# The Confederate Flag



## Bullgrit

I recently posted this on my blog:

*****

We, Southerners, have to accept that the Confederate flag must be taken down. It has become too tainted with negative attachments to ever recover. It’s like a beloved family pet suffering from rabies. As much as it may break your heart, it must be put down because it can never be cured. And that’s something that everyone else needs to understand: the Confederate flag, for many Southerners is a beloved icon of heritage, not hate. Just as some children of immigrants to the US appreciate another nation’s flag as a symbol of their family heritage, some Southerners appreciate the Confederate flag as a symbol of their family heritage. Yes, they and we are full Americans, proud and true, and respecting another flag does not show any desire to be anything other than full, respectful Americans.

There are nations in this world that have done terrible things in their history. Japan, Russia, even the United Kingdom, as well as the United States are all guilty of atrocities more recent than 19th century slavery. But if a descendant of that nation were to display that flag as a symbol of their heritage, few would call out that display as a bad thing. Most people can recognize another person’s respect for their cultural heritage without thinking that person also supports everything done under that flag or as a part of that culture. Why can’t people understand this about the the South’s relationship with the Confederate flag?

I do not own a Confederate flag. I don’t remember that anyone in my family ever owned a Confederate flag. But I’ve known of it as a piece of Southern heritage for as long as I can remember. And as a piece of Southern heritage, I never thought of it as a racist symbol. I know some racist people have used it as their symbol, but it was never such a thing to me and many other happy, peaceful, and accepting Southerners. I know some people can’t accept that idea, and that is sadly ironic. To turn around an old phrase: It’s a Southern thing, you wouldn’t understand. Whether you understand or not, if you intend to have any kind of respectful, honest discussion to convince someone that the flag needs to come down, you have to accept that to many, it is not a racist symbol.

There are some who don’t want the flag taken down because they see doing so as disrespecting their heritage. To them saying the Confederate flag is bad is like saying the South is bad. You have to understand this feeling and point of view if you want to convince some Southerners to accept taking down the flag. You can’t come at people with an arrogant or condescending attitude about it. You must work to convince people, not order them. Most any American will bow up at someone demanding of them, and it’s worse for someone seen as an “outsider” to demand you do something. Too often, instead of explaining, “The flag has just accumulated too much negative baggage,” and “as a symbol, it does damage on a moral level,” someone will essentially say, “It’s a racist symbol,” and by relationship, “and you are a racist for having any respect for it.” You can’t wash something by throwing trash at it.

There are also some who don’t want the flag taken down because they see that act as the first of potentially many acts to disrespect and even disassemble the Southern culture. They feel that what drives the call to take it down is a general hatred toward the South as a whole. The South has a bad rep for being racist in general, even when the most recent big news items on the racism issue is going on outside the South. When comedians crack jokes about racism, they tend to point at the South. And when comedians crack jokes about the South, they tend to call up racism. And no matter how many times a Southerner disclaims racism, the response is essentially, “Yeah, that’s exactly what a racist would say.” It’s a sore spot for many Southerners. Whether real or not, some Southerners feel those calling for the flag to be taken down are also, by relationship, calling for the South to be taken down. They fear that after the flag, people will take down other Southern icons, landmarks, and names. It is not a fear without precedent.

You have to understand that the above things are feelings. Emotions. I’m not saying that anyone actually wants to take down the South as a culture, but when emotions of fear and embarrassment are invoked by an issue, people get defensive. And when people get defensive, especially Americans, they dig in, even if their position has become a muddy swamp. You should want to bring those hold-out Southerners to the right side of the issue by appealing to their innate good morals; you should not be trying to defeat and humiliate them because others with poor morals have taken up the same side. (Remember, average Southerners don’t want the damn racists among us or using our symbols, either.) For instance, if a neighborhood has become corrupt because criminals have taken up hanging on the corners, you don’t decide to arrest everyone living there. You civilly separate the good from the bad, and get the good to join you in driving out the bad. People claim to want Love to win. Well Love can’t win by using Hate as the weapon.

For those who do use the flag as a racist symbol, well of course they don’t want the flag taken down because that action symbolizes a rejection of their position. Sadly, though, taking the flag down will not change their minds, nor will it silence them, nor will it make them disappear. If the flag were to instantly vanish from the world, racism will not vanish with it. Violence in the name of racism will not end. I will point out that there is just as much racism and racist violence in the North, Mid-west, and West as there is in the South, with nary a Confederate flag in sight. And this doesn’t even count all the racism between races other than white and black.

So, yes, the Confederate flag needs to come down. But when it does come down, some Southerners could accept it better if instead of hearing a cheer of victory one would give for defeating an opponent, they heard the respectful condolences or silence you would give for seeing someone lose a beloved, yet very ill family pet. Your reaction at that moment reveals your true character as much or more than the reaction of those who let it be taken down. You may not respect those who use the flag as a symbol for terrible ideas, but you should accept (and forgive) those who think of the flag as a symbol of heritage.

My fellow Southerners, we have to acknowledge that some very nasty vermin have holed up in our backyard barn, and have been using it as a crapper for a long time, now. It is an eye-sore for the neighborhood, and a health hazard for our families. It’s time to take down the barn and give the nasty pests no place to live in our yard. It’s what a good family does to protect its home, and what civil neighbors do to respect, (and to get respect from), their community.

Let’s take down the flag, and store it respectfully, out of sight. Maybe one day it can be taken out again and flown with pride as we think of it. But for now, taking it down is the moral thing to do.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

Sorry, man, but I'm cheering it coming down because it largely went up over government statehouses as a huge F-you to the civil rights movement. Putting that down deserves applause.

That said, it belongs in museums and historical displays and that can include museum bits *in* the statehouses and other government buildings to document its history, as bloody as it is. Nor do I have a problem with southern states honoring their political leaders and soldiers with monuments or memorial highways. Involvement in the military in any era is often a more complex affair than a single issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As a black man living in the south, my take on it is this:

As a symbol born in racism & treason- read the articles of secession of the confederate states; the political commentary of the leaders and southern editorialists of the day-  it should never have been allowed to appear on anything that represented a state government post the defeat of the Confederacy.  As a symbol, it was never _hijacked_ by racists- it has and always will be inextricably linked to racism.  There is a reason it didn't fly for nearly 100 years after the Civil War...until the Civil Rights movement began to gather momentum.

Wear it if you want.  Decorate your cars with it.  Get tats.

But no state should be displaying it as part of its flag, seal, letterhead, etc.



> That said, it belongs in museums and historical displays and that can include museum bits in the statehouses and other government buildings to document its history, as bloody as it is.




Absolutely.

As for ancillary issues: I'm not going to ask for the removal of...well...MOST...statuary etc., but I'd also like to see guys like Forrest have their names removed from streets and schools.  Lee I can respect, but Forrest was an ardent supporter of slavery and a founder of the KKK.


----------



## tuxgeo

Governor Nikki Haley is scheduled to sign the bill removing the flag from the statehouse grounds at 4:00 PM EDT Thursday, per CNN.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As for ancillary issues: I'm not going to ask for the removal of...well...MOST...statuary etc., but I'd also like to see guys like Forrest have their names removed from streets and schools.  Lee I can respect, but Forrest was an ardent supporter of slavery and a founder of the KKK.




Yeah, I almost called out an exception for Forrest in my post too.


----------



## Kramodlog

A flag brandished by those who fought for the right... to own slaves. If that doesn't decredit it, I'm not sure what will.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: this comment by me:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> As a symbol born in racism & treason- read the articles of secession of the confederate states; the political commentary of the leaders and southern editorialists of the day...




Here's a nice article from The Atlantic pulling together a lot of those sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/


----------



## Alzrius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: this comment by me:
> 
> 
> Here's a nice article from The Atlantic pulling together a lot of those sources:
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/




What an excellent article! That piece - with its myriad quotes that defy any attempt to deflect what that flag, and the entire Confederacy, were about - really gets to the heart of the matter, using the words of those who championed that which that flag represents to do it.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: this comment by me:
> 
> 
> Here's a nice article from The Atlantic pulling together a lot of those sources:
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/




This is kind of the whole problem is that the racists have somehow brainwashed the south into thinking the civil war wasn't about Race, it was about oppressing the south.

The south wanted States Rights...to have slaves.  Period.

The south seceded.  The south attacked Ft. Sumter.  The south established the confederate flag.

The south was subsequently defeated and the confederate flag taken down.  For 100 years no less as noted by Danny. There was no "it was always a symbol of the south", no some folks brought it back.

To fly the colors of an enemy (defeated or not) of the United States, is not cool.  I'm surprised it's not legal to shoot folks flying nazi or confederate flags.  Oh wait, I know why...

Folks who claim the flag isn't racist, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery have had their history revised.  It's like gay people voting Republican.  They've somehow bought into propaganda that the thing isn't about the thing.

Now as Bullgrit says, it'd be nice to ease the southern folks into it and not tear down the South.  Yeah, it sure would be nice if there was a nice way to do that. They only had 150 years to figure it out on their own.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

What saddens me is that the Atlantic article had to be written at all.  Sure, some people aren't going to have gotten the memo that has been circulating since the 1800s what the South actually stood for.  But if it were just a few, that wouldn't be much of an I issue- you almost can't get 100% agreement on anything.

The thing is, while some of the quotes and commentary might be harder to track down, the texts of the documents by which the Southern states seceded to form the Confederacy are readily available for anyone to read.  But shamefully, those words are not taught in most schools...anywhere in the USA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It's like gay people voting Republican.




I actually understand them, and likewise ethnic minorities and poor people who vote GOP.  They usually share a LOT of the GOP's espoused fiscally conservative ideals.  They just happen to differ on particular social issues.

IMHO, if you're a single-issue voter, you're probably voting for candidates who will do you more harm than good.  But if that issue matters deeply to you, voting against it is extremely difficult.  In a sense, it is like a philosophical "pearl of great price".


----------



## Alzrius

Janx said:


> I'm surprised it's not legal to shoot folks flying nazi or confederate flags.  Oh wait, I know why...




Because killing people for holding beliefs or belonging to groups that offend American values is itself offensive to American values?


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What saddens me is that the Atlantic article had to be written at all.  Sure, some people aren't going to have gotten the memo that has been circulating since the 1800s what the South actually stood for.  But if it were just a few, that wouldn't be much of an I issue- you almost can't get 100% agreement on anything.
> 
> The thing is, while some of the quotes and commentary might be harder to track down, the texts of the documents by which the Southern states seceded to form the Confederacy are readily available for anyone to read.  But shamefully, those words are not taught in most schools...anywhere in the USA.




Exactly.

I imagine plenty of poor southerners signed up for the Confederate Army because they thought they were being patriotic.  To their state (and not their nation).  They bought into the mean old North won't let us States have our Rights.  Likely somewhere ignorant that the speeches and statements by the leaders of this rebellion were doing so to support their racist habit.

And then 150 years later, a whole lot of southerners are ignorant of the fact that 54 years ago, SC put the flag on the state house in protest to being forced to racially integrate.  Racism again.

I imagine that the last 150 years of education in the South has been trying to sugar coat their treason for racist reasons.  Why doesn't the North suffer from this?  Because whatever Northern states had slaves freed them and committed to 100% saying it was wrong to have slaves.  The Southern States can have a guilt free conscious in when they stop lying to themselves about how wrong it was to have slaves and to stop supporting a symbol that stood for that.

Honestly, nobody would be anti-South if the South didn't cling so strongly to these wrong-headed ideals that they don't understand what racism their ancestors stood for.  Even Germany understood how important it was to say "Nazis are bad.  Nobody shall fly a Nazi flag."  Nobody rides their butt about being Hitlers buddy.


----------



## Bullgrit

---


----------



## Alzrius

Janx said:


> Even Germany understood how important it was to say "Nazis are bad.  Nobody shall fly a Nazi flag."  Nobody rides their butt about being Hitlers buddy.




But on the other hand, it's a criminal offense to not only belong to Nazi organizations in Germany, but to so much as show the Nazi flag or the Nazi salute (outside of certain contexts, such as historical footage used for teaching purposes, if I recall correctly)...all of which makes me wonder if they've quite gotten the lesson regarding why fascism is a bad thing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Janx said:


> This is kind of the whole problem is that the racists have *somehow* brainwashed the south into thinking the civil war wasn't about Race, it was about oppressing the south.



It was through text books and monuments.


> The south established the confederate flag.



Eh... kind of. They established a couple.

My favorite thing about this is the "heritage" line. The flag is a symbol of Southern heritage. I'm just curious how people who claim Souther heritage divorce their Southern heritage from slavery.


----------



## Raunalyn

I'm honestly having mixed feelings about this. While I understand and agree with what most of you have said regarding the removal of the flag, I have an intense and almost blinding aversion to destroying history, even if it's for the right reasons. I'm a very firm believer in the adage "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

What else will we have to remove? What else will we have to change because someone gets offended by it?

I realize that I may be playing Devil's Advocate here. Please don't take it that I *want* to keep the flag flying...I actually liked the earlier suggestion that it remain in museums as a historical reminder. But it's as I said...I have mixed feelings...


----------



## Janx

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It was through text books and monuments.
> Eh... kind of. They established a couple.
> 
> My favorite thing about this is the "heritage" line. The flag is a symbol of Southern heritage. I'm just curious how people who claim Souther heritage divorce their Southern heritage from slavery.




I would suspect most of them.  Most people in the south are not card carrying KKK members.  But they also deny or are ignorant that the founders of the Confederacy did so for slavish reasons.

The South has no legitimate heritage as it did not exist until it seceeded from the Union.  It's not a thing worth protecting.  It's not a thing for any state to claim identity to. South Carolina is not The South.  It is South Carolina.  It has a great heritage as a state.  But not as the entity known as The South.


----------



## Janx

Raunalyn said:


> I'm honestly having mixed feelings about this. While I understand and agree with what most of you have said regarding the removal of the flag, I have an intense and almost blinding aversion to destroying history, even if it's for the right reasons. I'm a very firm believer in the adage "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> What else will we have to remove? What else will we have to change because someone gets offended by it?
> 
> I realize that I may be playing Devil's Advocate here. Please don't take it that I *want* to keep the flag flying...I actually liked the earlier suggestion that it remain in museums as a historical reminder. But it's as I said...I have mixed feelings...




taking down a flag has to do with ending a nation.  The Confederacy was a briefly lived nation 150 years ago founded a a bunch of really bad statements that Danny linked.  They didn't even have that flag for but a few years.

What history has been erased?  More like what history was ignored and swept under the rug by the losers of that war?

It's not like we go rubbing Japan, Germany or Brittain's nose in it that they lost and were wrongity wrong.  It's done.  They made changes.


----------



## Bullgrit

Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)? Essentially putting all the baggage on the South to lessen the weight of all of America's guilt?

Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?

Bullgrit


----------



## Raunalyn

Janx said:


> taking down a flag has to do with ending a nation.  The Confederacy was a briefly lived nation 150 years ago founded a a bunch of really bad statements that Danny linked.  They didn't even have that flag for but a few years.
> 
> What history has been erased?  More like what history was ignored and swept under the rug by the losers of that war?
> 
> It's not like we go rubbing Japan, Germany or Brittain's nose in it that they lost and were wrongity wrong.  It's done.  They made changes.




I'm not saying that history has been erased...I'm saying that I'm afraid it will be.


----------



## Raunalyn

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)? Essentially putting all the baggage on the South to lessen the weight of all of America's guilt?
> 
> Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?
> 
> Bullgrit




I think that this is actually a really good question, and it may touch on why this whole affair troubles me so much.


----------



## Alzrius

Raunalyn said:


> I'm honestly having mixed feelings about this. While I understand and agree with what most of you have said regarding the removal of the flag, I have an intense and almost blinding aversion to destroying history, even if it's for the right reasons. I'm a very firm believer in the adage "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> What else will we have to remove? What else will we have to change because someone gets offended by it?
> 
> I realize that I may be playing Devil's Advocate here. Please don't take it that I *want* to keep the flag flying...I actually liked the earlier suggestion that it remain in museums as a historical reminder. But it's as I said...I have mixed feelings...




You make a very good point here, but it's important to remember that history is not being dismantled or destroyed. The South Carolina flag is being moved to a museum (or something like a museum, I'm not certain on the specifics), not shredded. Likewise, the recent spate of discussion about the flag's meaning is primarily concerned with recognizing that the actual history behind it is racism, along with how there's been a concerted effort to deflect and deceive the public in that regard.

History isn't being lost; rather, we seem to finally be figuring out the difference between remembering an ugly part of our past and lionizing it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Raunalyn said:


> I'm honestly having mixed feelings about this. While I understand and agree with what most of you have said regarding the removal of the flag, I have an intense and almost blinding aversion to destroying history, even if it's for the right reasons. I'm a very firm believer in the adage "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> What else will we have to remove? What else will we have to change because someone gets offended by it?
> 
> I realize that I may be playing Devil's Advocate here. Please don't take it that I *want* to keep the flag flying...I actually liked the earlier suggestion that it remain in museums as a historical reminder. But it's as I said...I have mixed feelings...



I get your point about destroying history; however, what you need to realize is that the "history" being "destroyed" isn't the the actual history of he South. The idea that it is about Southern heritage and history, and not about slavery is perplexing considering how slavery was an integral part of Southern heritage and history. There have been several articles posted regarding the falsehoods of the flag not representing racism and the Civil War not being about slavery but state's rights. So don't think of it as destroying "history." Think about it as destroying lies.


----------



## delericho

Bullgrit said:


> Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?




England, for the sins of the British Empire. The Scots were often right there beside them, yet somehow we escape censure (well, mostly).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Alzrius said:


> But on the other hand, it's a criminal offense to not only belong to Nazi organizations in Germany, but to so much as show the Nazi flag or the Nazi salute (outside of certain contexts, such as historical footage used for teaching purposes, if I recall correctly)...all of which makes me wonder if they've quite gotten the lesson regarding why fascism is a bad thing.




It is tough to actually change hearts & minds; easy to take away symbols & shorthands.

But as Orwell taught, if you can control the dialog, you can eventually convince people of anything.


----------



## Alzrius

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)?




No, it doesn't. That's because the rest of the country had, by the time of the American Civil War, not only figured out that slavery was morally reprehensible and stopped practicing it, but they didn't try to create a historical narrative that attempted to frame it as something noble or minimize its impact. The South did, and in many cases continues to do so, and in that regard is getting exactly the attitude it deserves in response.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)?




Most of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders.  The whole county benefitted from it in the early days.  The North is no more or less racist than the South, they're just less ken about it.

What the South gets knocked for is initiating and fighting a war to keep & expand the institution of slavery, romanticizing that period of time, and re-prosecuting those same values in the courts with every civil rights issue that pops up.


----------



## Raunalyn

The thing to remember here (and one of the reasons that I agree with removing the flag) is that the ideas of racism and prejudice are passed on through culture and family.

To clarify:

I was born and raised in the southern US...I'm not a fan. My family still lives there (I've since moved), and they are still very much a part of that culture. Growing up, I discovered that many in my family were extremely prejudiced and bigoted, and it was the major source of the rift between me and my family. Even though I understood that I should judge people by who they are and not by their race or color, it was still difficult to remove those biases from my life.

As I said, I agree with the reasons behind removing the flag; it's the symbol of a terrible part of our history.


----------



## Janx

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)? Essentially putting all the baggage on the South to lessen the weight of all of America's guilt?
> 
> Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?
> 
> Bullgrit




That's a good question, one I kind of addressed.  I think the North at some point, took great strides to divorce itself from slavery.  So when they decided slavery was bad, they went whole hog.  There were economics involved of course, the North wasn't dependent on slave labor.

The South seems to have been trapped.  Their economy was based largely on manual labor, by slaves.  And all the great speeches of the time were about keeping slaves when the Confederacy started.

The South started a war over slavery basically and their right to keep it (the act of seceeding basically was an act of war, regardless of when the first shot was fired).  It symbolized refusing to put down slavery.  Not just "we used to have slaves, but now we don't" but "we're gonna kill people to prove our right to have slaves is right"

That's likely a very strong reason why "The South" is equated to "racist dudes who don't get that they are celebrating being a bunch of racists".  Yes, that is hyperbole.  Sorry. that's what a Yankee like me hears everytime a Southerner goes off about the "War of Northern Aggression"

I wouldn't ride Morrus that way for his dead King's heavy handed taxation without representation.  Or a German for their Hitleriffic atrocities.  But the South just don't get the message because they don't admit "the Confederacy was wrong and it was founded on an evil premise."

Personally, I don't think I need an apology on the subject (granted, I wasn't a descendant of slaves).  But dropping the whole "States Rights", "War of Northern Aggression", "The South", and "Confederacy" references means we can stop being divided by it.  Acknowledge some bad stuff went down, and have some cookies again.


----------



## gamerprinter

delericho said:


> England, for the sins of the British Empire. The Scots were often right there beside them, yet somehow we escape censure (well, mostly).




I don't think the Irish consider the British Empire escaping censure, not at all.


----------



## Raunalyn

Janx said:


> That's a good question, one I kind of addressed.  I think the North at some point, took great strides to divorce itself from slavery.  So when they decided slavery was bad, they went whole hog.  There were economics involved of course, the North wasn't dependent on slave labor.
> 
> The South seems to have been trapped.  Their economy was based largely on manual labor, by slaves.  And all the great speeches of the time were about keeping slaves when the Confederacy started.




IIRC, Tobacco was a large part of the exports from the South, and slaves were their main force of labor for the tobacco plantations.


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)? Essentially putting all the baggage on the South to lessen the weight of all of America's guilt?
> 
> Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?
> 
> Bullgrit




Most of the US may be complicit with early slavery (there's a song in the musical 1776 - brilliantly performed by John Cullum - ripping northern shipping and merchants for their participation in slavery), but it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that slavery's expansion was driven by the South and that the periodic crises that came up (to be temporarily assuaged with grand compromises brokered by Henry Clay) were driven by southern states looking to expand slavery into new territories to further the cotton industry as well as admit new slave-friendly states capable of counterbalancing northern, slavery-unfriendly states. And that's before adding all of the butcher's bill from the American Civil War.

The south utterly deserves its baggage from slavery and its Jim Crow legacy whether or not the north needs to shoulder some of its own burdens in America's history of disastrous race relations. It's worth noting, for example, that the areas covered by the Voting Rights Act's scrutiny, that the SCOTUS in a stunningly bad move threw out, included areas that were not part of the Confederacy but had a history of voting shenanigans (like parts of New Hampshire, Arizona, California, and New York).


----------



## Janx

Raunalyn said:


> IIRC, Tobacco was a large part of the exports from the South, and slaves were their main force of labor.




yup.  And honestly, this is me showing some empathy (hard to imagine I'm sure), that was a tough bind to be in.  How do you handle the changing tide of "that's evil" when it affects your entire state economy?

That would have been terrifying to adopt that change.  Imagine if the UN decided, "hey, North American belongs to the natives.  We're going to need all of you to leave the continent if you're not of Native Descent"

It's a different scale, but it points to "we got here by some evil means" and to make that right requires serious setback for our group.  That outnumbers the other guys.  Why do we have to change?

Luckily for the southern states, they had an out.  War was fought and might made right (being facetious there).

All they had to do was stop talking about how awesome the Confederacy was and flying that dang flag and sugar coating what was said and what was done.

Bro code would have kicked in and we'd all be playing ball together again without anybody ribbing South Carolina about that one time they screwed up.


----------



## Janx

gamerprinter said:


> I don't think the Irish consider the British Empire escaping censure, not at all.




there's ugly business all around.  Every nation did something crappy to somebody.

Maybe we can't make it right.  But we can say "yeah, that was pretty crappy what our ancestors did.  Let's promise to try not to do anything crappy like that again."


----------



## billd91

Janx said:


> yup.  And honestly, this is me showing some empathy (hard to imagine I'm sure), that was a tough bind to be in.  How do you handle the changing tide of "that's evil" when it affects your entire state economy?




My empathy is somewhat limited. The expansion of slavery went with the deliberate expansion of cotton into the Deep South with the full knowledge that slavery was a large part of what made cotton profitable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Raunalyn said:


> IIRC, Tobacco was a large part of the exports from the South, and slaves were their main force of labor for the tobacco plantations.




But as the song and saying goes, Cotton was King.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I actually understand them, and likewise ethnic minorities and poor people who vote GOP.  They usually share a LOT of the GOP's espoused fiscally conservative ideals.  They just happen to differ on particular social issues.




For many, there is another quote from _1776_ that is relevant.  

"*John Dickinson:* Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)?




No.  First off, what you say isn't quite correct - while slavery was legal in the sense that the Federal government hadn't outlawed it, the northern states started doing so as early as 1780.  All the northern states had abolished it by 1804 (some of them had "gradual" transitions, so there were some slaves in northern states after that time, but the law in pace to end the practice existed).  This didn't end racism by any means, and we still have issues everywhere, but some of that is, in fact, due to what happened next...

The South catches crap for this because they fought very, very had to *not* abolish slavery.  To the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The fact that they fought so hard, and so many died, led to a cascade of events and mistakes (by both North and South) that can be seriously argued to have *enhanced* racism, rather than allowed it to decline.


----------



## Umbran

Raunalyn said:


> . While I understand and agree with what most of you have said regarding the removal of the flag, I have an intense and almost blinding aversion to destroying history, even if it's for the right reasons.




With respect - not flying the flag on state grounds has *NOTHING* to do with destroying history.  This is not a start of a slippery slope.


----------



## tomBitonti

There was more going on in the minds of southern slaveholders than the economic upset.  I've read that the Jamaican revolt was in peoples minds, with slaveholders fearing not just the freeing of slaves, but also the possibility of a general uprising.  The issue of slavery and emancipation were apparently a very big deal to southern states.

Cotton cultivation created a huge demand for slaves, and was a huge part of the issue of slavery.  (Cotton cultivation also drove westward expansion and eradication of indian populations.  Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Cotton-A-Global-History/dp/0375414142.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Janx

A lot's been said.  There's that basic rule of thumb that when some people tell you X is offensive to them, stop doing it, maybe they have a point.

The facts in that article show some pretty offensive origins of the Confederacy.  Folks are saying, don't support the Confederacy anymore.

It was born on a foundation of promoting evil.  That is not a heritage to be proud of, but one to move past.

This ain't rocket science, it's stubborness to deny defeat in a war 150 years lost for an evil everybody else figured out 200 years ago was wrong.

So take that flag down.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

To clarify: I know a LOT of soldiers fought for the South with honor and for what they believed were good reasons...including a goodly number of blacks.  Those people deserve to be remembered with respect.

However, the iconography of the political force they fought for has no nobility about it.  Unlike the swastika, which had thousands of years of positive history on at least 2 continents associated with it before being subverted by Nazism, the CBF's origins are completely and thoroughly stained with the blood of oppressed people and soldiers who fought on 2 sides of a thoroughly preventable and treasonous war.

Honor those ancestors.  Honor the great things about Southern culture.  Please do.

But please, do it without the divisive iconography of the CBF.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...an evil everybody else figured out 200 years ago was wrong.




Unfortunately, slavery is still alive & well, worldwide.  Even in the USA.  It just isn't practiced openly and notoriously in as many corners of the world as it used to be.

Both Smithsonian and National Geographic have run articles in the past decade or so showing the demographics of human trafficking.  Lake Tahoe was #1 in the USA.


----------



## delericho

gamerprinter said:


> I don't think the Irish consider the British Empire escaping censure, not at all.




You miss my point. The British Empire did some bad things, no question. And, far too often, there were Scots right there alongside the English doing those things.

But it tends to be the English that get the blame for those things. Very often, and unfairly, the Scots (of whom I am one) escape that blame.

(Bear in mind that I was answering Bullgrit's question about part of a group carrying the blame for all of a group. So there's some context to consider.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It's those kilts.


----------



## gamerprinter

delericho said:


> You miss my point. The British Empire did some bad things, no question. And, far too often, there were Scots right there alongside the English doing those things.
> 
> But it tends to be the English that get the blame for those things. Very often, and unfairly, the Scots (of whom I am one) escape that blame.
> 
> (Bear in mind that I was answering Bullgrit's question about part of a group carrying the blame for all of a group. So there's some context to consider.)




Indeed, and I've got some Scottish in me too - Grandfather Irish and Grandmother Scottish, and I'm half Japanese. A violent heritage there with blame of its own.


----------



## Neonchameleon

The Confederate Battle Flag was first used as a symbol of one of the armies committing treason in defence of slavery. Who themselves said that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" in their own list of causes at the time. And whose VP claimed in March 1861 that "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

And yes, the South does get a worse rap for slavery than the rest of the US despite the presence of Sundown Towns - largely in the North. This is because, as almost everything from 1861 makes clear, the reason for the Confederacy existing _at all_ was to perpetuate slavery.  If you look at the numbers, you find that every single state where fewer than 24% of the population was enslaved remained loyal. And the traitors all had more than 24% of their population enslaved. Yes, it splits that cleanly. (For anyone wondering why a number of "free" states had numbers of slaves like 2 and 15, blame the Dredd Scott decision that allowed slaveowners to take their slaves with them to the North; it is a measure of how much of a post-hoc justification the claim of States Rights was that the declarations of causes of secession normally alude to the fact that the Northern states were not happy to allow Southern Gentlemen to take their slaves to the North as one of their grievances).

So the Confederacy was created to perpetuate slavery, and it did a grand total of two notable things in its short life. Attempted to perpetuate slavery and fought an unsuccessful war.

When people fly Confederate Flags, that is the "Southern Heritage" that that flag stands directly for. I'll let William T Thompson, the designer of the so-called Stainless Banner, the confederate flag closest to the Virginian Battle Flag normally waved explain exactly what the flag was intended to symbolise:
As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. … Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag. … As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.​
But this isn't where the Battle Flag's heritage ends. It wasn't particularly popular until first the Dixiecrats used it as part of their campaign to keep Jim Crow, and later George Wallace raised it in protest against the Civil Rights Act.

In short, that rag was flown at the time as part of an armed rebellion to perpetuate slavery. The official uses of it after the treasonous slaveowners were defeated have also been stunningly racist. Which means that that flag is a direct symbol of the heritage of the absolute worst of the South. Its only reason for being was to fight a war to perpetuate slavery. And its reason for popularity was racism. 

And slavery was an institution that had been abolished in most of the North by the time the Civil War started in defence of slavery - modulo both the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dredd Scott decision. Which is why it is so strongly identified with the South. The Confederacy started a war to defend slavery even as those in the North had largely abolished it with their own territory - and the border states stayed with the United States.


----------



## Bullgrit

> everytime a Southerner goes off about the "War of Northern Aggression"



I'll say it here rather than put it in the other thread, because that thread went far away from the original subject. This "War of Northern Aggression" phrase is another thing that I've heard so many people claim that Southerners say, but, in all my 48 years of living in the South, among some deep Southerners, as part of a family that I know had at least one Confederate soldier (my great-grandfather), I've never, ever heard one single Southerner actually say this or claim this about the Civil War. I've even been told to my face, by more than one non-Southerner, that Southern schools teach this phrase and belief.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> I'll say it here rather than put it in the other thread, because that thread went far away from the original subject. This "War of Northern Aggression" phrase is another thing that I've heard so many people claim that Southerners say, but, in all my 48 years of living in the South, among some deep Southerners, as part of a family that I know had at least one Confederate soldier (my great-grandfather), I've never, ever heard one single Southerner actually say this or claim this about the Civil War. I've even been told to my face, by more than one non-Southerner, that Southern schools teach this phrase and belief.
> 
> Bullgrit




You're actually on the right path..ish.  According to this site, that phrase was only used once during the Civil War- by a Union General- and its most common usage is not actually in reference to the Civil War itself.

Instead, "The War of Northern Aggression" was/is used as a term for the civil rights movement by modern segregationists & secessionists as an idiomatic ideological reference to the Civil War, not the war itself.  They're verbally presenting the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s forward as a cold parallel to the hot war of the 1860s.

IOW, you're unlikely to hear that phrase used seriously by anyone except actual opponents of equality, not those who are viewing the South's history with rosy-lensed Ray Bans.


----------



## tuxgeo

Bullgrit said:


> I'll say it here rather than put it in the other thread, because that thread went far away from the original subject. This "War of Northern Aggression" phrase is another thing that I've heard so many people claim that Southerners say, but, in all my 48 years of living in the South, among some deep Southerners, as part of a family that I know had at least one Confederate soldier (my great-grandfather), I've never, ever heard one single Southerner actually say this or claim this about the Civil War. . . .
> 
> Bullgrit




The phrase that I was told some Southerners actually used in reference to the US Civil War was "The War Between the States."


----------



## Bullgrit

> The phrase that I was told some Southerners actually used in reference to the US Civil War was "The War Between the States."



I've heard and read that phrase used a *few* times, (by a mixture of "regionals" -- and by both laymen and scholars). But it is always used in a way to explain that "technically, the American Civil War wasn't a civil war by the definition of 'civil war'."

That is, usually in a civil war, factions are fighting to take/keep control of the country. They say that, technically, that wasn't what was happening in the ACW. I can see the point, but this stance is sort of like saying Americans are actually "United Statesians".

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx

Bullgrit said:


> I've heard and read that phrase used a *few* times, (by a mixture of "regionals" -- and by both laymen and scholars). But it is always used in a way to explain that "technically, the American Civil War wasn't a civil war by the definition of 'civil war'."
> 
> That is, usually in a civil war, factions are fighting to take/keep control of the country. They say that, technically, that wasn't what was happening in the ACW. I can see the point, but this stance is sort of like saying Americans are actually "United Statesians".
> 
> Bullgrit




yeah, that kind of logic is that we are really collection of 50 countries, not one Country called the United States of America.

Given that only the Federal Goverment can sign treaties, I'd say States are just larger versions of Counties.  Nice for having fairs.  Not for choosing right and wrong.


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> I've heard and read that phrase used a *few* times, (by a mixture of "regionals" -- and by both laymen and scholars). But it is always used in a way to explain that "technically, the American Civil War wasn't a civil war by the definition of 'civil war'."
> 
> That is, usually in a civil war, factions are fighting to take/keep control of the country. They say that, technically, that wasn't what was happening in the ACW. I can see the point, but this stance is sort of like saying Americans are actually "United Statesians".
> 
> Bullgrit




That's really only a partial definition. Wikipedia covers it much better than just that. The important factor is it's factions within the same country fighting to change the government *or the government's policies*. The ACW fits that definition just fine. Denying it was a civil war is nit picking.


----------



## Bullgrit

A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx

Bullgrit said:


> A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?
> 
> Bullgrit




That's a complicated problem to have, and I'm sure you'll do fine in handling it.

In my view, if he recognizes "The South" was a bad thing, then he is not a Southerner.  He is somebody who lives in or is from XX where XX your state.  There's no shame in being a South Carolinan or an American.  It's insisting on being "from The South" that puts a person on the wrong side of history, probably because its choosing sides.  We're all Americans (except the folks who aren't, and they're OK too).

And in any event, a 10 year old kid ain't responsible for whatever people did 150 years ago.  he's responsible for whatever good or bad he's done in the here and now independent of that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In my view, if he recognizes "The South" was a bad thing, then he is not a Southerner.




Then, bro, I got a REAL problem!


