Is there such a thing as a sane American?

[DixieFlower]

Actually democracy does not mean "majority rule". The concept of democracy

The founding fathers of the US did not want a majority rule system they actually despised it and said that it was The Tyranny of the Majority. They said that it would be the destruction of any civilization that adopted it.

Yes, just like the rest of the world... with some modifications in each country. We got a similar system in Norway. This is common knowledge, though apparently not so in the States as Palem thought I wouldn't know... I even tried hinting by saying "democracy" with the "" around it.

In the 2010 elections in Norway, the above happened. The right wing parties had more votes but still lost because each region elects a number of representatives and we got a red-green government. (The Labour party, Socialist party and the Centre Party(which is the Farmer/Rural Party) share power today)

But it's still democracy and we say the majority won. And again, the majority elects Senators, Governors and Presidents. They decide what laws they want, and apparently a lot of States have laws that clearly indicates they have no common sense.

Ease down, stop trying to "catch me". Communication errors is what it is.

[flutterby]

Politics and religion are the same, open to interpretation. We can say that we think we know what the founding father's wanted all we want but they didn't take progress and technology into
consideration. So an author saying, 'this is what they meant' is complete bull. Unless you were there there is no way to know what they truly meant.

[Topsy]

Also, I think we should re-colonise Africa, help them out of their misery, build up their institutions and infrastructure along with a democratic tradition, and then pull out when the time was right and they could stand on their own feet. This might sound very crazy but in a perfect world, this would be the best way.

This whole thread wreaks of an elitist, totalitarian perspective. However, this in particular is a pretty horrible manifestation of such a world-view.

[stoffi]

Actually democracy does not mean "majority rule". The concept of democracy

The founding fathers of the US did not want a majority rule system they actually despised it and said that it was The Tyranny of the Majority. They said that it would be the destruction of any civilization that adopted it.

Your source is horrible.

try this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#DemDef


Democracy is what we call majority rule(with certain tweaks). If you know a bit about ancient Athens, you will see that today's democracies are the same as the first democracy, only with a few tweaks.

This whole thread wreaks of an elitist, totalitarian perspective. However, this in particular is a pretty horrible manifestation of such a world-view.

And you base that on one, small off-topic post? ^^ Most African countries are incapable of ruling themselves due to a lot of factors, IQ or intelligence not being one of them as it is the same as ours.

[flutterby]

Your source is horrible.

Best part about it is it's a firm based in Bangladesh.

Maybe he's right, maybe some of us are elitists. I believe that war was meant to take control of countries.
Not bomb the hell out of them and say ... here now take money to rebuild. No, Did Ghengis Khan offer
to repair the countries the Mongols raped and pillaged? Did Alexander the Great? No, they took the countries
over and had Empires. But modern day.... Whatever happens will still suck because there is no alternative.

[Topsy]

Your source is horrible.

try this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#DemDef


Democracy is what we call majority rule(with certain tweaks). If you know a bit about ancient Athens, you will see that today's democracies are the same as the first democracy, only with a few tweaks.





And you base that on one, small off-topic post? ^^ Most African countries are incapable of ruling themselves due to a lot of factors, IQ or intelligence not being one of them as it is the same as ours.

The problem with your Africa related post isn't so much the dismissal of their IQ or intelligence(although this is surprising, since it has been the same reason for why you dismiss the ability for most Americans to rule themselves), but the complete dismissal of the North's place in creating those structural inequalities that now act as "factors" in making them "incapable of ruling themselves." Many of Africa's most horrific rulers have either been a direct result of colonialization, or neo-colonialization(most prominantly in the form of the IMF or of Western businesses propping up dictators), or a militaristic backlash to recent/past interferences by the North. To say that the answer to this is to further intervene in their ability to rule themselves is of the same logic that created the moral high ground for the North during the slave trade(they are worthless barbareans, atleast we will rule them insuch a way as to create value, and perhaps even Christianize them), or during the various IMF interventions of the last century.

This all is to say that these various elitist, and in most manifestations totalitarian, positions soak through all your posts on this thread because you seem to fundamentally believe that most people are incapable of knowing what it is that constitutes their needs, opinions, desires, and aspirations and that for this reason some "higher" power should rule over them, and as such create a more reasonable, perfect political realm. What this fails to recognize is precisely "a bit about ancient Athens"; namely, that it was a polis that despite the constant attepts at subterfuge on the part of the oligargich elite it was still able to be one of the most developed, and powerful city-states of the era, while all the time being ruled by excactly the poor, and "insane" plebes that you seem so convinced are only capable of knowing what's good for them if some white, privileged, atheist, European tells them.

