|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
"One in the hand is worth two in the bush!" |
I'm more interested in how DaemonSeid edited "all men are created equal" but never questioned why it still reads "men" as if that is the neutral gender standard.
|
Quote:
Wasn't there a rumor that Abe Lincoln was black? Either case, your initial post seems to be celebrating Abe Lincoln whereas it should be celebrating certain ideals. Abe Lincoln was considered a catalyst for change but he was still a product of his time, which includes racial slurs and other things that were standard practice during his day. |
Sidebar:
Unfortunately, the great Frederick Douglass follower, Booker T. Washington also used slurs and negative portrayals of blacks to gain white support. His excuse was that he needed to align himself with whites so the larger cause of economic independence and the Tuskegee Institute could be met. While Douglass was also a former slave and uber-assimilationist, he did not believe in demeaning his people for the larger cause. Douglass and Washington both provide some great insights on progressiveness, that I think should be combined with approaches such as Du Bois that aren't assimilationist. Just providing historical context for why things sometimes happen the way they do. Change is half about great visionaries and half about the context in which change is both demanded and possible. |
Quote:
LOL...took me forever to get it. I still have that album. Yay. |
Quote:
I don't mean to be glib, but perception is very much reality on these issues - maybe that is the real connection between historical heroes in the civil rights movement and the candidacy of Barack Obama: they are creating perceptual changes on a more powerful level than any before, while also benefiting from perceptual changes and openness that may not have been available to those before. I realize this is sort of a lame "walking on the shoulders of giants"-type of intellectual onanism, but I think it goes beyond that. I think the one of the great skills of visionaries is the ability to find subtle points of attack and subtle changes in perception, then exploit those changes for the greater benefit. Timing is a talent, and perhaps the most important talent when it comes to glacial societal change. |
It isn't lame to acknowledge that there are those before you who made change possible. People forget that time is a continuous, meaning that change began over a century ago and, while that seems distant, the ball had to get rolling somewhere.
Tangent: My problem with the trendy excitement over Obama and Clinton is that people are looking for a quick fix. As if SUDDENLY there is going to be change because THEY are in office. That's not how substantial change occurs. Sure, there may be new legislation and economic shifts but the effect of those can easily be buffered by other social, cultural, and economic factors. And what happens if change doesn't happen as quickly or to the magnitude that lazy Americans expected? People will complain but they won't find other ways to work toward change. I don't know who I am voting for but it annoys me when people are asked why they support Obama (or voted for him in the primary) and all they can say is "well...I want change...it's time for change." That's vague and catch phrasy. There has to be more than that. Whichever candidate wins should not give people an excuse to become complacent and not push for change somehow. There are no quick fixes. |
Quote:
And to say the vote hinges on one "population" is oversimplfying things. If the population was going to unify and vote "in force", it could have a dramatic impact, but most "populations", while having things in common, are just as diverse politically as a melting pot of white/black/hispanic/men/women. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." I probably misunderstood what the heck you were talking about there, overall, but I see the gender neutral standard there is clear as day. :) |
Quote:
2 Centuries ago, the only likey choice would have been McCain or one that was like him. YES, we have come a long way and as I stated before there are still those in the world NOW, as we GET to acknowledge this, who cannot have a say in matters when it comes to their government. That within itself I am appreciative in what I have here today. I can trace back to my great grandparents who hardly had any say so in voting (in turn of the century South Carolina) to now when I have tools at my disposal to make an informed choice...and how dare anyone to make a mockery of that. To DST's tangent I also feel the same way about those who support XYZ candidate and want to vote but don't even know what XYZ candidate stands for and all they can say is that they are so refreshing, they are committed to change or.......they speak so well. to AF I appreciate the topic, as I was in Honors History throughout school. I loathe the misuse of irony. You appreciate the topic, but rather you approach it in a mature and adult manner, the first post here you try to make a fool of me.....wow If it doesn't mean anything to you, doesn't matter or has any significance, instead of trying to find something idiotically snarky to say to undermine someone else's thoughts forwhatever little gain you sought, simply choose to K.I.M. or respond wisely and no one will have to continually have these pointless tangents over foolish thoughts simply because you 'loathe' something. |
Quote:
|
Do better with multiple quotes next time, DaemonSeid.
|
Quote:
OK. I agree that you didn't do a great job of sparking discussion with this. Did you just want to acknowledge change or something? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.