RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,415
Posts: 5,506,409
Members: 25,130
Currently online: 465
Newest member: 2278

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 19 2013, 04:10 AM   #46
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Sci wrote: View Post
Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post

I have engaged in no such thing. Being willing to acknowledge the bad things your country has done just means you're creating space to improve it; it does not mean you are punishing yourself. You can't self-flagellate if you feel no guilt for it.

But this kind of reaction brings to mind an interesting facet of American political culture -- a tendency many people have to feel as though any criticism of the circumstances of the U.S.'s founding and early policies is necessarily an attack on the U.S.'s legitimacy, on its right to even exist. It's a perplexing reaction; I suspect few Englishmen feel that England's right to exist is threatened if someone condemns the practices of the Anglo-Saxons towards the Celts, for instance.

To bring this back to the original topic, I suspect that this reaction is itself a function of imperialism's presence in a nominally democratic system. If you feel yourself a stakeholder in the state, it stands to reason that you may feel as though you bear some responsibility if the state engages in imperial policy, even if those policies were undertaken before your birth. In such an instance, I imagine one either feels guilt, or attempts to deny the immoral nature of imperial policy in order to avoid feeling guilt.
I expect you'd have a great career in the Catholic Church. They pander that mea culpa original sin thing, too.
You can only do a mea culpa if it's you-a that's culpa.

If you stop identifying yourself with every ridiculous thing previous generations did, you might find that there's a lot less reason to feel guilty -- and a lot more reason to recognize and proclaim when previous generations did terrible things.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
... the roots of U.S. imperialism go all the way back to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock -- let's not forget that the United States is the product of a project to systematically seize control of Central North America from its native inhabitants for peoples of European descent.
Except that wasn't the "project." Europeans didn't come to North and South America with the primary goal of taking the continents away from someone else. They wanted the land and resources on the continents yes, but the fact that there was a indigenous population was irrelevant. Were there to have been no natives present, the Europeans still would have come.

European #1: "There's no one here to subjugate."
European #2: "Damn, well let's go home then".

Burglar: "I didn't engage in a systematic project to break into someone else's home and rob them of their diamonds. My primary goal was just to have the diamonds; the fact that those things had prior owners was irrelevant! Were there to have been no prior owners, I would still have come and taken the diamonds!"

Europeans, and, later, European descendants, knew that the North and South America had native inhabitants, and they engaged in a systematic project to seize that land from its owners. Period. There is no way to spin this.
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
If you stop identifying yourself with every ridiculous thing previous generations did, you might find that there's a lot less reason to feel guilty -- and a lot more reason to recognize and proclaim when previous generations did terrible things.
None of us are responsible for the actions and deeds of our ancestors. We were not there.

Not there to counsel them, condemn them, encourage them, assist them or restrain them.


That was sci, not me.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 04:18 AM   #47
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

For whatever reason there's a growing trend these days to cast scorn and blame down on our ancestors as if somehow it will make them look more enlightened. From my experience the more someone points their finger and casts blame, they're just trying to avoid people from looking at and scrutinizing them. Not to mention it's just petty and childish.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 04:49 AM   #48
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

R. Star wrote: View Post
For whatever reason there's a growing trend these days to cast scorn and blame down on our ancestors as if somehow it will make them look more enlightened. From my experience the more someone points their finger and casts blame, they're just trying to avoid people from looking at and scrutinizing them. Not to mention it's just petty and childish.
Not recent, self-righteous Christians have been using the 'We have sinned, Lord' for ages in order to pontificate and hector people into behaving in a manner they consider desirable. Sci is using a very old, dogeared playbook.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 04:51 AM   #49
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Is the Romulan Empire a democracy though or a dictatorship?
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 04:56 AM   #50
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

From Balance of Terror, a bunch of people with a tendency to wear spittoons on their heads. Maybe they're an offshoot of a lost Shriner's convention?
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:07 AM   #51
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
Is the Romulan Empire a democracy though or a dictatorship?
Debatable. Neral described himself from humble orgins and he rose from a "lowly guard" as he described himself to both Proconsul and Praetor. Which would be Head of Government/State respectively I believe.

