Happy Birthday USA

[EnderAndrew]

I wanted to wish a happy birthday to our fine nation, with whom I have a love/hate relationship. However, when I really think about it, it borders on love more than hate.

 

I hate how ignorant Americans can be, but then again the media never reports real news here. We know intimate details of every celebrity boinking another celebrity, but we're in the dark if there is genocide in Rwanda. Is this sadly indicative of a capitalistic society where sex sells more than genocide? Probably.

 

We have a rather conservative leadership today, which I have some issues with. We're discriminatory towards gays in particular, for instance.

 

Yet in following foreign affairs, I see sexism and racism are still rampant in many parts of the world. I don't think the civil rights movement is over, far from it really. However, our country has been the bastion for freedom for the past 200-some-odd years now. And while our country is seen as being responsible for some horrid acts, such as slavery, the truth is that the entire world was guilty of slavery. Every culture on the planet pretty much had slaves, and the African slave market was instigated by Africans slaving other Africans and selling them to Europeans. America embraces some of our mistakes and attempts to make ammends for them, where as many nations gloss over history as simply being history.

 

I like many of the ideals our nation stands for. I stand behind the Constitution as a great document, even at over 200 years old. And while it is a shame many of our leaders forget the rights guaranteed by said document, I don't believe the sky is falling, or that our country is nearly so bad off as people would like to make things seem.

 

If the media can paint the current administration in as bad a light as possible, surely the American mass will revolt and demand change in the next election! Screw facts, issues or platforms.

 

Ironically enough, by beliefs I am a Democrat, but it is precisely these tactics that drive me away from most Democratic canidates. I honestly would have voted for Dean in a heart-beat, but never for Kerry.

 

And on this day I am left to ponder the merit of nationalistic pride. Is it bad to feel proud to be an American? If there were no concept of nation, would we have fewer wars? Some have suggested that, but I think wars would still remain on the principles of lifestyles. Wouldn't people fight for the right to a capitalist lifestyle versus a communist way of life? Wouldn't people fight for Christian beliefs versus say Muslim beliefs? Wouldn't people still fight over East Coast rap versus West Coast rap?

 

The belief that your way of life, or nation is superior often leads people to foolish notions that we can only demonstrate our superiority by killing members of the other idealogy. This is the notion that leads to war, not the love of country, or way of life.

 

In that, I have no reservation in saying that despite the flaws our country has, I still love this land. I can only hope though that we as a people, the united people of this fragile little Earth can come to realize that human rights to freely follow our own creed, whatever it may be, should be guaranteed anywhere and everywhere.

 

If you wish to live with Goats and rub midgets on your nipples, then so be it. So long as you don't violate the rights of others, we should be content to enjoy our way of life without feeling so threatened by other's ways of life.

 

"Insist on yourself; never imitate. You can give your own gift with the accumulated power of a life's work, but of the adopted talents of another you will have at best an extemperaneous half-expression." - Ralph Waldo Emmerson

[jaguars4ever]

[Archmonarch]

For some odd reason, God Bless the USA began running through my head while I read that.

 

That said, I agree with what you have said, though I take a more dim view of humanity, being at heart a pessimist.

 

Anyway, Happy Birthday, United States of America! May good days come again soon.

[mkreku]

Sweden has never had slaves. We had vikings and a horribly class-divided system, but never slaves.

[jaguars4ever]

Sweden has never had slaves. We had vikings and a horribly class-divided system, but never slaves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then what do you call those Danes? ^_^

[Archmonarch]

Serfs are equivalent to slaves, mreku.

[EnderAndrew]

Bush, being the gay-hating bastard that he is, has always preached tolerance of Muslim Americans.

 

On 9/11 he must have given at least 3 statements that day telling Americans not to retaliate against all Muslims for the actions of a few fundamentalists.

 

Yet people judge all Muslims regardless, and then for some reason blame Bush for this behavior where as in reality he has always urged otherwise.

 

Murdock, the guy who did Supersize Me has a new TV show called 30 Days. For a month, he pits someone against a Supersize Me-esque challenge and documents it. The last episode I saw was where he took a Christian from West Virgina and made him live as a Muslim for a month. It was a really good episode.

 

Edit: And for the record, the Vikings enslaved people all the time. That's how I got my red hair, being Irish and all. The Vikings enslaved the people of Ireland for a time, ya' know.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Bush used the word 'crusade', and while it's likely that he doesn't really know what the word means, it's still his own fault that he attracts this criticism.

 

He's also closely allied with Christian extremists who are hostile to Islam. Is it unfair to judge him by who he chooses for friends? Maybe.

 

Happy Birthday USA. Have a wonderful day, and try not to invade anyone.