Perhaps the problem in Africa is that the powers that dominate the individual states(be them European/American NGO's, direct intervention by the North, or the failed state leaders propped up by the North's insatiable desire for natural resources) are not the powers of the people who live within the state. And maybe in the U.S. the problem isn't so much the lack of "sane" people, but the deliberate establishment of a constitution that seeks to dis-empower the people, and privileges those who supposedly know "better".

[stoffi]

The problem with your Africa related post isn't so much the dismissal of their IQ or intelligence(although this is surprising, since it has been the same reason for why you dismiss the ability for most Americans to rule themselves), but the complete dismissal of the North's place in creating those structural inequalities that now act as "factors" in making them "incapable of ruling themselves." Many of Africa's most horrific rulers have either been a direct result of colonialization, or neo-colonialization(most prominantly in the form of the IMF or of Western businesses propping up dictators), or a militaristic backlash to recent/past interferences by the North. To say that the answer to this is to further intervene in their ability to rule themselves is of the same logic that created the moral high ground for the North during the slave trade(they are worthless barbareans, atleast we will rule them insuch a way as to create value, and perhaps even Christianize them), or during the various IMF interventions of the last century.

This all is to say that these various elitist, and in most manifestations totalitarian, positions soak through all your posts on this thread because you seem to fundamentally believe that most people are incapable of knowing what it is that constitutes their needs, opinions, desires, and aspirations and that for this reason some "higher" power should rule over them, and as such create a more reasonable, perfect political realm. What this fails to recognize is precisely "a bit about ancient Athens"; namely, that it was a polis that despite the constant attepts at subterfuge on the part of the oligargich elite it was still able to be one of the most developed, and powerful city-states of the era, while all the time being ruled by excactly the poor, and "insane" plebes that you seem so convinced are only capable of knowing what's good for them if some white, privileged, atheist, European tells them.

Perhaps the problem in Africa is that the powers that dominate the individual states(be them European/American NGO's, direct intervention by the North, or the failed state leaders propped up by the North's insatiable desire for natural resources) are not the powers of the people who live within the state. And maybe in the U.S. the problem isn't so much the lack of "sane" people, but the deliberate establishment of a constitution that seeks to dis-empower the people, and privileges those who supposedly know "better".

The problem with both the US and most countries in Africa is that their leaders are horrible before, now and in the future. The difference though, is that the American leaders are elected. Obama though, seems like a guy with a brain, he sees the real problems. I can't help thinking people dislike him because he's black. No one would say that out loud ofc, but it is not long ago since blacks in the US were Palestinians in Israel, apartheid.

As for Athens, the poor weren't allowed to decide anything. Only men of a certain property. I'm not talking rich though, I'm talking your average middle class guy. (yes, only men)

Anyways, Africa. White has nothing to do with it. Education and culture has. Africa south of Sahara is such a mess because of a lot of reasons, colonisation and neo-colonisation being two of them. But that alone does not explain why Africa is so messed up. First of all, Africa south of Sahara isn't/wasn't very populated. The continent is huge and with small populations(excluding a few countries such as Nigeria and Ethiopia) it is hard to create an inner market. That stalls the economy.

Secondly, Africa(I will use Africa for Africa south of Sahara from now on) has very few natural transport means. Few rivers, a lot of inland isolated by deserts, rain forests, savannas, etc. Compare this to South East Asia(which was also colonised) and you'll see that the Asian populations are dense, there's a lot of islands, little inland, rivers and thus good opportunities for trade. South East Asia is densely populated.

When the colonies were dismantled after WWII, Asia and Africa had the same starting point and look at them now....So, you can't blame it all on the Europeans.


Thirdly, Culture. The African culture(this is ofc very general) is very tribal and not very capitalistic. If some people gain a lot of food or whatever, they are likely to share it with their family/tribe and expect something back when they are the ones suffering. Therefore, you don't see the same capitalism as in Asia and the rest of the world. No big business.

Fourthly, as mentioned before, colonisation. The brits ruled the colonies by supporting a smaller tribe, making them an elite. (other colonial powers did this as well) The Brits did this "best" though and you will find that former British colonies are better of than e.g. former Portugeese or Frence colonies because the Brits educated that elite so they would be able to rule. (ofc, the meaning was to be puppets for the Brits) But when the colonisers left, that Elite would grab power for themselves and you got yourself a dictator with civil wars when the other tribes rioted.
The French and the Portugeese left a vacuum and caused civil wars.


Fifthly, Africa consists of a whole bunch of tribes and the countries excisting today do not represent those tribes in any way. They were artifically drawn by the colonisers.


6th, too much aid to both corrupt and non-corrupt countries have supported dictators and made Africans dependable on aid rather than invest in themselves. Aid isn't always a good thing and must bear part of the guilt why Africa is so messed up today. It must be done right.


7. Especially the Brits built a lot of infrastructure and actually HELPED their colonies. After they left, little infrastructure was built and well, you need infrastructure to run a country.


