Left or Right?

The treatment of First Nations is yet ANOTHER area of great Canadian myth, unfortunately. We used to be taught (it's getting a bit better, thank god) that Canada was far more "fair" and peaceful in its treatment of our native population than was the US. The latter is true, to the extent that we didn't have "Indian Wars," but tended to rely upon treaty settlements. The idea of our being more "fair" however is laughable: the treaties were abandoned or broken, and our actual dealings with First Nations peoples have been unbelievably shameful. Attitudes towards that are only now beginning to slowly change.


You may be right. My own feeling is that political or ideological categories ... and I would include "Feminism" in this ... are mostly intellectual crutches that provide lazy thinkers with an easy and usually simplistic way to respond to complex problems. Why bother actually exploring or thinking about an issue if you can subscribe to an ideology that does the "hard work" for you?

I am guilty of this to some extent myself (although I am at least AWARE that I am guilty), when I use "feminism" as a sort of shorthand for part of my belief system. There are a great many different forms of "feminism," some of which I actually quite loathe. But then, it would be awfully tiresome to have to set out all the details of what I believe every time someone asks . . . and I suspect I'd end up with an even more unwilling audience than I now have . . .

Myself and my family look at things like that as in the past..Water under the bridge so to speak..It was hard to let go of that at first..I really was having a bad chip on my shoulder at a young age.. My father pushed that out of me with reason..Over time i learned to let bad things go and take people as who they are now and not from the past..

He explained to me that i could spend my life hating everyone around me and hate everyone for things from the past because of bloodlines or apples not falling far from the tree..Or i could understand that Times do change and so do people..

He said to me..If my father your grandfather committed a murder before you or i were born..Would you want us to be known as someone who would commit murder?Would you want to be called a killer?

I said no i could not kill anyone..

Then you can't go around thinking that people are killers or hating them until they have done those things to give you reason..

If someone lies about the past or points at you because of the past..Then you step up and you say what you know to be true because you believe it to be true..
Don't go through life hating people because of stories passed to them that may generate their hate..You are too smart for that..
This world will never grow to be a good place if you add to it's negativity..
Do you want to hate people all your life?

No i don't hate anyone really i just get mad at times and say things that sound like i hate them..

Then study and say the right things and show you are ready to move forward..Because if you look around you.
You have it very good right now little girl..You would probably be on a horse instead of having that jeep out there you love so much..You have dated a few of those people that would be tied to those bloodlines so i know you know what i am saying..

I kind of giggled when he brought that up hehehe

Basically he told me ..Never forget the past because that's where you came from..At the same time don't blame people for something that is in their families past..
There is no honor in that..You were not there and neither was i..So until we are confronted and taste it ourselves we have no place in claiming their pain or their hate..

He had to sit me down a few times when i would be slipping..It was very easy to slip back in that direction when people say cruel things because of what you are in looks..But i learned they must not have had such a wise father as me and they are only spouting from the things they were raised hearing to believe..

I find that people i have talked with really become interested when we talk calmly..some seeming like they want to hear the other side..Then you have the ones that will not hear of it being different at all..
We are all in one big melting pot now so we should be looking to the future and use the past's to create positive results..Instead so many use the past as a crutch to keep us in gridlock to hold us back..
We have to pull the lessons out of the past and become wiser for the future..If we want a better future..
Grudges and chips on shoulders just keep us all blind as bats..We all bleed from the same things and we always will..You would think after so much death and hate that we would have noticed that color by now hehehe


I understand groups have more push and pull and help to organize peoples beliefs or helps to get them known in a sense..

Myself i don't want any other beliefs that are not mine..I mean i don't want to carry beliefs that are not mine..like if one group may believe in something i do but also believe in something i do not..Myself i couldn't join that..I would probably get kicked out because of internal drama or for not showing up to some march that had to do with some other belief hahaha

I feel that if i start with something like..I am Apache and then talk about the past that i will be looked at as bias instead of being taken seriously..Sometimes i have to because it is in relation to why something happened..It does tend to clog things and distract when really i want to be seen there as with an open mind and get things done..I don't want leverage or appendage to be a factor..
I want to take everything out of it but the bottom line and see where things end up..
I don't know if i am saying this right or if it sounds offending..i am not trying to be offensive or judgmental by saying groups are dishonest or anything like that..
I think they do have purpose and do get things done..

But they are also judged as soon as their name is dropped..This is when you hear..Ahh no wonder..you are one of them!
It becomes an uphill battle and chances are people will feel the need to choose sides or be labeled as one side or the other when they enter the discussion..