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?
> 
> Bullgrit




Being a Southerner wouldn't stop with the civil war or backlash to the civil rights movement. It's an identity that keeps on. The question is: is that identity mired in the sins of the past or one looking to redeem them and make a better Southern identity? For those of us Americans ashamed of our past Indian Wars, for another unconcionable example, we can still be proud for the strides we've taken to be better, to do better. We can still be pissed off when we slip from our ideals (such as our shenanigans as documented by Edward Snowden) but be buoyed by leaders trying to push for better like Sanders or Feingold.


----------



## cmad1977

A flag flown by traitors who started a war against our nation. To hell with that 'heritage' and all it represents. Be proud of being southern, don't be proud of traitorous slavers.


----------



## Bullgrit

But we like traitors.
[video=youtube;r-OujQhrjkg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OujQhrjkg[/video]


----------



## cmad1977

Bullgrit said:


> A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?
> 
> Bullgrit




Completely. I'm plenty ashamed of our attempts at genocide re: native population.  I can also understand your proud/sad feelings. Emotions are complex, we can be proud/ashamed or happy/sad.


----------



## cmad1977

Bullgrit said:


> But we like traitors.
> [video=youtube;r-OujQhrjkg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OujQhrjkg[/video]




No!! Unification for evar!!


----------



## Neonchameleon

Bullgrit said:


> You should want to bring those hold-out Southerners to the right side of the issue by appealing to their innate good morals; you should not be trying to defeat and humiliate them because others with poor morals have taken up the same side. (Remember, average Southerners don’t want the damn racists among us or using our symbols, either.)




Between the white robe with a hood, the firey cross, and the Confederate Flag, there's only one symbol designed by racists in the service of racism. That was the Confederate Flag.

If you don't want the damn racists among you using your symbols _stop using theirs._ The Confederate Flag is and has always been one of theirs. And that is why there's such an objection to it. And anyone who cared about the damn racists among you would be leading the push to stop using their flag.



Bullgrit said:


> A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?




Here you have my sympathies.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then, bro, I got a REAL problem!




The eloquence of your statement convinced me. you can call yourself a southerner.  Or denizen of the southern regions.  whatever.

And you don't have to feel all mopey about yourself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

No more mopey?


----------



## Bullgrit

When I was a teenager, (circa 1985), I visited some "sort-of" family up in Maryland. My cousin (a boy about my age), showed me a cap his father had bought him during some trip through the South. It was a black ball cap with a Confederate flag on the front. He asked me to confirm that it was a common apparel in the South. I told him that I had seen the hat in some stores, (sporting goods, small marts, etc.), but only once or twice actually on a person's head. He was proud of that hat, that he had a "real piece of the South."

Also, I saw and heard more blatant racism (not just directed at blacks) in that week up in Maryland than I regularly saw and heard in a week back home in North Carolina. Really, it made me uncomfortable. Actually, I heard more open, general vulgarity that week than I usually experienced in my normal life. It was like a Tarantino movie.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not surprising.

IME, there is little difference in the amount of racism between North & South.  The difference lies mainly in the openness, institutionalization, and celebration of it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not surprising.
> 
> IME, there is little difference in the amount of racism between North & South.  The difference lies mainly in the openness, institutionalization, and celebration of it.




I believe the joke goes that Southern racists don't mind black people as long as they don't get uppity. Northern racists don't mind them getting uppity as long as they don't do it round here. Sundown Towns (which fit the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing) were certainly a thing much more common in the North.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Oh, yeah.  As I recall, California had more than any other state.  California is also where the concept of eugenics as implemented by the Nazis was created.  The biggest number of Asians were interred were on the west coast.  Oregon was founded to be a white utopia.  Montana has a huge number of white supremacists.  In the Dakotas, some act as if we're still fighting Native Americans- blacks are OK, but don't dare be red.

So, no- no state has clean hands in American race relations.


----------



## Bullgrit

> IME, there is little difference in the amount of racism between North & South. The difference lies mainly in the openness, institutionalization, and celebration of it.



I read somewhere, (many years ago), that actually  (at the time of the article/study, somewhere in the late 80s, early 90s), the North and Mid-West and West (especially the west, like California) were more generally racist (white/black) than the South (of the time). The reason was that there were far more blacks in the South, so the general population (again, of the time) had grown accustomed to a more racially mixed general society. In the other areas of the country, blacks were still relatively rare in the general population and so stood out more as "other" from the general (mostly white) society.

That article's point stuck with me since then because I have heard and read and experienced many anecdotes that agree with that idea. For instance, in my own life, I was surrounded by plenty of black people in my schools and my jobs, (though I do note not so much in my neighborhoods). 

Heck, I was in college before it really clicked in my realization that the term "minority" included/meant "black". I thought it mean native American or Hispanic. In fact, when I came to understand that, I went back to my old high school year book and actually counted the ratio of white to black in my graduating class, I saw that it was greater than 3:1. I felt like such an idiot for never having realized that before. I'm not saying I was color/race blind, just that there was enough racial diversity in my world that blacks were not some rare "other" people that I had little experience with in my life.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog

A lot of people have called the Confederacy traitors in this thread. How so? Aren't USians traitors to the crown of England? Yet that is celebrated. How is the distinction made for you folks? Just the morality of the cause of rebellion?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Good question!

Off the top of my head, I'd start with:

1) the colonies were ruled without a say in how they were governed.  Besides the taxes, there were laws in place that criminalized domestic production of certain goods to ensure English craftsmen & merchants got the $$$.  The British could house soldiers in colonial houses without permission.  Etc.   they were treated very much like an occupied territory. 

In contrast, the southern states were fully-fledged equals in the government of the country.  They simply got outvoted, and went to war over it.

2) the Revolutionary War was a fight to cast off oppressive government, the Civil War was a fight to protect an oppressive practice.

3) history is written by the winners.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

An interesting footnote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33471885


----------



## Henry

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 3) history is written by the winners.



I'd go with this last one the most. You want to know who "won"? Read a textbook from a given region or period. 

I'm still torn about the more recent confederate flag furor - I believe it doesn't and never did have a place on taxpayer icons or grounds whatsoever (it's the battle standard for another COUNTRY, for crying out loud) but the desire to rip it off of any and every form of expression is getting silly. You have people turning their nose up at things like the Dukes of Hazzard (a show without a malicious message or intent, and something I used to love as a kid, even if it's corny by today's standards) and even companies like Amazon and Apple going so corporately blindly as to start removing Civil War games and textbooks for sale because "oops, stars & bars, killit!" And having to go back and restore them because they didn't give it a second glance the first time.

For me, Wheaton's Law would solve it like so many other things. Something is blatantly offensive? Fine, don't put it where the offended have to see it (like on money, state grounds, or downtown rallies.) But someone wants to go flying it on their private property or put it on their car? Don't publicly shame them, Dox them, Swat them, or call their intelligence into question. Just don't associate with them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...but the desire to rip it off of any and every form of expression is getting silly...




Agreed, 100%.

I have a real problem with the push to remove it from shows it was a part of it- DoH was a guilty pleasure of my childhood- CW-based video game apps (WTF, Apple?) and the like is a bit too PC for me.  Symbol of hate though it may be, it is entirely appropriate in those contexts.

There's a fine line between consigning the CBF to the annals of history and trying to whitewash it away from EVERYWHERE.


----------



## gamerprinter

Being a minority myself (Japanese American), I have been the target of racist comments/prejudice to some degree as a child growing up, but for the most part, because I don't look overly Asian, it hasn't been a problem for me as an adult. So I recognize that the world could be a bit better in its treatment of various ethnic and other social niche groups overall. That said, I personally detest the entire _political correctness_ movement - or any social movement that goes too far in the opposite direction of what the complaints are about invoking the movement.

I can agree with the removal of the Confederate flag from government buildings and institutions as being the right thing to do, however, the total removal of any symbol used in the free market, I consider an action against the 1st Amendment, and should never occur, not in the US at least.


----------



## Morrus

gamerprinter said:


> however, the total removal of any symbol used in the free market, I consider an action against the 1st Amendment, and should never occur, not in the US at least.




While I'm sure you understand your laws better than I do, the Amendment to which you refer prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting free speech. It doesn't prohibit removal of anything by anyone.  And to my knowledge, there's been no hint of Congress passing any such law, or any suggestion of such, has there? It sounds unlikely.


----------



## gamerprinter

goldomark said:


> How so? Aren't USians traitors to the crown of England?




Of course they were, but America won the war - that's the difference. Had the Confederacy won the civil war, undoubtably they wouldn't currently be called traitors to the country today (they might have been for a time, in the first decades after the war).


----------



## nightwind1

Bullgrit said:


> Question: Slavery was a legal American institution for almost 100 years, since the original 13 colonies, right on during the ACW. Does the South serve as a scapegoat for America on the issue of slavery, (and racism in general)? Essentially putting all the baggage on the South to lessen the weight of all of America's guilt?
> 
> Are there other examples, in America or any other country, where one region/peoples of the country is held more to account for an atrocity actually committed by the entire nation?
> 
> Bullgrit



No, but the Confederacy was founded on the pretty much the sole premise of the state's right to own human beings. In the Confederacy's OWN words, from their OWN documents, it was mostly founded to continue slavery:

Mississippi Declaration of Causes for Secession, 1861:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...we do not overstate the dangers to our institution...

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America, in his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21, 1861:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution...

Our new government is founded upon...its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Section 9, (4):

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV, Section 2, (1) and (3):

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article IV, Section 3, (3):

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Mississippi Senator Albert Gallatin Brown, 1858:

"I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well--if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican Stats; and I want them all for the same reason--for the planting and spreading of slavery."

Southern Punch, 1864:

"'The people of the South,' says a contemporary, 'are not fighting for slavery but for independence.' Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy -- a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."

Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, after the slaughter of hundreds of surrendering black Union troops at Fort Pillow in Tennessee, April 1864:

"It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners."

Chant of Confederate troops at the Battle of the Crater, July 30, 1864:

"'Spare the white man, kill the !"

General John Bell Hood, refusing Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's request for the evacuation of civilians from Atlanta, September 12, 1864:

You came into our country with your army avowedly for the purpose of subjugating free white men, women, and children, and not only intend to rule over them, but you make negroes your allies and desire to place over us an inferior race, which we have raised from barbarism to its present position, which is the highest ever attained by that race in any country in all time. I must, therefore, decline to accept your statements in reference to your kindness toward the people of Atlanta, and your willingness to sacrifice everything for the peace and honor of the South, and refuse to be governed by your decision in regard to matters between myself, my country, and my God. You say, "let us fight it out like men." To this my reply is, for myself, and, I believe, for all the true men, aye, and women and children, in my country, we will fight you to the death. Better die a thousand deaths than submit to live under you or your Government and your negro allies.


----------



## Henry

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed, 100%.
> 
> I have a real problem with the push to remove it from shows it was a part of it- (Dukes of Hazzard) was a guilty pleasure of my childhood...





I found this part of the article you posted kinda funny...



> I have seen the Confederate flag being waved around the UAE while I was growing up in Dubai... It never made much sense to me there and interestingly enough it appeared to have a cultural connection to their love of cars, especially brute American muscle power cars. Very strange. Tiago Niles, Sao Paulo




...you don't say, Tiago! Very strange, indeed...


----------



## nightwind1

tuxgeo said:


> The phrase that I was told some Southerners actually used in reference to the US Civil War was "The War Between the States."




I've always preferred (and use almost exclusively when I'm dicussing it) "The Slaver's Revolt".


----------



## nightwind1

Bullgrit said:


> A side note: My 10 year old son has expressed a feeling of shame at being a Southerner because the South had slaves and fought a war to keep them. I wonder if any of you can understand how I could feel both glad and sad about this?
> 
> Bullgrit



Then tell him he should be proud to be an American.

Most Americans don't identify by region, as much as they to by state. So you don't usually get "I'm proud to be a North Easterner" or "I'm proud to be a Mid-Westerner". You are more likely to hear "I'm proud to be a Mainer", or "I'm proud to be an Iowan". Some even go further down the scale: "I'm proud to be a San Franciscan" or "I'm proud to be a Bostonian".


----------



## nightwind1

goldomark said:


> A lot of people have called the Confederacy traitors in this thread. How so? Aren't USians traitors to the crown of England? Yet that is celebrated. How is the distinction made for you folks? Just the morality of the cause of rebellion?



We beat the British, we don't fly the Union Jack. We beat the slavers, we shouldn't fly the traitor's rag.


----------



## MechaPilot

I am not an african-american, and I am southern only in that my mother was raised in the south before she moved north and married my father.  As such, I am ill-equipped to address the offensiveness of the confederate flag.  However, I am an american and a lover of history.  While I do not feel offended by the confederate flag, I do feel uncomfortable and slightly ashamed.  The confederate flag reminds me that even people who purport to love freedom can support the objectification and (to create a bastardized word) cattle-ification of a race of people.

Unfortunately, as an american this is not the only time I feel that way.  I also feel that way every time I see a native american, or the depiction of one used as a mascot.

There is one small insight that I have about the confederate flag though.  I live in the north, and I work at a fast food restaurant that has a drive through.  Every single customer who has come through the drive through with a confederate flag sticker on their car has been a total douche.  I don't usually see it as they pull up from the speaker to the window.  But, when I see it as they drive away I always think to myself, "that figures."


----------



## Enkhidu

Janx said:


> ...And in any event, a 10 year old kid ain't responsible for whatever people did 150 years ago.  he's responsible for whatever good or bad he's done in the here and now independent of that.




This was among the lessons that I was taught as well, but I think new Progressive thinking rejects the notion. Otherwise we wouldn't still be having discussions about reparations, etc.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Enkhidu said:


> This was among the lessons that I was taught as well, but I think new Progressive thinking rejects the notion. Otherwise we wouldn't still be having discussions about reparations, etc.




The problem with this claim is that the consequences live on. The goal of reparations isn't to penalise. It's to level the playing field so the kids born to the descendents of slaves aren't screwed by inter-generational poverty.


----------



## Enkhidu

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem with this claim is that the consequences live on. The goal of reparations isn't to penalise. It's to level the playing field so the kids born to the descendents of slaves aren't screwed by inter-generational poverty.




Oh, I agree that the consequences live on and need to be addressed - its why I have a hard time being cranky about affirmative action even though it can personally adversely affect me. However, you'll note I didn't talk about programs meant to level playing fields. I mentioned (specifically) reparations.

Reparations have an element of culpability and apology to them - by paying reparation you admit you screwed up and are trying to make amends. That we still talk about reparations today means that there's a sizable chunk of people who still hold the progeny of former slave owners (or who are simply of the same ethnic stock) personally responsible for slavery. In effect, the sons are still guilty of the sins of the father.


----------



## Morrus

Enkhidu said:


> This was among the lessons that I was taught as well, but I think new Progressive thinking rejects the notion. Otherwise we wouldn't still be having discussions about reparations, etc.




I think you misunderstand what reparations are. 

They aren't punishment or blame assignment. They are recognition of the fact that certain groups *currently* still benefit from actions taken by their ancestors, and that other groups *currently* are disadvantaged from actions taken by the ancestors of those same people.

If I steal your inheritance from your parents and give it to my grandchildren, those grandchildren need to give it back to your grandchildren, who rightfully deserve it. Now add in 10 generations; same thing. 

How many rich American "old money" families are black? Why are they currently rich? Because of stuff wrongly taken from others in the past ("stuff" including labour and freedom, too, of course). 

Reparations are about returning ill-gotten gains which have been handed down through generations, and giving them back to the people who would have them now had they not had them taken from them generations before.

Obviously, it's done on a class of people basis rather than an individual basis, because that's the closest to a practical solution there is. It's not ideal, but investigating individual claims is an immense task, and not very practical. So we go with reparations as a reasonable mechanism.


----------



## Enkhidu

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand what reparations are.
> 
> They aren't punishment or blame assignment. They are recognition of the fact that certain groups *currently* still benefit from actions taken by their ancestors, and that other groups *currently* are disadvantaged from actions taken by the ancestors of those same people.
> 
> If I steal your inheritance from your parents and give it to my grandchildren, those grandchildren need to give it back to your grandchildren, who rightfully deserve it. Now add in 10 generations; same thing.
> 
> How many rich American "old money" families are black? Why are they currently rich? Because of stuff wrongly taken from others in the past ("stuff" including labour and freedom, too, of course).
> 
> Reparations are about returning ill-gotten gains which have been handed down through generations, and giving them back to the people who would have them now had they not had them taken from them generations before.
> 
> Obviously, it's done on a class of people basis rather than an individual basis, because that's the closest to a practical solution there is. It's not ideal, but investigating individual claims is an immense task, and not very practical. So we go with reparations as a reasonable mechanism.




Would you be open to reparations from the UK to Ireland? To India?

EDIT: Added India


----------



## Morrus

Enkhidu said:


> Would you be open to reparations from the UK to Ireland? To India?
> 
> EDIT: Added India




I feel like that is phrased as a challenge in some way, although tone is hard to detect on a forum.  I am open to any valid claims of reparation, although it's not my decision.  The UK has engaged in many reparations over the years, and rightfully so. 

I gather from this that you are not?


----------



## Enkhidu

Morrus said:


> I feel like that is phrased as a challenge in some way, although tone is hard to detect on a forum.  I am open to any valid claims of reparation, although it's not my decision.  The UK has engaged in many reparations over the years, and rightfully so.
> 
> I gather from this that you are not?




I think the situations (US and descendents of slaves vs the UK and Ireland/India) are similar enough to draw parallels, and wanted to know if your stance changed based on whether or not you were the one giving the reparations.

Your right, by the way. I don't think that reparations are warranted in either case. And its for entirely emotional reasons - I object to the notion that I am personally responsible for things that happened hundreds of years ago (even as I recognize that there was a single branch of my family tree that did benefit from slavery in the late 1700's). 

On the other hand  I wouldn't for example be opposed to the UK taking a Indian trade negotiation in order to level the playing fields, for the same reason I am not opposed to affirmative action. Both are recognitions of an unfair status quo without an assignment of blame.

Frankly, if you used a different term for what would be functionally the same thing (a lump sum payment to black households) I would probably be OK with it.


----------



## Morrus

Enkhidu said:


> and wanted to know if your stance changed based on whether or not you were the one giving the reparations.




No. That would make me intellectually dishonest. Why would you think such a thing of me? 



> I object to the notion that I am personally responsible for things that happened hundreds of years ago




Hmm. I thought I explained at length that that was not even slightly was reparations are. But OK. One attempt at explanation is all I'm up for.


----------



## Enkhidu

Morrus said:


> No. That would make me intellectually dishonest. Why would you think such a thing of me?




Because its easy for people to do so due to differences in perspective. Just wanted to make sure that this one wasn't in your blind spot.



> Hmm. I thought I explained at length that that was not even slightly was reparations are. But OK. One attempt at explanation is all I'm up for.




Oh you certainly gave your explanation for what reparations are, but the language you used didn't exactly erase the idea that descendents aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Like I said, this one is based on emotion (which, I believe, is why the term was chosen in the first place - those who feel reparations are due likewise believe that those who have the gains continue to participate in the wrongdoing).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Let's put it a different way: should the descendants of Nazi Elites be allowed to keep the art, land and other assets stolen from Jews (and others) in the 1930s & 1940s when descendants of those Jews ask for them back?  (Especially considering the full context of how those things were stolen.)

I'm thinking the answer is no.  But it isn't because those descendants of Nazis are personally responsible, but because their ancestors were...and denying reparations of this kind just perpetuates the original crime.  The passage of time doesn't make the crime diminish. 

Blacks- and others- who talk of reparations (I'm not one, though I think it would be nice and moral) are doing so on the basis of something long enshrined in our legal system: the government can't make you whole, but an award of money can improve your situation, while simultaneously being a symbol of apology and recognition of a moral wrong done.  It doesn't come close to being enough to balance the scales of justice, but it is a visible and tangible "Mea Culpa."


----------



## Morrus

Enkhidu said:


> Oh you certainly gave your explanation for what reparations are, but the language you used didn't exactly erase the idea that descendents aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors.




On the contrary, I said that extremely specifically.


----------



## MechaPilot

Enkhidu said:


> Your right, by the way. I don't think that reparations are warranted in either case. And its for entirely emotional reasons - I object to the notion that I am personally responsible for things that happened hundreds of years ago (even as I recognize that there was a single branch of my family tree that did benefit from slavery in the late 1700's).




Allow me to attempt to explain reparations differently.

Reparations are not a sanction placed on people for the things that happened generations ago.  Reparations are paid or granted by a government to those they have wronged, or the descendants thereof in cases where the originally wronged parties are no longer around.

Now we all realize (or should) that a government that is going to pay reparations must raise those funds from its citizens.  However, this cannot always be done evenly across the board.  Consider reparations for slavery in the U.S.  It would not make sense to tax the descendants of slaves as part of the fund-raising to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves.  So, in that case you end up with only part of the citizenry bearing the burden of the funding of the reparations.  This occurs not because those people should be punished, but because to do otherwise defeats the purpose of the reparations.

One of the things that I have proposed before as part of a U.S. reparations plan is interest free education loans for the descendants of slaves.


----------



## Morrus

Imagine you're poor and I'm rich.

Then imagine that's because my dad stole all your dad's money. And now both have passed on.

Would you say there's no obligation for me to give you back that money? That it's now rightfully mine? Despite the fact that I personally did nothing?

I mean, society disagrees with you if that's the case, but it's interesting to hear that there are people who feel they are entitled to keep the ill-gotten gains simply because they personally didn't do the crime.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And for additional consideration, a Democratic candidate has now stepped in the poop:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...hite_n_7779298.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## Henry

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let's put it a different way: should the descendants of Nazi Elites be allowed to keep the art, land and other assets stolen from Jews (and others) in the 1930s & 1940s when descendants of those Jews ask for them back?  (Especially considering the full context of how those things were stolen.)
> 
> I'm thinking the answer is no.  But it isn't because those descendants of Nazis are personally responsible, but because their ancestors were...and denying reparations of this kind just perpetuates the original crime.  The passage of time doesn't make the crime diminish.
> 
> Blacks- and others- who talk of reparations (I'm not one, though I think it would be nice and moral) are doing so on the basis of something long enshrined in our legal system: the government can't make you whole, but an award of money can improve your situation, while simultaneously being a symbol of apology and recognition of a moral wrong done.  It doesn't come close to being enough to balance the scales of justice, but it is a visible and tangible "Mea Culpa."




My biggest problem with the concept of reparations is that, like most government distribution programs, they're poorly implemented, and often can't be agreed upon. What is appropriate reparations by the government for african slavery? A one-time lump sum? A yearly government stipend to every family with an enslaved ancestor? To anyone whose parent is black? Grandparent? Great-grandparent? A government college fund to every black or black-descended person in the U.S.?

At what point has someone's family been disadvantaged? If they make under $20,000 per year? $50,000 dollars? under $100,000? The concept of reparations might be emotionally charged, but the specifics of the implementation is a minefield to a society as racially intermixed as the U.S., especially south of the Mason-Dixon.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm saying that something that has noble intentions will turn to crap very quickly once the politics of the cash-grab begin. As far in debt as the U.S. Government is now, the situation will be even worse once a 720 billion dollar recurring reparations bill gets tacked on. (Lets say 20,000 a year per person who identified as black on the 2010 census)

 i'm assuming 20,000 a year because that's a nice round figure that will help with college funds, mortgage expenses, etc. it won't solve the question of reparations if it's not recurring, and it needs to be for about... What? 5 years? Ten years? Lifetime? Unsure, really. How much is propelling your country on the backs of others worth? I've been reading plans calling for everything from free education and medical for 50 years to a 40 trillion dollar cash payment.

Now, let's say this is done after the 2020 census, in which case the number of people who self-identify on the census as black will increase, causing investigation of all added claims. So all told we're looking at about a trillion dollars once administrarion costs are considered. 

I'm not trying to be insulting, I promise, I'm just trying to put hard numbers on something that every time I see talked about in the news it's only spoken in the most general of terms, because very few people actually want to discuss the nuts and bolts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Your lists is a good start as to why I don't discuss reparations.

If it were to happen, my personal position is that it should be:

1) a 1 time untaxed payout, that is 

2) means tested, so that those most currently disadvantaged get the most help, and

3) NOT created as a substitute for affirmative action programs- those address the slightly different issue of ongoing institutional/structural issues that have not been dismantled.

And that payout should be significant, but still mostly symbolic in size.  It does nobody any good if the reparations are ruinously large and wreck the economy and/or societal structure.  A payment of $20,000 to each black person in the USA would cost @$780,000,000,000- not reasonable on its face.  (Add in similar numbers to Native Americans and possibly those who were in Japanse American internment caps in WW2, and it is even less feasible.)


----------



## Enkhidu

Morrus said:


> On the contrary, I said that extremely specifically.




And yet I still have an emotional reaction to the term.

In any event, I can accept that I'm the minority opinion here. Ignore my complaints with the language, etc.


----------



## Umbran

Enkhidu said:


> I object to the notion that I am personally responsible for things that happened hundreds of years ago...




Ah, and here we find a time where some specificity in language might be useful - there is actually a difference between responsibility and accountability.

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability.  When it comes to apportioning guilt or fault, it falls to the accountable person.

Responsibility is being in charge of implementation, of getting something done.  This can be seen in the phrasing we often use, of someone being a "responsible adult", meaning that they make sure everything gets done, whatever the source of the work might have been.

So, for reparations - those who actually made the choices that did harm are accountable.  For us, the point is that the moral and ethical flaw was in someone now long dead.  But that does not mean we today should take no action - we may still be responsible for the actions that make some correction for that harm.

The young German who finds stolen artwork in his or her attic is by no means accountable for the theft, but they're responsible for returning the goods.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> So we go with reparations as a reasonable mechanism.




Leaving aside any moral or ethical concerns with regard to reparations, there's an issue with how "reasonable" the mechanism is purely in practical terms. The first one being that most estimates for how much money is due to the African-American community tend to be too large to actually be paid.

The Wikipedia page on this topic cites a source (from what looks like a somewhat right-of-center publication) that calculates that the U.S. government should pay out $40 trillion dollars to the African-American community in reparations, which is currently more than twice the federal government's annual GDP. 

Moreover, this is less than half of the 100 trillion dollars that article concludes are due reparations (since slavery existed in America before the U.S. government was founded), with the remaining amount coming from governments of colonial powers (e.g. Britain, Spain, and France) and private institutions (e.g. JP Morgan Chase) that also benefited from slavery. That would be a payout of $2.5 million to each of the roughly 40 million African-Americans currently living in the United States.

Now, huge monetary transfers made from one government to another - or even between a large private enterprise and a government - are entirely feasible, and happen all the time. But those don't pose the same logistical challenges as suddenly giving so many private citizens so much money.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> Leaving aside any moral or ethical concerns with regard to reparations, there's an issue with how "reasonable" the mechanism is purely in practical terms. The first one being that most estimates for how much money is due to the African-American community tend to be too large to actually be paid.




Yup.  It's a clumsy mechanism; it's the only one we currently have though.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> The young German who finds stolen artwork in his or her attic is by no means accountable for the theft, but they're responsible for returning the goods.




More succinct than my post, but that explains it perfectly.


----------



## tomBitonti

Ah; reparations.

A problem here is that much of the harm is irreversible.  I find Native Americans to be a much more cogent example.  Most of a continent was taken.  A population was reduced to a fraction (5%? 1%? 0.1%?) of its previous size.

The only meaningful reparation would be to remove the current federal and state governments and replace them with councils of Native Americans.  Or, more drastic changes, since I can imagine some Native Americans wanting to more dismantle things than take just them over.

Or, perhaps, uprooting Americans by the millions and having them walk their own Trail of Tears.

I'm speaking hypothetically, but I want to resettle the discussion to more real points.  I think South Africa and Bosnia-Hertzogovina are salient examples for beginning to understand what there is to repair.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## gamerprinter

My problem with reparations is it would be paid by tax payers, and many Americans, like myself, have ancestors that didn't arrive in the US until after the start of the Civil War, meaning, none of my ancestors owned nor facilitated the institution of slavery in any way - why should I be held responsible to help pay for that? Add to that my ancestors who arrived here after the start of the Civil War, fought for the north, so helped end slavery.

To extend this train of thought, since I live in Illinois, all the native Americans that have been displaced from Illinois, occurred while the French owned this land, by the time my ancestors arrived in Illinois, no natives were living here, so my ancestors did not help displace the natives from their land, and since my ancestors settled in Illinois, none went west to help displace those natives either. Historically, my family was never part of the problem, yet as a descendant American, I am expected to help share the burden of cost in reparations, if such should occur. I don't agree with that.


----------



## Raunalyn

Where do we draw the line for reparations? My ancestors were enslaved by the Romans...should I demand reparations from them?

I'll also echo gamerprinter...my family did not arrive in the US until after the Civil War (my paternal grandfather is British, and my maternal ancestors are French Canadian/Irish). Reparations would inevitably require taxpayer dollars to finance...


----------



## billd91

gamerprinter said:


> My problem with reparations is it would be paid by tax payers, and many Americans, like myself, have ancestors that didn't arrive in the US until after the start of the Civil War, meaning, none of my ancestors owned nor facilitated the institution of slavery in any way - why should I be held responsible to help pay for that? Add to that my ancestors who arrived here after the start of the Civil War, fought for the north, so helped end slavery.
> 
> To extend this train of thought, since I live in Illinois, all the native Americans that have been displaced from Illinois, occurred while the French owned this land, by the time my ancestors arrived in Illinois, no natives were living here, so my ancestors did not help displace the natives from their land, and since my ancestors settled in Illinois, none went west to help displace those natives either. Historically, my family was never part of the problem, yet as a descendant American, I am expected to help share the burden of cost in reparations, if such should occur. I don't agree with that.




Do you benefit from the institutions that profited from displacing Native Americans or from holding Africans as slaves? Chances are you do since a lot of northern firms, particularly banks, benefited a great deal from slavery and others, like farming, from clearing the land of Native American rivals. And, whether you do or don't, by being an American, you shoulder America's burdens as well as its benefits. You're responsible for America's outstanding debts and ongoing obligations as much as any of the rest of us are.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Raunalyn said:


> Where do we draw the line for reparations? My ancestors were enslaved by the Romans...should I demand reparations from them?



There is no Roman Empire from whom to seek reparations.




> My problem with reparations is it would be paid by tax payers, and many Americans, like myself, have ancestors that didn't arrive in the US until after the start of the Civil War, meaning, none of my ancestors owned nor facilitated the institution of slavery in any way - why should I be held responsible to help pay for that? Add to that my ancestors who arrived here after the start of the Civil War, fought for the north, so helped end slavery.



And


> I'll also echo gamerprinter...my family did not arrive in the US until after the Civil War (my paternal grandfather is British, and my maternal ancestors are French Canadian/Irish). Reparations would inevitably require taxpayer dollars to finance...




Yes it would...including from those who would be receiving the benefit of the reparations.  So, whatever amount of reparations is given is thus discounted by the fact of the victims being partially paying for their own reparations.

All of which goes to:

1) reparations is a clumsy mechanism, but the only one we have beyond words, and

2) why I don't advocate reparations.


----------



## gamerprinter

billd91 said:


> Do you benefit from the institutions that profited from displacing Native Americans or from holding Africans as slaves? Chances are you do since a lot of northern firms, particularly banks, benefited a great deal from slavery and others, like farming, from clearing the land of Native American rivals.




I have no idea really, my bank was founded as a credit union in the 1960's, and not an old bank with old history.



billd91 said:


> And, whether you do or don't, by being an American, you shoulder America's burdens as well as its benefits. You're responsible for America's outstanding debts and ongoing obligations as much as any of the rest of us are.




Not only that, but taxes tend to be paid to a general single account than dispersed to pay all taxes, so tax monies aren't separated to account for who paid for what. I completely understand. Still at some level I disagree, and is why I have problems with reparations.

I guess my real problem is that I agree that some kind of recompense is required, I just feel reparations are not the solution.


----------



## Morrus

Indirect benefits are a massive amount of it.  Institutional  trends which have lasted through decades and which partially created the world in which people live and the ways in which they benefit today.  

Again, those who keep using the words "held personally responsible" do not understand what reparations are.

You're part of society.  You benefit from society.  And sometimes society has to pay for stuff.  That's the cost of benefiting from being part of it.  The obligations, debts, and profits are shared.  You profit from being part of society; sometimes you pay to be part of society.  In other news, sometimes you might be called upon to go to war, jury duty, or perform some other societal duty.  None of that means you personally did something wrong.  You don't get to pick and choose which of society's obligations you want to take on.

Yes, I agree that reparations are clumsy.  I'm not arguing that they're wonderful or anything.  They're a blunt instrument.  They lack accuracy or finesse.  But no, they're not about holding you personally responsible for anything, and they're the best option we have.


----------



## Bullgrit

I have a question, (point?), that I'd like to ask, but I'm trying to step *very* lightly, here.



> Do you benefit from the institutions that profited from displacing Native Americans or from holding Africans as slaves?



Do not modern descendants of displaced Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved Africans also benefit from the same institutions?

Bullgrit


----------



## MechaPilot

Raunalyn said:


> Where do we draw the line for reparations? My ancestors were enslaved by the Romans...should I demand reparations from them?




That depends, do you mean ancient Rome, an empire which has fallen and been replaced by a country with the same name, or the modern country of Rome?



Raunalyn said:


> I'll also echo gamerprinter...my family did not arrive in the US until after the Civil War (my paternal grandfather is British, and my maternal ancestors are French Canadian/Irish). Reparations would inevitably require taxpayer dollars to finance...




Taxpayers always have to pay for things they don't entirely agree with or want to pay for.  I certainly didn't want to pay for the Iraq war.


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> I have a question, (point?), that I'd like to ask, but I'm trying to step *very* lightly, here.
> 
> Do not modern descendants of displaced Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved Africans also benefit from the same institutions?




Yes and no.  In your country Black Americans are statistically disadvantaged in terms of opportunity, education, pay, and so on, as well as having very low levels of inherited wealth.  I know very little about Native Americans in the US, unfortunately, so I don't know whether the same holds true there.

Of course, every case is unique, and I'm fairly sure that those of your from the US will have a much more nuanced view of the situation in your country than I have from the outside.


----------



## Morrus

MechaPilot said:


> That depends, do you mean ancient Rome, an empire which has fallen and been replaced by a country with the same name, or the modern country of Rome?




There isn't a modern country of Rome, or any country which goes by that name.


----------



## MechaPilot

Bullgrit said:


> I have a question, (point?), that I'd like to ask, but I'm trying to step *very* lightly, here.
> 
> Do not modern descendants of displaced Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved Africans also benefit from the same institutions?
> 
> Bullgrit




Not really.

Even if they were to benefit equally from those institutions as of tomorrow, you still run into the problem that the extended period of non-enjoyment of benefits maintains unequal footing.  Consider it this way: imagine two men are running a foot race.  The starter sounds, both men take off, and suddenly a couple of hooligans come out and waylay one of the men: stopping or seriously slowing his progress.  Once you take those two hooligans away, both runners are equally enjoying the benefits the track has made available to them, but the impediment in the past will still seriously affect the comparative performance of the racers.


