"God hates fags" people coming to Sonoma Co. on Sunday: turn out!

[danejasper]

This is a good time to show our support, as a community. A co-worker here at Sonic.net recently lost her brother, who was serving in Afghanistan.

The Westboro Baptist Church group will be picketing a number of churches on Sunday, then the soldier's funeral in Santa Rosa. Here is their website: https://www.godhatesfags.com/

Whatever your position is on war or religion - I think we can all agree that these people are just way, way over the top.

Their picket schedule can be found there. If you have time on Sunday, consider turning out for the funeral, as that's likely to be the most hateful portion. Here's Westboro's release on this: https://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080602_christopher-gathercole-funeral.pdf

More propaganda: https://www.signmovies.net/videos/signmovies/tgfi.html

Santa Rosa Memorial Park 1900 Franklin Ave. I'm going to arrive at 2:00pm. The picket schedule says that they'll be there at 1:15, but that's well before the start of the funeral.

I'd love to see as many loving Sonoma County people there as possible! If you believe in God, he/she probably doesn't hate anyone - and sending a message of love and acceptance by your own attendance sure would be real nice.

For more on the Westboro Baptist Church, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Lots of YouTube videos - here's a starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&NR=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEqlcxW8aS8&NR=1

Let's show our support, and condemn this homophobic hate group!

Please do check out the websites and videos. I'm sure you'll be pretty surprised by these nuts who are going to be picketing in our community.

-Dane

https://www.sonic.net/dane/god_hates_fags.jpg

[Tars]

Dane, sorry for your co-worker's loss. But the best thing to do about the "God hates fags" morons, is to ignore them. They've already received way WAY too much free publicity, including, inadverdantly I'm sure, your post. I encourage readers to not visit their website, or demonstrate against them.

[danejasper]

I've also heard that they use the threat of picketing to get press, but then don't actually show up. Who knows.

Nuts.

-Dane

[nurturetruth]

It is a good time for the Santa Rosa "Peace Officers" to jump at a chance to help maintain peaceful behavior by helping limit or remove any unwelcome or unpleasant energy /vibes from a sacred ceremony such as a memorial.

Though everyone is indeed entitled to their opinions, it should not be legally allowed to hold protests of any kind at memorial/funerals.

:heart:

[Lenny]

In Sonoma County? I doubt it. But don't they have to get a permit? And isn't that a public record? If the media ignores them, they won't show. And if they do show and are ignored, they'll crawl back under the rock.

[wunda]

If these people were protesting anywhere else, i would have loved to organize a same sex love-in.. with lots of public displays of affection across the street from them.

However, all focus on homophobic ideas about God's message is misplaced at a soldier's funeral and I refuse to put my personal agenda (acceptance of people regardless of where they find love and orgasm) in the spotlight at such a sacred moment in the lives of this family and really for all Americans.

We must honor fallen soldiers and ignore the crazies... anything less disrespectful to a man who lost his life for our country.

Too bad,
Wunda

[MsTerry]

This is a good time to show our support, as a community. A co-worker here at Sonic.net recently lost her brother, who was serving in Afghanistan.

The Westboro Baptist Church group will be picketing a number of churches on Sunday, then the soldier's funeral in Santa Rosa. Here is their website: https://www.godhatesfags.com/



I am still trying to figure out how these two paragraphs are related?:hmmm:

[frogboy]

Hmmm. I am not sure this is a good way to deal with such folks. Many citizens in Germany tried to ignore the nazis, thinking they would just go away. If Ghandi had just ignored the problems in India I wonder what would have happened?

In my own real life, I used to ignore barking dogs. Till one bit me on the butt!


Dane, sorry for your co-worker's loss. But the best thing to do about the "God hates fags" morons, is to ignore them. They've already received way WAY too much free publicity, including, inadverdantly I'm sure, your post. I encourage readers to not visit their website, or demonstrate against them.

[Lenny]

I am still trying to figure out how these two paragraphs are related?:hmmm:

Don't know either. Just one tragic happenstance brought by war, on top of another brought by stupidity.
Not much one may do, except violence, as all I can figure. Or as some are want to do, pray for the enemy. Sickening stuff all the way around.

[danejasper]

I am still trying to figure out how these two paragraphs are related?:hmmm:

If someone comes into your community and preaches hate, shouldn't you turn up with a message of love and acceptance in response?

-Dane

[Lenny]

If someone comes into your community and preaches hate, shouldn't you turn up with a message of love and acceptance in response?

-Dane

We love and accept you "hating fags"?
There may be a time and place for any thing, but a funeral for a fallen soldier is NOT one of them. And .....on, never mind. It's too aggravating.

[Tars]

Hmmm. I am not sure this is a good way to deal with such folks. Many citizens in Germany tried to ignore the nazis, thinking they would just go away. If Ghandi had just ignored the problems in India I wonder what would have happened?

You equate these morons to Nazis or the Mahatma? Ha HA! You do the Nazis and Ghandi a disservice by comparing this numbnuts GHF group to them. GHF protests at military funerals just so they will get free publicity from local concerned citizens and news outlets. If you ignore them, they will crawl back under their rock instead. If the cable "news" channels hadn't run and re-run hourlong "special reports" on them, an in effect promoted their stupid cause, they'd still be, at worst, demonstrating back where they came from, instead of polluting our locality.

One shouldn't ignore potential threats, but then again, one shouldn't give them more credence than they deserve.

[MsTerry]

Well, I guess your response truly doesn't answer my inquiry:hmmm:


If someone comes into your community and preaches hate, shouldn't you turn up with a message of love and acceptance in response?

-Dane

[nurturetruth]

The best answer I can think of to your question is: "It all Depends on the situation"

An ideal community would take a vow to create their community as being a 'hate free' zone and take measures to re-enforce this .

I am not sure how Santa Rosa "community" is ran, but at the very least, I would like to imagine that they would take careful consideration in the matter when it came to granting permits to protest/demonstrate during sacred ceremonies. (funerals, weddings, religious or spiritual ceremonies, etc)


If the family of the fallen soldier had written to WACCO a request for the "lovers and accepters" to come out and show their support with presence, I would definitely have a different opinion. But the family did not.

Were you speaking on behalf of the family's wishes when you posted the thread on Wacco ? If so, if you had mentioned that in the thread, it would have had a different impact.

I am truly hoping that the family /friends were able to grieve and share memories in peace today and that all went smoothly.

If you have any updates on how things went, Dane...that would be appreciated .











If someone comes into your community and preaches hate, shouldn't you turn up with a message of love and acceptance in response?

-Dane

[MsTerry]

what remains a mystery to me is that it SEEMS that by your continued 'inquiry' , you SEEM to be implying that you can't add 1 and 1 together to get 2.


Oh NT, I will never be as smart as you. You already know that.
You see,darling, soldiers are not allowed to be openly gay, and the "God hates fags" guy, follows the rotten apples.
so, Please enlighten me, what is 1 + 1 ?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Dane, sorry for your co-worker's loss. But the best thing to do about the "God hates fags" morons, is to ignore them. They've already received way WAY too much free publicity, including, inadverdantly I'm sure, your post. I encourage readers to not visit their website, or demonstrate against them.

I agree. This seems a very marginal and silly hate group, for now.

For the future, we could define a God who hates fags as a "Gad," and anyone who takes a Gad for a ride (in an all-electric vehicle) as a "frig." A future protest movement could be called "Frig the Gads."

For now there are other things calling: Slugs are invading the veg garden, the arugula needs culling, the basil needs watering.

[PeriodThree]

An ideal community would take a vow to create their community as being a 'hate free' zone and take measures to re-enforce this .

I am not sure how Santa Rosa "community" is ran, but at the very least, I would like to imagine that they would take careful consideration in the matter when it came to granting permits to protest/demonstrate during sacred ceremonies. (funerals, weddings, religious or spiritual ceremonies, etc)



The Santa Rosa Community is run under the rules set by the First Amendment which regulate the whole of the community of these United States. Those rules allow for 'reasonable time place and manner' restrictions on the exercise of our freedom of speech, but are pretty severe in not allowing for content or viewpoint based discrimination.

Generally speaking, you can not be required to obtain permits in order to exercise your right to freedom of speech. It is very very important that our government not do as you suggest and subject our attempts to use our First Amendment rights to 'careful consideration.'

In response to the Westboro Baptist Church some states have passed laws specifically restricting political protests at funerals. While I am deeply disgusted by the Rev. Phelps, I find these laws to be deeply problematical from a Constitutional standpoint. (I also suspect that in reality they will not hold up when challenged).

The response of ignoring Phelps and hoping he goes away might be most effective. As others have noted, he craves attention and the worst think you can do to an exhibitionist is to ignore him! OTOH, I am more sympathetic to Dane's view. I've seen reports of counter protesters who have effectively 'smothered' Phelps and his followers, completely hiding them from the mourners in military funerals.

I think the most effective thing we can all do to counter Phelps is to make sure that legal gay marriage is preserved in California. There are no legitimate arguments to discriminate against gay marriage, and we need to treat those who argue against our existing legal gay marriage the same way we would treat racists and sexists.

[danejasper]

P.S... Please DANE... tell us how the ceremony flowed today with the energies!!

As it turned out, by the time the funeral began, the three Westboro people had already departed. Maybe they had a plane to catch - who knows. I read that they did protest as planned at a number of churches in the AM. Reportedly two of the WBC members were shouting taunts at the church's members as they came and went.

The service was well attended, perhaps 500 or more in attendance. Lots of military veterans, the fire and police, and the motorcycle clubs who form a flag wall around the WBC if needed. Probably about 100 bikes there.

I am a friend of the decedent's sister, and she asked that I post to the community asking for support.

For those who came and observed, thank you!

-Dane

[Lenny]

In response to the Westboro Baptist Church some states have passed laws specifically restricting political protests at funerals. While I am deeply disgusted by the Rev. Phelps, I find these laws to be deeply problematical from a Constitutional standpoint. (I also suspect that in reality they will not hold up when challenged) <merciful deletion> There are no legitimate arguments to discriminate against gay marriage, and we need to treat those who argue against our existing legal gay marriage the same way we would treat racists and sexists.

Not here, nor now, but I respectfully request a book mark at this juncture simply for further clarification and a vain attempt to refute such claims in another thread.
Interesting is the notion that funerals have laws regarding "protests", understanding it completely and am curious about judicial rulings on the matter. I've no idea on how to find such, but if you could point me in the general direction, I would appreciate it. I am sure "protest" would not exclude the Irish from drinking and shouting, etc. But a funeral of all places would be a place that mandate a decorum and behavior of some expectations that would preclude GHF and such. Oh, and in the same vein, legitimate arguments may be made for traditional marriage.
I may only hope we can discuss the latter at another time and place.

