Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (21728)	10/6/2004 11:38:43 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Chuck, The tragedy of the American Indian was/is that it was a classic case of economics and technology, not to mention culture. The Indians represented late stone age, early bronze age cultures occupying a vast territory with inefficient methods (hunting, gathering, modest agriculture)--there was no way that their inefficient land use concepts (forest burning, buffalo stampeding, etc.) was going to triumph over the age of horsepower, domesticated animals, gunpowder, and the nascent industrial age. The question was not could they remain and thrive, but merely how long before they would be supplanted, and by whom. Their culture, their attitudes and their technology was so inflexible that the die was cast a thousand years before the white man landed in Vineland. In short, it sounds cruel, but we simply had a better use for the land, and we came and (brutally, I will admit) put the laws of economics to work. The second act of their tragedy is their apparent inability to alter their culture and mindset enough to partake in 20th and 21st century American economic opportunity. Think about it, genetically speaking, your Korean greengrocer, your Japanese pediatrician, your Chinese entrepreneur (assuming North China with a fair amount of Manchurian DNA) is no different than your Navajo or Arapaho reservation resident. Why do the former drive Mercedes and Lexuses and send their kids to Ivy League schools, and the natives of this land are relegated to reservations and reaping the economic benefits of that great native American tradition, casino gambling? Kb

To: Chas. who wrote (21728)	10/6/2004 1:42:44 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Et Tu Chuck? It's not about trees; there's a big forest out there. I state that what makes America great is a SYSTEM of government that is designed to protect individuals from opression at the hands of those who wield inordinate power, and especially those who wield the tremendous power of the state. I say that our forefathers understood this great danger and I point out that our most important founding documents, early legislation and most thoughtful judicial decisions clearly illustrate this understanding. I then ask others what they see as the thing that makes America great. In response I get "respect for individuals" from one poster, and the bravery of "our soldiers" from another. And now you ask "what about the way we treated the Indians?" Before we go too much further, you might also ask, "what about the Japanese we interned during WW11?" You're looking at the failures of majority rule, however, and ignoring the successes that have brought us back to the high minded and inclusive principles that led to the creation of an "American system of governance" which protected the rights of individuals from the arbitrary and abusive exercise of state power. In the way of illustration, take a big step back and ask what advice we could "export" to another country if that country asked us to help their country's people achieve the American "dream?" Would we tell them it's in the water? Not likely. Would we tell them to find soldiers willing to fight and die bravely? No, every country has soldiers who have fought and died bravely and who would so so again. Look at Germany and Japan and how their soldiers fought. Look at Iraq. Look at the 19 terrorists who died on 9/11. No matter how much we dispise their motives and mission, no one could argue that such men had no courage. Would we tell them to tell their citizens and leaders to start "respecting individuals?" That would be nice but unfortunately human nature seems to be such that "respect" for others is soon overcome by the lure of self gratification for those invested with power. In many of the "democracies" in the world, those with "elected office" or those who serve them under the mantle of "police power," are just as corrupt, just as abusive and just as poisonous to individual rights as others who achieved power through force. So what's the difference? The difference is that our checks and balances on the exercise of power are effective. They actually work because of a delicate balance created in the early years of our nation and nurtured, expanded and refined by our uniquely powerful and effective judicial system. A system protected by the wise vigilence of our educated, free and involved electorate who for generations have feared and jealously guarded against infringements upon their individual liberties. It's that system that makes America "America." It's that system, however, that is increasingly challenged by those with power who seek less restrictions on the exercise of that power. And that delicately balanced system is too critically important to trust to the erosive tinkering of George Bush, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, or John Kerry. And it's certainly too important to trust to corporate giants and Chambers of Commerce who attempt to take more and more power from the courts, who attempt to turn America's citizens against the judicial institution that stands between them and the loss of their freedoms and that has become stronger, smarter and more persuasive over the last few decades. We have become so complacent that we no longer fear the power of those that govern us. We take our freedoms for granted. That's a big mistake.