Myvoice in your democracy blacks were slaves. History does not lie. Its just shows the facts. That wasnt democracy. It was only after the 1960s the Blacks were equal in the US. Dare contridict this statement.
Well it aint new that Muslim diplomats have been attacked in Western nations. No where to worship. Where did i say that?
What is the basic premise of Democracy? The will of the majority will be done. Correct or not?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Myvoice in your democracy blacks were slaves. History does not lie. Its just shows the facts. That wasnt democracy. It was only after the 1960s the Blacks were equal in the US. Dare contridict this statement.
Well it aint new that Muslim diplomats have been attacked in Western nations. No where to worship. Where did i say that?
What is the basic premise of Democracy? The will of the majority will be done. Correct or not?
[/QUOTE]
I have a hard time accepting that a well-educated, well-travelled, bright young man like yourself actually believes that rot. (I am not being sarcastic in the complementary part of that sentence.)
No one in the US is "equal." Never have been and never will be. Equality is not the value most heavily promoted in our society. "Equality of Opportunity" is the foremost value and from that equality of opportunity one is able to rise to his/her own unequal level/station in life. Because of inherent human frailties like racism and bigotry, "equality of opportunity" remains a goal/ideal in the US rather than a reality. It is an ideal that we can strive for but will probably never reach.
I'm sure you are aware that the principle of "majority rule" is only one component of "democracy." The other component is the protection of minority rights and creating a playing field where the viewpoint of the minority today can become the viewpoint of the majority tomorrow. Anyone who thinks that democracy means 51 people out of 100 can subjugate, beat up, oppress, and tyrranize the other 49 at their whim simply doesn't have a clue what democracy means. I give you more credit than that and will assume you're just looking to pick an argument today.
Sure democracy is about ‘electing’ a representative voice to exercise the rights of the common people through majority rule but it’s also about social equality. ‘Equality of opportunity’ goes some way in addressing this.
But the US at the last election stumbled at the first hurdle surely?
Myvoice i am surprised you take such a literal meaning of the word equal. Nothing is equal. That is something not attainable in the present life. Equal means equal rights and equal oppurtunities both. The blacks were given neither until the 1960s. Correct? Until the 1960s it was government policy or rather societal policy to make sure that blacks did not get these rights. Correct?
I am actually always looking to pick an argument. I find political discussion on gupshup tiresome and limited in scope.
Now back to majority rules. Agreed with your definition and the like. However the premise is still majority decision are implemented, with societal constructs that limit the action of the majority by what society deems an acceptable boundary.
Also by your definition, the US did not have a democracy until 1960s as the Blacks were oppressed by the majority whites.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Myvoice i am surprised you take such a literal meaning of the word equal. Nothing is equal. That is something not attainable in the present life. Equal means equal rights and equal oppurtunities both. The blacks were given neither until the 1960s. Correct? Until the 1960s it was government policy or rather societal policy to make sure that blacks did not get these rights. Correct?
......
Also by your definition, the US did not have a democracy until 1960s as the Blacks were oppressed by the majority whites.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think you are INCORRECT on all counts. In fact, I’m surprised you apparently give credit to the US for providing equal rights and/or equal opportunities to blacks in the 1960s. Some would argue that they have neither even today.
Thank you for supplying YOUR definition of equality. But, understand, that the definition that either of us choose to use is just our own definition and is not one that is universally acceptable. IMO, “equality” is one of the most ill-defined and misunderstood concepts known to man. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story many decades ago about a society based upon equality. Since it is impossible to make the crippled run as fast as the swiftest amongst us, this society handicapped all the fast people by adding weights to their bodies. Those who could see well were forced to wear lenses that made their vision extraordinarily poor. And so it went. Ultimately, this society came as close as possible to all citizens being equal. The quest for equality is actually the quest to make all people adhere to the least common denominator. There are some good lessons for today in that story. Some would argue that we should offer the same health care to all our citizens. We cannot afford to make the very best health care available to every person in our society. A lot of people would have no problem at all with lowering the health care standard available to some in order to assure that everyone gets something.
