of hanging Quakers.
Sounds like typical American history…
Smells like a cop-out to me.
That sounds like a brain tumor to me…;)
Gravity
12-17-04, 05:06 PM
Here is a great quote from "The Third Reich Syndrome:
George Will and the Collapse of Historical Knowledge" by DR. WERTHER
It is not surprising that crackpot analogies have gained traction in the United States anno 2002. A recent National Geographic survey found that in the dumbed-down post-literate age "only about one in seven--13 percent--of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military warriors, could find Iraq" on a world map. The adage says that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Accordingly, a half-educated discourse on the Weimar Republic by a kennel-fed establishment literatus like George Will sounds like real erudition to people who can barely find Canada on a map.
The full piece is at: http://www.counterpunch.org/werther01022003.html
The fact that the Separatists weren't alone on the Mayflower is not exactly some secret history that everybody but Americans apparently know about (God, the misplaced arrogance on this board slays me sometimes), and can be found in most any college text.
Yes see the problem there Spyke? Don’t you see how the vast majority of Americans will never know that fact because it is lodged deep in a college text? How many Americans take American history in College, how many Americans actually go to college? I would say not enough, and as a result this would be quite a revelation, some high schools in the US don’t even teach history anymore so yes it would turn the American idea of history on its face. Look there are things you keep on misunderstanding, the American people don’t know what you know about America, they know VERY little, they probably still think that the Boston tea party was more then a bunch of angry tea smugglers, no they were freedom fighters…so yes Spyke dumbing down American history is what I pointing to here, and romanticizing it for the masses helps create the nonsense of this “free America” ever so heroic.
I honestly don't see how you keep making the assertion that such a revelation somehow 'turns American history on its face'? It is in the history books, so it's not some startling new evidence that's been discovered buried away in some dark cellar. And when you say it is 'hidden away' in some college text you act like you're talking about some obscure ancient Latin text locked away in some mountaintop monastery. If you attend college in most states American history is part of the General Studies requirement, 6 hrs minimum. As far as the percentage of Americans that go to college it is 46% for whites, and slgihtly lower for blacks and Hispanics, I believe. But assuming you are correct, that the majority of Americans don't know that the Separatists were a minority on the Mayflower, why is that relevant to your argument that America was founded on communist principles?
And I'm really not sure how you state that the assertion that had the ship been totally Pilgrims and thus would have not been capitalistic helps your argument. Quite the opposite. It helps mine. It supports what I've been saying. Not only did 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement not share the Puritans' beliefs, they came to America in search of the opportunity to make a profit.
The puritans did not come to America for profit, and most Americans would say this:
“The Mayflower brought over the persecuted from Europe to America.”
I don't know what they would say. I'm not so presumptuous as you as to put words in almost 300 million people's mouths. I do agree that the Puritans didn't come to America for profit, but at the same time, neither did they come over for the express purpose of being communists.
Note no mention of those others onboard, you know why because it’s not in the interests of the gov’t to talk about those people.
Explain this conspiracy to me, please. Why is it not in the government's interest to 'talk about those people'?
And I'm really not sure how you state that the assertion that had the ship been totally Pilgrims and thus would have not been capitalistic helps your argument. Quite the opposite. It helps mine. It supports what I've been saying. Not only did 2/3 of the Plymouth settlement not share the Puritans' beliefs, they came to America in search of the opportunity to make a profit.
Ah no its not, because the American people would state that coming here was not for profit, but for freedom. This is the reality in their minds, and they associate that with the Mayflower, and the pilgrims who were communist, something Thanksgiving leaves out. If your “point is made” don’t take it up with me, take it up with the bewildered American public.
And here's the really funny part. Not only would the American people not talk about some on board the Mayflower coming here for profit, because as you claim, they don't know about it, and at the same time, they would also not talk about the Separatists on board the mayflower attempting to set up a community based on communism, because again, you claim they don't know about it. So it's irrelevant as well. It means the only legacy the Separatists brought to contemporary America is Thanksgiving.
Their communal society didn't survive. Failed motives or intentions of settlement are not legacies that get passed along.
Again that is irrelevant to the founding principles of a nation, do you understand what founding principles mean? This flies over your head child not mine.
Oh, I understand quite well what founding principles mean. What I'm beginning to doubt is that you do. But you can always prove me wrong. Exactly how does a social experiment that quickly fails, that wasn't even the reason the Separatists came to America in the first place, who weren't even the first community of settlers in America, somehow become a founding principle of the nation?
