Frank wrote:Grow up, Timur.
This silliness you started is not something that is needed or wanted in the Atheist thread.
Leave it here.
Grow up, Timur.
I don't want to be like you now or when I'm old.
It would be wasting my life.
@timur,
You are definitely making Frank look good (more reasonable, less juvenile) and yourself bad with your continued posting here on this topic, Timma.
@neologist,
Thanks neo, have you considered running for public office? Your negotiating skills are sorely needed.
@hingehead,
there is an element of truth to this, but I presume it is more complicated.
@ossobuco,
If you ever read George Megalogenis' "Australia’s Second Chance" (2015) he has a thesis about the egalitarian streak in Oz civil society arising directly from how the colonial powers dealt with the convicts - they rewarded hard work and social contribution - you could rise above your circumstance and not be tarred with 'criminal' forever. The convicts for the most part were transported for petty crimes (Mrs Hinge's great great great grandmother was transported for stealing a handkerchief) - serious crimes were dealt with by the gallows. Plus the convicts were a huge part of the population early on and were vital to get the country to a point where it was remotely attractive to free settlers.
It's not as simple as that but there were several key events where by luck or good fortune the actions of the governing powers forestalled the festering of resentments bought over from the old country. Catholics v protestants, English v Irish and a bunch of others. Some really **** stuff was done too - particularly in my adopted state of Queensland - and we were complete arseholes to the Chinese and worse to the indigenous peoples. It was a good read. Love a bit of George.
Synopsis from wikipedia wrote:
– Megalogenis argues that while most nations do not get a first chance to prosper, Australia is on its second. He examines how Australia, one of the world's richest countries through the nineteenth century, moved from being a booming pioneer for democracy and a magnet for migrants to a subsequent fifty-year bust. And now that Australia is back on top, in the position where history suggests its biggest mistakes have been made, he asks: can Australia's leaders learn from the past and cement its place as one of the world's great nations?
I see the hamsters have released the thread from the habitrail
The settlement of Australia was in large measure a result of successful revolution in North America. Prior to 1775, England had sent its convicts to North America, almost all of them to Maryland and Virginia. Georgia was originally intended as a refuge for "England's worthy poor," meaning those in debtors' prions, but the land was considered too valuable. It was opened up for settlement, slavery and convict transportation. The famous Confederate military officer, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was descended from two convicts who had met in England, were transported to Maryland and married upon obtaining their tickets of leave.
That changed, of course, in 1783, and the First Fleet sailed four years later in 1787, arriving in Sydney Cove in 1788. Ironically, it was religious freedom in the United States which helped to create today's situation. Pennsylvania had been a haven for religious dissenters before the revolution, and the ratification of the constitution in 1787 helped to open the doors to religious dissent. The first amendment to the constitution, proposed by the First Congress and ratified by the states in 1791, begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--and that made North America once again attractive to religious dissenters. Many of the so-called founding fathers were deists, and deism is as close to atheism as one can get while still believing in a god.
More than anything else, Australia's remote situation helped to create their situation. It wasn't until the late 19th century that Australia entered the world economy--it might as well have been on the moon. Religious dissenters hurried off to North America, but not to Oz. With no real religious establishment there, and no one in England much interested in establishing one, Oz got a pass. The very unusual religious tolerance in the United States--unusual for its time--attracted the nutbags and the god botherers. Even so, it wasn't until the Lincoln administration that religion entered public life in full force. That old bullsh*t artist Jefferson sent his "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and in 1831, Jackson refused to announce a day of thanksgiving (for god's "mercy" in only killing a few tens of thousands of us with a cholera epidemic), citing the separation of church and state. But Lincoln, who had never shown any particularly religious nature, was a very canny politician--he had god in his mouth all the time with one of history's greatest wars on his hands. "In God We Trust" was added to the money by his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase. Lincoln inaugurated the Thanksgiving celebration for god's mercy in only killing about 25,000 of us at the battle of Gettysburg.
Allow me my cynicism in observing, the United States has not since recovered.
Quote:Lincoln, who had never shown any particularly religious nature, was a very canny politician--he had god in his mouth all the time with one of history's greatest wars on his hands.
Gutsy statement. I once suggested on A2k that the U.S. 'Civil' War was one of Lincoln's and this nation's most tragic mistakes.
I thought I was gonna be strung up as a racist monster by the reaction.
Maybe that was because those jackasses in the South started the war, and not Lincoln or the United States. Why don't you take your bullsh*t somewhere else--you know, somewhere where you god botherers like to hang out?