----------



## Raunalyn

gamerprinter said:


> I guess my real problem is that I agree that some kind of recompense is required, I just feel reparations are not the solution.




Why?

Once again, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, but I know I may offend some people with what I'm about to say, so please understand that I mean this in the most respectful way possible.

The whole point of this thread is that the confederate flag is offensive to some people. Understandable. Many of the people who live in the South who oppose this removal are stuck in the past, claiming that it's part of their heritage.

There are some that think that reparations should be made to the descendents of those who were enslaved hundreds of years ago.

My question is why? Why should these same people who accuse those who refuse to remove an offensive symbol of hatred of living in the past demand that we make reparations for something...*in the past!*

I think that's the problem with all of this. What happened cannot be changed...it happened. I don't think we will ever, as a society, move past this by living in the past.

Forgive me for saying this, and with all due respect to everyone here who has been having a very intelligent, reasoned, and polite discussion about this...but I think it's time we move on as a nation and move past things that happened hundreds of years ago.


----------



## Morrus

Raunalyn said:


> Why?




I know I've presented my best arguments in this thread, and others have presented some very coherent reasoning, so if they fail to answer the question "why?" then I can't do any better, unfortunately.  Maybe somebody else can, but I think the thread is beginning to head into simple repetition.  If the reasoning presented thus far doesn't convince you, then you're not going to be convinced. I guess we just have to accept that.



> but I think it's time we move on as a nation and move past things that happened hundreds of years ago.




We know you do.  We didn't fail to understand your opinion; we merely disagree with it.

​


----------



## Raunalyn

Morrus said:


> I know I've presented my best arguments in this thread, so if they fail to answer the question "why?" then I can't do any better, unfortunately.  Maybe somebody else can, but I think the thread is beginning to head into simple repetition.  If the reasoning presented thus far doesn't convince you, then you're not going to be convinced. I guess we just have to accept that.




Fair enough. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my comment, and I apologize.

The "Why" was a rhetorical device that was to make a point, which I spelled out further in my comment. I don't think that making reparations for something that happened a long time ago (before the time when anyone alive todays parents were even conceived) is going to help us, as a nation and society, move on.

Yes, I understand where you were coming from when you mentioned the Nazi art...I agree with that. But there are people alive today who were involved in that. No one alive today was a part of the slavery of the 1700's and 1800's. Not a single one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> Do not modern descendants of displaced Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved Africans also benefit from the same institutions?
> 
> Bullgrit




Sure we do, but not in quite the same way.  Not to the same degree.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Just one example: college admissions boards take into account all kinds of factors when choosing who to offer a slot to.  One thing they're doing is offering a certain number of slots to minority students.  They do this because of "diversity"/affirmative action concerns.  This makes some white people think they're getting shafted.  Some have even sued over it.  My law school, University of Texas, has been targeted multiple times for this, and is currently involved in one right now that may reach the SCOTUS.

But consider: one of the factors in admissions is "legacy".  "Legacy" means you get a higher priority to admission in a given college because an ancestor went to that institution.  You know who most of those ancestors for legacies are?  Whites...usually guys.  Racial minorities (and in some cases, women) were forbidden from attending many of those institutions, either by force of law (in the South) or by school charter (everywhere else).  As a result, blacks, hispanics, etc., will be statistically far less likely to be granted a "legacy" consideration almost everywhere except at colleges founded by & for minorities.

IOW, as long as "legacy" is a factor, whites will have a statistical advantage on college admissions almost nationwide.

Take it down a couple levels to public school funding.  In many areas, schools are primarily funded by property taxes gathered in the area the school serves.  This is great if you live in a wealthy neighborhood, and absolutely sucks if you love in a poor one.  To rectify this, some states do reallocate some funds from wealthier districts to poorer ones.  Guess what: the people in the richer districts often cry foul.  Demographics tell us that the poorer districts overwhelmingly tend to be populated by minorities, while wealthier ones tend to be whiter.

While there is no direct correlation between school funding and post-graduate student performance, some deleterious effects of underfunding are obvious: student aid services are less available, up-to-date learning tools are less available.  Hell- things like temperature regulation, leak and mold control that well-funded schools take for granted may be completely absent in poorer districts.


----------



## Morrus

Raunalyn said:


> But there are people alive today who were involved in that. No one alive today was a part of the slavery of the 1700's and 1800's. Not a single one.




Being alive today isn't germaine to my argument at all. But never mind; I've failed to communicate it. I've exhausted my rhetorical and debating skills.


----------



## Raunalyn

Morrus said:


> Being alive today isn't germaine to my argument at all. But never mind; I've failed to communicate it. I've exhausted my rhetorical and debating skills.




No...perhaps I wasn't clear in getting my point across...again, my apologies. I understand your point 

Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer. Will reparations help our nation/society move past this? In my opinion...no. We won't as long as we continue to live in the past.


----------



## gamerprinter

Somebody mentioned up thread, instead of reparations, perhaps free college education to all black Americans and native Americans, which I can stand behind, but the problem there, is that the government would need to pay those colleges, as the colleges themselves shouldn't have to pay for that themselves. What I'm getting at, is right now, state colleges have to honor the GI Bill, since I'm a veteran, that's how I got my college expenses fulfilled, but as I've learned, the state of Illinois owes millions of dollars in unpaid GI Bill educations. State colleges have to honor the GI Bill, but the government is supposed to pay them for that - except they aren't, and colleges are now in debt. So while I agree that providing an education is a good work-around to reparations, I'm afraid the US government won't honor that, like they're not honoring the GI Bill.


----------



## MechaPilot

gamerprinter said:


> Somebody mentioned up thread, instead of reparations, perhaps free college education to all black Americans and native Americans, which I can stand behind, but the problem there, is that the government would need to pay those colleges, as the colleges themselves shouldn't have to pay for that themselves. What I'm getting at, is right now, state colleges have to honor the GI Bill, since I'm a veteran, that's how I got my college expenses fulfilled, but as I've learned, the state of Illinois owes millions of dollars in unpaid GI Bill educations. State colleges have to honor the GI Bill, but the government is supposed to pay them for that - except they aren't, and colleges are now in debt. So while I agree that providing an education is a good work-around to reparations, I'm afraid the US government won't honor that, like they're not honoring the GI Bill.




I mentioned interest-free education loans.


----------



## Morrus

Raunalyn said:


> Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer. Will reparations help our nation/society move past this? In my opinion...no. We won't as long as we continue to live in the past.




Like I said, I understand your point.  I disagree with it.  Not the same thing at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: free/reduced college tuition & student loans for minorities

GREAT!...but it's not as economically efficient as reparations, for a variety of reasons.

Some people don't need college to do what they want to do.  Some people aren't cut out for college.  Some people wouldn't be able to afford the living & travel expenses incurred by going to college.

Cash, though, is always useful.  At least with pure cash reparations, people have flexibility.  Money could be used to buy a vehicle to get to a better job, farther away.  It could be used as seed money for a business.  It could be used to wipe out consumer debt.  

It could even be used on ale & whores.

(Side note: I haven't looked into it, but in wonder what the effects and affordability of tax credits or similar offsets would be...)

Plus, as was pointed out, because our current gov't is in a "cut taxes & spend" mindset, coupled with an almost pathological dislike of social program spending, it is likely that a "Minority Reparations College Bill" would be no more well managed or funded than the GI Bill or TriCare (healthcare for veterans) is right now.

My position: we'd be better off as minorities (in particular) and as a society (in general) if we took seriously the business of dismantling the institutionalized forms of white (and male) privilege...and with it, stopped rigging our version of capitalism to favor those who are already rich in order to increase economic mobility.

We can't reset the game to give everyone the same odds of success- to do so would be patently unfair and economically ruinous.  But we CAN do a better job of making sure the game is fairer going forward.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: free/reduced college tuition & student loans for minorities
> 
> GREAT!...but it's not as economically efficient as reparations, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Some people don't need college to do what they want to do.  Some people aren't cut out for college.  Some people wouldn't be able to afford the living & travel expenses incurred by going to college.
> 
> Cash, though, is always useful.  At least with pure cash reparations, people have flexibility.  Money could be used to buy a vehicle to get to a better job, farther away.  It could be used as seed money for a business.  It could be used to wipe out consumer debt.
> 
> It could even be used on ale & whores.
> 
> (Side note: I haven't looked into it, but in wonder what the effects and affordability of tax credits or similar offsets would be...)
> 
> Plus, as was pointed out, because our current gov't is in a "cut taxes & spend" mindset, coupled with an almost pathological dislike of social program spending, it is likely that a "Minority Reparations College Bill" would be no more well managed or funded than the GI Bill or TriCare (healthcare for veterans) is right now.
> 
> My position: we'd be better off as minorities (in particular) and as a society (in general) if we took seriously the business of dismantling the institutionalized forms of white (and male) privilege...and with it, stopped rigging our version of capitalism to favor those who are already rich in order to increase economic mobility.
> 
> We can't reset the game to give everyone the same odds of success- to do so would be patently unfair and economically ruinous.  But we CAN do a better job of making sure the game is fairer going forward.




On ale & whores: if after the money was spent on that, if a dude was whining about the man holding him down, would it be legal to slap him silly?  I imagine there'd be an anti-reparation contingent who thinks "they'd just waste it anyway".  So I'm wondering if that clause was in there, would that help?  Though I do like your thinking that technically, such wastage would be a boon to somebody (whores for instance).  Though I do think that the usual sharks would move in to "help manage" all that influx of cash in ways that enrich the helpers more than the helped.

Would it maybe be more cost effective if we just figured out how to rearrange the rigged or racist parts of society so black folks get a decent chance (as you say is your position)?  Changing how things work doesn't cost money per se (not like cutting checks for $2.5 million per black citizen).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Janx said:


> On ale & whores: if after the money was spent on that, if a dude was whining about the man holding him down, would it be legal to slap him silly?  I imagine there'd be an anti-reparation contingent who thinks "they'd just waste it anyway".  So I'm wondering if that clause was in there, would that help?  Though I do like your thinking that technically, such wastage would be a boon to somebody (whores for instance).  Though I do think that the usual sharks would move in to "help manage" all that influx of cash in ways that enrich the helpers more than the helped.



The slapping might not be legal, but it may certainly be ethical. 
There was a line from a movie, in which a (self-hating) black sergeant said to a not-too bright black private, "The black race can't afford you anymore." right before Bad Stuff Happened.  I always hated the character, but I loved the point: some people ARE a drag on their own kind.

But yeah, I'd be on board with limiting what reparations money could be spent on.



> Would it maybe be more cost effective if we just figured out how to rearrange the rigged or racist parts of society so black folks get a decent chance (as you say is your position)?  Changing how things work doesn't cost money per se (not like cutting checks for $2.5 million per black citizen).




I honestly think it would be.

Yeah, there are costs involved: redrafting the laws would require man-hours of study, mountains of paperwork, and, of course, publicizing, reeducation, and the inevitable lawsuits in the transition.

In addition, some of those reforms would necessarily result in increased labor costs...and probably, a revision of executive compensation more in line with global norms.

But, OTOH, you'd have a better overall workforce: better paid, more capable, more optimistic, more motivated.    That translates into a better functioning economic engine, which translates into a more stable & robust economy, and thus, more overall tax revenue.  It might even turn the economy into one where Alfred Laffer would be right (but it's not likely).


----------



## billd91

gamerprinter said:


> I guess my real problem is that I agree that some kind of recompense is required, I just feel reparations are not the solution.




I agree. I'm not sure reparations are the best solution either. But even other moves at amelioration, like Affirmative Action, are under consistent political attack as "reverse discrimination". So I think there needs to be some upping of the ante to get a successful solution in the works.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Cash, though, is always useful.  At least with pure cash reparations, people have flexibility.  Money could be used to buy a vehicle to get to a better job, farther away.  It could be used as seed money for a business.  It could be used to wipe out consumer debt.
> 
> It could even be used on ale & whores.




You smile, Danny, but you're actually eliding over a major point with the jest.  Give someone a fish, and you feed them for a day...

Take a look at how efficiently and effectively people use "windfalls" - like big unexpected tax rebates, or lottery winnings.  While, in theory, cash is always useful, documented human behavior suggests that as a practical matter, handing out wads of cash would not result in improvement in station for most of the folks in question.  This suggests it is *not* economically more efficient to just give people cash, and doing so might actually yield something far from the intended results.


----------



## billd91

Morrus said:


> Yes and no.  In your country Black Americans are statistically disadvantaged in terms of opportunity, education, pay, and so on, as well as having very low levels of inherited wealth.  I know very little about Native Americans in the US, unfortunately, so I don't know whether the same holds true there.




The lot of Native Americans in the US is generally worse than Black Americans.


----------



## billd91

Raunalyn said:


> Forgive me for saying this, and with all due respect to everyone here who has been having a very intelligent, reasoned, and polite discussion about this...but I think it's time we move on as a nation and move past things that happened hundreds of years ago.




Wouldn't it be nice if that were possible. Except that the past affects an enormous amount of what's going on now and what will go on in the future. Privilege, of all sorts from economic to racial to gender and sexual preference, all derive from historical views, historical practices, historical events. How does "moving past" history ameliorate the pervasive problems history has created?


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My position: we'd be better off as minorities (in particular) and as a society (in general) if we took seriously the business of dismantling the institutionalized forms of white (and male) privilege...and with it, stopped rigging our version of capitalism to favor those who are already rich in order to increase economic mobility.
> 
> We can't reset the game to give everyone the same odds of success- to do so would be patently unfair and economically ruinous.  But we CAN do a better job of making sure the game is fairer going forward.




This is mostly my position.

At the rate we seem to be slipping into privilege based on wealth, as opposed to simply on race, and looking at policy based racial problems (e.g., disproportionate penalties for different sorts of drugs, for example), I fear we are making very slow progress.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Raunalyn

Janx said:


> On ale & whores: if after the money was spent on that, if a dude was whining about the man holding him down, would it be legal to slap him silly?  I imagine there'd be an anti-reparation contingent who thinks "they'd just waste it anyway".




Ale and whores are always an appropriate expenditure, good sir!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> You smile, Danny, but you're actually eliding over a major point with the jest.  Give someone a fish, and you feed them for a day...
> 
> Take a look at how efficiently and effectively people use "windfalls" - like big unexpected tax rebates, or lottery winnings.  While, in theory, cash is always useful, documented human behavior suggests that as a practical matter, handing out wads of cash would not result in improvement in station for most of the folks in question.  This suggests it is *not* economically more efficient to just give people cash, and doing so might actually yield something far from the intended results.



Oh, I know I'm glossing over it.  One of my major areas of study in economics & law was dealing with economic windfalls- especially lottery winnings and court judgements.  I've also dealt with these issues up close & personal.

Even though the windfalls typically disappear within a 5 year period- which has prompted all kinds of legal developments which are applicable- the person receiving it is at least better off in the short run.

Because those lottery windfalls disappeared so quickly, commissions recognized a PR problem: ticket sales dropped.  Thus, many commissions got laws passed requiring winners to take a state-funded & operated crash course in personal finances management before a check would be cut.

In another realm of windfalls are inheritances & similar gifts...with similar evaporation issues.

One tool used to prevent/mitigate that evaporation is the HEW (health, education, welfare) trust.  Funds in a HEW can only be used for trust beneficiary expenses in one of those categories, and the trustee is the gatekeeper.  As such, the money is protected not only from profligate spending by the beneficiary, but also from most creditors and even judicial decrees.

Thing is, even though both the crash course and HEWs would be useful here, the _practicality_ of using either tool would be an open question.


----------



## MechaPilot

Morrus said:


> There isn't a modern country of Rome, or any country which goes by that name.




Yeah sorry.  I meant Italy.  I'm still a little addled from the cold medicine.


----------



## tuxgeo

billd91 said:


> I agree. I'm not sure reparations are the best solution either. But even other moves at amelioration, like Affirmative Action, are under consistent political attack as "reverse discrimination". So I think there needs to be some upping of the ante to get a successful solution in the works.




Instead of an "upping of the ante," how about a change of strategy? The shoveling of money toward problems has a spotty record in terms of actually solving the target problems, after all. 

Many different factors can contribute in various ways to the lower economic and social status of a defined group of people, so it can become difficult to know _which causes are root_ and _which causes are incidental_ to the observed lower status of such a group. 

The late Senator Dan'l P. Moynihan famously said that the dissolution of the black family was one of the contributing causes of the decline in the success and status of black populations -- meaning that a cultural shift was at least partly to blame. If that's so, then it seems to me that our history of slavery in the U.S. isn't our only error, and it isn't the only thing for the correction or amelioration of which new policies should be adopted. _(It's harder to fix the problem when you don't know what the real problem is.)_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Reparations are not about solving a problem.  They're a bit of societal and political theater, namely, giving money as an _apology._

Think of it like a court judgement.  Many can't make you whole, they do not solve your problems.  They monetize your damages and then award you the money.


----------



## Enkhidu

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...My position: we'd be better off as minorities (in particular) and as a society (in general) if we took seriously the business of dismantling the institutionalized forms of white (and male) privilege...and with it, stopped rigging our version of capitalism to favor those who are already rich in order to increase economic mobility.




I can't express how much I agree with this sentiment. There's a reason I want to kill the capital gains tax rate with fire.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It isn't so much the CGT that's the problem.  The rate is altered frequently to be more fair & progressive...and back again.  But it is the only tax that the person paying the tax chooses when to pay it.  If you're well off, you can wait and wait until the CGT is low, then do a transaction that triggers the payment.

If you're climbing the economic ladder, though, you have to pay it whenever market forces demand that you do.

If, OTOH, the CGT were either locked into a rate for- say...20 years at a time?- or it had a progressive structure like income taxes (or both)- there wouldn't be game playing like that.


----------



## Enkhidu

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It isn't so much the CGT that's the problem.  The rate is altered frequently to be more fair & progressive...and back again.  But it is the only tax that the person paying the tax chooses when to pay it.  If you're well off, you can wait and wait until the CGT is low, then do a transaction that triggers the payment.
> 
> If you're climbing the economic ladder, though, you have to pay it whenever market forces demand that you do.
> 
> If, OTOH, the CGT were either locked into a rate for- say...20 years at a time?- or it had a progressive structure like income taxes (or both)- there wouldn't be game playing like that.




I would just erase the separate category for CGT completely, and tax it all as straight income (using the current progressive tax structure, but with a lower rate for everyone across the board). Having wealthy individuals hold their positions for a longer period of time would probably result (as they sat on stock and waited for the rates to change with the next election cycle), but I don't think that's bad - I can see it driving more people to care about real value and dividends, which I think results in a less volatile market.

I think it's the best we can do without taking an axe to Wall Street completely.


----------



## Alzrius

I'd also eliminate the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax.


----------



## Enkhidu

Alzrius said:


> I'd also eliminate the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax.




That's actually a relatively small amount of money - it would be symbolic though, and might end up being a sin tax.


----------



## Kaodi

I am all for using the power of the state to redistribute wealth between "races" so that outcomes are reasonably equitable. But calling it "reparations" for things that happened before anyone living was born is worse than useless - it is sinister; it is offensive to to very notions of the value of human life that our entire modern regime of human rights is based on.

To call something a reparation is to say it is meant to repair something. So why is this wrong? Because since everyone who came after said terrible events required those events to happen in order to come into existence, it has the effect of implying that those people were a mistake, that they should not exist, or that there existence is somehow unjust. This is just sick, and yet this is the simple logical extension of how so, so many people think. Let me spell it out: there is only one kind of person who can have been harmed by events that happened prior to their conception, at those are the people that wish they had never been born. They tend to exist in the greatest abundance in societies that were historically oppressed, but their claim is not against colonizers or settlers, it is against literally everyone else who exists, including their fellow oppressed nationals that do not lament existence.

The greater the marginal value you place on the conditions of birth between any two people the lower the value of life is in your philosophy. And the idea of reparations for things long past is all about the marginal value of life conditions. And let no one appeal to nations as transcending that: they do not. A nation is not immortal, nor truly continuous. Rather it is endlessly reincarnated. When you say that your nation or country would be better off is such and such historical event had not happened, you have the effect of saying that your real nation, with all the people you know and love, is basically worthless. 

And remember, all of those slaves and other oppressed peoples lives also had as their necessary conditions countless years of death and misery. The Mongolian conquests happened hundreds of years before Columbus, killed something like a hundred million people, and were utterly necessary for the lives of all the people that died from the invasion of the Americas.

No change to history is too small to be rejected. The idea of "importance" when it comes to causality is a complete lie. 

And this is all a kind of horrible and depressing way to look at history. But it is the only true way: to look at it as necessary.

I apologize that my presentation is somewhat "crazy time" and unprofessional, despite having thought about these things for years, but I am pretty sure I stand by all of the things I have said.

I have one question though: when did we get a politics thread tag and when did it become acceptable to discuss politics?


----------



## Legatus Legionis

This "political correctness" is getting way out of hand.  If someone is offended by something, it must be removed.  And yet there is nothing in the world someone is not offended by.  So we need to remove everything.

From public display, to museums, to history text books only, and then removed from textbooks because it "offends" someone even there.

The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters.  If it offends even one person, it must be removed.  Period.

Instead of learning from history, understanding how cultures change and grow over time, seeing the good and the bad and understanding the struggles that took place that got us to where we are now, and seeing how much further the world still has to go, is a big mistake to ignore in ones zealously to remove anything they find "offensive".

Does removing a battle flag from a public building remove gang violent, poverty, racism, substance abuse, crime, intolerance, distrust, lawlessness, mob mentality, riots, etc.

No.

Does it make one's community safer?  Does it address the social, political and economical issues people face everyday?

No.


----------



## Morrus

Legatus_Legionis said:


> This "political correctness" is getting way out of hand.  If someone is offended by something, it must be removed.  And yet there is nothing in the world someone is not offended by.  So we need to remove everything.
> 
> From public display, to museums, to history text books only, and then removed from textbooks because it "offends" someone even there.
> 
> The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters.  If it offends even one person, it must be removed.  Period.




Well that's not true, is it?


----------



## Legatus Legionis

Unfortunately, that is the feelings.

From forcing the changing sports teams name/logos that originally honored people to those same names/logos now being offensive to some while others of the same demographics still love them as it.

To forcing towns to rename themselves.
To the names given to parks and bridges, roads and buildings.
To others calling for the renaming of monuments in Washington DC because they, and that the individuals era represented, is offensive to someone.

Freedom of speech, so long as one does not use a term offensive to someone, yet others can use the same term without being racist or a hate crime.

Just look how social media attacks those whom do not "conform" to the "politically correct" way of thinking.


----------



## Morrus

Legatus_Legionis said:


> From forcing the changing sports teams name/logos that originally honored people to those same names/logos now being offensive to some while others of the same demographics still love them as it.




Nobody has forced anybody to do anything. People change these things themselves because they feel it's the right thing to do, a decision that is entirely appropriately theirs to make.  Let's stick to the actual truth here, eh?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So why is this wrong? Because since everyone who came after said terrible events required those events to happen in order to come into existence, it has the effect of implying that those people were a mistake, that they should not exist, or that there existence is somehow unjust.




While it is true that there is a butterfly effect to existence, and that things- and people- would necessarily be different today if things had played out differently in the past...

Well...isn't that the point?  

This world we live in ISN'T the best of all possible worlds.  Human history sans genocides & other atrocities would _probably_ be better, and reparations (or other symbolic apologies) is better than saying "yeah, it happened- get over it."

Aknowledging the egregious mistakes of ancestors doesn't invalidate your existence, it confirms your humanity.


----------



## tomBitonti

Actually, folks are being forced to change names.  One big case is the Washington Redskins.  California is working on a law which would forbid the use of the name.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/california-bill-redskins_n_7607356.html

Specifically:



> The California state Senate Education Committee voted 7-1 on Wednesday to approve legislation that would ban four of the state’s high schools from using “Redskins” as their mascots. Lawmakers and Native American activists are now calling on the full Senate to grant the bill quick passage.




I imagine there are other restrictions, for example, by sports organizations.  (I thought there was a prominent sports organization which just banned Redskins as a name, but can't find the reference.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Morrus

tomBitonti said:


> Actually, folks are being forced to change names.  One big case is the Washington Redskins.  California is working on a law which would forbid the use of the name.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/california-bill-redskins_n_7607356.html
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine there are other restrictions, for example, by sports organizations.  (I thought there was a prominent sports organization which just banned Redskins as a name, but can't find the reference.)
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




I stand corrected!


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Aknowledging the egregious mistakes of ancestors doesn't invalidate your existence, it confirms your humanity.




Sometimes, the rhetoric gets a bit overdone, though.  Sometimes really fully acknowledging some mistakes are the same as saying, "You, personally, should not have been born."   Or, "You, personally, owe your physical existence to the pain my ancestors felt."  That's not a constructive way to hold a conversation on making the world *now* a better place.


----------



## Kaodi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This world we live in ISN'T the best of all possible worlds.  Human history sans genocides & other atrocities would _probably_ be better, and reparations (or other symbolic apologies) is better than saying "yeah, it happened- get over it."




Substitute "humanity" for "nation" in my rant and you will see why I think this is still completely wrong. Humanity is the people that exist, just as a nation is a people that exist. Expressing a preference for the existence of hypothetical people over actual ones is just nonsensical. 

Maybe the real issue however is that in the game of causality humanity is of no more importance than any other species. No matter how you play with human history, others things will still suffer the savage game of life as usual. Wishing for a change to a kinder human history is merely wishing for an alternate set of giraffes to suffer disease and predation. 

Also, it is a mistake to think I am suggesting anything about how we ought to think about history other than thinking it was not something bad done to us. I am not suggesting we forget how slavery caused current conditions (it did), stop thinking that slavery was bad (it was) or that present conditions are not bad (they are). Rather just that it is pointless and probably even insidious to feel that slavery was something bad done to _you_. Or the Highland Clearances. Or the destruction of the Second Temple. Or the colonization of the Americas. And so on, and so on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> From forcing the changing sports teams name/logos that originally honored people to those same names/logos now being offensive to some while others of the same demographics still love them as it.




*FLAG ON THE PLAY!*

I think that you'll find that the majority of those names being changed either involved stereotypes or outright racist epithets that- if you polled the people so "honored"- you'd find they ALWAYS found those names to be at least somewhat offensive.  A closer reading of the article you linked to will tell you that 


> ...the ongoing controversy over the NFL franchise's name has reignited decades-long fights at the state and local levels.




This isn't a new fight, it has been going on for more than a generation.  It's just now getting into the spotlight.

Seriously, you can probably count the number of Native Americans who have used "redskin" as a positive term for their people on your fingers & toes.

As for the _Washington_ Redskins, no new laws are being passed to change their name.  They're being pressured by people, not governments.  That they lost their trademark right because the name is a racial epithet is simply a correct application of existing law.


----------



## Umbran

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters.  If it offends even one person, it must be removed.  Period.




That is rather an overstatement.  The battle flag thing wasn't "one person" being offended.  It has been tens or hundreds of thousands (perhaps million) of people offended, over decades.  It isn't a sudden, new thing, you know.  We've known it was offensive to many for a long time.




> Does removing a battle flag from a public building remove gang violent, poverty, racism, substance abuse, crime, intolerance, distrust, lawlessness, mob mentality, riots, etc.
> 
> No.
> 
> Does it make one's community safer?  Does it address the social, political and economical issues people face everyday?
> 
> No.




Will it prevent a particular event tomorrow?  Probably not.  But, may things be different in years to come because of well-chosen actions like it?  Perhaps.  Removing what is, in effect, a symbol of state acceptance and approval of racism can have an impact on how people look at things in the long run.  There can now be kids who grow up *without* its acceptance being nearly so ubiquitous - kids who are learning that it isn't okay to rub it into the faces of others, or having their faces rubbed in it.  The long-term cumulative effect may be notable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Substitute "humanity" for "nation" in my rant and you will see why I think this is still completely wrong. Humanity is the people that exist, just as a nation is a people that exist.



Hmmm...



> So why is this wrong? Because since *every nation* who came after said terrible events required those events to happen in order to come into existence, it has the effect of implying that those *nations* were a mistake, that they should not exist, or that there existence is somehow unjust.




_(Edited as suggested by the original poster)
_
No, I don't.

It is just as important for nations to apologize for acknowledged wrongs as it is for individuals.  Making mistakes is part of existing.  Learning form those mistakes- and apologizing for them- is a sign of maturity and growth.

(And honestly, while those terrible events may have shaped those nations, they were not objectively _necessary_ conditions for those nations to exist.  America might still be great- or even greater- had not the country engaged in slavery of Africans and genocide of Native Americans.)

If you're a Christian sort, you might recall that even God apologized for The Great Flood- vowing never to do likewise again- and gave us the rainbow as a symbol of that.


----------



## Kaodi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (And honestly, while those terrible events may have shaped those nations, they were not objectively _necessary_ conditions for those nations to exist.  America might still be great- or even greater- had not the country engaged in slavery of Africans and genocide of Native Americans.).




This America you are talking about might have the same name as America but it is not America. America is the people that exist right now. The people that exist right now would not be better by not existing unless their lives are worthless.


----------



## Kaodi

Maybe it would help if I suggested stopping thinking about history as things and events and thinking of it as people and living things.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Nobody has forced anybody to do anything. People change these things themselves because they feel it's the right thing to do, a decision that is entirely appropriately theirs to make.  Let's stick to the actual truth here, eh?




Don't get too hung up on the term "forced." Public pressure and coercion may not be "forcing" someone to do something per se, but when (tens of) thousands of outraged people are signing petitions, staging protests, and generating bad publicity all around, many organizations will comply under the influence of these private pressure groups.

Just look at what happened with trying on a kimono at the Museum of Fine Arts, for example.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you're a Christian sort, you might recall that even God apologized for The Great Flood- vowing never to do likewise again- and gave us the rainbow as a symbol of that.




I think that's incorrect.  God makes a covenant to never do it again.  God does *not* apologize, or otherwise acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do.


----------



## billd91

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Does removing a battle flag from a public building remove gang violent, poverty, racism, substance abuse, crime, intolerance, distrust, lawlessness, mob mentality, riots, etc.
> 
> No.
> 
> Does it make one's community safer?  Does it address the social, political and economical issues people face everyday?
> 
> No.




I think you might want to keep in mind that a number of statehouses started flying the Confederate flag as an offensive exercise directed right at the Civil Rights Movement. That they're finally bending to pressure to stop being dicks 50 years later is actually a positive thing. The fact that it took 50 years is vexing, though.


----------



## Janx

billd91 said:


> I think you might want to keep in mind that a number of statehouses started flying the Confederate flag as an offensive exercise directed right at the Civil Rights Movement. That they're finally bending to pressure to stop being dicks 50 years later is actually a positive thing. The fact that it took 50 years is vexing, though.




That's ultimately the issue.  Flying the flag was an act of dickery 50 years ago.  It also represented governmental endorsement of dickery.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I think that's incorrect.  God makes a covenant to never do it again.  God does *not* apologize, or otherwise acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do.



A fine point, but wholly accurate: a promise not to do X again is not acknowledgement that doing X was improper.  It is often taken that way, but it isn't a linguistic dictate.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A fine point, but wholly accurate: a promise not to do X again is not acknowledgement that doing X was improper.  It is often taken that way, but it isn't a linguistic dictate.




And, in theological terms, a deeply meaningful one.  Imagine the theological difference between, "God is infallible," and, "God can and does occasionally make a mistake or otherwise act in other than a right manner."

If God *ever* apologizes, then the latter is true, and Judeo-Christian theology is turned on its ear.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Point well made.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> And, in theological terms, a deeply meaningful one.  Imagine the theological difference between, "God is infallible," and, "God can and does occasionally make a mistake or otherwise act in other than a right manner."
> 
> If God *ever* apologizes, then the latter is true, and Judeo-Christian theology is turned on its ear.




Within mainstream Jewish theology God can be defeated by humans in a theological argument then told to go away because it's none of his business. Which amuses God in the way a parent is amused the first time their kid beast them at a game (Ref). It's a very different relationship between God and humans in the major branches of Jewish theology I'm aware of than in mainstream Christianity. Judaeo-Christian is seldom an appropriate term to use; it almost invariably means Christian, with a side order of cultural appropriation and erasure.


----------



## Umbran

Neonchameleon said:


> Within mainstream Jewish theology God can be defeated by humans in a theological argument then told to go away because it's none of his business.   Which amuses God in the way a parent is amused the first time their kid beast them at a game (Ref). It's a very different relationship between God and humans in the major branches of Jewish theology I'm aware of than in mainstream Christianity.




Yes, it is a different relationship.  But, after a quick consultation with a rabbinical friend of mine - at least by his interpretation, that story does *not* refute my point.

When you note that G-d in that story is amused the way a parent is when a kid beats them at a game, that's entirely correct, because _it was a game_, or at least a test.  G-d in many of the stories is a bit of a trickster.  He apparently liked to give a lot of passive-aggressive tests of His chosen.

In that story, someone asks G-d for an authoritative answer, and He gives it.  But Rabbi Joshua noted that the Law already given said that interpretation of the Law was not something one had to go to Heaven to get authoritative answers on.  They are *supposed* to figure it out for themselves - and in many cases majority rules (except when the majority is wrong, then you aren't supposed to follow them).

So, it was not that Rabbi Joshua proved G-d wrong.  It was that Rabbi Joshua pulled an Admiral Ackbar, saw the trap, and dodged it.  The moral of that story is not that G-d can be incorrect, but that He does want you to use your head, and is happy when you do so.



> Judaeo-Christian is seldom an appropriate term to use; it almost invariably means Christian, with a side order of cultural appropriation and erasure.




"Seldom," does not mean, "never".   "Almoste invariably," does not mean, "always."  Suggesting that everyone else does that is not proof I am doing that.  

And, not really happy with the passive implication of impropriety - either make an accusation, or don't, please.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

This caught my eye:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/living/feat-stone-mountain-georgia-naacp-confederate-symbol/index.html

Like I said upthread, I can't condone removing most of the statuary, etc. that commemorates the fallen South.  I think removal- let's be honest, destruction- of this monument, despite what it symbolizes, would be akin to what Islamic extremists have done to the works left by previous cultures where they hold sway.  Buddha statues, the Assyrian winged bulls, etc.- all destroyed because they didn't agree with what they represented.*

No.  Don't destroy the carvings- correct the apparently slanted romanticized-Comfederacy/slavery-minimizing message offered to visitors at the museum present at the site.  Bring it into compliance with historical accuracy.








* also, according to some international organizations, to cover up the looting of archaeological sites to fund their operations.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> Yes, it is a different relationship. But, after a quick consultation with a rabbinical friend of mine - at least by his interpretation, that story does *not* refute my point.




No. But it makes mine - that you can not generalise that way. If I just wanted to refute your point I'd go with one of the passages in the Bible in which God directly and explicitly changes his mind. To me the clearest are in Exodus and Jonah (especially Exodus), but there are others.

Exodus 32: 11-14 (NRSV)
11 But Moses implored the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

Jonah 3:10 (NRSV)
10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

But although growing in popularity within Christianity Open Theism is still fringe, as from another angle is American-style Liberal Christianity that reaches as far as e.g. John Shelby Spong. (Liberal Christianity in the UK is a very different thing.)

