A message to fellow white Americans about western values

[cpwill]

That is just the most ridiculous of answers. Your founding fathers were an optimistic bunch who drafted an ability to make changes based on mutual cooperation in both houses. What a bad bases for a decision that turned out to be. Considering your two main parties would not even agree on what day it is.

It has served us rather well, actually massive changes should require large and persistent public support.

 

[soylentgreen]

It has served us rather well, actually massive changes should require large and persistent public support.

Yet still you have a constitution that is out of date. And will you also be arguing that no american treats the constitution as if it were a writ of god never to be changed. Not to mention the idiots with guns threatening the death of any who dare make one particular change.

It has not served you well. It has become a tradition rather than a legal document and that serves no one well.

 

[Jezcoe]

Some white people - including those Proud Boys - have distorted and betrayed any legitimacy to the phrase 'western values'. They have made it to mean hostility to others than white men for the sake of it, to cause oppression; to oppose feminism, and to encourage violence against those who do support real western values.

Well to be fair… thinking that white males should be in charge of everything is an old school Western Value.

 

[Lisa]

That is just the most ridiculous of answers. Your founding fathers were an optimistic bunch who drafted an ability to make changes based on mutual cooperation in both houses. What a bad bases for a decision that turned out to be. Considering your two main parties would not even agree on what day it is.

Partisanship wasn't as bad as it currently this. This is a relatively recent change. The framers opposed the idea of political parties as a relic of English rule.

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart | HISTORY

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

www.history.com

 

[Craig234]

Well to be fair… thinking that white males should be in charge of everything is an old school Western Value.

Not really. First, it's not keeping in the spirit of 'universal human respect, rights' that's evolved as a western value; second, were non-western 'old school' cultures not having males in charge of everything? That doesn't really make it 'western'. And if you insist on white males, that's not about 'values', it's just cheering for your side to have power. Like saying a sports team's color is a "value".

 

[Jezcoe]

Partisanship wasn't as bad as it currently this. This is a relatively recent change. The framers opposed the idea of political parties as a relic of English rule.

Partisanship was pretty bad in the early years of the Republic.

There was an immediate split between the Madisonian and Jeffersonian ideas of how to run the country. And Hamilton freaked the **** out of a bunch of people.

 

[soylentgreen]

Partisanship wasn't as bad as it currently this. This is a relatively recent change. The framers opposed the idea of political parties as a relic of English rule.

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart | HISTORY

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

www.history.com

And yet that is exactly what america has. A two horse race between two parties. Both tearing the country apart.

But they are unique in that they are not political parties in any sense of the word as known by countries that did not go down that dead end road.

What america has is a bunch of individuals who come together under an umbrella party of which they may or may not have real association with other than persoanal choice rather than political ideals.

 

[cpwill]

Yet still you have a constitution that is out of date.

Nah. It was last updated pretty recently, and, if we run across any issues that require massive change and have the requisite overwhelming and persistent public support, it'll get changed again

And will you also be arguing that no american treats the constitution as if it were a writ of god never to be changed.

On the contrary, we have an amendment process precisely to allow for change.

Not to mention the idiots with guns threatening the death of any who dare make one particular change.

We were founded on the notion that some rights are inalienable, and cannot be rightfully taken from the population.

It has not served you well. It has become a tradition rather than a legal document and that serves no one well.

It is the oldest surviving written constitution in the world that is still extant. It has led in becoming the most powerful nation in the world, the wealthiest nation in the world, and one of the freest. It has served us very well indeed

 

[Jezcoe]

Not really. First, it's not keeping in the spirit of 'universal human respect, rights' that's evolved as a western value; second, were non-western 'old school' cultures not having males in charge of everything? That doesn't really make it 'western'. And if you insist on white males, that's not about 'values', it's just cheering for your side to have power. Like saying a sports team's color is a "value".

Well… first I was making a joke.