Your 'first shot' theory is ludicrous.
@Leadfoot,
It's not a "theory," Einstein, it's fact.
Quote:In January 1861, then Captain Whiting was an engineer responsible for US Army installations in Georgia and Florida. As Georgia and Florida state militia seized these sites by force, Whiting took no discernible action. On January 3, Whiting received information that Georgia was moving to take Fort Marion, but he made no effort to warn the garrison there or its commander. By the end of the month, more than half a dozen U.S. Army forts, arsenals, and barracks had fallen to state forces without any action by Whiting.
From the Wikipedia biography of William Whiting.
Quote:By the time of the American Civil War, Fort Pickens had not been occupied since the Mexican–American War. Despite its dilapidated condition, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, in charge of United States forces at Fort Barrancas, determined that Pickens was the most defensible of the posts in the area. His decision to abandon Barrancas was hastened when, around midnight of January 8, 1861, his guards repelled a group of local men intending to take the fort. Some historians suggest that these were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War.
Shortly after this incident, on January 10, 1861, the day Florida declared its secession from the Union, Slemmer destroyed over 20,000 pounds of gunpowder at Fort McRee, spiked the guns at Barrancas, and evacuated with 51 soldiers and 30 sailors to Fort Pickens. On January 15, 1861 and January 18, 1861, Slemmer refused demands for surrender from Florida militia Colonel William Henry Chase, who had designed and constructed the fort while a captain in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Slemmer held the fort against Confederate threat of attack until reinforced and relieved in April 1861 by Colonel Harvey Brown. Despite repeated Confederate military threats, Fort Pickens was one of the few Southern forts to remain in Union hands throughout the Civil War.
From the Wikipedia article on Fort Pickens.
Quote:On January 9, 1861, weeks after South Carolina declared that it had seceded from the U.S. (but before other states had done so to form the Confederacy) Star of the West was fired upon by cadets from The Citadel stationed at the Morris Island battery as the ship entered Charleston Harbor.
This prevented Star of the West from resupplying Major Robert Anderson's garrison at Fort Sumter. Star of the West was given a warning shot across the bow and turned about to leave the harbor mouth. She was hit three times by what were effectively the first shots of the American Civil War. Although Star of the West did not suffer any major damage, her captain, John McGowan, considered it too dangerous to continue and turned about to leave the harbor. The mission was abandoned and Star of the West headed for her home port of New York Harbor.
From the Wikipedia article on The Star of the West
Mr. Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861, genius. It is ironic how the ignorant are always the most confident of their opinions.
This thread is not a venue for you to display your pathetic ignorance, however. You should find some holy rollers and go party with them--somewhere else.
@Setanta,
Oh just get over yourself Set.
The war was inevitable given the political realities of the day. Also inevitable was that the 'south' would lose the war. The only remote chance they had was to fire the first shot.
It was Lincoln's total commitment to preserve the union no matter what, that insured the war was coming. Lincoln said he'd keep slavery if it meant keeping the union. Ending slavery was his political pretext and strategy.
The war insured that prejudice and discrimination would live on longer than it would have otherwise.
@Leadfoot,
Your assessment of the bleedin obvious is genius.
@Leadfoot,
If Lincoln had a "total commitment" to preserve the Union, why did he call for troops and propose to do a dumb thing like retake Fort Sumter and why not just let it blow over and be settled by public opinion. Remember, it wasnt until AFTER FORT SUMTER AND FLA. that Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee , and Virginian voted leave the Union . They coulda remained in the Union as slave states just like Maryland Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri.
@farmerman,
He would have been wise to 'let it blow over' or even let the south succeed. I'll no doubt get more flak for this but the war was not only about slavery. The importation of slaves had been illegal for 50 years at the time, it was a dying institution and would have soon eliminated itself in one of several ways. And of course the north could and did have pass anti slavery laws giving slaves a place of refuge while the institution died.
Federalism was (and is) a real issue. There are many flaws in our government totally caused by it. I won't drag the thread further off course by bringing them up here but will mention that stupid wars like Iraq would be much harder to get into without the supremacy of Federalism.
@Leadfoot,
the war happened and the Confederacy was ALL about slavery. The war gradually bcame about slavery> History leaves most all of your speculations aflat
@farmerman,
Quote:History leaves most all of your speculations aflat
Like I said, Federalism did and still does create problems.
I'm not surprised that is twisted into meaning I'm a racist who pines for the return of slavery.
And no it wasn't all about slavery.
