Question for the left and right:

hamburger wrote:

foofie wrote :

Quote:
Don't tell me "it's a citizen's duty to criticize misdeeds," since our only duty is to pay taxes and be law abiding.

there are LAWS enacted by government , but there are other laws , such as MORAL LAWS and the LAW OF COMMON DECENCY .
of course , no one disobeying MORAL LAWS or THE LAW OF COMMON DECENCY will ever be accused of a crime in a criminal court .
hbg

Quote:
Is it unpatriotic to criticize the behavior of one's own country? It depends on the meaning of patriotism. Socrates angered people by challenging them in public and exposing their ignorance. But he felt he was acting as a patriot by encouraging thoughtfulness over blind acceptance and celebration of government policies. In words attributed to him, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Like Socrates, Henry David Thoreau believed that citizens should tolerate nothing less from their government than the highest standards of behavior. He said, "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform." Martin Luther King talked about moving "beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience."

THOREAU

Are you aware that those who proselytize religions also excuse their proselytizing, based on some code of concern, or doing God's work, or some other "license" to be obtrusive. So, today, it may not be as acceptable to proselytize religions, yet what you proselytize is no different, in my opinion. Don't proselytize to me about how to be an American. You know nothing about me.

And, the U.S. has its own social mores that may overlap those of your country (like the Ven diagrams in math), but are quite distinct. Don't mistake your country's speaking English as meaning it has the same social mores as the U.S. Notice how many talented Canadians come to the U.S. for the success (financially) the U.S. affords. I don't hear you criticizing them for leaving the home of the maple leaf.

What I don't believe you understand is that you are making a value judgement as to what is "a correct political attitude." Do you realize there are many Americans that like completely what the administration has been doing? There were also Americans that were very happy when LBJ carpet bombed North Vietnam and made it look like a moonscape. Do you realize there were also Americans that would have been happy to escalate Vietnam to a showdown with China? And, they were all good, moral Americans. Stop being so self-righteous in your beliefs. Many Americans like kicking ass. The entire U.S. is not composed of liberals upset over this administration.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

There were also Americans that were very happy when LBJ carpet bombed North Vietnam and made it look like a moonscape. Do you realize there were also Americans that would have been happy to escalate Vietnam to a showdown with China? And, they were all good, moral Americans. Stop being so self-righteous in your beliefs. Many Americans like kicking ass.

Let me try to understand your point of view: You defend American policies that cause the death of thousands of people in foreign countries, but you're offended when someone from outside the US criticises American policy on an internet forum?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

My point was that if you believe that a millenium allows descendants of the Magyars to not criticize their own history (a millenium ago), don't expect an American to criticize his/her own "history in the making,"

Well, but I don't believe that. I think it's a good thing that there are Hungarians who are able and willing to criticize their own people's history, whether of a millennium ago or of fifty years ago. Same with my people, the Dutch - I think we should be able to critically and openly reflect on our own history. It's called honesty and learning the lessons from the past. Luckily, a lot of Dutch and Hungarian people, if not quite all of them, are able to do exactly that. Even when they're talking with each other! :wink:

Foofie wrote:

I wouldn't expect you to give a hoot about my opinion relative to the Hungarian Revolution against the Soviets. I didn't live it. It would be presumtuous of me to think I am as knowledgeable on that subject as someone who lived it.

Actually I'm always interested in what other people think of my country (the Netherlands), the country I live in (Hungary), or any country. I'm a lot more interested, of course, if those people know a bit about the country - but you dont necessarily need to be Dutch, for example, to say useful things about Dutch history. In fact, some of the most interesting historical works about the Netherlands were written by a Brit who teaches in the US (Simon Schama).

0 Replies

Simon Schama is among the best of contemporary historians. His An Embarrassment of Riches is just about the best book on Holland in "the Golden Age" that one can read. He has also written cogently on the French Revolution, and the evolution of the French people in that period.