A Senate by it's definition implies elections. How democratic they were, especially given the fact the "Romulan traditionalists" seemed to always be in power, is questionable. They definitely have no problems conquering people and subjugating lower castes however.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 08:56 AM   #52
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

R. Star wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
Is the Romulan Empire a democracy though or a dictatorship?
Debatable. Neral described himself from humble orgins and he rose from a "lowly guard" as he described himself to both Proconsul and Praetor. Which would be Head of Government/State respectively I believe.

.
But that can mean anything, Hitler was just a private in WWI and was an unemployed artist for a while, that did not stop him from becoming dictator of Germany. Not all dictatorship are carved from the elite of a society, sometimes someone with enough guile and political skill can rise through the ranks and achieve a position of power. Stalin used his position as head the bureaucracy to out maneuver Trotsky and take the leadership position from him and before the revolution Stalin was nobody and right after he certainly did not have the same prominence as Lenin and Trotsky. One can rise through the ranks of a dictatorship, even through humble beginnings.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:45 PM   #53
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

As a useful term, "democracy" has to refer to any political system in which the citizens formally possess equal rights and exercise an equal voice in the selection of the government officials. The distinction between and oligarchy and a democracy is purely a quantitative one, hence open to fluctuations in standards. Thus, Athenian democracy or US democracy prior to the Sixties can be argued not to be democratic. In practice, a universalizing moralistic discourse is not as useful for clarity as historical context. So, yes, slaver America was a democracy. It's just that "democracy" is just not what it's cracked up to be. The attempt to redefine the term as an effort to annex a particular vision may have good motives, but it's still confusionism.

A democratic political system can be devised to favor forms of property. If you try to redefine "democracy" as one which favors abstract individuals defined by their equal rights, such systems are not democratic. The difficulty with this definition is that such a classless government has never yet been devised. It even has only been aspired to as a goal by anarchists and communists.

Indeed, historically, "democracy" has largely meant such a property characterized government. And a government that uses democractic majorities to tamper with property are ipso facto condemned as tryannical. This is official US government interpretation, the grounds on which the late Hugo Chavez was labeled a dictator, despite having repeatedly won majorities in perfectly acceptable democratic elections. It was similar figures in ancient Greek and recent Italian city states that inspired much conservative condemnation of "democracy" as inevitably leading to the lower orders misusing the government to revise property.

Thus, it is entirely possible to devise a democratic government with formal equality between citizens and equal suffrage amongst them combined with a commtiment to defense of certain kinds of property. The statement that the US is a republic refers to this kind of arrangement. Only by the anarchist notion of equal individual rights is this undemocratic per se. Formally, the US constitution allows that the arrangements to defend property of a certain kind can be changed, as in the Thirteenth Amendment. Thus the observation that the US is a republic does not forbid drastic social and political reforms.

However, in practice, every single person who intones that the US is a republic, not a democracy, does so in a context that makes it perfectly clear that they do not believe that property relations are ever to be the subject of democratic politics. All these people adhere to the slaver interpretations of the constitution. Whether they are so desperate to argue for an property system that remains inviolate regardless of how many people suffer from it is rooted in racist love of slavery, or whether they fear and hate socialist policies, again is irrelevant. The logic, and its immorality, are the same.

Quotations from the "Founding Fathers" are the province of political conservatives who want to pretend the US constitution is at least quasi-divine. (Lots argue amongst themselves it really is divine.) But if you read contemporary writings you'll find the people of the time very much thought of themselves as setting up an empire.

It seems many thought of America as the British Empire new and improved, continental instead of insular. They may have seen their projected Empire as better than the Spanish and Portuguese despotism in the rest of the western hemisphere. The simple truth is that "empire" was not negatively viewed as a necessary violation of another people's equal rights by any but the most radical Enilightenment thinkers.

Lastly, the very popularity of "republic" stemmed very much from the example of the Roman Empire, which existed long before the alleged "democratic" tyranny of Julius Caesar, the popularis who rode roughshod over the property of the Roman boni, the "good people" who owned property. The fact the the empire really began under Augustus, who was equally a Claudian, i.e., one of the greatest of the patrician families, was too obvious to see, I suppose.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:55 PM   #54
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
That was sci, not me.
The appropriate changes to my previous posting have been made to correct my error.

