[WhiskeyPapa]

The arrogance of your last post--setting yourself up to judge whether others can take pride in their history--says far more about you, than it does about any ideological position. No response to your post is needed other than to call attention to it.

Holding other humans as slaves is wrong. Do you agree, yes or no?

"The doctrine of self-government is right -- absolutely and eternally right -- but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government -- that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

-- A. Lincoln

I guess by implication you are defending the right of Nazi concentration camp guards to honor their history too.

Walt

[Ohioan]

Everything that comes out of your key board just reinforces the demonstration that you are pathologically fanatic. I realize that you do not see the virtual total irrelevance of all of the historic points, you keep stressing. This is because you are caught up in something that renders you totally irrational.

Out of compassion--the compassion you seem unable to extend to others, but which your frequently quoted Abraham Lincoln certainly recognized in his Second Inaugural Address, when he tried to set the mood that you totally reject: "With Malice Towards None, with Charity Towards All"--I will try one last time to explain it all to you.

Does a British school boy who admires Richard The Lion Hearted as a Chivalric hero, automatically endorse the idea of warriors locking a steel pelvic girdle around their wives and daughters, before they go off to war? If he celebrates the victory at Agincourt, over two centuries later--perhaps reciting the famous St. Crispin's Day speech from Henry V--does that mean that he wants to restore Feudalism. If he celebrates the Industrial Revolution's birth in mid Eighteenth Century Britain, does that mean he is celebrating the bondage of White Britains in the salt and coal mines in Northern England, not ended until George III ended it upon coming to the throne in 1760?

You have no sense of proportion, of the relative importance of events and ideas. But that defines a fanatic. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue. It is the total absense of a sense of proportion.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site</a.