World Politics Thread

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

When do the patriots storm the French parliament to overturn the election? 

Bastille Day! Mais oui!

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

Bastille Day! Mais oui!

Luckily the insurrectionist will surrender rather quickly. 

[romad1]

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Luckily the insurrectionist will surrender rather quickly. 

 

[buddha]

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I agree with all this. But would add that the at one time the US was probably also just as powerfully assimilationist.  The increased tolerance for the 'idea' of non-assimilated immigrants - esp on the left, is pretty much a development in my lifetime (the general rise of cultural relativism). I say 'idea', because in practice immigrant populations in the US do assimilate within 2 generations regardless of whether the chattering classes happen to see that more as an expression of moral uprightness or cultural genocide -- Of course with the glaring exception of any group that can be considered 'black' by American social construct.

in another comment to what you said earlier, the french have more pride in their history than the american left, which will complain about "christians" til the cows come home, but will excuse all sorts of behavior if it comes from non-christians or non-"white" people.  the majority of the french, including many on the left, do not susbscribe to such identity nonsense.  

there is a big movement to avoid the anglo-american phenomenon of trashing one's history and culture because it was mean to black people.  its not as popular there as it is in canada, england, and america.

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, buddha said:

there is a big movement to avoid the anglo-american phenomenon of trashing one's history and culture because it was mean to black people.  its not as popular there as it is in canada, england, and america.

to me it all goes back to an intellectual incapacity to deal with complexity - or nuance if you want to put it that way. History is complex, people are complex, events are complex. But today we have to have neat little categories- and woe betide any cross overs that make for grey. I wouldn't want to live in the real Greece of circa 550BC for 10 minutes, doesn't mean I can't appreciate that they invented the concept of intellectual inquiry and all the good (and bad) that has flowed from that.

We have no scope anymore to comprehend the oppressed who also oppresses or the oppressor who also liberates.

and to my view, (and I think we've talked about this in the past), it's not just the drive to tear down heroes, it's at least as much the foolishness of putting them on pedestals to begin with and then choosing sides to defend them.

I feel no need to pass judgment on whether Thomas Jefferson was a 'good' man or not to appreciate the objective fact of what he accomplished to create a new nation., etc

Edited April 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

to me it all goes back to an intellectual incapacity to deal with complexity - or nuance if you want to put it that way. History is complex, people are complex, events are complex. But today we have to have neat little categories- and woe betide any cross overs that make for grey. I wouldn't want to live in the real Greece of circa 550BC for 10 minutes, doesn't mean I can't appreciate that they invented the concept of intellectual inquiry and all the good (and bad) that has flowed from that.

We have no scope anymore to comprehend the oppressed who also oppresses or the oppressor who also liberates.

i agree.

and its become that anything invented by "europeans" is somehow not worthy of inquiry or respect, or is judged to be suspect because of the atlantic slave trade.

youth will always rebel against the mainstream, and the inclusion of other voices and interpretations of history is a good thing, but labeling european ideas as "bad" is just as ridiculous as asserting europeans were inherently superior because they mastered induatrialization earlier than others.

what seems different now is the complete buy in by corporate mainstream anglo-american culture as a way to make themselves look good while they continue to shortchange their employees in wages and benefits.

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm confused. Le Pen lost the popular vote but didn't win the presidency?

don't worry, it's not just you. seems like plenty of people are confused.

 

[gehringer_2]

I don't know if this works better here or in the media meltdown thread - but yet another "Losing is Winning, really!" piece in - you guessed it - the NYT.

Quote

Opinion

Guest Essay

Macron May Keep the Presidency, but Le Pen Has Already Won

link to silly op-ed

[Motown Bombers]

Isn't this the 3rd time she's lost? How often can she lose but yet win? 

[Tigerbomb13]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

Isn't this the 3rd time she's lost? How often can she lose but yet win? 

The John James of France

[Mr.TaterSalad]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

to me it all goes back to an intellectual incapacity to deal with complexity - or nuance if you want to put it that way. History is complex, people are complex, events are complex. But today we have to have neat little categories- and woe betide any cross overs that make for grey. I wouldn't want to live in the real Greece of circa 550BC for 10 minutes, doesn't mean I can't appreciate that they invented the concept of intellectual inquiry and all the good (and bad) that has flowed from that.

We have no scope anymore to comprehend the oppressed who also oppresses or the oppressor who also liberates.

and to my view, (and I think we've talked about this in the past), it's not just the drive to tear down heroes, it's at least as much the foolishness of putting them on pedestals to begin with and then choosing sides to defend them.

