Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Jul '10 17:21 / 2 edits
    I promised Adam Warlock that I would be making comments about Howard Zinn's book - "A People's History of the United States" I am currently looking at Chapter 24 "The Coming Revolt of the Guards"

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

    my first observation is that the following quote is very interesting:

    All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in the Vietnam-Watergate crisis, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is all right, and it is sufficient for us to be restored to that normal state. They teach us that the supreme act of citizenship is to choose among saviors, by going into a voting booth every four years to choose between two white and well-off Anglo-Saxon males of inoffensive personality and orthodox opinions.
    The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves. But from time to time, Americans reject that idea and rebel.


    This is very similar to what Whodey frequently preaches. The idea that we rely too much on something like Big Government or a Great President to step in and solve all of our problems. And I believe Zinn (and Whodey) have a very good point here. Is it possible that things like the economic crisis, joblessness, relentless foreclosures, and even the oil spill can be significantly addressed by "we the people" acting completely without the help of big government? Or is there some role that government does have to play?
  2. 09 Jul '10 17:26
    the Anarchists just shipped a hundred or so compatriots down to Oakland (from grungeville) based on that very premise.
  3. 10 Jul '10 02:51
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I promised Adam Warlock that I would be making comments about Howard Zinn's book - "A People's History of the United States" I am currently looking at Chapter 24 "The Coming Revolt of the Guards"

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

    my first observation is that the following quote is very interesting:

    [quote]All those histori ...[text shortened]... out the help of big government? Or is there some role that government does have to play?
    I never meant to say that government does not have a role to play. What I say is that too much of the power has been centralized to one man or group of men. The states need to reclaim their federalist roots and grow a pair. Perhaps this means that Arizona needs to begin its own wall and thumb its nose at the feds or Jindal in Louisiana needs to begin clean up of the oil spill how he sees fit and thumb his nose at the feds etc. Then as the feds sue the states or do worse to them let the masses decide who is right or wrong.
  4. 10 Jul '10 12:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I never meant to say that government does not have a role to play. What I say is that too much of the power has been centralized to one man or group of men. The states need to reclaim their federalist roots and grow a pair. Perhaps this means that Arizona needs to begin its own wall and thumb its nose at the feds or Jindal in Louisiana needs to begin clean ...[text shortened]... Then as the feds sue the states or do worse to them let the masses decide who is right or wrong.
    Zinn doesn't argue that government has no role to play. But he does make an argument here that is very similar to your argument -- that people often focus too much on some great leader or government agency to solve all their problems. And he would be very supportive of the idea that "the masses should make the decisions".

    On immigration, Zinn would argue that the statists like to use issues such as immigration to scare everyone about the "foreign menace" -- and thus distract the people from focusing on those things that might truly threaten the statists' power.
  5. 10 Jul '10 16:15
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Zinn doesn't argue that government has no role to play. But he does make an argument here that is very similar to your argument -- that people often focus too much on some great leader or government agency to solve all their problems. And he would be very supportive of the idea that "the masses should make the decisions".

