When is the time for violent revolution?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
siamdave

Maysie wrote:

 

....

siamdave, we've already had a lovely exchange already, but with my mod hat on I would ask you to reflect on:

siamdave wrote:
 

but because our ancestors built a very good country which has been stolen from us - and yes, our job is to take the country back and get the usurpers out of our government, but most of us do not see violent revolution as the means of doing that. At least yet.  


*holds my head.

Where to start?

Um, "our" ancestors? Who do you think reads babble? WASPs only? Come on! "built this country"? Really? Stole, yes. Built after stealing, pillaging and destroying, yes. You're making a lot of assumptions, siamdave.

Aside from that, your quote reads like the Tea Party's manifesto. And people wonder why folks of colour don't join the "organized" left in Canada.

- obviously you have even less idea of who I am or what I think than you accuse me of having of you. I have explained myself, my beliefs, my thoughts, how I got where I am, etc in great detail elsewhere (i.e. Green Island   http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html  , What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ) - is there anywhere your beliefs and understandings etc are written that a curious one could peruse? (you personally, not the writings of others ...)

I may or may not address the rest of what you say. it would take some time, but I'm not at all sure there would be any point - obviously your mind is made up, and facts aren't of any great importance. Tell me first, Maysie, if I can talk, or if I start saying stuff you don't want to hear you're going to pull on the mod hat and ban me for incorrect thought or something? Your positiion is somewhat less unassailable than you seem to think...

 

DavidLeeWilson

I love it when someone starts threatening to shun :-)

no middle ground huh between spitting on the sidewalk, or or ... jaywalking! and violent revolution?

Maysie Maysie's picture

siamdave, all we have on babble are our words. Bios and written works for credibility purposes shouldn't be necessary. Your first link doesn't work. I read your second link.

If I made assumptions about the piece I quoted from you, then I apologize. But when folks throw words like "our" around in an indiscriminate fashion, it is sloppy, to say the least, especially when right wing white supremacist tropes like "our ancestors built this country" are invoked.

That phrase eliminates the existence of ALL Aboriginal peoples. Just like that. Magic. That phrase evokes the vast empty land of Canada, discovered as pristine, virginal, empty of people and civilization and ripe for settlement by the benevolent explorers from France and England. Then settlers came and worked hard and built this country, and made Canada what it is today. You know, what those of us brought up in Canadian elementary school were taught. You know, lies.

All lies.

My ancestors did not build this country. My ancestors benefitted from previous genocide and colonization of Aboriginal people, of which I'm not one. If you mean your ancestors, then say your ancestors.

Nonetheless, this entire piece is thread drift.

Anyone who wishes to see my uncensored thoughts on all manner of issues can check out my blog, which is linked on my babble user page.

Sven Sven's picture

Maysie wrote:

Anyone who wishes to see my uncensored thoughts on all manner of issues can check out my blog, which is linked on my babble user page.

Why are your thoughts (self-)censored here?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I've been reading this thread and there's been alot of talk about revolution through violence.

What I haven't read so far is the nature of this violent upheaval.

What are we talking about?

Bombing mail boxes or attacking the general public?...I don't think I'd be onboard with that.

Or are we talking about fire bombing police stations,banks,Quebecor or 24 Sussex Drive?

Would the targets be political figures?

Are we talking about old fashioned assassinations?

I'm all for a revolt but I'd like to know if this revolt would be a bloody coup,an organized mass vote against the status quo (unlikely unfortunately) or just an exercise of civil disobedience and anarchy.

Maysie Maysie's picture

alan smithee wrote:
 I'm all for a revolt but I'd like to know if this revolt would be a bloody coup,an organized mass vote against the status quo (unlikely unfortunately) or just an exercise of civil disobedience and anarchy.

alan, I'm for door #3. As is my post #15. Wink

Maysie Maysie's picture

Sven wrote:
 Why are your thoughts (self-)censored here?

You're still a babbler because of my censored thoughts and actions.

Tongue out

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Thanks,Maysie...That sounds good.

I'd be right on board with that.

Sven Sven's picture

Maysie wrote:

Sven wrote:
 Why are your thoughts (self-)censored here?