[PeriodThree]

I don't have easy access to more issues on Westboro and their protests (well, I have google, but I know that will suck me down a painful and not productive rat hole, from which I will emerge knowing more, but not having more wisdom).

I hate this war. I hate the president. But I can't imagine something more sick than what Phelps does. Protesting people who die serving their country because other people in that country believe in Gay Rights is just plain wrong.

That protest might, or might not, be constitutionally legal. But I no longer wish to spend my time 'defending to the death' the right to speak opinions which are abhorrent.

As for the thought of bookmarking discussion on Gay Marriage to discuss later...that feels to me like another time sink.

My feelings are simple, perhaps even simplistic:
Gays are people.
People have human rights.
One of those rights is the right to marry.

Basic human rights are not subject to a vote.



Not here, nor now, but I respectfully request a book mark at this juncture simply for further clarification and a vain attempt to refute such claims in another thread.
Interesting is the notion that funerals have laws regarding "protests", understanding it completely and am curious about judicial rulings on the matter. I've no idea on how to find such, but if you could point me in the general direction, I would appreciate it. I am sure "protest" would not exclude the Irish from drinking and shouting, etc. But a funeral of all places would be a place that mandate a decorum and behavior of some expectations that would preclude GHF and such. Oh, and in the same vein, legitimate arguments may be made for traditional marriage.
I may only hope we can discuss the latter at another time and place.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Not here, nor now, but I respectfully request a book mark at this juncture simply for further clarification and a vain attempt to refute such claims in another thread.
Interesting is the notion that funerals have laws regarding "protests", understanding it completely and am curious about judicial rulings on the matter. I've no idea on how to find such, but if you could point me in the general direction, I would appreciate it. I am sure "protest" would not exclude the Irish from drinking and shouting, etc. But a funeral of all places would be a place that mandate a decorum and behavior of some expectations that would preclude GHF and such. Oh, and in the same vein, legitimate arguments may be made for traditional marriage.
I may only hope we can discuss the latter at another time and place.

https://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_protests

[Lenny]

I hate this war. I hate the president. But I can't imagine something more sick than what Phelps does. Protesting people who die serving their country because other people in that country believe in Gay Rights is just plain wrong.

There is no war one may love.
Don't hate the president, as hate ain't worth it, if he ain't as well.
I saw this mornings paper that The Quakers followed!? I have to ask a stupid question: who do you think hates war the most? A soldier or a pacifist? The answer is so obvious to me I can't see away around my own dumb self.


That protest might, or might not, be constitutionally legal. But I no longer wish to spend my time 'defending to the death' the right to speak opinions which are abhorrent.
As for the thought of bookmarking discussion on Gay Marriage to discuss later...that feels to me like another time sink.

You are right. It is a time suck.
But like that new adage, if you think education is hard, try doing stuff without it.



My feelings are simple, perhaps even simplistic:
Gays are people.
People have human rights.
One of those rights is the right to marry.
Basic human rights are not subject to a vote.

Dang good point, purely said. Tough to argue. Forget about it.

[MsTerry]

My feelings are simple, perhaps even simplistic:
Gays are people.
People have human rights.
One of those rights is the right to marry.

Basic human rights are not subject to a vote.
just remember this was written in 1948, and it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation
here it is

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
spouse (plural spouses (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spouses))

A husband (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/husband) or wife (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wife), irrespective (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrespective) of sex (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sex) or gender (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gender); a husband's or wife's husband or wife is his/her spouse.

[MsTerry]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> nurturetruth wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=60881#post60881)

what remains a mystery to me is that it SEEMS that by your continued 'inquiry' , you SEEM to be implying that you can't add 1 and 1 together to get 2.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Oh NT, I will never be as smart as you. You already know that.
You see,darling, soldiers are not allowed to be openly gay, and the "God hates fags" guy, follows the rotten apples.
so, Please enlighten me, what is 1 + 1 ?

I knew it, you are the clevererest of all:thumbsup:
You delete what I quote from you, and then it looks like I made it up.:thumbsup:

[MsTerry]

Since no one here seems to be able to give any REAL info, I looked it up:
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080609/NEWS/806090351
Nothing about homosexuals:hmmm:


As it turned out, by the time the funeral began, the three Westboro people had already departed. Maybe they had a plane to catch - who knows. I read that they did protest as planned at a number of churches in the AM. Reportedly two of the WBC members were shouting taunts at the church's members as they came and went.

The service was well attended, perhaps 500 or more in attendance. Lots of military veterans, the fire and police, and the motorcycle clubs who form a flag wall around the WBC if needed. Probably about 100 bikes there.

I am a friend of the decedent's sister, and she asked that I post to the community asking for support.

For those who came and observed, thank you!

-Dane

[MsTerry]

oh come now you big silly willie ~~

its really no big mystery

i KNOW you are more aware than that!

and if not, i will still LOVE and ACCEPT you as you are!



here is the article :idea:
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080609/NEWS/806090351
show me what it is all about:hmmm:

[Zeno Swijtink]

Since no one here seems to be able to give any REAL info, I looked it up:
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080609/NEWS/806090351
Nothing about homosexuals:hmmm:

See: https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080608/NEWS/451495453/0/news07

[Braggi]

...
Basic human rights are not subject to a vote.

And that is the notion this country was founded upon.

-Jeff

[Dynamique]

Not only are these "Christians" an abomination of the religion, they got two things wrong:

1. Assuming that there really is a "God" and s/he is in charge of all creation (not something that I personally believe), then why did s/he create homosexuals and homosexual behaviour? Many species have homosexual individuals and display homosexual actions, not just Homo sapiens.

2. They got the premise -- and the type of fruit -- wrong. God and his emissary, Jesus of Nazareth, hate FIGS, not fags. Read for yourself:
https://www.godhatesfigs.com (https://www.godhatesfigs.com/)



... I hate this war. I hate the president. But I can't imagine something more sick than what Phelps does. Protesting people who die serving their country because other people in that country believe in Gay Rights is just plain wrong.

[MsTerry]

"The church, with about 60 members, blames gays for inflaming God’s rage, triggering retribution in the form of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 and the deaths of American soldiers. "
LOL these people are so fringe, I had no idea.
Maybe Dorothy can help.



See: https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080608/NEWS/451495453/0/news07

[Dixon]

And that ("Basic human rights are not subject to a vote.") is the notion this country was founded upon.

Jeff, I thought you were too sophisticated to be spouting this kind of nationalistic mythology.

That leaves me with the unpleasant task of reminding you of a couple of harsh realities:

1. The USA was founded on the twin pillars of genocide and slavery.

2. At its founding, the full voting rights of a citizen were reserved for white men who owned a certain amount of property. Thus, women, nonwhites and poor folk were second-class citizens at best.

I can't imagine how you could possibly square these incontrovertible facts with your notion that this country was founded upon high regard for basic human rights, but it might be amusing to hear you try.

Cheers!
Dixon

[Lenny]

Jeff, I thought you were too sophisticated to be spouting this kind of nationalistic mythology.

That leaves me with the unpleasant task of reminding you of a couple of harsh realities:

1. The USA was founded on the twin pillars of genocide and slavery.

2. At its founding, the full voting rights of a citizen were reserved for white men who owned a certain amount of property. Thus, women, nonwhites and poor folk were second-class citizens at best.

I can't imagine how you could possibly square these incontrovertible facts with your notion that this country was founded upon high regard for basic human rights, but it might be amusing to hear you try.Cheers!
Dixon

Funny perspective.
In the movie Pulp Fiction, both gunmen witness the same event, being shot at by some young creep.
One sees it as a miracle, while the other saw it as ordinary dumb luck.
Oh, and whatever happened to this place in your view? Did those women, slaves, and poor lose out, or is Howard Zinn the only "historian" you've read?

[PeriodThree]

I disagree with you very strongly. The notion that basic human rights are not subject to a vote is one of the main foundations of our nation. The fact that those rights did not extend initially to all humans is to our shame, but does nothing to detract from our founding principles and law.

Perhaps my reading of history is inadequate, but I know of no other efforts to govern with the aspirations which are in our founding documents.


Jeff, I thought you were too sophisticated to be spouting this kind of nationalistic mythology.

That leaves me with the unpleasant task of reminding you of a couple of harsh realities:

1. The USA was founded on the twin pillars of genocide and slavery.

2. At its founding, the full voting rights of a citizen were reserved for white men who owned a certain amount of property. Thus, women, nonwhites and poor folk were second-class citizens at best.

I can't imagine how you could possibly square these incontrovertible facts with your notion that this country was founded upon high regard for basic human rights, but it might be amusing to hear you try.

Cheers!
Dixon

[Kermit1941]

Jeff, I thought you were too sophisticated to be spouting this kind of nationalistic mythology.

That leaves me with the unpleasant task of reminding you of a couple of harsh realities:

1. The USA was founded on the twin pillars of genocide and slavery.

2. At its founding, the full voting rights of a citizen were reserved for white men who owned a certain amount of property. Thus, women, nonwhites and poor folk were second-class citizens at best.

I can't imagine how you could possibly square these incontrovertible facts with your notion that this country was founded upon high regard for basic human rights, but it might be amusing to hear you try.

Cheers!
Dixon


Dixon, both you and Jeff make good points.

Jeff pointed to the idealistic goals that were present at the founding of this country, as shown in the declaration of independence from Britain.


That idealism carried us through the problem of non-voting rights for women.

When George Washington was asked how many votes should accrue to a given amount of land, he suggested that it should be that each man should get one vote, whether he owned property or not.

And that is the way it became under the new constitutional government.

As for the genocide, that is a fact, and while we of course regret that it happened, we can understand that it was not possible for the U.S. government at the time to avert it.





Kermit

< [email protected] >

[Peace Seeker]

I can add some further information:

I agree that the Phelps group should be treated in the same way as any other band of militant racists or sexists, and any other scapegoating abusers.

We haven't established a clear, coherent community response to such behavior, so people tend to improvise on short notice -- sometimes very reactively, sometimes more calmly.

I've heard humanitarians (I think this is a more useful category to use here than "progressives") discuss response options to hate provocation in a variety of situations. The same questions people raised on this list often rise to the forefront:

Do we ignore them completely? Counter-protest? Aggressively? Silently?

