03 Jul 08
"...Republicans are overwhelmingly more positive than Democrats about U.S. history, America as a role model and whether equality of justice exists here. For example, 91% of GOP voters express pride in America's past compared to 64% of Democrats. Seventy-three percent (73😵 of unaffiliated voters agree.
Even more striking is the gap between the two parties on the question of whether the U.S. is truly a land of liberty and justice for all--72% of Republicans say yes but only 29% of Democrats agree. Unaffiliated voters again fall in between."
I wonder what the gap would be between Republicans and say, RHPers, for instance?
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by zeebleboti think most americans should be proud, in only a short span of time the country has achieved a great deal... it's become - arguably - the most powerful nation on the planet, that in itself is a great achievement...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080702/pl_rasmussen/proudamerica20080702;_ylt=AilSf8v_8IW2QjlX3fdhKD6s0NUE
Most Americans Proud of U.S. History, Say Other Nations Should Follow America’s Lead Rasmussen
its history contains blemishes as well, but so does every nation
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by eatmybishopI don't think calling the genocide of an entire group of people (native indians) a "blemish" does it justice.
its history contains blemishes as well, but so does every nation
Nor would I call the enslavement of millions of Africans a "blemish" either.
The US has indeed become a very powerful nation, but let's not gloss over history here.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
03 Jul 08
If history is something to be proud of, then it is also something to be ashamed of. I wonder how many of those Republican voters apologise for their country's wrong-doings as often as they speak of its former greatness.
I can't see why anyone should be expected to do either -- we can't take credit or fault from what our countrymen/women have done before us any more than I have a right to feel proud about Kate Moss's looks or Boris Johnson's comedic value. History is there to teach us, not reinforce nationalistic misconceptions.
03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotI am quite proud of my nation. It stands alone in the world against transnationalist progressivism. That alone lends it a certain credence and reason for admiration.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080702/pl_rasmussen/proudamerica20080702;_ylt=AilSf8v_8IW2QjlX3fdhKD6s0NUE
Most Americans Proud of U.S. History, Say Other Nations Should Follow America’s Lead Rasmussen
The tranzi’s who are trying to unite the world in absolute equality see the USA as the single remaining obstacle that needs to be destroyed. They are attacking the idea that there can be anything BUT “universal justice” dispensed by the world court and the united nations and it’s UNELECTED organs.
When and if we put the power of law and justice into the hands of UNELECTED persons, we can truly say that the age of democracy is over and we will be into the era of Big Brother. That has been the goal of communism since its inception. Commies didn’t die in 1989. They became something else. Their own self description is “progressives”.
But back to the subject of your thread. I will be proud of my nation as long as it struggles against this world wide effort to move the government of the world into the hands of APPOINTED agencies.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlessWe learned it all from watching Europe and how they treated people of different races with integrity and grace.
I don't think calling the genocide of an entire group of people (native indians) a "blemish" does it justice.
Nor would I call the enslavement of millions of Africans a "blemish" either.
The US has indeed become a very powerful nation, but let's not gloss over history here.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBe as proud of your nation as you want to. All the people of the world are proud of their contries achievements - be they big or small.
I am quite proud of my nation. It stands alone in the world against transnationalist progressivism. ......
They usually also fail to remember the dark moments - it's human nature.
But what in the high heavens do you mean with ....stands alone in the world against transnationalist progressivism.
What is The US build on if not progressive transnationalism.
Were you send to the inspectors office in all the history lessons ?
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by HumeAAs a history major and lifelong reader of multiple volumes about history, and also about history as a discipline, I must disagree.
History is there to teach us, not reinforce nationalistic misconceptions.
History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
That description varies quite a bit as to accuracy, bias, gaps, or deliberate disinformation.
One thing we do not use history for is to learn from past mistakes.
No, indeed, experience tells me that we use history to justify the all too common case where we have repeated them.
Where you stand on the past depends entirely on where you now sit.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScheelTransnationalism seeks to take government out of the hands of Sovereign Nations and put it into the hands of NGO's.