[mkreku]

No, serfs and slaves are not the same thing. And the vikings never took men, they only abducted women.. for the gene pool and all that.

 

"In the strictest sense of the word, "slaves" are people who work for someone else but are not paid, and who have no rights. The word comes from slav, which originally meant landless serfs from Eastern Europe, including parts of the Roman Empire. However, the current usage of the word serfdom is not usually synonymous with slavery, because serfs are considered to have had some rights."

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

 

It's mostly semantics, but Sweden never had slaves.

[EnderAndrew]

Germany did not invade Poland! We were invited! Tea and cake were served!

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...lay.cfm?HHID=60

How does slavery differ from other forms of exploitation such as serfdom, forced labor, or the subordination of women in patriarchal societies? The traditional definition of slavery was legal. Slaves were peoples' property and could be bought and sold, traded, leased, or mortgaged like a form of livestock.

 

Because they are under the personal dominion of an owner, slaves were always vulnerable to sexual exploitation and cruel punishment. In all cultures, slaves were symbolically dishonored. For example, they were branded, tattooed, or required to wear distinctive collars, clothing, or hairstyles.

 

Also, regardless of place and time period or the ethnicity of the slaves, societies have imposed certain common stereotypes on slaves - that they were licentious, childlike, lazy, irresponsible, dim-witted, and incapable of freedom.

So, the Vikings kidnapped people, wouldn't allow them to leave, and treated them as property, but they didn't have slaves? How does that work again.

 

And not only did the Vikings have slaves, but so did the Swedes. I thought Europeans were supposed to know their history.

 

Also read:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade

 

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/000043.html

[jaguars4ever]

Happy Birthday USA.  Have a wonderful day, and try not to invade anyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aw, c'mon - why spoil our fun? We always give you Brits a piece of the action.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Serfs are equivalent to slaves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yes and no, but mostly yes. Historically, the differences were important, but where serfdom and slavery occur in the world today (and they do), there's little practical difference.

[jaguars4ever]

No, serfs and slaves are not the same thing. And the vikings never took men, they only abducted women.. for the gene pool and all that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aha! Sex slaves! Now we've got you. :D

[Archmonarch]

...which is why I used the term 'equivalent' as opposed to 'the same as.'

[Reveilled]

Back when it was born, and for many years afterward, the United States was a shining beacon of freedom across the planet that inspired people to fight for freedom in their own countries, and gave them hope that they could be liberated from the opressive reigime they lived under.

 

It is disheartening to me to see the USA turn away from this heritage, and begin to see Freedom as something that has to be limited, either for the sake of stability or the sake of financial equality. I hope that some time in the near future, Americans will look back at what the Founding Fathers intended for their great country and try to return the United States to being the Land of the Free. I hope that I will be one of those Americans, even if I'm not one by birth.

 

The constitution was a historic document, that set concrete limits on what a government could do in defence of its citizens. It is my wish that the government of the United States would return to protecting those freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, and leave everything else alone. Where others see the Constitution as a document that says "The Federal Government must do this", I see it as a document that says "The Federal Government must do this, and only this."

 

But whatever misgivings I have for the present situation of American politics and government, the United States of America is still one of the greatest naitons in the world today. Happy Birthday, USA, and may you have many more.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm sleep deprived at the moment. I spent the entire day partying, and now 10 hours of work on top of it. I haven't slept in 30 some odd hours. But I distinctly remember my World Civ class mentioning that only one major culture never kept slaves and now I can't remember who it was.

 

When they interviewed George Takei about being the first major Asian character on prime time TV they asked him about oppression he likely ran into. He said something to the affect that he never felt oppressed in the US. He said every culture given the opportunity has oppressed others, and every culture put in the wrong situation has become oppressed. He didn't feel Asians deserved special merit as an oppressed culture, or that Americans deserved special merit as oppressors.

 

I'm not trying to make Sweden or Europe look bad. My point was merely that the US was not alone in the slave trade, but there are many who seem to single out the US for this practice which is historically incorrect. And in case people aren't paying attention, slavery is still practiced in the Middle East and Africa today.

 

Edit:Reveiled,

 

I think it should be noted that when this country was born, only White males had real freedom. We have made strives in freedom, where as the media paints a McCarthy-esque/dystopian outlook on our country today where we have no freedoms.

 

Last time I checked the Patriot Act was being repealed, despite unilateral support from both parties initially. Futhermore, even Kerry stated in his campaign that the Patriot Act was vital to the defense of this country, but because Congress doesn't want to piss off uninformed Americans, it's being dumped now.

 

It included such clauses as giving the government the right to monitor computers they own. God forbid!

 

Citizens can fully monitor their own property, and corporations can do the same thing so far as to fire you for your personal email you send from work. But the government does not have this right.