If we ignore them completely, are we leaving a targetted group at their mercy?

Are we saying they can do anything they want?

If we counter-protest, are we giving them an audience, feeding their egos and amping up publicity and notoriety that they want, and which might advance their agenda?

I worship with Redwood Forest Friends Meeting (Quakers). Some members suggested we go as a silent presence at the churches, to support the worshippers, and to witness against scapegoating and hate speech. We could also accompany worshippers past the Phelps group if they felt intimidated (but the church took care of this very well). It was also a way to affirm what we understand to be a the intent and spirit of the teachings of Jesus.

Some neighborhood people came with the same purpose, which created a line of about 20 people. We stood silently or sometimes spoke quietly with each other, doing our best to maintain a calm and clear counter presence to the rage, hostility and sensational excess that the Phelps demonstrators were bringing (and hoping to provoke in others). About 8 people from the neighborhood and about 8 from our meeting joined the line, with several members of Church of the Roses. A representative from Immanuel Baptist Church came to express his apologies and embarassment to the Church of the Roses, that the Phelps group was behaving abhorrently while claiming to speak as Baptists. A woman from the neighborhood had painted a small, beautiful canvas with the word LOVE and some black-eyed susans, the night before. She and her tiny daughter took turns holding it. The pastor is going to hang it in the church.

The three Phelps people had various offensive and provocative signs. One of them hollered continuously -- maligning Gays as supposedly bringing God's judgment on the US (including Katrina, 9/11 and the present wars). Maligning any church that doesn't preach that God hates gays, and that Gays and Lesbians are damned.

He also hollered scripture condemning women who wear their hair short, at any women in he saw with even moderately short hair styles.

He hollered that the Church of the Roses and its pastor are whores of Satan. Whenever he saw the pastor he made a point of shouting this.

He hollered at families going in to worship that they were negligently dooming their children to damnation.

He quoted many repressive and threatening scriptures to support all this.

He had a set of scripts memorized, mostly not related to any outward stimulus. Others were scripted responses to anticipated comments. For example, several people on their way into church said quietly "I'll pray for you." He would holler back: "God doesn't hear the prayers of sinners!" and would continue railing about them and at them, and against their church in a pre-scripted way. He and the two others loudly exchanged some crude anti-gay and anti-lesbian sexual "jokes" among themselves.

After Church of the Roses, they went to two nearby Catholic churches where people were entering and exiting mass. They had special anti-Catholic signs. One said "Priests Rape Boys". The hollerer made a point of hollering this alot, especially to family groups with children. If there were girls, he shouted "Priests rape girls too."

At each church, some passers by and some church members joined the silent witness. One woman pulled up on a motor scooter and laughed in the hollerer's face, no matter what he said. She handled it well, making it clear she wasn't intimidated, and that his absurdities didn't impress her. She declared very accurately: "I think Phelps must be a closet queer. When people get so upset and obsessed with talking about queers it's becauses they have homosexual feelings themselves they can't deal with." Because I think this was a very straightforward statement of truth, I don't think it constituted counter-insult or baiting, but was a liberating assertion of truth and reality. The hollerer kept attacking her verbally in crude and obnoxious ways, so I think her solitary, unafraid, determined laugh in his face was a positive act. However if a large group had been doing the same, it would have taken on the nature of retaliatory verbal abuse, with people getting baited and manipulated into creating the circus the Phelps group wants.

Some SR police watched, and calmed and reassured some people who were upset.

We decided not to vigil outside the funeral, because we had no way to confer with the deceased's family, to find out what they wanted. We imagined they preferred privacy in their grief. Without their OK, we felt we would be intruding on their grief to advance our ideological agenda, which was our objection to the Phelps group. We also knew the motorcycle group was covering the situation.

I think it was beneficial for the community to provide a silent witness and peaceful barrier rather than merely to stay away, and leave the churches and worshippers exposed to harassment and verbal abuse. I think the best aspect of all was the joining in from the neighborhoods. We'll see other forms of scapegoating and public hate-mongering as the US economy tanks and people fall into crisis. We need to think through how we can stand by any person or group who gets targetted.

David



As it turned out, by the time the funeral began, the three Westboro people had already departed. Maybe they had a plane to catch - who knows. I read that they did protest as planned at a number of churches in the AM. Reportedly two of the WBC members were shouting taunts at the church's members as they came and went.

The service was well attended, perhaps 500 or more in attendance. Lots of military veterans, the fire and police, and the motorcycle clubs who form a flag wall around the WBC if needed. Probably about 100 bikes there.

I am a friend of the decedent's sister, and she asked that I post to the community asking for support.

For those who came and observed, thank you!

-Dane

[nurturetruth]

David...

very well stated and a beautiful summary of your experience!

also interesting. you also asked some good questions.


When you stated : "We decided not to vigil outside the funeral, because we had no way to confer with the deceased's family, to find out what they wanted. We imagined they preferred privacy in their grief. Without their OK, we felt we would be intruding on their grief to advance"

This is the very reason I chose not to go, though i was there in Spirit.

If Dane has stated the family's wishes at the beginning of the thread, it would have had more of an affect on my decision to include my physical presence at the memorial.

However, I do hold gratitude for Dane informing and including the Wacco Community with what was going on!

Thank you very much for sharing , David !!!!

and by the way, I love you David!
(there..did my daily ritual of telling someone i love them... with gratitude to Dixon!)

[Moon]

I've lost track of the conversation to the point where i can't tell what this is about.
You're responding to Ms. Terry's comment that "that doesn't really answer my
question," right? But what was the question, and what was your answer?


oh come now you big silly willie ~~
its really no big mystery
i KNOW you are more aware than that!
and if not, i will still LOVE and ACCEPT you as you are!

P.S... Please DANE... tell us how the ceremony flowed today with the energies!!

[MsTerry]

Yes Moon, when I ask legitimate questions, I become a target for ridicule. LOL
NT made an addition that was bad math, but accused me of not being able to add.
She neither clarified her position nor apologized, it was Zeno who made the link between a funeral and The Westboro Baptist Church.


I've lost track of the conversation to the point where i can't tell what this is about.
You're responding to Ms. Terry's comment that "that doesn't really answer my
question," right? But what was the question, and what was your answer?

[Dixon]

Funny perspective.
In the movie Pulp Fiction, both gunmen witness the same event, being shot at by some young creep.
One sees it as a miracle, while the other saw it as ordinary dumb luck.

Funny response. I mention a couple of incontrovertible facts (that this country was founded on genocide and slavery, and that women, nonwhites and anyone who wasn't rich were denied equal rights), and I point out that these atrocities are clearly inconsistent with a respect for basic human rights, and you attempt to write off these facts as a "funny perspective" and imply that it's just an arbitrary, subjective way of seeing things. If I said that Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that that implied a disregard for human rights, would you call that a "funny perspective", Lenny?

Facts are facts, Lenny. If you dispute the facts I cite, make your case against them. Make it clear that the USA wasn't founded on genocide and slavery, or that it was but somehow that's consistent with a regard for human rights. Note that your snide response to my email attempts to avoid dealing with the facts while fallaciously invalidating my point.

If we refuse to look honestly at our own darkness, as individuals or as nations, we guarantee that brutality will continue to ravage our planet. The fact that the USA is currently murdering innocent men, women and children for financial profit and political advantage in places like Iraq is partly due to the fact that we as a nation have never come to terms in an honest way with the incredible brutality we're founded on. Until we get honest enough to look our own national darkness in the eye, admit to it, and repudiate such brutality, we will continue to live on a brutal, tragic planet.

Are you ready to look honestly at the facts, Lenny? Here are some simple questions:

Can we agree that the USA was founded upon, and would not exist without, genocide?

Can we agree that genocide is morally wrong, even if we're on the giving end rather than the receiving end?

Can we agree that the initial prosperity and growth of the USA was founded largely on slavery?

Can we agree that slavery is morally wrong?

Can we agree that both genocide and slavery are inconsistent with a regard for basic human rights?

Can we agree that withholding equal rights from women, nonwhites and the poor is inconsistent with a regard for basic human rights?

Those are not rhetorical questions, Lenny; I'm requesting that you answer them, instead of avoiding the issues again.


Oh, and whatever happened to this place in your view? Did those women, slaves, and poor lose out...

Gee, Lenny, I'd have to say that being a slave, a murdered Indian, or just a person who's denied equal rights constitutes losing out, wouldn't you? LOL!

If you mean today, women, nonwhites and even the poor have it noticeably better than they did 200 or so years ago, but they're still oppressed to varying degrees. But the more explicit legacy of the historical brutality I mentioned is being played out beyond our borders. Going from murdering Indians in the USA to murdering Iraqis outside the USA constitutes exactly zero progress on that issue, right?


...or is Howard Zinn the only "historian" you've read?

Do you have a reasonable critique of Zinn, Lenny, or is your insulting him just another example of your showing moral cowardice by avoiding the real issues through snide remarks about those who bring them up? If you have a critique of him, whip it out. If not, try to look honestly at your avoidance strategies.

Actually I haven't read much Zinn--haven't found time for his People's History..., but have seen him speak and been impressed. I don't find nearly enough time for reading, but the best book on American history I've read is Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. Let me know if you want to borrow it.

Cheers!
Dixon

[Dixon]

I disagree with you very strongly. The notion that basic human rights are not subject to a vote is one of the main foundations of our nation. The fact that those rights did not extend initially to all humans is to our shame, but does nothing to detract from our founding principles and law.
Perhaps my reading of history is inadequate, but I know of no other efforts to govern with the aspirations which are in our founding documents.

PeriodThree;

What we're dealing with here is the discrepancy between "notional values" and "actual values". Notional values are those we tell others we have, and may even really believe we have. Actual values are those that are expressed in our actions--they are our real values.

You seem to be confusing the two. The high-sounding words in documents like the Declaration of Independence (written by a slave-owner!) are expressions of notional values. The reality of genocide, slavery and grossly unequal rights represent the actual values of our founders.

Contrary to your assertion, basic human rights, from issues of slavery to gay marriage, have been sadly subject to votes from the beginning. Our founders voted to have slaves, to murder Indians and steal their continent, and to oppress women, minorities and the poor, and our government votes to violate basic human rights regularly to this day.

I know it's unpleasant to do so--it's unpleasant for me, too!--but I challenge you to recognize that the high-sounding aspirations you mention are largely lies and illusions. The actual values of "our" country have always been, for the most part, sociopathic values: seize whatever wealth, land and power you can, kill anybody who resists, maintain your power by keeping the niggers (women, nonwhites, the poor, gays and lesbians, etc.) down, and program your citizens with nationalism based on our notional values as a means of social control.