8. Transportation expenses are skyhigh! There are few roads, rivers or trains and for a producer of goods it will be extremely costly to actually transport the goods to an international market. The inner markets are too small. This is extremely limiting.


9. I've already mentioned this, but corruption is a huge problem. You put your close supporters in positions of power and you give them money to keep them close.


10. Lack of educational institutions. This is also a huge problem as the few university students they have will often get a job somewhere in the government apparatus. This means there are few educated people to run private businesses.


11. Going for 1 or just a few resources, for example Wheat and Cows(just random examples). Then, when bad times come, drought or plague or if the price of their 1 or 2 products fall, they have lost ALL their business and investments and are screwed. This leads to more loans from Western countries, which is ofc bad. Africa is all about raw materials, rarely manufactured goods.


I'm sure there's more, I can't remember it all. This is what I was taught at University by my history professors a few years back.




As you see, there are a lot of reasons why Africa is so messed up today and Asia is not. In some colonies, you will find a lot of people wanting their former colonisers to come back and make it what it used to be.
I know it's not political correct to say it and it would never work, but in a perfect world where no one got upset about such things, we would send a bunch of Europeans and maybe Asians to at least fix their government problems. We would invest in infrastructure, get rid of corruption, educate the people and then in the future when they would take back government with knowledge and democracy. As it is now, the Africans are incapable of ridding themselves of their dictators and their rulers are incapable of doing constructive things for their people(as in the US).

The above has nothing to do with being totalitarian or elitistic, it has do with helping someone who needs help. If you are sick in real life, you get help. Why not help the Africans and Americans? :)

[Topsy]

1) People definetly(in part) dislike Obama because he's black. They also dislike him because he is liberal--something certain people dislike in part because of its historical association with things such as enfranchisement, and welfare for minorities.
2) This is obviously historical, and as such the relevance is only so much, but "landed" was a very different thing in Athens than we think of today. It included almost every non-slave, male of a certain age. Political power derived from your status as head, or head-in-training, or past-head, of the oikos, or family unit, which was also the term for the house/garden area that most people had their family. Regardless, it was for this reason that the 2 of the most dominant definitions of democracy provided by Aristotle were a) rule by the poor, and b) rule by lot. Implicit in both were expectations as to the level of intelligence held by those who were making many decisions.
3) Not all colonies were the same. The U.S. and Australia were colonies and obviously are different than India or Thailand, or South Korea, or Sub-saharan Africa. As such, they did not have the same "starting point." Colonialization in many sub-saharan African nations meant not only the exportation of much of the countries labor power, but also the dismantling of those political institutions that had helped to stabalize the regions(your scary "tribes"). Exporting Labor is much different than exporting refined goods, or in the case of south korea, even importing labor value in the guise of managerial expertise.
4) this brings me to your "culture" position. The standard of living in Africa is lower now than it was before europeans started dismantling their political and economic culture. Moreover, after extensive research by NGO's such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, it seems that those cultural and economic norms are more suited to most of those regions than western capitalistic models, and that a return to the types of robust subsistece farming that use to occur would be a tremendous move in the right direction for large segments of the population. Big business, like Man Seuntos(an admittedly evil U.S. corporation), are the problem leading to much of the micro-level instability within tribal communities in Africa, not the lack of big business know-how.
5) some of your points after that are mostly correct, however, I would point out that the problems associated with only making one resource(wheat and cows are excelent and apt examples) are entirely associated with the belief by Northern do-gooders that they new better how development should work, and how Africa could suceed. It was a combination of colonizers, and then the IMF who dictated that they become export-dominated economies so that they could be better capitalists that led to this current state. I'd also point out(although mostly as a ding to France and the U.S.) that right after the North forced them to leave subsistence farming and make things that white people like to consume, they placed heavy tarrifs on all those items coming from Africa so as to "protect the cultural existence of the French farmer" in France, and to help the crazy zealots that vote in early primaries in the U.S.

I agree with you that most of the current leaders of sub-saharan African countries are horrible, and completely corrupt. But i think that this is the case normally because of direct intervention by Northern governments thinking they can help, or by structural issues created by those same actors. As such, the way of fixing it isn't to send over more Northerns to help the savages, but to support those political/social/economic institutions that the people there actually support, and not dismiss those isntitutions as unfit, just because they differ from your understandings of how the world should operate.

edit: and aid: most aid is completely counter-productive, since it doesn't allow local farmers/entraupeneurs to develop their own goods for the local economy. There have been some really interesting studies showing that the best aid would be if you just went down there with a suitcase full of money and handed it out. Either way, the problem isn't "dependency" as much as white people thinking Africans are too stupid to help themselves in their own way, and instead only provide them with surplus goods from our own stores, in effect permittign another agriculture subsidy

[stoffi]

2. Well, you got some points, but sub-hoplites(being largely rowers in the fleet and etc) were defined as a group and had no power at first. They were called Thethes, middle class was called Hoplites/Zeugittai and the upper class were Hippeis. All these groups were clearly defined by the amount of land they owned and what it produced. A sub-hoplite was someone who earned less than 10000 liters of grain every year.
They got more power as time passed, but most of the time the two groups above them had more votes in the popular assembly. I believe this is called Timocracy in English. Anyways, this system is complex, but there were big differences between the groups. Solon was the guy who made it so, the guy a lot of ppl connect to Athen's democracy.