Quote:

. . . the Dutch - I think we should be able to critically and openly reflect on our own history.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Dutch took a leading roll in exploiting the Muslim slave trade in west Africa to supply the labor demands of the "new world." I first took a detailed interest in Dutch history after i had read a work on the slave trade by a Dutch author. This was while i was employed at the University of Illinois, which has the largest library in the United States, after the Library of Congress and the Harvard University library. I was, for as much as i could ascertain, able to verify the claim of the author of that book (almost 30 years ago--sorry, i don't recall the author's name or the title) that the best resources on the European slave trade were to be found in Dutch archives and studies by Dutch authors. (The Muslim slave trade was already long established when Europeans became interested in exploiting it, which dramatically increased the volume of the slave trade, and therefore the petty wars by which African chieftans obtained slaves for the trade.)

In the 17th century, the Dutch were the masters of commercial sea-going commerce. I believe that Schama states that there were about 4000 merchant seamen sailing the world's oceans, of which more than 2000 were Dutch. It was natural that they should have quickly come to exploit the west African slave trade as no other nation was able to do. This is why there are so many records and so much material about the slave trade in Holland. The first slaves to come to the North American mainland English colonies (at Jamestown in Virginia) were brought there by a Dutch captain who had been blown off course by a storm in the middle passage, and who was desperate to unload his "cargo," who were nearing starvation. In 1609, the English colonists themselves lived on the edge of starvation, and he was unable to sell more than a few slaves, and eventually simply left as many Africans in Virginia as the English authorities would allow. The slave economy of English North America was very slow to get started--it did not become big business until the tobacco monoculture was well established.

I would point out that if the Dutch attempted to bury the record of their past involvement in the slave trade, they would not succeed because other historians are too well aware of it. And the world would lose a very valuable resource on the subject--for which the archives of the Dutch East India Company, and of private investors in the slave trade, which now reside in Holland, cannot be matched.

0 Replies

Yep, an interesting, but dark, part of our history. Interesting details, though, thanks!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foofie wrote:
There were also Americans that were very happy when LBJ carpet bombed North Vietnam and made it look like a moonscape. Do you realize there were also Americans that would have been happy to escalate Vietnam to a showdown with China? And, they were all good, moral Americans. Stop being so self-righteous in your beliefs. Many Americans like kicking ass.

Let me try to understand your point of view: You defend American policies that cause the death of thousands of people in foreign countries, but you're offended when someone from outside the US criticises American policy on an internet forum?

I'm not the least offended if anyone outside the U.S. criticizes (note the "z") American policy on an internet forum. I just don't want the criicism to be directed to my accepting what my country does. That's not defending it; I just accept this country's policies, like people accept a particular version of the Bible. My faith, in effect, is Americanism.

But, aside from people around the world that die due to military situations, there are people that die of hunger, disease, natural disaster, etc., etc. Should I commiserate with all of them? Must I care for the world's unfortunates?

I don't think you really understand how I interpret the word "foreign" when you use it in a post to me. "Foreign" is beyond my ken in commiseration. Why? Perhaps, it's something like Bartleby the Scrivner's response in the Herman Melville short story by that name. ("I'd prefer not to," was Bartleby's response to his boss, when told to do something.)

If there were intelligent beings on other planets, would you commiserate with their misfortunes. An asteroid hitting their planet? Or are you only humancentric in your commiseration? If so, then you then can understand that I am just Americancentric. So, no one should waste their time telling me of the supposed naughty things the U.S. has done in the world. It's not my job to commiserate.

0 Replies

Foofie
As an American citizen, you have an obligation to recognize the fact that our government has often made very bad decisions. Trying to equate the Second World War with The Iraq War is a ridicules comparison. I wont go into the proofs for my statement because you would just reject them. You have proven time and again that you have no understanding of history. You read the words but have no understanding.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Foofie
As an American citizen, you have an obligation to recognize the fact that our government has often made very bad decisions. Trying to equate the Second World War with The Iraq War is a ridicules comparison. I wont go into the proofs for my statement because you would just reject them. You have proven time and again that you have no understanding of history. You read the words but have no understanding.

Often???? That would suggest the USA has rarely made good decisions.

Care to expand?

0 Replies

Often means more than once. Rarely means hardly ever. Is that expanded enough for you.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Often means more than once. Rarely means hardly ever. Is that expanded enough for you.

No...But exactly the answer I expected from you.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Often???? That would suggest the USA has rarely made good decisions.