Are you ready to burst the bonds of that nationalistic programming by seeing through the notional values that you've mistaken for actual values, so that we can address the real, brutal values of "our" country in such a way as to make the ideals real for a change?

Blessings;
Dixon

[Dixon]

...Jeff pointed to the idealistic goals that were present at the founding of this country, as shown in the declaration of independence from Britain.

Please refer to my discussion of notional values versus actual values in my last post on this thread.


When George Washington was asked how many votes should accrue to a given amount of land, he suggested that it should be that each man should get one vote, whether he owned property or not.

In this connection, please note three things about Washington: 1. As you say, it was "...each man..." (emphasis added by me); he left women disenfranchised. 2. He was a slave owner and did NOT advocate for one slave, one vote. 3. He was participating in the slaughter of Indians. How many votes do you think he advocated for them to have? And even if he had advocated for Indians to have a vote, could the ones he'd killed exercise that right?

So, to be accurate, let's acknowledge that Washington's position was "One white man, one vote." Do you find this admirable, Kermit?


As for the genocide, that is a fact, and while we of course regret that it happened, we can understand that it was not possible for the U.S. government at the time to avert it.

That is one of the most astounding statements I've ever encountered. In one simple, bizarre statement, you absolve thousands of murderers for what, taken as a whole, was possibly the greatest crime against humanity ever perpetrated. I guess it was not possible for the German government to avert their particular holocaust either, eh, Kermit?

Certainly the US government could have averted the holocaust of the Indians, in the same way any murderer could avert their murders, BY NOT DOING IT. Specifically, 1. You refrain from giving weapons to thousands of guys, calling them an army, and sending them forth to commit genocide, and 2. You pay attention to whether private citizens are killing or otherwise violating Indians and when they do so, you arrest them, put them on trial for murder or whatever crime it may be, and execute or imprison them if they're guilty. That's what you do if you see the victims as human beings, Kermit.

It occurs to me that you may see the genocide as an unavoidable response to the growth of the non-Indian population. Baloney! Most human populations have grown without having to commit genocide to make room for themselves. For one thing, they could have assimilated into existing Indian nations without killing a single Indian, just as succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated into the US culture.

Really, Kermit, I'm blown away by your rationalization of the unbelievable brutality of genocide.

Dixon

[Peace Seeker]

Dixon wrote:

"What we're dealing with here is the discrepancy between "notional values" and "actual values". Notional values are those we tell others we have, and may even really believe we have. Actual values are those that are expressed in our actions--they are our real values."



Dixon,

I agree with most of the points you raise in your critique of the operative values and historical reality which drove the creation, and defined the character, of the USA as a nation-state.

I think your indictment is accurate. However I think your overall summation is incomplete. I think that US civic ideology is an unreconciled mix of sanctimoniously-rationalized predation and authentic, altruistic aspiration.

Rather than dismissing the loftier aspirations of the USA's founding documents as notional pretenses, I see them as unrealized aspirations, whose full articulation and real implementation are hamstrung by the denial process you describe (fear-driven avoidance and disregard of ugly and painful historical realities), and blocked and overpowered by predatory competing forces of corporate profiteering.

So I don't dismiss mainstream US civic idealism (even in its present truncated and hollow form) as mere eyewash and pretense. I think there's something very substantial and authentic driving that idealism, for most U.S. citizens.
Our challenge as humanitarian, progressive activists, I believe, is to debunk the hypocrisy, polyanism and cynical manipulation of mainstream establishmentarian rhetoric, while preserving a sense of common values and shared aspirations with the rank and file U.S. public.

There's a difference between an unrealized aspiration and sanctimonious camouflage. U.S. political culture is a mix of both. Many rank and file U.S. citizens who are sincere mis-perceive progressive/humanitarian attacks on beltway and corporate hypocrisy for assaults on their own sincerely held values. Some progressives exacerbate that mis-perception, mistrust and resentment in he mainstream U.S. public, through sensationalistically iconoclastic rhetoric, skewed and selective moral pronouncements, etc. (And the Left has its own menagerie of demagogues and frauds.)

We don't want to accuse sincere people of hypocrisy, in the process of challenging the hypocrisy of those who manipulate them -- those who invoke admirable sentiments to incite self-righteousness and jingoism.

David Hoffman

[Kermit1941]

Please refer to my discussion of notional values versus actual values in my last post on this thread.



Peace Seeker has the right of it. The notional values are not just pretend;
they are our aspirations.

When there is conflict between our notational values and our implemented values, we tend to change our behavior to reflect our notational values.

That is why after thousands of years in which slavery was the common practice, we developed social attitudes which precluded slavery.

There will always be a gap between our implemented values and our notational values.

I feel that we should not dwell so much on our implemented values.
I worry that we will confuse them with our actual values,
and thereby erase the motivation to change our behavior.

Rather we should dwell on our notational values and plan on how they can be better implemented.




In this connection, please note three things about Washington: 1. As you say, it was "...each man..." (emphasis added by me); he left women disenfranchised. 2. He was a slave owner and did NOT advocate for one slave, one vote. 3. He was participating in the slaughter of Indians. How many votes do you think he advocated for them to have? And even if he had advocated for Indians to have a vote, could the ones he'd killed exercise that right?



Of course. I know that Washington did not consider voting rights
for women and slaves.

That does not contradict my point that Washington advocated that
property ownership have no influence on voting rights.


I am pointing out the good that Washington did, not the evil. I do not deny anything he did. To motivate us to do good, we need to have the good in mind. To dwell on evil may motivate us to do evil.








So, to be accurate, let's acknowledge that Washington's position was "One white man, one vote." Do you find this admirable, Kermit?



Yes. It is an improvement over "One vote per so many acres of land owned".





That is one of the most astounding statements I've ever encountered. In one simple, bizarre statement, you absolve thousands of murderers for what, taken as a whole, was possibly the greatest crime against humanity ever perpetrated. I guess it was not possible for the German government to avert their particular holocaust either, eh, Kermit?



Depends on what you view as possible.

Certainly if we expand to the science fiction level of imagination,
we can imagine all sorts of ways the German genocide of the Jews could
have been averted.

But suppose we consider the meaning of possible to be

that which has reasonable probability of actually happening.

How likely is it that folks, as children, conditioned to respect authority
will see their leader as doing bad things?




How likely is it that folks who as children has slaves serving them
and took it for granted that it was a good thing,
would, as adults, view slavery as evil?

Only when someone decided that it should be a notational value
of society that slavery is evil and convinced many others of that view
did we begin to eradicate slavery.







Certainly the US government could have averted the holocaust of the Indians, in the same way any murderer could avert their murders, BY NOT DOING IT. Specifically, 1. You refrain from giving weapons to thousands of guys, calling them an army, and sending them forth to commit genocide, and 2. You pay attention to whether private citizens are killing or otherwise violating Indians and when they do so, you arrest them, put them on trial for murder or whatever crime it may be, and execute or imprison them if they're guilty. That's what you do if you see the victims as human beings, Kermit.


A British observer noted the amazing cleverness in which the citizens
of the United States created justifications for having to war against the
Indian population.

I think it was not cleverness, but lack of cleverness. They followed the moral path taught them, and this unavoidably led to the Indian genocide.

It is much the same today. Ideally every person on Earth would see
every other person on Earth as like emself, with the same feelings for life.

But how many Christian children today are taught that people of Islamic Faith are essentially just like them. How many children today are taught the similarity between all religious faiths?

We have conflicting notational values. And those conflicts need to be worked out.


We need to focus first on what is good in order to see which of our behaviors are not good.











It occurs to me that you may see the genocide as an unavoidable response to the growth of the non-Indian population. Baloney! Most human populations have grown without having to commit genocide to make room for themselves. For one thing, they could have assimilated into existing Indian nations without killing a single Indian, just as succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated into the US culture.



What is your view on the rightness of illegal immigration?





Really, Kermit, I'm blown away by your rationalization of the unbelievable brutality of genocide.
Dixon



I'm not saying that the genocide was ok. I'm saying that we have to accept that it happened, and then put it behind us, and plan for ways to ensure that it does not happen again.

Kermit

< [email protected] >

[Lenny]

Funny response. I mention a couple of incontrovertible facts (that this country was founded on genocide and slavery, and that women, nonwhites and anyone who wasn't rich were denied equal rights), and I point out that these atrocities are clearly inconsistent with a respect for basic human rights, and you attempt to write off these facts as a "funny perspective" and imply that it's just an arbitrary, subjective way of seeing things. If I said that Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that that implied a disregard for human rights, would you call that a "funny perspective", Lenny?

Well, you are right. It was a quip. Glad it worked. Maybe the better word would have been "ironic", as oppose to the misinterpretation of "humorous", as I see ascribing towards the pejorative to be the spirit of so many here, but let's get on with it.
Your notion of "facts" seems to be the narrow and current view that attempts to pass for "The Truth" with no other views tolerated, or at least such is the tone. The "facts" can be based on the documents left behind, and consideration of what anticipated achievements those same documents point towards. No one disputes that humans were bought and sold. Those are facts. The weight assigned to those facts is what is opened to other POV. And none argue with current standards, but in those days the facts of slavery and it's acceptance as a natural means of relationships did not have the moral outrage many place upon it today. Some would call it "the way of life", much as many do find in having pets today as outrageous.
Truth is, Dixon, as you judge and condemn those that were living a "normal" life with today's standards, that limited view distorts the big picture, that is of those attempting to free themselves from their bondage to old world thinking by creating a new world order and governance. Now I know today many wished they should have set all creatures free and equal, but the course of human affairs does not happen in a twinkling.
As for Godwin's Law, Adolph wrote that he would murder folks, and it wasn't just Jews. The source documents and the writings of these American fellows did not speak of such, but of the opposite, when studied.


Facts are facts, Lenny. If you dispute the facts I cite, make your case against them. Make it clear that the USA wasn't founded on genocide and slavery, or that it was but somehow that's consistent with a regard for human rights. Note that your snide response to my email attempts to avoid dealing with the facts while fallaciously invalidating my point. If we refuse to look honestly at our own darkness, as individuals or as nations, we guarantee that brutality will continue to ravage our planet.

