This is TOO much!

[tvashtarkatena]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

Bit o' both, mate, bit o' both.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

Yes, they were visionaries, who were restricted by reality, knowing they couldn't wave a magic wand and fix these problems, but they could establish a framework in which, over time, this could be accomplished.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, they were visionaries, who were restricted by reality, knowing they couldn't wave a magic wand and fix these problems, but they could establish a framework in which, over time, this could be accomplished.

 

...after over two years of heated debate and public protest, without which we would never have had the Bill of Rights.

[prole]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

[archenemy]

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years.

 

Rights are never granted, they are only taken.

 

Slavery ended because most voters (in the North) supported its abolition.

 

Women got the vote when most voters (men and women) supported it.

 

The Equal Rights Amendment passed because most voters (black and white) supported it.

 

Yes, there were long struggles before the public adopted these positions. My point is that voters often don't realize how much power they wield...if they choose to. Voters also do not realize that most of the wounds against civil liberties are self inflicted...they were popular among voters until voters changed their minds.

 

Welcome to the USA.

Oh I see, so people just kinda came around to their senses and then just sorta "supported it". Hmmm, all those history books I read must have been wrong.

[archenemy]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document.

 

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve.

 

Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them.

 

But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document.

This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

 

This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

[prole]

Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

 

Thank you. Damn, man.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh I see, so people just kinda came around to their senses and then just sorta "supported it". Hmmm, all those history books I read must have been wrong.

 

I neither implied nor stated that and you know it. Shame on you, sinner.

[tvashtarkatena]

Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

 

I'm well aware of the history of these struggles. I'm not sure where you're point of disagreement is, frankly.

[Dechristo]

Debutantekatena, it's with JayB.

[Stonehead]

a manifesto!

 

The Democratic 25-point manifesto! http://www.rightwasright.us

[tvashtarkatena]

Debutantekatena, it's with JayB.

 

I am JayB.

 

Do I look fat in this avatar?

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

Debutantekatena, it's with JayB.

 

I am JayB.

 

Do I look fat in this avatar?

That is fucking funny!

[archenemy]

Yes, and the discussion keeps bringing up rights and Constitution. I am agreeing with you. I just think it's easy for folks (not you personally) to forget the their rights are outlined in a different document.

 

What document is that? The bill of rights? I believe that IS part of the Constitution of the United States. Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? It does proclaim certain rights, but it's not an acting legal document.

what a strong reaction to an innocuous statement. I draw attention to the distintion because most people have read the Bill of Rights and most have not read the Constitution. To forget that these two things happened at different times (especially when we are discussing Amendments that occurred later in time such as we are) is to forget the incredible amount of social change that happened during this time. The outcome of this simple exclusion is often an opinion that the authors just came to their senses over a couple of little items they left out in the first draft and added in the appendix. This is not the case.

[tvashtarkatena]

What, you mean the Founding Fathers didn't eat injustice and shit freedom?

[JayB]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document.

 

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve.

 

Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them.

 

But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document.

This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

 

This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

 

I guess that we'll just have to disagree on this one. Yes, the suffragettes were courageous and faced resistance and intimidation and no small amount of derision - but they were inspired by and appealing to a moral framework encoded within the nation's founding documents that explicitly recognized and gave formal legal standing to a grand abstraction known as "inalienable rights." Since you are so familiar with history you'll no doubt recall that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollenscraft all couched their arguments within a framework established by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The existence of this framework, and the power of the ideas contained within it, rather than their posession any kind of menacing physical power that left the men of their time cowering in fear, is what ultimately lead to the recognition of their rights. Exhibit A is the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1848 Women's Right's Convention in Sececca Falls:

 

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

 

 

I'm sorry - but had Wollenscraft et. al been transported to Mecca or Jeddah and made the same arguments "You know....inalienable rights....granted by the Creator.... the, uh, self evident ones...." They would have been met with mute incomprehension at best, and its fair to say that the outcome would have been rather different. I'm sorry, but it was ultimately the moral power that their arguments has in the western context of individual rights, and nothing else, that lead to women's liberation. If it were otherwise, then women never would have been subject to male domination in the first place, and women's status in the rest of the world would differ quite substantially from what we observe today.

[tvashtarkatena]

This observer sees no inconsistencies in these two viewpoints. They are both true.

[JayB]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

 

If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so.

[Dechristo]

they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights

 

NOW, I know my wife's reference when she refers to my member as her "certain unalienable right".

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, but it is, uh, self evident that she meets it with mute incomprehension and no small amount of derision.

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

you're confusing her regard for my post with her reaction to your posts.

[tvashtarkatena]

you're confusing her regard for my post with her reaction to your posts.

 

I'm sorry that she can't ultimately see the moral power that my arguments have in the western context of individual rights, but it's probably best that she also not see my posession of the kind of menacing physical power that leaves the men of our time cowering in fear, or she might be tempted to abandon one portion of the family to assume a position different from that which she has hitherto occupied.

Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Hey - it's the electronic version of "the radio game," - being played by an adult. Clever stuff.

 

"He thought he was a Lord amongst wits, but it turned out that he was only a wit amonst Lords."

[Dechristo]

a good example of your "moral power".

[Crux]

It's too bad Reagan's motorcade didn't run you over.

 

Mom didn't let us lie down in the street in front of motorcades when I was in fourth grade.

Does not compute.