Then I can just as easily say that Plymouth is inconsequential.
I really don’t see how.
It's quite simple. You said Maryland was inconsequential because it was settled later. The order was, Jamestown in 1607, Plymouth in 1620, and the the first settlers in Maryland in 1632. So if you're going to claim maryland was too late to matter, being 12 years after Plymouth, then Plymouth, being 13 years after Jamestown, would seem to be just as inconsequential.
Maryland was chartered only 12 years after the Separatists landed at Plymouth, which is a slightly shorter amount of time than the 13 years between Jamestown and Plymouth
Yah…wow more irrelevant facts thanks…anyways 13 years is a long time don’t you think especially considering the life span of these people.
I guess you're right. 13 years is a long time considering the life span of people back then, so you must agree then that Plymouth, settled 13 years after Jamestown, is irrelevant. Yes?
The original Jamestown may not exist as anything more than an archaelogical site, but what Jamestown represents to the US, representative government and the first working state assembly, is significantly more important to what is America than Thanksgiving, and certainly carries more weight than some failed communal experiment.
Where’s the celebrations? Where are the Yellow Fever mascots? Where are the Jamestown bark eating contests? Jamestown to the VAST majority of America means little to noting compared to Plymouth.
Please stop. You're giving me a headache with some of this stuff. But since were talking about celebrations, where are the celebrations to communism? Seriously, I can't believe you're wasting time with this. You're now suggesting that founding principles are only passed down through celebrations? :eek: I would suggest that what is probably Jametown's most important legacy, representative government, means a heck of a lot more to the American people than Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving really wasn't even celebrated by all of the states until during FDR's presidency.
No…perception not reality that is what really matters…comprende?
So do you really think Americans perceive that the Separatists might have been communists, especially for such a brief time? No, of course not. So it never became a principle, wouldn't you have to agree?
The point you obviously missed is that the Separatists were soon absorbed by the larger Puritan community, who were not radical Separatists, and who actually held the charter to Massachusetts. And they definitely did not practice communalism.
That’s grand…doesn’t change the historical facts friend.
You're right. It doesn't change the facts. What the facts are is that the Separatists left us with two legacies - Thanksgiving and the Mayflower Compact, and it is only the latter that could be considered a true founding principle. It is that larger group of Puritans that leaves a much more lasting legacy in America. It is this group of Puritans that established the township governments that became the basis for local municipal governments elsewhere. Unlike the radical Separatists, it is the larger Puritan group that wanted to establish the 'city on the hill', a beacon for the rest of the world, that would become a legacy for future presidents' speeches. This is the Puritan group that left America more lasting legacies, not the smaller group of radicals.
Communism is not a founding principle of America. Period.
Let me put like this…was refuge a founding principle of America…if so as is communism.
Umm, no, I wouldn't say refuge was. America was seen as a safe haven, yes, but refuge is not what I would consider a founding principle. It was simply something many immigrants were seeking. Some things I would consider such principles would be civic virtue, the common good (and I don't mean communism, but rather helping your neighbors), the idea along with rights, there are also duties and responsibilities of each citizen, opposition to corruption, active participation and involvement of the people in matters of common concern, and so on.
And if you think the Jamestown settlers weren't tolerant, you should read up more on the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of hanging Quakers.
Sounds like typical American history…
Reads like the history of most nations.
top mosker
12-17-04, 08:01 PM
Hate to but in on this but...
You really need to take "god" out for that to make sense.
Yea, there were guns, and the men definately had some guts to pull it off.
But did "god" intervene? I think not. He watched happily from up in his magical place in the sky with all his little angels next to him. Men (and women) made america, not some figment diety of our imagination.
Undecided
12-17-04, 10:57 PM
I honestly don't see how you keep making the assertion that such a revelation somehow 'turns American history on its face'?
You are a real hard head (or is that the tumour?) Anyways, it does throw popular American history on its face, considering most American’s do not have a idea about their history.
And when you say it is 'hidden away' in some college text you act like you're talking about some obscure ancient Latin text locked away in some mountaintop monastery.
To many Americans that is a sad reality, consider tuition costs, and the traditional hatred of history as another “useless subject” in America’s wealth inspired students.
If you attend college in most states American history is part of the General Studies requirement, 6 hrs minimum.
