View Full Version : Who Is Your Hero?
It seems that there aren't many heroes left in the world. Sports is looking more like a prison line up.
When you were growing up, and/or right now... Who do you consider a hero, and why?
Amaurote
11-27-01, 02:04PM
Originally posted by Diva
It seems that there aren't many heroes left in the world. Sports is looking more like a prison line up.
When you were growing up, and/or right now... Who do you consider a hero, and why?
Amaurote nods beatifically to Hollowearth, who is already stopping his ears with earplugs in anticipation of aforesaid Amaurote's post...
Alexander Kerensky, the Trudovik Socialist Revolutionary, for reasons I never tire of explaining, and never tire of tiring other people with, as thus: he represents everything I admire politically, acted virtuously, energetically and quixotically at a time of revolutionary lawlessness, chaos and confusion, and, but for the self-interested calculations of a few Cossack army units and the impossible situation foisted upon him by the Great War, would certaintly have saved Russia and most of Eastern Europe from over 70 years of purges, pogrom and totalitarian paranoia.
http://www.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/photos/bin05/imag0436.jpg
I take your point about contemporary figures, Di: however, as with all contemporary things, it isn't so much a matter of their not existing: they simply don't become clear until a few years have fleeted by and confirmed their virtues by their acts, deeds and speeches.
I had, like many people, a high regard for Bill Clinton - but hero is too strong a term, especially at this early stage, and with such relatively "simple" political objectives and stable socio-economic settings as the Bush/Gore duumvirate entertained. Imran Khan is a virtuous politician in an utterly corrupt setting, but the jury's still out on his capabilities while he remains in opposition; Nelson Mandela failed to stop a staggering culture of lawless from developing in South Africa, despite his many noble personal qualities. Vladimir Putin is surely the most impressive politician on the current world stage: after all, he's retained the faith of the Russian people, democratized the courts, and stamped out corruption, without damaging the Russian economy - his legacy will probably be happier than any Russian Premier yet.
You have a good point, Ami. As an adult I can accept human flaws without waivering my viewpoint.
What did Alexander Kerensky do to gain your admoration? Was there a particular act that turned your attentions towards him?
Amaurote
11-27-01, 03:38PM
I've admired him for about five or six years now: I remember buying Volkogonov's biography of Lenin and reading an account of the Leninist-Stalinist character assassination of Kerensky (as a vain braggart, a weak dictator and pseudo-revolutionary), and comparing it with his actual record, which was as moderate, humane and morally quixotic as theirs was unscrupulous, fanatical, and genocidal. The chief virtue of Kerensky was his willingness to transcend dogma and faction in the pursuit of a broad-based, democratic coalition - and his humanity, of course, manifested primarily in his willlingness to avoid bloodshed, even at the risk of his own life - as with his defence of the ex-Tsarist ministers, and the Tsar's family. Contrast that with the Leninists, who successfully massacred about 10 million Russian citizens during the Civil War.
After that it was a short step to Richard Abraham's biography, Alexander Kerensky: First Love of the Russian Revolution, some more articles, and, in particular, his own memoir of the February and October Russian Revolutions, The Catastrophe - which is one of the most astonishingly gripping political memoirs I've ever had the pleasure of reading. I delayed reading it for years in case it disabused me of my admiration for him; in the end it actually strengthened it, because it gave me much more of a sense of his intuitional, wierdly selfless obsession with promoting the original social and liberal causes of the February Revolution. It also avoids the temptation to self-exculpate, concentrating instead on the contending energies and causes of the two revolutions. I sincerely recommend it to anyone who has an interest in that period.
Jennafer
11-27-01, 04:05PM
Oprah...I guess it's a girl thing, but she's the richest woman in the world and has struggled to get there. She's had alot of issues we all relate to and I think she's genuine in everything she does. She could've retired a long time ago, and lived beyond comfortable, for a few 'more' lives, but she uses her show to help others and make a difference in the world. Not just in America, but World wide.
Then I would say Martha Stewart. The woman can make anything out of nothing and make it pretty, then make money off of it.
Next, Madonna. Just because she stands up for herself and doesn't let all the critisim stop her from being who she is. And I do think she is a talented artist.
The person I admired as a child and still do is Katherine Hepburn. She was the ultimate woman. Spunky [Don't go there Ami, Hollow] and talented. She lived her life on her own terms. While I had always had the utmost respect for her... she gained 'admoration' when I saw her on Barbara Walters [whore]. They were discussing how independent she was. I can still visualize the moment. the two were sitting by a brick fireplace. Walters [hiss] asked her if she really took care of the property by herself. Katherine H said yes. Walters [ptooe] turned and asked, "Do you clean your own toilets?" Without missing a beat, Katherine said, " Do you?" The bimbo never even answered.
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/xwp/fceleb/katecig.jpg
Jennafer
11-27-01, 06:08PM
Barbara Wa Wa is fucked. LOL. That was pretty funny.:)
I really liked Kate Hepburns sis Audrey. What a beauty! Talented and giving. I was so pleased to see her in Always (which btw I would take to that deserted island were there any power.)
Yep, she's a beaute, usantic. But sisters?
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/usantic/audhstick.jpg
enuffrope
11-28-01, 06:18AM
"I could peel you like a pear and God would call it justice." Di do you know who Nina Gordon is?
enuffrope
11-28-01, 06:28AM
I had, like many people, a high regard for Bill Clinton
Umm why??
AZ-Trader
11-28-01, 06:38AM
Barry Goldwater.
A great American who spoke his mind and didn't waver from his position. The conservative movement in this country would not have been possible without him. Even in the landslide loss of the '64 election, he remained a force in American politics until he retired from the Senate in '86, that paved the way for Ronald Reagan.
The war in Viet Nam would have ended far earlier and with the South winning. Goldwater would have waged a winnable war as opposed to the LPB/McNamara war of not to lose.
Lastly, his selection of NY Congressman Bill Miller as his running mate in '64 was made primarily to piss off LBJ and HHH.
I guess Abraham lincoln Would be one of the toughest bastards I have ever read about. That guy was kicked in the teeth all his life and still managed to start a war that killed a good portion of the young men in his country
http://www.nochicktrix.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150
Definatly not the kind of guy most people would associate with big brass balls but he had them
Amaurote
11-28-01, 10:07AM
Originally posted by enuffrope
Umm why??
Because he was taller than me.
enuffrope
11-28-01, 10:12AM
:D
Originally posted by enuffrope
"I could peel you like a pear and God would call it justice." Di do you know who Nina Gordon is? No, I haven't. Is this her?
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/me/faded01.jpg
enuffrope
11-28-01, 11:01AM
Yes one of my fav's
enuffrope
11-28-01, 11:03AM
Thats a line from one of Kathrines movies. The song is "Number one Camera" She used to be in the band Veruca Salt
Villager
12-02-01, 03:41PM
* Villager placates Amaurote with a teasing wink towards his avatar.
Aussie, Abraham Lincoln was not a hero. He was an average, typical politician, famed for little more that his presidence over a major part of American history. He was openly racist, manipulative, and generally willing to abuse others for the gain of himself and those whose interests he kept (not exactly the interests of Joe Average of America). many American Presidents could be cited as hero's, but he's not one of them. Hitler had a hard time rising to power, that doesn't make him a hero.
Nina Gordon is mmmmmmmmmmmmm. I prefer her solo stuff to the Veruca Salt albums, but all in all she's a mighty fine lady.
My hero would be my grandad, when he was alive. He was a resilient, wise, funny old man, and had all the time in the world for anybody who wanted it. Old fashioned values, if you will, he was genuine, honest, and kind, one of the very few men I've known who posess all three qualities.
Originally posted by Villager
*
Aussie, Abraham Lincoln was not a hero. He was an average, typical politician, famed for little more that his presidence over a major part of American history. He was openly racist, manipulative, and generally willing to abuse others for the gain of himself and those whose interests he kept (not exactly the interests of Joe Average of America). many American Presidents could be cited as hero's, but he's not one of them. Hitler had a hard time rising to power, that doesn't make him a hero.
Ok mate make your point.
Expand a little.
Tell us more.
What leads you to these conclusions?
Why do you think this way?
Come on man Im waiting :)
I don't have any heroe's in particular. There are numerous people I admire but not one that stands out as a personal hero of mine.
I admire anybody who has achieved what they set out to do. Whether I admire what they set out to do is another question entirely.
hey villager did you forget me here? Ive been waiting days now boy. lets get to it, extract it
Redallnite
12-05-01, 08:54PM
Originally posted by Villager
Aussie, Abraham Lincoln was not a hero. He was an average, typical politician, famed for little more that his presidence over a major part of American history. He was openly racist, manipulative, and generally willing to abuse others for the gain of himself and those whose interests he kept (not exactly the interests of Joe Average of America). many American Presidents could be cited as hero's, but he's not one of them. Hitler had a hard time rising to power, that doesn't make him a hero.
Villager what does hitler and Mr. Lincoln have in common???
Mr. Lincoln can be Aussie's hero, that is his choice.....
The_Roach
12-05-01, 11:15PM
I have a few heroes. The first of which, would probably be Niccolo Machiavelli. Here was a viciously intelligent man who understood the way that the world worked, and wasn't afraid to point it out to those in power.
From a literary standpoint, I am idolozing Mark Z. Danielewski. This guy not only wrote what is (in my opinion) the most interesting novel about family dynamics and insanity of the decade, but he actually managed to get the damn thing published on his own terms. The novel is called House of Leaves.
And finally, Adolf Hitler. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I'm going to qualify that statement. Yes, he was insane, yes he was hateful, and no,I don't find those to be admirable traits. What I find impressive about him was his skill at the spoken word. He managed to get an entire country to metaphorically "flip the bird" to the rest of the world. That's impressive.
Amaurote
12-06-01, 11:34AM
Originally posted by TheRoach
And finally, Adolf Hitler. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I'm going to qualify that statement. Yes, he was insane, yes he was hateful, and no,I don't find those to be admirable traits. What I find impressive about him was his skill at the spoken word. He managed to get an entire country to metaphorically "flip the bird" to the rest of the world. That's impressive.
Those are intriguing choices, Roach; I've discussed the first two with you before, but the third is new ground. Its an ancient debate, and I don't think there's a respectable historian alive who wouldn't recognize Hitler's gift for oratory - not to mention his astonishing luck, extending to escape from multifarious assassination attempts, air disasters, ill-conceived political demarche and geo-political stalemate. However, I'd go so far as to say that he was neither the best, nor even the most consistent political orator in Germany at the time: the Strassers were widely regarded as superior speakers at working-class meetings, and Goebbels was privately regarded as a more entertaining orator in much the same way (not surprisingly - if you recall, he actually began his political career as a Strasserite), and there were many excellent tribunes in Germany outside the Nazi Party.
And, of course, you have to take into account the limitations of Hitler's style: he was completely floored by analysis and immediate contradiction; he needed a supine audience to feed the vainglory of his astonishing barnstorming philippics. The classic example of his limitations came during WWII, in a 1941 meeting with the Soviet ambassador, Molotov, where Hitler attempted to dazzle the Russians with his visionary brilliance, only to be brought humiliatingly back to present-day reality point by point. If only the Germans had tried the same approach eight years earlier...
Villager
12-06-01, 02:19PM
Originally posted by aussie
hey villager did you forget me here?
Yes, actually.
To clear up the first point, with regards to my comparison between Adolf Hitler and Mr Lincoln, the connection was made thus. Aussie posted about the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, the repeated rejection and the persistence despite considerable adversity. Admirable qualities, to be sure, but only in context. The balls of the man, to be frank. In a somewhat satirical manner, I cited Adolf Hitler as having the same 'qualities'; being a persistent, thick-skinned, determined and wholly tenacious little bastard. Now, I concede that Abe had marginally more pleasant goals in mind, but at the end of the day the qualities aussie presented as admirable were to be found in Hitler too. There's no shame in identifying that.
Now, to ruin aussie's day. Aside from his Adolf-like tenacity, I see there to be little to admire about Abe. I guess this comes down to interpretation, though, as I believe Lincoln and his Republican Government went to war (and that, surely, must be the main focus of any study on his virtues as a world-figure; a role that significant cannot be overshadowed), for less than healthy reasons. Lincoln knew, and was well advised, that The Confederacy could put up a decent fight, and any war would not be quick. As it turned out, the southerners turned out to be far better fighters (although being outnumbered 2 to 1 they faced a huge challenge), and yet he still went to war, and in doing so condemned hundreds of thousands of young Americans to their deaths.