3. No, not all colonies were the same, but most sub-saharan and Asian colonies were pretty much the same. They had no large populations of Europeans(except a few countries like South Africa) and their natives had not been desimated by diseases brought by the Europeans. This is in contrast to for example North America where the natives died or were driven off and Europeans came in great numbers.
After WWII, Asian and Sub-saharan colonies were in the same boat. My post goes to explain why Africa failed and Asia succeeded. They were given the same starting conditions by the Europeans.

Also, few of these areas had centralised governments BEFORE the Europeans came(A few did, yes), so it was hard to get it working after. Also, slavery contributed to draining some regions for labour, as you mentioned, but that doesn't account for all the regions in sub-sahara.

4. You're probably correct, but still, a lot of time has passed. And, I would think subsistence farming is what most are doing right now, barely keeping their heads above the water.

5. That is correct, but a lot of time has passed by now. Asian colonies had the same problems but managed to get out of the mess. India/Pakistan are very good examples here(Cotton/clothes), but I suspect other countries would be better examples but I don't know enough about their histories.




Also, yes, I think Africans are too ignorant to help themselves, just as I think Americans are too ignorant to help themselves. This has NOTHING to do with any Aryan ?ber race genetics, it just has to do with education and government. It's easily fixed, but it takes someone who's not ignorant to see the problems.
That being said, this is very general. Most Americans are just victims of their own situation, as are Africans. As for the US, I'd say it's 50/50 ignorant/normal, judging by how they vote in various elections and polls.

[Narim]

I'm talking about the majority. It takes the majority to vote in laws that arrest 11 year olds for doing normal pranks, it takes the majority to vote for people like Bush or Romney and make them president. Hell, you almost voted in a woman who claimed God wanted the USA to invade Iraq and didn't know that South Africa was an independent country in Africa.


There are plenty of sane people in the US, you are probably one of them, but you aren't the majority in a lot of states. Also, a sane person wouldn't call for more guns when kids go shooting up schools.

If you look below my avatar, it says Sweden, and it said Sweden when I posted the reply you quoted.
The majority you speak of is well... shifty and even though the term applies at times, the numbers are not what you think and here is why: Say its election day, Mr A gets 53% votes while Mr B gets 47%, Mr A wins by majority yes, but you still have a pretty big bunch of people that are the 47% who cast their vote on the other guy. To add on top of that, you have a % of the population who didnt vote, anything between 10% to 30% or whatnot. I dont know if there is a thing called blank vote in the US and if there is it only adds to the point I am trying to make. This is to make it very very simple. And yes, the gap between the candidates is often a small one. Now take a look at that, do the math and tell me again honestly if you can call that a majority of the country.

[Narim]

Stereotype much?

Do I stereotype the public as a whole? Yes, I do. But that doesnt mean I am wrong.

[stoffi]

If you look below my avatar, it says Sweden, and it said Sweden when I posted the reply you quoted.
The majority you speak of is well... shifty and even though the term applies at times, the numbers are not what you think and here is why: Say its election day, Mr A gets 53% votes while Mr B gets 47%, Mr A wins by majority yes, but you still have a pretty big bunch of people that are the 47% who cast their vote on the other guy. To add on top of that, you have a % of the population who didnt vote, anything between 10% to 30% or whatnot. I dont know if there is a thing called blank vote in the US and if there is it only adds to the point I am trying to make. This is to make it very very simple. And yes, the gap between the candidates is often a small one. Now take a look at that, do the math and tell me again honestly if you can call that a majority of the country.

As Churchill said: ?It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.?

I agree with your post, but we call it majority rule anyways. You'll find elections where the largest party is the people who don't vote. ^^

[flutterby]

Do I stereotype the public as a whole? Yes, I do. But that doesnt mean I am wrong.

Doesn't mean you're right.

[Kemia]

Its like this republicans use big corporations to run their stock holds and using that power over political gain: take mosanto for instance getting a patent on being able to genetically alter nature as we know it!!

they hold huge power over the government!!

Watch the movie "Food Inc." for more information on where I got this information from!

[flutterby]

But not all Republican's are like that, many are, but... Democrats can be just as bad.