It should be in high schools…that is a sad, sad, sad state for a country who doesn’t even teach basic history to its high school students (although many do, haphazardly). Using your logic Spyke, physics should be easy as a whistle for most Americans as well, hey its taught in College too. Give me a break.
As far as the percentage of Americans that go to college it is 46% for whites, and slgihtly lower for blacks and Hispanics, I believe.
OK how many take this mystical history course…not much I would suppose. And to only have 6hrs worth of history under your belt…I doubt you get anything more then “superficial knowledge” which Mill talked about so well.
But assuming you are correct, that the majority of Americans don't know that the Separatists were a minority on the Mayflower, why is that relevant to your argument that America was founded on communist principles?
Because this is the part which you don’t seem to understand…perception of history determines it’s, not the reality. Do you think the great flood happened? No, but to millions it did as a historical fact. What I am trying to show you is that the government uses that same ignorance to tell America how great it is, etc. With the population not even questioning it…DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? The point of this conversation is less about me vs. you, it’s history vs. perception.
I don't know what they would say. I'm not so presumptuous as you as to put words in almost 300 million people's mouths.
Ok, 150 million or so? Don’t cop out on me now, do you think MOST Americans would agree with that sentence or not. If so then stop slapping manure on this pig.
do agree that the Puritans didn't come to America for profit, but at the same time, neither did they come over for the express purpose of being communists.
Of course they did if it was ingrained in their religion.
Why is it not in the government's interest to 'talk about those people'?
It’s in the governments interest not to teach the American people their true history…please don’t get defensive over the damned obvious. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a pretty sloppily kept one.
So it's irrelevant as well. It means the only legacy the Separatists brought to contemporary America is Thanksgiving.
Well not really, if the American public agrees that the pilgrims are the people who set American principles, that doesn’t mean they reject the communist fact, they just are ignorant about it. Thus the American people are through implaction of ignorance admitting the country was founded on communism.
Oh, I understand quite well what founding principles mean. What I'm beginning to doubt is that you do.
Don’t be patronizing…that’s a sign of overcompensation for something else…
Exactly how does a social experiment that quickly fails, that wasn't even the reason the Separatists came to America in the first place, who weren't even the first community of settlers in America, somehow become a founding principle of the nation?
Yes…one of the founding principles not the sole principle of course. If one of the principles of America is refuge as was communism no matter how short lived that was. You are looking the consequences which are not principles but reactionary to the environment around them.
The order was, Jamestown in 1607, Plymouth in 1620, and the the first settlers in Maryland in 1632. So if you're going to claim maryland was too late to matter, being 12 years after Plymouth, then Plymouth, being 13 years after Jamestown, would seem to be just as inconsequential.
You mean 1610? Anyways, again Jamestown is largely irrelevant historically to America the nation founded on principles, the Jamestown colony had little in the way of principles other then expanding the fledging British empire…disagree? Was Plymouth different yes it was…so which was really more inconsequential? Secondly Maryland was the same bull shit as Jamestown…so yes Plymouth was much more important.
I guess you're right. 13 years is a long time considering the life span of people back then, so you must agree then that Plymouth, settled 13 years after Jamestown, is irrelevant. Yes?
Not to history…only to a timeline.
Please stop. You're giving me a headache with some of this stuff.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=brain+tumour+&meta=
See a doctor already!
But since were talking about celebrations, where are the celebrations to communism?
In the USA? Sure during the depression there were communists out on the streets starting to draw crowds.
You're now suggesting that founding principles are only passed down through celebrations? :eek:
No, show me where I asserted as much? All I said is that in nationalism celebrations are as important as symbols and flags (if you think me talking about celebrations is ridiculous then you must agree as is nationalism). Through celebrations nations commemorate and show their support for their history.
I would suggest that what is probably Jametown's most important legacy, representative government, means a heck of a lot more to the American people than Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving really wasn't even celebrated by all of the states until during FDR's presidency.
Well if you are saying “celebration” are superfluous to the conversation why even bother defending this position…seems childish to say the least. Personally I think there would have been representative gov’t regardless of Jamestown, and since most Americans and even the government seem to agree your stance is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Now June 10th should be Jamestown day…
So do you really think Americans perceive that the Separatists might have been communists, especially for such a brief time? No, of course not. So it never became a principle, wouldn't you have to agree?
It’s a tricky one to say the least, if the American population agree that the pilgrims are the founding members of their society, and really nothing else then everything goes.