Care to expand?

Come on Woiyo.

"Our government has often made very bad decision" Not Equal

"Our government has rarely made good decisions".

That equation just doesnt make any sense at all. You would never propose it in any other context.

Eg, if I'd say that I've often made bad decisions in my life, that doesnt mean that I've rarely made good decisions.

If you'd say that you've often holidayed abroad, that doesnt imply that you must have rarely holidayed at home.

Etc. Elementary logic.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Foofie
As an American citizen, you have an obligation to recognize the fact that our government has often made very bad decisions. Trying to equate the Second World War with The Iraq War is a ridicules comparison. I wont go into the proofs for my statement because you would just reject them. You have proven time and again that you have no understanding of history. You read the words but have no understanding.

First off, I never mentioned WWII; I mentioned Vietnam.

Secondly, your first sentence above is based on the false premises that: 1) The government has actually made bad decisions - that would perhaps be in your opinion; it need not be in everyone's opinion. A subjective viewpoint. 2) American citizens have an obligation to recognize what you perceive as a fact, or for that matter recognize anything else. American citizens have no obligation to recognize anything in this country's history. That's the beauty of our democracy.

You are coming up with moral prescripts that I believe are absurd, since there are many American citizens that live in the world of local popular culture. They are not involved in, nor need they be, with any of the country's history, etc. Bless you if you have a cerebral bent for history; not everyone does. Where do you get this absurd belief that American citizens should be involved with your interests? Wake up and recognize that Americans don't have to all be politically oriented. Please take a course in sociology. You are not the teacher of a civics class. And, we are not your students.

0 Replies

Boy! You put me in my place. Let me say lots of words but no content. I think that covers most of your posts.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Boy! You put me in my place. Let me say lots of words but no content. I think that covers most of your posts.

No, I didn't put you in your place. If I was able to do that you would not continue, with the above posting, referencing my posting's "content."

I don't doubt you believe what you say, but you have not proved what I said was not correct: "American citizens are not obligated to recognize anything in this country's history."

I think your thinking reflects the desire to make "politically correct, progressive opinions" objective truths. Perhaps, a student would not pass a social studies/civics course if he/she took a "politically incorrect" view, in the eyes of the teacher/instructor, but we Americans have no obligation to personally accept any views. If one is willing to "fail" a course with a "politically incorrect" view, that doesn't mean that one didn't have the right to have that "politically incorrect" view.

I assume you were not in Vietnam when this country fought that war with draftees. I doubt that many draftees were remorseful about civilian Vietnamese casualties, when an F4C Phantom dropped napalm on a village where enemy fire (from the village) was keeping those draftees "pinned down."

It appears to be acceptable to be critical of the military when the military is made up of volunteers. It is not. Every country needs a military. And, that military might be used as a tool to protect the country's position in the world.

In my opinion, criticizing this country might be tantamount to prefering that the country fades into the background of the world stage, rather than "risk" criticism of its policies, and become an underling of some country wishing to fill the power vacuum (nature does abhore a vacuum, as the saying goes). In any other organization, do we see bosses making decisions based on a consensus of the workers? For an organization to function, bosses need to have the authority to make decisions. Backseat driving causes more accidents, than they prevent, I believe.

0 Replies

OK Foofie. Keep your head buried in the sand like a good little conserative American. I don't really care. Do as your masters tell you.

0 Replies

OK Foofie. Keep your head buried in the sand like a good little conserative American. I don't really care. Do as your masters tell you.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

OK Foofie. Keep your head buried in the sand like a good little conserative American. I don't really care. Do as your masters tell you.

I don't know what a "conserative [sic] American" is? But, conservative Americans don't have masters. They have beliefs. So do liberal Americans have beliefs.

I happen to be a conserative [sic] American when it comes to foreign policy. When it comes to civil rights, I'm a liberal/progressive American. I don't live in a boxed in world with labels, even though many people are most comfortable to put people in pigeon holes.

By the way, Hillary's plan to mandate everyone to have health care, and paying, if they can afford to, is neither liberal nor conservative, in my opinion. Figure out what that paradigm is.

0 Replies

Question for the left and right:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know