You're still a babbler because of my censored thoughts and actions.

Tongue out

I wasn't thinking so much about "Maysie as a moderator" as "Maysie as a babbler".  Why self-censor when "Maysie as a babbler"?

For babblers who are interested in reading the uncensored Maysie, I recommend her website.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

OH, and would you PLEASE let go of the idea that those who might question the idea of violence aren't just as outraged by the injustices of life as you are?

1) You don't have to kill people to be a revolutionary.

2) Most violent people AREN'T actually revolutionaries.

 

No, they just are ok with the status quo.

Outrage without doing something that actually makes change is wasted outrage.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Maysie wrote:

It must be Sunday morning.

Where to start.

Mod Hat On.

ArghMonkey wrote:
 How many lefties here are just clueless baby boomers? commited to a better world but overall unaware of whats going on outside their front door because their mortgage is paid, their cars are paid and they have a nice nest egg.

Only someone who is clueless of reality would think they need to jump to some conspiracy theory to explain why anyone would be so fed up with bullshit that they wonder what would be wrong with a violent revolt.

ArghMonkey wrote:
 but I have to deal with turd burgers like yourself who are so dense you want to think theres a conspiracy.

These are just two examples of quotes in which you insult the left in general, and babblers specifically. While I agree with your point about achieving class security and losing interest in political and activist struggles, this isn't the way to frame it. And personal attacks are not allowed.

When I first read the OP I saw, and ignored, your clear blaming of the left for not fixing the various ills brought about by the capitalists and their friends in big government (Libs and Cons, Repubs and Dems). 

But this is clearly a sticking point for you.

A reminder that those who have structural power (Hint, that's not the organized left or even the unorganized left, and in the North American context, HAS NEVER BEEN) are the ones in positions to effect social change. And hey, look! They don't do it! Hence my comment above about the ballot box. That's not where I see change happening, or more specifically, compelling the power-makers to change. Unless someone revolutionary is voted in to power, and I just don't see that happening either. 

And you just leap-frogged over the reality, which is armed struggle that is not accessible to white men that's going on in Canada RIGHT NOW. It's being fought for some things that, perhaps, you don't have any interest in, Argh, but nonetheless, there it is. To learn from, hell, to join, they're always looking for allies.

But no, it has to be on your terms, so you just go back to the white guys who are engaging you at your level. Okay. That's your prerogative. But it reveals what kind of actual discussion you want to have.

And.

If you continue to insult babblers and "the left" you will be banned.

....

Ok, I sense you do understand where my frustration was coming from, not saying its "ok" but with some other choice words we both know I could have said the same thing without offending anyones sensibilities. Thanks for a good reply though.

Actually thinking about it now I wonder if (dare i say it?) rabble rousing isent just as important (more important?) as being courteous? Hmmm ...

 

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 There are people who are outraged, concerned and generally dissastisfied with how things stand right now and are just getting down to business and figuring out to do things about things and through that coming up with ideas and ways of doing things that are quite revolutionary relative to the status quo.   Thinking is changing, people are changing and getting on with it.   Pockets of quiet revolution so to speak.   I doubt this type of thing would pass the test of being revolutionary enough, or big enough, or instantly changing enough.  I doubt they particularly care though.  They just generally spend more energy doing stuff rather then expending the same energy bleeping how everyone else should be doing stuff.    

 

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

- Removed by user -

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

P.S. I also posted that on enmasse.ca and got an interesting discussion going.

I think both sites have issues since an honest question appears difficult to even ask!

Theres lots of lefties that are tired of whats going on and at the very least I want to know why doing next to nothing is acceptable while our society crumbles.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

I live in the same world YOU live in, buddy.  I see all the things you see.

I also know that people who actually wanted to START an armed struggle for revolutionary change wouldn't announce it in a public Internet forum.  They'd be off somewhere trying to actually get it going.

And they wouldn't say "violent revolt".  Those terms are used by people who are PART of the power-structure to express their fears about an uprising from below. 

You've tipped your hand.

Im not announcing shit *L* im wondering why the left, despite being right, cant fix anything these days.

Who is going to save the middle class? rob ford? *LOL* stephen harper? *LOL* come on man!