I laugh at the idiots who proclaim “the West is the Best” while ignoring that Europe and the US has been in a state of constant or near constant warfare with each other for centuries.

They really want to ignore the stuff that they really don’t like that came out of the Western Tradition… like Marx… they seem to forget that that guy was super white.

 

[Craig234]

And yet that is exactly what america has. A two horse race between two parties. Both tearing the country apart.

Democrats are not tearing the party apart. Unless your argument is like saying that by opposing the return of slavery, Democrats are tearing the party apart from people fighting violent to bring slavery back. MAGA: "Biden stole the election, get out." Democrats "No, he won." MAGA: "You're tearing the country apart by refusing our demand to give us the presidency!"

 

[Lisa]

Nah. It was last updated pretty recently, and, if we run across any issues that require massive change and have the requisite overwhelming and persistent public support, it'll get changed again

The US Constitution hasn't been amended in 30 years. That is not recently.

On the contrary, we have an amendment process precisely to allow for change.



We were founded on the notion that some rights are inalienable, and cannot be rightfully taken from the population.

And yet that is exactly what the current GOP seeks to do.

It is the oldest surviving written constitution in the world that is still extant. It has led in becoming the most powerful nation in the world, the wealthiest nation in the world, and one of the freest. It has served us very well indeed

It is flawed and very much behind the times. The problem is the current GOP having any say in an update would only exacerbate the problems.

 

[Jezcoe]

Democrats are not tearing the party apart. Unless your argument is like saying that by opposing the return of slavery, Democrats are tearing the party apart from people fighting violent to bring slavery back. MAGA: "Biden stole the election, get out." Democrats "No, he won." MAGA: "You're tearing the country apart by refusing our demand to give us the presidency!"

 

[soylentgreen]

Nah. It was last updated pretty recently, and, if we run across any issues that require massive change and have the requisite overwhelming and persistent public support, it'll get changed again





On the contrary, we have an amendment process precisely to allow for change.



We were founded on the notion that some rights are inalienable, and cannot be rightfully taken from the population.



It is the oldest surviving written constitution in the world that is still extant. It has led in becoming the most powerful nation in the world, the wealthiest nation in the world, and one of the freest. It has served us very well indeed

A minor change of no real consequence to the public.

Again a process that does not work because it relies on cooperation between people who hate each other and are sometimes heard telling people to kill politicians .

An idiotic notion, Again your DOI is not a document of any philosophical worth. Barely covers sentimental value.

The freest of the free. So long as you do what the document tells you to do and think

 

[Ivan Denisovich]

I hate the term Western values. It is a term of deletion and negation of the real past and legacy of Christian culture, it is also disrespectful to the reality that before modern times in Christianity the terms West and East often meant West (Roman church) and East (Constantinople / Orthodox church), many values that informed Christian ethics came from the Eastern Church.

I do not think the term Western values has much use prior to the last 100 years or so, maybe a bit before that. The use of the term in my minds obscures the origin of our ethical systems. Christian peoples did not develop their ethics because of being "West", they developed them out of three major schools:

1. Aristoleian Ethics - Which is intrinsically linked to ethical philosophies of not just Aristotle but all the great Greek philosophers of old
2. Traditional Christian Ethics - This was the ethical system that church thinkers developed in the early church era, and that generally dominated for almost 1000 years after the various ecumenical councils. Much of this ethics took lessons from Aristotleian ethical norms, but also criticized and analyzed what were recognized as grave ethical problems in the society of the Roman Empire in which they lived. Eventually these ethical precepts came to dominate the Empire--East and West, as Christianization occurred.
3. Scholasticism - Exemplified by Thomas Aquinas, this was a further synthesis of Christian teachings and more academic philosophizing and thinking about ethical matters

These three pillars were the foundation of the values of our culture until a very modern time. While there were heresies so to speak that popped up like the ethics of Ockham, and offshoots like the writings of Hobbes, in many ways the core moral values of this ethical system defined "Western" (in this case we use the term to mean all Christian society) morality. Starting in the age of Revolutions, which does include the American Revolution, but philosophically and much more importantly the French Revolution, we began to see the long war of atheism to destroy the Christian component of Western ethics, a project that is now in 2022 basically entirely complete.