The Overlord wrote: View Post
Is the Romulan Empire a democracy though or a dictatorship?
Should the Romulan Empire in fact be some form of democracy, the question rises as to what part the "non-Vulcanoid" members play, if any. In the old Roman Republic/Empire conquered peoples became Roman citizens, but not at the same levels as the citizens of Rome.

R. Star wrote: View Post
A Senate by it's definition implies elections. How democratic they were ...
Conquered people of the Star Empire might be more than simply subjugated subjects or slaves. Second class citizens might not be able to run for the senate (we certainly never saw any "Aliens" there), but they could have some say in which of the first class Romulans are elected to high office. And at the lower levels of government, the second (third, fourth) class citizens could have some place.

In the movie Nemesis, Data spoke of the Empire possessing castes and a hierarchy.


Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 08:53 PM   #55
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Powhatan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622 - "'Your coming is not for trade, but to invade my people and possess my country...' In 1610 the London Company instructed Gates, the newly appointed colonial governor, to Christianize the natives and absorb them into the colony."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_William%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Anne%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscarora_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Rale%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Le_Loutre%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickam...ars_(1776-1794)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickam...ars_(1776-1794)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Dunmore%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_S...t_Seminole_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_War_of_1836

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Seminole_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antelope_Hills_Expedition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayuse_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakima_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_River_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokane...%93_Paloos_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheepeater_Indian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuma_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohave_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%E2%80%93Indian_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cloud%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_S...876%E2%80%9377

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_H...5%E2%80%931872)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache-Mexico_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura...tive_Americans

And so many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

That's damn near 200 years of constant warfare between Europeans and Native American nations. Neither side were angels; what we would today consider war crimes and atrocities were committed by both sides. The Indian nations were not pure and virtuous, and did fight one-another too -- and often allied with Europeans to do so. But the fact remains that the constant pattern from the 1600s to the 1800s was European encroachment onto Native American lands, leading to conflict, violence, and then the European control of those lands.

This was a systematic campaign over the course of almost two hundred years to expand and take control of Central North America. The words "manifest destiny" come to mind.

This does not mean America is evil. Acknowledging this does not mean one must hate one's country.

It does not mean that the Europeans who came to North America always came with an intent to "subjugate" the Indians -- though many of them did, what with their goal of "Christianizing" and "civilizing" them. (The people of New France -- what later became French Canada -- had particularly enlightened ideas about peaceful relations and comingling with their Native neighbors.)

But by the same token, when subjugation became necessary for European or Euro-American control of land and resources, it was pursued. And the expansionistic desires of both the Puritans of New England and the slave lords of the Deep South are well-established historical facts.

This does not make America particularly worse than other nations -- many of the Indian nations themselves had histories of launching wars of aggression and conquest against other Indian nations. But none of that makes it moral, either.

The simple fact is that the United States is the product of a long campaign to expand into Indian land and take control. It's not like they took control of Central North America by accident.

R. Star wrote: View Post
For whatever reason there's a growing trend these days to cast scorn and blame down on our ancestors as if somehow it will make them look more enlightened. From my experience the more someone points their finger and casts blame, they're just trying to avoid people from looking at and scrutinizing them. Not to mention it's just petty and childish.
1. Do we owe our ancestors unquestioning reverence? Why are we not supposed to be critical of their policies? Why, exactly, is it not politically correct to say, "My ancestors did this, and this was wrong?"

2. I have often defended, and will continue to defend, the revolutionary generation of Americans from what I perceive as unfair criticism. I've been on the TrekBB over ten years, and any number of times, I've gotten into arguments with people who, for instance, think the Thirteen Colonies did not have a legitimate right to rebel against Great Britain. I've pointed out that the British once had a policy of salutary neglect, and that following the French and Indian War, a new British administration decided to interfere in internal colonial affairs in manners unheard of before -- that the British betrayed the Americans long before the Americans betrayed the British by declaring independence.

Which is a very long way of saying: Criticizing bad things one's ancestors did does not mean being mindlessly hateful of them, either. It is entirely possible to celebrate the good things one's ancestors did, while also condemning the bad.