Im being honest and frank, when is violent revolt necessary? thats the question.

And ya, I did that other thread too, crafty me, I even used the same login, thats how tricky I am.

The right is trash, the left has the responsibility to solve things but I have to deal with turd burgers like yourself who are so dense you want to think theres a conspiracy.

The people I care about and any future kids I might have will have to live with the actions/inactions I do.

Your ok with doing nothing, your in good company, the left has done nothing for the past 30 years as things went to shit and apparently talking asking when is a good time to take control is beyond ur ability to handle, just tell me ur ok with right wingers running things and spare me the time it takes to post back to you.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

"I hate guns and have never brought them into the conversation"

Uh...dude...once you start talking about "violent revolution", guns pretty much ARE part of the conversation.  You're not gonna do it with creme pies.

When did I start talking about having a violent revolution?

This is what I was saying earlier, I am not saying we should necessarily, though if you ask me directly I say maybe we should, all I was wondering was peoples input as to when it would be necessary or acceptable.

Should we only take violent action when tanks roll in? Should we revolt when the middle class doesnt exist anymore?

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Revolution violent or otherwise into what?  What is the post revolutionary world or society your looking for.   Saying this is bad, this sucks we have to do something is only part of it.  The easier part really.  What are people revolting into?  There has to be some sort of semblance of a post revolution plan. 

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

ElizaQ wrote:

 There are people who are outraged, concerned and generally dissastisfied with how things stand right now and are just getting down to business and figuring out to do things about things and through that coming up with ideas and ways of doing things that are quite revolutionary relative to the status quo.   Thinking is changing, people are changing and getting on with it.   Pockets of quiet revolution so to speak.   I doubt this type of thing would pass the test of being revolutionary enough, or big enough, or instantly changing enough.  I doubt they particularly care though.  They just generally spend more energy doing stuff rather then expending the same energy bleeping how everyone else should be doing stuff.    

 

Whats the point of all these other efforts if nothing changes for the better?

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

ArghMonkey wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

 There are people who are outraged, concerned and generally dissastisfied with how things stand right now and are just getting down to business and figuring out to do things about things and through that coming up with ideas and ways of doing things that are quite revolutionary relative to the status quo.   Thinking is changing, people are changing and getting on with it.   Pockets of quiet revolution so to speak.   I doubt this type of thing would pass the test of being revolutionary enough, or big enough, or instantly changing enough.  I doubt they particularly care though.  They just generally spend more energy doing stuff rather then expending the same energy bleeping how everyone else should be doing stuff.    

 

Whats the point of all these other efforts if nothing changes for the better?

 

Why are you assuming that they won't change things for the better?  

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

ElizaQ wrote:

Revolution violent or otherwise into what?  What is the post revolutionary world or society your looking for.   Saying this is bad, this sucks we have to do something is only part of it.  The easier part really.  What are people revolting into?  There has to be some sort of semblance of a post revolution plan. 

I realized people might ask this but I am worried about getting too far from the core question.

What kind of society we want to see is anoher subject and is much bigger than my original question.

But to give you a quick answer I would like to see basically the same system we have now but with much more regulation, the rich paying way more taxes, business held accountable and with a much better angle on social services for people.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Argh, it's not about politeness.

"You're a fucking stupid idiot for thinking that"

...is very different than....

"That argument is fucking stupid and idiotic"

....even though the sentiment is the same. Yeah it's about semantics, but it's also about dialing down the hyper alpha male culture that babble has. You know, so other voices may join in.

If one's point can be made without insults altogether, all the better. I'm pro-swearing of course.

And the reason personal attacks aren't allowed, such as calling someone a turd-burger, is that we aren't in grade 2 now, are we? In theory, we should all be able to argue like adults without calling each other names. In theory.