What you presented as "facts" are conclusions of facts in and of themselves. And as with any conclusions, such may be viewed as opinions. No? So slavery is "terrible"? If it so terrible, why is it still practiced in so many parts of the world today? Because they are not "enlightened"? A bit chauvinistic or is simply a "fact" that you are superior? Your counterparts find that as intolerable as you find their notion that "human rights" is a figment of some crazy imagination. Please, do not even try to put the, "so you are in favor of slavery" jacket on me. Instead try and get the point.
You state that our country causes brutality, and you have a valid point. We send NGOs to other countries that hold different values and expect them to kow-tow to ours. We are both outraged and rightly so, but maybe for the wrong "facts". Other countries, MOST OF THE WORLD, holds their cherished values in a different light: they value and hold women, virginity, marriage, children & family in a different and traditional (in terms of forever) manner; they hold these values with pride and longevity. And then we send over, attached with the smell of money, groups that teach sexual "liberation", birth control, homosexuality/lesbianism, marriage as a choice with divorce as an alternative, children are optional, and family may be something "you get over with" eventually, along with Hollywood movies that promulgate such notions. Then we wonder why they call us 'ugly American' and hate us. Not a very strong wonder.
You have an opinion that there are "human rights", yet castigate those that started and promulgated such notions. Yes, they owned slaves. Did they not find that terrible? Some did, and they freed them at their death, and/or had them stipend until their death. Many did, and that is a fact as well. So they were "racists" by whose standards? Were they not "far thinking" in some standard, or set an example by their actions? According to you, they were simply racists, and that closes the book! No point in considering further "facts" further, eh?
Well, you agree with Santanna and we do study history, however in my dark moments I fear Lennin seems right at times, "The only thing we learn from history is that we don't study history".


The fact that the USA is currently murdering innocent men, women and children for financial profit and political advantage in places like Iraq is partly due to the fact that we as a nation have never come to terms in an honest way with the incredible brutality we're founded on. Until we get honest enough to look our own national darkness in the eye, admit to it, and repudiate such brutality, we will continue to live on a brutal, tragic planet.

As you are right and we are currently and directly with deliberation murdering the innocent, we need to be brought down. But then facts seem to be like constellations, on a background and defined by where one draws the lines. Can I suppose in your universe the only the constellations that exist are the ones you draw? A "true fact" that OBL declared war with US in 1996 does not exist or simply ignored/forgotten? Or do you find it a "fact" that those 3,000 killed on 9/11 were "nazis" and deserved to die, as one university professor promulgated to the world?
As much as you hate war, I can surmise that you were in battle, for NO ONE can hate war more than that guy. And you are right 100% that being in Iraq is NOT a war, as our Congress Critters lacked the temerity to start one or stop one, but took the cowards' way out by letting this current guy be a dictator. But now there in Iraq & Afghanistan, it certainly smells like a war, so let's agree to call it one, OK? Now the bad news: war produces casualties, and some may be innocent. According to some news I get, we've changed our strategy and it seems to be working in our favor, but let us ignore that for now. Gone are the civilized wars of consenting adults. Wish they were back, but thanks to modern notions of war and tech, they aren't. I find it curious that those same two aforementioned notions are bringing some of it back. Our boys that are truly brutalizing are being held up to some kind of rational justice. We can firmly trust that did not happen in previous wars, don't cha' think?
How you wish to derive our past in terms of violence with the current war is way to far out and heady for me. I know you wish to tie it into economics, but that also is way over my head. Seems our gas prices, nor any other prices are tied to it. I just don't have all the economics down to create a head of steam to understand it all. I hope you have. As for our tragic and brutal planet (or is that rhetoric?) the only answer there is: always has been. Never was Eden; but probably a whole lot of people are enjoying "peace" and prosperity than ever before, no? I mean when you shuck down to the cob, having a job, family, kids, and trying to make it a better life in your little place, is happening to more people in more places than ever before. Some security, in spite of the 24/7 machine churning out bad news, no?


Are you ready to look honestly at the facts, Lenny? Here are some simple questions:
Can we agree that the USA was founded upon, and would not exist without, genocide?
Can we agree that genocide is morally wrong, even if we're on the giving end rather than the receiving end?
Can we agree that the initial prosperity and growth of the USA was founded largely on slavery?
Can we agree that slavery is morally wrong?
Can we agree that both genocide and slavery are inconsistent with a regard for basic human rights?
Can we agree that withholding equal rights from women, nonwhites and the poor is inconsistent with a regard for basic human rights?
Those are not rhetorical questions, Lenny; I'm requesting that you answer them, instead of avoiding the issues again.

I believe I answered or pointed towards another considered answer. I've not the time nor inclination to retort in such a fashion, other than, look at your definitions, examine your premises, consider views of the time, place, and mores in question. The zeitgeist of times and your dismissive tone in consideration of such does not open to dialogue for me. So do your own homework.



Gee, Lenny, I'd have to say that being a slave, a murdered Indian, or just a person who's denied equal rights constitutes losing out, wouldn't you? LOL!
If you mean today, women, nonwhites and even the poor have it noticeably better than they did 200 or so years ago, but they're still oppressed to varying degrees.

If your last sentence is English, then, yes, you agree that they've a better life, now that they are "in" the Constitution, as oppose to your first sentence when all those folks were not "in" the same document. I am sorry, your self affirmation of laughter negated any real, turgid meaning to me.


But the more explicit legacy of the historical brutality I mentioned is being played out beyond our borders. Going from murdering Indians in the USA to murdering Iraqis outside the USA constitutes exactly zero progress on that issue, right?

My goodness, Dixon, your mixing of apples and oranges certainly works for you well. But your extending Constitutional rights to those that are in another country with some aid from folks from even more distant other countries who are trying to kill US, simply loses that comparison on me.
Oh, wait, is it that people are violent? No matter where? And always have been, or that we, as Americans, have that franchise sewn up. Or we should give the comfort of Constitutional consideration to them as well, even though they are shooting at US? Well, you maybe right. Tell them to put down their guns. Or we could simply leave tomorrow, and that would solve OUR problems of our volunteers going their to fight with them for THEIR country. But then wouldn't US leaving allow THEIR enemies to come and kill everybody that didn't agree with them? Say, didn't that occur in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Russia (a couple of times), Cuba, Hungry and other places before? Wait! Maybe Lenin WAS right about history. Oh, it's SO confusing. I can only WISH there were simple answers. Can you give a guy a hand? I know my main man, Obama, wants to keep our "peace keepers" in Iraq. So it must be right, no?



Do you have a reasonable critique of Zinn, Lenny, or is your insulting him just another example of your showing moral cowardice by avoiding the real issues through snide remarks about those who bring them up? If you have a critique of him, whip it out. If not, try to look honestly at your avoidance strategies.

You've not read Zinn, and you wish for me to defend him by "whipping it out"? Gadz! If you wish to read on about the other side, I suggest the long, boring drivel put out by the John Birch Society. As Erasmus once quipped something about, "If you are to light a candle to the angel of light, consider the other angel". IOW, and I repeat, do your own homework. I won't for you.



Actually I haven't read much Zinn--haven't found time for his People's History..., but have seen him speak and been impressed. I don't find nearly enough time for reading, but the best book on American history I've read is Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. Let me know if you want to borrow it. Cheers! Dixon

As always, there is never enough time to read, and even less so with trying to straighten heads out with such really basic issues as discussed here. But thanks for the attempt. Enjoy.

[MsTerry]

Even though I agree with the essence of your distinction between different values, you also seem to imply a guilt by association.
Are we, or more specifically is Dixon responsible and guilty of genocide, racism and slavery by the mere notion that he is an American citizen?
I think when we talk about what we Americans have done to this world, we need to distinguish between what the government does and what we do on an individual level.
Most of the people in this country are without representation, and the people who are supposed to represent us, do what is politically safe.
What we do in our own personal life, is what makes the difference


PeriodThree;

What we're dealing with here is the discrepancy between "notional values" and "actual values". Notional values are those we tell others we have, and may even really believe we have. Actual values are those that are expressed in our actions--they are our real values.

You seem to be confusing the two. The high-sounding words in documents like the Declaration of Independence (written by a slave-owner!) are expressions of notional values. The reality of genocide, slavery and grossly unequal rights represent the actual values of our founders.

Contrary to your assertion, basic human rights, from issues of slavery to gay marriage, have been sadly subject to votes from the beginning. Our founders voted to have slaves, to murder Indians and steal their continent, and to oppress women, minorities and the poor, and our government votes to violate basic human rights regularly to this day.

I know it's unpleasant to do so--it's unpleasant for me, too!--but I challenge you to recognize that the high-sounding aspirations you mention are largely lies and illusions. The actual values of "our" country have always been, for the most part, sociopathic values: seize whatever wealth, land and power you can, kill anybody who resists, maintain your power by keeping the niggers (women, nonwhites, the poor, gays and lesbians, etc.) down, and program your citizens with nationalism based on our notional values as a means of social control.

Are you ready to burst the bonds of that nationalistic programming by seeing through the notional values that you've mistaken for actual values, so that we can address the real, brutal values of "our" country in such a way as to make the ideals real for a change?

Blessings;
Dixon

[Peace Seeker]

I would add a further distinction as well -- and I don't think it's one of values, so much as areas of responsibility:

In addition to the direct responsibility of people in power for historic and systemic injustice, others at lower levels of worldly power are often complicit in social systems of domination, which are inflicted in our names.

So for example there are aspects of sexism I don't feel responsible for, and other aspects of sexism where I see my complicity -- that I continue to collude in it and benefit from it. For example, I find certain kinds of sexually exploitive portrayals of women sexually gratifying, even though I realize they are oppressive and objectifying. In my more disciplined moments, I might steer clear of such images -- turn the page or change the TV channel, or take a hard look at my own exploitive or objectifying impulses, and even try to shut some of them down, or scrutinize and de-mystify them. But there are plenty of other times I just sit there drooling, and chalk it all up to operation of inevitable, evolved (and therefore valid) natural impulses.

Meanwhile, there are certain unfair advantages I enjoy as a male, which exist because our culture objectifies women and subjects women to sexual-reductionism when I unreflectively take a free ride. by exploiting privilege I have at the expense of women or people of color, I renew, deepen and perpetuate racism and sexism.

So in addition to the distinction between the culpability of unprincipled leaders and prejudice mongers on one hand, and the comparative innocence of disempowered, hapless masses on the other, I think we each have a further layer of potential culpability through complicity in oppressions which others inflict in our names, and to our (near term material) benefit.