Be as proud of your nation as you want to. All the people of the world are proud of their contries achievements - be they big or small.
They usually also fail to remember the dark moments - it's human nature.
But what in the high heavens do you mean with ....stands alone in the world against transnationalist progressivism.
What is The US build on if no ...[text shortened]... gressive transnationalism.
Were you send to the inspectors office in all the history lessons ?
The US Constitution seems to me to be the biggest impediment to this goal. By insistance that any larger agreement between nations NOT IMPINGE upon the constitution, tranziism is at a stand still. That seems to indicate that if the Tranzi's are serious, they must figure out how to illiminate the Constitution. They are succeeding in a most surprising way. In the 1930's they figured out that if you can find enough people willing to IGNORE their oath to "protect and preserve the constitution of the United States" and put these people into the Judiciary, they can destroy the constitution by basically "re-writing" it one line at a time.
What dark moments? Do they have any special meaning? Not to me. I realize the nature of the human animal. We are basically cruel at the center of our beings. What a delight then to find a simple act of committee --the US Constitution-- That IN MY OPINION has done more to allow enlightenment than any other act ever taken by humans.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWySo Transnationalists want some sort of official, accountable version of what the U.S. government does behind closed doors at the moment?
Transnationalism seeks to take government out of the hands of Sovereign Nations and put it into the hands of NGO's.
03 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by HumeANot really. The US is by definition a "Nation". A "Trans"nationalist wants to eliminate "nations". Try to concentrate.
So Transnationalists want some sort of official, accountable version of what the U.S. government does behind closed doors at the moment?
edit... Put another way -- If one assumes that the US does bad behind closed doors, then tranzis want to amplify that mistake onto the global stage. A natural consequence of this removal to larger levels is that the tranzi ill is several MORE layers removed "from the will of the individual". They hate individuals... and indeed -- they hate individual Sovereign entities of any sort.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinAnd I must disagree with you. 🙂
As a history major and lifelong reader of multiple volumes about history, and also about history as a discipline, I must disagree.
History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
That description varies quite a bit as to accuracy, bias, gaps, or deliberate disinformation.
One thin ...[text shortened]... ere we have repeated them.
Where you stand on the past depends entirely on where you now sit.
History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
This is true of some history, but certainly not all. Ever read any Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, or Cicero? (Incidentally, one of Tony Blair's speech writers clearly learnt a lot from Cicero -- the similarities between some of their speeches are striking.)
True, there are many historians that attempt to funnel readers into agreeing with their viewpoint through what they 'make available', but thankfully there all always others that disagree.
One thing we do not use history for is to learn from past mistakes.
That's quite a stark generalisation. We learn an awful lot through history -- for example, the governmental elements of the United States took a proverbial leaf from the Roman Republic when it was formed.
Another example: much can be learnt about modern conflicts through the study of history (recent or distant). Just look at the middle east and what happens when you ignore the history of a region before pumping money and guns into it.
And then there's that thing called democracy...
Where you stand on the past depends entirely on where you now sit.
Unfortunately this is often true, but it certainly does not 'depend entirely' as you suggest. There are cold hard facts in history, you know. It's not all historiography. Yes, the way that we view and interpret those facts is often coloured by our experiences, but opinions often change in historical circles -- historians often change their opinions based on new evidence, new arguments. It is not as black and white as you suggest.
The past and, yes, history, has plenty to teach us. That too few people search for answers in the most obvious of places does not make this any less true.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI see. These 'tranzis' seem like really horrible people. How can I spot one in the street? Pale completion? Elongated canines?
Not really. The US is by definition a "Nation". A "Trans"nationalist wants to eliminate "nations". Try to concentrate.
edit... Put another way -- If one assumes that the US does bad behind closed doors, then tranzis want to amplify that mistake onto the global stage. A natural consequence of this removal to larger levels is that the tranzi ill is sev ...[text shortened]... y hate individuals... and indeed -- they hate individual Sovereign entities of any sort.