I feel no need to pass judgment on whether Thomas Jefferson was a 'good' man or not to appreciate the objective fact of what he accomplished to create a new nation., etc

What's wrong with thinking that the Founding Fathers weren't actually that great and having an honest discussion as to who they really were? Just because the right is unable to do so doesn't mean the criticisms from the left are wrong or off base about these individuals. I see no need to build statues and glorify people who thought blacks were pieces of property to be owned, woman were baby factories to be used at a man's disposal, over 2/3rds the country should be denied the right to vote, and native land was theirs for the taking. Furthermore, these "great" intellects of their day thought that it was more important to allow land mass to have greater representation than people and created the worst, least deliberative body of government in the democratic world in the Senate. As a result of their creation of the Senate, and the electoral college, we are still paying the price for such poor planning and public policy.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be wearing white hoods, MAGA hats and watching YouTube clips of George Wallace talking about drawing a line in the dust and tossing the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny. They'd be the people clapping in the background when Wallace shouted segregation now, tomorrow, and forever. Just because certain people can't have an honest conversation about the Founding Fathers and are unable to recognize them for the ignorance and hate they possessed, doesn't mean the rest of us have to cow tow to their order.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

If the Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be wearing white hoods, MAGA hats and watching YouTube clips of George Wallace talking about drawing a line in the dust and tossing the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny.

There is where I would part company and pretty much what I mean by complexity and nuance. Every human being is the product of their time, of the culture they were born into and the expectations of that culture. I would guess that most of these men, if born today, would be the progressives of today because they would start from *this* cultural ground zero rather than the one they actually started from. From that reference point, what are norms and understandings today were not even visible over the horizon, let alone within reach of practical effort.

That's why to me it's pretty much a fool's errand to get embroiled in that discussion. Not one of us has any real concept of the details of the moral universe they viewed. For me it's enough to say that a man made a positive contribution to the movement of society toward a new concept of democratic government. Those were significant and important events in human history, and whether he was a sinner or a saint is really quite immaterial to the fact of the history that was generated by his actions.

I think this is a case were maybe we could look to the art world for a little clarity. In general we realize that judging art by the character of the artist is silly. Yes - there are some people who won't play Richard Wagner, but for most people who listen to music, his political views are simply immaterial the music he produced. Picasso was hardly anybody's role model, etc., etc. Let the deeds - the products of action, stand on their own. If Thomas Jefferson abused his slaves, sure repudiate him for that as a man, it simply doesn't change the value of what he brought to world history as a leader a of new movement. They are in the end, unrelated issues.

But that said,  I do agree that we make a mistake when we lionize the person in place of just celebrating the historical outcome.

Edited April 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What's wrong with thinking that the Founding Fathers weren't actually that great and having an honest discussion as to who they really were? Just because the right is unable to do so doesn't mean the criticisms from the left are wrong or off base about these individuals. I see no need to build statues and glorify people who thought blacks were pieces of property to be owned, woman were baby factories to be used at a man's disposal, over 2/3rds the country should be denied the right to vote, and native land was theirs for the taking. Furthermore, these "great" intellects of their day thought that it was more important to allow land mass to have greater representation than people and created the worst, least deliberative body of government in the democratic world in the Senate. As a result of their creation of the Senate, and the electoral college, we are still paying the price for such poor planning and public policy.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be wearing white hoods, MAGA hats and watching YouTube clips of George Wallace talking about drawing a line in the dust and tossing the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny. They'd be the people clapping in the background when Wallace shouted segregation now, tomorrow, and forever. Just because certain people can't have an honest conversation about the Founding Fathers and are unable to recognize them for the ignorance and hate they possessed, doesn't mean the rest of us have to cow tow to their order.

i think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of history and human beings.  i suppose if you were a man back in 1789, you'd be the biggest abolitionist and female suffragette in the world, eh?

in 50 years, your grandkids will think you were a horrible person too.  in 200 years you'll be seen as a troglodyte who had no understanding of the world.

the founding fathers are not above criticism.  but that ctiticism should be a little more nuanced than "theyd be wearing white hoods."  if they were alive today, they'd have 200+ years of history and education that they didnt have before.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

19 hours ago, buddha said:

i think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of history and human beings.  i suppose if you were a man back in 1789, you'd be the biggest abolitionist and female suffragette in the world, eh?

in 50 years, your grandkids will think you were a horrible person too.  in 200 years you'll be seen as a troglodyte who had no understanding of the world.

the founding fathers are not above criticism.  but that ctiticism should be a little more nuanced than "theyd be wearing white hoods."  if they were alive today, they'd have 200+ years of history and education that they didnt have before.  

