Well....my foot is doing okay so far.
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.
I have. I'm one of the few advocating that the CW was fought to end slavery. But I don't want to debate that here. One thing all will agree on, 4 million Americans were under slavery for quite a long time. In the South.
Are you starting to catch my drift?
Well, I am aware that the murder rate of blacks are higher than not just whites but all other races. But here is a website describing who did what and does not absolve whites of wrong doing. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.
Well, an equivalent retort would have been to tell me of a situation where blacks lynched and burned hundreds of whites en masse. But nonetheless, you're actually supporting my arguement in that whether government agency towards the Irish or a mob towards blacks, no people group or country is completely innocent.
So, with those points, America did not deny white Southerners (that had enslved 4 million Americans) the right to accel and build a better society. To elect government officials and be part of congress. To build military bases, etc.
Also regardless of the murder rates of blacks. Most have not committed murders and America does not deny them the right to accel, participate in the political process and have access to the best schools, etc.
I would say the same for other countries as well. They should be able to accel as a people group if they are able to organize themselves in such a manner.
I still stand by my statement of power structure. Lets forget about the rest of the world for now. Imagine if 100 years from now, black Americans are a wealthy minority that owns significantly beyond their population. They've gotten their act together and a bulk of them moved out of the hood and into places like Beverly Hills. They are CEO's, landlords and tech company founders. Would you be comfortable with the thought of white chauffers, white nannies, white butlers working for wealthy powerful black families. And I'm not talking about degrading or lower paying positions either. I'm talking about a setting where being a nanny, chauffer, butler would be a well respected profession. Except maybe half or more of the employers are black instead of predominently white today.
Would you be open to such a change? Pete Rose once said there was something wrong with the world when Japan at one time produced more autos than the US. But why would there be something wrong with the world? Maybe Japan was just productive. What Pete Rose was angst about was a slight and temporary shift in the power structure. One in which the mightiest auto industry wasn't American.
Would you be accepting of a co-spherical prosperity in which the US was still wealther than it ever but another country was even wealthier and carried more weight on the world stage?
Tell me you'd be comfortable with such changes and I'd be more than happy to withdraw my comment and apologize. Until then, my comment still stands.
BTW, my intention wasn't to bring up race issues. I just wanted to point out that no people group is innocent of having blood on their hands. The difference maybe the degree of the acts, but nonetheless, no people group is innocent.
Fine, up until that last little dig, that Parthian shot. Your one-upmanship requires me to point out that, at independence, slavery was legal, and practiced, in every State in the Union. Smoke that in your meerschaum of self-righteousness. Don't you even think about dumping off on the South. Cater to your prejudice somewhere else. I'm not having it.
But here is a website describing who did what and does not absolve whites of wrong doing.
Straw man. The point was, your and Cynthia Tucker's beside-the-point whine about social justice is drowned out by the staccato of young black men's Saturday-night specials being discharged into the bodies of non-black murder victims.
.....no people group or country is completely innocent....
You keep saying that, as if the idea has great talismanic power for you, but you have so far failed to connect it to an argument, or make it into an argument in confutation of anything I've posted.
BTW, my intention wasn't to bring up race issues.
Really? You sure fooled me. Maybe you did too good a job of not bringing it up:
There's no doubt that the US has done much to defend democracy in the world. But don't forget, before the US defended democracy in the world, it had to defend democracy in America: Fighting the Civil War to end slavery, giving Indians autonomy, implementing child labor laws, compulsory education, etc. Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans.
47 posted on 04/23/2007 6:37:24 PM CDT by ponder life
I just wanted to point out that no people group is innocent of having blood on their hands. The difference maybe the degree of the acts, but nonetheless, no people group is innocent.
Your point is still not germane to the original thread of discussion. I still want an insuperable advantage, in a ruthless and demonstrably bloodthirsty world, for my people vis-a-vis any other people, for our security. It is not, as you seem to suggest, immoral to want security for the People of the United States. We've earned the right (as if we had to earn it), in the last 220 years, to enjoy our freedom in peace.