Tongue out

 

DavidLeeWilson

'so other voices may join in' you say? ahh Maysie Daisy I have not felt so graciously invisible since the days of United On-line when the good burghers of the United Church ignored everything I posted, now ... eventually United On-line went away ... 'death from behind' in the manner of most bryophytes & lichens ... but I am sure there is no connection

at the outset in this thread I had the same frisson thinking of CSIS and the boys and girls of our natonal security force, one or two of 'em used to drink at the Glue Pot in Ottawa (which was my bar in those days) but as I watch this unravel I doubt they could intelligently take much offence (not that intelligence is a quality required much in those circles either) at what is going on here

the notion of a full-on revolution in k-k-Canada is just nonsense for now, maybe when the Prairies have become one huge dust-bowl and Albertans, the poor ones, are running for Newfoundland, then maybe, in the meantime though I do think there is a need to somehow puncture the complacency - in Brasil 85% of the (considerably more illiterate than ours) people know something about anthropogenic climate change, and they recently put 20% of their vote towards Marina Silva and the Partido Verde (Greens) which is just about a world record at a national level, while Canadian polls give us just a slight edge on America in terms of this same knowledge - somewhere about 50% give or take

but I fear 'puncture' is not a violent enough idiom for y'all, is that it?

and for the record, I have seen nothing here even vaguely worthy of shunning

DavidLeeWilson

the 85% I spoke of, which I got from the NYT, was reported as 90% in the Brasilian press, and that was in 2007 (doh!)

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hi DavidLeeWilson. I need to admit that I didn't understand the majority of your post. Including your continued use of the word "shun". Who exactly is shunning and being shunned? I'm completely lost. Smile

I agree that the white left has a lot to learn from actions and revolutions (small and large; violent and non-violent and in-between) that are going on in other parts of the world. As well as from Aboriginal land claim struggles right here in Canada.

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

siamdave wrote:
 - and as with ken and no doubt others who have nothing better to do than follow this I find myself again puzzled - perhaps if this carries on, the conversation might be informed by learning how is it you see a violent revolution happening without guns?

Didn't you see Ken Burch's "cream pie" strategy upthread?

I prefer grape snow-cones in a slingshot myself. 

[Edited to make the correct "Ken" reference.]

DavidLeeWilson

shunning is what you do when you ban someone from the conversation (which has been mentioned here recently has it not?), most people understand it as more-or-less severe psychological violence, partly I think because it is the preferred mode of torture among the Amish, a group generally known for their pacifism Cool (I don't usually use these icons but maybe it is necessary here Cool ... took me a coupl'a tries to see how to do it too)

when fat cats like grade-10-dropout Ken Lewenza are driving around in Dodge Nitro SUVs I wonder if it isn't time to drop the left-right distinction? especially if you somehow include labour on the left, if a full political spectrum could be devised, the Republicans would probably be to the right of the Democrats alright, but they would both be so close to the centre of the spectrum as to make no difference, consider economic growth for example, both of these parties explicitly view growth as the only way 'out' of the current economic mess, and yet even just considered as an arithmetic proposition, growth cannot possibly continue on this finite planet of ours, can it?

the reason for bringing up Brasil was not that they can serve as a model, how could they? depending on how you count more than half of them are illiterate, AND they have already displayed an ability to put 20% of their vote towards a black woman, which I think, with all respect to Kim Campbell, is not in the cards here, no, I mentioned them as a way of getting at what I think is really the problem in Canada - complacency

no matter how you look at it any kind of 'revolution' has to begin with a shared consciousness of what is really going on, as we saw here in Toronto during the G20, you can get a bunch of ultra-violent hooligans together, be they the Black Bloc or the Blue Toronto Police, but I wouldn't call the actions of either of these groups a 'revolution' would you?

so, my answer to the initial question posed by ArghMonkey is yes, now is the time, why? because the crisis we are facing is entirely new, if we wait for the inevitable climatic catastrophes which are coming it will be too late to stop them, possibly ever, this is a paradigm shift in crises I would say, the mother of all &etc. ... but what kind of violence should this revolution undertake exactly? well, that's what I'm not sure about and I have been following this thread hoping that someone might shed some light

 

absentia

DavidLeeWilson wrote:

 

... economic growth for example, both of these parties explicitly view growth as the only way 'out' of the current economic mess, and yet even just considered as an arithmetic proposition, growth cannot possibly continue on this finite planet of ours, can it?

That's Thing One

Quote:
... complacency...

That's Thing Two.

Quote:
...no matter how you look at it any kind of 'revolution' has to begin with a shared consciousness of what is really going on....