[Lenny]

I would add a further distinction as well -- and I don't think it's one of values, so much as areas of responsibility:
In addition to the direct responsibility of people in power for historic and systemic injustice, others at lower levels of worldly power are often complicit in social systems of domination, which are inflicted in our names.

Yeah, I don't like gov't or anything done "in my name" either. We, the people, are OK, up to a point, but we forget, so....gov't, the necessary evil has to jump up and keep the peace. Not angels, just men & women.


So for example there are aspects of sexism I don't feel responsible for, and other aspects of sexism where I see my complicity -- that I continue to collude in it and benefit from it. For example, I find certain kinds of sexually exploitive portrayals of women sexually gratifying, even though I realize they are oppressive and objectifying. In my more disciplined moments, I might steer clear of such images -- turn the page or change the TV channel, or take a hard look at my own exploitive or objectifying impulses, and even try to shut some of them down, or scrutinize and de-mystify them. But there are plenty of other times I just sit there drooling, and chalk it all up to operation of inevitable, evolved (and therefore valid) natural impulses.

By the time you reach my age, it's just good for peeing through, so a pretty girl is simply that. And that is an enjoyment in itself. I just don't care anymore. Zeroed out and it's OK. (Truth is: it's great). As a young man I was a whoring beast that would utter anything for that moment between her....well, that was then, and I'm better off now. No more drool.


Meanwhile, there are certain unfair advantages I enjoy as a male, which exist because our culture objectifies women and subjects women to sexual-reductionism when I unreflectively take a free ride. by exploiting privilege I have at the expense of women or people of color, I renew, deepen and perpetuate racism and sexism.

Being a colored guy, but can pass sometimes by some folks, I don't get to practice that racist crap. A good colored friend won't let it get by for a second, if you can stand righteousness. A good woman friend won't either.


So in addition to the distinction between the culpability of unprincipled leaders and prejudice mongers on one hand, and the comparative innocence of disempowered, hapless masses on the other, I think we each have a further layer of potential culpability through complicity in oppressions which others inflict in our names, and to our (near term material) benefit.

Real pretty writing. And I guess we all are mortal, human, and have similar faults. Welcome to the race. After all, seems we may be worth all of :2cents:

[PeriodThree]

PeriodThree;
I challenge you to recognize that the high-sounding aspirations you mention are largely lies and illusions.

The actual values of "our" country have always been, for the most part, sociopathic values: seize whatever wealth, land and power you can, kill anybody who resists, maintain your power by keeping the niggers (women, nonwhites, the poor, gays and lesbians, etc.) down, and program your citizens with nationalism based on our notional values as a means of social control.



Hi Dixon,

You have a more dour reading of US history than I, and I disagree with your dismissal of the importance of what you describe as notional values.

I believe that having values and aspirations which call upon us to be better than we are is good.

You quoted these words of mine before your response:
--
The notion that basic human rights are not subject to a vote is one of the main foundations of our nation. The fact that those rights did not extend initially to all humans is to our shame, but does nothing to detract from our founding principles and law.

Perhaps my reading of history is inadequate, but I know of no other efforts to govern with the aspirations which are in our founding documents.
--

With respect, your argument seems to be that because we have failed to live up to our aspirations, or notional values as you describe them, that those aspirations are lies and illusions and instruments of social control.

I believe that as a nation we have some pretty good aspirations. Equal protection and due process are good values. Our halting progress towards realizing our national aspirations does not invalidate those values.

I also believe that things are getting better. Not in an even fashion, there are reversals and fits and starts, but I believe that things are getting better, and that the speed of improvement is also increasing.



Are you ready to burst the bonds of that nationalistic programming by seeing through the notional values that you've mistaken for actual values, so that we can address the real, brutal values of "our" country in such a way as to make the ideals real for a change?


I find this to be a fascinating paragraph on a couple of levels. I think your point is that we need to reject our highest aspirations as being nationalistic programming then look only at our worst actions before we can then re-adopt our original aspirations.

I am struggling to put your words into a form I can work with, but I am failing, and it sounds stupid the way I have tried to paraphrase it, help me out here.

I _think_ I have 'seen through the notional values' by my focus on pursuing these aspirations in spite of my, and our, failings. I know we have many failures. Does that seem to you like sufficient effort at 'seeing through the notional values?'

I don't think we disagree over much, but I am struggling here to make the connections.

[Dixon]

Peace Seeker has the right of it. The notional values are not just pretend; they are our aspirations.

Kermit, thanks for responding.

Look, Bro', the notional values by definition are the ones we're not acting on. Such high-sounding "aspirations" can be found in the constitutions and speeches of every modern dictator and imperialist state from Hitler to China to Iran to Myanmar to the USSR to the USA, ad nauseum. Unless and until these "aspirations" change from notional to actual, through being acted upon, they're nothing but fantasies that do no one any good. And that's not counting those that are simply lies which the people uttering them have no intention of ever realizing.

Kermit, if someone said "I believe rape is morally wrong" as they were raping you, would you say their real value was pro-rape or anti-rape? Or if they say "All men are created equal" while committing genocide and slavery, would you say their real values were consistent with basic human rights? If their notional values were real, they wouldn't be notional values, they'd be actual ones, because they'd be acting that way instead of just giving lip service!


When there is a conflict between our notational values and our implemented ones...

Kermit, I can't help but note that you've replaced the straightforward term "actual values" with the euphemism "implemented values", presumably to obscure the fact that our actual values (those manifest in our actions) are our real ones--or at the very least more real than our notional ones.

Note that "actual" is an adjectival form of the noun "action" and the verb "to act", and that it is a synonym for "real". Thus, our actual values are our real values, and our notional values are fantasies ("aspirations") or lies, until we start ACTing in accordance with them, if ever.


When there is conflict between our notational values and our implemented values, we tend to change our behavior to reflect our notational values.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but here's one thing for sure: Such progress is unlikely to happen unless we look squarely at our sins, feel empathy for the victims and appropriate horror, explicitly repudiate such actions and the twisted values underlying them, make amends if possible, and dedicate ourselves to turning our notional values into actual ones through right action. Some call this confessing and repenting. Whatever you call it, it's generally necessary for healing/progress, and that's why I make an issue of it.

I don't enjoy focusing on the negative, nor do I deny that there are some truly positive actions and values in the American psyche. I'm just focusing on the negative, and attempting to get others to do so, so through this encounter with our own darkness we can get to the light. If we deny the darkness, it continues to rule us.

My disagreement with you and others is that you seem not to want to go through this unpleasant process, but rather to ignore the negative, pretend the positive fantasies are our real values, and hope that in a few centuries or millennia we become nicer. Meanwhile, our collective brutality, supported by denial and rationalizations, continues.


That is why after thousands of years in which slavery was the common practice, we developed social attitudes which precluded slavery.

Oboy, and it only took a few thousand years! During which time millions of people suffered needless, profound cruelty. At this rate, we'll stop our wars of aggression by the year 5000! Something to look forward to!

OK, pardon my sarcasm. But please note that the progress didn't happen until lots of people got past their minimizing and rationalizing and actually encountered their own darkness in the process I describe above--the same process I'm trying to kick-start in you and others through my posts. Do you see what I'm trying to do here?


There will always be a gap between our implemented values and our notational values.

OK, yeah, but we can and must do better, agreed? And to do better, we must address our darkness honestly, moving through it to the light. Making excuses for brutalities which DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN (just as the ones we'll commit tomorrow and next week don't have to happen), denying our freedom/responsibility to make better choices, is the path to more darkness, not light.

Please understand, I'm not saying we should wallow in the darkness like some pathetic "Goth kid", forsaking the light in an orgy of unending guilty breast-beating and negativity. I'm saying we must go into and through the darkness, forsaking our denial and excuses and nationalistic pride, to change our behavior. If we don't admit that we have a problem, how can we heal?

Are you willing to swallow the bad-tasting medicine to heal our planet, Kermit?


I feel that we should not dwell so much on our implemented values. I worry that we will confuse them with our actual values...

But Kermit, the really unpleasant fact that you're desperately trying to avoid is that our "implemented values" ARE our actual values. In fact, you made up the term "implemented values" as a euphemism for "actual values", remember?

I know it's horrifying, brother, but we have to go through it if we want to get past it; there's no way around it. Ignoring it, repressing it to avoid the associated unpleasant feelings, will only prolong its hold on us. That's a pretty basic understanding of psychology.


...and thereby erase the motivation to change our behavior.

You think minimizing, rationalizing and trying to just forget about things like genocide gives us motivation to change? I must insist that the opposite is true; it's a kind of psychological/spiritual heroin that makes us too comfortable with the brutal status quo.

Look at history; important social progress, such as the illegalization of slavery you mentioned, came about because people looked honestly at the ugliness and became really really sad, disgusted, ashamed, horrified and enraged. They had to get into an intolerable state of mind to get motivated to make the sacrifices necessary to change the world.


Rather we should dwell on our notational values and plan on how they can be better implemented.

This is a false dichotomy, Kermit; it's not an either/or thing. Progress requires a balanced approach in which we get clear on the problems and our responsibility for them by encountering the darkness of our actual values without excuses, and ALSO dwell on the "notional values" to set a goal to strive for.


I am pointing out the good that Washington did, not the evil.

Do you also emphasize the good that Hitler did, not the evil? The good that Osama bin Laden did, not the evil? Attila the Hun?

If you're like most, you emphasize the good and ignore the evil in those you identify with (America in this context) and do the exact opposite with those you don't identify with. Psychologists call this "denial and projection"; we deny our own darkness and project it onto some despised out-group. Of course, they're doing exactly the same to us. The result: continued brutality, no progress, because no one will take responsibility for their own evil! The Evil Empire is always someone else.

The late great Walt Kelly said it well in his classic comic strip Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us".


To motivate us to do good, we need to have the good in mind.

Again you espouse an unbalanced approach which will not likely help. To motivate us to do good, we must have BOTH the good and the evil in mind. They are, after all, two ends of the same polarity, as the yin-yang principle shows us. Wallowing exclusively in thoughts of either good or evil will likely only prolong our problems. The demons which we repress rule us from below, from the darkness we relegate them to.

All of us, individuals and nations, have both good and evil in us. This is how the overall Wholeness manifests polaristically in the world. An effective approach must deal honestly with both, rather than trying to sweep the darkness under the rug.


To dwell on evil may motivate us to do evil.