But that's not what I was talking about. What I was doing was pointing out that Jewish conceptions of G-d and humanity's relationship with G-d are very different from Christian ones of Jehovah most of the time and that it is very seldom a theologically useful term.



> "Seldom," does not mean, "never". "Almoste invariably," does not mean, "always." Suggesting that everyone else does that is not proof I am doing that.
> 
> And, not really happy with the passive implication of impropriety - either make an accusation, or don't, please.




Apparently you are not happy with me saying exactly what I mean and taking care not to say what I don't intend to.

Bringing this back to topic, when someone waves around the Confederate Flag that doesn't mean that you should immediately call them a racist despite that having been created by racists for racist purposes and representing some of the strongest overt racism the US has seen. On the other hand it is sensible to tell them not to fly that thing again and why.

Which is what I am doing here with the term Judaeo-Christian, a term I have heard several Jewish friends rant about at length. It is not a term you should be using unless you know what you are doing (and most people who know what they are doing shouldn't be using it either but thats a whole different story).


----------



## Umbran

Neonchameleon said:


> Apparently you are not happy with me saying exactly what I mean and taking care not to say what I don't intend to.




The way you stated it leaves much open to interpretation, so Id' say you didn't take as much care as you thought.  After I had used the term, a claim that it is *usually* used in a particular way leaves a pretty solid implication, and leaving it there is a common passive-accusation tactic.  In text-only communication, actually calling out when you *don't* mean an implication is often appropriate.

So, let us make it clear: do you deny intending the implication?  It is a simple question - a one-word answer would make it clear.



> Which is what I am doing here with the term Judaeo-Christian, a term I have heard several Jewish friends rant about at length. It is not a term you should be using unless you know what you are doing (and most people who know what they are doing shouldn't be using it either but thats a whole different story).




Your opinion on the matter is noted.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> The way you stated it leaves much open to interpretation, so Id' say you didn't take as much care as you thought. After I had used the term, a claim that it is *usually* used in a particular way leaves a pretty solid implication, and leaving it there is a common passive-accusation tactic. In text-only communication, actually calling out when you *don't* mean an implication is often appropriate.
> 
> So, let us make it clear: do you deny intending the implication? It is a simple question - a one-word answer would make it clear.




Oh good grief!

My overtly stated claim was that you were using language that undermined your credibility in a whole lot of ways both on the subject in question and due to some unfortunate implications in general.

The intended implication was that based on past experience I expect better from you - and that I expected you to actually care when it is pointed out that you are messing up out of ignorance.


----------



## Enkhidu

Umbran said:


> ...After I had used the term, a claim that it is **usually** used in a particular way leaves a pretty solid implication, and leaving it there is a common passive-accusation tactic.  In text-only communication, actually calling out when you *don't* mean an implication is *often *appropriate.




I see what you did there.


----------



## prosfilaes

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters.




What does that have to do with discussion about the Confederate Flag? The reason for its creation in the 1860s was to symbolize a country founded on the principles of slavery and white supremacy. The reasons and symbolism for it being flown in the 1960s was to object to the Civil Rights Movement.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Neonchameleon said:


> Within mainstream Jewish theology God can be defeated by humans in a theological argument then told to go away because it's none of his business. Which amuses God in the way a parent is amused the first time their kid beast them at a game (Ref). It's a very different relationship between God and humans in the major branches of Jewish theology I'm aware of than in mainstream Christianity. Judaeo-Christian is seldom an appropriate term to use; it almost invariably means Christian, with a side order of cultural appropriation and erasure.




Rabbi Eliezer is such a _scamp_ in some of these stories.


----------



## Ryujin

prosfilaes said:


> What does that have to do with discussion about the Confederate Flag? The reason for its creation in the 1860s was to symbolize a country founded on the principles of slavery and white supremacy. The reasons and symbolism for it being flown in the 1960s was to object to the Civil Rights Movement.




Well, technically speaking, not _that_ flag. That flag started its life as a battle flag for, IIRC, northern Virginia. One 'flag of the Confederacy' did make use of it, as the canton on a flag with a white field (symbolizing "white purity", or some-such nonsense). It was later elevated to the status of "Confederate Flag."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Oh _for Pete's sake_!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walton-county-confederate-flat_55b93172e4b0224d88350967?


----------



## Umbran

Now that's just being a big jerk about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Clear violation of Wheaton's Law.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oh _for Pete's sake_!
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walton-county-confederate-flat_55b93172e4b0224d88350967?




Not really a surprise. It is being wilfully obtuse though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

> Clear violation of Wheaton's Law.



Wheaton's law can't function in Florida. The state is shaped like a phallus. The application of Wheaton's law anywhere within state boundaries isa violation of Florida's state's rights.


----------



## Janx

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Wheaton's law can't function in Florida. The state is shaped like a phallus. The application of Wheaton's law anywhere within state boundaries isa violation of Florida's state's rights.




As I've said before, anybody arguing States Rights is really just wanting to be a violation of Wheaton's Law.  So I guess Florida exemplifies that in shape as well.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> As I've said before, anybody arguing States Rights is really just wanting to be a violation of Wheaton's Law.  So I guess Florida exemplifies that in shape as well.




We are familiar with this.  Here, "States Rights" is used in a way similar to, "But, I'm a CN Rogue!  This is what my character would do!"  Being a jerk is still being a jerk.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> We are familiar with this.  Here, "States Rights" is used in a way similar to, "But, I'm a CN Rogue!  This is what my character would do!"  Being a jerk is still being a jerk.




Ah, yes. The "I'm just playing my alignment" bit. In politics it's sometimes stated as, "It's tradition. It's the way that it has always been done." It's a poor excuse as to why something should be done.


----------



## Coredump

Yay... lots of stereotypes and bigotted comments... way to make assumptions about an entire group of people that lump them all into the same category.

There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.

It is what *allowed* gay marriage to be legal in certain states before it was legal nationally.  Without 'States Rights" none of those states could have done that.  It is what allowes California to pass certain laws without needing to convince Texas that its a good idea. The vast majority of states are fairly lenient with Concealed Carry permits, so does that mean we can force CA and NY to do the same?


----------



## Kramodlog

Coredump said:


> Yay... lots of stereotypes and bigotted comments... way to make assumptions about an entire group of people that lump them all into the same category.
> 
> There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.
> 
> It is what *allowed* gay marriage to be legal in certain states before it was legal nationally.  Without 'States Rights" none of those states could have done that.  It is what allowes California to pass certain laws without needing to convince Texas that its a good idea. The vast majority of states are fairly lenient with Concealed Carry permits, so does that mean we can force CA and NY to do the same?




What do state rights have to do with slavery and a symbol of slavery?


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> What do state rights have to do with slavery and a symbol of slavery?




I guess the idea is that a State should be allowed to choose to show that they're bigots or not, without Federal intervention.


----------



## prosfilaes

Coredump said:


> There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.




I don't believe it. I'm sure that federalism, and the appropriate size of political structures and design of political layering, is a fascinating subject in political science, and maybe it comes up more in EU politics. But I don't recall any cases in American politics where states rights weren't a smoke screen for the real issue. Both sides in the gay marriage argument were all about using the power of the federal government when it served their cause. The South Carolina succession document talked about states rights, and how states didn't have the rights to not return escaped slaves and to let black men vote.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

States rights does have one key benefit, IMHO, and that is that it allows for large-scale economic/legal/sociological experiments to take place in real-world conditions.  You get great data.

The problems, however, often outweigh the benefits.  Looking at something less controversial than the right to support bigotry-gun rights- states rights have resulted in an inconsistent patchwork quilt of State laws governing _a fundamental constitutional right_.  My gun-toting buddies often lament that they can break serious laws merely by traveling cross country with a gun in the car because of where and how they have them secured.  (Remember that when someone brings up the "shall not be abridged" language of that Ammendment.)  

Similarly, the insistence that States should license health care professionals & insurance leads to increased costs of licensure & insurance, decreased mobility of health care professionals, higher mortality rates due to malpractice, inconsistent levels of healthcare or even what appropriate standards of treatment should be.

Why should States control educational standards?  Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live.  Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs.  Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> I guess the idea is that a State should be allowed to choose to show that they're bigots or not, without Federal intervention.



The fed still has to protect civil rights and those trump state rights.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why should States control educational standards?  Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live.  Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs.  Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.



On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation. 

It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, Canadian & American laws certainly differ, those FACTS could certainly be taught correctly if mandated at the national level.

The issue of language & assimilation is much trickier...but even OUR version of Quebec- my home state of Louisiana- has maintained its unique heritage, even without manditory French- or Spanish, or Choctaw- language instruction.


----------



## Coredump

prosfilaes said:


> I don't believe it. I'm sure that federalism, and the appropriate size of political structures and design of political layering, is a fascinating subject in political science, and maybe it comes up more in EU politics. But I don't recall any cases in American politics where states rights weren't a smoke screen for the real issue. Both sides in the gay marriage argument were all about using the power of the federal government when it served their cause. The South Carolina succession document talked about states rights, and how states didn't have the rights to not return escaped slaves and to let black men vote.



Then you really need to expand your experiences....  Of course there issues that trigger the concern, but the concern is valid regardless.  I, for one, don't want an overbearing Fed telling states what they can and can't do. (except in the areas where they are specifically allowed to do so)  States are still bound by the US constitution, and that is enough.  I have no problem with states making decisions I don't like... that is their prerogative. I moved to a different state that made 'better' choices.  Happens all the time. But that should be up to the states, and the citizens living there.


----------



## Coredump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My gun-toting buddies often lament that they can break serious laws merely by traveling cross country with a gun in the car because of where and how they have them secured.  (Remember that when someone brings up the "shall not be abridged" language of that Ammendment.)



 The people in New Jersey want strict gun control, the people of Vermont want anyone to be allowed to conceal carry without a permit.  As long as the laws are not violating the constitution, why would you want the Feds dictating exactly how every state should work? Why not allow the states decide what is best for their citizens?
How will your friends feel when the 'national' stance mimics the New Jersey laws?



> Similarly, the insistence that States should license health care professionals & insurance leads to increased costs of licensure & insurance, decreased mobility of health care professionals, higher mortality rates due to malpractice, inconsistent levels of healthcare or even what appropriate standards of treatment should be.



 So you would rather the Feds were responsible for liscensing? DO you really think that would lead to a *less* burdensome system? Do you really think that such a top-down 'one size must fit all' approach is going to be better?  (There is entirely *too much* required licensing, but that is a separate issue)
Some states require a license for (Massage, chiropractor, midwife, hair braiding, pumping gas, etc.) do you really think everyone should have to follow the same rules?




> Why should States control educational standards?  Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live.  Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs.  Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.



Because, so far, the Feds have been completely atrocious at dealing with education. Every single administration for the past 50 years has had an educational plan they put into place... and every single one has been atrocious. If you don't like the curiculum in your district, you have a chance of dealing with it.... good luck when it is the "national' curriculum. (And you need a link for the Korean war Nuke story.....)


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.
> 
> It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?




Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that _they_ won the War of 1812


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that _they_ won the War of 1812



If I am not mistaken, from the USian perspective it is the Anglo-US War of 1812-15. Sort of like a war to confirm independence. The war of 1812 is just one (minor) battle of many.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, Canadian & American laws certainly differ, those FACTS could certainly be taught correctly if mandated at the national level.



Facts vary. For example, for the French it is Jacques Cartier who discovered North America first. Canadians and Brits say it is John Cabot. Portuguese say it is a guy named Joao Vaz Corte-Real in 1473.

Sometime facts are just influence by politics. Which politicians do you prefere influence your history, Chinese or USian?



> The issue of language & assimilation is much trickier...but even OUR version of Quebec- my home state of Louisiana- has maintained its unique heritage, even without manditory French- or Spanish, or Choctaw- language instruction.



That is highly debatable. From what I understand Cajuns are a folkloric minorty and French isn't spoken much by youth. It is disappearing rapidly.


----------



## billd91

Ryujin said:


> Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that _they_ won the War of 1812




When you consider how much the war's resolution opened westward expansion, the US did win... And the Native Americans were the premiere losers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Coredump said:


> The people in New Jersey want strict gun control, the people of Vermont want anyone to be allowed to conceal carry without a permit.  As long as the laws are not violating the constitution, why would you want the Feds dictating exactly how every state should work? Why not allow the states decide what is best for their citizens?
> How will your friends feel when the 'national' stance mimics the New Jersey laws?




What _particular_ laws are in place are not the issue- that gets sorted out via voting.  The issue- prompted by my friends' expressed concerns- is that the laws they know and follow scrupulously here can get them jail time and fines if they cross a state border.  Remember, ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is being from somewhere else.

As for the Constitutional violation (just playing devil's advocate here), the states are limiting a fundamental right the Constitution says "shall not be abridged."  Nevermind the vague-ish part at the beginning about the right being linked to "militia", *that* is pretty clear language.





> So you would rather the Feds were responsible for liscensing? DO you really think that would lead to a *less* burdensome system? Do you really think that such a top-down 'one size must fit all' approach is going to be better?  (There is entirely *too much* required licensing, but that is a separate issue)
> Some states require a license for (Massage, chiropractor, midwife, hair braiding, pumping gas, etc.) do you really think everyone should have to follow the same rules?




Yes.

1) State licensing of healthcare professionals allows quacks (and worse) to lose a license in one state and go to another.  It's one of the reasons why you typically find them having been stripped of a license in multiple states before they finally serve jail time.  And most malpractice is caused by repeat offenders, not the average doctor or nurse.  But malpractice rates are calculated (in part) on _national_ averages.  IOW, no matter where a quack works, he's affecting your doctor's insurance rates, and thus, the cost you pay.

1a) State licensing costs money for each state your doctor is licensed in, which in turn costs you money.  If he practices medicine in a state in which he isn't licensed, he opens himself up for liability.  In contrast, military physicians need only be licensed in a single state, and operate under the authority of their branch anywhere there exists US military base, even in a foreign land.  A single federal license saves them money, which saves you money.  

(My father just recently gave up his Louisiana license a few years ago because most of the family is now here in Texas.)

In addition, they need not take the time to pass each state's particular requirements, which can be arbitrary.  A cousin of mine is an MD married to a DDS.  Her husband was licensed in another state when they moved to Texas.  The Texas dental boards have a rule that says an applicant can be denied at any stage of the approval process, with no reason given. 

He was in the final 5 minutes of the practical- the last stage of the process- when he was failed and was told to stop.

(Fact: Texas passes almost no out of state DDS license applicants their first time through the boards.)

This is blatant protectionism that costs DDS applicants money, which costs you money, and keeps qualified healthcare professionals out of the market for no good reason.

2) cosmetic professionals of all kinds may wind up causing their clients to bleed, either accidentally- a nick while shaving or giving a manicure- or as part of a procedure- Botox injection, tattooing, piercing, etc.  But guess what?  There are no national standards for how to handle these situations safely, nor are there national standards on the sterilization of equipment or environs.  

Do you think that is the kind of thing that should vary from state to state?



> Because, so far, the Feds have been completely atrocious at dealing with education. Every single administration for the past 50 years has had an educational plan they put into place... and every single one has been atrocious. If you don't like the curiculum in your district, you have a chance of dealing with it.... good luck when it is the "national' curriculum. (And you need a link for the Korean war Nuke story.....)




I'm thinking less of the grandiose stuff and more of the basics: shouldn't there be a general target for how much and what math a 5th grader knows?  Shouldn't each kid have the same grounding in math & science?  It isn't like that stuff changes depending on your longitude, latitude and elevation relative to sea level.

As for the book? Normally, I wouldn't bother, but it made national news.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-11-10/news/9104110179_1_books-korean-war-adoption

The reason it did is because states like California, Texas and New York are so populous that their sheer size skews the schoolbook market.  If one of the big states isn't buying your textbook, it's probably not getting bought by any public schools.

It also matters because of the ripple effect in education.  You teach enough kids that we won the Korean War by dropping A-bombs and similar misinformation, you then have a terribly misinformed college/job applicants.  That doesn't just affect us internally, that affects how Americans do internationally.

And lest you think that the mistakes in Texas' textbooks are all accidental...well, they're clearly not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/


----------



## MechaPilot

States' rights are a delicate balance to be sure, but it's important to remember that the confederate flag isn't about states' rights, it's about state supremacy.  The civil war occurred because the south thought that a federal abolition of slavery was imminent, and they didn't want to yield to a constitutionally enshrined higher authority.

There are many valid things that states do with their rights: taxation, non-discriminatory legislation, enforcement of laws, and so on.  However, states' rights are also used as a sword to deny constitutional rights, to suppress voters, to promote a specific religion, to oppress certain members of the population, and achieve plenty of other ill ends.  Federal laws can also do this too, but the broader range of federal representation makes it less likely.


----------



## Kaodi

The Vikings discovered North America in 986 or earlier, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas do not give a damn about who "discovered" North America anyway. This Cabot/Cartier/Columbus stuff is centuries and millennia off the mark.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Excellent point!


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.
> 
> It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?




Yeah, because people who want to keep culture "pure" can always be trusted to give the "correct" history.


----------



## Coredump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What _particular_ laws are in place are not the issue- that gets sorted out via voting.  The issue- prompted by my friends' expressed concerns- is that the laws they know and follow scrupulously here can get them jail time and fines if they cross a state border.  Remember, ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is being from somewhere else.



 Thats great in theory... until the new 'national' law follows the New Jersey rules and they have to give up all of their, now illegal, guns.  And even if it follows a less harsh set of laws, it means all of those Vermont folks (and 3-4 other states) are now breaking the law.
Why should the people of Vermont have to change their laws, just because the people in DC don't like those laws?
What makes you think the people in DC are better able to create laws for Vermont, *and* New Jersey, *and* texas, *and* California *and* Ohio, etc... better than the people living in those states?  Do you really think that the needs of people in Montana are the same as the people in Rhode Island?
Granted, it makes is more difficult for those often crossing state lines, and there should be some leniency for such; but those are a very small minority compared to the number of people effected by forcing their state to change their laws to some 'national' law.



> As for the Constitutional violation (just playing devil's advocate here), the states are limiting a fundamental right the Constitution says "shall not be abridged."  Nevermind the vague-ish part at the beginning about the right being linked to "militia", *that* is pretty clear language.



 Meeting constitutional muster is a completely different issue... and one that is being (slowly) addressed.  But beyond that, there is still a very wide set of options for laws.  I see no reason to give a small group of people in DC the power over everyone, when a group closer to home can be more responsive to local concerns.








> 1) State licensing of healthcare professionals allows quacks (and worse) to lose a license in one state and go to another.  It's one of the reasons why you typically find them having been stripped of a license in multiple states before they finally serve jail time.  And most malpractice is caused by repeat offenders, not the average doctor or nurse.  But malpractice rates are calculated (in part) on _national_ averages.  IOW, no matter where a quack works, he's affecting your doctor's insurance rates, and thus, the cost you pay.



That is easily handled by better communication between the states.  But you are again looking at a very small minority of cases and wanting to effect the vast majority to 'fix' the problem.  
There are plenty of national laws/programs/etc that are lousy at tracking anything, and allow for repeat offenders. You are assuming that nationalizing it would make it better... but there is no proof of that. How is that 'no fly list' working out?
Again, facilitating communication would solve the problem *much* better than forcing every state to accept what a few people in DC decide is 'best for everybody'.



> 1a) State licensing costs money for each state your doctor is licensed in, which in turn costs you money.  If he practices medicine in a state in which he isn't licensed, he opens himself up for liability.  In contrast, military physicians need only be licensed in a single state, and operate under the authority of their branch anywhere there exists US military base, even in a foreign land.  A single federal license saves them money, which saves you money.



Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license.  That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two.  But the 'costs' are just not the issue.
And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??



> (My father just recently gave up his Louisiana license a few years ago because most of the family is now here in Texas.)



Yep, and saved himself a whopping $332.  I just don't see his patients getting a big discount from that...



> In addition, they need not take the time to pass each state's particular requirements, which can be arbitrary.  A cousin of mine is an MD married to a DDS.  Her husband was licensed in another state when they moved to Texas.  The Texas dental boards have a rule that says an applicant can be denied at any stage of the approval process, with no reason given.
> 
> He was in the final 5 minutes of the practical- the last stage of the process- when he was failed and was told to stop.
> 
> (Fact: Texas passes almost no out of state DDS license applicants their first time through the boards.)
> 
> This is blatant protectionism that costs DDS applicants money, which costs you money, and keeps qualified healthcare professionals out of the market for no good reason.



Licensing is often used as a 'protection' racket for those already in the industry.  This becomes no less true if you nationalize it.  Do you really think the Fed govt is less prone to lobbyists getting restrictions in place than the state govts are?  Have you heard about the Raisin cartel??



> 2) cosmetic professionals of all kinds may wind up causing their clients to bleed, either accidentally- a nick while shaving or giving a manicure- or as part of a procedure- Botox injection, tattooing, piercing, etc.  But guess what?  There are no national standards for how to handle these situations safely, nor are there national standards on the sterilization of equipment or environs.
> 
> Do you think that is the kind of thing that should vary from state to state?



 Yes. Very much so.  Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety.....  but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.  
There is a *big* difference between someone giving botox injections, and someone wanting to braid hair on the weekend.  But in some places they both need 1500 hours of 'instruction' and pay a license in order to try and make a living.  Just because one state is that stupid, does not mean every state has to be that stupid. And doesn't mean I want to give the Fed govt the power to force every state to be that stupid.




> I'm thinking less of the grandiose stuff and more of the basics: shouldn't there be a general target for how much and what math a 5th grader knows?  Shouldn't each kid have the same grounding in math & science?  It isn't like that stuff changes depending on your longitude, latitude and elevation relative to sea level.



 Few problems with that.  1) There is a lot of disagreement on the best times to teach a certain topic, or level of understanding. 2) *How* you teach that is the biggest issue.  Look at the problems Common Core has created. Even if you like their overall objectives, it was the process and resulting curriculum that people have a problem with. But they were able to accept or reject it at a *state* level, if the Feds had the first, final, and only say....  



> As for the book? Normally, I wouldn't bother, but it made national news.
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-11-10/news/9104110179_1_books-korean-war-adoption
> 
> The reason it did is because states like California, Texas and New York are so populous that their sheer size skews the schoolbook market.  If one of the big states isn't buying your textbook, it's probably not getting bought by any public schools.



 Wow.... what a way to *completely* misrepresent an issue. It was the *Texas Board* that stopped the use of the book *because* of those errors.  You try and portray it as a Texan conspiracy... you are way way off base.



> It also matters because of the ripple effect in education.  You teach enough kids that we won the Korean War by dropping A-bombs and similar misinformation, you then have a terribly misinformed college/job applicants.  That doesn't just affect us internally, that affects how Americans do internationally.



Yes.. lets look at this.  Texas and California have decided that they do not want to allow local control, and thus they have decided that the *state govt* will determine what every child in every district will use as a textbook.  Thus all of those millions of children are under the sway of a handful of Board members in each state.
Yet, you think that is such a great idea, that you want the entire nation's children to have their books determined by  handful of people in DC.

How do you not see that it is the very existence of this top-down one-size-fits-all We-know-best-for-everyone process is the precise cause of the problems you are trying to 'fix' by making it even more top-down we-know-best...



> And lest you think that the mistakes in Texas' textbooks are all accidental...well, they're clearly not:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/



Congratulations...  you found an article based on a left wing groups complaints.  There are also right wing groups that have problems with it (but for different reasons)
But *none* of these support explicit factual errors like the Bomb/Korea one from above. You have again misrepresented your case.

But you have highlighted *my* point very well... the more you centralize any process, the *easier* it becomes for a group to influence the outcome.  In most states, you have to convince 6-10 people of what should be in a textbook, and that effects a few hundred or couple thousand students.  In Texas and Cali you have to convince 6-10 people to effect millions of students.  For your national system, you would have to convince 6-10 in order to effect every single child in the nation.....   
What if a person you don't like is Pres, and fills the board with people you don't like.... ??



Remember, Even if we agree on what the 'facts' are... *which* ones get presented makes a huge difference.  And there is no guarantee that we can even agree on what the facts are.


----------



## Umbran

Coredump said:


> Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license.  That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two.  But the 'costs' are just not the issue.
> And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??




It isn't that simple.

My wife is a veterinarian.  She is licensed to practice in two states.  She needs a separate medical license for each state.  She needs a separate federal Drug Enforcement Agency license for each state (yes, that is a Federal license, but she needs one for each state - Federal level does *not* mean you only need one).  She also needs a State-level drug license for each state.  She also has to fulfill separate continuing education requirements for each state - some of her CE overlaps, but other bits she has to satisfy separately to meet requirements.

By law, if she herself dispenses drugs in a state (as opposed to the clinic she is working for dispensing them) she has to keep a *separate* inventory for that state - separate bottles, separate drug safes to lock them up, separate logs for audit.

It is at a point where she's expecting to drop her licenses in one state, because is isn't economically worth it.


----------



## Umbran

Coredump said:


> And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??




Medicare/Medicaid, if I recall correctly, reduces the overall cost of care as compared to all the individuals using private medical insurance.
.



> Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety.....  but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.




And, if the thing that is regulated generally stays in the state in question, that makes perfect sense.  But, when crossing state lines is common, then federal-level regulation makes sense.  Guns have a very big habit of crossing State lines, and so some level of Federal control makes sense.

Note that havign some Federal control does *not* mean there is also no State control - drug enforcement is a good example here.  There are Federal drug laws, *and* State drug laws.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Yeah, because people who want to keep culture "pure" can always be trusted to give the "correct" history.




Who said anything about cultural purity?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Coredump said:


> Thats great in theory... until the new 'national' law follows the New Jersey rules and they have to give up all of their, now illegal, guns.  And even if it follows a less harsh set of laws, it means all of those Vermont folks (and 3-4 other states) are now breaking the law.
> Why should the people of Vermont have to change their laws, just because the people in DC don't like those laws?
> What makes you think the people in DC are better able to create laws for Vermont, *and* New Jersey, *and* texas, *and* California *and* Ohio, etc... better than the people living in those states?  Do you really think that the needs of people in Montana are the same as the people in Rhode Island?
> Granted, it makes is more difficult for those often crossing state lines, and there should be some leniency for such; but those are a very small minority compared to the number of people effected by forcing their state to change their laws to some 'national' law.




That's a bit of a straw man: there is no set of laws (in any field) that will make EVERYONE happy.  I'm sure some of my friends would be even happier in Arizona than they are right now here in Texas, at least in regards to gun ownership laws.  And it isn't as if it is only gun owners whose rights matter- those who don't own them have a say as well.

So, while a given group of gun owners may not care for the DETAILS of a national legal gun regime, the mere fact of having national consistency saves them training costs, licensing, storage costs and potential legal fees- and any ancillary time/work issues associated with having to defend a potential criminal violation- in comparison to the checkerboard we have now.



> Meeting constitutional muster is a completely different issue... and one that is being (slowly) addressed.  But beyond that, there is still a very wide set of options for laws.  I see no reason to give a small group of people in DC the power over everyone, when a group closer to home can be more responsive to local concerns.




The Constitution uses crystal clear language: that right "shall not be abridged".  Under the Constitutional Supremacy doctrine, Federal laws trump State.  It is an unanswered legal question as to why States are even permitted to require a simple license to own a gun when that alone restricts gun ownership.



> That is easily handled by better communication between the states.  But you are again looking at a very small minority of cases and wanting to effect the vast majority to 'fix' the problem.




While it is improving, communication isn't perfect, and bad actors still license shop.  Yes, it is a minority of cases, but you are missing the point: the vast majority- up to 80% by some measures- of issues in malpractice are _caused_ by that minority.




> Virginia costs 250-300 to get a license.  That is *not* going to raise anyone's prices. And the vast majority of doctors only practice in one state..... a very few might work in two.  But the 'costs' are just not the issue.




Beyond the license fee, there will also commonly be an occupation tax.  There are also annual training courses and their fees to meet each state's licensure requirements.  Each state also has differing malpractice insurance requirements.  This all adds up to thousands of dollars in fees..._plus_ the time off from work when he has to attend those training classes.  It adds up.

What also adds up is the fees you pay for differing standards in healthcare coverage- the flipside of this issue.  A service or medication I get for a nominal copay in Texas may not be covered at all in another state.

And yes, docs limited in practice area IS a real economic cost.  Protectionism reduces competition, and that is an increase in economic inefficiency.  That raises costs, Econ 101.



> And when have you ever seen the Feds take over anything, and reduce costs...??



Many government "welfare" programs have operational cost percentages much lower than private charities doing the same job, meaning more $$$ goes to the people who need them.

As for Govt vs private efficiency:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...ral-government-should-handle-disaster-relief/

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/30/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20140330

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-70-percent-food-stamp-fundin/

The last one has an interesting bit about how conservatives often tout that government welfare expenditures have 70% of their money absorbed in administration fees- far more than the average for the better private charities.  The problem is, that simply isn't true.  Michael Tanner, the author of _The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society,_- the source of the 70% figure- says it is a misuse of his report to claim that much is all overhead.  Instead, he explicitly notes that the majority of that money is distributed directly to those providing services to the poor, instead of to the poor who would then have to pay the providers.  IOW, the payments are saving money by removing a transaction from the equation.

Actual costs consumed by administration?  5% or less for most federal welfare programs.  SNAP is sitting at 0.1%.  The best run private charities operate in a sweet spot around 10.2% administration costs and can't even sniff sub-1% administration costs.



> Yep, and saved himself a whopping $332.  I just don't see his patients getting a big discount from that...



Economic costs beyond the mere license fee addressed above.



> Licensing is often used as a 'protection' racket for those already in the industry.  This becomes no less true if you nationalize it.



It most certainly does: if there is one Federal medical license, once you have it, you're good to go anywhere and practice medicine.  As it stands with States controlling things, perfectly competent licensed healthcare professionals are excluded from practice in most of the USA.

(Imagine what it would be like if we treated drivers licenses the same way...)



> Yes. Very much so.  Granted I expect most states to have very similar concerns with safety.....  but they should have the right to make the laws that they deem necessary, and not the laws that someone 1500 miles away deems necessary.
> There is a *big* difference between someone giving botox injections, and someone wanting to braid hair on the weekend.  But in some places they both need 1500 hours of 'instruction' and pay a license in order to try and make a living.  Just because one state is that stupid, does not mean every state has to be that stupid. And doesn't mean I want to give the Fed govt the power to force every state to be that stupid.




Well, let's start off by noting your expectation would be incorrect.  Just looking at tattoo parlor licensure, some states do not require licensing at all, and do not monitor their sterilization practices, or what chemicals can be used for inks.

http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm

That means it is a crap shoot whether a given parlor in that area gives a damn about transmission of Hepatitis, HIV, and other blood borne pathogens or infections.  That means in some states, someone could be giving tattoos including dyes that are toxic to humans.

IOW, the caveat emptor approach has serious ramifications for public health everywhere, not just for the persons getting sketchy tats.  



> Few problems with that.  1) There is a lot of disagreement on the best times to teach a certain topic, or level of understanding. 2) *How* you teach that is the biggest issue.  Look at the problems Common Core has created. Even if you like their overall objectives, it was the process and resulting curriculum that people have a problem with. But they were able to accept or reject it at a *state* level, if the Feds had the first, final, and only say....




As you note, Common Core isn't a federal program.  But the problems with it seem to be not in the educational standards being promoted, but in how best to measure the students' progress versus the benchmarks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-biggest-problem-with-common-core-2014-7

In some places, it has worked very well.  Others, not so much.  Standardizing Common Core curricula and administration towards the better end of the scale would lead to better results.

(As I noted previously, the one great thing about States rights is the ability to test out things in the real world without going national first.)


> Wow.... what a way to *completely* misrepresent an issue. It was the *Texas Board* that stopped the use of the book *because* of those errors.  You try and portray it as a Texan conspiracy... you are way way off base.



Actually, the books were initially approved by the Texas school board, and only the actions of an independent review organization run by private citizens- Mel & Norma Gabler- got the board to reconsider.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/11/20/12text.h11.html
https://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/2247-dont-bother-me-with-facts

(For the record, they ALSO fought against books that taught evolution or mentioned religions other than Christianity.)


> Yes.. lets look at this.  Texas and California have decided that they do not want to allow local control, and thus they have decided that the *state govt* will determine what every child in every district will use as a textbook.  Thus all of those millions of children are under the sway of a handful of Board members in each state.
> Yet, you think that is such a great idea, that you want the entire nation's children to have their books determined by  handful of people in DC.
> 
> How do you not see that it is the very existence of this top-down one-size-fits-all We-know-best-for-everyone process is the precise cause of the problems you are trying to 'fix' by making it even more top-down we-know-best...




Because it isn't the cause.  The cause- well, one major cause- is _politicization_ of a process that shouldn't be politicized.  Algebra doesn't care if you are Democrat or Republican.  Verifiable historical facts do not vary based on whether your great great grandfather fought for the North or South in the 1860s.

And yet, because school boards are VERY politicized, so, increasingly, are our books and curricula.  As I pointed out in another thread here, there are schools in the South teaching intelligent design in biology, and at least one school fabricating quotes from past presidents to support a strong linkage between Christianity and our government.



> Congratulations...  you found an article based on a left wing groups complaints.  There are also right wing groups that have problems with it (but for different reasons)
> But *none* of these support explicit factual errors like the Bomb/Korea one from above. You have again misrepresented your case.
> 
> But you have highlighted *my* point very well... the more you centralize any process, the *easier* it becomes for a group to influence the outcome.  In most states, you have to convince 6-10 people of what should be in a textbook, and that effects a few hundred or couple thousand students.  In Texas and Cali you have to convince 6-10 people to effect millions of students.  For your national system, you would have to convince 6-10 in order to effect every single child in the nation.....




With only one board to monitor, as opposed to Texas, California, New York and a few others, watchdogs can make better use of their resources.  Focusing on the strengths or weaknesses of the decision-making of a single group- regardless of the number of members- is more efficient than monitoring a dozen or so.


> What if a person you don't like is Pres, and fills the board with people you don't like.... ??




There are relatively few offices in the executive branch directly filled by the President.  He simply doesn't have the authority.  And even for offices a president does appoint, many are not fireable by the president, either by law or tradition, and those jobs only get new appointments when the current holder steps down or is removed via other means.  That is why you will frequently see even top administrators serve for decades, even as Presidents come and go.

There is no reason to think Federal book agencies or medical boards would be any different.



> Remember, Even if we agree on what the 'facts' are... *which* ones get presented makes a huge difference.  And there is no guarantee that we can even agree on what the facts are.




I live in eternal hope that those holding administrative jobs and who need not be experts in a given field would at least listen to those who are.

Admittedly, there is a large segment of the population that doesn't do that, but I still hope.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Who said anything about cultural purity?




You did.  "Not assimilating", by definition, is not mixing, which is maintaining purity.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> You did.  "Not assimilating", by definition, is not mixing, which is maintaining purity.



Reality isn't rheoric, definition and certainly isn't dichotomous. "Purity", as you say, isn't the only way to resist cultural assimilation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> By law, if she herself dispenses drugs in a state (as opposed to the clinic she is working for dispensing them) she has to keep a *separate* inventory for that state - separate bottles, separate drug safes to lock them up, separate logs for audit.




Just out of curiosity, what happens if horse from State A needs ketamine (or some such) and all she has left in her inventory is ketamine for State B critters?

