TheScout

skeptic, I would still have to go on the side opposing the influence of the Iroqouis Confederacy, but we will have to agree to disagree on that one. The Mound People? Come on? Meanwhile Europe built the Colleseum and Notre Dame. The Indians built mounds. Who knows, they may have floated on small vessels to the Pacific, but built no great ships of trade and transport. I can not think of anything more cruel than human sacrafice, along with war to perpetrate it. Much less of a concept of human rights. There was no Indian Magna Carta as far as we know. And it was much more than "some instances" in which human sacrafice was conducted. The Aztecs did it by the thousands at some points. Mesopatamia is not in Africa. Eqypt, though in Africa, was much more related to Middle East than to the "black" Africans. They had a language which was closer to the Semetic family than any of the "black" African ones. They might even be considered Caucasion. I'm not sure. Some include Arabs, North Africans, and some Indians in that racial family. So while Eqypt had its accomplishments, black Africa remained pitifully behind.

Skeptic, Its ok. I wasn't suggesting they were a "lesser" people, just that they had less influence on the building of America. Some made the blueprint for this great country, others just followed it. It does seem that in the last several decades there has been an attempt to glorify Indian civilization, and you seem to be a willing part. This is all part of the new age moral relativism that all cultures are equal. I am sorry, maybe this makes me a horrible person, but I do not subscribe to it. I believe European Christian culture is superior, even with its faults. The assertion that the Iroqoois Confederacy was an influence on the US Constitution is one of these other ideas that has just been developed in the last few decades. A very controversial assertion. In the records of the debates there is no mention of the Indians. It seems that the classical and contemporary European influence was much greater, if the Indian one even existed at all. See: Did the Founding Fathers Really Get Many of Their Ideas of Liberty from the Iroquois? - http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html I doubt you would find anyone able to agree that Tecumseh had any chance to drive the whites back to the sea. By 1811 Indians were already hopelessly outnumbered by millions of people. I do give you that the Southwest had quality agricultural techniques - but that alone is little to say for civilization in 1600. Did they ever write a book? And of course the Central Americans had more progress (notice I did say Indians of the USA in my last post). Its just that whole human sacrafice thing doesn't say too much for a culture. (Oh wait, I forgot all culutres are equal). The boating skills of the Pacific Northwest? Did they ever build ships that could cross oceans. Or even develop such a creative society which urged it. No. The advanced cultures of Africa never matched those of Europe in accomplishments. Which one rivaled Greece, Rome, the Netherlands, Portugal, Britian, France? I can't think of anything. But you are correct the Chinese did build a great civilization, though a classical Oriental despotism with absolutly no regard for human rights or conception of limited government. But one must credit them with their great advances. Mike, You said, "What kind of a statement is that? Are you saying that owning up to the fact that other races and cultures contributed to American greatness by their sweat and blood is a shame?" No I'm not saying that. There is a difference between recognizing a contribution and celebrating it just because it is from a certain book. I don't know your exposure to current high school social studies education, but in many cases it emphasizes contributions of other groups in sake of diversity in the stead of focusing on things that are more important. And in most cases the contributions are not comparable. ALL of our institutions and ideas about just about everything come from Christian Europe. What else do you want me to say about "Old World antagonisms." They exist. Contrary to popular belief peoples are different and do not always get along, even within the European family. You demonstrate the new history perfectly with your statement, Thomas Jefferson was a "great man and thinker. BUT . . ." emphasis added. Thomas Jefferson was a great man . . . period. "All men were created equal" applied only to the white political community. And he had a relationship with his slave . . . so? It was his property, and accepted by the standards of the day. All facts are important. Each has its own relative historical importance. But if we allow their true historical importance to our country to be important, facts can be used as a tool for propoganda. Lets look at that old time history. Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal A noble thought by a great man and thinker. But watch out, those nasty liberals are going to tell you that while he wrote that he was a slave owner and even had a conjugal relationship with one, producing descendants that survive to this day. I prefer the facts, The Scout, not some crap about somebody chopping down a cherry tree. As I stated in another thread, the prime reason for studying history is to learn from it, to emulate the good and not repeat the bad, and you cant learn to avoid the bad unless you hear about it. You do make correct observations about other groups becoming part of the American fabric. However, they all become part of the European Christian culture of America. All our institutions and ideas stem from that. And what America will look like in a thousand years. I hope it looks just like it did today. I like America how it is. Over those 900 years Rome changed. You point out how it started granting general citizenship - at that time it also allowed "barbarian immigration." And what happened to Rome? - it fell. Change a culture, you change a country.

Skeptic, I don't really know what you think I inferred about some peoples. I would consider my statement pretty blunt . . . And anyway teaching history as it was taught for many years before liberals took over the American education establishment is not a shame. There was a time when our schools celebrated the greatness of American and its heritage, not diversity. You do make correct observations about other groups becoming part of the American fabric. However, they all become part of the European Christian culture of America. All our institutions and ideas stem from that. I see very little African, Asian, or Native American influence in any of our institutions. If you can think of any please let me know. And anyway for the Native Americans in the USA that whole living with nature thing is cool, but their civilization was quite lacking. No books, metal-working, masonry, etc, and that was only 300 years ago.