Why? To preserve a tumultuous and dissatisfied Union. A Union that, having formed upon such glorious terms, threatened to disintegrate at the very core. A country with such fundamentally different views, that they would probably have been better off as two individual countries (they could both have comfortably survived on their own economies), and this was proved time and time again with the squabbling and bitter fighting that took place, especially with regards to the admission of new states; north and south disagreed on as much as they were together on. A United States? Far from it. And yet he still went to war. That, to me, stinks.
It could not contrast more to, say, the British action which met the beginning of WW2. Britain went to war not for selfish gains, which, ultimately, Lincoln did, but for what Britain as a country and a democracy felt obliged to do. To protect and defend others. Why didn't aussie select Churchill? Or Metaxas?(Shh!, Amaurote! I know that one's debatable.. another time!) any number of political leaders who showed as much if not more integrity and determination as Lincoln, and often for far more admirable reasons.
The we have the whole racism deal. ironic, really, in light of my Hitler comparisons. Abe was not, as he was often called (as an insult) a "negro lover", he was openly racist;
Originally said by Abraham Lincoln
Not a single man of your race (blacks) is made the equal of a single man of ours (white) .. it is a fact
He didn't want blacks in the Army, either. They weren't even allowed (at first) the right to take up arms to defend Lincoln. The civil rights movement didn't gain weight until after Lincoln died. Go figure. Now, I know you're no fan of certain races either, aussie (and let it be said your arguments for such are pretty good), but racism, against a people who were fucking well enslaved by Lincoln's country, is unacceptable. He neither spoke nor acted against it.
That, my friend, is why I wholly dismiss Abraham Lincoln as a worthy hero.
Amaurote
12-06-01, 02:34PM
Excellent post, Vill: I have a very limited knowledge of Abraham Lincoln (i.e. I saw the biopic with Gregory Peck when I was 10 years old..), but I think it's probably a little unfair to use a twenty first century criterion to judge his political correctness on issues such as race, democratic accountability and devolution. The Confederates were no doubt far worse, and a victory for the South would surely have been disastrous for world stability in the long-term: it's quite feasible that the South would have abstained from intervention in WW1 entirely while the North declared war on Germany and Austro-Hungary, and even that one or the other might have remained neutral in WW2.
As for Winston Churchill, I seem to recall Aussie saying that he hated him: I'm obviously antipatriotic, so I normally wouldn't mind this, but Churchill has always seemed a reasonably heroic individual to me, his domestic agenda aside; he had all the admirable qualities, after all, as did Roosevelt. Even the Charmley thesis hasn't changed my mind.
Then again, I'm not an Anzac, and this isn't Gallipoli...
Redallnite
12-06-01, 08:38PM
geezz!! :shutup:
The_Roach
12-06-01, 08:41PM
I know what you mean. Neither of them ever cease to amaze me.
Originally posted by Amaurote
....I think it's probably a little unfair to use a twenty first century criterion to judge his political correctness on issues such as race, democratic accountability and devolution.... Of course Am beats me to the point AND states it better.
Vill, you shouldn't judge his actions using today's standards. That would be like judging the standards of medicine and medical care.
Also, let me point out that in Aussie's original post he spoke solely of Lincoln's personal perseverance, and not of his political career.
The ironic part of this debate is that my original idea was to point out that there arent that many heros left. Some from their own actions, and others from people wanting to take them off of a pedestool, so to speak. But everybody needs a hero. And only they can find who is fit to serve that role.
Nice post vill. How ever once I removed the bull shit from it there wasn’t a lot left. Though you always did love to lay it on a bit thick.
My admiration for Lincoln comes from his tenacity. The man had big brass balls and stuck to his guns wether right or wrong. That vill is what I admire about the man It doesn’t matter to me if he was right or wrong I don’t care. He stuck with it to the end that’s what matters to me. How you ever decided to bring Hitler into this is beyond me Im not quite sure of your point here but I guess it fills space and helps to pack the post out a little. Sure they had similar tenacious traits but so did millions of others. Who cares? They aren't my chosen heroes. Just as someone's chosen hero maybe a particular soccer player I don’t believe that hero to be something less just because there is an equal player on another team. Do you?
Now to ruin my day?
First of all you will no doubt notice that my original thread stopped his being elected president of his country. My admiration comes from his rise from farm boy to business man to lead his country As Diva has already stated I have little interest in his presidency. However I am aware he started a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of his countrymen both young and old and male and female. As you pointed out he went into this campaign fore armed with the knowledge that it would be long and bloody and as with the rest of his life he did it anyway.
Paragraph three I will pass over because while the information is no doubt sound it has little to do with anything here. (Im sure your right however they may well even now be better off as separate countries)
In paragraph four you ask why I didn’t select Churchill? Let me tell you about that low life piece of shit. Well you know I as an Australian could never have any Englishman as a hero. Im quite sure you know enough of the various rivalries between our two countries to know I could be stripped of my birthright just for thinking such a thing. Winston Churchill wanted to draw a line at Brisbane and give the Japanese every thing north of it. The reason? To keep Australian troops defending England rather than their own homes.
To Mr Churchill I would just like to state the following :finger:
Now for racism you the time to point out that the civil rights movement didn’t take off until after his death. As with all things that grow there had to be a seed it had to start somewhere. Perhaps it only took a change of attitude or the beginnings of change. I know both Diva and amaurote have both touched on this subject but as this was posted directly at me I will give my views as well As it has previously been pointed out it was a different time with different attitudes. If he had come out with todays PC attitudes in his time how well do you think he would have been received? I believe he would have been removed from office to a nut house in a heart beat. Besides how many years has it taken to get civil rights to the point they at today? I believe there are plenty of others you can ley the blame on long before you get back as far a lincoln
Amaurote
12-07-01, 12:01PM
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/keating.jpg
"...and even as they walked out on you, and joined the Common Market, you were there with your OBEs and MBEs..."
I thought this was a thread about hero`s?
How come amaurote is posting pictures of villains?
Villager
12-07-01, 04:54PM
* Villager inhales
First off, you could have Mary Poppins as your hero for all I care, I'm just here for the fight. I guess it was logical that bullshit would be shortly followed by a load of hot air, eh?
"My admiration for Lincoln comes from his tenacity "
Let's get one thing straight about the Hitler thing: He had bigger, tougher, and infinitely more appealing balls than Lincoln. On the tenacity scale, they don't often come more tenacious than old cream-buns. If your admiration for Lincoln comes simply from his tenacity, then no, there are not just others who are "equal", as far as tenacirty goes, Lincoln was nothing like exceptional, many, many others outstrip him in that department. So why choose him? Especially when one considers the other shit he was involved in. Or not.
That brings me onto the next point. Amaurote, Diva, Aussie. you are all right to point out that Lincoln should not be judged by today's standards, and that was a basic error on my part. It makes little difference, however, if you hold him up for scrutiny against his contemporaries. If we take the country that bore closest relations to America, north and south, that country is Britain. Especially with regards the cotton industry, Britain was America's greatest trading ally, had the closest political and social links, and many, many of the settlers and rulers of America were of British descent. Many more, in fact, than from any other country (expect perhaps Ireland, who could be said to have had greater cultural influence in some places). It would not, therefore, be logical to use any other country than Britain by which to judge Lincoln and America at the time, right?
This brings us back to the subject of SLAVERY. You cannot underestimate the importance of this. America's economy was dependant on the industries fuelled by slavery; cotton and tobacco production accounted for 70% of American exports. There were more than four million slaves in the south alone by the time of the war. It was what the war was fought over, that and that alone. Now, did Lincoln ban slavery? Did Lincoln talk of banning slavery? No. He accepted it, he allowed it. Britain, on the other hand, had long recognised that slavery was a moral wrong, actually banned slavery throughout the British Empire many years before. Don't think that is just fickle symbolism, either, as had Britain had the gall to enter the war on the side of the south, she could have regained a large porportion of America, and remained the dominant force in the world. But they didn't. They employed Nineteenth Century morals by staying out of it (the British Navy could have sunk the northern fleet in about a week and made for a very quick war). So it does in fact make little difference when we compare Lincoln to his contemporaries.
The Civil Rights movement did begin long before Lincoln death, but it was largely just religious organisations like the Quakers, and the Shakers (yes, really). Even after Lincoln's death, or more significantly, the end of the war, the majority of those that had called for an end to slavery did not do so for moral reasons; they wanted blacks out of America altogether. America was amazingly racist. Anyhow, the abolition of slavery in itself did little for blacks; many were actually worse off as 'free' men.
Now tell me this, aussie, if Lincoln, as head of the fastest growing and economically most powerful country in the world, tolerated, nay, supported slavery, how can any other person or group be more responsible for its existence? He called the shots which allowed it to flourish, he put everything else as a higher priority so as not to upset the fat-cats from the south. That is why I accuse him of being a no good scoundrel. He was dictated by money like every other weak leader.
Like I say, have who you like as a hero, aus, but I hope I've explained why Lincoln is a relatively absurd choice.
yeh brilliant you win. take your victory now and do what you will
The_Roach
12-07-01, 06:00PM
Originally posted by Villager
This brings us back to the subject of SLAVERY. You cannot underestimate the importance of this. America's economy was dependant on the industries fuelled by slavery; cotton and tobacco production accounted for 70% of American exports. There were more than four million slaves in the south alone by the time of the war. It was what the war was fought over, that and that alone.
Hold it there, cowboy. Slavery was not the reason for the war between the States. It might have been the spark that lit the fuse, but dynamite sweats, and the nitro would have gone off at some point.
The Amercian Civil War had very little to do with slavery, despite what my beloved American education system might have to say about the topic. The south did not secede from the Union solely because of it's views on slavery, but rather it's right-wing viewpoint that the Federal government was too intrusive in it's affairs. This was the issue at hand.
This is a debate that continues even today. In my home state of Arizona, we threatened to secede from the US when legislation was to be passed that would significantly limit the use of freon. A paltry reason to threaten secession? Perhaps. Slavery probably wasn't that different in the minds of our southern brethren, but it was the infringement of state's rights by a federal government that was the concern. If they take away our freon, what's next?
Now, as far as the importance of slavery really goes in terms of the war, Lincoln is really the one who made it that way. Through the use of the Emancipation Proclamation, he made the war about freeing people from their bondage. It was a political move to "remind" his army that they were fighting a "noble" war against their own families.
well I guess the whole idea of hero`s is a rather lame one to begin with. In many ways it ranks right up there with santa clause and the easter bunny. Hero`s rarely live up to expectations anyway so I guess there isnt a lot of point. Even if they do some bastard wants to tear them down. So I guess were all left with grandpa.
The_Roach
12-07-01, 09:50PM
I don't think that heroes are overrated in society (and Santa Claus would probably make a decent one), you simply have to realize that your heroes, generally, are human beings too. They have their own flaws and weaknesses. Nobody is perfect.
They key, in my opinion, is to seperate those elements that you would aspire to have from the actual person.
yeh what ever if thats what you think
I cant quite see my self looking up to a fat guy in a red suit that sneaks into little childrens rooms in the middle of the night
Redallnite
12-07-01, 10:34PM
Aussie, I thought you were my hero..........
Villager
12-09-01, 11:25AM
Originally bleated by aussie
yeh brilliant you win. take your victory now and do what you will
No need to get narky, bitch.
Roach. Good argument, my son. Having not had any involvement with the American Education System, I obviously speak with a degree or two less of care. The war would not have happened if Lincoln had not come to power.
I disagree with the argument that slavery was not the main cause for the war. Indeed it was the culmination of many events whereby the Federal State did its best to piss off the southern states. But by the same token slavery was the core upon which America had come to be built, and without it, the inescapable truth is that the war would not have happened within Lincoln's presidency. I was hasty to say that it was the only reason for war, but it was not only the spark but the meat and two veg of their greivances.
Villager
12-11-01, 08:36AM
Originally posted by TheRoach
Through the use of the Emancipation Proclamation, he made the war about freeing people from their bondage. It was a political move to "remind" his army that they were fighting a "noble" war against their own families.
That's a little better, although it seems that your American Education System has had an effect upon you after all.
The Emancipation proclamation did two things. The first of these was for military reasons. If Southern Slaves were freed, that was one major headache for the fighting southern states. It inhibited their war effort, as you'd think 4 million "freed" slaves might. The second thing it did, and this is what is a sign of distaste for me; it allowed Lincoln to assume the moral highground in the war, and this had untold benefits. Not only would southerners begin to doubt their involvement in the wra, it gave all northerners a sense of moral superiority, and so it became a morality war.