That depends on what you mean by "dwell on". I'm suggesting that an honest encounter with our (individual and national, historical and current) evil, along with consideration of our good, is the balanced path to progress and away from brutality. I simply emphasize the evil of America in discussions like these in order to counterbalance the gross distortions of nationalism that we've all been programmed with throughout our lives, so we can see things clearly and honestly, stop projecting our darkness onto the "enemy", confess and repent instead of denying and rationalizing, and make the world a better place.


Certainly if we expand to the science fiction level of imagination, we can imagine all sorts of ways the German genocide of the Jews could have been averted.

Here you seemingly seek to absolve individuals and nations of responsibility for their decisions/actions, as if they couldn't possibly have made different choices. This is not the path to a better world.

Of course, if you're a strict determinist who believes there's no such thing as free will, concepts like right, wrong, and responsibility, and all of our discussions of these issues, are meaningless.

Otherwise, Germany is in fact responsible for its holocaust, and America (including George Washington) is responsible for ours. Of course, many individuals in both countries are not guilty of these crimes, but as a nation, each society needs to address its darkness honestly for progress to occur. Germany was forced to do so to some degree because they lost the war. The USA has been able to weasel out of addressing its darkness honestly because they won the war.


How likely is it that folks, as children, conditioned to respect authority will see their leader as doing bad things?

Not very damn likely at all as long as most folks, like you, insist on ignoring those bad things ("not dwelling on evil") and treating genocidal slave-owners as heroes. That's why I insist on pointing out those bad things.


How likely is it that folks who as children has slaves serving them and took it for granted that it was a good thing,
would, as adults, view slavery as evil?

It's more likely if we cultivate habits of honesty, empathy, confession and repentance--and confront people with the darkness they continually try to deny or sweep under the rug.


Only when someone decided that it should be a notational value of society that slavery is evil and convinced many others of that view did we begin to eradicate slavery.

Wrong. Only when someone decided that it should be an ACTUAL value, not a notional one, did we illegalize slavery. Remember that a notional value, by definition, is a kind of fantasy; it's a value that we flatter ourselves we have, but really don't have. Notional values are pretty much just denials of our real values. When we take action on it, it becomes an actual value, a real value. That's why I like to get past the sweet-sounding rhetoric and focus on our actions, however good or evil they may be.


A British observer noted the amazing cleverness in which the citizens of the United States created justifications for having to war against the Indian population.

Such justifications are human nature. We're having this conversation right now because I responded to your attempts at justifying genocide ("...it was not possible for the US government at the time to avert it" etc.).


We need to focus first on what is good in order to see which of our behaviors are not good.

Nearly everybody in the USA has been doing just that for centuries, Kermit! For every social critic like me, there are at least a hundred citizens saying "America, we're #1! The greatest country in the world! etc." In my experience, that path does not lead to an honest appraisal of our behaviors which are not good. It just tends to harden our armor against addressing our darkness honestly and thus support us in staying the brutal course. Only when people acknowledge our evil (along with our good), do I observe progress happening. So I insist that acknowledgment of both is necessary, and that requires an emphasis on our evil to compensate for our habitual minimization of it and exaggeration of our good.


What is your view on the rightness of illegal immigration?

Gawd, Kermit, we're being so long-winded already that I'm not gonna open that can of worms here. But if you go to post #3 at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11634
you'll find a relatively concise explication of my position on so-called "illegal" immigration.

Is it safe to assume that the relevance of your question is to justify the genocide of the Indians by positing that the whites had to do it because it was impossible for them to assimilate peacefully into existing Indian societies? If so, I won't let you get away with it.

Many tribes were very welcoming to whites. In many cases, white settlements would have died out had they not been saved by Indians, even after treating those same Indians very badly!

We all know that many Indians assimilated into white culture; in most cases, they had little choice, as their own nations were wiped out. What most of us don't realize is that, for centuries, many more whites "went Indian" than vice versa! This was not only for survival, but also because many Indian nations were more socially advanced (more democratic and with more gender equality, and a more sustainable, life-affirming spirituality) than white societies. Here's a relevant quote from Benjamin Franklin: "No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies."

The point is that whites had other options than genocide, including going back to Europe, acquiring land legally from Indian nations, reproducing less, etc., as well as assimilating into Indian societies. So there's no way you can say that "...it was not possible for the U.S. government at the time to avert it (genocide)". And let's be clear on the fact that saying that does indeed constitute justification of the government's genocidal actions--a morally indefensible position.


I'm not saying that the genocide was ok. I'm saying that we have to accept that it happened, and then put it behind us...

I'm doing exactly that, without justifying it. What I want you to dig is that we cannot possibly put it behind us without acknowledging that it was profoundly immoral, unnecessary, and should never have happened. Until we create that resolution, it isn't behind us; it's still with us like a ghost, whether or not we try to ignore or justify it.


...and plan for ways to ensure that it does not happen again.

That's exactly what I'm doing by trying to get people to address the brutality of "our" country's founding without denial or rationalization. Without that, it will happen again (and again and again and again), just as it is today (such as in Iraq where we're playing cowboys and Indians).

Sorry for being so long-winded, but I hope we understand each other a bit better now.
Yours for the Golden Rule (actual, not notional);
Dixon

[Braggi]

...
Can we agree that the USA was founded upon, and would not exist without, genocide?
...

Dixon, the USA was founded upon the Declaration of Independence. It's a great read. A real libertarian will say the US should have stopped there as far as documents of organization go. Everything else is details.

But you are real hung up on this notion of genocide. Yes, I know enough of real history of this country to know that a genocide went on that many would argue, still goes on. However, that's not what I was talking about.

What we are doing in Iraq is wrong, but it's not a genocide and it compares poorly with our expansion across Indian lands. I agree, both were wrong in many ways. That's still not what I was talking about.

I was referring to individual rights and the fact that no vote need be taken to identify what they are if they aren't pretty directly hurting someone else. This nation really was founded upon the notion of personal freedom. Bush would gag at the idea, but so would a whole lot of Democrats.

No vote need be taken to clear the way for anyone to marry anyone as long as they are informed, consenting adults. That right is already there in the Declaration.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Kermit, thanks for responding.

Well, I haven' read such clearly written, long winded hog-wash in 40 years!
What worries me is you are starting to make a bit of sense! That aside from some high flying generalizations and notion of collective guilt and remedy. But I read every stinking word of it, and while not agreeing with some portion of it, you are starting to almost make sense. Some of it is too airy-fairy for me, but dang! Or am I getting a bit dizzy? I'll get back to you later. Thanks?!?

[MAUDE]

Jeez....I am in L.A. (where I grew up) visiting my 95 year old Dad until Wed. but my heart is there with the family in this time of loss. We have such a beautiful place to live and love, how awful that this hate and anger has to flourish. My significant other is a 3 year in country Nam Vet, and while neither of us like this war, we support those sons and daughters as they are precious to us all.... irregardless of their private lives.



This is a good time to show our support, as a community. A co-worker here at Sonic.net recently lost her brother, who was serving in Afghanistan.

The Westboro Baptist Church group will be picketing a number of churches on Sunday, then the soldier's funeral in Santa Rosa. Here is their website: https://www.godhatesfags.com/

Whatever your position is on war or religion - I think we can all agree that these people are just way, way over the top.

Their picket schedule can be found there. If you have time on Sunday, consider turning out for the funeral, as that's likely to be the most hateful portion. Here's Westboro's release on this: https://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080602_christopher-gathercole-funeral.pdf

More propaganda: https://www.signmovies.net/videos/signmovies/tgfi.html

Santa Rosa Memorial Park 1900 Franklin Ave. I'm going to arrive at 2:00pm. The picket schedule says that they'll be there at 1:15, but that's well before the start of the funeral.

I'd love to see as many loving Sonoma County people there as possible! If you believe in God, he/she probably doesn't hate anyone - and sending a message of love and acceptance by your own attendance sure would be real nice.

For more on the Westboro Baptist Church, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Lots of YouTube videos - here's a starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&NR=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEqlcxW8aS8&NR=1

Let's show our support, and condemn this homophobic hate group!

Please do check out the websites and videos. I'm sure you'll be pretty surprised by these nuts who are going to be picketing in our community.

-Dane

https://www.sonic.net/dane/god_hates_fags.jpg

[Kermit1941]

My disagreement with you and others is that you seem not to want to go through this unpleasant process, but rather to ignore the negative, pretend the positive fantasies are our real values, and hope that in a few centuries or millennia we become nicer. Meanwhile, our collective brutality, supported by denial and rationalizations, continues.




I agree that I do not want to go through your proposed unpleasant process.


We have a difference in viewpoint.

I prefer to think of our aspirations as our actual values.
You prefer to think of our implemented values as our actual values.

I suggest this is a difference of viewpoint only, and that we agree in our goals
and in our acknowledgment that highly undesirable things have happened in human history.







Please understand, I'm not saying we should wallow in the darkness like some pathetic "Goth kid", forsaking the light in an orgy of unending guilty breast-beating and negativity. I'm saying we must go into and through the darkness, forsaking our denial and excuses and nationalistic pride, to change our behavior. If we don't admit that we have a problem, how can we heal?

Are you willing to swallow the bad-tasting medicine to heal our planet, Kermit?




If I believed that such medicine was helpful, I would not hesitate.
I have not yet seen reason to believe it would be helpful.




Do you also emphasize the good that Hitler did, not the evil? The good that Osama bin Laden did, not the evil? Attila the Hun?



Of course.




Here you seemingly seek to absolve individuals and nations of responsibility for their decisions/actions, as if they couldn't possibly have made different choices. This is not the path to a better world.



Not absolve. Explaining why I feel it's wrong to make condemning statements about them.




Of course, if you're a strict determinist who believes there's no such thing as free will, concepts like right, wrong, and responsibility, and all of our discussions of these issues, are meaningless.



** smile ****

A separate issue. Also I don't quite agree that under the view of
strict determinism, that moral responsibility would become mute.




It's more likely if we cultivate habits of honesty, empathy, confession and repentance--and confront people with the darkness they continually try to deny or sweep under the rug.



I agree with the "cultivate habits of honesty, empathy" part.
Not with the "confession and repentance" part.




Wrong. Only when someone decided that it should be an ACTUAL value, not a notional one, did we illegalize slavery. Remember that a notional value, by definition, is a kind of fantasy; it's a value that we flatter ourselves we have, but really don't have. Notional values are pretty much just denials of our real values. When we take action on it, it becomes an actual value, a real value. That's why I like to get past the sweet-sounding rhetoric and focus on our actions, however good or evil they may be.



Perhaps we should not use the terms "notional value" or "actual value"
because we clearly have different images in mind when we use these
words.