Mayflower Compact, and it is only the latter that could be considered a true founding principle.
I never said differently, all I am saying if your going to play this game acknowledge communism as one of those principles.
Umm, no, I wouldn't say refuge was. America was seen as a safe haven, yes, but refuge is not what I would consider a founding principle.
Again most American’s and the Statue of Liberty would GRAVELY disagree with that, right now that sentence showed the amount of hubris you are wiling to enact to notlose face. Also I don’t get it Spyke why all this defensiveness against communism? Juched are we?
Reads like the history of most nations.
True…
Odin'Izm
12-18-04, 10:41 AM
Yet again no one has answered my question. :rolleyes:
goofyfish
12-18-04, 11:18 AM
What exactly are americans free from?
We are demonstrating that we are free from any obligation to answer your question.
:m: Peace.
Odin'Izm
12-18-04, 11:22 AM
LMAO thats a good one :p
I honestly don't see how you keep making the assertion that such a revelation somehow 'turns American history on its face'?
[quote]You are a real hard head (or is that the tumour?)
Same old nico.
Anyways, it does throw popular American history on its face, considering most American’s do not have a idea about their history.
If it's something that is already know as fact, and is in the general history books, it can't throw history on its face, regardless of the percentage of the average person that may or may not know about it, because it's already an excepted fact. Period. And your assumption that most Americans don't have an idea about their history is just that - an assumption.
And when you say it is 'hidden away' in some college text you act like you're talking about some obscure ancient Latin text locked away in some mountaintop monastery.
To many Americans that is a sad reality, consider tuition costs, and the traditional hatred of history as another “useless subject” in America’s wealth inspired students.
Your tiresome commentary on American education is becoming redundant, not to mention irrelevant to the subject at hand.
If you attend college in most states American history is part of the General Studies requirement, 6 hrs minimum.
It should be in high schools…that is a sad, sad, sad state for a country who doesn’t even teach basic history to its high school students (although many do, haphazardly).
You're obviously just throwing stuff out there now. American history is required in high school. In junior high as well.
Using your logic Spyke, physics should be easy as a whistle for most Americans as well, hey its taught in College too. Give me a break.
Pointless.
As far as the percentage of Americans that go to college it is 46% for whites, and slgihtly lower for blacks and Hispanics, I believe.
OK how many take this mystical history course…not much I would suppose.And to only have 6hrs worth of history under your belt…I doubt you get anything more then “superficial knowledge” which Mill talked about so well.
If you paid closer attention you would know I already said the 6 hrs were a GenEd requirement, unless you're taking nursing, or something like that, so most everyone is required to take the 6 hrs of your 'mystical' course. And counting jr and high school, it's 12 hrs of American history, and 6 hrs of World Civ (3 in HS and 3 in college), although I understand some universities may be no longer requiring the World Civ under GenEd.
But assuming you are correct, that the majority of Americans don't know that the Separatists were a minority on the Mayflower, why is that relevant to your argument that America was founded on communist principles?
Because this is the part which you don’t seem to understand…perception of history determines it’s, not the reality.
And what you aren't getting through your head is that you're still shooting down your own argument. Playing along with you here, if the perception of history is what determines history, not the reality, and if you say that most Americans have no perception of history other than that the Puritans gave us Thanksgiving and their Christian heritage, but have no perception of their communal beginnings in America, albeit brief, then that can't be a principle that America was founded on, because Americans have no perception of it, to use your own logic. Because according to you, only what Americans can perceive is meaningful. Which means there is no sense responding to the rest of your post, although I will say that whatever you meant about 1610 is wrong. Jamestown was 1607. Plymouth was 1620. .
Don Hakman
12-19-04, 07:45 PM
Guns played a large part in US history but the good old fashioned knife is grossly overlooked.
For example in The mid to late 1800's bounties were paided for every decapitated head of Indians and even Hispanics. Bringing a bag of heads into town bought yourself drinks a bed and a whore for the night.
Where is that good old american justice today.
oscarmitre
12-28-04, 06:18 AM
Mercantilism preceded capitalism. Individual profiteering is not capitalism, it's exploitation of a situation of shortage of particular goods. Capitalism is very different from both . Capitalism didn't begin until Adam Smith pointed it out in the Wealth of Nations which was published in 1776 (Americans might not have read it back then as they were a bit busy with a War of Independence). Capitalism has done the world huge favours and there is no doubt that we would not have the advantages we do now without it.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.