It may not be politically correct, but I have no interest in pretending I don't see the bad things our ancestors did and in just handing them mindless praise.

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
You do arrogant, self-righteous humility just like a good Catholic.
You know, I haven't insulted a single person in this thread -- and ad hominem attacks are in general a logical fallacy.

But I gotta say, I don't understand what your beef is with Catholics. There are plenty of Protestants and Jews out there who have just as big of guilt complexes as any Catholic, and plenty of Catholics out there who are as shameless. Possessing a guilt complex has way more to do with individual personalities than with religious affiliation.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Europeans came to the Americas basically to make new lives for themselves, to escape the societies behind them and to find opportunities to succeed and grow.
This is half-true. Different colonies were founded for different reasons. Spanish colonies in what is now the American Southwest were founded with the explicit goal of turning the Native American nations into good Catholic subjects of Madrid. New France was settled to expand French colonial holdings and to maintain peaceful, equal relations with the Natives but with the hopes of peacefully persuading them to become Catholic. New England was founded to be a model Puritan society in a new covenant with God, which would then expand and convert others to their Calvinist ways. Tidewater was founded to be a replica of English manor life for the younger sons of English aristocracy. The Deep South was founded as a replica of the Barbados apartheid slave society. The Spanish Empire in South America was founded with the explicit purpose of exploiting Native labor and extracting natural resources. And, of course, the interests of the common man from Europe were often different from the interests of the political elite founding these colonies.

None of this changes the fact that a systematic campaign to seize Indian land was undertaken.

Again, there was never this "grand plan" you speak of.
The relevant term is "manifest destiny."

What happens now Sci? Are you going to tell us of the deliberate "systematic project" on the part of the people in the near east to spread the bubonic plague through-out Europe?
Actually...

During the Middle Ages, victims of the bubonic plague were used for biological attacks, often by flinging fomites such as infected corpses and excrement over castle walls using catapults. In 1346, during the siege of Kafa (now Feodossia, Ukraine) the attacking Tartar Forces which were subjugated by the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan, used the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague, as weapons. An outbreak of plague followed and the defending forces retreated, followed by the conquest of the city by the Mongols. It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe. At the time, the attackers thought that the stench was enough to kill them, though it was the disease that was deadly.[6][7]
At the siege of Thun-l'Évêque in 1340, during the Hundred Years' War, the attackers catapulted decomposing animals into the besieged area.[8]
In 1422, during the siege of Karlstein Castle in Bohemia, Hussite attackers used catapults to throw dead (but not plague-infected) bodies and 2000 carriage-loads of dung over the walls.[9]
Albert Arthur wrote: View Post
Poppycock. Europeans didn't "steal" the land
Then why two hundred years' worth of wars with the Indians?

any more than half the Indians who were living here in 1600 had stolen the land from the other Indians who lived here previously.
Wars of conquest and ethnic cleansings are theft of the land (amongst other things). It doesn't matter if it's the Iroquois stealing from the Huron, or the Americans stealing from the Iroquois, or the French stealing from the Germans, or the Germans stealing from the French.

There have been mass immigrations throughout history. Invariably, there is armed conflict as a result. One side wins, the other loses. The Indians were innocent bystanders. They fought a 200 year war and lost.
I am at a loss as to how you can describe mass migration from one culture onto another culture's land, resulting in armed conflict and then the latter culture's loss and expulsion or subjugation, as anything other than "theft."

Get a grip on your anti-Americanism, Sci. Grow up!
You know, funny story. Every year on 4 July, I pull out a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it out load. Just to myself. The founding principle of equality, and of the right of people to institute or abolish governments for the protection of their natural rights? It's probably the most inspirational document in history. As far as I'm concerned, by writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (inadvertently) planted the seeds of the civil rights movement; the women's rights movement; the gay rights movement; the social justice movement; the workers' rights movement; etc. There there, in that quintessentially American document, we have the origins of the political struggles that make the world a better place.

So, no, I am not anti-American. What I am is someone willing to call a spade a spade. Willing to say that, no, the Europeans did not have a right to encroach on Native American land if the Native Americans didn't want them to. Willing to say that they should not have expanded without consent and a peaceful, egalitarian relationship with the Indians.