Nearly everybody in the USA has been doing just that for centuries, Kermit! For every social critic like me, there are at least a hundred citizens saying "America, we're #1! The greatest country in the world! etc." In my experience, that path does not lead to an honest appraisal of our behaviors which are not good. It just tends to harden our armor against addressing our darkness honestly and thus support us in staying the brutal course. Only when people acknowledge our evil (along with our good), do I observe progress happening. So I insist that acknowledgment of both is necessary, and that requires an emphasis on our evil to compensate for our habitual minimization of it and exaggeration of our good.



I suggest the following mechanism for why people either ignore or rationalize their bad acts.

Everyone wishes to think well of themselves.

A person cannot think well of emself if ey admits that ey
delibertly did wrong.

Therefore, many people who are not aware of this mechanism, will
either deny that the were aware of doing what they did, or they
will find some rationalization like, "It's ok for me to be mean to him because
he was mean to me."







Gawd, Kermit, we're being so long-winded already that I'm not gonna open that can of worms here. But if you go to post #3 at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11634
you'll find a relatively concise explication of my position on so-called "illegal" immigration.



I'm pleased to confirm that your view about illegal immigration is similar to mine.



Is it safe to assume that the relevance of your question is to justify the genocide of the Indians by positing that the whites had to do it because it was impossible for them to assimilate peacefully into existing Indian societies? If so, I won't let you get away with it.



No, it is not save to assume that. :)

I asked the question about your view of illegal immigration because
such illegal immigration provides an example of what we had been
talking about.








Sorry for being so long-winded, but I hope we understand each other a bit better now.
Yours for the Golden Rule (actual, not notional);
Dixon


I do feel I understand your point of view somewhat better, and
also feel that we have essentially the same hopes for humankind.


Kermit Rose

< [email protected] >

[Dixon]

Dixon wrote: " Can we agree that the USA was founded upon, and would not exist without, genocide?"


Dixon, the USA was founded upon the Declaration of Independence.

Jeff, note that this response evades my question.

And more importantly, it's not true, if being "founded upon the Declaration of Independence" means being founded upon the premise that "all men [sic] are created equal" and have rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I shouldn't have to explain that a country which practices genocide and slavery (not to mention nonsufferage of women) is OBVIOUSLY NOT founded on those sweet-sounding ideas. I won't belabor my points about the difference between actual and notional values; suffice it to say that when a slave owner who supports genocide claims to believe in freedom and equality, he's simply lying. Or, to repeat an example: "If someone said 'I believe rape is morally wrong' as they were raping you, would you say their real value was pro-rape or anti-rape? Or if they say 'All men are created equal' while committing genocide and slavery, would you say their real values were consistent with basic human rights?"


But you are real hung up on this notion of genocide.

Jeff, I'm "hung up" on genocide because this discussion is about whether this nation is founded on respect for human rights, and that issue can't be honestly addressed without discussing genocide. And, I continue to hammer on the issue (at least until I give up in frustration) because some respondents (including you?) are desperately trying to maintain their denial that the fact of genocide belies the sweet "aspirations" expressed in the Declaration of Independence.


What we are doing in Iraq is wrong, but it's not a genocide...

I neither said nor implied that it was, did I, Jeff?


...and it compares poorly with our expansion across Indian lands.

On the contrary, both are illegal invasions in which huge numbers of innocent men, women and children are murdered, maimed, oppressed, and in many cases raped or tortured, partly motivated by racism and religious intolerance, for wealth and power. My point, that our national failure to repudiate the one perpetuates attitudes that lead to the other, still stands.


This nation really was founded upon the notion of personal freedom.

For white males.

Your statement is only true if we don't consider Indians, slaves or women to be persons.

The Declaration of Independence expresses some wonderful values which, unfortunately, were not to any great degree the founding principles of this country. They were represented as such, but sadly, that representation was a propagandistic lie. The Declaration can best be understood as "middle management" (i.e., the ruling class of the colonies) firing their bosses (King George et al.) so they would no longer have to share with them the fruits of their exploitation of the lower classes (slaves, women, Indians). I would support a society that actually tries to implement the values expressed in the Declaration. If we are to create such a society, we must first be honest about the failure of the USA in that regard.

I'll sign off with something a little more light-hearted (but only a little). It's a double dactyl I wrote. For those who don't know about them, double dactyls, sometimes called "higgledy-piggledies", are a fun, eight-line form of light verse which can only be written about people with double-dactylic names (i.e., six-syllable names accented on the first and fourth syllables, such as "President Jefferson").

HYPOCRACY

Higgledy-piggledy
President Jefferson,
undemocratically
dealing in slaves,
cried “Independence!” Some
call him a hero, while
those once his property
spin in their graves.


Cheers!
Dixon

[Lenny]

Dixon wrote: " Can we agree that the USA was founded upon, and would not exist without, genocide?"

Jeff, note that this response evades my question.
And more importantly, it's not true, if being "founded upon the Declaration of Independence" means being founded upon the premise that "all men [sic] are created equal" and have rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I shouldn't have to explain that a country which practices genocide and slavery (not to mention nonsufferage of women) is OBVIOUSLY NOT founded on those sweet-sounding ideas. I won't belabor my points about the difference between actual and notional values; suffice it to say that when a slave owner who supports genocide claims to believe in freedom and equality, he's simply lying. Or, to repeat an example: "If someone said 'I believe rape is morally wrong' as they were raping you, would you say their real value was pro-rape or anti-rape? Or if they say 'All men are created equal' while committing genocide and slavery, would you say their real values were consistent with basic human rights?"

So all rapists are not capable of knowing that rape is demeaning or wrong? Or they know it is wrong and are simply liars? Or that the "chick had it coming" since it was her fault for being "all that". At least that isI've read about it. And possibly since slavery was a traditional method through out the world, long preceding "human rights" notions were any consideration, there were some folks that "had it coming", no?. Kind of a "natural order" order of things at that time and for the preeceding 10,000years, no? So slave holders did not know that slaves were human beings or maybe both were not capable of knowing that, since it was a natural order, no? I understand hinesight is 20/20. As you've stated elsewhere, they thought that slaves were not fully human (still goes on, but now it's gov't sponsered) then what they did was "beneficial" to their slaves. I've read arguments that enculturation was a by product of slavery and beneficial as one may witness in the arts and sciences today, but then others would call that a rationalization, no?
I've also read that Jefferson had real personal problems with slavery,or so his writings indicated such, but kept them for practical reasons. Now running a large estate does require labor, so he was a practical business man, no? Especially since he paid major dollars for a slave! But wasn't he one of the ones that went counter to the prevailing attitude and had them set free upon his death? I know Washington did. And I also believe he, and his friends, predicted the problems that slavery would bring in future times in this country. So, another POV, is that in spite of his seminal notions that slavery was wrong, since he recognized that slaves MIGHT BE human beings when many around him thought of them as draft animals, he saw enough light to pen, with a little help from his friends, a document that would serve all forever folks, certainly past his time. And nothing written had the intentions ascribed TO HIM in this thread, with the fact that his personal views of slavery were troublesome to him, since he had notions opposing what most folks took for granted.

Ever have a pet? Or should none have pets, or set all those little birds and fishes towards freedom to live? Just wondering.

I am glad you gave up on notional and actual values, as the fruit of that rots quickly in light of being mere mortals and not angels.



Jeff, I'm "hung up" on genocide because this discussion is about whether this nation is founded on respect for human rights, and that issue can't be honestly addressed without discussing genocide. And, I continue to hammer on the issue (at least until I give up in frustration) because some respondents (including you?) are desperately trying to maintain their denial that the fact of genocide belies the sweet "aspirations" expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

As a matter of definition, the aspirations in the Declaration were not belied, but came true for the persons discussed in this thread. And it began with both actual and notional with the guy that penned it.
But as a practical matter, is it the case that you wish to redistribute and "repay", after "acknowledging" your perceived truths to be self-evident?
Didn't the Europeans a while back give their money to the Jews? I've understood that was one of the basis for pogroms, and which became Holocost. You wish to do something like this based on ethnicity? If so, talk about racism! Furthermore, in the passing of this information down to create a legacy for progeny, how does one teach "the dark side" to children? I speak with the young now and the obscure information about what started this nation is prominent, the younger the more so, but foundational principles and persons are not there. Scares me. So what is built into them via the mandated educational system is more on what you are discussing here, adult material, rather than what was passed on before.



The Declaration of Independence expresses some wonderful values which, unfortunately, were not to any great degree the founding principles of this country. They were represented as such, but sadly, that representation was a propagandistic lie. The Declaration can best be understood as "middle management" (i.e., the ruling class of the colonies) firing their bosses (King George et al.) so they would no longer have to share with them the fruits of their exploitation of the lower classes (slaves, women, Indians). I would support a society that actually tries to implement the values expressed in the Declaration. If we are to create such a society, we must first be honest about the failure of the USA in that regard.

Noble goals, and when you get to heaven, I am trust that will be the case. Here on earth none, during this national portion in our planetary history, has achieved more for more. None has started with what this new world had, and benefited greater for more races, creeds, ethnicities, and just plain folks. Look at a map and point to any other place. Yes, Mother Russia tried it, and after killing more people than anybody, ever, still collapsed.
Please excuse the scattered thoughts and poor language, but since I enjoyed and learned from your last scree, I had to come to this one for your views. It's just too noisy to write coherently, but I'll trust you get my drift. There's to many people here for this Father's Day to write sensibly. Hope you enjoy yours.

[Ocean]

An interesting conversation you haver here, which brings to mind this point (noting the historical contrast between believing in something and living it)
:

Most things are easier said than done. It seems that humanity has a lot of "habits" - like keeping slaves for instance. I will appreciate those who wrote out our constitution and declaration of independence and bill of rights, simply for doing so. They must have recognized the value of it somehow, even if they weren't practicing it at the time. Did they essentially perform genocide on the original people of this land in order to open the field to the new people? Of course. Is this an oxymoron? I would say so. It's certainly not in agreement with the founding principles. However, at least the principles give us a framework within which to avoid doing it again.

Are they heroes for what they've done (our country's founding fathers)? I think, in some ways yes, in other ways no. It's certainly not black and white. At least we have a place to evolve. I appreciate being here now, with freedom of thought and everything else, even if, historically, I really do have NO right to it - at least, not over a native.

Our world faces hard times, and suffering is heavy in our midst. Judge not so much ones morals and beliefs- yet seek to understand them. A person's place may not be here, but it must be somewhere.