Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- From: "Allan Smith" <guesswho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:29:06 -0500
cg,
The Founding Fathers lead a fairly diverse society. There were
Quakers, Puritans and those who belonged to the Church of England. The
people of the colonies were Scottish, French, Irish, German, Welsh and
English.
I'll get to the remainder of your post later, but thought you might find
this interesting. There was somewhat less diversity than many of us were
told in school. Of the 55 framers of our Constitution, 31 wers Lawyers, 10
were Merchants, 3 were Politicians, a couple were Doctors, and a couple were
Soldiers. There was also an Inventor, named Benjamin Franklin. He invented
electricity.
The two most represented religions were Episcopalian (30), and Presbyterian
(11). There were 10 Congregationalists, 3 Quakers, 2 Methodists, 2 Dutch
Reformed, 2 Catholic, a Lutheran, and a proclaimed Deist named Benjamin
Franklin, who invented electircity.
:-))
http://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn - Plato, on the 'Forum
--
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"cg" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c86ts3he6rnle138oe935uon8qv5ogt94t@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:26:18 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<guesswho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Indeed, the Monarchies in the mid-east are an adaptation of their nomadic
history. The tribalism you mention isn't so much a cause as it is an
effect.
<snip>
You are absolutely correct in pointing out the impact of the
environment on the form of social organization employed over years in
the human quest to survive. On the other hand we have had an impact
on the ecology that surrounds us. If the Al Gore's of this world are
to be believed, that impact may cause the end of human life.
The same holds true of religion. Marx felt religion was nothing more
than a tool to manipulate the masses. Weber expressed the thought
that religion could and did drive the form a society took on - pretty
much just the reverse of Marx. Both are accurate. It is sort of a
chicken and egg problem.
What is consistent throughout all of this cause and effect stuff is
that humans do what they must to procreate. That is, survival of the
fittest is the driving factor behind the social organizations taken on
by humans.
Individual humans don't stand much of a chance making it in a world
that is actually a very violent place. It was violent before there
was a human to protest violence and it will remain violent well after
humans have become extinct. Like many other living organisms, humans
have found there is strength in numbers.
Then comes the question on how to organize those numbers into
structures that provide the species a path to survival. Much like
insects, humans have attempted various schemes to organize their
numbers into groups that accomplish this end. What worked during
times like Krakatoa may not be so wonderful in times of plenty. Male
dominated societies might have been optimal when there was a Saber
Tooth Tiger around every corner but might be counter productive when
those sorts of aggressive tendencies prevent the diplomacy necessary
to keep the human race from eradicating itself with modern weapons of
mass destruction.
Just as the tribal societies of the Native Americans proved
ineffective against the European masses and their technology, the
Muslim tribalism will likely prove ineffective against the Western
societies and the temptations they dangle along the Muslim's rather
Puritan path.
The conflict takes forms other than cavalry armed with firearms
routinely defeating on those armed only with arrows and spears. The
extension of the Western social organization's ability to fund the
acquisition of pleasure is just as fatal to the fundamentalism seen in
the more radical Muslim world as were the cavalry charges. They will
not be able to resist the onslaught of the perceive benefits of the
Western social organization.
And that invasion is in full force as satellite dishes go up all over
the Middle East, cell phones are found in every pocket and their homes
set aside space for personal computers and the internet access to what
is going on external to their part of the world. They can see the
advantages of being in a Western style culture and they want those
advantages. They may not understand the social changes that will be
needed to get those advantages but they will make them in order to
provide themselves with a more comfortable life style - a more
effective means of survival.
Less blood but more change.
At least the Founding Fathers recognized the differences.
Unfortunately, not everyone since has had that breadth of concept, or been
able to extend it beyond our own borders.
The Founding Fathers lead a fairly diverse society. There were
Quakers, Puritans and those who belonged to the Church of England. The
people of the colonies were Scottish, French, Irish, German, Welsh and
English. There was already the divide between the North and the
South, later to be at the base of the War Between the States. The
North became increasingly industrialized as the South became
increasingly dependent upon agrarian ventures and the slavery they
felt was needed to make their economic endeavors possible.
In fact slavery was an very important factor in what the Funding
Father's did. They didn't really compromise over this issue - they
uniformly ignored it. They all knew that slavery was the one issue
that could, and would, prevent the unification of the 13 colonies so
they decided to put that discussion off.
Luckily for us, all of us, they still managed to learn from the
lessons of being ruled by a monarchy and recognized the short comings
of that type of social structure. So while the freedom of the black
man was delayed it was not stopped. The eventual granting of freedom
to the slaves was implicit in the U.S. Constitution despite its racist
underpinnings. It said that the slaves were human enough to count
when it came to sending representatives to the Federal government. In
a sense, it was the abolitionists' way of saying nobody would be slave
to a king in this experiment.
I am still amazed that they pulled it off in the face of the most
powerful nation the world had ever seen. Had the King of England
really been serious about putting down the rebellion it would have
ended in pretty quick order.
The Founding Fathers were very bright guys who were motivated to do
what was "right". They've come closer to accomplishing that than
anyone who came before or, so far, anyone who has come after.
--
cg
"Even very young children need to be informed about
dying. Explain the concept of death very carefully to
your child. This will make threatening him with it much
more effective."
-- P. J. O'Rourke
.
- References:
- Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- From: Allan Smith
- Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- Prev by Date: Re: More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed
- Next by Date: Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- Previous by thread: Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- Next by thread: Re: Iran 'number one world power': Ahmadinejad
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
