Cheetah Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I have partly watched a debate on BBC World today. They are debating War on Terrorism, WMD, democracy, the future of NATO, the middle east and/or something like that... (everything is mentioned at least) Right now one of the Saud Princes just had a question. He mentioned that participation in elections in democratic nations like USA and other western countries, have declined in recent years. The question was wether that was an issue with the citisens or the democratic system. As I see it democracy (or republic, for those who would like to mention that we don't have direct democracy) is one of the best government systems that has ever existed. But it requires active, politicaly involved citisens. If that doesn't exist the democratic system will in time crumble, and though it might still look like a democracy, it isn't anymore. Do you think democracy as we know it might be in danger of disappearing, as people seems very little interested in politics, a least in many western democracies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBC Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 We in America today live in an oligarchy. Democracy died when the impotance of money replaced the desires of constituents. The idea that a son can be president after his father in a "democracy" of 250 million people is an insult. Democracy is always in danger, the fore fathers of this nation understood this. When we lose it, we will understand it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 yeah, what we have right now is more of a blend between democracy and republic. the government is becoming less involved in helping us and more involved in controling us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 CBC said in post # :The idea that a son can be president after his father in a democracy of 250 million people is an insult. John Adams and John Quincy Adams ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 But we don't follow a bloodline as law, they just both happened to be voted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :But we don't follow a bloodline as law, they "just both happened" to be voted in. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 The early American were too innocent. They were a modest people fleeing from a higher power (Great Britian) They didn't have the capacity to do such a thing. All the poor patriots had to pull together as a people to fight Great Britain and opposed the rich loyalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :But we don't follow a bloodline as law, they just both happened to be voted in. Unless you can show at least some evidence to the contrary so did Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Can you show some evidence towards it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Can you show some evidence towards it? The millions of people who turned out to vote would take ages to call as witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :All the poor patriots had to pull together as a people to fight Great Britain and opposed the rich loyalists. Just a little point. Someone who rebels against their King is not called a patriot. The civil war had patriots, the war of independence just had rebels. Plus, in my book modest people fleeing from a higher power would ban slavery, not fight to retain it Odd how there are differences in opinion, isn't it? I bet in secret you wish you were still a British colony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 tinymonkey, and not to speak on behalf of Demosthenes, His account was a bit rose colored, though I would cite other reasons. Not quite sure where the slavery issue fits in for you, but certainly if the colonies wanted religious tolerance for themselves, they were hardly tolerant of other religions in their midst. And just an aside should think many families were split in alliegence. I know I have ancestors who fought for independence, as well as those who did not support the revolution. But as for what makes for a patriot, must disagree, and goes beyond a difference of perspective on the one question. My loyalty is given to principles, and in patriotism translates to the founding ideals of my country, which on the whole I think are pretty darned good ones. Expression of patriotism is in holding the country's representatives to those ideals Might say a different tradition, were it not for the numbers who do think patriotism is expressed through a "my country, right or wrong" attitude. or "my president... " or "my king... " as the case may be It is an entirely different approach. Have given the question some thought, as it is the sort of loyalty I favor in my personal life as well, while I find most people operate on a tribalistic level instead. For me, it raises the question of the development of social interaction and its possible role in fostering group cohesiveness, and whether giving loyalty to principle instead of people is somehow missing the "intent" of the entire process. The only answer have come up with for that is that while tribalism can only serve to exclude, shifting loyalty to principles has the potential at least to be more inclusive, and I can find no fault in that (circular as that is, and recognizing of course may still be missing that "intent") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Can you show some evidence towards it? I don't think I carry any burden of proof by claiming that the current president was elected. It is entirely your responsibility to provide proof he was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 MishMish said in post # :tinymonkey, and not to speak on behalf of Demosthenes, But as for what makes for a patriot, must disagree, and goes beyond a difference of perspective on the one question. My loyalty is given to principles, and in patriotism translates to the founding ideals of my country, which on the whole I think are pretty darned good ones. Expression of patriotism is in holding the country's representatives to those ideals. Hmmm. I throw comments around like that to dissuade peoplefrom tarring the English as evil, as people are apt to do in America when discussing the war of independance. We were far from that. I appreciate the ideals and principles were worth fighting for, but as the country was a part of the English crown. The correct term for freedom fighters in that situation is rebels, no matter what they are standing up for. I'm a bit worried that the slavery thing is not highlighted more in the American history, the continuing slavery in the US was one of the basic reasons the war of independance (and later the cival war) was fought. The English had banned slavery, the coloneys had not. The whole tax issue just brought it to a head. You must have noticed that the US took quite a while to stop the slave trade? Research the way the UK treated the few slaves that came here if you have some time in the future, it's quite a different picture than you'd think. It's all for a separate discussion I guess. We'd need arbitration from some other coutrys resident to get a balanced picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 We would never be part of an Imperialistic Britain again. We were Patriots. We were fighting for our freedom from an oppressive government for our country. Not that Britain still is. Slavery wasn't what everyone wanted, just the south to pick their cotton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I always learned in school that they were patriots. After the Declaration of Independence were were no longer part of Britain so people loyle to The colony were Patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 That state was only ratified after the war of independance. It's a simple concept defined thus:- rebel- To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. That make the originators of the war of independance rebels. They rebelled. They performed a rebellion. They acted rebelliously. It's fairly cut and dry, I'm afraid. The American Civil War was 100 year after the war of independance. At the time of the declaration, slavery was widespread. It was as much an issue at independance day as 100 years after in the civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I have to agree with atinmonkey on this one... they rebeled, that makes them rebels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Okay fine, technically they were rebels, but really, they were patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I stepped in on the patriotism question primarily because how patriotism is defined is a current question in the States. As for slavery, am well aware it existed at the time. Really had no thoughts on whether or not it played a role in the revolution, is why I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 They really were rebels. But it seems for a good reason. But my question is (at risk of being o/t from the thread) what does slavery have to do with it? I'm sure you have a valid point, I just don't see it. Does it have something to do with the U.S. having slaves while Britain didn't? Or something else? I eagerly await your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 It was a cheap source of labour, so it made economic sense to retain it. You need all the labour you can get to build a country as large as America. The UK banned it, but of course the main motivation to enforce that onto America was to prevent the colonists from having too much opportunity for expansion and keep the need to rely on British support. That and it being an ungentlemanlike practice! The real Demosthenes had free time to pursue his oratory because Greek society had slaves to do all the menial work. The same was becoming true in America, development of a sociological elite with ideas of becoming a free state. Aty leat that how I was taught. We would need third party arbitration to get a clear picture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Okay fine, technically they were rebels, but really, they were patriots. If they were patriots, they would have been sitting around with cups of tea barking "God save the King". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 We didn't use slavery in the North. Only the South, they concidered it a "Nessisary evil" they knew it was wrong. We fought over it (partly) in the Civil war. Then we impeached a president(Johnson) becasue he didn't punish the South after the war. The North was against slavery, all the way. Slavery, segregation, and racism are all sad and tragic chapters in our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadote Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Demosthenes what you said in your post is not true. The only Northerners who were "against slavery, all the way" were the Abolitionists. Most had no opinion, but some Northerners actually feared abolition, because it would have been bad for business. When Abraham Lincoln took office, he had no intention of outlawing slavery in the states that it already existed. I agree that slavery, segregation, and racism were sad chapters in our history but to say that the whole of the North was against slavery all the way is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now