That didn't make it a moral one. The Emancipation Proclamation did free slaves, but it didn't free slaves in northern states. Why? Because Lincoln was scared that they would be upset. He was prepared tp pull the morality card where and when it suited him, but force him into a corner and he didn't give a flying shit for black people. That was the crux of the Emancipation Proclamation.
The American civil war is built up as a war of Good v Bad, when in actual fact it was ntohing of the sort. You might even say the south was in the right, for their quasi self-determination views. The north didn't fight a war for blacks, it fought for themselves.
LucifersChild
12-12-01, 04:00AM
my hero, as lame as it may be, is my mother. she has struggled with a disease for 15 years, and will not give up. i hope that when and if that time were to come for me, that i would have as much strength as she does. she fights everyday of her life just to live, when others so blatenly take it for granted. be happy you wake up, be happy that youre breathing, just be happy to be here basically
Ok one more time for the dummies.
My hero is Abraham Lincoln. So before someone decides to tell me he is this or that let me tell you this I Dont Fucking Care!!!
Why am I taking this personally?
I`ll tell you, Hero's are a personal thing much like a god. Who I choose to worship as a hero is my fucking choice. I don’t care who started the civil war or why they started it. It doesn't matter its not an issue it never was. The point is a while back I read about the guy I liked what read. So I try to employ a little of what I liked in him in my own day to day life. The fact that I do try to emulate the man in any way at all in my mind qualifies him as a hero. That doesn't mean he has to leap tall building or wear his underpants on the out side of his mum's tights either. Your hero can be your grandpa, some guy who plays sport, batman or the fucking phantom as long as you can identify with them then that’s enough
I thought Villager was way off base when he reffered to Lincoln as a mooley. I still can't seem to come up with a definition of that word in any of my dictionaries. Even as a decendant of confederates, I admire the former president. He aimed to keep the union intact and he did so.
I've been pondering this thread for many days now and have wittled my list down to one person that has offered the human race intellect and the amazing ability to persevere through harrowing physical tribulation. Stephen Hawking has wandered within the limits of his mind to play an active role in society. The trips this man has managed to take with his waking thoughts will always be an amazement to me. To think that some would cast aside invalids as so much detritis is inconcievable to me. Society has a great debt to Hawking for his accomplishments both mental and inspirational.
Villager
12-12-01, 04:03PM
Originally posted by usantic
I thought Villager was way off base when he reffered to Lincoln as a mooley.
The mooley thing was meant as nothing more than a provocative jibe.
Aussie, fair 'dinkum'. he did have admirable qualities, and if you want to have him as a hero I guess you could make worse choices.
Originally posted by usantic
He aimed to keep the union intact and he did so.
Yeah, he did. The thing is, though, I believe he was being a selfish and misguided fool in doing so. Every American state joined voluntarily, and should in all fairness have been allowed to succede should they so wish, especially as the Federal Governent was so imposing upon them. The Government threatened to completely overrule their whole way of life, and considering the fact that Slavery was allowed to continue on the north after the Emancipation Proclamation, the south can hardly be accused of being in the moral wrong on the issue. Why should the north be allowed to abuse the power of a supposedly equal and fair constitution to essentially dictate life to the southern states? The south should have been allowed to leave if the north was unwilling to reach a compromise. And why did they want to keep the Union together? To provide for future generations? For the ultimate good fo all concerned? NO. The north had no regard for southerners. The north had even less regard for blacks, and were perhaps even more racist that the south. The Republics wanted the Union to remain intact for selfish reasons. This wasn't Good v bad, it was Bad v Worse.
Redallnite
12-12-01, 07:55PM
Villager, after bashing Mr. Lincoln you never said who your hero is?
Villager
12-13-01, 12:13AM
Did too.
Villager, you still haven't given me a definition of this mooley word.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
As far as your obvious hatred for Lincoln and the Republican party, I can only offer this. It would seem that every politician worthy of note is a thick skinned persistant bastard/bitch. Now, if you believe that Lincoln just decided at the outbreak of the war that slavery should be abolished, you should reconsider that position. There had been a move to abolish slavery for decades beforehand. Yes it was a rally cry for the war, but am I to understand you as being in the position for slavery? You also seem to be under the assumption that Lincoln and Lincoln alone was the catalyst for this war. NOT!
Villager
12-13-01, 09:45AM
A mooley? Uhhhh.. I'm not entirely sure, although my guess would be something along the lines of a fairly unintelligent, misguided fool.
I am not in support of slavery, I am quite against it.
I do not hate Lincoln or the Repulican Party, I merely object to their undue glorification in this.
Now, if you believe that Lincoln just decided at the outbreak of the war that slavery should be abolished, you should reconsider that position. There had been a move to abolish slavery for decades beforehand
Uhm, no. If you refer to my quote in the first page of this thread, and indeed a hundred others I could give you, Lincoln did not believe there to be much wrong with the "peculiar" institution os slavery, and it certainly wasn't his priority, at ANY point.
If you disagree, back it up, don't just tell me I'm wrong.
I'm slightly unsure of my personal standing on this, but I am sure that the north was on very shaky ground in its motives for instigating war, and a lot of people seem to have received the overly-simplistic, and ultimately wrong, view.
Just so I can enlighten myself Villager, could you give me the source of that Lincoln quote? I would enjoy reading that reference. By the way, I never made mention that you were wrong. Perish the thought.
The_Roach
12-13-01, 12:48PM
Ok, enough is enough, guys. Can we move past this? I'd like to hear about somebody else's hero for a change.
why is it so important to stifle this debate?
The good thing about a forum is if you dont like it dont fucking read it man. But dont tell these guys what they can discuss in a forum titled anything goes
Redallnite
12-13-01, 05:39PM
Originally posted by Villager
Did too.
Where? I looked and read and reread so just tell me again....:rolleyes:
Did not!!!
Originally posted by Villager
My hero would be my grandad, when he was alive. He was a resilient, wise, funny old man, and had all the time in the world for anybody who wanted it. Old fashioned values, if you will, he was genuine, honest, and kind, one of the very few men I've known who posess all three qualities.
I think he got you on this one bluey
Villager
12-14-01, 08:38AM
I forget where I got that quote originally, but if you want some context try reading Race Relations in the USA by Vivienne Sanders, I believe she uses the quote also.
perhaps a little reserch would be in order vill?
Villager
12-14-01, 09:41AM
What's it worth, old boy?
It could be worth the only chance you`ll ever get to top me in an arguement. You could however fall flat on your arse as well
Amaurote
12-14-01, 01:03PM
Did I mention Alexander Kerensky in my first reply?
Who am I kidding? Of course I did...
It's always interesting when two people have heroes who were rivals during their lives: I've been having this debate on several sites with that eclectic Marxist emigre, Baggydog, who admires Leon Trotsky, one of the two men who bear most responsibility for overthrowing Kerensky's Provisional Government. After listening to what he had to say I was no more convinced than before, but I began to appreciate why he held the Bolshevik leader in such reverence, and even to understand the internal logic of his position. I'd be very interested to see the same device used here, on the Lincoln debate, because I know very little about the man and, frankly, I'm impressed by the level of knowledge exhibited by both Aussie and Villager. I'd like to learn more.
In essence: the argument here revolves around the merits and demerits of Abraham Lincoln - why not compare his merits and demerits with those of a contemporary, like, say, Robert Lee, or, amongst his politician antagonists, James Buchanan?
I don't really see the point of the whole Lincoln debate? Can someone tell me what you're arguing about? *giggle* I can't possibly be the best versed person in the time period but even I know the reason behind this statement that he made. I should hardly think it would be considered racist to tell the blacks that they wouldnt be afforded equal rights to whites even if they were freed.
The Full Quote:
"But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy." Lincoln added that, "on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."
This was said to try to convince the black leaders to colonize other lands so as to open the labor market for whites, and improve the wage rate for the people who elected Lincoln in the first place. He went on to further this cause by speaking of the same subject matter again to congress, without so confrontaitonal a speech since his first effort was jumped on by Frederick Douglass many of his contemporaries and close to 140 years later by Mr. Villager as well.
Full Statement: File @ Montgomery College Archives (http://www.mc.cc.md.us/Departments/hpolscrv/DCE1.htm)
That would kinda make you all right, no? No matter what your choice for Heros is, everyone has their right to choose whom they wish. Opinions, no matter how bad we consider them, are all valid.. well, opinions. And Im not sure exactly why this thread hasn't been split, it seems like it could be a quite enjoyable debate, but in its current form doesnt really fit in with the Hero offerings that I assume were supposed to be here.
Just as an aside I adore Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs is a somewhat worth adversary no? hehe.. Feel free to flame me too.
Originally posted by Villager
A mooley? Uhhhh.. I'm not entirely sure, although my guess would be something along the lines of a fairly unintelligent, misguided fool.
Moolie is an italian slur for people of color it's a short form of Melanzane (Italian for E
ggplant) Eggplants have black skin, so do blacks, thus the connection.
As the thread has yet to get off topic why should it be split? If the purpose of a forum is to examine a given subject from all angles why close it, split it, or change the subject as soon as it starts to do its job? At this point it is examining only one hero I grant you but it is still a hero. If at any time the subject moves off topic and stays there then perhaps there is a case for splitting it. I would remind you this is the lounge a forum where anything goes so unless things get abusive, threatning or broach apon child porn or scat it remains anything goes and should be moderated as such
Villager
12-15-01, 05:27AM
Originally posted by Bane
Moolie is an italian slur for people of color it's a short form of Melanzane (Italian for E
ggplant) Eggplants have black skin, so do blacks, thus the connection.
In that case I retract the statement;
Lincoln the ham-fisted git
Indeed, the merits of Lincoln do come down to personal interpretation, but you could read that or a hundred other transcripts and come up with a dozen different views of each.
Villager Did you read the actual words? There are no alternative forms of statement when you are claiming fact. A little used rule of debate I have noticed is the fairly common sense thought that using someone elses widely debated words as a statement of fact is lunacy. He wasn't stating that blacks were lesser men (Though I grant you he probably did think it) but that they would not be given equal standing. There is really no room for personal interpretation on this particular subject, given the actual statement your mauling of which is noted, the subject of discussion during which the statement was made (also noted quite often when being accurate instead of strictly bashing), and the time period. Unless you have some secondary form of proof that Lincoln was an open bigot and can provide full documentation (not mere badly quoted snippets) as proof, I would say you are fighting a losing cause.
Indeed when you look at the times Im not sure what you expect from the man Villager. Should there come a time in the far flung future when people determine a way to discourse with Dolphins I should hope that you will not be considered a bigoted barbarian for eating a tuna sandwich. And before you quote something about Dolphins being just animals remember two things:
1) They are intelligent.
2) Blacks were considered nothing more than animals with child-like intelligence.
aussie Would you say that someone else can tell you that you cannot view this person as your hero? I do believe that no matter what this person is your hero, no matter what Villagers take on the subject. That is why I would consider this thread off topic (IMHO) and I had assumed that "Anything Goes" had pertained to subject matter and not moderating style. However I am not a moderator or a true admin here so I appologize for my assumption. It had seemed to me the thread has been split widely from the hero conversation into a debate on the merits of Mr. Lincoln as a man. Witness me not even noticing LucifersChild's stirring post my first skim through the thread because I thought it had degenerated completely into the Lincoln debate, and if Villager had actually said who his hero was, which brings me to my last person :)
Redallnight Villager said his hero was his grandfather, no? :)
Originally posted by Villager
Lincoln the ham-fisted git
Huh? Bro, I sure hope that was intended as humor towards your not knowing what the hell something meant before you said it, otherwise you just managed another boo-boo methinks.
Anything goes pertains to moderating style as much as subject matter. Im sure if you look around here you will find a hundred posts that would be offensive if they were posted under someones poetry for example.
Amaurote
12-15-01, 06:53AM
I blame Aussie. He should idolize a less controversial hero like, say, Alexander Kerensky. Or Winston Churchill.
Amaurote ducks multiple flying dies
Seriously, though: when I think of Abraham Lincoln, I think of admirable qualities, not political opportunism. I know relatively little about his life but there's a marvellous scene in Nixon in which the President (Anthony Hopkins) visits the Capitol to brood: the director cleverly contrives to make Nixon appear small, mean and corrupt by juxtaposing him with Lincoln's idealized, impassive and virtuous-seeming statue. Ingenious.