It's not anti-American to say that. Just like it's not anti-English to say that England shouldn't have conquered Ireland. Just like it's not anti-German to say that Germany should not have invaded Poland. Just like it's not anti-French to say that France should not have conquered Algeria. Just like it's not anti-Japanese to say that Japan should not have conquered Korea.

And there is nothing "grown up" about being unwilling to criticize one's ancestors. And nothing immature about doing so.

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
R. Star wrote: View Post
For whatever reason there's a growing trend these days to cast scorn and blame down on our ancestors as if somehow it will make them look more enlightened. From my experience the more someone points their finger and casts blame, they're just trying to avoid people from looking at and scrutinizing them. Not to mention it's just petty and childish.
Not recent, self-righteous Christians have been using the 'We have sinned, Lord' for ages in order to pontificate and hector people into behaving in a manner they consider desirable. Sci is using a very old, dogeared playbook.
If I am hectoring people into behaving a certain way, what way is that? What, exactly, am I trying to manipulate you into doing?

As I have already said, I am not the one who has been insulting people in this thread.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 10:03 PM   #56
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Sci wrote: View Post
T'Menina wrote: View Post
Again, there was never this "grand plan" you speak of.
The relevant term is "manifest destiny."
The concept of manifest destiny came about in the early 1840's and quietly died well before the civil war. While supported by the southern democrats of the day, it really never caught on outside that group in the government. Nor for that matter with the general population.



Manifest destiny as a political concept had more to do with electing a democrat to the Presidency in the 1844 U.S. Presidential election, than it did about purposely "stealing land" from the Indians.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 04:36 AM   #57
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
T'Menina wrote: View Post
Again, there was never this "grand plan" you speak of.
The relevant term is "manifest destiny."
The concept of manifest destiny came about in the early 1840's and quietly died well before the civil war. While supported by the southern democrats of the day, it really never caught on outside that group in the government. Nor for that matter with the general population.
Not true.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 04:50 PM   #58
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
I expect you'd have a great career in the Catholic Church. They pander that mea culpa original sin thing, too.
Which part of past generation as in "not me but the guys who existed before me" do you not understand? Ignorance is not bliss, history is there to learn from it.
Unlike you Sci argues totally rational, there is no guilt feeling complex or whatever. By the way, nobody cares about your anti-Catholic obsessions and they certainly do not belong into this debate.


stj wrote: View Post
As a useful term, "democracy" has to refer to any political system in which the citizens formally possess equal rights and exercise an equal voice in the selection of the government officials. The distinction between and oligarchy and a democracy is purely a quantitative one, hence open to fluctuations in standards. Thus, Athenian democracy or US democracy prior to the Sixties can be argued not to be democratic. In practice, a universalizing moralistic discourse is not as useful for clarity as historical context. So, yes, slaver America was a democracy. It's just that "democracy" is just not what it's cracked up to be. The attempt to redefine the term as an effort to annex a particular vision may have good motives, but it's still confusionism.
I think the crucial question is whether you are a "proper" democracy if you have a representative form of government and the rule of law at home ... but your conducts abroad are anything but democratic in the sense of being lawful and respecting the wish of the people you deal with.
I would say no and I don't think that this is idealistic. As you pointed out, democracy has been misused so often for propaganda purposes than one has to reappropriate the term and give it back a meaning.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 07:24 PM   #59
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
I expect you'd have a great career in the Catholic Church. They pander that mea culpa original sin thing, too.
Which part of past generation as in "not me but the guys who existed before me" do you not understand? Ignorance is not bliss, history is there to learn from it.
Exactly.

The notion that we should only ever identify with "our" ancestors and never criticize them is especially odd to me, because I have ancestors on both sides of the Indian/European conflicts. Why should I identify with my European ancestors over my Native American ancestors? I'd be equally non-existent without either of them.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 07:38 PM   #60
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Had we ever seen imperial democracies in Trek?

Of course some of rights mentioned in the US Constitution are based on older Acts of the English Parliament. That isn't to diminish the US Constitution in anyway, the US Consitution merely served as a Document to codify many of those rights into a single document for the US.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.