 

[mrjurrs]

Democracy is an extreme violator of human rights. Its only redeeming quality is that it is the least worst form of government, but it's still terrible.

Which would mean that you prefer anarchy?

 

[soylentgreen]

Democrats are not tearing the party apart. Unless your argument is like saying that by opposing the return of slavery, Democrats are tearing the party apart from people fighting violent to bring slavery back. MAGA: "Biden stole the election, get out." Democrats "No, he won." MAGA: "You're tearing the country apart by refusing our demand to give us the presidency!"

While I agree the democrats are not the big problem it is still a case of neither side understands the word cooperation. Your problem here is seeing them as a political party when they are not Not in the sense of how parties work in countries that do have political parties. Democrats and republicans are individuals under an umbrella not a party. And the problem with individualism is america for some weird reason see it as a right to do what you like and if it is a problem to others then **** them.

 

[Craig234]

While I agree the democrats are not the big problem it is still a case of neither side understands the word cooperation.

Sorry but that's like saying neither the Jews nor Nazis understood the word cooperation. When Republicans want plutocracy and authoritarianism, there's not much compromise. "How about we compromise that half of black people can't vote, deal?"

Your problem here is seeing them as a political party when they are not Not in the sense of how parties work in countries that do have political parties. Democrats and republicans are individuals under an umbrella not a party. And the problem with individualism is america for some weird reason see it as a right to do what you like and if it is a problem to others then **** them.

Whatever you're trying to say, I don't see something wrong in my post.

 

[aociswundumho]

Which would mean that you prefer anarchy?

Definitely. The market already provides everything the state does only cheaper and better.

 

[Jezcoe]

Definitely. The market already provides everything the state does only cheaper and better.

Fire departments?

 

[aociswundumho]

Fire departments?

Firefighters in the US are overwhelmingly volunteers:

According to the National Fire Protection Association, 70 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.

Volunteer fire department - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jezcoe]

Firefighters in the US are overwhelmingly volunteers:

The labor is voluntary… the resources they use… not so much.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

An OP titled “A Message to Fellow White Americans …” wraps up with the advice that we should not be “creating artificial divisions.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

My sediment as well. Once you label a thread with "White" is already labeling it for identity politics.

 

[cpwill]

The US Constitution hasn't been amended in 30 years. That is not recently.


And yet that is exactly what the current GOP seeks to do.

It is flawed and very much behind the times. The problem is the current GOP having any say in an update would only exacerbate the problems.

Yes,Yes. "People I disagree with are mean and icky and bad." Thank you for that deep insight.

 

[Fletch]

Meh...you can't call them "great advances" in individual rights when the main authors of the DOI and the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) owned hundreds of slaves.

Yes you can, Give me the flaws in the principles they espoused and stop focusing on the flaws of the men who espoused them

 

[cpwill]

A minor change of no real consequence to the public.

I might disagree somewhat, but, if so, that's a good sign indeed, if that is all the tweaking we needed.

Again a process that does not work because it relies on cooperation between people who hate each other and are sometimes heard telling people to kill politicians

On the contrary - it works quite well, having been exercised when needed to capture a major sustained change shared broadly by the populace, while ensuring that less popular fads generally failed to become part of our highest law.

An idiotic notion, Again your DOI is not a document of any philosophical worth. Barely covers sentimental value.

To the contrary, it was a radical thing, at the time, and turned out to be worth quite a destructive war

The freest of the free. So long as you do what the document tells you to do and think

The document constrains government action, not yours; and you are free to think and defend whatever philosophy you want, unlike much of the rest of the Anglosphere, where freedom of belief and thought are not so protected.