Abe Lincoln @ 199

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I think someone subscribes to the Alanis Morrisette School of Irony.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It took me almost a whole day, but NOW I get it. LOL.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

KSig...it is what it is...

Is this the new platitude thread?

"One in the hand is worth two in the bush!"

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Maybe neither of you realize especially you AF with your short sighted attempt at being 'cute' again (what did I tell you about that?) ...that 199 years ago...a man like Barack Obama would not have even been considered HUMAN enough to even run...let alone have a whole population of people that LOOKS JUST LIKE HIM be able to VOTE for him?

200 years ago on yesterday, Blacks in this country were considered somewhere around the term 'animal' and as far as the world was concerned, would NEVER ever be able to run for the highest office in the land let alone vote (especially in Virginia!). I really shouldn't have to give you a history lesson on this because I am SURE you know where I am coming from, but considering who you are, I am not surprised that you don't see or could care less about the significance of myself and a few thousand others being able to cast a vote without being persecuted, frightened off or killed on Lincoln's birthday.

At least PhiGam talked on what he knew and was indeed correct... and no, I am not giving Lincoln credit because in the end he was forced to make the decision, and make one that would change the country ... thank you sincerely for bringing that up.

BTW...this is typical paperwork from 1808....and look at the minor changes that differed it from a ballot sheet....heh.



AF seriously consider what you say next in regards to this topic...you may not have an appreciation for it...however I do have an appreciation for history and how things have changed and stayed the same over the years in regards to people's enlightenment... and their ignorance.

The siggie says it all.

ETA: One other thing...your husband you say, is of Hispanic descent,{200 hundred years ago, Hispanics in this land were maybe one or 2 steps above Blacks here BTW especially since Spain was still in the process of trying to conquer those people...} have you ever considered asking him, with all the issues about immigration, with a lot of racism being aimed at Hispanics and that a lot of what happens, electorally speaking, may hinge on the Hispanic population (in this day and age of us being 'enlightened'), exactly how he feels with being able to cast his vote and others of Hispanic descent living here right now that can't? You may also want to consider that only 45 years ago, you and your husband's marriage would have been considered, illegal.

I see your point.

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

It took me almost a whole day, but NOW I get it. LOL.

Ohhhh "it's like raaaiiiiiin...on a wedddddding day!!!!"

LOL...took me forever to get it.

I still have that album. Yay.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

This is a much more interesting discussion, in my mind, than the OP (if only b/c the OP was vague and didn't really foster much besides "look how far we've come"; no offense intended, DS) - contextualizing the work of the great visionaries can be incredibly difficult, because it is often viewed as denigrating their work by those who revere the visionary. However, I think it's important to realize that no change happens in a vacuum - Frederick Douglass shaped his world, but he was shaped by it as well, and his audience had to receive the message in the same way that he had to send it.

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

AF seriously consider what you say next in regards to this topic...you may not have an appreciation for it...however I do have an appreciation for history and how things have changed and stayed the same over the years in regards to people's enlightenment... and their ignorance.

The siggie says it all.

ETA: One other thing...your husband you say, is of Hispanic descent,{200 hundred years ago, Hispanics in this land were maybe one or 2 steps above Blacks here BTW especially since Spain was still in the process of trying to conquer those people...} have you ever considered asking him, with all the issues about immigration, with a lot of racism being aimed at Hispanics and that a lot of what happens, electorally speaking, may hinge on the Hispanic population (in this day and age of us being 'enlightened'), exactly how he feels with being able to cast his vote and others of Hispanic descent living here right now that can't? You may also want to consider that only 45 years ago, you and your husband's marriage would have been considered, illegal.

I appreciate the topic, as I was in Honors History throughout school. I loathe the misuse of irony.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

DST...I didn't edit it at all....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

DST...I didn't edit it at all....

I was talking about this:

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I see your point.

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.

That is the whole point DST... I am not celebrating Lincoln at all...what I am celebrating is the fact that on yesterday when usually it is acknowledged thru a little trivia showing how he 'freed' the slaves or a Lincoln Sale and such, that in this area in particular, 200 years after we were considered property with no voice while Lincoln was being born in Illinois, 400 years after the first slaves were brought to Jamestown, VA, at the heart of the Confederacy, we are able to use our voice to enjoy another peice of history, regardless if we like McCain (a war hero) Clinton (A woman) or Obama ( A Black man) by exercising the right to vote.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was talking about this:

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.

Right, but that is not my original thought....that is what is taken from the link I provided

[DSTCHAOS]

Do better with multiple quotes next time, DaemonSeid.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Right, but that is not my original thought....that is what is taken from the link I provided

Oh that was an Abe Lincoln 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?