Does horse get State B ketamine- with your wife dealing with consequences later- or is Flicka out of luck?


----------



## tuxgeo

I'm not Umbran (of course), but I would make the obvious guess: Flicka is out of luck. 

_Few_ horses are worth the cancellation of a veterinarian's license; and the million-dollar racehorses that _are_ worth so many $$$$ still wouldn't know the difference between license-present and license-gone.


----------



## MechaPilot

tuxgeo said:


> I'm not Umbran (of course), but I would make the obvious guess: Flicka is out of luck.




Well, either that or the vet refers the horse's owner to another clinic.  Possibly.  I don't really know how it works, but that makes the most sense (animal gets medicated, laws are obeyed).


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just out of curiosity, what happens if horse from State A needs ketamine (or some such) and all she has left in her inventory is ketamine for State B critters?
> 
> Does horse get State B ketamine- with your wife dealing with consequences later- or is Flicka out of luck?




"Dealing with the consequences," can mean, "Federal charges and losing license and livelihood," so she does *not* screw around with it.

She has avoided the situation by not doing house-calls in out of our home state.  When working elsewhere, she's always working through a clinic, and technically they dispense the drugs she prescribes.  But, if a situation arose, for many medications she can simply wrote a prescription and have a pharmacy dispense the drugs, or find a local veterinarian to dispense them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That's what I suspected.


----------



## Umbran

tuxgeo said:


> _Few_ horses are worth the cancellation of a veterinarian's license;




Well, I thought horses were just a generic thing off the top of his head.  In reality, even a starter horse is apt to run $1500 to $3000 dollars.  Their owners are usually pretty particular about where they are getting their medical care, and are going to have a relationship with a local veterinarian for their animals.  It would be a pretty weird situation oft my wife to be involved.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

I'm note sure how it happened, but I must admit it's entertaining to come into this thread and read about drug addict horses. Some how it seems appropriate for a thread about the confederate flag.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz




----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm note sure how it happened, but I must admit it's entertaining to come into this thread and read about drug addict horses.




Not at all.  Ketamine has a reputation as an abuse drug, but it is on the World Health Organization's list of Essential Medicines (meds that should be available in any health system), and it is frequently used in veterinary medicine for balanced anesthesia and analgesia.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Coredump said:


> Then you really need to expand your experiences....




Or you are referring to an _extremely_ small minority of people who are at best used as cover for people who want to change things or not change things that have a direct impact on the world.

Yes, there are a few people who actually believe in States Rights and it isn't a pretext for anything else. There are also a few people who believe in a flat earth. The overwhelming majority of people who cry "States Rights" in my experience are people who are trying to claim that the Confederacy was in no way about slavery no matter what the Confederates at the time might have said or done. The next largest group of people talking about States Rights are people (on every side) venue shopping. Trying to get a change they believe in to happen (or one they oppose to not happen) for as many people as possible. What they are fighting for isn't States Rights. It's whatever their actual cause is.

And yes there are people who actually care about States Rights as an abstract concept. But this is far the smallest of the groups. It's useful that they are there - but I've yet to even hear of a States Rights organisation that is anything like as devoted to the cause as the ACLU are (remember the ACLU will defend the rights of Nazis).

And when it comes to States Rights, there are times when sending the 101st Airborne in is absolutely the right thing to do. Also from what I can tell, state legislatures are far far more corrupt than the national one (which is a pretty impressive bar to cross).

[video=youtube;aIMgfBZrrZ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8[/video]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Neonchameleon said:


> I've yet to even hear of a States Rights organisation that is anything like as devoted to the cause as the ACLU are (remember the ACLU will defend the rights of Nazis).



I have always respected the ACLU attorneys who wind up defending the indefensible.  The ones representing Nazis & Klansman are almost invariably members of some minority.  Likewise, you'll see women representing the misogynists.

Yeah, sure it is a poke in the eye & a refutation of the rhetoric of their clients, but it still is a very difficult and stressful task to work closely with those you abhor- and whom you know find you abhorrent- in order to stand up for a principle of law.  No matter how much you'd want to mail it in, you know you have to give them your best efforts because of the other people who will follow, depending on the decision reached in your case.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> Not at all.  Ketamine has a reputation as an abuse drug, but it is on the World Health Organization's list of Essential Medicines (meds that should be available in any health system), and it is frequently used in veterinary medicine for balanced anesthesia and analgesia.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.
> 
> It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?




I don't know what part of Canada you went to school in, but, in Ontario history classes, Jacques Cartier is taught, not John Cabot.  Then again, it's not like controlling education in Quebec has been without its share of ... creative history exercises.  

I'd have zero problem with you folks controlling your education if you'd just stop trying to break up the country every decade or so and costing the rest of us millions of dollars just so Montreal can vote to keep with the rest of Canada.  

Heck, we even had public service messages about Cartier:



[video=youtube;AYi3O0ywY6k]https://youtu.be/AYi3O0ywY6k[/video]


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> I don't know what part of Canada you went to school in, but, in Ontario history classes, Jacques Cartier is taught, not John Cabot.



There is a public service announcement about Cabot. 
[video=youtube;Jciev8iRFow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jciev8iRFow[/video]



> Then again, it's not like controlling education in Quebec has been without its share of ... creative history exercises.



Like how it is hidden that the Brits actually came with candy and rainbows?



> I'd have zero problem with you folks controlling your education if you'd just stop trying to break up the country every decade or so and costing the rest of us millions of dollars just so Montreal can vote to keep with the rest of Canada.



It isn't about breaking a country. It is about creating a country so that a nation who is oppressed can finally be free to decide its faith. Canada will still exist afterwards. 



> Heck, we even had public service messages about Cartier:



Not much is said about Cartier date and location. For Cabot they gave a place which we actually do not know he went there (Newfoundland) and a date (1497). Ottawa's bias is obvious.


----------



## Ryujin

Hussar said:


> I don't know what part of Canada you went to school in, but, in Ontario history classes, Jacques Cartier is taught, not John Cabot.  Then again, it's not like controlling education in Quebec has been without its share of ... creative history exercises.
> 
> I'd have zero problem with you folks controlling your education if you'd just stop trying to break up the country every decade or so and costing the rest of us millions of dollars just so Montreal can vote to keep with the rest of Canada.
> 
> Heck, we even had public service messages about Cartier:
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;AYi3O0ywY6k]https://youtu.be/AYi3O0ywY6k[/video]




A little hiccough, every decade of so, is great for Quebec's government based funding.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> It is about creating a country so that a nation who is oppressed can finally be free to decide its faith.




Be careful what you wish for.  Should Quebec gain sovereignty, the people will thenceforth have nobody to blame but themselves.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Should Quebec gain sovereignty, the people will thenceforth have nobody to blame but themselves.




Exactly. Be responsable of the good and the bad. But at least it will be our good and our bad, not the one imposed by a foreign nation.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Exactly. Be responsable of the good and the bad. But at least it will be our good and our bad, not the one imposed by a foreign nation.




Be really, really careful of how you say that.  Quebec itself is not monolithic, culturally.  To my understanding, the sovereignty movement does not have a good solution for the Native Americans within Quebec.  Failure to address that, and to make very clear how the Anglophone minority in Quebec will not itself become as oppressed as the Francophone Quebecois are now, makes that argument of principle weak.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Be really, really careful of how you say that.  Quebec itself is not monolithic, culturally.  To my understanding, the sovereignty movement does not have a good solution for the Native Americans within Quebec.  Failure to address that, and to make very clear how the Anglophone minority in Quebec will not itself become as oppressed as the Francophone Quebecois are now, makes that argument of principle weak.




You raise a good point with respect to Native lands. They may not be so hot to leave Canada and much of the Native lands are areas in which Quebec currently has extensive hydro-electric plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_Agreement

With things like the Official Language Act I know Anglos, and people whose primary language is something other than English or French, who feel very much oppressed culturally. But hey, what do I know? I was born in the only officially bilingual Province in the country 

"Foreign nation." SHEESH!


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Be really, really careful of how you say that.  Quebec itself is not monolithic, culturally.



Which nation is?  



> To my understanding, the sovereignty movement does not have a good solution for the Native Americans within Quebec.



The solution is that if Aboriginals want to be Canadians they can. Québec will not stand between them and their desire to stay affiliated with the federation.   

We had some success with negociating accords with Aboriginals. The Peace of the Brave is one such successful accord. The Cree leader who signed the treaty even recommended that Crees vote for the Parti Québécois, Québec's independentist party, after it was done. Not too shabby for would be oppressors.

There fact of the matter is, there isn't one solution for the issues that plague Aboriginal nations. Each have their problems and they need to be delt separately Success and failure will be met a long the way. The important things to keep in mind is communication and respect. 



> Failure to address that, and to make very clear how the Anglophone minority in Quebec will not itself become as oppressed as the Francophone Quebecois are now, makes that argument of principle weak.



Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada. All laws are translated to English systematically and they get translaters if needed at trials. Not something foudn systematically in Canada for francophones. Anglophones in Québec have institutions and budgets not found in say Manitoba or British-Colombia. Anglophone schools are well funded and they have their own school boards. They also have anglophone hospitals funded by every Québécois. Schools and hospitals are disappearing for francophones in the rest of Canada. You can live your entire life and not speak a word of French in Québec. They are fine. Worried, I'm sure, but fine. No concentration camps for them.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada. All laws are translated to English systematically and they get translaters if needed at trials. Not something foudn systematically in Canada for francophones. Anglophones in Québec have institutions and budgets not found in say Manitoba or British-Colombia. Anglophone schools are well funded and they have their own school boards. They also have anglophone hospitals funded by every Québécois. Schools and hospitals are disappearing for francophones in the rest of Canada. You can live your entire life and not speak a word of French in Québec. They are fine. Worried, I'm sure, but fine. No concentration camps for them.




You would be wrong there. Even in traffic court in Ontario, which is not legally bilingual, you would be granted a translator if your first language was French. Also if it was Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Italian..... This is the case in most Provinces, though there might be a procedural delay while a translator was located. In New Brunswick one would be virtually standing by.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Which nation is?




Few are.  That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.



> The solution is that if Aboriginals want to be Canadians they can.




India and Bangladesh have shown that "enclaves" work poorly, socio-economically.  An enclave within another nation's borders ends up with restricted access to the governmental services required to be viable.  "Sure, you can stay part of Canada, but you'll be screwed if you do," isn't a great solution.




> Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada.




Right now, yes.  But the Canadian Federation kind of requires it be so, and supports that, no?  What assurances do they have that, without that protection, they won't slide into a similar situation?  There is long-standing resentment that cold manifest in poor treatment going forward.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Few are.  That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.



One can wonder indeed. 



> India and Bangladesh have shown that "enclaves" work poorly, socio-economically.  An enclave within another nation's borders ends up with restricted access to the governmental services required to be viable.  "Sure, you can stay part of Canada, but you'll be screwed if you do," isn't a great solution.



Well, it is up to them to determine what they want for their future. As opposed to their latest history, they have choices. They are more then welcome to join us in our adventure.



> Right now, yes.  But the Canadian Federation kind of requires it be so, and supports that, no?



Support discrimination toward francophones? Tacitely, yes.



> What assurances do they have that, without that protection, they won't slide into a similar situation?  There is long-standing resentment that cold manifest in poor treatment going forward.



No garanty can be seriously given aside from our word. Who knows what will happen in 100 years? They'll have to ride it out and see or leave for Canada. They do have a voice in a referendum, like the rest of us. That is more than we had in our history.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Well, it is up to them to determine what they want for their future. As opposed to their latest history, they have choices. They are more then welcome to join us in our adventure.




"Join us, or be screwed as an enclave?"  Yeah, great choice.  



> Support discrimination toward francophones? Tacitely, yes.




Allow me to restate - at the moment, you couldn't legally discriminate against Anglophones in Quebec, correct?  Is the sovereignty movement dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination against anglophones?



> No garanty can be seriously given aside from our word.




In an absolute sense, the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes, yes.  But, as I note above - you can make the constitution for the new country part of the referendum - "If we leave, we leave under the following rules...." So, everyone knows that they are getting into before they choose.  Is that being done?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> You would be wrong there. Even in traffic court in Ontario, which is not legally bilingual, you would be granted a translator if your first language was French. Also if it was Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Italian..... This is the case in most Provinces, though there might be a procedural delay while a translator was located. In New Brunswick one would be virtually standing by.



It is up to the whim of the provincial government. Take BC, a day in court in french might be complicated. No garantied interpreter when you need it (unless you call in advance) and not for all court cases. http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/faq/info/interpreter.htm On paper it might seem adaquate, but reality often meets budget cuts as french is not a priority even if it is one of Canada's official language on paper. 

BC, PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia do not have automatic translation for court documents. If you want them in french or translated from french to english, you have to pay for them yourself as court proceeding have to happen in English. It was up held by the supreme court in 2013.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> Few are.  That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.




It's not really like big multi-cultural or multi-national states do much better, particularly when there are population size differences. Ask the Chechens how they like living under Russian-dominated governments. At least with national boundaries coinciding with cultural lines you can find some synergy between public policy and cultural practice like language- and literature-preserving education. Of course, in those environments, it's doubly hard being the dissenter or being the minority.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> At least with national boundaries coinciding with cultural lines ...




The point is that these generally don't exist.  They are an idea on paper, but not a common reality.  Human cultural groups have moved around enough that there's nowhere we can find nation-sized, culturally pure areas that don't have notable minorities within them.  Getting a real one-culture nation requires relocation of populations.  Note that the current Middle East is a result of trying that!

Thus, I question the idea of trying.  Working to live with each other may be better than trying to draw lines between us.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> "Join us, or be screwed as an enclave?"  Yeah, great choice.



It remains to be seen if would indeed be an enclave and if the situation would effectively as bad a you present it. It would be a threeway negociation. If Québec is ok with Canadian Aboriginales on its territory, Aboriginales and Canada might have counter propositions to make. Part of the mystery around it is that Canada won't say what it is willing to do, as that would mean it could accept Québec's independence. 



> Allow me to restate - at the moment, you couldn't legally discriminate against Anglophones in Quebec, correct?



Sure we can, like francophones are discriminated right now in the rest of Canada on various issues. But it doesn't mean we do it. At least not intentionally. But there are issues that pop up from time time and those are usually settled in court. It is part nature of having a minority and a constitution.



> Is the sovereignty movement dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination against anglophones?



It is dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination.



> In an absolute sense, the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes, yes.  But, as I note above - you can make the constitution for the new country part of the referendum - "If we leave, we leave under the following rules...." So, everyone knows that they are getting into before they choose.  Is that being done?



It wasn't like that. In 1980 there was supposed to have one referendum to first get the mandate to negociate sovereignty-association with Canada, and then bring back the results of the negociation with Canada to the people. Then a second referendum was supposed to be held to get their vote on it. At the time Canada did not have a constitution or a charter of rights and freedoms, so that wasn't an issue. 

In 1995 it was about the same thing, but the referendum also gave the government the legitimacy to declare unilaterally Québec's independence if negociations weren't going well with Canada. Canada is very protective of Québec's anglophone minority, so their rights would be secure when negociating secession with Canada. 

How a third referendum would look like, if a referendum is used to achieve independence, hasn't been discussed. It won't happen soon since no independentist party is in power and elections are far away.

Canada is very protective of Québec's anglophone minority, so their rights would be secure when negociating secession with Canada. In terms of realpolitiks, the anglophone minority's rights is a bargaining chip for Québec.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Sure we can, like francophones are discriminated right now in the rest of Canada on various issues. But it doesn't mean we do it. At least not intentionally. But there are issues that pop up from time time and those are usually settled in court. It is part nature of having a minority and a constitution.




Maybe I wasn't clear.  I asked if you could *legally* discriminate.  If there's a law against it, such that the court can settle the issue, the answer is, "no".  

This doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen (many forms are illegal here, but clearly happen regardless).  Just that the basic concept of equality is present.



> It is dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination.




Well, that's a goodness.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> There is a public service announcement about Cabot.
> [video=youtube;Jciev8iRFow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jciev8iRFow[/video]
> 
> Like how it is hidden that the Brits actually came with candy and rainbows?
> 
> It isn't about breaking a country. It is about creating a country so that a nation who is oppressed can finally be free to decide its faith. Canada will still exist afterwards.
> 
> Not much is said about Cartier date and location. For Cabot they gave a place which we actually do not know he went there (Newfoundland) and a date (1497). Ottawa's bias is obvious.




Yeah, they flat out state that Cartier discovered Canada and that the English were just there for the fish.  Yup total bias.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> Which nation is?
> 
> The solution is that if Aboriginals want to be Canadians they can. Québec will not stand between them and their desire to stay affiliated with the federation.
> 
> We had some success with negociating accords with Aboriginals. The Peace of the Brave is one such successful accord. The Cree leader who signed the treaty even recommended that Crees vote for the Parti Québécois, Québec's independentist party, after it was done. Not too shabby for would be oppressors.
> 
> There fact of the matter is, there isn't one solution for the issues that plague Aboriginal nations. Each have their problems and they need to be delt separately Success and failure will be met a long the way. The important things to keep in mind is communication and respect.
> 
> Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada. All laws are translated to English systematically and they get translaters if needed at trials. Not something foudn systematically in Canada for francophones. Anglophones in Québec have institutions and budgets not found in say Manitoba or British-Colombia. Anglophone schools are well funded and they have their own school boards. They also have anglophone hospitals funded by every Québécois. Schools and hospitals are disappearing for francophones in the rest of Canada. You can live your entire life and not speak a word of French in Québec. They are fine. Worried, I'm sure, but fine. No concentration camps for them.




LOL.  Who pays for your hospitals?  Who pays for your schools?  It sure as heck isn't you.  Quebec, in its entire history, has never been a have province.  Quebec, for its entire history, has had to take handouts from the Federal government in order to keep your province running.

You realise that in Ontario, you can go your entire life and not speak English too right?  It's not like you're all that unique in that.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> "Join us, or be screwed as an enclave?"  Yeah, great choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to restate - at the moment, you couldn't legally discriminate against Anglophones in Quebec, correct?  Is the sovereignty movement dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination against anglophones?
> 
> 
> 
> In an absolute sense, the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes, yes.  But, as I note above - you can make the constitution for the new country part of the referendum - "If we leave, we leave under the following rules...." So, everyone knows that they are getting into before they choose.  Is that being done?




It depends on what you mean by discriminate.  Are French signage laws a form of discrimination (French signs must be given prominence and English signs are to be kept to a minimum)?  

The funny thing is, Quebec has had several referendums over the past century.  And every single time, Montreal votes to stay in Canada and the rest of the province be damned.  Goldomark keeps pointing at Ottawa, but, it's not Ottawa that keeps Quebec in Canada.  It's Montreal.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> It depends on what you mean by discriminate.  Are French signage laws a form of discrimination (French signs must be given prominence and English signs are to be kept to a minimum)?




Well, in USA, we don't go out of our way to put up signs in Spanish, even in areas where there's a sizable minority that speaks it in preference to English.  

The major difference is that, at this point, the folks here who don't speak English are generally immigrants, while Anglophones can have lived all their lives in Quebec.  In Quebec's case, I'd think all official signage and documentation ought to be in both languages, whoever runs the place.


----------



## Hussar

Not quite what I meant. In Quebec it is illegal to have an English only sign. It is also illegal for an English sign to be bigger than the French one. This applies to all signs, including private business signage. 

In Ontario, there are no sign laws but all federal roads must have signage in both languages.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Not quite what I meant. In Quebec it is illegal to have an English only sign.




The issue of discrimination comes up when a minority doesn't have what it needs to get by in a reasonable manner.  Mandating the language of the majority be present isn't so much discrimination as good sense.

A quick search tells me that in Quebec, something like 80% of the people have French as a dominant language.  Surely, the local government isn't going to be using English-only signage, and not having your signs in French would be self-limiting to most businesses in the province anyway.  Practical reality should make that law kind of superfluous.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, I know of pretty sizable neighborhoods down here in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex of Texas where I can drive around and see signs- business, not municipal- in predominantly foreign languages...


...like Korean.


----------



## Hussar

Downtown Toronto looks like that too. 

And Umbran, while I agree that municipal signs are fair enough, this applies to private business as well. Which is discriminatory. If I as a business owner want to put up signs in any language that should be my choice no?  Telling people they may not use their language is discriminatory. Those 20% should have the option.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> The issue of discrimination comes up when a minority doesn't have what it needs to get by in a reasonable manner.  Mandating the language of the majority be present isn't so much discrimination as good sense.
> 
> A quick search tells me that in Quebec, something like 80% of the people have French as a dominant language.  Surely, the local government isn't going to be using English-only signage, and not having your signs in French would be self-limiting to most businesses in the province anyway.  Practical reality should make that law kind of superfluous.




_58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising must be in French.

They may also be both in French and in another language provided that French is markedly predominant.

However, the Government may determine, by regulation, the places, cases, conditions or circumstances where public signs and posters and commercial advertising must be in French only, where French need not be predominant or where such signs, posters and advertising may be in another language only.

1977, c. 5, s. 58; 1983, c. 56, s. 12; 1988, c. 54, s. 1; 1993, c. 40, s. 18.

59. Section 58 does not apply to advertising carried in news media that publish in a language other than French, or to messages of a religious, political, ideological or humanitarian nature if not for a profit motive.

1977, c. 5, s. 59; 1988, c. 54, s. 2; 1993, c. 40, s. 19._

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.go...h/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_11/C11_A.html


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> And Umbran, while I agree that municipal signs are fair enough, this applies to private business as well. Which is discriminatory. If I as a business owner want to put up signs in any language that should be my choice no?  Telling people they may not use their language is discriminatory. Those 20% should have the option.




If I get what you said right, they don't tell people they cannot use their language.  They tell people that they must use at least French.  They may *also* use their own language.  A requirement to include a thing is not the same as a prohibition.

As a business open to the public, you agree to any number of restrictions on what you can and cannot do - your rights of expression are limited in that public sphere. In many historic towns in Massachusetts, for example, a business owner does not have rights to make their business facade look any way they wish.  They are often limited to retaining a particular historic feel, or having their building be under three stories tall, and so on.

This is not to say that I agree with some of the attitudes I am seeing involved in this issue, but the point of signage does not strike me as an issue in and of itself.  If you want ot do business, you need to have French signage.  Big fat hairy deal.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, I know of pretty sizable neighborhoods down here in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex of Texas where I can drive around and see signs- business, not municipal- in predominantly foreign languages...
> 
> 
> ...like Korean.




And in both Boston and San Francisco, there are districts where business signs are largely in Chinese.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear.  I asked if you could *legally* discriminate.  If there's a law against it, such that the court can settle the issue, the answer is, "no".
> 
> This doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen (many forms are illegal here, but clearly happen regardless).  Just that the basic concept of equality is present.



Well, Québec charter of rights and freedom pretty much prohibits discrimination, so yeah. You'd have to give more precise examples if you want a better answer.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> Yeah, they flat out state that Cartier discovered Canada and that the English were just there for the fish.  Yup total bias.




Hum, no. They show that Cabot discovered Canada (Newfoundland) in 1497. 

Cartier met some Aboriginals. When and where is a more mysterious.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> LOL.  Who pays for your hospitals?  Who pays for your schools?  It sure as heck isn't you.



You'd be surprised to found out we pay taxes and fees. Do you even know which percentage equalization payments play in Québec budget? About 9%. Yeah, thanks for the change, master. 



> Quebec, in its entire history, has never been a have province.  Quebec, for its entire history, has had to take handouts from the Federal government in order to keep your province running.



Double chekc your history. Québec wasdebt free when it was forced to join United Canada in 1841. It was done in part so that it could finance debt ridden Ontario. Same with the British North America Act of 1867. Again Québec's riches were needed to help Canada's precarious railway. Now the tables have turned after Québec's riches have been used to develop another nation, we are called freeloaders by those who benefited from us. It is a double standard. We might not be told to "speak white" when we walk in the streets anymore, but the racism toward us is still alive.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> And in both Boston and San Francisco, there are districts where business signs are largely in Chinese.




And it is entirely their right to do so.  Would you agree with state laws mandating that all businesses in those areas MUST also use English?


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> You'd be surprised to found out we pay taxes and fees. Do you even know which percentage equalization payments play in Québec budget? About 9%. Yeah, thanks for the change, master.
> 
> Double chekc your history. Québec wasdebt free when it was forced to join United Canada in 1841. It was done in part so that it could finance debt ridden Ontario. Same with the British North America Act of 1867. Again Québec's riches were needed to help Canada's precarious railway. Now the tables have turned after Québec's riches have been used to develop another nation, we are called freeloaders by those who benefited from us. It is a double standard. We might not be told to "speak white" when we walk in the streets anymore, but the racism toward us is still alive.




Hrm, quick check of Wikipedia shows Quebec receiving the largest equalisation payment at just shy of 8 Billion dollars.  Note, this is twice what Ontario gets and about ten times what anyone else gets.  Yeah, if you have to dredge back almost a hundred and fifty years to find the last time you were in the black, I'm thinking you can't pin that entirely on the rest of the country.  

The racism you have to deal with is because every ten years for the past hundred years, you keep trying to separate from the country and failing.  No one is forcing you to stay.  The last referendum was in the late 90's and you STILL voted to stay.  The economic woes you feel are because every so often the Separatistes stir the pot and no one in their right mind will invest in your province because it's too unstable.

Good grief, you pretty much absented yourself from federal politics for the last twenty years because of the Bloc Quebecois - a federal party that only runs in your province, does nothing to protect French rights in the other provinces, and can never, ever get a majority because of that.  Which has nicely handed federal politics over to the Conservatives for the past while and the Liberal before that because there's no way any other party can get enough votes after Quebec has pretty much abstained.  

What absolutely baffles me, to be honest, is why you think you'd be better off on your own.  A sovereign quebec will be speaking English in a generation.  You'll be absorbed by the Americans before you can blink.  The primary reason you have these protections is because of the federal government protecting you.  A separate Quebec would become a resort park for the US in a couple of decades.   You said it yourself.  Ten per cent of your budget comes from the federal government.  Imagine how bad things would get in Quebec if not only do you lose that 10 per cent but you also now have to print your own money, run your own military, build your own roads.   Good luck with that.

See, I love Quebec.  I've spent lots and lots of time there.  Montreal, Quebec City, Rivier Du Loup, Gaspe.  Fantastic place to visit.  Unbelievably friendly people.  Love it to pieces.  Just wish the Separatists would roll their ideology up into a tight little ball and stick it up their collective bums because we've wasted billions of dollars on this already and it's not going to happen.  It just isn't.  And flushing more billions of dollars down the toilet is the last thing Quebec needs.  If the Bloc spent half as much energy on actually helping Quebec as it does trying to make a sovereign Quebec, you'd be far, far better off.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> Hrm, quick check of Wikipedia shows Quebec receiving the largest equalisation payment at just shy of 8 Billion dollars.



Maybe it is old, I got 9 billions for this year. Québec's budget this year is 100 billions. So equalization payments represent 9% of our budget. Canada isn't financing Québec.



> Note, this is twice what Ontario gets and about ten times what anyone else gets.



You need to check per capita or individuals. Québec has more people than Manitoba, so we get more money total, but per individual Nova Scotia, PEI, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Yukon, Nunavut and the NWT get more money than us. Why not call them freeloaders? Why not Aboriginales?

As for Ontario, sure, we get more money than it because Ontario is in better shape economically. Historically, that difference takes root in colonialism and the Catholic Church. 



> Yeah, if you have to dredge back almost a hundred and fifty years to find the last time you were in the black,



Yeah, no. Québec was debtless until the 1960s and the Quiet Revolution. Then we shock off some of the shackles of colonialism and the Church and entered modernity. It cost us money. For example we needed to built schools and train teachers. In 1960 only 3% of us had university degrees and the Church was running (badly) education for the whole province. This had to change, and lots of money had to be invested fast. 

The modern form of equalization payments in Canada can be traced to 1957 when they were made to help the cash strapped Atlantic provinces. Still no Québec. 

Saying Québec benefited from equalization payments from the get go is just false. We can say in started in the 1960s/70s. Again, I repeat myself, when our riches were used to develop Canada, it was ok, but when we need it, we are called freeloaders. It is a double standard and this is the kind of slight that makes us want to leave or at least not feel Canadian.



> The racism you have to deal with is because every ten years for the past hundred years, you keep trying to separate from the country and failing.



Yeah, no. Racism comes from considering the other person has inferior. That started from the conquest. And even if it was our desire to free ourselves from our oppressors that was responsable for it, well, that still doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. You're just making excuses for racists and helping racism continue.



> The economic woes you feel are because every so often the Separatistes stir the pot and no one in their right mind will invest in your province because it's too unstable.



Canadians need to admit colonialism hurt Québec and still does. Taking responsbility for those actions might actually help the federation by actually quelling independentist sentiments. The almost messianic role Canadians like to give themselves is an affront to history. Just ask Aboriginales.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Yeah, thanks for the change, master.




Let us not go the way of snark, please.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> And it is entirely their right to do so.  Would you agree with state laws mandating that all businesses in those areas MUST also use English?




I don't think I'd care.  Laws *prohibiting* signage in some language(s), I would find more problematic - mandating inclusion isn't a big deal, mandating exclusion is questionable.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Maybe it is old, I got 9 billions for this year. Québec's budget this year is 100 billions. So equalization payments represent 9% of our budget. Canada isn't financing Québec.




10% of a budget is not chicken-feed.  Many businesses run at or under 10% profit margin, for example.  Lose 10% of your budget, and the thing can collapse.  

Of course, a government is not a business.  So, consider what happens if you lose that 10% - it means either having to cut 10% of everything, or cut a lot more of some things, and not others.  When you start talking about essential services, this can be highly problematic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> And in both Boston and San Francisco, there are districts where business signs are largely in Chinese.




Sure.  I'd expect that in those cities because of their large & well established Asian populations.

Big Asian populations in D/FW are relatively new- really only in the last couple of decades.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> 10% of a budget is not chicken-feed.  Many businesses run at or under 10% profit margin, for example.  Lose 10% of your budget, and the thing can collapse.
> 
> Of course, a government is not a business.  So, consider what happens if you lose that 10% - it means either having to cut 10% of everything, or cut a lot more of some things, and not others.  When you start talking about essential services, this can be highly problematic.




In fact losing 10% of a budget equates to a fairly radical rationalization of government spending, large increases in taxation, increased indebtedness, or a combination of the three. I suspect that one of the first things to go would be Quebec's universal child daycare programme for which the users pay a maximum daily rate of $20.00 for families with a combined income greater than CAN$155,000.00 ($7.30 per day for families with a total income less than CAN$50,000.00).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If Bullgrit ever returns to this thread, he will be confused as hell...


----------



## Hussar

Goldomark said:
			
		

> Yeah, no. Racism comes from considering the other person has inferior. That started from the conquest. And even if it was our desire to free ourselves from our oppressors that was responsable for it, well, that still doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. You're just making excuses for racists and helping racism continue.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page26#ixzz3ieDIbwfX




I really don't think you get the play the racism card.

In the past forty years, we've had about thirty years of Prime Ministers from Quebec - Mulroney, Trudeau and Chretien.  If you want any federal job, you must speak French.  I've never seen any data reporting difficulties of French Canadians attending university or any other education for that matter.  Again, I've never seen any reports of French Canadians being targeted by police for special attention (well, other than during the FLQ crisis I suppose).  Nor is being French Canadian any sort of an impediment to getting a job.

So, what racism?  In what way are French Canadians being treated inferior to English Canadians?  I'd say that the special treatment of Quebec is largely responsible for the negative reactions of the rest of Canada.  You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right?  That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars.  Quebec isn't special here.  

In what way is Quebec being oppressed?  Your culture is strongly protected, far more than Aboriginal rights are and they DO have far more legitimate claims to oppression and racism.  What oppression?


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If Bullgrit ever returns to this thread, he will be confused as hell...




He won't be returning.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, sorry, that took a left turn.  Although the idea of racism and ethnic conflict is still there.  

Rolling this back around.  What is needed isn't reparations necessarily but reconciliation.  How do the groups figure out how to come together and work past what happened in the past?  And make sure that it isn't continuing in the present.

It's August, so, here in Japan, we're obviously talking a lot about the war and the bombs.  But, it's a very different conversation.  Not a pleasant one to be sure, but not really... hostile.  For example, Truman's grandson is in Japan.  One thing he gets asked about frequently is if he should apologise for what his grandfather did.  His answer was pretty clear; what would be the point of apology? Would it resolve anything?  Would it help?  Better to spread information about the events, so that both sides can try to learn from the experience and move on.  And, from the reaction from the Japanese people, that seems to be the right answer.  It's not about blaming, it's about reconciling the viewpoints.

I wonder if that is a perspective that would make North-South relations in the States a lot more productive.  Instead of blaming, or pointing fingers, accept that what happened did happen, and the try to move beyond those events.

Although, I suppose, the key difference here would be that racism in America is a very real and very current issue.  Japan and the US going to war does have the benefit of a bit of historical distance to gain perspective.  Then again, as this discussion with [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] has highlighted, sometimes events in the past have a way of staying fresh in people's minds.  Time does not heal all wounds without reconciliation.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Yeah, no. Racism comes from considering the other person has inferior.




Well, no.  Racism *is* considering the other person inferior due to his or her race.  It *comes from* human tribal patterns, and the fact that we can be grade-A jerks.



> That started from the conquest. And even if it was our desire to free ourselves from our oppressors that was responsable for it, well, that still doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. You're just making excuses for racists and helping racism continue.




When I think of "oppression", I think of my grandfather fleeing his homeland because the Soviets were coming to throw him, personally, into a gulag.

When I think of racism, I think of measurable income inequality.  I think of differences in rates of police action.  I think of being given second-rate service, or denied service entirely, due to what the person is.  I think of candidates on the stump insulting your entire people as criminals.  I think of lack of representation in government and major business.  I think of people assaulting you for what you are.  I think of public figures who are supposed to be role models insulting your people.  But, I'm in America, and those are the things we deal with.  My idea of racism may not match yours.

What's happening in Quebec that makes you feel oppressed, or the subject of racism?


----------



## Hussar

Just to add a point about the hostility between have and have not provinces.  [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], there's another reason you don't see quite as open hostility towards, say, Eastern Canada or Manitoba as you do with Quebec.  Those places aren't actively trying to break up the country every twenty years and then spending the next twenty years stirring the pot so we can spend another couple of years and hundreds of millions of dollars on yet another failed attempt to leave the country.  Nor have those parts of Canada seen terrorists laying pipe bombs and murdering politicians.  So, there is a bit of history there that does change how Quebec gets viewed.  There is some residual hostility from that.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right?  That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars.




Which, as an aside, is pretty silly.  Everyone puts money into a big pile, and then it gets doled out for various purposes.  Even if every purpose is legitimate, what on Earth are the chances that everyone will be given back *exactly* what they put in?  Nearly zero.  Some folks will get more than they put in, some will get less.  If you buy the concept of Federal funding for anything at all, this is the inevitable expectation you should have.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

...but it DOES get annoying when those receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes complain that the national government is taking too much of their money,


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> Which, as an aside, is pretty silly.  Everyone puts money into a big pile, and then it gets doled out for various purposes.  Even if every purpose is legitimate, what on Earth are the chances that everyone will be given back *exactly* what they put in?  Nearly zero.  Some folks will get more than they put in, some will get less.  If you buy the concept of Federal funding for anything at all, this is the inevitable expectation you should have.