Three Things are too many to fit on a bumper sticker, or into a shared consciousness.

Framing current problems and situations in 19th century terms is not going to get us anywhere. This is unique; this requires new thinking and new action. Violence won't help: only intelligent co-operation would help.... yet violence, there will be.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Maysie wrote:

siamdave wrote:
 - and as with ken and no doubt others who have nothing better to do than follow this I find myself again puzzled - perhaps if this carries on, the conversation might be informed by learning how is it you see a violent revolution happening without guns?

Didn't you see KenS's "cream pie" strategy upthread?

I prefer grape snow-cones in a slingshot myself. 

Excuse me, that was My creme pie strategy! 

And actually, now that I think of it, it could well work!

A Revolution led by The Laurel And Hardy Brigade!

 

Bacchus

ArghMonkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

"I hate guns and have never brought them into the conversation"

Uh...dude...once you start talking about "violent revolution", guns pretty much ARE part of the conversation.  You're not gonna do it with creme pies.

When did I start talking about having a violent revolution?

 

 

The thread title?

6079_Smith_W

@ Ken Burch

What makes you think that just because you have cream pies thrown you have a revolution? 

http://punditry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cretien-pie.jpg

Now this is a cream pie revolution:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tkm9v4opNG8/S_i4Jwz1V_I/AAAAAAAADjQ/kFpFN_oGDy...

Maysie Maysie's picture

Oops, Ken Burch, so sorry. I mixed up the Kens.

I will correct my grievous error.

Apologies to both Kens.

 

And if you don't mind, I might bring this idea to the rabble staff retreat this weekend.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Ken Burch

What makes you think that just because you have cream pies thrown you have a revolution? 

http://punditry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cretien-pie.jpg

Now this is a cream pie revolution:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tkm9v4opNG8/S_i4Jwz1V_I/AAAAAAAADjQ/kFpFN_oGDy...

If the pie is hitting Che in the face, wouldn't it be a creme pie COUNTER-Revolution?

(perhaps the Bay of Pork Pies Invasion?)

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am calling it for tomorrow at 2:00 am outside the US consulate.

6079_Smith_W

@ Ken Burch

Indeed, but then I started thinking about pie counters and lost it entirely.

Roscoe

siamdave wrote:

The answer to 'when is the time' would be, in my opinion, almost never. WZ above made some good points - if you can't even get the people to vote for you, why would you think they're going to pick up a gun or pitchfork and die for you?

Individuals don't "pick up a gun or pitchfork and die for you". They do it for themselves, if forced to but certainly not for 'you'. I suppose, if certain individuals joined a cause where sacrifice becomes necessary, they would expect all members of the cause to expose themselves to harm equally, rather than "die for you".

This thread has a point, in an abstract way but on the whole is a rather juvenille response to the serious issue of societal change.

siamdave

Roscoe wrote:

....

This thread has a point, in an abstract way but on the whole is a rather juvenille response to the serious issue of societal change.

- just to help clarify that, could you give a short list of "spontaneous" revoultions - you know, the ones you talk about, where people just rise up en masse with no 'leaders' of any sort making inflamatory speeches, telling people they must revolt, etc? I've been going over the more well known revolution things, and they all seem to have had such leaders ... certainly the people, if they decide to revolt, will think they are doing it for themselves - but they are going to be following someone, it seems to me - the people may not be dying for that person directly, but they are certainly dying at the behest of that person and would not be dying without that person's leadership, and the difference is pretty semantical.

Come, teacher, share your wisdom with we juveniles.

siamdave

Maysie wrote:

siamdave, all we have on babble are our words. Bios and written works for credibility purposes shouldn't be necessary. Your first link doesn't work. I read your second link.

If I made assumptions about the piece I quoted from you, then I apologize. But when folks throw words like "our" around in an indiscriminate fashion, it is sloppy, to say the least, especially when right wing white supremacist tropes like "our ancestors built this country" are invoked.

That phrase eliminates the existence of ALL Aboriginal peoples. Just like that. Magic. That phrase evokes the vast empty land of Canada, discovered as pristine, virginal, empty of people and civilization and ripe for settlement by the benevolent explorers from France and England. Then settlers came and worked hard and built this country, and made Canada what it is today. You know, what those of us brought up in Canadian elementary school were taught. You know, lies.