"So I guess the Native Americans who were here first, the African Americans who were carted over here in chains to work the plantations, and the Chinese who helped to build the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century (just to name a few) can all just pack their bags and leave because it appears you think they have made no contribution to America's greatness?" Hmmm. . . well I see very little of what is left of the Native American culture or how they contributed to our greatness. The state of their advances was much lower than that of European civilization. Now, all they do around here is run casions and sell cheap gas after getting their butts kickd by whites. And the Africans and Chinese . . . they were cheap labor, thats it. The same as the little kids in the sweatshops that make our clothes now. They were all directed, and fed, and clothed by white Americans. "Yes, things were great for the European Christians, unless you were Irish (need not apply), Italian, Eastern European, or, god forbid, ROMAN CATHOLIC! Were still coming down off our high of being able to elect one of Our People as president! Weve come a long way from burning down convents here in Boston." Simple Old World antagonisms brought to the New. "I guess, TheScout, youre unfamiliar with what is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?" I am actually quite familiar. And it basically applied to Europeans. Asians were excluded from immigration at that time period. Very few of other peoples even attempted to come. The quota acts of the 1920s showed that America wanted white immigration to keep its demographic character.

"Why is it that when we accomodate peoples religious and cultural traditions, it makes them somehow "special" yet we fail to recognize that when we accomodate the primary religious and cultural traditions in this country, it's somehow "normal and not special"? The United States pretty much shuts down on Christmas Day - don't tell us that we aren't making accomodations for non-Muslim religions." Wow, I didn't know that Christmas observance was an "accomodation." Oh wait, this is the heritage of the country, the beliefs that made this country great. America is a European/Christian country; and a very successful one too. If you change the character of this country religiously/racially, you change what this country is. I like America how it was. The European/Christian thing worked pretty damn well.

With all these problems one must wonder if Madison was right in believing that the federal constitution did not need a bill of rights.

All this talk about suicide . . . a bit of an overreaction eh?

Why do you say that?

The Army does not wear cover or salute indoors . . .

College Student, history major. I do Army ROTC. I am supposed to be an Engineer 2LT in three months.

I like it. I have always had a fondness for the parliamentary system anyway.

I didn't know any superdelegates were appointed. I didn't say you said they fell out of the sky. It seems like some want to make people believe that. I guess I have more faith in the big wigs. They picked a couple of good ones for a century and a half eh? And I am a Republican - so I am sure they would not have picked McCain.

Lisa political parties are not inherently democratic institutions. Plus they are all elected in some fashion to a party or government office at some level. They don't just fall out of the sky into the convention.

So you wish to deprive the superdelegates of their ability to vote? They have their positions due to party rules and are mostly elected officials.

Well many people think there actually is! Or just ignore the constitution.

Very few. The problem today is that people want the government to fix every problem. If it seems like a good idea, the government should do it. Unfortunatly, there is no good idea clause in the constitution.

Well my apologies. It does seem that many think the President does have a role in pricing and such people are just woefully uninformed about the economy . . .

Well the Federal Reserve is the ever printer of money . . . The White House doesn't order that either. And an energy policy from Washington? Thats called central planning. I'd rather not have that. Jefferson once wrote, "If we looked to Washington for what to reap and when to sow, we would soon be in want of bread." Where's the faith in the market my friends? And local, I forgot the meeting the President has every morning to set sugar and gas prices. Gee, I hate when you can't blame the President for everything. He did cause Hurricane Katrina though . . .

Yeah the President is responsible for the price of sugar and gas. Its called supply and demand people!

Yeah GW, protectionism is a great idea. Try reading Adam Smith some time.

Oh the way Protestants justify heresy . . . LOL

Well Gern nobody picked the date of your state's primary other than its elected legislators you helped pick . . . That seems like democracy.

Gee, its too bad the people of Havasupai don't keep up their town to your standards! And then we complain about their apparent rudeness, not making eye contact. The nerve of them!

So we complain about the federal government running parks. We complain about them not running parks. What gives? Gern its a shame that you must criticize the way people keep up their homes. I won't judge yours.

If there is good stuff there, the least we should do is mine and drill it out! Commodity prices are high enough and so are my taxes which support the parks! The national parks are probably unconsitutional anyway. I doubt the founders of our republic would have desired the federal government to become a vast landowner, holding large areas of land in perpetutity for conservation purposes. It isn't mentioned in the powers of Congress. I would think that according to the 10th Amendment then, the creation and upkeep of parks is a state responsibility. Fix all these problems. The federal government should forfeit the parks to the respective States. The federal government saves money. Management techniques of the parks would be under local supervision and would more conform with local desires. A single bad appointment in the great park bureaucracy would not harm the entire system. Chances are some of the states would do even better than the feds running the parks. They can't do much worst! How can one not love the local option?