I'd point out that the US certainly doesn't do it.  This isn't federal funding.  This is equalisation payments.  The federal money is given directly to the provinces and the province chooses where the money is spent.  I'm not talking about the federal government building an army base somewhere, that's fair enough as that's a federal project.  But, federal money goes to building provincially funded schools and programs purely at the discretion of the province.

Considering there are only three have provinces in Canada and seven have nots, and this has been true for at least the last forty years, it does build some resentment.  My federal taxes go up to pay Nova Scotia fishermen to not fish because of moratoriums on certain kinds of fishing, for example.  I understand the justification for it, and honestly, I agree with it.  Being part of a society, particularly one with a strongly socialist bent like Canada, means that this is going to happen.  It's 100% justfiable.  But, that doesn't stop people from bitching about it.


----------



## tomBitonti

Folks may be better off _over all_ because of the cooperative arrangement, even withstanding unequal payouts.  Measuring value gains only by looking at the payouts compared to an ideal distribution seems to be too small of an analysis.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Certainly.

Just from looking at the effects of government programs that are supporting healthcare, food distribution, training, etc., you find they improve the overall wellbeing of the workforce.  That improves efficiency & productivity, reduces days directly lost to sickness or the healthcare of others, minimizes disease vectors, increases healthy lifespans, reduces training costs, and so forth.

That's good for_ everyone._


----------



## Hussar

Oh, hey, as a pretty strong federalist I completely agree with the above.  I think it's part and parcel to being in a society that the society as a whole looks out for all its members.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: this comment by me:
> 
> 
> Here's a nice article from The Atlantic pulling together a lot of those sources:
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/




As a quick flashback to the original topic, thank you to Colonel Ty Seidule, head of the history department at the US Military Academy at West Point for making a video that breaks it down nicely and explicitly:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/12/9132561/civil-war-slavery-video


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> I'd point out that the US certainly doesn't do it.  This isn't federal funding.  This is equalisation payments.




To-MAY-to.  To-MAH-to.  Different mechanism intended to achieve the same general goal.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> 10% of a budget is not chicken-feed.  Many businesses run at or under 10% profit margin, for example.  Lose 10% of your budget, and the thing can collapse.
> 
> Of course, a government is not a business.  So, consider what happens if you lose that 10% - it means either having to cut 10% of everything, or cut a lot more of some things, and not others.  When you start talking about essential services, this can be highly problematic.




Its our money. It just has a federal stamp on it. The federal government collected about 290 billion dollars in taxes and fees this year. Québec is about one fifth of the Canadian economy, so using gorilla math we can infer that about 58 billion dollars were collected in Québec. I'd rather have that than 9 billion dollars. 

It has been an issue since Canada was founded. The money was in Ottawa, but the responsabilities in the provinces. The British North America Act of 1867 made sure education and health were provincial responsabilities, while Ottawa got the power to tax almost exclusively. So we've always been begging for our money to finance our programs.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Let us not go the way of snark, please.




I'm sorry, eh. 

Damn it! I've been assimilated!


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> It has been an issue since Canada was founded. The money was in Ottawa, but the responsabilities in the provinces. The British North America Act of 1867 made sure education and health were provincial responsabilities, while Ottawa got the power to tax almost exclusively. So we've always been begging for our money to finance our programs.




In the basics, it doesn't seem substantially different from here.  While our states collect taxes, they still have to go looking to the Federal government for resources as well - education, infrastructure, and social safety nets being major examples.  And some get more funding from the government than they put in.  

That's okay.  My welfare is still tied to theirs - if their kids are poorly educated, my life will be impacted, for example.  So, yes, some of my money goes to educate kids a thousand miles away.  This does not disturb me in principle.  It is only specific cases (where funding is used ineffectively, or on stupid stuff, f'rex) I might object to.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> I really don't think you get the play the racism card.



I'm pretty sure you can when you are the victim of it.



> In the past forty years, we've had about thirty years of Prime Ministers from Quebec - Mulroney, Trudeau and Chretien.



It isn't because Obama was elected president of the US that the US doesn't have racism problems anymore. The situation improved when we took some power back. I won't deny that. But it isn't have if we are fully in control. This is why independence is important, as it is a means to get all the power that was taken from us back. 



> If you want any federal job, you must speak French. /quote]Officially, but not in practice. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-cuts-hurting-bilingualism-languages-watchdog-says-1.1201720
> 
> Harper nominated non-bilingual judges to the supreme court. The supreme court! He nominated an unilingual Auditor-General. And that language ain't french. He nominated an unilingual minister of *drumroll* culture. I guess there is just one culture in Canada.
> 
> Canada has two languages on paper, that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any data reporting difficulties of French Canadians attending university or any other education for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, but before the Quiet Revolution is was very different. The Catholic Church didn't really value education and promoted a slave mentality. Ambition was evil and if you were born poor, you were ment to die poor. Born for a small loaf of bread was the expression. The government was under Church control, so it didn't manage education. It just gave money to the Church to manage it. Except for priests, our elite returned to France after the conquest of 1760, so we didn't have rich people who finance prive universities or education. It is more of a British tradition. Loyalists did finance universities. McGill come to mind, but those were english insitutitions. It wasn't in anglopohone interest to finance french schooling either. First we were a dumb inferior ethnicity.Second, we were easily exploitable cheap labor. This in why in 1960 only 3% had a university diplomas and most bureaucrates were anglophones.
> 
> Money was needed to change that. Lots of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've never seen any reports of French Canadians being targeted by police for special attention (well, other than during the FLQ crisis I suppose).  Nor is being French Canadian any sort of an impediment to getting a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violence as stop, but it isn't the only criteria for racism.
> 
> As for jobs, well, that has improved. Before the Quiet Revolution, not being bilingual ment you couldn't get some jobs. You couldn't talk in french at work and to customers. A The Bay clerk who was french couldn't talk to a french customer. Speak white, remember? This is why laws against that sort of discrimination needed to be implemented and still need to be there to prevent the return to systematic discrimination. Regulating signs comes from that time period. People need to know what is written on them, so they need to be in french.
> 
> That being said, only speaking french is still an impedement. There are still job environments where english is the only language used. You're not bilingual? Too bad, no job for you. The provincial Liberals have been blamed for shrugging at the situation.
> 
> It is also why we need institution that are in french. This way unilingual people can get good paying high qualification jobs, and unilingual people can get services in a language they understand. Take Québec's Financial Markets Authority. It is responsible for financial regulation in Québec and provides assistance to consumers of financial products and services. I think each province has one, but Harper wants to merge them into one, and most provinces are ok with it. We, as usual, oppose that for the reasons I've mentioned above. Plus it becomes a tool of passive assimilation. Learn english or be excluded from jobs and services.
> 
> Building institutions from the ground up cost money. This is why we wanted in the constitution a clause that let Québec refuse to join in national institution and programs with full financial compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what racism?  In what way are French Canadians being treated inferior to English Canadians?  I'd say that the special treatment of Quebec is largely responsible for the negative reactions of the rest of Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This response makes me think of some comments about black people in the US. A lot of people see black people as a class with special benefits and rights when it is the oppiste. Québécois do not face the same blight as black people in the US do, but we too face the perception that we get special benefits and rights when we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right?  That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars.  Quebec isn't special here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh we have a special place in haters' heart. Just tune in some talk radio show or read a Sun newspaper, and you'll hear Québec bashers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way is Quebec being oppressed?  Your culture is strongly protected, far more than Aboriginal rights are and they DO have far more legitimate claims to oppression and racism.  What oppression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't a competition. There isn't a level of oppression that needs to be met before someone can object to it. Any oppression is bad. Some have it worse than others. Aboriginals have it pretty bad, that is for sure. Right now e face racism and continued passive assimilation tactics.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ryujin

Regarding the comment about being able to speak both official languages (English and French) in order to get a Federal job, I can somewhat support that statement. Straight out of college (1986, so not exactly yesterday) I took part in a competition for placement in the Ministry of Transportation, in which 5,000 applicants were accepted from across the country. Of the 5,000 applicants, the judged positions of the top 1,000 were published. Having not used French in a decade or more, at the time, I didn't feel that I could claim any level of fluency. I did, however have the top marks in my class and had earned the only bursary available to us. I came in at #199. Someone from my class with significantly lower marks than myself, but who claimed fluency in both French and English, finished #16.

It is very unlikely for someone Toronto, Edmonton, or Vancouver to have French as a second language. It is far more likely for someone from Montreal, Quebec City, or somewhere in northern New Brunswick to speak both official languages.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Well, no.  Racism *is* considering the other person inferior due to his or her race.  It *comes from* human tribal patterns, and the fact that we can be grade-A jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> When I think of "oppression", I think of my grandfather fleeing his homeland because the Soviets were coming to throw him, personally, into a gulag.
> 
> When I think of racism, I think of measurable income inequality.  I think of differences in rates of police action.  I think of being given second-rate service, or denied service entirely, due to what the person is.  I think of candidates on the stump insulting your entire people as criminals.  I think of lack of representation in government and major business.  I think of people assaulting you for what you are.  I think of public figures who are supposed to be role models insulting your people.  But, I'm in America, and those are the things we deal with.  My idea of racism may not match yours.
> 
> What's happening in Quebec that makes you feel oppressed, or the subject of racism?




A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality, second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us. Institutional violence as stopped recently, but if we aren't watchful it could come back. It isn't like Canada wouldn't send soldiers here and arrest people just for their ideas. It did it before in 1970. There are violent clashes between french and english people, often at night when they are drunk and exist bars. 

But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany. things have improve, but it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...but it DOES get annoying when those receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes complain that the national government is taking too much of their money,




Like Mississipi?


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality, second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us. Institutional violence as stopped recently, but if we aren't watchful it could come back. It isn't like Canada wouldn't send soldiers here and arrest people just for their ideas. It did it before in 1970. There are violent clashes between french and english people, often at night when they are drunk and exist bars.
> 
> But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany. things have improve, but it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.




It happened in 1970 because political figures were being kidnapped and killed, and bombs were going off in public post boxes. Terrorism isn't an "idea."

For those outside of Canada or who aren't old enough to remember our little IRA-style incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Like Mississipi?



And my home state of Louisiana. Etc.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> It happened in 1970 because political figures were being kidnapped and killed, and bombs were going off in public post boxes. Terrorism isn't an "idea."



It isn't an excuse to do away with the rule of law and jail innocent people because they want Québec's independence (an idea).

More than 400 people were jailed for no other reasons than their thoughts.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> It isn't an excuse to do away with the rule of law and jail innocent people because they want Québec's independence (an idea).
> 
> More than 400 people were jailed for no other reasons than their thoughts.




Instituting Martial Law because there are some murderous idiots killing people and randomly blowing up innocents? Yup, that pretty much defines when I would say that there is a valid excuse to put the rule of law into some form of abeyance.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Instituting Martial Law because there are some murderous idiots killing people and randomly blowing up innocents?



The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law. 

Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive. 



> Yup, that pretty much defines when I would say that there is a valid excuse to put the rule of law into some form of abeyance.



Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us. 

I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law.
> 
> Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive.
> 
> Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us.
> 
> I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.




You made lots of assumptions 

It's hard to argue with results.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law.
> 
> Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive.
> 
> Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us.
> 
> I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.




Wow, just wow.

So ten years of bombings, murdering and injuring hundreds of innocent people, is justified because of Trudeau?  Are you freaking kidding me?

Again, what institutional violence?  Even before the FLQ crisis, what violence?  You, yourself, talk about the Catholic Church and the issues of education?  Guess what?  That's entirely your own issue.  That's got nothing to do with English Canada.  You wanted Catholic schools and you got Catholic schools.  

But, again, you're talking about issues forty or more years old.  Why drag this up?  

Put it this way.  You're fluently bilingual (I assume, your English is certainly very good).  Do you think you would have any difficulties applying to any university in Canada?  Would you be turned away because you are from Quebec?  Do you honestly think there is, today, any impediment to getting an education, a job or pretty much anything you want, simply because you come from Quebec?

Good grief, the top ranked university, Laval, is IN Quebec.  If there was this institutional discrimination, why would the best schools in the country be in Quebec?  

Quebec has its own police force, unlike most provinces.  Is the QPP targeting French Canadians and no one is hearing about it?  And, if there was this institutional discrimination, why are French Canadians OUTSIDE of Quebec doing perfectly well?  Why is there no disparity in wealth or quality of life for French Canadians outside of Quebec?  Could it possibly be that the economic issues of Quebec are mostly Quebec's own damn fault?  Try actually participating in the Federal process instead of sidelining yourselves for the past twenty or more years and see what happens.  Stop trying to secede from the country and see what happens.  Actually try being bloody Canadian for a couple of years and watch what happens.

It's a shame that Quebec is as poor as it is.  There's no reason for it.  There's absolutely no reason why Quebec is not a have province other than the fact that Quebec itself keeps shooting itself in the foot.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality




My search shows that Quebec is on the lower-end of income inequality in Canada- meaning that the difference between high and low earners in Quebec is *less* than many other places in Canada.

I haven't been able to find statistics of how Francophones actually earn less than Anglophones, though.  Do you have citations? 



> second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us.




As has been noted, your Prime Ministers come from Quebec more often than not, recently?  Is inequality in other offices or branches documented?

You do get to a problem, though - some Francophones in Quebec have been trying to distance themselves from other Canadians for decades.  When you actively try to sell yourselves as different and separate, can you really be surprised if they treat you as if you were different and separate?  Minorities in America have been fighting for greater inclusion - it seems that Francophones have been fighting for exclusion.  So, there may be some of what I said before in this - be careful what you wish for.  



> It did it before in 1970.




The FLQ were trying to bomb people and places since 1963, kidnapped government people in 1970, killing one of them when their demands were not met.  You want to claim the following police action was unprovoked?  Not that everything done by police in 1970 was justified, but what does one expect when people are dying?  There comes a point when the opponent will not sit idle.

If you poke a bear enough, it is hard to understand being put out that it bites.



> ... it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.




On a metric by metric basis, these things could be compared, but there is no overall objective measure of racism, so I don't know about levels of it.  I can only speak to whether I think a particular reaction is justified, given the situation as I understand it.  My understanding in this matter is, of course, limited.  There does come a point, however, where both sides are guilty of a great deal.  At that point, trying to place blame, and say that you act because of Them, becomes a weak position*, and is no longer a constructive approach.  

Ultimately the Golden Rule applies, and you reap what you sow.



*You acted because they did.  But they did because you did.  But then you did because of that thing they did 20 years ago.  And that was for the thing you did 40 years ago... and it is turtles all the way down.  There is a time when you must understand history, but stop blaming it or continuing it, if you want to keep the moral high ground.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> There does come a point, however, where both sides are guilty of a great deal.  At that point, trying to place blame, and say that you act because of Them, becomes a weak position*, and is no longer a constructive approach.
> 
> Ultimately the Golden Rule applies, and you reap what you sow.
> 
> 
> 
> *You acted because they did.  But they did because you did.  But then you did because of that thing they did 20 years ago.  And that was for the thing you did 40 years ago... and it is turtles all the way down.  There is a time when you must understand history, but stop blaming it or continuing it, if you want to keep the moral high ground.




"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
> Mahatma Gandhi




Yep.

And, the simple matter that a person should not be held accountable for things done before their lifetime.  They maybe responsible for dealing with the current situation, but they are not accountable for past deeds.


----------



## Hussar

As I said before, reconciliation not reparation.

 [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]'s points would carry a lot more water if you didn't have New Brunswick, right next to Quebec, which is a fully integrated, bilingual province with French and English given equal protections and rights.  No one complains about New Brunswick being French.  

And as far as repression or racism goes, Quebec has pretty much everything it ever asked for.  It's own police force, it's own legal system (distinct from the rest of Canada), every one of their laws is protected by the Constitution (mostly because a very short time after the Constitution was written in the early 1980's, Quebec invoked the Notwithstanding Clause and made every Quebec law exempt from the Canadian Constitution), there is no barrier to French Canadians getting jobs or education anywhere in Canada, and all of this is paid for in part by the rest of Canada.

And, if you want to talk about people making fun of Quebec, umm, what province is exempt from that?  Never heard a Newfie joke?  Or Western Canada redneck jokes?  Good grief, taking the piss out of other provinces is a national pastime.  Is it racism?  I doubt it.  No more than taking the piss out of someone for their sports teams.  

Again, I really have to ask, what oppression?  What rights or freedoms do you not enjoy as a French Canadian that I, as an English Canadian, do?  Is there any restriction on your travel?  Are there any restrictions on who you marry?  Where you choose to worship?  Are French Canadians subject to violence?  Can you own land?  Is there any restriction to opening a business or getting a loan based on the fact that you're French Canadian?

In what way is a French Canadian treated as a second class citizen?


----------



## nightwind1

goldomark said:


> What do state rights have to do with slavery and a symbol of slavery?



They thought the "states" should have the "rights" to own slaves, of course.


----------



## MechaPilot

So, a little story.


Yesterday was payday.  After work, I went to the bank (I opted out of direct deposit at my place of employment because I wouldn't receive my earnings until the Monday morning after payday, a whole three days later).  While pulling into the bank parking lot, I noticed a pickup truck parked in the lot.  It was heavily rusted around the wheel wells, and there was a flagpole mounted to the flatbed of the truck.  Yup, there was a confederate flag flying from the flagpole.  It wasn't even a small flag.  It was larger than the bed of the truck, as if it were some kind of redneck blanket for picnics, or for covering up the bed when you're in the mood for some semi-private cousin-bangin'.

Whoever owns that truck is a total douche.  I mean, confederate flag aside, who flies an easily 8 foot flag from their vehicle in traffic?  It's long enough to smack the windshield of a car stopped behind it at a traffic light, and it obviously obstructs the view of other drivers on the road.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz




----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> So ten years of bombings, murdering and injuring hundreds of innocent people, is justified because of Trudeau?  Are you freaking kidding me?



What I said went right over your head, didn't it. 



> Again, what institutional violence?  Even before the FLQ crisis, what violence?



You mean like, for example, how in 1918 the army was sent in Québec to violentely crush people who opposed conscription? People died during those events. 



> You, yourself, talk about the Catholic Church and the issues of education?  Guess what?  That's entirely your own issue.  That's got nothing to do with English Canada.  You wanted Catholic schools and you got Catholic schools.



I guess you also miss the part where I said that the 1960 ment a change in our fiscal policy because we needed to reach modernity fast.



> But, again, you're talking about issues forty or more years old.  Why drag this up?



Read the thread. Context is there. It was partial explaination for historic reason as to why we needed money to enter modernity.



> Put it this way.  You're fluently bilingual (I assume, your English is certainly very good).  Do you think you would have any difficulties applying to any university in Canada?  Would you be turned away because you are from Quebec?  Do you honestly think there is, today, any impediment to getting an education, a job or pretty much anything you want, simply because you come from Quebec?



Roughly 17% of Québécois are bilingual, so it means the majority of us will not be able to get jobs if english is a necessity. And it shouldn't be when you are in Québec.



> Good grief, the top ranked university, Laval, is IN Quebec.  If there was this institutional discrimination, why would the best schools in the country be in Quebec?



I suggest you read once more what I wrote, as right now you are once more adressing strawman. 



> Quebec has its own police force, unlike most provinces.  Is the QPP targeting French Canadians and no one is hearing about it?



I guess you didn't read what I said to Umbran when I said that institutional violence as stopped right now. It seems to be a theme in your response. Not reading and/or missing the point. 



> And, if there was this institutional discrimination, why are French Canadians OUTSIDE of Quebec doing perfectly well?



They aren't. There numbers are shrinking, they are poorer and service in their tongue (judicial, medical and educational) is diminishing, not that it was ever very strong.  



> It's a shame that Quebec is as poor as it is.  There's no reason for it.  There's absolutely no reason why Quebec is not a have province other than the fact that Quebec itself keeps shooting itself in the foot.



So, to be clear, you deny the negative impact of centuries of colonialism on our economy or did you miss that too?


----------



## tomBitonti

goldomark said:


> But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany. things have improve, but it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.




To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.

There are certainly degrees of discrimination, say, ethnic cleansing as happened in Germany, or more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia, to the Apartheid in South Africa, to the lesser forms which we have in the US.

... which evolved out of slavery, which is (say) somewhere between Apartheid and Nazi Germany.

I find it sobering, and saddening, that the US merits an entry on the scale of comparisons.

I'm curious, too, how other folks place the US on that scale, in particular, folks from other countries, who, I think, will have a very different perspective than many people in the US.

(This is from the perspective of a person who is mostly white -- I have a mixed Eastern European and Italian ancestry, so my skin has a typical Mediteranean olive cast -- and who has a very limited direct experience with discrimination.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> My search shows that Quebec is on the lower-end of income inequality in Canada- meaning that the difference between high and low earners in Quebec is *less* than many other places in Canada.



We have more social programs in Québec, so there is less inequality. We've come a long way. 



> I haven't been able to find statistics of how Francophones actually earn less than Anglophones, though.  Do you have citations?



Salaries are lower in Québec than in Canada, if you can translate. The GDP is about a fifth of Canada's while we are a fourth of the population (so less GDP per capita). 



> As has been noted, your Prime Ministers come from Quebec more often than not, recently?  Is inequality in other offices or branches documented?



It doesn't that when a PM is from a province that he'll favor that province. Trudeau, who comes from Québec, is a good example of a Pm that didn't do us any favor. He campaign against Québec's independence during the 1980 referendum. What help tip the scale in his favor was that he promised reform so that Québécois would have a better lot in Canada. That reform took the shape of a consitution. He negociated with the other Prime Ministers of the 10 provinces including Québec's PM. Ultimately, Québec's PM was set aside and a secret meeting was held in a kitchen to reach a deal. In Canada that is known as the Kitchen Meeting. In Québec it is a betrayal called the Night of Long Knives. Two nations, two histories. To this day, federalist and independentist PMs of Québec have not signed the 1982 constitution as it is seen as disfavorable, to say the least, to Québec. 

Obama is a black president elected in the US. Does it mean racism toward black people has ended in the US? 

Honestly, this comment about Québécois PMs in Ottawa, is really a comment that says there are too many Québécois politicans in Ottawa. There was even a political ad, that I cannot find, that said that in the 90s I believe.

As for inequality in other branches, this comes from the Commissioners of Official languages: 







> From 2004 to 2006, the OCOL published three studies on the use of the official languages in the workplace. The first showed that English remains dominant in the organizational culture of departments located in the National Capital Region, primarily because senior management does not do enough to set an example regarding the equality of the two official languages.




The letter of the law and its application are two things. 







> The OCOL recognized that language of work is a weak link in the implementation of the OLA. In other words, the reality on the ground fails to reflect the letter and spirit of the OLA (Official Language Act).



http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0256-e.htm



> You do get to a problem, though - some Francophones in Quebec have been trying to distance themselves from other Canadians for decades.  When you actively try to sell yourselves as different and separate, can you really be surprised if they treat you as if you were different and separate?  Minorities in America have been fighting for greater inclusion - it seems that Francophones have been fighting for exclusion.  So, there may be some of what I said before in this - be careful what you wish for.



Heh, that is if you ignore that we've been treated as different and inferior for quite sometime and still are. Just look how we are called freeloaders when we aren't the one benefiting the most from qualization payments. It isn't like it only comes from us. Now we just want to rule ourselves instead of having stuff imposed. Most minorities do not have the possibility to form a different country, we do. I think that this is in part why we want independence rather than inclusiveness. Besides, it has been tried and failed many times. Inclusiveness for Canadians means being on top. 



> The FLQ were trying to bomb people and places since 1963, kidnapped government people in 1970, killing one of them when their demands were not met.



Laporte died by accident. He tried to flee and he was chocked when they tried to hold him back. 







> You want to claim the following police action was unprovoked?



Heh. I'm saying the rule of law should always apply, because when it doesn't you see innocent people getting jailed and violence used for political end. Innocent people jailed and political intimidation is exactly what happened during the October Crisis and there are no justifications for that.    



> If you poke a bear enough, it is hard to understand being put out that it bites.



We aren't talking about bears. 



> On a metric by metric basis, these things could be compared, but there is no overall objective measure of racism, so I don't know about levels of it.  I can only speak to whether I think a particular reaction is justified, given the situation as I understand it.  My understanding in this matter is, of course, limited.  There does come a point, however, where both sides are guilty of a great deal.  At that point, trying to place blame, and say that you act because of Them, becomes a weak position*, and is no longer a constructive approach.
> 
> Ultimately the Golden Rule applies, and you reap what you sow.



Like bombings and independentist movements, yes.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION]'s points would carry a lot more water if you didn't have New Brunswick, right next to Quebec, which is a fully integrated, bilingual province with French and English given equal protections and rights.  No one complains about New Brunswick being French.



Acadians are poorer than anglophones and there was an anti-french party in NB for a while in the 80s and 90s. Anti-french sentiment is doing well.


----------



## Kramodlog

tomBitonti said:


> To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.



Sigh. Didn't do that. I only offered to examples of discrimination and said Québcois didn't match either.


----------



## Hussar

Goldomark said:
			
		

> Roughly 17% of Québécois are bilingual, so it means the majority of us will not be able to get jobs if english is a necessity. And it shouldn't be when you are in Québec.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page30#ixzz3j1Y4Fmhd




Are a majority of jobs in Quebec requiring English?



> Laporte died by accident. He tried to flee and he was chocked when they tried to hold him back
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page30#ixzz3j1YxNgzA




LOL.  Ok, now I know you're just trolling.  They kidnap Laporte, hold him agains his will, murder him when he tries to escape and you call that an "accident"?  Wow.


----------



## billd91

tomBitonti said:


> To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.
> 
> There are certainly degrees of discrimination, say, ethnic cleansing as happened in Germany, or more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia, to the Apartheid in South Africa, to the lesser forms which we have in the US.
> 
> ... which evolved out of slavery, which is (say) somewhere between Apartheid and Nazi Germany.
> 
> I find it sobering, and saddening, that the US merits an entry on the scale of comparisons.




Don't read too much into a comparison with Nazi Germany. As he pointed out, he's listing different levels of discrimination to compare the Quebecois experience to, not to compare to each other.


----------



## Hussar

Look, [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], what I've never understood about the separatist movement is this:  What do you expect to gain from a separate Quebec?  How do you figure that a separate Quebec will be better off than one within confederation?  How will a cash strapped newly-independent Quebec stop the Americans from turning you into a giant theme park?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

tomBitonti said:


> To say, that the condition here in the US warrants placement alongside Nazi Germany (even as an example of a lesser case) is ... notable.
> 
> There are certainly degrees of discrimination, say, ethnic cleansing as happened in Germany, or more recently in what used to be Yugoslavia, to the Apartheid in South Africa, to the lesser forms which we have in the US.
> 
> ... which evolved out of slavery, which is (say) somewhere between Apartheid and Nazi Germany.
> 
> I find it sobering, and saddening, that the US merits an entry on the scale of comparisons.
> 
> I'm curious, too, how other folks place the US on that scale, in particular, folks from other countries, who, I think, will have a very different perspective than many people in the US.
> 
> (This is from the perspective of a person who is mostly white -- I have a mixed Eastern European and Italian ancestry, so my skin has a typical Mediteranean olive cast -- and who has a very limited direct experience with discrimination.)
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




If you dig deep enough in any people's history, you're likely to find hacked up bodies & other atrocities.  Trying to rank whose country- or faith- did the worstest to the mostest is pretty much a futile effort.

Just looking at the USA, we have slavery, a war to preserve/spread slavery, post-slavery oppression of a variety of forms, genocide of Native Americans, virtual slavery of Asians in the pre-1900s, Japanese Americans in concentration camps, political and military support of brutal dictatorships just because they're anti-communist, medical & military experimentation on non-consenting people (mostly of color or having mental incapacity), etc.  

So, what...hundreds of millions dead because of the darker side of the USA?

Others may lag behind us in numbers, but probably only because of time (fewer people when they were at their darkest) and technology (we can kill many, more quickly than ever).  The evil impulses were still there.

I mean, what would the Huns, Mongols, Vikings, Crusaders, Ottomans, Mughals, Aztecs, Apache Romans, Persians or Hellenistic Greeks done with machine guns, mustard gas or nukes in their arsenals?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> How will a cash strapped newly-independent Quebec stop the Americans from turning you into a giant theme park?




We have Louisiana for that.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> So, to be clear, you deny the negative impact of centuries of colonialism on our economy or did you miss that too?




If there still is a major effect left over from that, it isn't something that will go away with separation. They aren't going to deal better with you if you draw a national border, and sovereignty will not remove your economic interdependence with them.  You'll be in pretty much the same situation, but with *less* input on what they do, rather than more.  If you need them more than they need you, it doesn't improve your situation.  



goldomark said:


> Salaries are lower in Québec than in Canada, if you can translate. The GDP is about a fifth of Canada's while we are a fourth of the population (so less GDP per capita).




Within Quebec, how many of the executive positions are held by Quebecois?  If, in general, business in Quebec is run by Quebecois, it gets hard to blame the lower salary on direct discrimination.  You have to say that the relatively depressed economy is due to discrimination overall.  But then we have a complication - as previously noted, how much of that is due to discrimination, and how much of it is because separatist activities have made the province less attractive to do business, by making long-term stability a question?   It may have less to do with race, and more to do with risk assessment with an area that wants to change the rules.



> We aren't talking about bears.




It's a descriptive metaphor, and the idea holds.  "I get to kill people, and *you* have to behave ethically," is pretty much a non-starter.  This has been shown to be true overall - doesn't matter if you are dealing with - no government deals politely if you start killing their officials.  Duh!



> Like bombings and independentist movements, yes.




You seem pretty entrenched in the pattern of always pointing out how they were bad, without really owning your own side of it.  That merely perpetuates issues, without solving them.  Have fun with that.


----------



## tomBitonti

goldomark said:


> Sigh. Didn't do that. I only offered to examples of discrimination and said Québcois didn't match either.






> But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany.




They are put side by side.  Sure, big different between the two.  It was the act of putting them together that struck me.

And what was sobering is that the placement has even a little resonance.

There has been a lot of institutional discrimination here in the US, well into the 20'th century, and continuing now.  When I was growing up, I had the impression that the civil rights movement of the mid-century resolved a lot of the problems, but events of the last decade show that the problems are a lot worse than I thought when I was younger.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Hussar

Thing is, which I keep asking, as far as Quebec goes, what institutional discrimination?  

When you have your own system of law, your language and culture protected by law, your own schools and social programs, your own police force, language specific military organizations, and a huge leg up in gaining government employment, I'm really having a tough time seeing the discrimination.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know, it's kinda funny.  I work in Japan, teaching English and have done so for a long time.  I work at the local Nissan factory here in Kyushu, from time to time.  Now, Nissan is owned, at least a large part of it is, by Renault, a French company.  The CEO of Nissan is French.  

Yet, all my students study English.  Why would that be?  You'd think in a French company, where the local workers have never studied French, they'd be pushing French language studies.  Could it be because English is the Lingua Franca of business and the rest of the world is spending billions of dollars on English language education?  When a French, German and Japanese businessman sit down together, you can pretty much guarantee that they are speaking English.

 [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] made a point that speaking English at work is discriminatory.  No, it isn't.  Everyone has an equal opportunity to learn English and do business.  It would be discriminatory if other languages were accepted, but not French.  But, that's not the issue.  Everyone, no matter what their first language is, is going to do business in English. 

If I applied to Laval University to do my Master's degree, I would be required to take a French proficiency test.  Is that discriminatory?  No, not at all.  It's a French language school.  I'd take the exact same test as any other non-French speaker and have exactly the same chances of being accepted.  The same is true for English education in Canada.  If you don't speak English, you are required to take an English proficiency test (typically the TOIEC or possibly the IELTS) before being accepted.  Again, there is no discrimination since the opportunity is equal for any non-English speaker.  It isn't harder for a mono-lingual French speaker to go to an English Canadian university than any other non-English speaker.  Again, no discrimination.

No discrimination does not mean that all things must be in your language and in your culture.  If you want to go to a school that's in another language, you have to learn that language, end of story.  It would be discriminatory if French speakers were barred from English schools based on the fact that they are French.  But, that's not what's going on.  They are being barred because they don't speak the language and cannot do the work, same as anyone else.

When you are the same as everyone else, there isn't any discrimination going on.  A basic, fundamental requirement of going to a school is the ability to conduct classes in that language.  If you can't do that, then you can't go.  I suppose if you want to get hyper pedantic about it, that's discrimination of a sorts, but, not one that is recognized as bad in any way.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, barring French Canadians from learning English so that they could conduct business on an international stage or attend an English school.

I find it rather shocking that anyone would advocate NOT learning English in today's business world.  How in the heck could you possibly succeed without it?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> When you are the same as everyone else, there isn't any discrimination going on.  A basic, fundamental requirement of going to a school is the ability to conduct classes in that language.  If you can't do that, then you can't go.  I suppose if you want to get hyper pedantic about it, that's discrimination of a sorts, but, not one that is recognized as bad in any way.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, barring French Canadians from learning English so that they could conduct business on an international stage or attend an English school.




And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an *extremely* privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. *They* must change to interact with *your* side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an *extremely* privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. *They* must change to interact with *your* side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.




You misunderstand.  It's not a case of doing business with the English world.  That's not it at all.  I gave a perfectly normal example - a Chinese, German and French business person are at a conference in Japan.  What language are they going to use?

Whose dominating here?  There's not one English speaker in the bunch, but, guess what?  English is the language of problem solving.  It's the Lingua Franca of the business world.  Not because the Americans or the British are forcing it, but because the rest of the world is adopting it.  What else would you expect?  That every international business must be multilingual polyglots capable of speaking to anyone, anywhere?

That's ridiculous.  

This isn't a case of cultural imperialism.  The English speaking world isn't driving this.  There's a reason that China is now the number one English speaking country in the world.  More people speak English (of some degree of proficiency) in China than any other nation in the world.  This is what globalism has caused.  It's unreasonable to expect all the countries that do business with China to learn Chinese - the writing is far, far too difficult, never minding that trying to write in Chinese on a computer is bloody difficult as well.  But China does business with, well, everyone.  So, the Chinese have adopted English as the business language. 

Cultural imperialism means that the imperial culture forces linguistic changes all the way through the culture.  No one is doing that.  People aren't advocating English speaking at home or even in their home culture.  However, the pragmatism of global business means that if you want to do business with fifteen different countries, you need a Lingua Franca, and, that's become English.

There's a fantastic TED talk about this:

[video]youtube=https://youtu.be/ZpILR21GWao[/video]


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Yet, all my students study English.  Why would that be?




Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet.  Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.


----------



## Janx

billd91 said:


> And thus the forces that extinguish distinct languages and cultures are emboldened. Hussar, this is an *extremely* privileged perspective on the differences in language. It's easy to think the impact of dominant modes of economic participation is non-discriminatory when you're natively part of the dominant mode. But when you're not, it's probably a lot easier to see how exclusionary it really is. *They* must change to interact with *your* side. They must use a language that is secondary to them, not primary. Their native forms of communication are not suitable for international commerce, for participation. They must adopt yours. It may be in their economic self-interest to do so, but let's not pretend that it's non-discriminatory or entirely benign.




I'm sure the wagon wheel maker guy felt the same way when folks stopped using wagons and started driving cars.  Why should he change his livelihood?  What must HE learn a new trade?

I'm sure a lot of bad things were done that made English become the top dog of languages for business.  But like taking land from native americans, that ship has sailed.

I've done business with India, China, and Taiwan and they all spoke English with me when I got on the phone.  Nobody requested translators, that was what they spoke when the phone rang.  We didn't make them do it, but somehow, they decided long before I was relevant that English was what they'd learn to talk to other businesses.

Yeah, that was convenient for me.  If they didn't speak english, we were prepared to hire folks on our side who spoke their language.  So let's not bandy the Discrimination card, shall we?  Ain't nobody getting hurt except folks who don't get that you have to go along to get along sometimes.  If you ain't hurting or stealing, that ain't wrong.

If you live in Quebec, and you want to do business with another country, maybe you should learn English. Not because you're giving up your culture.  Or giving in to another power.  But because it is always simpler to adapt yourself than it is to expect the other party to accommodate you.

That's what the Asians and the Indians did.  They anticipated doing business with America, and they recruited folks who spoke English so they could make taking on business with the US much easier.  There are plenty of bi-lingual Americans who became that just for business as well.  I didn't need to because by the time I got to the table, the other guys spoke my language.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet.  Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.




Exactly.  I wouldn't ascribe evil intent like Discrimination to it.  It's just economics.  At some point, some foreign suppliers figured out they'd get more business if they spoke English.  And it spread.

Convenient for me.  I could just as easily see Mandarin taking over.  Heck, that's why Firefly features some Chinese in the mix.  Why do you think the FB guy learned it?


----------



## tomBitonti

> I've done business with India, China, and Taiwan and they all spoke English with me when I got on the phone. Nobody requested translators, that was what they spoke when the phone rang. We didn't make them do it, but somehow, they decided long before I was relevant that English was what they'd learn to talk to other businesses.




Actually, there was a time when peoples were forced to use English.

Several states, or regions thereof, are effectively bilingual, and that causes huge issues, when it would seem to be a natural outcome.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> Exactly.  I wouldn't ascribe evil intent like Discrimination to it.




Stop there for a second.

By no means is all discrimination "evil intent".  A great deal of it is not by intent at all - it is by thoughtlessness.  Like a great many harmful things humans do, it is done because we are not bothering to think much about what we are doing, including finding rationalizations that make what we are doing acceptable, because that's easier than being thoughtful.  

This is why the word "privilege" came up - the people in the dominant position are at great risk of not realizing what they do to those who are not in their situation.



> It's just economics.




It being "just economics" does not make it good*.  This does not mean we don't need a _lingua franca_ (we do), it means we ought to be cognizant of what that does to those who must adopt the language to get by, rather than be dismissive, and just toss off that others gotta suck up and deal, and we don't give a fig.  

If you need a good economic reason for this, it is simple - being respectful means that we will tend to keep our economically dominant position for longer.  The French (English, Spanish, and Russians) were not respectful, and their empires crumbled as those they were not respectful to threw them off.  The lingua franca is not Franca because of this!  



*Either ethically, or for our long-term socio-political position in the world.  "Just economics" is by its nature a short-term thing - most economic considerations cannot be taken more than about 5 years ahead, if that.  It is "just economics" that has had us dumping carbon dioxide into the air, and we see how that's turning out...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Because, post-WWII, the USA has until recently dominated the economic and political landscape of the planet.  Because we consume resources and goods like mad, and you want to speak in the language of the people who are buying your stuff.




...plus there was that whole British Empire thing, precedant.  When the sun does not set on territories you rule, your language will become dominant.

It just so happens that the economic force that supplanted them was a breakaway colony populated by those primarily speaking the same language.


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> Are a majority of jobs in Quebec requiring English?



Today? No. Cause we voted laws that prohibited that. The laws are still needed to prevent a return to the previous situation. There are still sectors of the economy that are reluctent to this and need to be pushed. The financial sector is one of them. 

We also need to push back so called "national institutions" like the Financial Market Authority Harper wants for Canada, as english would become a requirement and non-bilingual Québécois wouldn't get the service they pay for.



> LOL.  Ok, now I know you're just trolling.  They kidnap Laporte, hold him agains his will, murder him when he tries to escape and you call that an "accident"?  Wow.



You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.


----------



## Ryujin

In the late '80s I worked for a small computer manufacturer, that imported components from Hong Kong. My position was quality control and technical writer. The majority of my co-workers and the company's principals were from Hong Kong, with a few having come from Taiwan. Even back then I had absolutely no need to call in my co-workers for translation, when dealing with suppliers in the Far East. Everyone I spoke to or exchanged mail/faxes (this was before the internet had really taken off) had an adequate command of English.

.... until there was a product failure. Then they suddenly couldn't speak or read English.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.




You do realize that the Chenier Cell, themselves, announced that Laporte was "executed" by strangulation, right?


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> Look, [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], what I've never understood about the separatist movement is this:  What do you expect to gain from a separate Quebec?



Governing ourselves. Nothing imposed. Freedom, in other words. 



> How do you figure that a separate Quebec will be better off than one within confederation?



Yes. If only because we are completely responsable for our destiny. You won't be blamed for anything anymore. 

Maybe. 



> How will a cash strapped newly-independent Quebec stop the Americans from turning you into a giant theme park?



How has Canada? Thing is, Canada would resemble the US even more without Québec. You need us more than we need you. 

As for cash, we send about 58 billions dollars a year to Ottawa in taxes and fees. We'd get it back and that would compensate for equalization. We'd also save money because we wouldn't need to pay for two ministry of health or two tax collection agencies, to name two examples. The fiscal exercise has been done, and the burget would balance. As for our debt, we'd use the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, which as 150 billions in cash, to buy a lot of our share of the federal debt. Basically, we'd owe the money to ourselves and control the interest rates. It is a bit what Japan is doing. It has a national debt that is worth 180% of it is GDP, yet isn't in a Greek-like situation because the debt is owned by Japanese.


----------



## Janx

Ryujin said:


> In the late '80s I worked for a small computer manufacturer, that imported components from Hong Kong. My position was quality control and technical writer. The majority of my co-workers and the company's principals were from Hong Kong, with a few having come from Taiwan. Even back then I had absolutely no need to call in my co-workers for translation, when dealing with suppliers in the Far East. Everyone I spoke to or exchanged mail/faxes (this was before the internet had really taken off) had an adequate command of English.
> 
> .... until there was a product failure. Then they suddenly couldn't speak or read English.




Granted, Hong Kong and India were occupied lands by the British, so that's a factor in why they spoke English so handily.

That would be that bad stuff that happened before those of us here mattered in the world.

But it is darn handy now for them.  India was the first company we outsourced to when that was starting to be a big thing, precisely because they were already set, language wise.  China and Korea came in later.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> You do realize that the Chenier Cell, themselves, announced that Laporte was "executed" by strangulation, right?



Yup, but they lied. The government lied too. If you can translate the text below the vid. http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2010/09/23/006-flq-mort-laporte.shtml

Police tapped FLQ members talking to their lawyers. So much for attorney-client privilege.


----------



## Janx

goldomark said:


> Governing ourselves. Nothing imposed. Freedom, in other words.
> 
> Yes. If only because we are completely responsable for our destiny. You won't be blamed for anything anymore.




Freedom huh?  Pretty sure your new government will grow to create the same amount of laws as your current one does.  And you'll have the same ratio of stupid laws as every other government has.

And you'll find somebody to blame for whatever problem you have under your new found freedom.  Like blaming the indigenous english speakers for undermining Quebec's greatness.  Or blaming Canada for interfering in whatever didn't go right for you.


I couldn't tell you if Quebec is better in Canada or out of it.  I can tell you it won't be all fluffy bunnies and butterflies and your brave new nation is just as likely to do a bad job as a good one.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Yup, but they lied. The government lied too. If you can translate the text below the vid. http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2010/09/23/006-flq-mort-laporte.shtml
> 
> Police tapped FLQ members talking to their lawyers. So much for attorney-client privilege.




When it comes to terrorists, acting like terrorists, I don't really care if it was legitimately accidental, "accidental" in that the person who did it was so angry that he was momentarily out of control, or if it was actually cold-blooded murder. They used his death as leverage, as terrorists are wont to do. The whole thing was premeditated from the word go, so Laporte's death becomes an action as part of the conspiracy. 

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. To me they were murdering bastards.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.



I don't know Canadian law, but in the USA, a death occurring in conjunction with commission of a felony- even if it is accidental; even if it is a co-conspirator who dies- is felony murder.

So, with assault, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment being felonies...


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't know Canadian law, but in the USA, a death occurring in conjunction with commission of a felony- even if it is accidental; even if it is a co-conspirator who dies- is felony murder.
> 
> So, with assault, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment being felonies...




In Canada we do not have a "felony murder" statute, though over the years I've become more a fan of the concept. There are some crimes that have increased penalties if a death is involved, like dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death or impaired operation of a vehicle causing death, but that's clearly not the same thing.


----------



## Kramodlog

Janx said:


> Freedom huh?  Pretty sure your new government will grow to create the same amount of laws as your current one does.  And you'll have the same ratio of stupid laws as every other government has.



But it will be our stupid laws. 



> I couldn't tell you if Quebec is better in Canada or out of it.  I can tell you it won't be all fluffy bunnies and butterflies.



I never said it would.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> When it comes to terrorists, acting like terrorists, I don't really care if it was legitimately accidental, "accidental" in that the person who did it was so angry that he was momentarily out of control, or if it was actually cold-blooded murder.



Some of us care about facts more than  labels.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Some of us care about facts more than  labels.




Fact: They kidnapped him.

Fact: They killed him.

Fact: They used his death as proof that they would also kill Cross.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Fact: They kidnapped him.
> 
> Fact: They killed him.
> 
> Fact: They used his death as proof that they would also kill Cross.




Fact: They were lying. 

Fact: The government supported those lies.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Fact: They were lying.
> 
> Fact: The government supported those lies.




Question (rhetorical): Would he have died if they hadn't kidnapped him?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Question (rhetorical): Would he have died if they hadn't kidnapped him?




Yes. Well all have to die.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Yes. Well all have to die.




That's a facile answer to a question for which the true answer was patently obvious to all. I guess that means you wouldn't care if your life was cut short by 20 or 30 years. Gotcha.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> That's a facile answer to a question for which the true answer was patently obvious to all. I guess that means you wouldn't care if your life was cut short by 20 or 30 years. Gotcha.




I'd be dead. How could I care?

Alive I do care if a government is willing to manipulate facts to scare people into submission. It is similar nowadays with Islamic terrorism. We've got two mentally ill individuals who imitated what they saw on TV/the internet. They killed some soliders and we've got Harper wanting to restrain liberties, privacy and scare us into re-election. In both cases I do not buy the governmental propaganda.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> I'd be dead. How could I care?
> 
> Alive I do care if a government is willing to manipulate facts to scare people into submission. It is similar nowadays with Islamic terrorism. We've got two mentally ill individuals who imitated what they saw on TV/the internet. They killed some soliders and we've got Harper wanting to restrain liberties, privacy and scare us into re-election. In both cases I do not buy the governmental propaganda.




In other words you are fully willing to hand-wave the illegal terrorist activities of people, including murder, simply because they agree with your political leanings. Also gotcha.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> In other words you are fully willing to hand-wave the illegal terrorist activities of people, including murder, simply because they agree with your political leanings. Also gotcha.




I agree with Islamist terrorist!?


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> I agree with Islamist terrorist!?




As you appear to have chosen to be wilfully obtuse, and as your position is clear, I'm going to bow out of this discussion also


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.




Once you have kidnapped him, in the eyes of most of your audience, you get no leniency in his resulting death.  The kidnapping put him at risk, so it is the kidnapper's fault, period.  Attempts to whitewash the event will tend to turn the audience more against you.  If you want to appear reasonable to this crowd, you probably need to accept and own the wrongdoings, rather than try to diminish them.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> As you appear to have chosen to be wilfully obtuse, and as your position is clear, I'm going to bow out of this discussion also




I'm not obtuse, I'm coherent. Both times Canada has been confronted with terrorism it has blow it out of proportion to control its people. The flu kills more than terrorism. Canadians using firearms kill more Canadians than terrorists do, and yet the federal government deregulates firearm control instead of increasing. Terrorism is a bogeyman.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Yes. Well all have to die.




If this is what the discussion is devolving to, perhaps it is time for the thread to die.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> I'm not obtuse, I'm coherent. Both times Canada has been confronted with terrorism it has blow it out of proportion to control its people.




And so will the Quebec government, should it gain sovereignty and be faced with terrorism.  

Governments blow it out of proportion because the populace blows it out of proportion.  The populace does so because it doesn't have the information to have a sense of proportion at the time.  And, this is *intended* by the terrorists. 

The whole point of terrorism is to get action or reaction by using fear as a weapon.  So, they got what they asked for - a fear reaction out of the government.  We can even posit that the over-reaction was also the terrorists' intended result - trying to cheese off enough Quebecois on the fence to take umbrage at the government for the action, and join the separatist cause.  Thus, blame your terrorists for the police action as much as the government.  

I will repeat that, "I get to do whatever I want, but *you* must remain within ethical bounds," is a hypocritical, non-starter argument.


----------



## Thunderfoot

> But on the other hand, it's a criminal offense to not only belong to Nazi organizations in Germany, but to so much as show the Nazi flag or the Nazi salute (outside of certain contexts, such as historical footage used for teaching purposes, if I recall correctly)...all of which makes me wonder if they've quite gotten the lesson regarding why fascism is a bad thing.





Boy, you can say that again - When I was in the military while stationed in Germany I witnessed a young, drunken German hop up on a table at local fest, stick his arm straight up and yell Heil Hitler, Heil Hitl...  (and that's when the 7 Polizei started beating the holy living F*** out of him with their spring loaded nightsticks - 1 swing 8 hits, (yeah, police brutality - 'tis to laugh America) for about 5 minutes before they cuffed him and drug his bleeding broken body to a squad car.   And everybody else waited until they were done, and then went back to singing and drinking - while every American stood there with their mouths on the ground.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Okay all, sorry I'm late to the party, but here's my take.  

As to the State flown flags - yeah, bad idea for all the reasons stated...  however, there are lots of parts of history that get glossed over and forgotten.  Northern rage over Southern slavery is misplaced, why because in many Northern states it was legal to own slaves under certain circumstances.  A great example is Illinois, home of Lincoln, Grant, John A Logan, Sherman and .....   the reverse underground railroad and coal mine slavery...   Due to the laws governing coal mining in the 1800s, slaves were allowed to be owned for the sole purpose of clearing, gleaning and processing coal so that "greater peoples" could be freed for more important endeavors.  As such there was a house in Southern Illinois (not too far from where I currently live) that not only processed slaves for the coal mines, kept them for personal use and bred them (no offense meant here for the possessive term) for sale and further "stock increase".  Even more important, escaped slaves from the south that were caught by "emancipators" then used a series of secret tunnels and roadways to ship them back to the south (often free blacks were caught and conscripted into slavery just for the hell of it as well (you know, for bounty money)) for "re-education" and "re-introduction" back into "their natural place in the order of the universe."

My home often escapes scrutiny because of the aforementioned great northern generals and leaders; who while may not have been wholeheartedly against slavery as an institution but were against the morality of it; and for it's largely urban black activist population in its northern most metropolis (that would be Chicago).  However here in the southern region there are just as many rebel flags as American flags, why, because they are racists slavers... no... because they hate the state institutions and wish to show their displeasure at those "stupid northern morons"...  (a feeling I cannot help but empathize with come tax season and voting time.)  The Confederate Flag is the sign of one rebelling against something, whether it's right or wrong, it is an immediately recognizable symbol as such.

Where do I stand on the issue, I don't care either way, however I am applauded that TVLand pulled "The Dukes of Hazard" for the flag on the General Lee and yet still airs "The Jeffersons", where Mr Jefferson can freely utter the phrase "honky" which is as racist as you can get (which also goes for cracker btw...)    I am fully against racism, regardless of it's form...


----------



## Janx

Thunderfoot said:


> Boy, you can say that again - When I was in the military while stationed in Germany I witnessed a young, drunken German hop up on a table at local fest, stick his arm straight up and yell Heil Hitler, Heil Hitl...  (and that's when the 7 Polizei started beating the holy living F*** out of him with their spring loaded nightsticks - 1 swing 8 hits, (yeah, police brutality - 'tis to laugh America) for about 5 minutes before they cuffed him and drug his bleeding broken body to a squad car.   And everybody else waited until they were done, and then went back to singing and drinking - while every American stood there with their mouths on the ground.




So, we can draw different conclusions from this.

a) oh my gosh, they violated that drunk's right to freedom of speech

b) they clearly demonstrated that support of the greatest evil that nation ever knew will be dealt with brutally as there is no such thing as free speech on the matter.

I side with B.

But I also don't think that the good guy killing the bad guy makes him just as bad as the bad guy.


On police brutality:
I finally saw the Fugitive a few days ago.  Happened to be on TV.  I watched as Tommy Lee Jones' US Marshalls invaded the wrong house in a raid on a black family, everybody screamed, and the man of the house got his hands around a Marshall and put a gun to his head.  Tommy Lee comes around the corner and shoots him and then calls it justified.

I guess things haven't changed since 1993 when that movie came out.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> I guess things haven't changed since 1993 when that movie came out.




Things have changed - a lot more of us now realize how that was problematic.  It just isn't enough.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> /snip
> 
> You know there are differences between murder, manslaughter and involontary manslaughter.




So, you kidnap someone, that person tries to escape and is killed, by you, in the process, and that's manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter?

In what way is this not murder?  If I get hit by a bus while running from my kidnappers, they are still charged with murder.  Once you kidnap someone, and that person dies, it's murder.  Full stop.


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> I'm not obtuse, I'm coherent. Both times Canada has been confronted with terrorism it has blow it out of proportion to control its people. The flu kills more than terrorism. Canadians using firearms kill more Canadians than terrorists do, and yet the federal government deregulates firearm control instead of increasing. Terrorism is a bogeyman.




One goal of many ethnic/religious terrorists is to provoke an response by the government, and thus push all the moderate people in that ethnic/religious group towards supporting the extremists. The whole point of terrorism in any case is to provoke a response, and it's entirely possible that if ignored, they will merely escalate, maybe go all Guy Fawkes.

Moreover, kidnapping a political official in a democracy is not about a person; it's about depriving the citizens of a country the right to choose their leadership, in favor those the terrorists approve of.

Wikipedia quotes Guy Gendron as saying "Il a été étouffé dans un moment de panique [He was strangled in a moment of panic]". Strangulation is not a quick death; it takes minutes to kill someone that way. A man was kidnapped and held, and when he tried to escape, someone crushed his throat for a minute until he was dead. If he had tried to run when they pointed a gun at him and told him to get in the car, would his death by gun not have been murder, because they wanted him alive and accidentally killed him by shooting him?

I'm an American; I have no horse in these Canadian issues. But people acting as if the death of a politician who was kidnapped by terrorists is no big deal, wasn't even really murder so much as an accident, and the government whose politician was kidnapped was overreacting by reacting basically at all really bothers me.


----------



## MechaPilot

Thunderfoot said:


> Where do I stand on the issue, I don't care either way, however I am applauded that TVLand pulled "The Dukes of Hazard" for the flag on the General Lee and yet still airs "The Jeffersons", where Mr Jefferson can freely utter the phrase "honky" which is as racist as you can get (which also goes for cracker btw...)    I am fully against racism, regardless of it's form...




As a white person, "honky" and "cracker" are funny terms to me.  They don't register as insults to me, at all.  They certainly don't register as being racial epithets with the weight of historical oppression behind them.


----------



## Thunderfoot

MechaPilot said:


> As a white person, "honky" and "cracker" are funny terms to me.  They don't register as insults to me, at all.  They certainly don't register as being racial epithets with the weight of historical oppression behind them.




And historically, the N-word was just another racial epithet at one time - but over time....   Any racial epithet is just that - racial.


----------



## MechaPilot

Thunderfoot said:


> And historically, the N-word was just another racial epithet at one time - but over time....   Any racial epithet is just that - racial.




Yeah, but someone using a racial insult against me doesn't bother me at all.  It's equivalent to any of a dozen cuss words that roll right off my back.  Of course, that's probably because American society hasn't systematically used those epithets to define me and demean the personhood of my race over the course of centuries.

Who uses a slur or says something offensive matters, especially if it becomes a part of everyday society for a long time.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Once you have kidnapped him, in the eyes of most of your audience, you get no leniency in his resulting death.  The kidnapping put him at risk, so it is the kidnapper's fault, period.  Attempts to whitewash the event will tend to turn the audience more against you.  If you want to appear reasonable to this crowd, you probably need to accept and own the wrongdoings, rather than try to diminish them.




I'm not trying to whitewash anything. We are just discussing events that happened a while back and for some weird reason I think discussing what actually happened matters. Silly me.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Governments blow it out of proportion because the populace blows it out of proportion.  The populace does so because it doesn't have the information to have a sense of proportion at the time.  And, this is *intended* by the terrorists.



The US faced terrorism before 9/11. Homegrown, like Oklahoma, and Islamist, like when the Twin Towers were bombed in the 90s. Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11. Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?


----------



## Kramodlog

Hussar said:


> So, you kidnap someone, that person tries to escape and is killed, by you, in the process, and that's manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter?
> 
> In what way is this not murder?  If I get hit by a bus while running from my kidnappers, they are still charged with murder.  Once you kidnap someone, and that person dies, it's murder.  Full stop.



Tell that to legislators who make these laws and judges andlawyers who use these distinctions in court. 

Why in Canada a mother that kills her new born is charged with infanticide and not murder? 







> Infanticide
> 
> 233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.




http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/233-infanticide


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> But people acting as if the death of a politician who was kidnapped by terrorists is no big deal,



Who is that person that said that? 



> wasn't even really murder so much as an accident,



It is what happened. Sorry for carring about facts. 



> and the government whose politician was kidnapped was overreacting by reacting basically at all really bothers me.



The government hid what really happened during the trials. One of the kidnappers, Paul Rose, wasn't there when Laporte died, yet the government still tried him as if he was there. The government recorded conversations between the accused and their lawyers, which is unlawful. All these things do not change the crimes committed, but it does indicate that the rule of law was ignored. That bothers me. That 450 innocent people were arrested for no other reasons than their political ideas bothers me. That people here trivialize this behavior of the government, while accusing me of trivializing terrorism, is worrisome and that bothers me.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> I'm not trying to whitewash anything. We are just discussing events that happened a while back and for some weird reason I think discussing what actually happened matters. Silly me.




Statements to the effect of, "They didn't *really* murder him.  They only kinda-sorta murdered him," is whitewashing.  Trying to make it look better with a cheap and easy veneer for apparent cleanliness.  

They kidnapped a guy.  They killed him by "accidentally" strangling him in a struggle when he tried to escape?  That's still killing him.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> The US faced terrorism before 9/11.




Yep.



> Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11.




This is not correct.  Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life.  It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response.  But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.

But, more about our consciousness:  There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me.  It was called "".  It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts.  In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Oh, hey.  You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube:  [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo

So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time.  If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.



> Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?




All three.  Human nature and response to fear combine poorly with how some segments of the media make money, and how politicians maintain themselves in power.  If the populace actually used their heads, it wouldn't be an issue.  If the media were not willing to use sensationalist techniques, the fear would die down.  If fewer politicians weren't willing to play off our fears for their own personal power and benefit, the governmental reaction would remain sane.

There's more than enough blame to go around.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not correct.  Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life.  It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response.  But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.
> 
> But, more about our consciousness:  There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me.  It was called "".  It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts.  In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
> 
> Oh, hey.  You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube:  [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo
> 
> So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time.  If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.
> 
> 
> 
> All three.  Human nature and response to fear combine poorly with how some segments of the media make money, and how politicians maintain themselves in power.  If the populace actually used their heads, it wouldn't be an issue.  If the media were not willing to use sensationalist techniques, the fear would die down.  If fewer politicians weren't willing to play off our fears for their own personal power and benefit, the governmental reaction would remain sane.
> 
> There's more than enough blame to go around.




Yup, I wrote a paper in college on the topic pre 9/11.  It was a thing, which was why I wrote it.

And technically, since 9/11, the majority of terror attacks in the USA have been right-wing extremists.

As to the third point about fear, that is what the State of Fear book that I'm reading by Crighton is getting to its point.  It's useful to keep folks worried about something.  The crime rate has gone down since the 90s, yet folks think there's more crime than ever.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> They kidnapped a guy.  They killed him by "accidentally" strangling him in a struggle when he tried to escape?  That's still killing him.



Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.

Jacques Rose, one of the kidnappers, had to go through four trials before he was found guilty of something. And it wasn't murder.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not correct.  Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life.  It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response.  But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.
> 
> But, more about our consciousness:  There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me.  It was called "".  It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts.  In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
> 
> Oh, hey.  You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube:  [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo
> 
> So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time.  If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.



By thing I mean the hysteria around terrorism. Trillions of dollars were not spend to crush right wing groups after Oklahoma or Islamists after the Twin Towers bombing in the 90s.

9/11 is different because it was televised. The plane crashing in the building and the towers crumbling were candy for the media. Who talks about a plane crashing in the Pentagone? And then there was an administration that wanted people scared so it could manipulate public opinion into backing the invasion of Iraq. So it fan the flames of fear.


----------



## Janx

goldomark said:


> Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.
> 
> Jacques Rose, one of the kidnappers, had to go through four trials before he was found guilty of something. And it wasn't murder.




I guess you're not seeing it, judging by your post.

When you say, what you just said, a reader such as myself is thinking that you are trying to excuse and reduce the severity of the fact that a guy was killed through the chain of hostile actions.

We ain't talking law.  A guy is dead.  It wasn't a simple accident.  They did illegal stuff to him, through which he died.


What happened afterwards to his kidnappers, in court, that's a separate matter.  Sounds like it wasn't all above board, per what you say. 

But can you at least clearly state that a politician was killed by terrorists.  Is it that hard to say without weasel words?


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> The US faced terrorism before 9/11. Homegrown, like Oklahoma, and Islamist, like when the Twin Towers were bombed in the 90s. Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11. Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?




So you argue that the Twin Towers bombing in the 1990s, the lack of response to ultimately leading to 9/11, is a justification for not responding to terrorism?



goldomark said:


> It is what happened. Sorry for carring about facts.




If a mugger shoots you and takes your wallet, is it an accident if you die? Laporte was trying to exercise his legal right to leave, and they assaulted him to stop him, killing him. Even as assaults by kidnappers go, strangulation is not an impulse act; it takes time to strangle someone.

In no jurisdiction I'm aware of would it be considered an accidental death. You want to say that in your jurisdiction, it wouldn't be considered murder, well, it certainly would in ours.



> That 450 innocent people were arrested for no other reasons than their political ideas bothers me. That people here trivialize this behavior of the government, while accusing me of trivializing terrorism, is worrisome and that bothers me.




450 people associated with kidnapping and murder. As I said, that's something terrorists want, to associate their cause with heinous acts so as to drive people in their cause towards them. I don't know the exact circumstances, but yeah, when a political group is going around killing people, locking up a few people for a few days may not be an unreasonable thing.

The Canadian government probably did wrong. The terrorists murdered a guy. I know I'm more likely to cut hairs on the side of the group that is responding to the killers, not the one killing.


----------



## Janx

prosfilaes said:


> In no jurisdiction I'm aware of would it be considered an accidental death. You want to say that in your jurisdiction, it wouldn't be considered murder, well, it certainly would in ours.




I would argue that if Quebec was founded on the basis of NOT recognizing this as murder, then Quebec lacks the ethical maturity to exist as a country.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.




Clearly, I do not speak for everyone in the conversation.  However, I will venture this response:  In this context, we don't care.  

The legal technicalities are not the issue.  We are, for the most part, considering the moral and ethical issues around the events.  We recognize laws as, at best, a muddied reflection of the moral code of people.  The laws are not the definition of the moral code.  Thus, what law applies does not answer moral questions.  Repeatedly trying to answer moral questions with legal distinctions looks to us like dodging the implications.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Minor quibble: All kinds of criminals get convicted of* offenses technically lesser than they ought to be  for a variety of reasons.  So, in the interest of accuracy, I would have started that second paragraph, "The legal technicalities *and jury verdicts* are not the issue." 








* or even exonerated


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Clearly, I do not speak for everyone in the conversation.  However, I will venture this response:  In this context, we don't care.



If people do not care about the the rule of laws, I have doubts about their ethics and morality when they are on the high horse of ethics and morality.


----------



## Kramodlog

Janx said:


> I guess you're not seeing it, judging by your post.
> 
> When you say, what you just said, a reader such as myself is thinking that you are trying to excuse and reduce the severity of the fact that a guy was killed through the chain of hostile actions.
> 
> We ain't talking law.  A guy is dead.  It wasn't a simple accident.  They did illegal stuff to him, through which he died.
> 
> 
> What happened afterwards to his kidnappers, in court, that's a separate matter.  Sounds like it wasn't all above board, per what you say.
> 
> But can you at least clearly state that a politician was killed by terrorists.  Is it that hard to say without weasel words?




When did I deny it? It is what actually transpired when Laporte died that is at the heart the problem. Saying that it was accidental seems to be problematic for some, even if it is what happened.


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> 9/11 is different because it was televised. The plane crashing in the building and the towers crumbling were candy for the media. Who talks about a plane crashing in the Pentagone?




A lot of people talking about the plane crashing into the Pentagon. It's certainly true that what we see is real to us, and the WTC buildings were quite visual. But: 

Six died in the bombings of the Twin Towers. 

168 died in the Oklahoma City Bombings, and all remotely connected were promptly apprehended. They were not part of a larger criminal organization.

The final death toll of 9/11 was 2,996 (2,606 of whom were in the Twin Towers--a reason they might be remembered more then the Pentagon), three times the next largest terrorist attack ever, largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, which we also responded to rather extremely. Also it was done by the same organization that did the Twin Towers bombings and killed 237 in US embassy bombings in 1998; maybe it was about time we responded.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Law, Morality & Ethics are all closely related, but they're at best close cousins, not identical triplets.  Law can be utterly correct within itself, but still be amoral/immoral, or non-ethical/unethical.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> When did I deny it? It is what actually transpired when Laporte died that is at the heart the problem. Saying that it was accidental seems to be problematic for some, even if it is what happened.




While it is possible to accidentally choke someone to death- even the US legal system recognizes this- it is:

1) very difficult to successfully and legally classify a strangulation death as "accidental" and

2) an alien concept to most Americans that an accidental death comitted in furtherance of criminal act would not be considered murder- see my earlier post about felony murder- absent some kind of legal plea or jury shenanigans.

All of which does not diminish Umbran's point: in the moral/ethical context of the conversation, continuing to characterize the death as legally accidental looks like rhetorical minimization, and thus, extremely shady.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Law, Morality & Ethics are all closely related, but they're at best close cousins, not identical triplets.  Law can be utterly correct within itself, but still be amoral/immoral, or non-ethical/unethical.




Along with that, I find that a guy who cites the law for "but it wasn't murder" is demonstrating a lack of empathy toward the loss of human life.  That's a psychopathic trait.


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> So you argue that the Twin Towers bombing in the 1990s, the lack of response to ultimately leading to 9/11, is a justification for not responding to terrorism?



Hello strawman, my old friend. You've come to talk to me again.



> If a mugger shoots you and takes your wallet, is it an accident if you die?



Heh. Reminds me of that question about rape and murder asked to Dukakis. 



> Laporte was trying to exercise his legal right to leave, and they assaulted him to stop him, killing him. Even as assaults by kidnappers go, strangulation is not an impulse act; it takes time to strangle someone.



Depends. A wind pipe can be crush instantly if enough force is applied. If a scuffle a lot of stuff can happen, even manslaughter. 



> 450 people associated with kidnapping and murder.



Nope. A lot were just independentists or union leaders, not FLQ sympathizers. Those arrests were political in nature. 



> I don't know the exact circumstances, but yeah, when a political group is going around killing people, locking up a few people for a few days may not be an unreasonable thing.



I love the irony of having my ethics questioned, while poor ethics is shown by endorsing immoral behavior.


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> A lot of people talking about the plane crashing into the Pentagon. It's certainly true that what we see is real to us, and the WTC buildings were quite visual. But:
> 
> Six died in the bombings of the Twin Towers.
> 
> 168 died in the Oklahoma City Bombings, and all remotely connected were promptly apprehended. They were not part of a larger criminal organization.
> 
> The final death toll of 9/11 was 2,996 (2,606 of whom were in the Twin Towers--a reason they might be remembered more then the Pentagon), three times the next largest terrorist attack ever, largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, which we also responded to rather extremely. Also it was done by the same organization that did the Twin Towers bombings and killed 237 in US embassy bombings in 1998; maybe it was about time we responded.




Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist, if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored. Since 9/11 they've committed 19 lethal terrorists attacks on US soilthat killed 48 people. They are a bigger threat than Islamists. But those death aren't on TV.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While it is possible to accidentally choke someone to death- even the US legal system recognizes this- it is:
> 
> 1) very difficult to successfully and legally classify a strangulation death as "accidental" and
> 
> 2) an alien concept to most Americans that an accidental death comitted in furtherance of criminal act would not be considered murder- see my earlier post about felony murder- absent some kind of legal plea or jury shenanigans.
> 
> All of which does not diminish Umbran's point: in the moral/ethical context of the conversation, continuing to characterize the death as legally accidental looks like rhetorical minimization, and thus, extremely shady.




I find governments ignoring the rule of law disturbing and those who agree with that abuse shadier. But that is just me, evidently.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Ummm  guys - shouldn't this be another topic - considering NONE of this has to do with the Confederate Flag debate, just a continuation of an idea that was an offshoot of a comment?


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> Hello strawman, my old friend. You've come to talk to me again.




I see. The argument that the Twin Towers bombing got insufficient response because the organization behind it subsequently murdered 3,000 people is a strawman?



> Heh. Reminds me of that question about rape and murder asked to Dukakis.




That's non-responsive. If the actions committed by these terrorists in furtherance of the kidnapping of Laporte that in and of themselves assault do not amount to murder because they didn't intend to kill him, the actions of a mugger that amount to assault should not amount to murder because he didn't intent to kill.



> Nope. A lot were just independentists or union leaders, not FLQ sympathizers. Those arrests were political in nature.




In a scuffle, many things can happen, even illegal arrests. I certainly don't justify all the actions the Canadian government took, but in the context of executions (the terrorist group's words at the time) they hardly rank high on my list of historical atrocities.



> I love the irony of having my ethics questioned, while poor ethics is shown by endorsing immoral behavior.




I see; if you're in a discussion, and can question the other people's ethics, that makes you an angel.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist




No argument with that.  The deaths of Oklahoma were most certainly on the TV at the time.  And they led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  So, please stop implying it was a non-issue to us.



> if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored.




Why should it be ignored?

The 9/11 attacks killed 18 times as many people as did McVeigh and Nicholls, caused $10 billion dollars in damage (M&N caused about $658 million), and incited a bit of an economic recession to boot.   It is reasonable to say that 9/11 was one or more orders of magnitude more impactful than Oklahoma City, and therefore weighs rather more heavily today


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist, if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored. Since 9/11 they've committed 19 lethal terrorists attacks on US soilthat killed 48 people.




It is not true that radical right-wing groups have killed 48 people since 9/11. You seem to be referring to the The New America Foundation report; on NPR, the director says



> And we found 48 attributable to people with extreme right-wing, racist or antigovernment views.




That's different; the problem is Timothy McVeigh and the others are not part of an extended terrorism group. I know many of those actors were unaffiliated with any specific group, and I don't know of any that were--and while there probably were a few, they weren't one big organization like al-Qaeda, nor were the attacks necessarily handed down from above. You can't skulk around about how outrageous it is that Canada responded to all the parts of the Quebec sovereignty movement and then act like the US should have rounded up all the right wing groups that make a lot of noise but don't seem to be doing anything violent.



> They are a bigger threat than Islamists. But those death aren't on TV.




It is not simply true that they are a bigger threat than Islamists. You can come to that conclusion, and it's not inherently absurd. But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year, not the 3 since 9/11 that the radical right-wing groups have done, or the 10 a year if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is money from Iran and Saudi Arabians to fund Islamic terrorism, where as most of the violent right-wing is poor losers. At the very least, there's good reasons for considering Islamists the bigger threat besides what we see on TV.



goldomark said:


> I find governments ignoring the rule of law disturbing and those who agree with that abuse shadier. But that is just me, evidently.




Which is avoiding what people are pressing you on. Certainly it would be easier to discuss what the Canadian government did if we can agree that they were doing it in response to a terrorist organization that was kidnapping people, killing them, and call it executions.


----------



## Ryujin

Just to toss a hand grenade into the room during the "October Crisis" the ordinary rule of law was in abeyance, and Martial Law had been declared.


----------



## billd91

prosfilaes said:


> It is not simply true that they are a bigger threat than Islamists. You can come to that conclusion, and it's not inherently absurd. But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year, not the 3 since 9/11 that the radical right-wing groups have done, or the 10 a year if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is money from Iran and Saudi Arabians to fund Islamic terrorism, where as most of the violent right-wing is poor losers. At the very least, there's good reasons for considering Islamists the bigger threat besides what we see on TV.




I'm not going to argue too much with the topic of which is a higher priority - Al Qaeda and its allied organizations or right wing domestic terrorism - but I will chime in that looking at casualties averaged over the organization's lifetime is a really bad metric. The history of deaths in the US, with respect to Al Qaeda, is a long stretch of nothing punctuated by a couple of events. It simply doesn't make sense to spread that over the organization's life for any analysis. The mean is skewed like crazy by a whopping pair of outliers.


----------



## Ryujin

billd91 said:


> I'm not going to argue too much with the topic of which is a higher priority - Al Qaeda and its allied organizations or right wing domestic terrorism - but I will chime in that looking at casualties averaged over the organization's lifetime is a really bad metric. The history of deaths in the US, with respect to Al Qaeda, is a long stretch of nothing punctuated by a couple of events. It simply doesn't make sense to spread that over the organization's life for any analysis. The mean is skewed like crazy by a whopping pair of outliers.




When attacks on American international assets are included you realize that it's not so much an outlier, as it is an escalation.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> I find governments ignoring the rule of law disturbing ....




Having done a little more reading, I find that to be a less-than-accurate description of what happened.

"In 1970, members of the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was later murdered. What is now referred to as the October Crisis raised fears in Canada of a militant terrorist faction rising up against the government.

Under provisions of the National Defence Act, the Canadian Forces had been called to assist the police. They appeared on the streets of Ottawa on 12 October 1970. Upon request of the Quebec government with unanimous consent of all party leaders in the Quebec National Assembly, troops appeared on the streets of Montreal on 15 October.[24]

At the request of the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the Quebec provincial government, and in response to general threats and demands made by the FLQ, the federal government declared a state of apprehended insurrection under the Act on 16 October 1970."  This last was an invocation of the War Measures Act, which was already on the books.

At the time, 86% of French-speaking Canadians supported use of the War Measures Act.

So, your "ignoring the rule of law" seems actually to be "using the laws already on the books, with popular support, at the request of the government of Quebec at the time".

Was it ham-handed?  Probably.  But it seems to have been entirely legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis#War_Measures_Act_and_military_involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act


----------



## Ryujin

Yup.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Whiplash warning!  In Confederate battle flag news:

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmer...ey-for--muslim-free--gun-store-171253005.html

"According to Zimmerman, the phrase has a double meaning: It refers to both the Second Amendment protecting the First Amendment *and the Confederate battle flag protecting the American flag.*"

(emphasis mine)

Whiskey.  Tango.  Foxtrot.

That is EPIC doublethink.


----------



## tuxgeo

"Amen" about the WTF (though maybe not about the Whiplash). 

The article doesn't go into detail, more's the pity. We'll have to _guess_ what's meant by "the 2nd protects the 1st." How about: 

(1) Majority of US active duty military personnel are from Southern states, and protect Old Glory? _(Nah, too much of a stretch.)_ 
(2) Rights not exercised fall into abeyance? (This one's even more tortuous: Flying the CBF exercises the right to free speech, which defends the _Americanism_ of America?) _(I think that one is even less likely to be what he meant than guess #(1) is, above.)_

At least I _tried_.


----------



## Hussar

Yeeeouch.  That's pretty brutal.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is EPIC doublethink.




There is no actual requirement that one's thoughts and beliefs make any flippin' sense.  

Thankfully, there is a requirement that a public business not discriminate on basis of religion or race.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> There is no actual requirement that one's thoughts and beliefs make any flippin' sense.




Too true.  

I, for one, am looking forward to the next time The Pentagon schedules war games here in Texas...


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> I see. The argument that the Twin Towers bombing got insufficient response because the organization behind it subsequently murdered 3,000 people is a strawman?



It is a strawman because I never said that. 



> That's non-responsive.



That sort of question doesn't deserve one.  



> If the actions committed by these terrorists in furtherance of the kidnapping of Laporte that in and of themselves assault do not amount to murder because they didn't intend to kill him, the actions of a mugger that amount to assault should not amount to murder because he didn't intent to kill.



There are different categories of killings because not all killings are the same. I have no issues with that.



> In a scuffle, many things can happen, even illegal arrests. I certainly don't justify all the actions the Canadian government took, but in the context of executions (the terrorist group's words at the time) they hardly rank high on my list of historical atrocities.



An government acting outside the law is far more worrisome than a bunch of young folks trying to start the revolution. 



> I see; if you're in a discussion, and can question the other people's ethics, that makes you an angel.



So, you're saying people here are angels? Cause they are questioning mine.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> No argument with that.  The deaths of Oklahoma were most certainly on the TV at the time.  And they led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  So, please stop implying it was a non-issue to us.



Where was the war on ring wing extremists?



> Why should it be ignored?



Because it is a thought exercise to demonstrate that ring wing extremists are far more active on the terror front in the US and yet, the response is not the same.


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> That's different; the problem is Timothy McVeigh and the others are not part of an extended terrorism group. I know many of those actors were unaffiliated with any specific group, and I don't know of any that were--and while there probably were a few, they weren't one big organization like al-Qaeda, nor were the attacks necessarily handed down from above. You can't skulk around about how outrageous it is that Canada responded to all the parts of the Quebec sovereignty movement and then act like the US should have rounded up all the right wing groups that make a lot of noise but don't seem to be doing anything violent.



I'm not advocating it. I'm saying the broadcast of the planes crashing in the Twin Towers played a role in the response of the US to Islamist terrorism. There was no war on ring wing terrorist after Oklahoma, yet they are far more active on US soil.



> It is not simply true that they are a bigger threat than Islamists. You can come to that conclusion, and it's not inherently absurd. But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year,



Citation. 



> not the 3 since 9/11 that the radical right-wing groups have done, or the 10 a year if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is money from Iran and Saudi Arabians to fund Islamic terrorism, where as most of the violent right-wing is poor losers. At the very least, there's good reasons for considering Islamists the bigger threat besides what we see on TV.



The number of terror acts of ring wing extremists is much bigger than Islamist.They have more deaths if we consider that 9/11 was a fluke and not the norm. They are more successful. They are also already on US soil. But what makes them really dangerous is that they have a better public image than Islamists. Some say they oppose big government and you'll get a lot folks who will nod in agreement. Islamist can't say that. 



Which is avoiding what people are pressing you on. Certainly it would be easier to discuss what the Canadian government did if we can agree that they were doing it in response to a terrorist organization that was kidnapping people, killing them, and call it executions.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> So, your "ignoring the rule of law" seems actually to be "using the laws already on the books, with popular support, at the request of the government of Quebec at the time".
> 
> Was it ham-handed?  Probably.  But it seems to have been entirely legal.



Martial law de facto lets you ignore the rule of law. That people find this ok, is disturbing to say the least. Such provisions lead to abuse, like it did. And my ethics are the problem here...


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Where was the war on ring wing extremists?




Why should there have been a "war"?  Or did the "order of magnitude less impact" thing not register?

When someone killed *thousands* with one blow, you got a war.  When someone killed 160, not so much.  How is this mysterious?

The fact that Oklahoma was not done by an organization that could be attacked, while 9/11 was, also enters into it.  Authorities went after the architects of both Oklahoma and 9/11.  Going after McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier took some 900 law enforcement personnel from various agencies.  It was the largest crime task force since the assassination of JFK.  But since there were only three guys involved, "war" doesn't seem appropriate.  Al Qaeda, however, is a heavily armed international organization, largely found on foreign soil.  The US law enforcement machine was not an appropriate tool.



> Because it is a thought exercise to demonstrate that ring wing extremists are far more active on the terror front in the US and yet, the response is not the same.




And my point is now "active" they are isn't the determining factor.  How *effective* they are is a greater determiner of response.  There are more incidents of right-wing extremism in the US, sure, but even when you add them all up, they don't amount to anything like 9/11 in terms of overall impact.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Martial law de facto lets you ignore the rule of law. That people find this ok, is disturbing to say the least.




With respect, you may be arguing this from a state of relative safety and comfort.  



> Such provisions lead to abuse, like it did.




Having done yet more reading - I find the differences in our views of "abuse" almost comedic.  You live in a very pleasant world indeed, and I hope it continues to be so for you.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> With respect, you may be arguing this from a state of relative safety and comfort.



Heh, what you are doing is shooting the messenger instead of the message. An ad hominem in the form of a compliment. 



> Having done yet more reading - I find the differences in our views of "abuse" almost comedic.



You find the government illegally wire taping conversation between a lawyer and his client not abuse? Or laying about the were abouts of a accused not abuse? Paul Rose wasn't in the house when Laporte died, yet he was tried has if he were.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Why should there have been a "war"?



Because there was a "war on terror" after 9/11. 

On a side note, a war on an emotion is rather... impressive, to say the least. 



> When someone killed *thousands* with one blow, you got a war.  When someone killed 160, not so much.



What is the threshold to declare war, exactly?  







> How is this mysterious?



9/11 was a fluke. Compare the number of attacks before and after 9/11 and the number of deaths by ring wing extremists and Islamists and the mystery goes away. 



> The fact that Oklahoma was not done by an organization that could be attacked, while 9/11 was, also enters into it.



There are plenty of radical right wing groups. 



> Authorities went after the architects of both Oklahoma and 9/11.  Going after McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier took some 900 law enforcement personnel from various agencies.  It was the largest crime task force since the assassination of JFK.  But since there were only three guys involved, "war" doesn't seem appropriate.  Al Qaeda, however, is a heavily armed international organization, largely found on foreign soil.  The US law enforcement machine was not an appropriate tool.



But since Oklahoma there have been other terrorist acts committed by radical right wingers. More so than Islamist terrorist acts after 9/11. It seems the response is not appropriate. 



> And my point is now "active" they are isn't the determining factor.  How *effective* they are is a greater determiner of response.



So far, right wingers have been more effective in terms of acts. They just do not have the same press.   



> There are more incidents of right-wing extremism in the US, sure, but even when you add them all up, they don't amount to anything like 9/11 in terms of overall impact.



Because they are less spectacular on TV.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Having done a little more reading, I find that to be a less-than-accurate description of what happened.
> 
> "In 1970, members of the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was later murdered. What is now referred to as the October Crisis raised fears in Canada of a militant terrorist faction rising up against the government.
> 
> Under provisions of the National Defence Act, the Canadian Forces had been called to assist the police. They appeared on the streets of Ottawa on 12 October 1970. Upon request of the Quebec government with unanimous consent of all party leaders in the Quebec National Assembly, troops appeared on the streets of Montreal on 15 October.[24]
> 
> At the request of the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the Quebec provincial government, and in response to general threats and demands made by the FLQ, the federal government declared a state of apprehended insurrection under the Act on 16 October 1970."  This last was an invocation of the War Measures Act, which was already on the books.
> 
> At the time, 86% of French-speaking Canadians supported use of the War Measures Act.
> 
> So, your "ignoring the rule of law" seems actually to be "using the laws already on the books, with popular support, at the request of the government of Quebec at the time".
> 
> Was it ham-handed?  Probably.  But it seems to have been entirely legal.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis#War_Measures_Act_and_military_involvement
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act




It was also, 1970.  Much like the busting in killing a black man scene in 1994 in The Fugitive, our standards for acceptable policing have changed.

In this case, seeing when it happened, I'd say, that's the way business was done back then and it sounds like it had the will of the native people.


----------



## Kramodlog

Janx said:


> It was also, 1970.  Much like the busting in killing a black man scene in 1994 in The Fugitive, our standards for acceptable policing have changed.
> 
> In this case, seeing when it happened, I'd say, that's the way business was done back then and it sounds like it had the will of the native people.




By that standard it would mean that the Confederacy's desire to have slave was legitimate because it was what its native people wanted.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Because there was a "war on terror" after 9/11.




The two events should only get similar responses if the events themselves were equivalent.

I have been pointing out several ways in which they were *not* equivalent.  If you wish to maintain that they were, we shall have to simply agree to disagree.



> What is the threshold to declare war, exactly?




There isn't an exact threshold.  There probably shouldn't be one.  Whether someone goes to war should be a judgement call, not a legalism.  You'll just have to deal with that.



> 9/11 was a fluke.




That is an analysis of it as a historical event.  It has turned out to have been a singular event.  But you cannot apply hindsight analysis to choices made at the time.  We did not know it would be a fluke 14 years ago, so our decisions process was not based on that assessment.



> Compare the number of attacks before and after 9/11 and the number of deaths by ring wing extremists and Islamists and the mystery goes away.




In the time after 9/11, 48 people have been killed by domestic right-wing extremists, and 26 by people claiming to be jihadists - or at least so the New York Times said in June.  This is an argument, that, at this point, further "war on terror" is putting our efforts in the wrong place.  

It is *not* an argument that our response to 9/11 and our response to Oklahoma should have been the same.  Or that either of those responses should be similar to responses to smaller attacks since.

And, I am sure a large number of people would argue that the jihadist number is so low *because* of the war on terror .  I am not in a position to know the truth of that.



> There are plenty of radical right wing groups.




But Oklahoma, your poster-child for "you should have a war on right-wing terror" was done by two people and one more deemed an accomplice.  All were tried and convicted.  For that event, no further needed to be done.  After 9/11, there was no reason to think, "Well, the guys who were on the planes are all dead, so there is no further threat."  The group responsible still existed, and was making further threats.  None of the threats materialized, but we didn't know at the time they wouldn't.



> But since Oklahoma there have been other terrorist acts committed by radical right wingers. More so than Islamist terrorist acts after 9/11. It seems the response is not appropriate.




Your error is in thinking that the war on terror has anything to do with terror attacks since 9/11.  Those attacks, even in aggregate, do not register in impact (either materially, or on the nation's psyche) compared to 9/11 itself.  Therefore, the  "war on terror" is *NOT* about Islamist terror attacks since 9/11.  It is about 9/11 itself.  Yes, even 14 years later, it is still about the threat of another such single major event.  It isn't about the smaller-scope attacks since.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Because they are less spectacular on TV.




They are less specatacular on TV, yes.

But they are just... less.  Fewer people die.  Less damage is done to cities.  They are really lesser issues.  

You may be the sort to think that one death has the same value as 1000 deaths.  I think it is fair to say that most Americans aren't.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> But Oklahoma, your poster-child for "you should have a war on right-wing terror" was done by two people and one more deemed an accomplice.  All were tried and convicted.  For that event, no further needed to be done.




Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.




I think he means in the sense of there was no need to bomb Tulsa with F-117s in order to take down a coordinated, tightly-knit group of American right-wing extremists.  The groups espousing similar leanings are not organized, armed or acting in the same way as Islamist extremists. They have no true military style bases.

And even if they did, we have rules about using military forces within our borders.

Still, we DID step up surveillance and other anti-terrorist measures post-OKC.


----------



## Ryujin

Perhaps the simple points of the differences between police investigations and war, singular events by lone actors and conspiracies by organized groups, and perhaps Posse Comitatus should be mentioned also? There are many, many differences between internally and externally launched actions.


----------



## prosfilaes

billd91 said:


> Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.




What should be done? I'm not aware of any of the recent terrorists having any sort of group affiliation, which makes them very hard to stop. Follow up on every loudmouth on public TV and Stormfront (and other hate sites)? It's rather intrusive, involves following up thousands of people for everyone who might actually do something and misses many of them. Get our presidential candidates to stop accusing all Hispanic immigrants of being rapists? Can't hurt, but good luck.

My big serious answer is work on racism and appropriate political solutions at the school level, but that's a long-term plan that wouldn't even start to show fruit for a decade if done competently, and not with the notorious ineffectiveness of our drug programs.


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> There was no war on ring wing terrorist after Oklahoma




So it's outrageous if the Canadians don't follow the rule of law as you see it on LFN terrorists, and it's outrageous if the US doesn't go after innocent citizens not connected to Timothy McVeigh?

Maybe the fact you didn't see a huge war on rightwing terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing might have something to do with the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was a response to Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege, where a number of right-wing people who's connection to serious crime was yet lacking died in conflicts with federal forces. 

As an aside; Oklahoma is a state. I'd rather you didn't boil it down to one event that happened in that state. Depending on what you're counting as terrorism, the Tulsa Race Riots possibly killed more and definitely had a more major impact.



> Citation.




Citation for "But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year"? They killed over 3000 on 9/11 plus a few hundred elsewhen and then we divide that by 30 years.



> The number of terror acts of ring wing extremists is much bigger than Islamist.




So? Hiroshima was blown up with one bomb. The fact that Islamists have killed way more is a real concern, no matter how much you want to dismiss 9/11. Should we worry about infrequent, highly deadly attacks or frequent, less deadly attacks? I think humans are more likely to worry about the first and absorb the later into the background.



> They have more deaths if we consider that 9/11 was a fluke and not the norm.




That's debatable. Let's take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks ; the worst act of terrorism associated with the American militia group is the Oklahoma City bombings at #28. Above them are 20 attacks Wikipedia offers "Jihadism" as a cause, five for various separatist movements, one for Sikh extremism and one unknown. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeted and killed 309 Americans; the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 killed 243, including 189 Americans, on an American airliner; the 1998 United States embassy bombings were directed against American soil and killed 224, mostly locals on Kenyan soil. Every one of these events directed against the US killed more people then the Oklahoma City bombings, and all but the last more Americans. And if 9/11 is a fluke, so is the Oklahoma City bombing, and then you have a lot of events that sum up to a fraction of the deaths of these events.



> But what makes them really dangerous is that they have a better public image than Islamists. Some say they oppose big government and you'll get a lot folks who will nod in agreement. Islamist can't say that.




"They". Who is "they"? Some people oppose big government. That's okay; it's hard to have a free political system and get outraged over such an opinion. To say that some elements of the radical right-wing associate with other elements of the right-wing by talking about their shared hate of big government is... okay. That's life in a real political system; people will bind on shared commonalities and ignore differences to get things done. The radical right-wing can't preach about white separatism and female subservience and get a positive response outside their base.

Some Islamists say they oppose the Americans or the west, and a billion people nod in agreement. I'm pretty sure they can preach about Islamic dominance of the planet by violence, and get an order of magnitude more positive response then the violent proposals of the US radical right-wing, if only because 1% of Muslims is a lot more people then 1% of Americans. And the Islamists have access to real cash, which the radical right-wing doesn't.

In summary: first, complaining about how Quebec separatists were treated for the mere hint of association with the LFN is not consistent with demanding a war on people with a mere hint of association with radical right-wing terrorists. We've arrested everyone associated with right-wing terrorism, but most of them have been lone losers. Second, you can cut, dice, chop and puree the numbers for terrorism in many ways, and I see where you're coming from in saying right-wing terrorists are more of a risk then the Islamists. But you're wrong when you start acting like those who disagree with you are irrational; judging the risk from Islamic terrorism to be worse then that from right-wing terrorism is an entirely supportable position.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Highly debatable, I'd say.




"OKBOMB was the largest criminal case in America's history, with FBI agents conducting 28,000 interviews, amassing 3.5 short tons (3.2 t) of evidence, and collecting nearly one billion pieces of information"

After that effort, you figure they missed a bunch of conspirators on the Oklahoma plot that are now shooting people?  This is a debate you think can be had?



> And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.




There were individuals directly responsible for supporting and carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing.  They were caught, tried, and convicted.  That is not to say all American Right-Wing extremism was eradicated - just that the individuals actually involved in that act were dealt with.


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> That sort of question doesn't deserve one.




That would be where discussion breaks down. You've made a claim that a certain death is accidental. What's the model? I propose that "a death caused by an assault in the course of committing a crime that wasn't specifically meant to cause death is accidental" would fit your claims. I don't see any other model that would justify your claim that isn't special pleading. If you want go beyond "was not/was too", you need to discuss other cases or explicit models.



> An government acting outside the law is far more worrisome than a bunch of young folks trying to start the revolution.




You talk about radical right-wing groups without the same generosity; Timothy McVeigh was a young man trying to start a revolution. In revolutions, the streets oft run red with blood, and the LFN was an anti-democratic group (at least 70% of French-speaking Canadians opposed them) willing to start their revolution with kidnapping and proclamations of executions. 

You've been unwilling to distinguish between actions by the democratically elected government, taken within the law as written and intended, with the support of the populace, and actions taken against the law as written. We can talk about the criminal acts and unreasonable acts of the government (which should be distinguished, especially in a democracy), but not if it demands we dismiss the crimes of kidnappers and killers.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> "OKBOMB was the largest criminal case in America's history, with FBI agents conducting 28,000 interviews, amassing 3.5 short tons (3.2 t) of evidence, and collecting nearly one billion pieces of information"
> 
> After that effort, you figure they missed a bunch of conspirators on the Oklahoma plot that are now shooting people?  This is a debate you think can be had?




You may notice that I didn't say that. That doesn't mean that there wasn't further to be done. McVeigh and company didn't operate in a vacuum. None of these right-wing terrorists do. There are systems of radicalization out there, operating on them as surely as Al Qaeda and ISIS websites draw recruits from around the globe. That they are loosely associated and decentralized doesn't mean that they don't exist and have a pernicious effect on the people seeking them out. Yet all too often the narrative of "lone gunman" or "small group of radicals" is what we hear. So when that lone gunman gets caught or puts a bullet in his own brain, we can all breathe a sigh of relief feeling that we're safe, when really all we need is a little more time before the next psychopath comes out of Stormfront feeling all aggrieved.

I think we really need to do a better job of putting this sort of thing in perspective. I'm not particularly afraid of Islamist terrorism. I live in Wisconsin. The odds of being targeted by some Muslim suicide bomber is pretty low considering they seem far more fixated on higher profile, prestige targets. Having a run-in with some right wing nut job, particularly with pseudo-militia fools walking around exerting their open carry rights? Much higher - though still not particularly high. There are plenty of places in the US much more likely to experience right-wing domestic terrorism than foreign-sourced terrorism of any stripe and I think people like you who don't live in "fly-over" country don't seem to understand that. The attacks on 9/11 may have shaken a lot of people to their core, but as shocking as they were, the OKC bombing hit some of us even harder.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> You may notice that I didn't say that. That doesn't mean that there wasn't further to be done. McVeigh and company didn't operate in a vacuum.
> None of these right-wing terrorists do. There are systems of radicalization out there




And this is where we stop going after individuals materially connected with a specific crime, and start becoming thought police.  I'm not down with that.  Sorry.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> The two events should only get similar responses if the events themselves were equivalent.



Indeed, they are not. Right wing extremists have been a problem for far longer and have committed far more acts of terrorism. They also have been far more deadly than Islamists since 9/11. Considering 9/11 a fluke or a stroke of luck for Islamists, right wing radicals are a far greater problem for the US as they actually have local support to a certain extent. 



> There isn't an exact threshold.  There probably shouldn't be one.  Whether someone goes to war should be a judgement call, not a legalism.  You'll just have to deal with that.



And obviously judgement is flawed in these cases, as right wing extremists have been doing fine since 9/11. 



> That is an analysis of it as a historical event.  It has turned out to have been a singular event.  But you cannot apply hindsight analysis to choices made at the time.  We did not know it would be a fluke 14 years ago, so our decisions process was not based on that assessment.



Indeed. There were lots of emotions stirred by the media and politicians.



> In the time after 9/11, 48 people have been killed by domestic right-wing extremists, and 26 by people claiming to be jihadists - or at least so the New York Times said in June.  This is an argument, that, at this point, further "war on terror" is putting our efforts in the wrong place.
> 
> It is *not* an argument that our response to 9/11 and our response to Oklahoma should have been the same.  Or that either of those responses should be similar to responses to smaller attacks since.



Between Oklahoma and 9/11 there were other terror acts committed by right wing extremists. The ones at the Olympics pop up. It would seem right wing extremism is a bigger problem with deeper roots that is mostly ignored or trivialized. 



> And, I am sure a large number of people would argue that the jihadist number is so low *because* of the war on terror .  I am not in a position to know the truth of that.



Was it high before the "war on terror"? Compared to right wing extremism?



> But Oklahoma, your poster-child for "you should have a war on right-wing terror" was done by two people and one more deemed an accomplice.  All were tried and convicted.  For that event, no further needed to be done.  After 9/11, there was no reason to think, "Well, the guys who were on the planes are all dead, so there is no further threat."  The group responsible still existed, and was making further threats.  None of the threats materialized, but we didn't know at the time they wouldn't.



The ideology responsable for right wing extremism is still alive and well in the US. Now it doesn't mean a war on thought is the way to deal with it, but these groups often violate real laws. Take the Bundy Ranch. Federal officers were prevented from enforcing the law by armed people! They were mostly given a pass. Authorities are complacent with this ideology and the groups it fosters. 



> Your error is in thinking that the war on terror has anything to do with terror attacks since 9/11.  Those attacks, even in aggregate, do not register in impact (either materially, or on the nation's psyche) compared to 9/11 itself.



I know. I've said it is the case because 9/11 was a bigger spectacle.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> They are less specatacular on TV, yes.
> 
> But they are just... less.



Except in numbers of acts. In mediatic coverage. In political outcry. And your twice as likely to die from it according to the NYT article you mentioned.


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> So it's outrageous if the Canadians don't follow the rule of law as you see it on LFN terrorists, and it's outrageous if the US doesn't go after innocent citizens not connected to Timothy McVeigh?



No. I'm saying there isn't a lot of coherrence when it comes to action and threat. 



> Maybe the fact you didn't see a huge war on rightwing terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing might have something to do with the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was a response to Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege, where a number of right-wing people who's connection to serious crime was yet lacking died in conflicts with federal forces.



So, capitulation is the solution? Why do you not advocate that the Canadian government should have given to independentists what they wanted to quell civil unrest?



> As an aside; Oklahoma is a state. I'd rather you didn't boil it down to one event that happened in that state. Depending on what you're counting as terrorism, the Tulsa Race Riots possibly killed more and definitely had a more major impact.



You're counting that as terrorism?



> Citation for "But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year"? They killed over 3000 on 9/11 plus a few hundred elsewhen and then we divide that by 30 years.



Yeah, spreading the deaths of one event over 30 years isn't representative of their efforts. 



> So? Hiroshima was blown up with one bomb.



I like that comparaison. Both are mass acts of murder to instil fear in a population. 



> That's debatable. Let's take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks ; the worst act of terrorism associated with the American militia group is the Oklahoma City bombings at #28. Above them are 20 attacks Wikipedia offers "Jihadism" as a cause, five for various separatist movements, one for Sikh extremism and one unknown. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeted and killed 309 Americans; the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 killed 243, including 189 Americans, on an American airliner; the 1998 United States embassy bombings were directed against American soil and killed 224, mostly locals on Kenyan soil. Every one of these events directed against the US killed more people then the Oklahoma City bombings, and all but the last more Americans. And if 9/11 is a fluke, so is the Oklahoma City bombing, and then you have a lot of events that sum up to a fraction of the deaths of these events.



Wow, ok, your moving the goal post from the US and to the world. Amusing. I wonder why there wasn't a war on Sikh terror...



> "They". Who is "they"? Some people oppose big government.



Except when "big government" takes away Québécois rights away. That is totally justifiable.


----------



## Kramodlog

prosfilaes said:


> That would be where discussion breaks down. You've made a claim that a certain death is accidental.



It isn't my claim. It is what happened. At least what the guilty parties told their lawyer when they didn't think the government was illegally recording them. If you wanna say they killed him in cold blood, if you believe them, that wouldn't be accurate, now would it?



> You talk about radical right-wing groups without the same generosity;



Because, I'm actually not trying to defend or accuse ring-wing groups of anything. I'm using them in a comparaison. To establish that it was 9/11's mediatic impact and political manipulation, not the dangerousity of Islamist radicals, that is reponsable for the response to 9/11 and the lack of trillions spend on the war on radical right wing groups.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> I know. I've said it is the case because 9/11 was a bigger spectacle.




I agree that it was a bigger spectacle.  But it was *MORE THAN JUST A LARGER SPECTACLE*.  The media presence was a thing, yes, but that was not the only qualitative difference between the events.  Until you accept that, you will not be able to really understand the reaction to it, and your analysis of it and related things will be fundamentally flawed.


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> It isn't my claim. It is what happened. At least what the guilty parties told their lawyer when they didn't think the government was illegally recording them. If you wanna say they killed him in cold blood, if you believe them, that wouldn't be accurate, now would it?




What I want to say is that they murdered him. Because when you're using threats of violence, and people stop obeying you and you use actual violence, and they end up dead, that's what it is. Yes, people engage in self-rationalization, but that doesn't change the facts.

If you said, yes, when the mugger shot the guy for his wallet, and the guy ended up dead, that that was accidental, then okay. If you had amended it to make the victim fight the mugger who wasn't planning to use violence, then okay. There is a definition, not generally used in this context, where this could be called an accident. When you use it here and refuse to use it on other dealers in violence, you're equivocating. 



goldomark said:


> Indeed, they are not. Right wing extremists have been a problem for far longer and have committed far more acts of terrorism. They also have been far more deadly than Islamists since 9/11. Considering 9/11 a fluke or a stroke of luck for Islamists, right wing radicals are a far greater problem for the US as they actually have local support to a certain extent.




You can live your life assuming the successes of certain people were just flukes or strokes of luck, but 9/11 was an operation that took more than a dozen people and more than a year of planning that successfully hijacked not one, not two, not three, but four airplanes, only one of which was stopped from reaching its target.



> To establish that it was 9/11's mediatic impact and political manipulation, not the dangerousity of Islamist radicals, that is reponsable for the response to 9/11 and the lack of trillions spend on the war on radical right wing groups.






goldomark said:


> No. I'm saying there isn't a lot of coherrence when it comes to action and threat.




I'm not sure what you mean by coherrence here. But if you looking to see if the action was in response to the threat, you don't get to judge the threat. The question is how did the person taking the action judge the threat. They're the ones who get to judge whether or not 9/11 was a fluke or something that is going to be repeated or not. They're ones who get to choose whether the murder of Americans on an American plane scheduled to land in the US in a few hours counts. If they reacted to their analysis of the threat, then they reacted to the threat.

Secondly, yes, there's confounding factors. It's a lot easier to go after a clearly defined enemy abroad supported by foreign nations then it is to go after an ill-defined group of Americans. You get all civil-libertarian about the LFN, but don't seem to care about the civil rights of the radical right-wing. Yes, the Bundy's should have been arrested, but stuff like that had not turned out well in the past. 86 people died in the Waco siege. Since 9/11, 48 people have been killed by right-wing extremists. Repeating the first in an attempt to reduce the second seems morally questionable.

Thirdly... 0.1% of American deaths in 2001 were due to 9/11. One in a thousand. In the years since, one in a million, maybe one in a hundred thousand some years, died due to right-wing extremists. An average of 4 deaths a year, that's as many as arthropod-borne viral encephalitis killed in 2013, and less then the 10 killed by malaria or the 40 killed by salmonella or 11 killed by falling with murderous causes. (All numbers from the CDC.) Any response beyond the normal FBI response might arguably be excessive. If 9/11 was irrelevant, maybe we ought to be putting up signs "Watch out for people who might throw you off a balcony" instead of "Watch out for unattended bags."



> Wow, ok, your moving the goal post from the US and to the world. Amusing. I wonder why there wasn't a war on Sikh terror...




I'm moving the goal posts to include acts done against Americans, one of which was done at least in part on American soil (the bomb in the Kenya explosion may or may not have been on US soil, but the embassy it was directed against was, and the other bomb was on US soil). Yes, an Indian airplane flying from Canada to India that was blown up in an attack on Indians doesn't factor much in American calculations, whereas an American airplane flying from the UK to the US that was blown up in an attack on Americans probably does.


----------



## Bullgrit

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If Bullgrit ever returns to this thread, he will be confused as hell...



So long as the continuing discussion is full of facts and insight, it's ok to wander to and fro a bit 

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog

Confederate flag waving group gets accused of being a street gang and terrorist threats. Interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/u...s.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> Confederate flag waving group gets accused of being a street gang and terrorist threats. Interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/u...s.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0



Interesting. Very interesting. Let's see if this actually goes anywhere. I get the feeling it'll just go away without much happening to these idiots.


----------



## Hussar

goldomark said:


> Confederate flag waving group gets accused of being a street gang and terrorist threats. Interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/u...s.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0




Heh. I wonder if the colours were reversed what would have happened. 

Several trucks full of dudes waving flags, yelling racial slurs and waving firearms. How is that not a street gang?

Although, goldomark, where are you getting the terrorist thing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It is part of their indictments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-charges-after-disrupting-black-childs-party/

"Monday’s indictment by the Douglas County District Attorney called the flag group “a criminal street gang” and accused its members of participating “criminal gang activity” on that day. The group members were charged with making “terroristic threats” against the party-goers."


----------



## Orius

I say bust them on the threats charge and throw the book at them.  Even if the party goers were throwing rocks at them (and that claim hasn't been substantiated), they were cruising around in their pickups looking to pick a fight.


----------