All lies.

My ancestors did not build this country. My ancestors benefitted from previous genocide and colonization of Aboriginal people, of which I'm not one. If you mean your ancestors, then say your ancestors.

...

Maysie, one could easily write a lengthy essay to respond to your quick, facile, and very misleading comments in these couple of posts directed my way. But I will try to keep this short, with the accepted risk of being misunderstood again, and accused of all sorts of things that have no bearing in reality.

In no particular order:

1. You tell ArghMonkey "..A reminder that those who have structural power (Hint, that's not the organized left or even the unorganized left, and in the North American context, HAS NEVER BEEN) are the ones in positions to effect social change. .."
- maybe you could consider, when you accuse all my ancestors, and the ancestors of a great many other people, of "..stealing, pillaging and destroying" - maybe that, too, was the power structure of the time in action. My particular ancestors came to the Ottawa Valley about 1850, looking for a new life away from the Irish famine, and were very poor and hard-working farmers for a few generations until my father finally, thanks to a veteran's grant after serving in WWII, managed to go to medical school. Please avoid sarcastic comments about my sob-stories, I'm not doing that, or appearing in imperialsit wars, I am just explaining that my ancestors had nothing to do with stealing and pillaging - quite the contrary, as 'poor folk', they were as subject to the stealing of the rich as poor folk have ever been. We could get into, probably, a useful sort of discussion about what exactly the FN people want now, how people who were born here and lived for generations here are supposed to deal with the fact that, indeed, the land we now occupy was taken from the original inhabitants, and what kind of arrangements can we make that would be fair not only to the original inhabitants but to those who had nothing to do with any 'stealing' but now call this home. You need, I think, to remember that a lot of us are actually on your side, and pretending we are some kind of white-skinned monsters all against you is not very clever. I see some very bad people taking over my country and want to fight them - we should be allies, not enemies. You are, I will guarantee you, going to get a much better hearing from people like me who value fairness than your average capitalist who sees fairness-desiring people as just more losers to steal from.

As far as building things goes, stick this into your process - the country was taken in (low level, long term, generally undeclared) battle by a gang of imperialists (big time, i.e. Hudson's Bay Co, Catholic church), who then populated it with worker peasants to create their fiefdom's wealth. As the movement for democracy spread around much of the world during the 1700s and on, the Cdn peasant workers joined in the same fight, and over the next couple of hundred years made some strong gains in making Canada a democratic county, actually one of the most progressive and prosperous in the world - this would be the 'building' I referred to. Nothing during this process was 'stolen' from anyone - it was, as they say, carved out of the wilderness, the coast to coast transportation system, modern democratic infrastructure, well-educated, hard-working citizenry who expected 'peace, order and good government' - nothing stolen from anyone. It was not perfect, it is not yet perfect, the wouldbe oligarchs have always fought viciously to retain their fiefdom, and the opposition of the European-ancestry wannabe elite was the main opposition my ancestors faced whilst creating this country as it is now known in the modern world - but until the 70s we were making some pretty strong gains - and I might point out to that in terms of getting some recognition for the wrongs done FN people, it was during the last of these years that better attempts were made to come to some arrangement suitable to everyone. When the wouldbe-feudalists, in the form of capitalists, became dominant again in the 70s and since, your cause was set back, as the capitalists do not give anything to anyone - capitalism is all about taking.
2. You say the history we are taught is 'lies, all lies' - which strikes as more than a bit ironic then when you accuse me of sounding like a right wing teapartier - the 'history as lies' stuff is much more related to halfwitted white supremacists than are my very justifiable (not to mention simply true) comments about the ancestors of me and many other Canadians about building this country, which is simply true, whether or not you want to get into who 'owned' the country before my ancestors (and those of many others) got here. History as taught in schools is actually mostly true. They do spin it a certain way, and leave out some stuff that ought to be included to give a somewhat sanitized picture of certain things such as the treatment of the original inhabitants - but you don't do yourself any good on the credibility index to dismiss it all as 'lies all lies' because they leave out some things, which is not only demonstrably false, but a pretty petulant and extremist position to say the least, worthy perhaps of a highschool shouting match but hardly, I would think, of Rabble. Again I would remind you - I am, I think, one of the good guys, on the side of truth and recognizing the bad stuff done by the people from Europe who first came to what we now call North America a few hundred years ago. I have often written of, and condemned, the genocide carried out by those first Europeans against all the original inhabitants of both north and south America, and many other parts of the world - and again, to try to throw me in the same 'they're while males all the same!' group as those who did this is not the kind of talk that is going to win friends etc.