Incidentally, did anyone here see the documentary mini-series on the American Civil War a few years ago? I can't remember the full title, but I believe it won an Emmy. It was quite spectacular, and used diary, journal and official memorandum entries to delineate the Confederate and Union personalities. If only they'd repeat it...
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/am/table.jpg
Originally posted by Amaurote
I blame Aussie. He should idolize a less controversial hero like, say, Alexander Kerensky. Or Winston Churchill.
Amaurote ducks multiple flying dies
[
Ahhh Churchill now there`s a man who was born to be a heroic corpse. Its a pitty it took so long for him to get the role right. As for flying dies? dont worry as most of them go 1,500kgs and up not many actually fly
Amaurote
12-15-01, 07:33AM
Originally posted by aussie
As for flying dies? dont worry as most of them go 1,500kgs and up not many actually fly
I used to sell taps and dies, and they were invariably tiny. I've never seen a 1500 kg die, but I imagine it would be a little bit like seeing a lifesize Millenium Falcon after playing with the Hasbro replica. Now there's an image.
On Churchill: He's not a personal hero of mine in the sense of someone I revere (for that I'd cite people on the Left, who I more generally identify with, like Vergniaud, Kerensky and George Orwell), but I don't think that you can deny his outstanding qualities in 1940, when he rallied a nation and reinstilled hope in a crushed, dispirited Occupied Europe - he crops up in The Diary of Anne Frank on more than one occasion, for example. I can see why you might dislike him on the basis of the Dardanelles fiasco in WW1, but not WW2: the Australians had a remarkably successful Second World War.
I mean, sure, they enjoyed relatively little control over the military disposition of their troops: but that was the decision of the Australian Cabinet. Churchill was certainly obsessed with using them to defend the motherland in the early part of the war, but before D-Day the engagements were taking place in the African and Middle Eastern theatres, which were not as remote from Australian interests as you might think.
Besides, as great as some Australian leaders were after the war (no-one would deny Bob Hawke's tub-thumping populist genius, for example), even you wouldn't deny that Robert Menzies, so brilliant a national figure later on, was far from statesmanlike during it. He wanted to negotiate a separate peace with Germany in the beginning, and he vacillated at critical moments. Churchill made blunders endangering New Zealand and Australia, but he never sold them out. In fact, one of the main reasons for the clash between Menzies and Churchill was the fact that the former was far more ardent a believer in the cause of the British Empire than the latter.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~menzies/menzies.gif
Like I say, Churchill isn't a personal hero of mine; I listened with interest to the Charmley thesis, but consider it this way - who would you have made Prime Minister in 1940? Chamberlain? Stafford Cripps? Eden? Menzies?
All of the above had impressive qualities. Would they have rallied Europe as effectively as Churchill? I think not.
http://image.pathfinder.com/time/poy2000/images/churchill.jpg
Villager
12-15-01, 09:32AM
Originally bleated by Bane
Did you read the actual words? There are no alternative forms of statement when you are claiming fact.
Hold it right there sonny. Take the manuscript you supply. Does one read it as a heartfelt, genuine plea to the black people, from a man doing his utmost to give both races the best way of life they can possibly have, and even to bring, eventually, blacks on a social par with whites? Or does one read it as a patronising, conniving attempt to win black support in order to get them to willingly divide from whites for ___________ (insert whatever you believe were Lincoln’s true objectives)? Now, both of those interpretations would be true to the given manuscript but using personal opinion and other knowledge to judge in what context the words were spoken. Fact indeed cannot be open to interpretation, inversely, personal opinion should not be mistaken nor used as fact.
Either you’re a bitch, or you mis-interpreted my meaning there.
Where I argue Lincoln’s morality in this is not from mere fact. The Liberian resettlement was, relatively, an utter fucking disaster. A total of little more than 10,000 blacks went to Liberia, and when you consider that there were a this time over 4 million blacks in America, that figure becomes even more ludicrous. The relevance of this is that in the second attempt to re-locate a black community, are we to simply believe that it was a practical thing, and Lincoln was merely trying to benefit black people, or do we think that he’s failed once and is now trying to find a less expensive, more successful way of satiating typically white views that the two races should not live together? That, my friend, is two different ways of reading that statement, and we obviously do not share the same one. If we take mere fact, the whole of history becomes an unintelligble mess.
I believe, from the evidence presented to me by yourself and my independent reading, that Lincoln was not a great man.
Originally bleated by Bane
He wasn't stating that blacks were lesser men (Though I grant you he probably did think it) but that they would not be given equal standing.
Then on as much as his thoughts we agree? If, then, Lincoln did indeed still retain this widespread belief that whites were so much better than blacks, and that mixing together was morally wrong, then how does the fact that I quote only part of a paragraph in that context really matter? Indeed it was a different context to that of the whole speech, but if we allow for Lincoln's motives being other than those which immediately spring from the page, my use of those words in the context of his views is entirely valid.
Originally bleated by Bane
There is really no room for personal interpretation on this particular subject, given the actual statement your mauling of which is noted, the subject of discussion during which the statement was made (also noted quite often when being accurate instead of strictly bashing), and the time period. Unless you have some secondary form of proof that Lincoln was an open bigot and can provide full documentation (not mere badly quoted snippets) as proof, I would say you are fighting a losing cause.
I concede that comprehensive argument is best purveyed when accompanied by full documentation, but, as you yourself say, given the statement therein, accompanied with my view, there really is no fault in using snippets of quotes on a forum. If it was completely unjustified and out of context, then you would be vindicated, but seeing as this isn't Question Time and I'm not David Dimbleby, it's really not quite that important.
Originally bleated by Bane
Indeed when you look at the times Im not sure what you expect from the man Villager.
Do I expect him to be against slavery, from the bottom of his heart? No. Did not nine of the first thirteen American Presidents own slaves? No, what I expect from a man hailed as a hero and a legend is integrity. If we are to believe that Lincoln did indeed feel genuine sympathy for black people, then how can he have the gaul to tell them this and then follow a policy of what was largely inaction on their behalf?? Not the credentials of integrity.
I wish not to descend into the bowels of sniping and accusations, but why do I get the feeling I'm being reprimanded for essentailly reprimanding aussie over his hero, an opinion? Is that not a little wrong somehow?
Amaurote
12-15-01, 09:47AM
Originally posted by Villager
Take the manuscript you supply. Does one read it as a heartfelt, genuine plea to the black people, from a man doing his utmost to give both races the best way of life they can possibly have, and even to bring, eventually, blacks on a social par with whites? Or does one read it as a patronising, conniving attempt to win black support in order to get them to willingly divide from whites for ___________ (insert whatever you believe were Lincoln’s true objectives)? Now, both of those interpretations would be true to the given manuscript but using personal opinion and other knowledge to judge in what context the words were spoken.
Excellent point, Villager. This is an example of what the Stalinists used to refer to as "in-depth language", and which Orwell used as the basis for Newspeak in 1984: a sentence or declaration which is ostensibly innocent, but which is designed for correct "interpretation" by Party adherents. In Stalin's case, a "peaceful demonstration" was Cominintern code for Communist insurrection, "rehabilitation" to brainwashing/firing squads and "peaceful coexistence" to the Cold War, in which the capitalists would be utterly annihilated. Lincoln's speeches would naturally be designed for consumption by his audiences, at each particular locale. He would certainly have been capable of it, since he was a remarkably prescient speaker, in many ways light years ahead of his contemporaries: his Gettysburg Address is universally admired these days as a model for public speaking, but it went down like a damp squib at the time.
Still, if I had to admire a 19th C politician with a goatee beard, it would have to be Benjamin Disraeli. He wore nattier clothes, told funnier jokes and had a more interesting sex life.
Goatee beards: Every 19th Century Politician Should Have One.
http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/GIF-Disraeli.gif
Originally said by Abraham Lincoln
Not a single man of your race (blacks) is made the equal of a single man of ours (white) .. it is a fact
You were taken to task by me for this statement alone. You're using a tiny partial quote and telling me this is fine to do a representation of his moral standing, and sums up the entirety of what he was thinking, in addition you added ".. it is a fact" to the quote, which to my immediate knowledge is not part of the statement in any way. As a response to this I ask you, would you be comfortable with my saying that all you had to say in your last post was:
you’re a bitch
Obviously your entire argument is clouded by your irrational hatred of me and you are not qualified to make an argument against me if you can only manage to cuss and namecall.
This is of course ignoring the fact that this was merely a tiny part of a seemingly well thought out post that showed no other overtly spite filled comments on your part. But I suppose by your definition this would be an ok way to show your overlook on life and make descriptions of your morality from. You understand my regrets now I hope?
In addition I believe this talk was given to the freemen in an attempt to colonize a small island off of the coast of Haiti. Liberia was merely brought up as an example.
I also don't understand your remarks about conniving etc, it seemed fairly straightforward if even somewhat rude to me, I fail to see how it was an underhanded or even misleading attempt. He makes it quite clear he considers the blacks the cause of the civil war, in addition to the fact that whites dont take kindly to the freemen living among them.
Reguardless I digress, I had only intended to show you that your quote was not a factual statement and not a defining proof of anything as you stated. You decided to try to make a mockery of the mans accomplishments with a snippet of a snippet and I called you on that fact and no more. Was Lincoln a great man in my opinion? Yes, I believe he was, for all his faults he was a genuine leader and accomplished things for whatever reasons that would change the face of the world. Hes not my hero true, but I find it hard to believe that you would sit here and fight such a valient fight to prove Lincoln isn't worthy of admiration because of his moral character while letting the fact that Roach claimed Machiavelli and Hitler as personal Heros slide by with little or no comment. However I find other things you do just as confusing, take for example calling Lincoln first by a one false racial slur and then retracting that statement to call him a clumsy Jew..
Lincoln's Religion is of course a matter of historical debate as well, but there are very few I have heard of that thought him a Jew. Is this something you have read somewhere?
Excuse me if I seem disjointed at times, I was distracted a bit while writing this.
Amaurote
12-15-01, 10:40AM
I personally love it when people become angry over history: it demonstrates the hegemony of ideas over the present-day.
I also quite like to see the Right, represented on NoChickTrix chiefly by A-Z Trader, Aussie, Roach and Villager, fighting amongst themselves. While they're divided I'm going to take the opportunity to nip in and establish a Latvian Dolly-Mixture-Eating Workers' Commune. There'll be free beer, ciggies and biscuits, and everything will be paid for out of Aussie, A-Z Trader, Roach and Villager's taxes, which I'm going to set at 99%. Villager's girlfriend's engagement ring will be expropriated and pawned to buy vodka and soft porn for the Red Army. I'm also going to confiscate Aussie's hypothetical boat and turn it into a lovenest for corrupt Socialist commissars.
Vote for my new 5-Year Plan, comrades. You know it makes sense.
Whilst I agree that Churchill is in many ways someone who could be considered a hero. I feel it would be a bit more than I could bear to say he was one of mine. Robert Menzies on the other hand was just a joke and a not very funny one at that.
Sounds fun, I'm growing my Brusilov mustache as we speak.
Amaurote
12-15-01, 11:20AM
Some people found Brusilov offensive, but I'm not one of them.
This pathetic in-joke which only myself and Bane will get has been brought to you courtesy of The Benny Hill Show (Rejected Manuscript Pile).
Originally posted by Amaurote
Some people found Brusilov offensive, but I'm not one of them.
I actually read this post midsip of my first cup of my second pot of coffee of the day much to the dismay of my favorite shirt, which has just been dribbled upon in the midst of my failed attempt at not giggling at that. :(
Villager
12-15-01, 12:13PM
Haha.
You were taken to task by me for this statement alone.
Then fair play; that wasn’t an excellent use of the text I concede, but it was still concurrent with my argument and intended merely as an example. I also apologise to you all for that last bit, as I was quoting from memory and obviously did so inaccurately.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that that quote is the basis for my judgement of Lincoln, but certainly taken alone it does some up Lincoln’s attitude in my opinion. Again, it was merely meant as representation, not precise and acute historical analysis. Heck, I don’t even go into this much detail in History coursework.
Obviously your entire argument is clouded by your irrational hatred of me and you are not qualified to make an argument against me if you can only manage to cuss and namecall.
Excuse me for reacting improperly here, but I responded to what I received as an aggressive and provocative post from you. Hate you? Oh no. Disapprove of the manner in which you’ve gone about this argument? Certainly. The digs were indeed unnecessary, and for that i am no better than you, but I presumed you would be able to take them in the course of an argument whose nature you set as bitchy from your reply. Would I be happy with you summing up my whole post with “you’re a bitch”? If you were simply aiming to illustrate my views towards you then yes, of course. What you are trying to imply there is that my quote did injustice to the speech; and yet when you consider my views on Lincoln and that speech, they are indeed true to it. Where’s the problem, exactly?