    On immigration, Zinn would arg ...[text shortened]... ct the people from focusing on those things that might truly threaten the statists' power.
    It's entirely possible that immigration is a simple distraction from those things which might threaten the power of the statists. However, I would argue that controlling immigration might be a threat to their power. For example, if these statists have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point then walls built between countries is a threat to their objectives.
  6. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    10 Jul '10 16:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's entirely possible that immigration is a simple distraction from those things which might threaten the power of the statists. However, I would argue that controlling immigration might be a threat to their power. For example, if these statists have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point then walls built between countries is a threat to their objectives.
    But since it is beyond a healthy distrust for those in power, and in to the realms of paranoid tin-hattery, to believe those in power (the 'statists' "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point", the argument is purely hypothetical.
  7. 10 Jul '10 16:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DrKF
    But since it is beyond a healthy distrust for those in power, and in to the realms of paranoid tin-hattery, to believe those in power (the 'statists' "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point", the argument is purely hypothetical.
    Distrust of power? It think that most political movments have "good" intentions. For example, if we become a "global community", there would be no need for such things as war, right? My distrust becomes heightened when I see my freedoms begin to wane or those in power becoming increased. They can be the kindest nicest people on earth, I could care less.
  8. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    10 Jul '10 17:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    Distrust of power? It think that most political movments have "good" intentions. For example, if we become a "global community", there would be no need for such things as war, right? My distrust becomes heightened when I see my freedoms begin to wane or those in power becoming increased. They can be the kindest nicest people on earth, I could care less.
    I was referencing the 'birthers and truthers' thread. In fact, the political thinking that believes that (some, most, all of?) those in power are 'statists' who "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point" belongs firmly in the camp of paranoid, infantilised political narratives I was discussing there. So again, the motives or otherwise of an absurdly hypothetical group are of no real import.
  9. 10 Jul '10 17:41
    Originally posted by DrKF
    I was referencing the 'birthers and truthers' thread. In fact, the political thinking that believes that (some, most, all of?) those in power are 'statists' who "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point" belongs firmly in the camp of paranoid, infantilised political narratives I was discussing there. ...[text shortened]... o again, the motives or otherwise of an absurdly hypothetical group are of no real import.
    I see. So as we see governemnt move towards collectivism and favor policies that favor globalism those that point to it and say that is where we are heading are paranoid lunatics?
  10. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    10 Jul '10 17:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    I see. So as we see governemnt move towards collectivism and favor policies that favor globalism those that point to it and say that is where we are heading are paranoid lunatics?
    No, you clearly don't see. Those who state that (some, many, all of?) those in power are 'statists' who "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point" are those I dismiss as 'paranoid lunatics'
  11. 10 Jul '10 20:03 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by DrKF
    No, you clearly don't see. Those who state that (some, many, all of?) those in power are 'statists' who "have a global world view and it is in their plans to move towards a centrist global rule at some point" are those I dismiss as 'paranoid lunatics'
    Yes or no, Big Brother has become more centralized over the years and increased its power. Yes or no, the Big Brother does not favor enforcing the border like they are able etc?

    You can call me a paranoid lunatic all you want. In fact, its the only option you have because the facts don't back you up, so all you have is to demonize people like me by calling me names.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Jul '10 20:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I promised Adam Warlock that I would be making comments about Howard Zinn's book - "A People's History of the United States" I am currently looking at Chapter 24 "The Coming Revolt of the Guards"

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

    my first observation is that the following quote is very interesting:

    [quote]All those histori out the help of big government? Or is there some role that government does have to play?
    All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us:

    Indigenous chicano gang members look at that history and realize they are justified in armed rebellion because their rights have been violated (especially their right to inherited property).

    The descendents of slaves too.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Jul '10 20:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes or no, Big Brother has become more centralized over the years and increased its power. Yes or no, the Big Brother does not favor enforcing the border like they are able etc?

    You can call me a paranoid lunatic all you want. In fact, its the only option you have because the facts don't back you up, so all you have is to demonize people like me by calling me names.
    "Like they are able"

    They are not able.
  14. 10 Jul '10 20:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us:

    Indigenous chicano gang members look at that history and realize they are justified in armed rebellion because the ...[text shortened]... been violated (especially their right to inherited property).

    The descendents of slaves too.
    I got news for ya, we are all descendants of slaves at one time or another. It seems to be human nature to seek to enslave your fellow man. Ironically, it resides within the heart of every man to oppose such imprisonment. In fact, the freedom afforded us by the Founding Fathers created something new in human history known as a "middle class".

    Having said that, what is your definition of "slavery" and how are is the chicano gang fighting to end it? Are you really comparing the Founding Fathers to the chicano gang?
  15. 10 Jul '10 20:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "Like they are able"

    They are not able.
    So let me get this straight, the federal government that spends trillions of dollars a second on such things as corporate welfare and waging two wars in the world cannot build a wall to secure its border? Are you suggesting that the wall the USSR built, which covered a far greater span than the US/MExican border, is something that the US is unable to do?