Sound Familiar?

by peacefulpete 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  MMM, you say we have grave differences about how to organize society. And you seem to suggest that there are destructive threats rising from these differences. Threats to the very the western principles upon which we have built our lives and our economic ( capitalistic) system.

  If we accept this assessment the problem then a question comes to mind: When the Constitution was framed on Western values did it really provide a sound framework for social order? Or did it create a time bomb by failing to recognize the equal value of all citizen to have a share of, a voice in society.

  The answer is historical: Native Americans, women, white men without property, and chattel slaves were bound to a social order that legally excluded them from enjoying the fruits of Western Values.

  So while there is every reason to love the “new nation conceived in liberty” the Founding Fathers limited who they wanted to share those freedoms: Native Americans, women, white men without property, and chattel slaves were bound to a social order that legally excluded them from enjoying the fruits of Western Values.

  Ok. So, a lot to cover here, and instead of writing a really large post, I’ll try to condense my thoughts. Nevertheless, I think the fundamentals of the divide are beginning to play themselves out in this thread. It hasn’t really changed my mind.

  First, to answer your question, yes, the Constitution does contain the embodiment of many western values. But you are conflating the historical record with the foundational principles.

  For example, we are all familiar with the golden rule. Roughly : Treat others the way you want to be treated. So, am I, as an atheist, after rejecting the Bible, justified in rejecting the golden rule? I don’t think so. Imagine if took it a step further and proclaimed that I would not only ignore the golden rule, but took steps to do the exact opposite in my life, completely inverting the principle because of its appearance in a book I reject?

  Likewise, the principle of private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, individual rights that are part of each human (of all races) as a matter of birth, whether you think that is from God or not, are embodied well in the constitution, especially the first ten amendments. The nation’s founding wasn’t framed to benefit white men over others. Rather, the nation has stains on its past, created when people were not living up to the principles. Ultimately, because the nation was founded on the principles, the injustices, like slavery, ended. After all, what did Lincoln and Douglass appeal to?

  And, so, there’s the divide. One side wishing to maintain the principles. The other focusing on something called “equity” - which is an attempt to force an equality of outcome. To do that, the foundational principles must be abandoned.

  In the end, I still think I am right. There is no compromise. The divide will widen.
• 

  ShotWhileTryingToEscape

  
  

  Likewise, the principle of private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, individual rights that are part of each human (of all races) as a matter of birth, whether you think that is from God or not, are embodied well in the constitution, especially the first ten amendments. The nation’s founding wasn’t framed to benefit white men over others. — MMM

  Thomas Jefferson it’s assumed would agree to agree with your statement. But Jefferson was deeply dependent on slavery both for his life of privilege and ease. His slaves were not citizens. Persons of African descent were not citizens until 1868.

  Pres. Lincoln was careful to avoid linking freedom/equal rights to black Africans (or even pale descendants of Africans) with the war to save the Union. So many Union troops despised the blacks that it was hardly the driving force behind the North’s recruitment drive.
  

  Native Americans were not citizens until way after slavery. In fact Union Generals Sherman, Sheridan, Custer barely switched horses after the War between the States before killing Indians in the Western states and territories. So much for human and civil rights being for everyone.

  
  

  Rather, the nation has stains on its past, created when people were not living up to the principles.——MMM
  

  I agree that the nation has stains on its past.

  But the stains were built into the design of our nation. Those who “were not living up to the principles” of the Founding Fathers were the founders themselves !

  The stains were supported in law by none other than the Supreme Court of the time. Check out the Dred Scot decision.

  The Civil War was fought to save the Union. During the fighting it’s well argued that Lincoln realized it was a political if not moral necessity. But in the beginning the least concern had been black equality. In fact, Federal commitment to black freedoms was so lame, only 12 years after freedom’s dream arrived it ended:

  “On April 24, 1877, as part of a political compromise that enabled his election, President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew federal troops from Louisiana -- the last federally-occupied former Confederate state -- just 12 years after the end of the Civil War. The withdrawal marked the end of Reconstruction and paved the way for the unrestrained resurgence of white supremacist rule in the South, carrying with it the rapid deterioration of political rights for Black people.”—End of Reconstruction in the South

  This end of protecting the vulnerable freedmen tell all that America had lost interest in black citizens securin fair protection under the law. Enter JimCrow, convict leading and lynching.

  MMM, I believe in free enterprise, l love my country, l love the Constitution. I have real admiration for our flawed Founding Fathers.

  But there are problems that have been let grow.Snd our economy is breaking too.

  I do not believe the new administration going to solve the Divide . I don’t believe the last one even tried. The Divide was there and is still growing .

  Our beloved country was founded by extraordinary men who believed that they were standing on their own feet when they wrote the Constitution. But they only stood as high as they did by stepping on the black,brown AND white toes of people they chose to exploit.

  Is that relevant here? I think so. And thanks for mentioning the Golden Rule— it’s relevant too.

  I hope you are well, MMM. I appreciate your ability to organize this conversation and glad you have persisted in a civil exchange.
• 

  ShotWhileTryingToEscape

  (I wasn’t drinking when l wrote the above post but my dropped thoughts and typos make me wonder. Alzheimer’s? I hope not.)

  Summary? I hope it’s clear that I am not hating any of my fellow Americans. I just don’t see a way forward by ignoring our history.

  The United States began when Europeans displaced indigenous Americans. Spaniards did it in South America— so there is nothing new here. We enslaved indigenous people( problems with that: they knew the land) and imported Africans who had fewer escape routes.

  We dropped legal slavery ( though we virtually continued it through the convict lease system and state prisons lol) but international trade with nations that don’t observe human rights can undersell us if we don’t find ways to use cheap labor ourselves. Our remarkable in document, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution can hardly paper over this problem.

  How can we be fair if no one else is?

  MMM, l am building the case for this: Though we aspire to justice in this country, we built national wealth by exploiting indigenous, immigrant or kidnapped labor. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS. We sorta/kinda try to honor individual rights in the U.S.A. but we no less than others on this planet have sacrifice zones, the boneyards of the discarded workers. Terrifying places. Absolutely heartbreaking and terrible.

  Our political parties play a shell game with this mess. Big government is run by big money. It is more convenient to pay out checks in the sacrifice zones than to address the dysfunction has become self perpetuating.

  Always.

  l just want us to be honest. And compassionate.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Likewise, the principle of private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, individual rights that are part of each human (of all races) as a matter of birth, whether you think that is from God or not, are embodied well in the constitution, especially the first ten amendments. The nation’s founding wasn’t framed to benefit white men over others. — MMM

  Thomas Jefferson it’s assumed would agree to agree with your statement. But Jefferson was deeply dependent on slavery both for his life of privilege and ease. His slaves were not citizens. Persons of African descent were not citizens until 1868.

  Pres. Lincoln was careful to avoid linking freedom/equal rights to black Africans (or even pale descendants of Africans) with the war to save the Union. So many Union troops despised the blacks that it was hardly the driving force behind the North’s recruitment drive.

  Native Americans were not citizens until way after slavery. In fact Union Generals Sherman, Sheridan, Custer barely switched horses after the War between the States before killing Indians in the Western states and territories. So much for human and civil rights being for everyone.

  I think you missed the point. You are still conflating history with principle. I was making a principled argument (quoted above), and you made a historical argument. When you respond with BUT! "Jefferson was deeply dependent on slavery" and "Lincoln was careful to avoid linking freedom/equal rights to black Africans" and "Native Americans were not citizens until way after slavery" - what are you appealing to? Those are all true. So? How is that a response to the principled argument I presented? To what end/conclusion are you arguing?
  

  But the stains were built into the design of our nation.

  To some extent, yes. The Constitution originally had explicit language regarding "negros". That was the basis for the Dred Scott decision. But don't miss the point - what principles were the foundation for the change? Do you really think the slavery was ended because of social justice? Do you really think the 14th amendment was the precursor to "wokeness"? What principles brought us to the current state of complete rights for everyone?

  Those who “were not living up to the principles” of the Founding Fathers were the founders themselves !

  Again, as above, so? What conclusion should I draw? Can you state it explicitly? I responded to more of your points, but realized that I was repeating the same response over and over. What are you advocating for? Do you think we should undermine private property in some way, as a response to the history you cite?
  

  MMM, I believe in free enterprise, l love my country, l love the Constitution. I have real admiration for our flawed Founding Fathers. But there are problems that have been let grow.Snd our economy is breaking too.

  What problems? List them - explicitly. Or, list maybe the top 2. No subjectivity, just a list.

  Our economy is a mess. It was a mess before Trump, gained a little bubble-like growth during Trump, and will continue a rapid downward turn as the government prints more money and undermines the last vestiges of free enterprise. It will end in a crash that will probably include a currency crisis. This will be the responsibility of Democrat and Republican presidents alike - as more and more territory has been ceded to collectivist policies, the kind that produced the Bolivian example you first cited (end of page 4).
  

  I do not believe the new administration going to solve the Divide . I don’t believe the last one even tried. The Divide was there and is still growing .

  Yes, it is growing.
  

  I hope you are well, MMM. I appreciate your ability to organize this conversation and glad you have persisted in a civil exchange.

  Sure.

  As an ending thought here: At what point, do you think, do we finally look ahead? I would say that many on the political "right" are looking ahead, and in fact, think they have been looking ahead for quite some time. The idea of "systemic racism" is just another way to keep the grievances going. And that is a large part of the divide.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  MMM, l am building the case for this: Though we aspire to justice in this country, we built national wealth by exploiting indigenous, immigrant or kidnapped labor. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS. We sorta/kinda try to honor individual rights in the U.S.A. but we no less than others on this planet have sacrifice zones, the boneyards of the discarded workers. Terrifying places. Absolutely heartbreaking and terrible.

  I do not agree. The wealth of this nation came after the Civil War with the Industrial Revolution.
  

  What are "sacrifice zones"? Are you defining them as "boneyards of discarded workers"? What do you mean by that?
  

  Workers these days have much better conditions than they did in the past. But we have built up the capital needed to make this happen. Although, there is a myth floating around too, that workers had it much better as farmers before they were enslaved in the horrible, dirty industrial cities. I trust that wasn't what you were referring to.
  

  When you say "We sorta/kinda try to honor individual rights in the U.S.A." what do you mean? What individual rights are denied today?
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  For anyone still interested in this topic, and @SWTTE, if you are still interested.

  This interview highlights a lot of what has developed in the last few posts, and illustrates the divide happening. It’s a long video, but I think it’s worth it. Most noticeable - the idea that the principles of the founding don’t matter so much, the appeal to the 1619-project-like thought:

  https://youtu.be/xc_XfIUAruQ
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  More of the same:

  https://www.thecollegefix.com/to-fight-racism-math-teachers-urged-to-accept-tik-tok-videos-instead-of-asking-students-to-show-their-work/