I can see your beef, granted. But I also hope you can see my reasoning in defending my comments.
As regards “mooley” and “ham-fisted git”, they were jokes. Nothing more. Immature and unprofessional? Sue me. I respect Lincoln for his determination and his focus, and indeed his skill as a politician, but what nobody seems to understand is my distaste in that he is put upon some godlike pedestal when he deserves, in actuality, little of the credit he receives.
I make no pretence about my qualifications to speak about this or indeed any other topic, but it’s the world as I see it and that’s what forums are for, old boy.
The remarks about conniving should be easy to see. I presented one extreme interpretation followed by its opposite. Should Lincoln’s intentions be viewed as saintly or underhand? If you say there is no justification for implying there was ever reason to suspect Lincoln was acting underhand then you reject the concept of interpretation. I see Lincoln’s attitude towards black people as overtly unsuspecting, but underneath it he felt the same as a lot of Americans; that blacks didn’t deserve equal rights. How do I reach this conclusion? From manuscripts and actual events? No, from personal interpretation of speeches such as the aforementioned, which might or might not be contrary to popular perception, and his inaction towards blacks. Had he truly felt for them, he would have made far greater efforts, the fact that he did not is, to me, and perhaps it would seem me alone, proof enough that he did not truly feel for them.
Originally posted by Villager
I wish not to descend into the bowels of sniping and accusations, but why do I get the feeling I'm being reprimanded for essentailly reprimanding aussie over his hero, an opinion? Is that not a little wrong somehow?
I would hope that never happens vill.
Im quite capable of taking care of my self on this one at the moment though its no longer about me just my hero. So Im just watching and learning
Im sorry for the confusion Villager, I had meant the "Obviously your entire argument is clouded by... " blah blah blah.. as an extension on the original point. I in no way think you are so little as to actually behave in that manner, just further pointing out how one could completely get the wrong idea from using such a small tidbit of misused info.
I would like to add that if your "If you were simply aiming to illustrate my views towards you then yes, of course." is aimed at saying that you really do feel I am "a bitch" for pointing out that you erred in my opinion then that is regrettable. I should hardly like to think that someone intelligent would take such an viewpoint on a person on the basis of how one conducted themselves in a debate on opposing sides. I hope this is not the case. Sometimes such things become heated, and if you get your panties in a bind you usually come out on the bad end and with bad feelings to boot. I have no desire for that to happen, this is a friendly discussion to me, nothing more.
At any rate. Let me firm up my point since I seem to have not made it clearly. I have no issue with you saying that you believe Lincoln a bigot. All I had issue was is the point that you tried to back this up by misquoting and taking the quote out of context.
I am also starting to wonder upon revisiting your post if you actually read what I said or just skimmed though it. It does appear the latter, or that you were so immersed in thinking me a bitch you failed to realize that I already addressed the point you are asking about in your last paragraph when I stated that it doesnt seem underhanded to me when you tell someone straight up that they are not welcome and are looked down upon and will be so for the discernable future.
And as for doing more for them, You seem to have an almost childlike view of the world if this is the case. For one man whose presidency was cut short by a bullet to the noggin he accomplished a great deal for the entire nation. I would think if you had any small idea of politics you would realize that there is a finite amount anyone not in a posistion of absolute power can do.
Lastly the only reason I remarked on the Git comment is though Lincoln had Jewish ancestry and revoked the Jewish expulsion, I'm fairly sure he wasn't a practicing Jew any more than he was a black man himself. And I'm also not completely rock solid on why you are condoning this man and throwing around racial slurs at a breakneck rate. Perhaps we have dissimilar senses of humor.
Amaurote
12-15-01, 01:23PM
I have a feeling that the Villager-Bane duel is based on a semantic misunderstanding: I readily confess that I wasn't aware that "git" (or its variant, "get") had any anti-Semitic connotations. In fact, it's generally used in the UK as a playful vernacular expression; it's become so anaesthatized that it's fallen from favour in the circles of popular youth culture. The US counterpart would be something equally vapid, like "You dog", with connotations of playful outrage/respect.
I used it a lot myself in the past. If Bane is right I certainly won't be using it again, that's for sure.
Originally posted by Amaurote
The US counterpart would be something equally vapid, like "You dog", with connotations of playful outrage/respect.
Though this isn't really what we are arguing about, should this happen to be the way you meant it villager then I apologize for the racial slur comment, apparently I was wrong there, I was not familiar with the English version of the word, I only knew of the one sense for the word to be used, and after the Moolie comment I was a bit prepared for the worse. Still, an apology is in order.
Han Solo. 'cause he doesn't get bogged down with the stupid stuff, always gets paid, doesn't take no crap, and shags princess leia.
We actually use both words here in Australia and I have to admit that this is the first time I have ever heard either used as a racial slur. So I guess Im becoming better informed as well. I feel geography plays quite a large part in what is offencive and what isnt. Whilst one side needs to be aware the other needs to also understand that in another place the same word may have a totaly different meaning. So I guess a little tolerance from both sides is in order maybe? Who knows how much more we can all learn from a debate like this
Originally posted by rudedawg
Han Solo. 'cause he doesn't get bogged down with the stupid stuff, always gets paid, doesn't take no crap, and shags princess leia.
Han Solo now theres a hero him and chewie could take on darth vader and win any day in the movie. However we all know in real life they were no match for the dark dide of the force.
All life must bow before the power of the dark side
Come feel the power of the dark side of the force rudedawg
Originally posted by LucifersChild
my hero, as lame as it may be, is my mother. she has struggled with a disease for 15 years, and will not give up. i hope that when and if that time were to come for me, that i would have as much strength as she does. she fights everyday of her life just to live, when others so blatenly take it for granted. be happy you wake up, be happy that youre breathing, just be happy to be here basically
I think your mother has many admirable qualities as well lucy. I have watched her fighting spirit for months now. I know she fights for every breath she takes. Im sure she is the only real life living hero on this thread. You are the only one here that is in contact on a daily basis with your hero. More power to you
Redallnite
12-15-01, 07:58PM
Originally posted by Bane
Moolie is an italian slur for people of color it's a short form of Melanzane (Italian for E
ggplant) Eggplants have black skin, so do blacks, thus the connection.
I thought they were a deep purple?? Go figure......
Villager
12-16-01, 09:54AM
Originally posted by Bane
Im sorry for the confusion Villager ... Let me firm up my point since I seem to have not made it clearly. I have no issue with you saying that you believe Lincoln a bigot. All I had issue was is the point that you tried to back this up by misquoting and taking the quote out of context.
Then all is well, non?
Originally posted by Bane
I am also starting to wonder upon revisiting your post if you actually read what I said or just skimmed though it.
Er, probably true. When Iget going I usually end up shooting off on tangent (which is obviously your fault for replying so quickly).
Allow me to clarify my views on Lincoln: In short, I think he receives far more praise than his actions deserved. The slavery thing here has been unduly drawn out, when I was merely trying to point out his relative 'inadequacy' on the issue. Perhaps he didn't do badly m- but he didn't do well. I respect the man. But I respect a hundred and one others above him, especially considering the status he is revered in.
As for the mooley/git thing: Mooley was a fluke, if you will, and git was, as Amaurote says, intended as nothing more than playful.
I do apologise for my considerable part in the confusion and heat, and yes, if this is not a friendly debate it's not a debate worth having, here.
a dark jedi's power was just as equally matched and jedi that followed the good side of the force. the only thing that allowed one jedi to ever triumph over another is the sheer will, preperation, and skillful execution of their art against their opponent.
now han solo don't need all that. in the end he 1. got the girl 2. saved the world 3. didn't have to deal with all that dark side/good side bullshit. oh yeah, 4. he got his motherfuckin' moneystacks too. darkside, goodside, redside, blueside, it don't matter 'cause in the end jedi's are just a bunch of well-trained magicians. pretty fuckin' cool magicians, but magicians nonetheless.
so ends another episode of Rudedawg's Mind Meld. Tune in next week when Rudedawg takes on yet another challenger on the field of battle. WHOAAAAAHHH!!!
Well I'm glad to see that quote was properly diagnosed. Thank you Bane for responding to my question about its origin and putting it in its proper context! Cheers to all! *Raises his glass*
Originally posted by Bane
Moolie is an italian slur for people of color it's a short form of Melanzane (Italian for E
ggplant) Eggplants have black skin, so do blacks, thus the connection.
Oh and Bane,,, thanks for the word origin of moolie also.
oooOO Ya always pick up great info here!
Ok Mr Bain after searching the oxford dictionary, the Macquarie dictionary, dictionary dot com, ten pages of racial slur sites on google, and the racial slur data base. (http://rsdb.fuck.org/) I have been unable to come up with any reference to git used as a racial slur. The only reference I can find is the English slang form of the word. So give man what is your source here. Is it a book or a web site where can I go to see this for my self?
Sorry man hate to be a wet blanket.
It appears to me that Villagers main argument here is that Lincoln didn’t do enough for the blacks and that he was dishonest with his intentions.
I contend nothing was further from the truth Although the president of the united states is a man of great power and political clout he is by no means a dictator. Even the president of the united states is kept in check by the congress and the senate. He does not have absolute power even today.
Abraham Lincoln was first and foremost an ELECTED official and his first duty and number one concern had to be to the voters who put him in office. At this particular time Im sure villager is aware the voters didn’t include women and blacks. In other words Vill he had no obligation at all to either. I further contend that to commit
to either at the expense of the voters would have been dishonest. You further neglect the point that at that particular time slaves were considered no more than cattle. It was in the face of this particular attitude that any advances were made at all. Perhaps living in a village as you do you might consider walking into Farmer Browns home one day and telling him his cows are his equal. Who knows he may agree with you He may also refuse to vote for you at the next election as well even if you happen to be running for the post of dog catcher. Whilst my analogy may be laughable in the twenty first century I doubt in Lincolns time I would be too wide of the mark
You said:
He was openly racist, manipulative, and generally willing to abuse others for the gain of himself and those whose interests he kept (not exactly the interests of Joe Average of America).
This is where your whole argument begins to fall down right from the start you are wanting to place todays values on yesterdays issues "Negro lover"? You don’t change history just for the sake of being politically correct. The term your looking for here would in those days Im sure have been "****** lover". Im sure as well that Mr and Mrs Joe average were more than happy to know that the slaves were worse off than they were. Perhaps it would have made their own poverty a little more bearable
You said:
Originally said by Abraham
Not a single man of your race (blacks) is made the equal of a single man of ours (white) .. it is a fact
Again I refer to the times. How do you think his voters would have reacted to being told their cattle were their equal? What would his chances of re-election have been?
You said:
He didn't want blacks in the Army, either. They weren't even allowed (at first) the right to take up arms to defend Lincoln. The civil rights movement didn't gain weight until after Lincoln died. Go figure. Now, I know you're no fan of certain races either, aussie (and let it be said your arguments for such are pretty good), but racism, against a people who were fucking well enslaved by Lincoln's country, is unacceptable. He neither spoke nor acted against it. That, my friend, is why I wholly dismiss Abraham Lincoln as a worthy hero.
As I have previously stated women never had the vote in those days either. Does that make him sexist as well? Or even homosexual? Even in the face of those attitudes he risked his career doing what he could to alleviate their plight. Perhaps those are the actions of a hero. He did after all have to balance his words and actions with the thoughts of his contemporaries so as not to appear a complete nutter and get the things he did through two houses of parliament. He didn’t have absolute power remember
You said:
Now tell me this, aussie, if Lincoln, as head of the fastest growing and economically most powerful country in the world, tolerated, nay, supported slavery, how can any other person or group be more responsible for its existence? He called the shots which allowed it to flourish, he put everything else as a higher priority so as not to upset the fat-cats from the south. That is why I accuse him of being a no good scoundrel. He was dictated by money like every other weak leader.
I contend villager that running the country he was elected to run had to take precedent over other issues he had a duty to the voters who elected him. If he had neglected the running of his country to go riding off on a private crusade then perhaps I too would be calling him a scoundrel
You said:
Allow me to clarify my views on Lincoln: In short, I think he receives far more praise than his actions deserved. The slavery thing here has been unduly drawn out, when I was merely trying to point out his relative 'inadequacy' on the issue. Perhaps he didn't do badly m- but he didn't do well. I respect the man. But I respect a hundred and one others above him, especially considering the status he is revered in.
To this and al the above I raise the index finger of my right hand in the great Australian salute
Originally posted by wussie
I have been unable to come up with any reference to git used as a racial slur.
I have also been unable to find it online, with the exception of one fellow using it to describe a jewish man in a movie. This is what my grandfather used to call most Jews, specifically the ones who owned the shop down the street. Perhaps he was referring to their age and not their religion, but he seemed only anxious to use it on those Jewish people, and I've not heard it out of him in any other sense.
I already said I was wrong in the assuming thats what Villager meant however?
btw.. Bane.. not Bain, I realize its only one letter, but so would calling you wussie :) hehe
wussie is cool with that I think I`l just stick english use of the word. I feel at times we all get too caught up in the pc bullshit
Villager
12-18-01, 08:06AM
Aussie, if you wish me to answer you point by point please say, and I would be more than happy to do so.
But let's cut to the chase, for a second. We certainly agree that Lincoln didn't go gung-ho for black rights. So he was relatively inactive towards blacks. What, then, makes Lincoln a hero? I've read many books, I've discussed this with many, many people including yourselves and college/university teachers, and I've yet to be convinced or anything near to, that Abraham Lincoln deserves half of the credit his memory enjoys. So by the standards of C19th politics he wasn't out of line, but I certainly see no reason for his elevation to hero.
What I will contend, though, is his duty. Of course he has a duty to the voters who put him where he stood. But, as president of America he should have the moral integrity to have the welfare of every American at heart, and through his very own Emancipation Proclamation, blacks were recognised. By this and any other standard worth its name, Lincoln had a duty to all who were born and lived in the state he ruled. I say again, I respect the man, he achieved much. But those achievements sparse warrant the title hero.
Originally posted by Redallnite
I thought they were a deep purple?? Go figure......
Hey Red, ever heard the term: "He's so black he's blue"
Redallnite
12-18-01, 08:30PM
Originally posted by usantic
Hey Red, ever heard the term: "He's so black he's blue"
"Blue Gums", or a "real pure bred".... that is what the "eggplant" meant??? :p
I watched a superb show on PBS last night and have decided to name a bristlecone pine to my list of heroes. It's been called Methuselah and is around 4600 years old. Its taken the best that the environment and mankind can throw at it and is still producing offspring.
Originally posted by usantic
I watched a superb show on PBS last night and have decided to name a bristlecone pine to my list of heroes. It's been called Methuselah and is around 4600 years old. Its taken the best that the environment and mankind can throw at it and is still producing offspring.
Anything that can reproduce after 4,600 years will do me for a hero there is a lot to be said for qualities like that.
That tree must have been a hero for generations of dogs as well
*roars with laughter* Yeah, not only but also: mountain lions,bears,birds crappin' it up,skunks,(whew,that may have kept others at bay for a while)I think you covered squirrels with your attachment. :cheesy:
Villager
12-23-01, 03:25PM
Let us first look at Lincoln’s duty as President of America, as you so vehemently argue. You are entirely correct to say that Lincoln is first and foremost an elected official, and that his power is finite. The use of that fact in arguing that he did what he could for black people, however, is misguided. For a start, I totally reject the idea the Lincoln had no further duty than to the white men who voted for him. ‘The land of the free’, the American Dream - a country that in every overt manner would appear to be democratic, fair and principled. How, then, can you justify that morally Lincoln had no further duty than to appease those males who were the richer and the whiter? That stinks of C19th bigotry as much as the violent and greedy slave owners he was supposedly better then.
You also seem to have the odd idea that the vote was really that important, in itself. Tosh. Freedom by itself, was useless. The majority of slaves were unable to do anything other than they had done all their lives and many just continued to do their former ‘duty’ to their former masters but being paid, pitifully poorly I might add. Blacks also had very little migratory prospects, as they had to money to travel and wouldn’t know how to survive anyhow. So, don’t go thinking that freedom was the be all and end all of black issues. By the same token, altering the constitution to allow every American the vote, regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude (former slaves) did very little in itself. Southern states, along with a few northern ones, continued to deny blacks both valid freedom and the vote. Grandfather clauses, Property clauses, Literacy test, and ultimately violence meant that blacks were no better off than they were prior to emancipation. It wasn’t freedom nor the right to vote that blacks needed, it was equality before the eyes of the law, and protection from the law. That is where Lincoln neglected to act, the Emancipation Proclamation was not primarily intended to benefit blacks, and as such would have been a token gesture at best.
You also have a dangerously one-dimensional view of American society at the time, from which you make foolish assumptions. Not all Americans were racists. Not all Americans had a problem with blacks living among them. From the early religious support blacks received from the Quakers, the Shakers, the Episcopalians, a wide base of sympathy had begun to grow, even if it didn’t take formal form until later on. This is where you make the mistake of thinking and saying that the average American had as much hatred for blacks as the southern farmers. Yes - many, many local and State politicians were openly and indeed actively racist, as were many ordinary Americans. But, by the same token, there were many liberal, racially un-bias Americans who were aghast at what was going on. What they could not do, however, was act in the face if what must have seemed violent and widespread opposition. But they were there.
Now, you may be sat there screaming ‘well Lincoln was in exactly the same position! doesn’t that prove my point??’, but no, and it really doesn’t. For a start, as President he cannot feasibly use the fear of his personal safety or reputation as justification for neglecting 4 million human beings and their needs, in the nineteenth century or any other. I stand steadfast that Lincoln fell well short of the mark in his duty to these people, whether they voted for him or not.
As for “negro lover” as opposed to “****** lover”, it is as per my understanding that both terms were widespread in their use at the time, so that point is redundant also. Indeed some lower class whites did have little but their supposed sense of superiority to blacks, but following on from that very point, aussie, white trash were frequently excluded from voting through literacy tests, and Property Clauses. Therefore, Mr Lincoln neglects not only blacks people but the whites who suffer in the name of segregation and oppression.
Again I care not what Lincoln’s chances were of re-election. If that was a high priority for him then sure that isn’t so bad, but I damn well expect more from a hero. Besides, the immediate post-Lincoln government managed to push through legislation and Amendments (see the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution) to at least attempt to improve blacks way of life, why couldn’t Lincoln?? Five years for Amendments Lincoln could have passed comfortably at the same cost as the war which happened, and was always going to happen with Lincoln in power, anyway.
As I have previously stated women never had the vote in those days either. Even in the face of those attitudes he risked his career doing what he could to alleviate their plight. Perhaps those are the actions of a hero.
No, most certainly he did not. What do you suggest he did for black, women’s, or even homosexuals rights anyway? Had he made attempts, then hero for sure, but success, nor, moreover, attempts, were made. Inaction. Not the credentials for hero. So, aussie, as Lincoln neglected all this shit that was going on, what was he focusing on? Economics. Upper class politics and the sort of contempt for the lower echelons of society that so many asshole politicians could lay claim to. He wasn’t all that bad, in truth, but hero is a very strong word and I see no justification for its application to Abraham Lincoln.
I don’t like the way all have jumped to slaughter my opinions of Lincoln on this thread, when nobody short of Bane has come up with anything looking remotely like a supported argument for his side, and yet I’ve had to explain every little inch of my attack of the popular view. How about somebody else presents an actual viewpoint, rather than simply picking at mine?
Well let me say first off how glad I am we can at least agree that as an elected official Lincolns power was limited. That at least is one thing we have no need to argue. However to reject the idea that Lincoln had no further duty than to those who voted for him is I feel stupidity on your part Villager and I would have expected better than that from you. Would you not agree that Tony Blairs #1 priority should be to the people of England rather than to their cattle? As the slaves of that time were some ones personal property why do you find it so hard to understand they were considered no more than cattle? Before you scoff at this analogy consider this If over the next hundred years England was to turn Buddhist how would the farmers of today be seen?
Freedom by itself, was useless. The majority of slaves were unable to do anything other than they had done all their lives and many just continued to do their former 'duty' to their former masters but being paid, pitifully poorly I might add. Blacks also had very little migratory prospects, as they had to money to travel and wouldn't know how to survive anyhow. So, don't go thinking that freedom was the be all and end all of black issues.
Ive never thought of my self as a former slave before, but I am payed pitifully poorly and my migratory prospects are nill this Christmass as I have no money to travel either. However I don’t count my freedoms as useless but apart from that by your measure I might well be a former slave. As for the right to vote what in the hell do you want? They had it didn’t they? Are you denying this was a step in the right direction? The man never had a magic wand mate!! The fact that the southern states enacted laws to circumvent Lincolns intentions should not detract from those intentions. As to my dangerously one dimensional view of American society. After carefully checking my previous posts For the life of me I'm unable to find where I referred to all Americans of that time as "racists" Perhaps Im missing something here or perhaps your using journalistic licence in a manner befitting the Sunday tabloids. I think the latter rather than the former. I believe the same licence was applied to the remark
This is where you make the mistake of thinking and saying that the average American had as much hatred for blacks as the southern farmers.
. For a start, as President he cannot feasibly use the fear of his personal safety or reputation as justification for neglecting 4 million human beings and their needs, in the nineteenth century or any other. I stand steadfast that Lincoln fell well short of the mark in his duty to these people, whether they voted for him or not.
Perhaps you could expand a little on just what in your opinion his duty was remembering this is only your opinion. You attribute many things to Lincoln but you fail to take into account that at the time of him taking office the four million were not considered legally human at all. I agree Lincoln was not motivated by a desire to free the slaves so much as to preserve the union. To this end and your no doubt delight I refer to a letter to Horace Greeley in which he stated the following
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
This I believe adds weight to the fact Lincoln was in fact an honest politician and his first duty was to his country. You further stated in your last post
"What do you suggest he did for black, women’s, or even homosexuals rights anyway? Had he made attempts, then hero for sure, but success, nor, moreover, attempts, were made. Inaction. Not the credentials for hero.” This I will answer with quotes from the man him self That I believe attest to his intentions
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 502.
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 502.
"I don't like the way all have jumped to slaughter my opinions of Lincoln on this thread, when nobody short of Bane has come up with anything looking remotely like a supported argument for his side, and yet I've had to explain every little inch of my attack of the popular view. How about somebody else presents an actual viewpoint, rather than simply picking at mine?"
Vill the reason every one is jumping on your opinions mate is that you are the one prosecuting Lincoln. As the prosecutor the onus is on you to support your argument not the defence. So wipe your eyes blow your nose and get on with it. As the defence I feel I have a right to pick at your every argument. :finger: Besides you have already conceded that you are arguing purely for the sport If you cannot be swayed by college teachers and university professors then you are obviously beyond reason
Villager
12-25-01, 07:34AM
Would you not agree that Tony Blairs #1 priority should be to the people of England rather than to their cattle?
What, then, of those who didn’t or more precisely couldn’t vote for him, the minors, the homeless - they are politically silent, does that mean that should be any less important to Blair? It matters little that they were considered property, for what you seem to bypass is the fact that not every black man in America was a slave. There were several thousand free blacks in America in the 60’s, many with white support, does the bigoted views of white voters mean that these free men also count for shit? Did Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation at the outbreak of war not free these slaves, effectively a declaration from the state that in the eyes of America blacks were their equal? Black men who were free did vote pre-1860, but tolerated white violence and exclusion laws restricted their number to an inconsequent few hundred here and there.
I don’t count my freedoms as useless but apart from that by your measure I might well be a former slave.
Simply put, aussie, the freedoms granted by the Amended Constitution were not supported by the federal government, and that is where they failed to ‘do more’ - they gave them a lifeline and then stood by whilst it was snatched away.
Are you denying this was a step in the right direction? The fact that the southern states enacted laws to circumvent Lincolns intentions should not detract from those intentions.
Interesting. A step in the right direction for sure, but why didn’t Lincoln free blacks slaves in Union states, huh? He was unwilling to upset rich white men in the remaining Union.. kinda detracts from those supposed intentions eh? A handy time for your very own quote:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”
- He vindicated the freedom of southern blacks but continued to deny northern slaves freedom - by his own rule is he not therefore unworthy of freedom??
That’s a pretty important point, he was willing to manipulate morals and the public opinion by firing the Emancipation Proclamation as a military attack and then hailing it as a moral crusade! That is an example of what I would cite as dishonesty, even if it were in such a subtle manner.
What in my opinion was Lincoln’s duty as the President of America? To protect and to serve the peoples of America, without going into all that patriotic shit.
you fail to take into account that at the time of him taking office the four million were not considered legally human at all
Then why issue the Emancipation Proclamation and effectively say they are human and they are equal and they should be free? To unsettle the bloody Confederacy that’s why! It matters not that it was a step in the right direction, it was a side-effect of a sneaky scheme, which admittedly was rather clever on Lincoln’s part.
To this end and your no doubt delight I refer to a letter to Horace Greeley in which he stated the following [..insert quote..]This I believe adds weight to the fact Lincoln was in fact an honest politician and his first duty was to his country.
Well I guess that rather depends upon whether you count those unable to vote as legitimate countrymen, which I damn well do. I also contend that Lincoln was, even by C19th standards, a politically manipulative man, and not simply looking after the proper interests.
Fucking hell now my lamp's blown
Hmm.. Let's assume, for just a moment, that Villager is correct in the assumption that Lincoln was a manipulative bigot. I can understand the feeling even if I don't agree.
So where would we find further base for Lincolns place on the list of herokind? How about this, debate me if you will, but by your own admission Villager ole Abe lied cheated and stole his way to reunification of the states no? That would in fact make him responsible for the presence on the world's stage of the sole remaining superpower and arguably the most powerful nation (certainly the greatest non nation-state) in the history of man. Certainly the states would have survived as north and south Americas or whatever but they would never be what they are today, or IMHO even close. That makes him a hero to most Americans, and deservedly so.
Other Interesting Participations?
Opposed Dred Scott
The Homestead Act
Formation of Republican Party
Emancipation Proclamation
Only President ever issued a patent
etc..
One more thing I would like to point out to you Villager. When you are making statements about Lincolns dedication to the people of his country, when questioning his dedication to helping his constituants black or white consider this. In 1865 President Lincoln was shot because of his views. Booth was present for Lincoln's last speech, in which he addressed his willingness to support a law allowing certain blacks to vote.. Booth was said to be enraged by this and is quoted as saying "This is the last speech he will ever make". He died for his views, for his stands on the cause of abolishing slavery.
This was not a man who hid behind anything. He is known throughout his career as standing with what he belives in reguardless of how this affected him, personally or politically. Take note he opposed Dred Scott long before it was politically acceptable to take such a stance, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act before that. Call me sentimental, but standing by what you belive no matter the cost, to me, the very definition of a hero.
Villager
12-25-01, 12:21PM
Well summarised, Bane.
Abe lied cheated and stole his way to reunification of the states no? That would in fact make him responsible for the presence on the world's stage of the sole remaining superpower and arguably the most powerful nation (certainly the greatest non nation-state) in the history of man
Granted, he was involved at a crucial point of American history. What I guess this comes down to is that IMO, reunification of the states was in itself, and the time not due cause for his hail as hero. The consequences of that, as you point out, have indeed been vast. But, and on this I expect we shall never agree, Lincoln's Presidence over this point do not warrant his status as hero; his objectives as a politician and career should nigh be the sole judge of how he is hailed. What the eventual consequences are of his actions warrant, in my opinion, rememberence as a very important man, but hero just doesn't feel appropriate to me. Perhaps that's because I am not American, perhaps it is because I have a different definition of hero than others. I must say though yourself and aussie have certainly convinced me of a more appreciative view of Lincoln; even if my personal opinion of him remains below that of most here, it would seem.
Just a question, but do you now understand why I have a much deeper belief in the mans convictions? I mean, You pointed out his strides towards Emancipation and Immersion as being a sort of Political Masterstroke. I'm not sure I can agree with this at all. The man did have a distinguished record throughout his life of standing on the side of the issue he is now famous for. Not only as a tool of war or a political stepping stone but as a way of life as a lawyer, as a represenative, as the President, in fact as a man he stood tall and strong on a very shaky pedestal.
I do understand your points Villager, and while they seem valid at a glance it does seem to me as though you aren't looking at it from a wide view, but rather in a very focused fashion.. I find it difficult to judge history in this way. Ignoring everything else but Lincolns status as the great emancipator still leaves him IMHO a man worthy of respect in abundance. A well versed leader knows what he can accomplish and in the memoirs of many such men and women you can find evidence of these persons accepting their limitations and setting into effect events greater than themselves merely by laying the first bricks or casting the first stone. Lincoln was such a man.. His impact on history cannot be overstated and his status as a hero at least in my mind is assured. :)
Ok well I do have another hero perhaps you would like to pick him apart as well? Let me tell you a little about him
Gender
Male
Height
2.28 meters
Vehicle
Millennium Falcon
Home world
Kashyyyk
Affirmation
Rebel Alliance
Weapon
Bowcaster
Species
Wookiee
NAME
Chewbacca
An immense, fur covered warrior of great strength and loyalty, Chewbacca the Wookiee was a well known figure in both the underworld and in the Rebel Alliance. Born on Kashyyyk Chewbacca was a wise, sophisticated being with exceptional skills in starship piloting and repair. For their brutish strength and technological savvy, Wookiees were enslaved by the Empire for use as labor. For a time, Chewbacca was a slave, toiling away for the betterment of the Empire until an impudent Imperial cadet named Han Solo freed him.
Chewbacca swore loyalty to Han, and became his partner in crime. The two of them became a well known smuggling duo. When they came into ownership of the freighter Millennium Falcon, their exploits became legendary.
Although the Falcon's upkeep was a labor of love, many a time Chewie unleashed his legendary temper on the recalcitrant freighter, banging his massive furry hands against components that refused to behave.
Chewbacca stood over two meters tall and had a coat of ginger-brown fur. He wore nothing, save for a bandoleer that carried specialized ammunition for the bowcaster that he carried, and a simple tool pouch so that he could enact the many repairs the chronically malfunctioning Falcon required. :finger:
Redallnite
12-25-01, 07:15PM
I was wondering when you were going to change heros? I guess Mr. Lincoln sure has been a let down for ya.... Oh well, maybe Chewbacca will not have such a dark past....:p
not a chance in the world Red. Thanks to villager and bane I can now admire the part of lincolns life that came after his election. In many ways thanks to villager I feel he is still fighting even in death and the strength of the mans character shines through every time Bane or someone else defends him. If nothing else this shows him as a worthy hero to my self and any who may read or hear of his life and struggles. I have yet to see or hear of any thing that would shake my belief in him or show as being unworthy in any light
Redallnite
12-25-01, 08:42PM
YOU GO GUY!!!!!
Amaurote
12-26-01, 12:10PM
I'm sorry, Aussie, but - very impressive though Chewbacca undoubtedly is - he's completely overshadowed throughout the entire Star Wars cycle after the highly memorable cameo by the Ta-ta-tacka droid. I think the Ta-ta-tacka droid deserves a thread all of his own, and, by God, I mean to create one.
Thanks for your support, comrades.
Ta-ta-tacka droid? you had better post a picture of that bastard mate. Dont seem to recall one of those, not that it matters I dont care what kind of droid you have. :finger: A rampaging wookie will rend your droid limb from limb and still repair an errant millenium falcon before breakfast :finger:
Amaurote
12-29-01, 05:14AM
Ah, yes, Aussie, but the scene I'm referring to is informally known by George Lucas and all his close associates (i.e. George Lucas' wife and family) as the Wookie vs. Ta-ta-tacka Droid Scene (3 b), and it's main function is to illustrate just how much faster than a wookie the Ta-ta-tacka droid is.
I got ten bucks says My wookie can kick shit out of your droid. That droid is just such a girl anyway :finger:
Redallnite
12-29-01, 10:01PM
I thought chewbacca was really a girl??
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/red/chaba.jpg
Marie maybe in Georgia chewie looks like a girl but take my word for it nothing is further from the truth. Chewie is !00% hetro male he`s the man actually over here he is consigered the "Ducks Guts" so go wash your mouth out and lets hear no more of this nonsense
*Aussie kicks coke can and spits in marie`s general direction*
ozblonde
12-30-01, 04:53AM
Well I can certainly see why chewie would be a hero but why choose him or Abraham Lincoln. Isnt there at least one Australian You can look up to? Why those two ?
Originally posted by ozblonde
Well I can certainly see why chewie would be a hero but why choose him or Abraham Lincoln. Isnt there at least one Australian You can look up to? Why those two ?
You need to very careful here OZ your last post is border line racism. You need to clean your act up a little woman I just cant stand you bigots. However the point you raise is a valid one and deserves an answer. I guess probably the best reason I can give is that here in Australia as you can no doubt attest we expect nothing less than the best from our people. So when someone out standing comes along we tend to think of them as being nothing but what we expected. Im sure that no doubt you are aware Kostya Tzu is an undisputed world boxing champion the man unified the belt. Who apart from his family was at the air port to greet him on his return? Our womens hockey team are world champions if you passed them on the street would you recognise them? If you met Leyton Hewitt on the beach would you know him or Pat Rafter? Im sure I could go on here with hunderds of others and not just sports people either. In other countries these people would be national hero`s in Australia theyre just seen as doing their job That OZ is the best reason I can give as to why I didnt post an Australian hero. Perhaps the reason for this attitude lies in our convict past who knows why we have the attitude we do.
I dont believe Ive seen you post on your hero yet. Surly you must have someone with qualities worth admiring so how about filling in the blanks here?
OZ you asked for an Australian hero and immediately Sir Edward springs to mind. I feel you would be hard pressed to go past this man. He was a Hero in every sense of the word and a great loss to this country
SIR EDWARD 'WEARY' DUNLOP
Sir Edward Weary Dunlop was a surgeon in the Australian Army during World War Two. He is legendary for his care of soldiers taken prisoner by the Japanese. His nickname might have been Weary but his nature certainly wasn't. Even in the most horrific conditions Weary found energy to fight for the wellbeing and often, the lives of these men. Weary grew up on farms in country Victoria. He loved adventures and he liked to prove he was tougher than the rest.
" I used to walk down barefoot and jump on top of my favourite riding horse and round up the horses - it was quite an impressive cavalcade."
Weary was a natural athlete and at school in Benalla, he preferred to play sport than to study. When he left school Weary took a job in a pharmacy. But he grew bored with small town life and headed for Melbourne in 1927.Here Weary took a new career path, and began studying medicine at Melbourne University. He also played with Australia's national rugby team, The Wallabies, and was a champion boxer. Soon after graduating Weary took a job as a ship's surgeon and sailed to London. The next year World War Two broke out. Weary knew his skills were needed closer to the action.
"I just couldn't get into the army quick enough"
About a year after enlisting in the Australian Army, Weary was sent to Java in Indonesia. The Japanese had attacked the island, and Weary was needed to help treat the casualties. But just two weeks after his arrival Japanese troops captured the town where Weary was living. The prisoners were taken by ship from Singapore to Burma, and then crammed into train carriages for a five day horror ride into Thailand. The Japanese wanted to build a four hundred and twenty one kilometre long railway from west Thailand into Burma. The work required physical strength and good tools.
The prisoners had neither.
"I'd see these fellas off at the crack of dawn, just carrying their rice for the day, and then they would drag in any time up until midnight, some of them on their hands and knees."
As a commander, Weary had the awful job of deciding who was fit enough to work. As a surgeon, he was also the one who patched the men up after their hours of hard labour. Standing nearly two metres tall, Weary had to stoop as he operated on patients beneath kerosene lamps.
"Weary was never sitting down. He was always on his feet, and his feet were terrible with ulcers. He had all these complaints too, you know. The germs didn't leave him alone."
Weary argued with his captors about making sick men work.
"I'd have all sorts of conspiracies. I'd tell the fellas to start to march, but collapse and I'll grab you."
Former prisoner of War, Bill Griffiths is among the many who owe their lives to Weary. The Japanese planned to kill him.
What use is a disabled man, it was argued. Weary stepped in front of the bayonets and refused to move until Bill's life was spared. A habit of keeping track of the war via a hidden wireless also landed Weary in the firing line.
"I got handcuffed around a tree, my tummy exposed to four bayonets and a countdown. Things were pretty grim."
Weary ended up being tortured instead ... but the experience only made him more defiant. After the war Weary continued to work as a surgeon in Australia and parts of Asia. In 1969 he was knighted in recognition of his contribution to medicine. Weary's compassionate nature enabled him to forgive and even meet, some of his former enemies. In 1993, ten days short of his 86th birthday, Sir Edward Weary Dunlop died. More than ten thousand people lined the streets of Melbourne for the state funeral of the man they called 'The Surgeon of the Railway'.
"I have a conviction that it's only when you are put at full stretch that you can realise your full potential."
If` ever anyone lived life at full stretch, it was Weary.
