If Bush was a Strong, decisive leader, we wouldnt see stories like this one!!!!but..of course he is not....

[mary]

Settlers leave an existing society to createa a a new one.

......it is an Anglo-Protestant nation.

Do you create "new" societies? Or do you simply alter the ones that already exist?

Did the European settlers create a new society? Or did they just simply adapt an "old" society to new surroundings?

If I wanted to create a new society, would it be necessary to destroy the existing "old" society?

What about people that entered the country as neither "immigrants" or "settlers"?

[dude1394]

The European settlers were fleeing from much of the religious persecutions that they were under-going in the british isles. So in that sense they created something new. They certainly brought much of what they had from Britain. Language, protestant religion, common law, etc. So they adapted it to new surroundings but they removed much of the royalty and class system that was prevalent there. They sort of flattened the organization as it were. I'm not sure but I get a feeling that property rights were probably a big part of it as well, but I don't have that knowledge.

In the case of the indian population it was necessary to conquer the country, I imagine it could have been done less violently, but it would certainly be a different country if we hadn't done that. And the thinking then was that it was our destiny, again almost religious in tone, imo.

Hmmm...I'm not sure who would be classified as neither "immigrants" or "settlers" unless you mean illegal immigrants??

[Mavdog]

Madison and jefferson both were adament that there be no connection whatsoever between government and any religious institution. If you are consistent with the cause of "strict constructionism" as it relates to judicial opinions, their views (as framers of the constitution) prescribe this strict seperation of church and state. they would be totally against any public funds being given to any religious group (ala "faith based initiatives" being funded).

Your view of the contribution of immigrants is way off base. After all, every American save for Native Americans are immigrants, and the great wave of immigration, beginning with the Irish in the mid 1800s, to the eastern europeans of the late 19th century, contributed the human capital that has made our country what it is today. guess what? these groups were not anglo-protestant.

As Alan Dershowitz said, we are the American stew, not a melting pot, as the immigrants who have come to America seeking freedom have kept their cultures. These cultures have not assimilated into some "anglo-protestant" product, they have absorbed the ideals of liberty and freedom while maintaining their own cultures and history.

Maybe you should famialize yourself with Haym Salomon, Isaac Franks, Francis Salvador and Mathias Bush, all non-christians who were active in the american revolution. It has been said that America would have failed tp sustain itself if not for the work of Franks.

You may claim that America is an "anglo-protestant nation" but in reality it is neither majority anglo nor majority protestant.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Madison and jefferson both were adament that there be no connection whatsoever between government and any religious institution. If you are consistent with the cause of "strict constructionism" as it relates to judicial opinions, their views (as framers of the constitution) prescribe this strict seperation of church and state. they would be totally against any public funds being given to any religious group (ala "faith based initiatives" being funded).

I haven't read this whole thread, but this caught my eye.

Mavdog, how would they have felt about publicly funded education, income tax, social security, socialized medicine, welfare, and the rest of the federal intrusions into private life? More to the point, do you think they would agree that the current liberal philosophy of "push government into every aspect of life, while removing religion from every aspect of government" is in violation of the first amendment?

[Usually Lurkin]

double post

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
I haven't read this whole thread, but this caught my eye.

Mavdog, how would they have felt about publicly funded education

first, I don't want to claim I am an authority on their views, yet from what I've read the public school concept was furthered as an alternative to parochial schools.

income tax, social security

both don't appear to be concepts they were against. good question.

socialized medicine

I don't know, but as we don't have this why do you ask?

welfare, and the rest of the federal intrusions into private life?

I recall a writing by Jefferson where he saw the public need to support those who were down and out.

More to the point, do you think they would agree that the current liberal philosophy of "push government into every aspect of life, while removing religion from every aspect of government" is in violation of the first amendment?

personally I don't see "government in every aspect of life" so it's a moot question.

[Usually Lurkin]

Maybe some of our historians can verify some of these quotes from

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/quotes.htm

The first seems particularly relevant to the original topic of this thread.

Above in more detail: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25


3. "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison - 'father of the

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Quincy Adams, 6th President of USA.

Aided by a little sophistry on the words 'general welfare', [they claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare." --- Thomas Jefferson 1825 to W. Giles.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Madison and jefferson both were adament that there be no connection whatsoever between government and any religious institution. If you are consistent with the cause of "strict constructionism" as it relates to judicial opinions, their views (as framers of the constitution) prescribe this strict seperation of church and state. they would be totally against any public funds being given to any religious group (ala "faith based initiatives" being funded).

Your view of the contribution of immigrants is way off base. After all, every American save for Native Americans are immigrants, and the great wave of immigration, beginning with the Irish in the mid 1800s, to the eastern europeans of the late 19th century, contributed the human capital that has made our country what it is today. guess what? these groups were not anglo-protestant.

This is the great half-truth.. I'm making a distinction between settlers and immigrants as you pertain. Asian, German immigrants did not form our culture, anglo-protestants did. They were the "charter" group that formed it, not the other immigrants. Also unless I'm mistaken the Irish are also anglo(british Isles). Also as expounded on below the protestant nature of our country has transformed into "christian".

As Alan Dershowitz said, we are the American stew, not a melting pot, as the immigrants who have come to America seeking freedom have kept their cultures. These cultures have not assimilated into some "anglo-protestant" product, they have absorbed the ideals of liberty and freedom while maintaining their own cultures and history.

Sure they have. . They speak english, their currency has under god, they have been assimilated. Assimilation doesn't mean you become some sort of borg, you keep the racial and ethnic heritage that you have but they must conform to the dominant anglo-protestant(christian) culture.

Maybe you should famialize yourself with Haym Salomon, Isaac Franks, Francis Salvador and Mathias Bush, all non-christians who were active in the american revolution. It has been said that America would have failed tp sustain itself if not for the work of Franks.

You may claim that America is an "anglo-protestant nation" but in reality it is neither majority anglo nor majority protestant.

And you should familiraize yourseslf with Sam Huntington, Tocqueville, etc. You love to deal with semantics....The culture of America comes form anglo-protestant but it has morphed into anglo-christian. The catholic church for example has become assimilated into the american culture. I was talking about founding culture, but certainly it has changed over the years to accept the large number of "immigrants". But the basis for our founding culture is the same.

I'm not familiar with Isaac Franks except for this blurb stating that he was a jewish colonel but a practicing christian who loaned his home to washington??

[mary]

Hmmm...I'm not sure who would be classified as neither "immigrants" or "settlers" unless you mean illegal immigrants??

I was referring to those that entered the country under the classification of "property".

[mary]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I don't know about you guys, and I've always thought pretty highly of her, but I am really loving the new mary. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: mary

I was referring to those that entered the country under the classification of "property".

Well we had to fight a civil war to straighten that one out. I would say that the slavery issue put a tension in our constitution that wasn't really resolved until the civil war and even then not until civil rights legislation. But to be honest, I think race is pretty irrelevant now.

[mary]

Well we had to fight a civil war to straighten that one out. I would say that the slavery issue put a tension in our constitution that wasn't really resolved until the civil war and even then not until civil rights legislation. But to be honest, I think race is pretty irrelevant now.

I think we were talking about cultures and societies and how they are formed. I believe you said that this culture was formed by Anglo-Protestants and immigrants have assimilated into our existing culture. What I was wondering is how do you account for the impact of African-Americans and the impact of slavery on our culture and how our society was formed?


Do you really think race is irrelevant?


Really? Irrelevant to whom exactly?

[dude1394]

Other than forcing ourselves to finally live up to our constitution, I'm not sure what impact african-americans had. We certainly went through a very viscious power stuggle during the civil-war and then later a little less bloody civil rights movement. I don't have much insight into what impact that has had in our culture. We certainly were at a tension in that we declared that all men are created equal and yet didn't live up to that. But that may have been the times as much as anything. So I don't have much comment on that.

As for our current time, no I don't think race is that relevant in our society. There are no legislative barriers to anyone of any race from achieving whatever their talents allow. There are issues of whether a certain race is propsering in comparison to others. But no outright racism is being practised in our governement(s). On the contrary, there is probably more destructive anti-discrimination going on imo. And the unexpected consequences of those policies are having a bigger impact than racist ones.

It seems that most races in the US have the same opportunity as others, what they do with that opportunity doesn't constitute racism imo. Probalby again more cultural issues than political.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394

This is the great half-truth.. I'm making a distinction between settlers and immigrants as you pertain. Asian, German immigrants did not form our culture, anglo-protestants did. They were the "charter" group that formed it, not the other immigrants. Also unless I'm mistaken the Irish are also anglo(british Isles). Also as expounded on below the protestant nature of our country has transformed into "christian".

Germans and asians did not conribute to our "culture"?? wow, how ethnocentric can you be??? eastern europeans (and that isnot just germans, but poles, russians, slavs etc) made substantial contrinbutions to what is America, especially in its politics and industry.

BTW the Irish came to America because a) they were starving due to the potato blight and b) because they were predominately catholic and not allowed into england. So much for that "protestant" label...

As Alan Dershowitz said, we are the American stew, not a melting pot, as the immigrants who have come to America seeking freedom have kept their cultures. These cultures have not assimilated into some "anglo-protestant" product, they have absorbed the ideals of liberty and freedom while maintaining their own cultures and history.

Sure they have. . They speak english, their currency has under god, they have been assimilated. Assimilation doesn't mean you become some sort of borg, you keep the racial and ethnic heritage that you have but they must conform to the dominant anglo-protestant(christian) culture. [/quote]

did you know it wasn't until the later 1800's that In God We Trust was first used?
As we have many jewish americans, catholic americans, and other faiths being followed it is incoprrect to claim that "they must conform to the dominant anglo-protestant culture", and in fact protestants are not even a majority in America.

Maybe you should famialize yourself with Haym Salomon, Isaac Franks, Francis Salvador and Mathias Bush, all non-christians who were active in the american revolution. It has been said that America would have failed tp sustain itself if not for the work of Franks.

You may claim that America is an "anglo-protestant nation" but in reality it is neither majority anglo nor majority protestant.

And you should familiraize yourseslf with Sam Huntington, Tocqueville, etc. You love to deal with semantics....The culture of America comes form anglo-protestant but it has morphed into anglo-christian. The catholic church for example has become assimilated into the american culture. I was talking about founding culture, but certainly it has changed over the years to accept the large number of "immigrants". But the basis for our founding culture is the same.[/quote]

I believe that Toqueville was catholic.
Those who practice catholism would be very interested to hear how their faith has "assimilated" into an anglo-protestant religion.

I'm not familiar with Isaac Franks except for this blurb stating that he was a jewish colonel but a practicing christian who loaned his home to washington??[/quote]

that is a contradiction, one cannot be a "jewish colonel" and "a practicing christian", I do not know where that came from, it is not what I've read about him. Nevertheless, there were many non-christians who were critical to the formation of our country as I mentioned above.

[mary]

Well, I thought "culture" was what we were discussing.

Race seemed awefully relevant a couple of posts ago when you were deeming the U.S. an "Anglo-Protestant" society.

It really is stunning to hear someone say they don't believe african-americans have had much of an impact on the shaping of American culture (dang, every heard of Rock N Roll?)

In regards to racism - do you not believe it exists, or are you just saying that it is no longer being institutionalized? There is a big difference my friend. As someone who has lived in Texas for thirty years, I assure you that racism is alive and well in the hearts of many. As long as that is true, those windows of opportunity are not quite as wide open as you seem to think that they are.

To swing this topic back around to New Orleans - I think race is relevant in many aspects. I don't think its relevant in terms of disaster response from FEMA, or the State, or the Feds. I honestly believe they would have fucked that up no matter what.

However, when I overhear a business man say to another "Are those niggers still on tv trying to get something else from the federal government?", I assure you their thoughts and ideas concerning the Hurricane vicitims are less than philathropic, and I seriously doubt either one of them give two shits about providing minorities with equal opportunity. Do you think race is relevant for these to guys (who are both business OWNERS, btw).

I've lived in Texas thirty years (ok, I'm 30)...mostly in the rural Southeast, and unfortunately the sentiments stated by the two assholes above, are not foreign to my ears - by any means.

Or how about this story...a caucasian woman was writing on a message board the other day about her experience at Reunion Arena. She tried to give to black gentlemen a ride to the bus stop, but they refused. Immediately after their refusal, a black woman offered them a ride, and they accepted. Even when people are completely destitute, race still was relevant.

Dear lord, I don't even want to get into my own experiences right now. But trust me, race is relevant. And if its relevant in our culture, then it is also relevant in our job markets, our courts, the media...etc.

[dude1394]

Sure african-americans contributed to our culture. But I don't think you can say that african heritage had made it into our societal constitution, laws, language etc. I think you are thinking more of something like pop-culture, not institutional culture which is what I was talking about. There certainly were not many african americans in the constitutional convention or in general government at all the 60's, that is more what I'm referring to.

And of course racism "exists". Black racism, white racism, hispanic racism, asian racism, muslim racism, hick racism, yankee racism, hindu racism, polish racism, sexism, classism, etc. (And I know that the examples I gave are not all "race" but I think you get my drift). But to my knowledge I don't recall laws barring any of those "races" from prospering?

But apart from racism existing, I do not feel it is relavant today to make policies to address it specifically although I sort of liked the NCLE . I think the way Bill Cosby is thinking is much, much more productive than what I hear from Al Sharpton and company.

[LRB]

I think the way Bill Cosby is thinking is much, much more productive than what I hear from Al Sharpton and company.

Cosby is so infinitely more qualified than Sharpton and has done so much more to advance race relations and to end racism.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Cosby is so infinitely more qualified than Sharpton and has done so much more to advance race relations and to end racism.

I read a NYT interview of Sharpton in which he stated support and agreed with Cosby. They did a fundraiser together too.

[LRB]

read a NYT interview of Sharpton in which he stated support and agreed with Cosby. They did a fundraiser together too.

So what? Clinton and Bush Sr. are doing a fund raiser together and have agreed and supported each other on things in the past.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I read a NYT interview of Sharpton in which he stated support and agreed with Cosby. They did a fundraiser together too.

Good...He should.....Cosby is preaching self-reliance which right now is what needs to be promoted imo. It would be interesting to see if following DuBois has been better in the long term than following Washington would have been for african americans.

In retrospect possibly the Washington model was better. But whichever, it's certainly the better one now.

[dude1394]

Thought that the "photo" deserved a showing here.



snopes photo analysis

The next time you are forced to listen to someone try to blame the lack of help for New Orleans on our Federal Government show them this.

Then ask them why the local Mayor and/or Governor did not deploy these buses August 27 and 28 to help those who could not afford to get out. I am worn out listening to that blowhard mayor (who saw to it that friends were given special leeway to evacuate the Superdome before many of the sick and elderly) and his cronies complain that the President hasn't done enough. And, while your at it, remind the whiners that the majority of the suffering taking place now is a direct result of most of those people not leaving the city last Sunday. I understand that there were some people who couldn't leave for various reasons (such as folks in nursing homes who were only evacuated Saturday), but for the majority of these folks, they would not be in the predicament they are in now If they had simply left. These buses are testimony to the fact that much more could have been done before things progressed to the point they are now.

[dude1394]

Pretty good stuff by jack kelly as well.

jackkelly

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

[dude1394]

Photo of how to use busses in a state with republican leadership..

Note the busses are going OUT before the storm hits with PEOPLE in them. Not sitting in a parking lot waiting to be flooded.

[LRB]

Dude you should know by now that Reeds never lets the facts get in the way of his rhetoric. In reeds world Republicans are accountable for all mistakes made by Republicans (which seems fair to me) as well as those made by Democrats (which is where the looney toones music starts playing). Any fair minded person could see that the mayor and/or govenor has sufficient assets to evacuate the vast majority of people trapped in New Orleans before the flooding. The picture of the flooded buses proves this point, and the responsible and timely evacuation the Texas coast for Rita echoes it.