I will be honest with you..If you see me disagreeing or agreeing with you it will be because i disagree or agree with you..
I may say something about not liking certain movements or certain groups of protests..

Only when you speak for them or make them part of your debate will they come into play..
I think they clog a person from being truly heard because they have placed the stereotype on themselves..
That happened when i saw you first post in one of your first threads i came a crossed..

I would just like to say..
I am sorry for letting the association with a group have me putting a label on you at the beginning..but it was your introduction that did that..
I just want you to know that even though some of our beliefs do not line up that i respect your beliefs that are yours..
I wanted to say this because the other night i saw a post of yours and went to respond..well when i submitted it there were like 3 other posts responding to you..
I just wanted you to know it wasn't meant to chime in..I was seriously just looking to respond and found mine in with 3 other posts.. lol so sorry for that

Amen. I think that is a very admirable perspective. It is SOOOOO important to know the past, to learn from the mistakes as well as understand how we have arrived where we are.

But it is at least equally important not to become enslaved by our histories. Mere knowledge of the past dooms us to repetition; it is understanding it that sets us free.


That certainly DOES happen, but to some extent, that's THEIR issue and not yours. If it is common to subscribe to an ideology mindlessly because you are too lazy to think through the complexities yourself, it is even MORE common to stereotype. And unfortunately, sometimes a single trigger word, phrase, or even idea is enough to have people leaping to conclusions about you. I suspect that all we can do, really, is try to educate such people (and I'm quite sure I've been guilty of this as well) about how such thinking falsifies and misrepresents.


You don't need to apologize for anything, Ceka. I've never thought that your responses were anything other than fair and respectful, even when I thought we were misunderstanding each other. I hope you can say the same of mine; if not, then I apologize. And you are certainly one of the people here in the forums that it has been a delight to come to know and chat with.

I completely get your point about how my self-identification with my group may, to some degree, have had me misrepresenting myself. At the same time, I will say this: I frequently disagree with other members of the SLLUFN, and I certainly have dissented from some things that the group as a whole agreed upon. That said, it is a group that tolerates and respects dissent. I don't think that I WANT to associate with a group that entirely represents my own opinion (it would probably be a VERY small group anyway ), because I learn through debate and discussion. As I have here.

Sitting on walls can make one's bum sore. Sooner or later, a decision must be made. But I have voted only once in my life as my age has constrained my decision-making.

At the age of 8 my son was sent to stand outside the classroom for daring to point out to his teacher that the word "chronicle" had an 'h' in it!

Pep (That's my boy!)

At the same age I was sent out of the class by the drama tutor for overacting as a tree and distressing my friends.
And that is absolutely true. Maybe that memory will fade over the years.

Then at 13 a teacher "accidentally" clonked me over my head with a piece of two-by-four as we were constructing a stage.

A decision between what and what?

My TRUE realization that teachers were fallible came pretty late. During my BA, I took a theory and criticism course with a prof who, during one class, quoted a couplet from Dryden, attributing it to Pope:

Great wits are oft to madness near allied;
And thin partitions do their bounds divide

When I tentatively suggested that the attribution was incorrect, he spent the next 10 minutes of the class "demonstrating" how the line could not possibly be by Dryden . . .

The same prof, who was a hardcore New Critic, responded in another class to my suggestion that social and ideological issues had a bearing on our reading of literature by referring to me as "Comrade," a "joke" that he kept up for the rest of the year. Ha ha.

Charity and scholarships.

We already have that happening now with the current system. You do know that many cannot even pass the ASVAB. People say the education system is failing, but it is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Instill young minds with propaganda and train them to follow rote instruction. Read some John Taylor Gatto.

I think it is too important to trust to government employees.

Because if you steal from me, you cause me harm. Your marriage, education or how much you give to support the poor doesn't affect me at all.

1 user agreed vigorously. The public schools have become a place for political agendas, political correctness, and new age nonsense. They are expected to do the job of parents in raising kids, instead of educating them.

Yes, I am referring to states rights. Funny, that whole chattel thing ended everywhere else in the western world without a war.(With the exception of Haiti, if you consider it a Western Nation) It was dying in the South. But then you have to know that when the South left the Federal government was left without a major source of it's funding. That is why Lincoln went to war, he was perfectly fine with leaving slavery alone, but he couldn't let the money get away.

As for the civil rights laws of the 50's and 60's, I would repeal them all where they apply to private property. Doesn't have anything to do with race, but it does have to do with free association and property rights.

Can you find any wall I sit on?

My son was also disciplined by his drama teacher for messing about . . .

