Originally posted by Kokatsi
First of all, you keep on educating everyone here as if you knew better about every single thing on earth.
This is my last post - I am going to press the ignore button because this attitude is pretty much insufferable.
It's not my job to educate anyone here. That's what teachers are paid to do. What I'm doing is giving my opinion, same as you are. Those opinions
appear to differ. Deal with it. I do.
I am fifty, have several degrees, and an American citizen. I raised a kid and I am raising another - despite the horrendous pressure of commercialism
all around and the lack of old communities. Where I come from, grandmothers and aunts etc. were also part of raising a kid. That is what I meant by
quoting the African saying.
I'm fifty as well, but only have a couple of degrees. Too busy with life to gather many more. I've raised several kids, one of which was mine. Some
turned out good, some turned out bad. C'est la vie! This is how we learn.
Second, I do not look down upon Africans. A lot of ancestors of modern Americans I like and respect came from there - albeit not willingly. Many
African societies possess wisdom modern man could do better with, such as the Zulu knowledge about family systems psychologists model.
I neither look down on Africans nor look up to them. I won't be visiting any African villages any time soon, but that doesn't mean I "look down"
on them. They have their own societies, which I leave them to. Societies as a whole are integrated systems. It simply won't do to try to extract
parts of one, unsupported by the rest of it, and transplant those parts into an alien society.
I got out of the Disney fascism, thank you, despite having to work AND raise kids, and I am not a neglecting parent, never been one. But I would have
much preferred the family system I grew up with - hardly anything of that remains now, due to the relentless corporate conquering of our world.
Congrats on not letting Disney raise your kids. That's not neglectful, in any way, shape or form. what is neglectful is to NOT do that, and just roll
with the flow, letting strangers raise your kids. perhaps you misapprehended my meaning.
Most of my upbringing was in the Appalachian mountains, where extended family is also an important component, just as your upbringing sounds. That is
family, it's not allowing strangers to raise your kids. Perhaps a small distinction, but it makes a world of difference to me. I see a huge
difference between my own "clan" and the "village" as a whole. Yes, they're still pretty clannish around there. It doesn't help to make me any
less clannish that I am a Shawnee - it just tends to restrict the boundaries of "my own" for me. A subset of a subset, if you will.
Oddly, the same system STILL rules there. Corporations haven't made much of a dent (they usually just take what they can, and then get while the
getting out is good), although certain unwarranted behaviors from the flatlands have crept in over the past few years.
What I am worried about is not myself or the Übermensch you posit yourself to appear in your posts on this thread, but the innocent masses of
And that would appear to be one of the more intractable differences between you and I. I'm not concerned with those "innocent masses". They aren't
my lookout if they can't look out for themselves. I have my own to worry about.
So you live on your own, you take no medicines even when you are ill?
If you do, you are dealing with corporations. And they are not always honest.
That is correct. I live on my own, and don't take medicines. If I get ill, I treat it myself, to include throwing my own stitches and setting my own
bone breaks. That's why God gave us the Forest. So far, I've not run into anything I couldn't treat on my own, and when I do - which will without a
doubt some day happen - I will die. This is a good
thing, since it means that I will no longer be able to annoy you. It's the natural course
of events. You are born, you live, and then you die. No one has yet escaped it, and neither will I. All of the medicine in the world can't prevent
it, so why bother keeping yourself in a chemical haze just because you don't feel good right now?
That's just my own philosophy - your mileage may vary.
You will taste the difference between GMO weeds and ragweed when GMO gets to you...
I thought that was about the pollen? otherwise, I'd have had no reason to mention ragweed. I've heard about GMO this and GMO that, but haven't run
across any of it yet - at least nothing recognizeable from the horror stories. Our corn still sprouts every year from last year's seed, and no one
has grown an extra head from eating it. Might be a different story for folks who rely entirely on grocery stores, I dunno. Seems to me that would be a
good reason to sever that particular reliance.
If we have a democracy, they will not, unless you expressly allow them.
They will not any way - regardless of "democracy" or no - except perhaps for wind-borne pollen, which I've already addressed. The man hasn't been
born who can force me to eat something I don't want to eat, and I know how to get my own grub.
If it is the corporate fascism the American right wing allows and sometimes prefers, then they will, no matter if you want them or not. THAT is the
The American "right" doesn't exist in a vaccuum. If they are "allowing" this, they are not alone in that permissiveness. The American "left"
needs to shoulder their own share of that blame as well if it's occurring, which is one of the reasons I tend to reject political polarities. All
they are is one "side" trying to lay the blame entirely on the other, while simultaneously hiding their own guilt. meanwhile, among all the
infighting, the bankers laugh all the way to the bank, profiting from both while they are otherwise engaged.