3. and your assumption of some great superiority when talking to me - or many others - through childish rhetorical things like '*holds my head' or 'um', letting your reader cleverly perceive you see yourself as the all-knowing teacher talking to halfwits of some kind who are incapable of seeing the gospel as revealed by Maysie et al or simply refuse to - you expect to win friends doing this? You don't care? You really think I am your enemy and/or too stupid to jump on your bandwagon and adopt the Official History as you and whoever have written it so you just dismiss me with name-calling and 'in crowd' sneers? You're well on your way to making me not your friend - which is probably not the greatest of ideas - not me personally, but the many like me who are quite willing to come to some reasonable compromise with FN people who, we quite agree, have been badly treated - but it was not me doing bad things, and I have a limited capacity for assuming guilt on behalf of others (which is, I might note, a central trick of various groups to keep people under control, and I have an immediate sort of suspicion anytime anyone tries it in my direction with no grounds), and I have no intention of giving you or whoever you are associated with the farm because you lost some battles a few hundred years ago to people only very distantly having anything to do with me.

Maybe you could try another perspective - the capitalist warlords who did some pillaging and looting a few hundred years ago were fought back by some democracy-seeking whities over the years, and this *new* group of people who are now running Canada (well, theoretically the last few years) are willing to try to help people who were mistreated in the past - not especially because we owe anyone any debt, but because we just in general believe in treating people fairly and doing the right thing.  

Well, as I said, I could go on at length, but I better leave it for now.

Maysie Maysie's picture

siamdave, this entire tangent is thread drift, which I started and have perpetuated with each further exchange. Sorry everyone. siamdave, how about we take the side discussion to a new thread?

Let's return to the thread topic.

siamdave

Maysie wrote:

siamdave, this entire tangent is thread drift, which I started and have perpetuated with each further exchange. Sorry everyone. siamdave, how about we take the side discussion to a new thread?

Let's return to the thread topic.

- I would certainly be willing to have a go at a talk like this, as I think the topic is of some importance, if anyone wants to do it, and it keeps to some kind of civil and intelligent level. But aside from that, in a more general sense, I don't really see why some people seem to see 'thread drift' as a problem, in general, if the general topic seems to have been dealt with and there is a kind of natural extension going on - just like any conversation any of us every have. You admin types could probably think about the difference between 'drift' and 'hijacking', which are not the same thing, and I have been subject to threads where hijacking occurred that did not overly please me.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

I think the "violent" part of the question is a distraction. The first question to ask, I believe, is: When is the time for a revolution? Whether or not, or to what extent, it becomes "violent", depends on lots of factors - primarily, how far the rulers want to go in resisting the change.

Good point.  Breakfast is a good time for revolution.

 

The Revolution of Everyday Life

Quote:

People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have corpses in their mouths.

DavidLeeWilson

al-Qa'bong - the link doesn't work (?)

al-Qa'bong

Hmm; it doesn't work for me either.  Here's the link:

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/35

Slumberjack

siamdave wrote:
You are, I will guarantee you, going to get a much better hearing from people like me who value fairness than your average capitalist who sees fairness-desiring people as just more losers to steal from.

There's a fair amount to digest with your post, however I'd ask you to consider this particular statement in the context of a hypothetical shift of the political landscape, where your preferred representatives would finally be in a position to right historical wrongs by deciding to grant hearings and arbitrate applications for redress of grievances.  Essentially in coming to terms with historical and present day crimes, genocide and theft, with this new construct materializing as a more benevolent deciding class superimposing itself over the existing processes, you may have to excuse some people for not giving a fuck.

