Some Thoughts On War From Ron Kovic

[musicman]

Finally, an intelligent, thought-provoking question!

Thank you. You must admit, though, that it's an entirely subjective assessment - particularly the "finally" part. Glad you found it interesting, though.

I think it is definitely the first salvo against the prevailing sentiment of white, male, arrogant assessment of the human worth of African slaves. Not really trying to have it both ways... really.

Don't see how you could describe it any other way.

I think that the prevailing sentiment among a vast majority of Americans at the time (North and South alike) was that slaves were wholly property. The framers actually fought long and hard to get to the point that they did and they should always be remember as those who fought the prevailing sentiment.

The three-fifths compromise was passed at gunpoint, then - over the majority of Americans' wishes? Come on, man - give credit where it's due, just ONCE!

With that in mind, they didn't completely outlaw slavery either...

They did have other things on their minds, jasendorf - one being the world's reigning superpower, sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it, for the express purpose of grinding this upstart nation into the dust. In order for a governmental system to guarantee freedoms, it must first ensure its continued existence, wouldn't you say? The slavery question came to a head less than a century later - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. Let's not always be so quick to damn our founding fathers, m'k? I know it sweetens a liberal argument and everything, but it just doesn't bear historical scrutiny.

Oh, I don't know... I will agree that conservatives value religious tolerance of Judeo-Christian diversity. But, I have yet to see some over-arching acceptance of Islam by conservatives in person.

And what manner would you have this acceptance take - over and above the absolute freedom, within the rule of law, already guaranteed Islam (and anybody else) by our Constitution?

 

[jasendorf]

The three-fifths compromise was passed at gunpoint, then - over the majority of Americans' wishes? Come on, man - give credit where it's due, just ONCE!

Credit to whom? I give the credit where it is due... and that's to the forward, progressive, liberal thinkers who created our Constitution.

They did have other things on their minds, jasendorf - one being the world's reigning superpower, sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it, for the express purpose of grinding this upstart nation into the dust. In order for a governmental system to guarantee freedoms, it must first ensure its continued existence, wouldn't you say? The slavery question came to a head less than a century later - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. Let's not always be so quick to damn our founding fathers, m'k? I know it sweetens a liberal argument and everything, but it just doesn't bear historical scrutiny.

1) The Constitution wasn't created until long after the British had been sent packing and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 whereas the Constitution's final draft (not including the Bill of Rights) wasn't until four years later and finally agreed upon until 6 years later. That's like saying President Bush can't fight illegal immigration because of the tech bubble!

2) Uh, I am and was lauding the Founding Fathers. Perhaps a re-read is in order? My point was in comparing their fallibilities to the current day fallibilities of those in Iraq who seek democracy. Were they progressive for their time and against the prevailing sentiment of the day? YES! Did they create a perfect democracy on the very first try? No. Not that their attempt wasn't the best attempt ever in the history of man... it just wasn't perfect and neither will Iraq's democracy be perfect from day one. That's all I was saying.

And what manner would you have this acceptance take - over and above the absolute freedom, within the rule of law, already guaranteed Islam (and anybody else) by our Constitution?

The same type of acceptance people eventually gain for wearing motorcycle helmets. The kind where someone decides that it is in their and society's best interest to do it instead of crying because they've been forced to do it due to some law. THAT'S the form of acceptance I'm looking for.

I think you may have misread my original post which you replied to, I'll try to use smaller words in the future!

 

[musicman]

Originally Posted by musicman
The three-fifths compromise was passed at gunpoint, then - over the majority of Americans' wishes? Come on, man - give credit where it's due, just ONCE!

Credit to whom? I give the credit where it is due... and that's to the forward, progressive, liberal thinkers who created our Constitution.

And none is due the American people who were REPRESENTED by these forward, progressive, liberal thinkers? Whose grandsons would soon be dying for the cause of eradicating slavery? Is your contempt for the ordinary American citizen so complete that it's RETROACTIVE??!!

A representative constitutional republic was - most assuredly - forward, progressive, and liberal thinking in the 18th century. How ironic that those who - in modern times - glibly throw around terms like "forward", "progressive", and "liberal" would strangle representative government at every opportunity.


Originally Posted by musicman
And what manner would you have this acceptance take - over and above the absolute freedom, within the rule of law, already guaranteed Islam (and anybody else) by our Constitution?

The same type of acceptance people eventually gain for wearing motorcycle helmets. The kind where someone decides that it is in their and society's best interest to do it instead of crying because they've been forced to do it due to some law. THAT'S the form of acceptance I'm looking for.

Hell, jarendorf - don't worry about using smaller words. I'd settle for simple COHERENCE at this point...