 

And people also forget the Supreme Court, where any ruling or law that takes away our Constitutional rights can be overturned.

[mkreku]

And not only did the Vikings have slaves, but so did the Swedes.  I thought Europeans were supposed to know their history.

 

Also read:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade

 

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/000043.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, you're confusing slave trade and being involved in slave trade with actually having slaves. Sweden had colonies, which they let the british West India Company use as a slave harbour, but slaves were never 'imported' to Sweden (according to what's taught in swedish school books).

 

The vikings didn't have slaves, they had what would now be called serfs. What's so confusing about it is that they practically invented the word slave (because of where they got their serfs from) but by today's standards they would have been called serfs. A serf is someone getting (albeit minimal) pay for their work. A serf also has the right to buy his freedom after a couple of years (I mean, they were still abducted). As I said in my earlier post, it may be a matter of semantics, but there is still a difference.

 

I'm no history expert, but I think I do know more about swedish history than what you can dig up from 2 minutes of net searching..

[EnderAndrew]

Sweden owned slaves. Thusly, they had slaves. Having is defined as owning. I think that's pretty clear. Whether or not they resided in Sweden proper is another thing. But they claimed ownership of an island, enslaved the population and sold people off.

 

Next, the Vikings kidnapped individuals from other countries they invaded, and used them as breeding stock. That's clearly slavery.

 

Within their own lands they also had criminals who became indentured servents.

 

The definition of slavery is the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

 

Serfs meet that definition. It was a slave by another name. In either instance, Sweden had slaves. In fact, they did in both.

[mkreku]

Serfs meet that definition.  It was a slave by another name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then we'll just agree to disagree.

 

Sorry for derailing your thread, by the way.

 

Happy Birthday USA!

 

Did you know that buildings that are older than your nation are common in Sweden?

 

 

Edit: Actually, EnderWiggin, you may be right. What was taught to me in school 15 years ago may have been redefined. I was taught that Sweden had "tr

[SteveThaiBinh]

Did you know that buildings that are older than your nation are common in Sweden?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was funny in 1999 when Americans were discussing who should be the 'Man of the Century', and in the UK we were discussing who should be the 'Man of the Milliennium'. But are there advantages to having less history?

[Reveilled]

Edit:Reveiled,

 

I think it should be noted that when this country was born, only White males had real freedom.  We have made strives in freedom, where as the media paints a McCarthy-esque/dystopian outlook on our country today where we have no freedoms.

 

It is true that when the country was first created, there were restrictions on freedom based on your sex and colour, but you can't wish for the moon, or in this case, black and female emancipation, given the cultural mores of the time. I'm not saying people in the USA have no freedoms, just that the American people now feel that freedom has to be tempered with stability (restrictions on gays, for instance), or with financial equality (income tax during peacetime, which took a constitutional amendment to become legal).

 

Last time I checked the Patriot Act was being repealed, despite unilateral support from both parties initially.  Futhermore, even Kerry stated in his campaign that the Patriot Act was vital to the defense of this country, but because Congress doesn't want to piss off uninformed Americans, it's being dumped now.

 

It included such clauses as giving the government the right to monitor computers they own.  God forbid!

 

Citizens can fully monitor their own property, and corporations can do the same thing so far as to fire you for your personal email you send from work.  But the government does not have this right.

 

And it included such clauses as allowing the FBI to look at your records for any reason, as long as it wasn't because of something you'd said. You don't even have to be a suspect in an investigation.

 

There were many positive clauses in the Patriot act. But the problem was that many bad clauses were sneaked in along with it. If the patriot act had included only things such as allowing better correspondence between the intelligence agencies, there'd be no problem.

 

And people also forget the Supreme Court, where any ruling or law that takes away our Constitutional rights can be overturned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the problem. It strikes down laws that violate the rights enshrined to us in the Constitution. But what about our other rights?

It's not right for the supreme court to operate that way. It should strike down any law which goes beyond the scope of the rights granted to the government, whether it violates the rights we have mentioned in the Constitution or not.

 

 

Do we have to argue about this, though? Do you really believe we can change each others minds to make this worthwhile, especially when it has little to do with the thread?

[kirottu]

Happy B-Day USA.

[EnderAndrew]

Edit: Actually, EnderWiggin, you may be right. What was taught to me in school 15 years ago may have been redefined. I was taught that Sweden had "tr

[Calax]

And may we all get drunk to forget that our white house now has both congress and the judiciary supporting him...

[Darth Flatus]

Happy Birthday USA!

 

A few questions:

 

1.

Wouldn't people still fight over East Coast rap versus West Coast rap?

when did that happen?

 

2. When did black ppl get the same voting rights as white people in the US?

 

3. When did that episode of "30 Days" air?