DavidLeeWilson

al-Qa'bong - yeah, that link works, thanks ... "the perfection of the old weapons of refusal" ... I like that, but I am not familliar with this context, Bosustov/Bosustow(?) ... and a Canadian too ... something to chew on, it may be a while before I get back to you on this ... but thanks again

(yet another) note to the numby rabble.ca admins - this comment interface is truly DIABOLICAL! just let CTRL-V work fer gawd'sake!

siamdave

Slumberjack wrote:

siamdave wrote:
You are, I will guarantee you, going to get a much better hearing from people like me who value fairness than your average capitalist who sees fairness-desiring people as just more losers to steal from.

There's a fair amount to digest with your post, however I'd ask you to consider this particular statement in the context of a hypothetical shift of the political landscape, where your preferred representatives would finally be in a position to right historical wrongs by deciding to grant hearings and arbitrate applications for redress of grievances.  Essentially in coming to terms with historical and present day crimes, genocide and theft, with this new construct materializing as a more benevolent deciding class superimposing itself over the existing processes, you may have to excuse some people for not giving a fuck.

- obviously you are still mired in some kind of ruler-peasant mind set. I have, in my society, no 'representative' - I speak for myself, no others. In my society there is no 'new more benevolent construct', there is a meeting of individuals who all speak for themselves. Hopefully we can all come to some aggreeable arrangement without resorting to violence. If some insist on violence, then the chips fall where they may. If others don't give a fuck, there's no particular reason I should.

I speak, of course, of an entirely fictional place - here the rulers rule and the peasants go where they're guided by the media and their leaders. Which is nowhere dangerous for the rulers. Nothing is going to change soon, I think. They allow we few malcontents to speak openly in places like rabble because they are entirely confident of their control of the masses. I see nothing here to make me doubt that control.

Slumberjack

siamdave wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

siamdave wrote:
You are, I will guarantee you, going to get a much better hearing from people like me who value fairness than your average capitalist who sees fairness-desiring people as just more losers to steal from.

There's a fair amount to digest with your post, however I'd ask you to consider this particular statement in the context of a hypothetical shift of the political landscape, where your preferred representatives would finally be in a position to right historical wrongs by deciding to grant hearings and arbitrate applications for redress of grievances.  Essentially in coming to terms with historical and present day crimes, genocide and theft, with this new construct materializing as a more benevolent deciding class superimposing itself over the existing processes, you may have to excuse some people for not giving a fuck.

 obviously you are still mired in some kind of ruler-peasant mind set. I have, in my society, no 'representative' - I speak for myself, no others. In my society there is no 'new more benevolent construct', there is a meeting of individuals who all speak for themselves. Hopefully we can all come to some aggreeable arrangement without resorting to violence. If some insist on violence, then the chips fall where they may. If others don't give a fuck, there's no particular reason I should.

I speak, of course, of an entirely fictional place - here the rulers rule and the peasants go where they're guided by the media and their leaders. Which is nowhere dangerous for the rulers. Nothing is going to change soon, I think. They allow we few malcontents to speak openly in places like rabble because they are entirely confident of their control of the masses. I see nothing here to make me doubt that control.

Now that you've clarified the matter to state that other people will not actually have to base their existence and future on the prospect of receiving a favorable hearing from people like you, it should be reiterated at this point that what you may view as semantics, others may misunderstand as an attempt to spit shine the sort of power relationships which bear a striking resemblance to what exists now.

siamdave

DavidLeeWilson wrote:
.....

(yet another) note to the numby rabble.ca admins - this comment interface is truly DIABOLICAL! just let CTRL-V work fer gawd'sake!

- I'll heartily second that one!

siamdave

Slumberjack wrote:

[..........

Now that you've clarified the matter to state that other people will not actually have to base their existence and future on the prospect of receiving a favorable hearing from people like you, it should be reiterated at this point that what you may view as semantics, others may misunderstand as an attempt to spit shine the sort of power relationships which bear a striking resemblance to what exists now.

Is there something here I should give a fuck about?

Polunatic2

Quote:
Dismiss my questions at your own peril,

Done.
And one wonders why the "Black Bloc" were infiltrated to the core by the state. 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Awwwww.

100 posts.

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked