Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by pink101:

Pink, sometimes you can come off as very self-righteous and arrogant. The weak argument is the one that says the Founders borrowed deliberately and directly from the Iroquois in fashioning our Republic. There is no evidence to support that claim. The evidence is all circumstantial and is based on a lot of 'what-if's,' 'could-be's,' 'maybes,' etc. The theory stays alive, because certain folks WANT it to be true. And when you start asking WHO wants it to be true, well, that leads you to the left side of the academic spectrum. And that is an observable fact. Show me one conservative historian who has embraced this theory of significant Iroquois influence.

I've already said that I consider myself a moderate on this one. I do believe the Iroquois had SOME influence on the Founders, but it was more contextual and sub-conscious than anything direct. The exception would be Ben Franklin's Albany Plan. I think there is some good evidence than Franklin borrowed from the Six Nations on that one - and then, one could make the argument that the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution were built upon the Albany Plan. That would be somewhat of a stretch, but I can see the argument.

So, I'm somewhat a moderate on this one. But, like so many other issues, you and Migisi (and a couple others) are so far to the LEFT that it makes moderates like me look like ultra-conservatives.

» pink101 - Self-righteous and Arrogant

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"Pink, sometimes you can come off as very self-righteous and arrogant"
.

.
I think you've read something into my statements other than what I intend.
.
I have not claimed that our Founders built our nation on any Native American system of government. In fact, my reference was to the ancient Greeks, wasn't it?
.
Migisi is far more knowledgeable on the subject of any Native American systems
.
But, there is a concept known as phenomenology that would have us lay claim to the idea that the Native Americans were the Founders predecessors just as were many other peoples, and that we are, to one degree or another, dependent on all their predecessors for the situation in which the Founders found themselves. The Founders provided us with our Bill of Rights through the ratification of our Constitution. To me, that was when the America we know was founded. It is a phenomenon of historical significance. I don't think any one influence caused it to take place; but, it was the common sense approach to the conditions under which our ancestors lived.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Parson Weems

In response to Self-righteous and Arrogant posted by pink101:

I think you've read something into my statements other than what I intend.

I was referring to your association of me with Parson Weems - all because I pointed out that it's a left-of-center interpretation of history that our founding was substantially influenced by Native Americans.

» redback - vive le difference

In response to A Suppressive State posted by pink101:

freedom and liberty:

Over here, the words are interchangeable by definition...as I cited from the Australian national dictionary. In each of the definitions be it for 'freedom' or for 'liberty', the same definition merely exchanges these key words. For example re freedom from external interference = liberty from external interference...and so on.

'Freedom' is almost pronounced as a one-syllable word here so it may be a choice thing over the three-syllable 'liberty'. Both are global terms to me...and maybe neither is 'absolute' in the world I know.

Your posts clearly indicate the USA ascribes different meanings and I'v read your much earlier discussions on this in other topics. The 'Liberty Bell' is highly symbolic over there. 9/11 is highly symbolic etc. We just don't seem to create symbolisms in the same way but I'm really hard pressed to try to use 'liberty' to imply something different than 'freedom'...in a way that makes better sense.

Please understand my use of these actual words is interchangeable. I'm not really into the philosophical concepts of negative or positive liberty as that would take me off on a tangent. I note my earlier "warning" to myself on the lack of smarts that entails. ABC But if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

-- posted by redback

» redback - founding fathers

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by redback:

This topic is interesting in the contrasts with the development of our nation and of the USA. "Jogs my brain down history lane." (Redback 2008)

Apart from the very poor treatment of the Aboriginal peoples, we had no need to kill each other in a civil war...arguably a bloodless coup. We kept the British Westminister system of government...and at our leisure are weaning ourselves away from the UK. Crikey, we wouldn't even replace their desks unless necessary.

When I think of our founding father/s, I auto think of the only one credited...Sir Henry Parkes:

Sir Henry Parkes is credited with starting the chain of events that led to nationhood by calling for a conference of colonial ministers in his famous Tenterfield address. This and other well known utterances such as 'the crimson thread of kinship runs through us all', earned the elderly statesman the title 'Father of Federation'. In fact, Parkes had a highly ambivalent relationship with the concept, being a passionate advocate and a dedicated enemy of Federation depending on the state of his own political fortunes.