Your argument seems to assume that there were no abolitionists back when the Founders decided to relegate black people as property. As if the only voices they heard were those of pro-slavery and that somehow slavery was just consensus and the way things were back then. Several of the Founders themselves, like the Adams', Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, Thomas Paine, and Marquis de Lafayette were anti-slavery. There were also other prominent abolitionist voices working to stop and end slavery like Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Rush, and Moses Brown. It's just that the Founders ended up caring more about wealthy land/plantation owners than people and so they listened to the voices of the wealthy over those in their own camp who abhorred and opposed slavery.

I'm a democratic socialist these days, which is about as far left as it gets, so my grandchildren won't likely be further left than I am. They'll be happy Grandpa voted for Bernie and Warren. If I told my grandchildren about the old me that supported Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the one who read Mises Institute, Milton Friedman, Murrary Rothbard, and Tom Woods, then sure, they'd think that version of me was probably a selfish, libertarian asshole, and they'd be right.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

20 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

There is where I would part company and pretty much what I mean by complexity and nuance. Every human being is the product of their time, of the culture they were born into and the expectations of that culture. I would guess that most of these men, if born today, would be the progressives of today because they would start from *this* cultural ground zero rather than the one they actually started from. From that reference point, what are norms and understandings today were not even visible over the horizon, let alone within reach of practical effort.

We will just completely disagree on this one. While I do believe that some of the Founders like Hamilton, Sherman, maybe the Adams, maybe Franklin, and Lafayette might have had some progressive leaning views, I believe that most of them were they alive today would be far right, Christian fundamentalists. They'd be posting anti-vax videos on YouTube, banning books out of fear of satanic control over society, talking about stolen election results, disgusted by interracial marriage, and waxing poetic about the days of Jim Crow, George Wallace, and segregation. If you looked on the campaign finance rolls for Trump and MAGA endorsed candidates you'd see names like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Given how fundamentally religious these people were they'd probably also like candidates like Lauren Bobert, Sarah Palin, Louie Gohmert, Mike Huckabee, and others.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

Interesting. The founding fathers who were so terrible that they didn't allow women to vote would today support female candidates. 

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

We will just completely disagree on this one. While I do believe that some of the Founders like Hamilton, Sherman, maybe the Adams, maybe Franklin, and Lafayette might have had some progressive leaning views, I believe that most of them were they alive today would be Christian fundamentalists. They'd be posting anti-vax videos on YouTube, banning books out of fear of satanic control over society, disgusted by interracial marriage, and waxing poetic about the days of Jim Crow, George Wallace, and segregation. If you looked on the campaign finance rolls for Trump and MAGA endorsed candidates you'd see names like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Given how fundamentally religious these people were they'd probably also like candidates like Lauren Bobert, Sarah Palin, Louie Gohmert, Mike Huckabee, and others.

really? Fundamentalist? You know Jefferson made a translation of the NT where he edited out all the miracles.🤔

The point that Buddha and I are pushing is not that no-one in the history of the world had ever been anti-slavery - you could probably find examples going back to Greece. The issue was that not much had come of it in 3000 yrs so would any practical person (and these were practical men, which is why their revolution took and France's didn't) really envision what the world was going to end up looking like in another 100 yrs when slavery - an institution that dated back to the pharaohs, suddenly did collapse almost world wide? You may be right - they may have been total mercenaries - I guess I don't really care. As I said, I just don't feel any need to pass judgment 250 yrs later on who they were as people. What they did stands on its own for what it was - which was a revolution in national governance systems for its time.

One of the things things we consider a core of the Western system of justice is that we separate the person from the act. We don't let you get away with murder just because you love your dog, and we don't convict you of a crime you didn't commit (at least in theory!) even if you are a gang banger. The problem is pop culture (and historians) don't seem to have ever gotten the message. There is a natural human tendency to want to ascribe personal moral worth (whatever that even means) to a person who does a socially useful act when there is never any necessary causal connection between the two. If we would recognize that, we would be less prone to getting into these weeds.

Edited April 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Your argument seems to assume that there were no abolitionists back when the Founders decided to relegate black people as property. As if the only voices they heard were those of pro-slavery and that somehow slavery was just consensus and the way things were back then. Several of the Founders themselves, like the Adams', Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, Thomas Paine, and Marquis de Lafayette were anti-slavery. There were also other prominent abolitionist voices working to stop and end slavery like Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Rush, and Moses Brown. It's just that the Founders ended up caring more about wealthy land/plantation owners than people and so they listened to the voices of the wealthy over those in their own camp who abhorred and opposed slavery.

