Author Topic: false oracle primitive leads to revolution  (Read 1019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
false oracle primitive leads to revolution
« on: March 13, 2008, 04:04:28 AM »
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2998555

Oh my.

There's lots and lots of problems with the false oracle primitive's hopes, but first, a primitive's idea of American history:

Quote
truedelphi  (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:05 PM
Original message

What lead to the First Revolutionary War? And is it time to wonder

What would need to happen for a second?

I fell asleep last night in the throes of a book, one that I swiped out of a garbage dumpster behind the main library in San Rafael.

Its title is "From History to Revolution" and was authored by Pauline Maier.

Several things struck me about the mid 1700's history that Maier is describing. One is how articulate and intellectually aware so many of the Colonists were. They were steeped in history of the distant past. They were familiar with the great thinkers of Greek and Roman times. They understood all the pivotal events of the homeland's history - what happened to bring the Magna Carta into effect, every King and every Civil War, every revolution and rebellion occurring in "Jolly Ol' England."

It was impossible to not contrast that awareness with the lack of any semblance of scholarliness in this country. The average twenty-five year old knows very little even about Vietnam era happenings, let alone what occurred during the times of William Jennings Bryan, or Abe Lincoln or George Washington.

The Colonists first and foremost wanted a reconciliation with England - a reconciliation that would occur AFTER the King realized how misled he had been by his advisors. (Circa 1768) But by 1774, the Colonists now blamed the King directly.

Big issue of the time leading up to 1775:
The Colonial leaders, of whom there are too many to list names, were concerned also about rebellion vs. revolution. Rebellion was, as they saw it, an unlawful riotous state of affairs, justified by no law or laws. Revolution, on the other hand, was a series of acts that was justified by Law or laws, if only that single Law inherent inside those rights deemed to be given by the Creator to all his human creations.

There is constant reference in the book as to how the King of England was blind to the basic premises contained inside the English Constitution. And how appeal after appeal led only to his steadfast and stubborn refusal to treat the Colonists with the respect that the English Constitution supposedly offered them in protection from a Tyrant's demands.

One of the leading arguments for a revolution against the King was his infractions and disrespect of the English Constitution.

TO the Colonists, the moment that the list of grievances became insurmountable with regards to their consideration and need for dignity as a people, they felt revolution to be necessary.

SO where are we at right now? We are all in agreement as to the unconstitutionality of this Administration. But what say We, about the lack of respect that so many in Congress demonstrate in terms of respecting our Constitution. When even John Conyers will not consider Impeachment to be on the table, as he refers to the needs of the Democratic Party in getting through this election cycle unscathed from Big Media's clamp on legislators, and the horrific scandal that Big Media would provoke should Congress actually attempt to do its morally-bound job, then what say We to this entirely sad state of affairs??

As it stands now, We the People are acquiescing to Tyranny. And a Tyranny that exists on all levels - economic, educational, religious, cultural.

The main problem, in the bold above, is that the primitives don't know any of this stuff the American colonists knew.  The American colonists of the latter half of the 18th century were more educated, more illuminated, more thoughtful, than the primitives of the first decade of the 21st century.

No comparison; in fact, I'm surprised it was even brought up.

Quote
annabanana  (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. For there to be a "second revolution" we would have to resort to 18th Century means of communication.

Everything but carrier pigeons are intercepted now.

Quote
Zorra (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #1

8. That can be changed; this problem is its own solution.

Cryptic, I know, but if you think about it awhile you might get what I mean.

Quote
WDIM (105 posts)      Wed Mar-12-08 05:16 PM
Response to Original message

2. Economic Hardship like in the 30s

I believe would lead to some sort of a revolution if not a rebellion of the people. I don't think our country would survive those hard times again at least not in its current state. But, you're right people aren't educated enough. in the 1700s all they could do was work or read. To many distractions now. to many shiny things drawing our attention away from the real problems. For a modern day revolution or overthrow of the government people would have to be starving in the streets. Beyond that I think we are too complacent in our own little lives to worry about the goings on in DC.

Again, the bold area above, well, I'm surprised a primitive would even dare mention it, given that it's one of the predominant characteristics of primitives on Skins's island.

Quote
margotb822  (452 posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
 
3. While I definitely agree that it is time for us to do something

We do have a great system that can be salvaged. We don't have to rebel because we can vote and change our leaders. We should also expect our elected leaders to act lawfully and in our best interests. Which is why Bush and Cheney should be impeached immediately! Our Constitution has in it all the tools we need to restore our government without overthrowing it.

But, we as a country have lost the drive that pushed the colonists and founding fathers. I hope that by restoring our educational system, we can restore some of the intellectual capacity that has been diminished over the years. And, that might even lead to, shock, people caring.

Quote
annabanana  (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #3

11. "we can vote and change our leaders"

Beware we don't lose (or haven't already lost) that capability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Quote
theboss (1000+ posts)     Wed Mar-12-08 05:23 PM
Response to Original message

4. Do you think the "average 25-year-old" in colonial times could read in Latin?

This is my favorite lament of the intellectual: "Oh the working class has been dumbed down over history. Just look at Thomas Jefferson."