Pep ( . . . when the improvisation he had been instructed to do was . . . a kid messing about!)

PS Overacting? You? Surely not!

Hmmm. So, back to the "good old days" of whites-only country clubs, restaurants that won't serve blacks or Jews, etc., etc.? What about privately owned hospitals? Where I live, most essential services are public, but in the US, where that is not always so, surely your approach would have pretty dramatic implications in terms of services available to certain segments of the population?

In my humble opinion, a privatized world is one that already discriminates against the poor . . . this would just expand the list of the excluded.

Hey, what about a PG-only SL?

It is a different time nowadays. Back then segregation was accepted in a good portion of society here. While it is still an issue, any for profit business employing it would not be in business long. However, private organizations have the right to restrict their membership, as they should. Country Clubs, religious groups, etchnic organizations, business associations etc all have crieteria for membership, and should not be "forced" to accept anybody.

As far as a PG only SL, if that is what LL wants, and I think it is their plan for the not too distant future, it is their right as the owner of the service to decide who uses it and how. It always has been. And it is our right as customers to walk away if we don't like it.

How many of those "implications" were caused by law? Zoning, government owned services etc?

If Store A doesn't want the money from a group of people, Store B, if they aren't shut down by government regulation, will open and gladly take it from them. Just like this crap about employment discrimination. If business A doesn't want to hire a qualified person from group X, then business B will and business A will lose out on the talent and will lose money to business B.

But it gets down to a deeper issue. If I spend my time, my money, my blood building something, who are you to tell me how I should run it? When you do that, you make me your slave.

The invisible hand of the free market will solve all the problems you think we need freedom destroying laws for.

Sounds more like a recipe for ghettoisation to me, Chris.

Pep (But maybe that is what you want?)

Oh my god. I agree . . . !

/me faints.

I am for free association. Free association also means the right to not associate for any reason. Anyway, most ghettos were the result of government action. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, most people want to be around people like themselves. As long as it is voluntary, I have no problem with that. If people choose to integrate, that is fine. If people choose not to integrate, that is fine with me as well.

You should know me well enough by now to know that I am against the use of force for anything but defense. That includes government force. I believe that private property is almost a sacred human right, it certainly trumps any of these so called rights that are trumpeted now days. I believe that the peaceful individual is more important than society or community. I know that there will never be equal outcomes for individuals. Trying to obtain them will only limit those who do excel.

So you support government mandated monopolies that limit the poor from upward mobility? Things like most business licenses? You know the ones that say a poor person with a car cannot offer cab service. Or that a poor person with the talent cannot braid hair or paint fingernails without passing a government test.

And paying a huge fee.

I think there are often very good reasons for licensing certain sorts of activities. I'd like to think, for instance, that my doctor's medical degree has been accredited by an agency that ensures high standards. I'd prefer, similarly, to know that my cab driver actually has a licence, and that her or his cab meets certain minimal safety standards.

But what you really seem to be asking me is, do I approve of poorly-applied bureaucracy or tax grabs. No, of course not. No one wants "big government" per se; fewer still want "stupid government." I WOULD like a system that intelligently applies laws and regulations to ensure some degree of social justice. We actually don't do that very well at the moment. I am no fan of the status quo.

With regard to your faith in the free market, there are many assumptions that you make, but the most important may be the idea there is a level playing field where "excellence" always succeeds. That is simply not so. In many cases, we can't even identify "excellence" because it has been neglected and uncultivated by an educational system that still very much disadvantages the poor. Not to mention the kind of psychological effects that growing up in poverty can have. Our culture is full of "mute inglorious Miltons" who have been crushed by poverty, racism, sexism, etc., long before they have a chance to blossom.

And, frankly, I am not very happy with your rather extreme notion of meritocracy. Of course the "best" should be allowed to excel. But that doesn't mean, surely, that the weak, the disadvantaged, or even the merely stupid should be left to rot?

Of course not!

Pep (Just the stupid! )

I don't know of any really good sources for this but i do know this is going on right now with Tennessee and the ATF..
This is what i found and i am curious if anyone has found any sources for this or if anyone knows what all is going on?
maybe someone here knows more about it..

I'm not sure of what sites are what when it comes to things like this..I just know this is happening..I heard it on the radio and saw it in the morning paper..

Here is the link where this below is..I don't know if it is left right or what..It was one of the first ones so i grabbed it..
========================================================
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/batf-vs-states-rights.html

A line was drawn in the sand last week – a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

(Editor’s note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms licenses on 07-16-09 as well)

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say:

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”