I'm a democratic socialist these days, which is about as far left as it gets, so my grandchildren won't likely be further left than I am. They'll be happy Grandpa voted for Bernie and Warren. If I told my grandchildren about the old me that supported Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the one who read Mises Institute, Milton Friedman, Murrary Rothbard, and Tom Woods, then sure, they'd think that version of me was probably a selfish, libertarian asshole, and they'd be right.

"everything i think today is correct, therefore 100 years from now everyone will love me and realize i was right all along."

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

There is a natural human tendency to want to ascribe personal moral worth (whatever that even means) to a person who does a socially useful act when there is never any necessary causal connection between the two.

and I should have added the converse - a tendency to denigrate the social utility of the action based on a moral judgment about the actor.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

really? Fundamentalist? You know Jefferson made a translation of the NT where he edited out all the miracles.🤔

The point that Buddha and I are pushing is not that no-one in the history of the world had ever been anti-slavery - you could probably find examples going back to Greece. The issue was that not much had come of it in 3000 yrs so would any practical person (and these were practical men, which is why their revolution took and France's didn't) really envision what the world was going to end up looking like in another 100 yrs when slavery - an institution that dated back to the pharaohs, suddenly did collapse almost world wide? You may be right - they may have been total mercenaries - I guess I don't really care. As I said, I just don't feel any need to pass judgment 250 yrs later on who they were as people. What they did stands on its own for what it was - which was a revolution in national governance systems for its time.

One of the things things we consider a core of the Western system of justice is that we separate the person from the act. We don't let you get away with murder just because you love your dog, and we don't convict you of a crime you didn't commit (at least in theory!) even if you are a gang banger. The problem is pop culture (and historians) don't seem to have ever gotten the message. There is a natural human tendency to want to ascribe personal moral worth (whatever that even means) to a person who does a socially useful act when there is never any necessary causal connection between the two. If we would recognize that, we would be less prone to getting into these weeds.

i certainly wouldnt describe thomas jefferson as a christian fundamentalist.  if tater thinks thomas jefferson was a fundamentalist, he ought to listen to a few cotton mather speeches. thomas jefferson was pretty radical for his day, but since he participated in the institution of slavery, we should ignore the rest of his life rather than looking at it in its totality.

 

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, buddha said:

i certainly wouldnt describe thomas jefferson as a christian fundamentalist.  if tater thinks thomas jefferson was a fundamentalist, he ought to listen to a few cotton mather speeches. thomas jefferson was pretty radical for his day, but since he participated in the institution of slavery, we should ignore the rest of his life rather than looking at it in its totality.

 

and to be honest, Jefferson (and the rest) cribbed pretty liberally from John Locke (and without attribution - he'd have his tenure revoked today!)

As an English intellectual it was pretty natural to be soured on sectarian religion based on the the previous 500 yrs of religious warfare they had been through - but espousing atheism was probably a bridge too far for any public figure then (let alone now). If I remember my readings, Jefferson admitted to being what was referred to at the time (to some degree still is) as a "Deist", one who accepted the existence of divinity but remains relatively agnostic about any particular theological claims about it.

Edited April 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

and to be honest, Jefferson (and the rest) cribbed pretty liberally from John Locke (and without attribution - he'd have his tenure revoked today!)

As an English intellectual it was pretty natural to be soured on sectarian religion based on the the previous 500 yrs of religious warfare they had been through - but espousing atheism was probably a bridge too far for any public figure then (let alone now). If I remember my readings, Jefferson admitted to being what was referred to at the time (to some degree still is) as a "Deist", one who accepted the existence of divinity but remains relatively agnostic about any particular theological claims about it.

he was a deist.  which was extremely radical for his day.

[1984Echoes]

5 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

We will just completely disagree on this one. While I do believe that some of the Founders...

You are COMPLETELY discounting the fact that in order to create the United States of America, in 1776 and shortly thereafter, that northern states and any abolitionist, Founder or otherwise, HAD to accept slavery in order to get the southern states to participate in the Union.

Otherwise, no United States of America, no successful American Revolution.

= FAILURE.

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

You are COMPLETELY discounting the fact that in order to create the United States of America, in 1776 and shortly thereafter, that northern states and any abolitionist, Founder or otherwise, HAD to accept slavery in order to get the southern states to participate in the Union.

Otherwise, no United States of America, no successful American Revolution.

= FAILURE.

Very good point. Today we have a revisonist idea of history because some people are the smartest people in the colony....

Edited April 26, 2022 by Tigeraholic1

[buddha]

11 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Very good point. Today we have a revisonist idea of history because some people are the smartest people in colony....

but the real issue is that thomas jefferson made no mention of trans rights and is therefore a disgusting human being and worthy only of tater's contempt.

he didnt even put his pronouns on his signature line for declaration of independence.  what an animal.