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent man in the world in 1775. He was, by no means, the average colonist. The average colonist was either an illiterate tobacco farmer or a northern tradesman who was apprenticed at age 12.

Do you really think that the "Over the Mountain Boys" spoke Greek?

There was a trully brilliant intellectual class in the colonies during the Enlightenment. And most of them had the advantage of not actually needing to work for a living. But I would put up, say, the faculty at Pepperdine University with the signers of the Declaration and be fairly comfortable that man to man and woman to, well, man, they would hold their own intellectually.

The "average 25-year-old in colonial times" knew more Latin, even if only rudimentarily educated, than all of the current-day primitives all put together.....although one got the impression, during the Bev Harris thing, that the primitives had been reading and speaking Latin all their lives, the way the primitives kept using that one single Latin legal phrase, tu quoque or whatever, over and over as if they knew what it meant.

Quote
truedelphi  (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Now I believe you are right about the "average guy" and

His inability to read Greek or Latin.

But the Colonists had town halls and community meetings, and at these meetings they listened carefully to those in their midst who did have an education, who could recite Virgil, and who could explain why Caesar's tyranny was of such great import to the Romans. They used their time and their faculties to ascertain important truths. There existed no Mainstream Media to keep them focused 24/7 on Paris Hilton or Britney .

Yes, it could be argued that we have just as many Town Hall meetings today - however most of them are over things like building permits and the need for new sidewalks on Main Street. And yes, if Pepperdine Faculty members are in attendance, I am sure their IQ's would rival those of say Jefferson.

But whether the members of Pepperdine are looking at the big picture or not, I cannot say. Most of my friends in academia think I am over the top - they have so much as told me that when things are bad, the Media will let us know, and then will inform us of what we need to do. (To which I say, Gee, that worked very well for the victims of Katrina while they stood on their rooftops!)

Many people in academia wouldn't know how to flush a toilet if they hadn't learned that skill back in kindergarten.

It's doubtful the primitives have mastered that skill into the seventh decade of their lives.

Quote
VermeerLives (16 posts)     Wed Mar-12-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
 
10. Excellent points, truedelphi

"Most of my friends in academia think I am over the top - they have so much as told me that when things are bad, the Media will let us know, and then will inform us of what we need to do."

Yikes! And how much do we pay to send our kids to sit under their tutelage??

Quote
VermeerLives (16 posts)     Wed Mar-12-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. the "average 25-year-old" in colonial times

Well, I don't know about that, but I read an excellent book a few years ago about Abigail Adams, who was never "formally" educated, but was very intelligent and wrote very well (she was "educated"). Had she not written all those letters, it would have been a loss for all of us, because she gave us a unique window into the Revolution and the events going on. And all of this as a young mother with small children. She was, IMHO, more mature at 18 than many 30-year-olds I meet today.

One incident in particular impressed me about Abigail. One morning her brother came to her house with some hungry patriots, and she gladly made breakfast for them. When her brother noticed she had pewter utensils, he commented on how they had no bullets. Abigail immediately and unhesitatingly gathered up her pewter, and it was put in a pot to be melted down for bullets.

She even took her young son Quincy to watch the Battle of Bunker Hill, something he never forgot and an event which cemented his patriotism the rest of his life.

No Abigal Adams among the primitives, alas.

The primitives would steal someone else's pewter for bullets, and keep their own.

Quote
Warpy  (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message

7. Yes and no

The tax laws the Crown imposed on the colonies were an attempt at protecting their own industry from offshoring. The laws against merchants and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution here were to stop competition with England, since labor here was so much cheaper and the raw materials at hand.

The more people here objected to heavy taxation, the more oppressive the Crown got.

Quote
theboss (1000+ posts)     Wed Mar-12-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message

9. By the way, the issue of Revolution vs. Rebellion was more of an issue in the Civil War

Lincoln viewed the war from the beginning as a Rebellion - which many of his early officers did not do. The Confederacy viewed it more as a Revolution, though a more accurate description would be a return to the principles of the Revolution. A Rebellion implies an uprising against a legitimate authority.

What is largely forgotten is the "why" behind the Crown's taxation of the colonies - that being the completely out of control defense budget. The British had emerged victorious from the Seven Years War and in possession of a vast empire. But they needed to pay for the defense of the Empire. And they couldn't do so without additional taxes.

I think there is a lesson in there somewhere.

It's interesting; one assumes all the primitives above with the exception of the warped primitive and the anal banana primitive, have some college and life-long education in history, but being primitives, they're pretty shallow as to the real meanings of things.

apres moi, le deluge

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: false oracle primitive leads to revolution
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2008, 12:51:53 PM »
Let me add those colonists were homeschooled and learned their Latin, history, etc. from their parents, NOT the Dewey education system (if you read Dewey and realize why he believed in public education it SHOULD scare the begeezus out of you). Oh, and the main (and often only) "text" was the Bible.

Cindie
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.