Yet, despite the credit, he died before it happened.

Surely it saw the birth of the laid back Aussie. My take, from post 61 seems spot on:

Our convict heritage tells us if its not in the law, we can't break it. If we don't ask permission, we can do it until we're told not to. If our wife tells us we go to church, we go but not because of 'church authority'.... to which I should have added "just because we're told to do it, doesn't mean we will."

Tis only my take...I'm not holding Evilpuppy nor other Aussies to it.

But watch this space. Our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, plans a careful selection of 1000 of our best academic brains to come up with...unpaid...at least "...a dozen good ideas..." to take us past the year 2020...with our help. Can't wait to see who gets on or is left off, the list. The first summit takes place during the Jewish Passover preventing possibles from attending?

What should we call these...Fathers of the new Australia?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - vive le difference

In response to vive le difference posted by redback:
.
If you read the context of my original statement, it is easy to know the meaning I intended for the two words, liberty, and, freedom.
.
Fifty years ago, the two words held different meanings with people. Today, that has changed unless one understands they can be applied within the framework of some comment that is being made. Post modern usage requires words be taken in the context in which they are used.
.
And, you are digging for strawberries.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Parson Weems

In response to Parson Weems posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Touchy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - vive le difference

In response to vive le difference posted by pink101:

If you read the context of my original statement, it is easy to know the meaning I intended for the two words, liberty, and, freedom.

SORRY...NO it was not.

Nor is the comment "digging for strawberries".

But i'm only passing through this week.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - vive le difference

In response to vive le difference posted by redback:

.
Here's my original statement where you claim my meaning is not clear: After a while, people come to enjoy their bondage as it offers them a form of freedom that liberty does not provide.
.
It was combined with a link followed up in the next post with "a better link" where the story of The Bound Man is highlighted in concise review.
.
http://www.enotes.com/bound-man-salem/bo...
.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pricetesc/bou...
.
The comment, Digging For Strawberries, is also self evident.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by redback:
.
The first Aboriginal State Governor was appointed in 1976 and the first Aboriginal senator was elected to the Federal Parliament in 1971.
.
We've had about 30 state/federal politicians of Native American ancestry since the 1860s. Most notable:
.
Charles Curtis (Kansa/Osage/Pottawatomie ancestry) was our 31st Vice President - under President Herbert Hoover (1929-33). He was a Kansas Senator for many years (1907-29) and served as the 2nd Senate Majority Leader. Most historians paint the Hoover administration negatively, so VP Curtis didn't get high marks either.
.
Currently, we have Tom Cole (Chickasaw ancestry) serving as U.S. Representative for Oklahoma's 4th district; and Scott BigHorse (Osage and Cherokee ancestry) as Representative for Oklahoma's 36th district. There may be others whose ancestry I'm not aware of or they haven't disclosed it.
.
When I stated they had come a long way, twas not intended to say they've now "made it".
.
I'd have to ask what the criteria is for 'made it'.
.
... what moral high ground etc was uniquely white fella territory...here or in the USA? We need to know that, don't we, to exclude the weight of our Aboriginal peoples' input?
.
Indeed! So far, nobody has offered an answer.
.
I read Brian's reference to it being a Christian initiative to separate religion from state. Muslim nations and others apparently see no need to, so what prompted the Christians?
.
The 'wall of separation' concept (which led to the Establishment Clause) was NOT a Christian initiative, but Deist in origin. Thomas Jefferson first proposed the "Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in 1779, and it was adopted by the General Assembly in 1786.
.
The transcript of the Virginia Act is here: http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whatwedo/k12/bo...
The document is an excellent and timeless explanation of why 'the wall' was/is needed.
.
The Establishment Clause (accompanied by the Free Exercise Clause) was introduced with other amendments in 1789 in the First United States Congress by James Madison. Ten of the amendments (including the above) were ratified and became the Bill of Rights in 1791.

-- posted by Migisi