March 30 (1943)
I am appalled at how wretchedly sick some of the troops look, yet it is difficult to hospitalise them with (the guards) playing a grab for all men possible (to work) and now a great shortage of tents to cover them. I feel wretched myself with legs now covered with scabbed, septic sores and a large raw, septic mess on one thigh...
April 10
Only medicines in hospital are quinine tablets and charcoal.
May 18
.These days, in which I see men being progressively broken into emaciated pitiful wrecks, bloated with beriberi, terribly reduced with pellagra, dysentery and malaria and covered with disgusting sores, a searing hate arises in me whenever I see a (guard).
(From The War Diaries of Weary Dunlop by E.E. Dunlop, published by Nelson.)
ozblonde
01-04-02, 04:27AM
Aussie it was never my intention to belittle your hero in any way. In fact I once showed what you originally wrote to a client who was having a run of extremely bad luck and she was quite impressed. She in fact came back in one day and asked for the address of the site she said and I quote "I drew so much from that I would love to show a friend of mine" If Abraham Lincoln is a hero of yours then good luck to you.
I was very impressed with what you wrote about Weary Dunlop and with what you showed me in those two sites I now understand why he was honoured with his face on the fifty cent coin. When I read about what the Japanese did to him and others I cried. As you said we expect so much from our people that when someone like him comes along they pass unnoticed Im ashamed it has taken me this long to learn of him. You asked about my hero you just now gave me one. A real hero a real man who made a real difference.
:)
Amaurote
01-04-02, 11:50AM
Hold yer flamin' horses, OzBlonde: your analysis is spot on, but there's surely an even more important Australian role model/international hero/idol of a lost generation that you've inadvertently omitted from your last post:
http://www.shahrestaurant.co.uk/images/alfy.jpg
Who the hell is this guy with the sunburn amaurote? He seems to find his way around a bit dosnt he??
Amaurote
01-05-02, 03:56AM
In the UK, he's probably the most famous Australian geezer since Crocodile Dundee. To put it in perspective, John Howard, admirable man though he is, could walk butt-naked through Hyde Park with an Australian flag draped around his kazoo, singing "Waltzing Matilda" and shearing sheep, and no-one - no-one - would recognize him. Ray Meagher would be mobbed by wailing woman and small children the moment he stepped off the plane, even if he cleverly disguised himself as Charles Manson. For everyone in the UK, he is Australia, particularly when he starts talking about flamin' galaars and kookaburras.
Then again, that's the price of fame.
Ray Meagher eh well there we go Im flabergasted google says 8,280 sites on him and he is anonymous in his own country. Life is sad man its a good thing we have a hero`s thread. I found a black and white pic you might like I always prefer black and white its more artistic.
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/am/rm.gif
ozblonde
01-05-02, 05:38AM
hahaha aussie dosnt know alf? man that guy must live under a rock. Do you own a TV aussie? Alf is a world wide hero
Amaurote
01-05-02, 06:07AM
Damned right. Alf is the Outback Incarnate in human form, and he's been representing the middle-aged in Home and Away for well nigh on 10 years now.
Well I guess I have no choice but to concede Alf is a worthy and righteous hero. *Aussie lays lincoln at amaurotes feet*
Amaurote
01-05-02, 07:21AM
Especially now that Ailsa's dead. Actually, they should probably make it up to him by creating a storyline in which he has it away with her daughter, Shawna. It's the least he deserves for all those "Alf looking bored with Ailsa making coffee" scenes, anyway.
Ailsa's dead?:( Oh my god I never knew. How did she die? what happened? When was the funeral? Im devestated I cant carry on .....
Amaurote
01-05-02, 03:07PM
It was due to an hereditary coronary illness which was only introduced to the script in the previous episode. It's a classic example of foreshadowing on a shoe-string budget.
It's terrible news, of course: it means that there are now only three middle-aged characters in Home and Away: Alf Stewart, Donald Fisher and that boring cop that no-one likes. Summer Bay is gradually becoming like the village in Stephen King's Children of the Corn...
An hereditary coronary illness? shit thats bad mate that stuff can kill you. It could have been worse though she could have died from a heart attack and we all know they kill you twice as dead
Amaurote
01-06-02, 04:41AM
She died beside the counter at the Coffee-shop. It was all very moving, I can tell you - she even made that little clutching movement towards her heart that all of the actors playing heart attack victims used in movies made in the 1940s.
1940s Film Gestures and Their Connotations:
Clutching towards heart: I am having a heart attack.
Twiddling one's moustache: I am a most disgraceful villain.
Wearing straw boater: I'm quite the eccentric fellow, don't ye know.
Retaining cigarillo in mouth without the use of one's hands: I am street-smart - look, see, I don't even need a pipe.
Scranton
01-06-02, 12:28PM
Bill Hicks!
Who?
Bill Hicks listen and learn; This guy was a fucking genius, he for saw what you had become to the rest of the world back in 1991. He's dead now but his stuff is magical to listen to or watch if you can get it.
Fuck Alf off Home and Away:He was a serial rapist in Prisoner cell block H 8 years before all that!!!!
Amaurote
01-06-02, 01:45PM
He was in that version of Gallipoli, too, but that was before my time: I can just about remember Mrs Mangel on The Sullivans, though...
I hate it when you guys talk about people I know nothing of . Who the hell is Bill Hicks?
Redallnite
06-04-02, 01:30AM
On the radio yesterday, the DJ was talking about the Lincoln's bedroom in the White House. They were moving some things from an old room, well any way they found porn from Mr. Lincons so-called private collection. (Go figure, Mr. Lincoln had time to look at girly pictures)
Originally posted by aussie
Ray Meagher eh well there we go Im flabergasted google says 8,280 sites on him and he is anonymous in his own country. Life is sad man its a good thing we have a hero`s thread. I found a black and white pic you might like I always prefer black and white its more artistic.
hehe, isn't that the 'I'll knock your block off' guy? :)
Originally posted by Redallnite
On the radio yesterday, the DJ was talking about the Lincoln's bedroom in the White House. They were moving some things from an old room, well any way they found porn from Mr. Lincons so-called private collection. (Go figure, Mr. Lincoln had time to look at girly pictures)
hahahaha and those same worn old whores are now the NCT black label collection. Isnt it marvelous how good porn can survive the test of time. It also makes you wonder just how often the dust, vaccum, and tidy up in the white house dosnt it?
Sterling
06-04-02, 10:42PM
My hero is Alan Turing (http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/). A towering genius, he is widely recognised as the father of computer science, but as codebreaker extraordinaire he could probably have claimed as much as any individual to have been responsible for allied victory in the second world war. His contributions literally saved millions of lives and shaped the world we live in forever. What's sad about his story is that he was persecuted by the British government because of his homosexuality, ultimately to the point of taking his own life.
Good choice Sterling! I think there are heroes that we can all see and admire but there also many 'heroes' that we never see simply because they do smaller, less visible things, yet they can be just as significant as the actions of the first group. If I feel 'wow, i am amazed that someone did that for me or for somebody else' then to me that's a hero too at that time.
GLADIATOR
06-05-02, 08:22AM
Well I watched a film/documentary on the Falklands last night. and it confirmed my hero as Margaret Thatcher, she was unbelievable.
Oh and of course Winston Churhill.
I guess Lincolns porn makes the secret service and the CIA look like the blithering incompetents they are dosnt it. During the cold war years the white house would have been searched almost daily for a comunist under every bed and a homosexual in every closet. Not to mention KGB spies and listening devices etc. In all those searches and in all that time they couldnt even find the porn. Hell the first thing any infantry private learns is where to find the porn. :finger:
Originally posted by Villager
My hero would be my grandad, when he was alive. He was a resilient, wise, funny old man, and had all the time in the world for anybody who wanted it. Old fashioned values, if you will, he was genuine, honest, and kind, one of the very few men I've known who posess all three qualities.
One of my heroes is also my granddad. He married my grandmother when I was 3. He is now 85 and is one of the most brillant, persuasive, and kind men I have ever met. He is a WW II vet and could have attended MIT if he had the opportunity. He is a creative inventor even still at 85, and he truly helps people. My other one would be my mom. I feel I am a good person, and she is the reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is neat to have heroes that are public figures, who of course like your parents or grandparents are inperfect, but I feel the parents are the real heroes, because they are the ones that have to put up with us our whole lives, especially in today's society where al the other heroes don't live to expectations.
Lonster
Originally posted by GLADIATOR
Well I watched a film/documentary on the Falklands last night. and it confirmed my hero as Margaret Thatcher, she was unbelievable.
Oh and of course Winston Churhill.
For once we can both agree. Margret thacher was with no doubt at all the strongest world leader of her time. That chick had big brass balls. She also had the total support of Dennis
Winston Churchill on the other hand was nothing but a fat drunk unworthy of the oxygen it took to sustain his daily breath
Lonster, you are so right. While many people look to celebrated people to be their heroes, the people who raise them can be just as 'heroic in how they shape our world. I'm just glad that we are able to find heroes in a world where a pedestal is a jumping off point.
I voluntered in a 'retirement' home as a young girl and loved to sit and listen to the stories of their lives. I would be there for hours, chatting away.
GLADIATOR
06-05-02, 11:54PM
Originally posted by aussie
For once we can both agree. Margret thacher was with no doubt at all the strongest world leader of her time. That chick had big brass balls. She also had the total support of Dennis
Winston Churchill on the other hand was nothing but a fat drunk unworthy of the oxygen it took to sustain his daily breath
We both agree Arafat is a terrorist bastard. Another 16 Israeli murdered yesterday, and dozens more injured.
Of course those nasty Israelis retaliated with another 3 massacres murdering 246328 Palestinians.
Originally posted by GLADIATOR
We both agree Arafat is a terrorist bastard. Another 16 Israeli murdered yesterday, and dozens more injured.
Of course those nasty Israelis retaliated with another 3 massacres murdering 246328 Palestinians.
I guess as far as hero`s go Mr Sharon would be right up there with the best. A true warrior in every sense of the word
Originally posted by GLADIATOR
Well I watched a film/documentary on the Falklands last night. and it confirmed my hero as Margaret Thatcher, she was unbelievable.
Oh and of course Winston Churhill.
As much as I dislike winston curchill as a person I have to admitt he was thr master of the quick come back. The following is a favorite of mine and one of his best
Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink. -Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it. --His reply
Winston, you are drunk. - Lady Astor - Yes my dear, but you are ugly, and in the morning I shall be sober - Winston Churchill
jackwright
06-09-02, 09:47PM
My hero would have to be Frank Zappa. Political scientist, philosopher, composer, conductor, comedian and the greatest gituar player that ever walked the face of the earth.
GLADIATOR
06-10-02, 05:15AM
Originally posted by jackwright
My hero would have to be Frank Zappa. Political scientist, philosopher, composer, conductor, comedian and the greatest gituar player that ever walked the face of the earth.
A Biography of his life. (http://www.hotshotdigital.com/WellAlwaysRemember.3/FrankZappa.html)
Frank Zappa died at his Los Angeles home, shortly before his 53rd birthday. Zappa was one of the most exotic, original and complex figures to have emerged from rock culture. Bandleader, guitar hero, composer, satirist, and political commentator, Zappa managed to avoid being easily categorised for over three decades. And uniquely among rock idols, the career of the man who put the sneer into rock evolved outside the mainstream of pop history.
Hailed by some music critics as a genius, came to prominence in the early 1960s, leading his band, the Mothers of Invention, in a merry cacophony of what he called "sonic mutilations." With the band or as a solo performer he released about 50 albums.
Zappa, who had battled prostate cancer for several years, remained active to the end, vowing not to let the disease conquer him. He said he didn't care how he was remembered after he died.
"It's not important to even be remembered," he said ", "I mean, the people who worry about being remembered are guys like Reagan, Bush. . . . I don't care."
[COLOR=crimson]And billy was a mountain[/COLOR
jackwright
06-10-02, 10:57AM
...Ethel was a tree growing off of his shoulder.
Wellll, Billy had two big caves for eyes,
and a cliff for a jaw that would move up and down
and whenever it did he'd puff up some dust...
and hack up a boulder.
hack hack
hack up a boulder....
What more could you ask for...
unless it's...
Slime an rot an rats an snot
an vomit on the floor...
six teen uuuglie solders, man
holding spears by the iron door...
knives an spikes
an guns an the likes
of every tool of pain
and a sinister little midget
with a bucket and a mop
where the blood goes down the drain....
Bah, who gives a fuck anyway...
I miss him dearly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.