(Mob rule will be enforced on you - democracy and government are probably your best protection. Sorry.)
No, mob rule will NOT be enforced on me. That's just the way it is. They may kill me, but they'll never conquer me. I don't really expect you to
ken the difference, though. A certain amount of government is necessary, and no one is disputing that. What is under dispute is how far the tentacles
should be allowed to reach, and how big the government should be allowed to grow.
Forgive me, but as someone that studied history to greater depth than most of my compatriots, the difference between democracy and constitutional
republic seems to be splitting hairs compared to the difference between outright tyranny (which is what corporate rule begins to remind one of, and I
HAVE lived under one) and having a bottom-up system. Holland and Norway and the US on one hand, Stalinist Russia, Mugabe or North Korea - or Saudi
Arabia - on the other hand. THAT is the difference that matters. Not that there is nothing special about the US.
And there we have the crux of the issue. We're really not that far apart on that. For me, "right" and "left" hold less meaning that they do for
most, because the simple fact is that tyranny can develop on EITHER of those "sides". The "enemy", if you want to call it that, is neither
corporatism nor collectivism, it is TYRANNY, and tyranny knows no side but it's own. It's up to us, either individually or collectively, as the
spirit moves you, to reject that tyranny. No one can rule you without at least your passive acquiescence to that rule, whether it's the corporate or
the proletariat. I prefer the individualist stance, and you appear to prefer the collectivist stance, and that seems to be the main difference. There
really isn't any reason that both can't coexist, provided that both recognize a tyrannical opposition, and both work against it. Accommodations can
be made, but they're hard to find amongst all the in-fighting fostered and promoted by the would be rulers.
Others that followed this increasingly bad-mood-debate may not with interest that apart from the well-known Locke, Hume and Rousseau, there was
another effect that may have had a formative role on the very formation and the spirit of the American Constitution, perhaps the most important of
all: the Iroquis Confederacy and its so-called Great Rule.
In that spirit, as with most native American tribal gatherings, democracy does not mean "mob rule", neither the will of the majorioty being forced
on the minority. That is truly one crucial bit of difference modern people from democratic societies forget, and it IS peculiar to the US among modern
In tribal gatherings, the representatives argue until the minority is convinced that the tribe does better if the other decision (the majority's) is
adopted. If there is a single person unconvinced and not willing to cooperate with the majority's will, they stop the decision from being made.
Despite days and days of bringing arguments up and down to come to a decision, these were pretty efficient societies - if we whites had not had our
biological warfare (like infected blankets) we would have never vanquished them.
I don't know much about the Iroquois system. In the Shawnee system, a council is called, and everyone gets to say their piece, with the most
persuasive argument, or the most eloquent speaker, generally creating a more or less consensus. A single person cannot stop the execution of the
consensus, once reached, but they are free to leave if they don't like it. Generally, councils are called on matters affecting the entire tribe as a
unit, and aren't applied as individual prohibitions. Very few infractions would result in a punishment of any sort, in contrast to the current US
Agreed, that is sort of the idea behind the Federal system in theory, but in practice it hasn't panned out that way. The concept was that matters
pertaining to the nation as a whole were handled at the national level, with states handling state matters, and individuals handling individual
matters. It wasn't meant to be a system where edicts were handed down from on high to micromanage everything "beneath" it, but that's the way it
Now. You seem to take an Übermensch-type of stance that you are above and totally independent from society. Then you should ask yourself the question
why on earth you want to answer people in a forum? Why not be just content with yourself?
If by " Übermensch " you mean individualist, I stand guilty as charged. That doesn't mean I should just clam up and keep my opinions to myself,
however. That's not the American way, the Shawnee way, the Iroquois way, or even the African way. I AM content with myself, but that doesn't mean
that I should shut up and sit down. The free exchange of ideas is what helps a society as a whole deal with it's growing pains (which never end), and
my opinion is just as important as anyone else's, as is yours.
That's why I answer people in a forum - so that they don't start thinking their way is the ONLY way, and applicable to all. It isn't, any more than
Besides, language itself is a community thing. Presumable you learned English from somebody. Language research shows that people left completely alone
do not develop language skills. Period.
language is a communication
thing. It's sole purpose is to be a medium for exchanging ideas, and it doesn't work very well when the basic
terms are not understood the same by all. That's one of my primary problems with a few academicians and most christians. They use a jargon-filled
language all their own, not putting their thoughts into the common parlance, and so don't communicate their ideas very effectively. Spoken words are
nothing more than moving air if they're not understood. that's not communication, for all the language that may be involved.
Do you know how the Greeks called the individual standing only by himself?
I'm not Greek, but I've been called worse. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.