posted July 28, 2005 10:58 PM            

Those people do not define a nation. How a nation deals with those people help define a nation.

posted July 29, 2005 12:31 AM            

*edit
But it seems very clear the British government did not kill Gandhi.

It also seems very clear the US government didn't kill King.

Any of the people I listed wouldn't have hesitated a second to kill either King or Gandhi if they were protesting against them.

And that was the entire point; that peaceful protests only work or have any chance of working when the people or governments being protested against are basically decent and humane. Terrorists and terrorist supporting governments don't meet those standards.

posted July 29, 2005 03:13 AM              

I just assume, I don't know it all.

posted July 29, 2005 03:19 AM              

I don't know that much about history, but do the facts really matter?

Do you people believe in the looking-glass? What is happening to all these people around me?

They say I'm the crazy one, and need anti-psychotic medication. They say I should be locked up in the crazy house.

Nobody gets a chance these days.

I'm tired of the traffic and those stupid people in power whose time is always more important than mine.

They can ask me for anything but when I ask the smallest favour they won't do a thing for me.

posted July 29, 2005 11:13 AM              

I'm not debating that point. We're not protesting the terrorists are we? I thought they were the ones "protesting"?

beauty if you're feeling a bit funny in the head, I would strongly suggest you stay away from Sphinx questions. It will only make it worse.

posted July 29, 2005 12:59 PM              

quote:

---

I fully expected you would understand that the non violent protests of Gandhi and King would only work in a setting where the nations they were protesting were basically humane and decent people.

---

Whoa! Ok yeah, let's forget about the all the lynching in the US, and incidents like the Jallianwala Bagh massacare in India and call the nations these movements were resisting humane and decent. Am I saying that we should fight a 'peaceful fight' against terrorists? Not really. But it shocks me that you would say that Britain and the US were 'humane and decent' in their reactions to these movements (or even their treatment of these peoples. Would you call that 'humane and decent?) The Britain and US of that era are not the Britain and US of today, but at that time, their behaviour could hardly be called either decent or humane. To imply that everything was resolved in a hunky dorey fashion is to belittle the struggle that these people went through. No, these movements didn;t work because the oppressors were 'humane and decent people'- they worked because people had the strength to RESIST their oppressors even after being beaten down time and again.

The British did not kill Gandhi, but they did much worse. They did not kill Gandhi because he wasn't protesting against them in a violent way.. although they did throw him into prison very quickly. For those who fought for freedom with violence, death was meted out very swiftly by the British. Did the British nation deal with the people (British army officials) severely? No, not at all. In fact they were commended. What does that say for decency?

posted July 29, 2005 03:03 PM            

"The Klan was, and is, a Protestant based organization opposed to blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants in general. Though the Klan was dominate in the South its influence during the 1920s was nation wide. During its peak the Klan was seen by a large portion of the American population as a respectable organization that stood for order and preservation of traditional values. The Klan also opposed Marxism, homosexuality, atheism, and liberalism in general. In fact Klan ideology and Nazi ideology are virtually identical, and like the later Nazis, the Klan presented themselves as a pillar of virtue and in many ways they were accepted as such by society until a series of scandals ruined their image. The Klan were also supporters of Prohibition on the grounds that drinking was sinful, as is evidenced in the 1920's flyer below."

HATE LIVES!

posted July 29, 2005 03:18 PM            

The Klan had billed itself as a pillar of virtue and an upholder of American values, and when the extent of the Klan’s illegal activities became fully exposed the organization lost virtually all of its credibility, however what is important to note is that while Klan membership dropped in the late 1920s it was not because people no longer identified with the “values” of the Klan, but rather because the Klan had lost its credibility in upholding those "values."

posted July 29, 2005 07:06 PM              

------------------
Gemini sun, Cancer rising, mercury in Gemini, moon in Taurus, venus in Taurus, mars in Libra

"You must live in the infinite blackness that exists when I close my eyes. I see you when I fall asleep, I see you when I dream."

posted July 29, 2005 10:13 PM            

From there the central theme seems to have been lost. The point I made was that those methods would not work against terrorists..who would not think twice about killing them...nor would the others I mentioned have thought twice before killing them either.

alchemiest, you are not going to get away with portraying what a small number of racist people did in the US as the norm for the country. Nor will I let you forget that the US Congress and the President signed into law the legislation guaranteeing equal protection under the law and outlawing separate but equal laws or that the National Guard was sent into the South to enforce desegregation of the schools...over the objections of southern governors. I will remind you of the Voting rights Act enacted under LBJ and the Civil Rights Act under LBJ supported by a wide margin of Republicans and resisted by almost every southern Democrat politician..including Algore's father and Bill Clinton's mentor, William Fulbright.

King's peaceful demonstrations worked only because most of the people in the US were decent and believed that civil rights meant civil rights...and the same rights for everyone.

posted July 29, 2005 10:21 PM            

Mystic Gemini, I wonder how long it's going to be before you put your sewer mouth on display again?

posted July 29, 2005 11:21 PM            

Here's a fitting epitaph for the radical American leftist movement.

Here Lies the Left

Elegant and oh, so true

posted July 30, 2005 01:03 AM              

Or how bout if the nation was only allowed a choice of one sort of sandwitch, would it be peanut butter- or egg salad for the rest of our lives ?