Moving on from the definition, I think where you go wrong in your conclusions is that you assume that “equality” however you define it is a measure of “democracy.” Thus, you claim that the US did not have democracy because blacks did not have equality. In a way, concepts of majority rule are the antithesis of equality are they not? If the majority gets its way, the minority can hardly be said to be equal.
Certainly, there are gradations of democracy. Some democracies are more democratic than others. I would suggest that democracies that enfranchise the greatest percentage of the potential electorate are “better” than those that enfranchise a lesser percentage. The US was a democracy from its founding even though only landed white property owners had the franchise. It became a “better” democracy when non land-owners got the vote. Better still, when blacks got the vote. Better again when women got the vote. It got worse when predominantly southern states played games with election laws effectively disenfranchising blacks. It got better again with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in the 1960’s. But, to say the US was not a democracy until the 1960s is foolishness. Our experiment with democracy is over 200 years old and the nature of it changes for the better and sometimes for the worse as we go along.
Myvoice you have the tenacity to say that the US was not an aparthied state, that promoted slavery for 100 years?
hey CM
who sold the slaves to the Americans to begin with?
most of them were the slaves of the muslims of western africa in any case.. or Prisoners of War... and were sold to the american slavers..
so there:P
I am actually sure about the exact details. But i am pretty sure that the slaves sold, were not only from muslim sources. If i remember correct they were by far from non-muslim sources. Slavery to the Americas started after 1492, before that it was practiced in Europe. If they were sold by muslims it would have been extensively documented. Yet it hasnt.
It also depeneds in the 1500's how far the Islamic Empire had spread. I believe by then we were out of Europe and parts of Southern Africa.
But the point is irrelevant. The US enforced slavery and an aparthied state for 100 years. Something the Muslim Empire never did.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Myvoice you have the tenacity to say that the US was not an aparthied state, that promoted slavery for 100 years?
[/QUOTE]
Please stay consistent in your time frames. Of course slavery was recognized and institutionalized at the time of our nation's founding. By the time of the Civil War, approximately 100 years later, half the states were enlightened and prohibited slavery and half recognized and institutionalized it.
After the Civil War, all kinds of institutional mechanisms were thought of to delay the full implementation of equal rights and equal opportunity for black Americans in many parts of the country. In 1896 (?) the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson determined the constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine. While this doctrine may philosophically and theoretically be sound, from a practical standpoint, separate cannot be equal.
Today, we still don't have a color blind society that extends and implements equal rights and equal opportunities to all. Affirmative Action institutionalizes unequal rights and unequal opportunities based upon preferences given for skin color.
Those are facts. But you still don't seem to understand the distinction between the concept of "equality/equal rights/equal opportunity" and the concept of "democracy." You stated the US did not have democracy until the 1960s and supported that claim by saying blacks did not have equality/equal rights/equal opportunity. You can have one without the other.
I would agree that a democracy without equality/equal rights/equal opportunity is clearly not as good as a democracy with same. The more of the former that the democracy has, the better it is as a society, IMO.
You're way off base if you think the US, as a country, had an apartheid system and society until the 1960s.
myvoice, dearest, sweetypie, i have always said they had an apartheid state for 100 years. After that there was racial discrimination and segregation. Where have i stated that the US was an aparthied state until the 1960s? The US was an aparthied state until the Civil war. After that it was on that enforced racial discrimination. But not as bad as South Africa. But close enough.
CM, my ripe peach, I’m quite certain that you have, on more than one occasion, maintained that the US has only been a practicing democracy since the 1960s because of our treatment of blacks. However, since we appear to be in so much agreement as to historical facts today, let’s just leave our past bickering buried in the past.
As to the status of the US up to the Civil War, your broad brush does not accurately account for distinctions between the states or the nature of the state/federal relationship way back then. For the first 100 or so years of our existence, governmental power resided more in state governments than in the federal government. The pre-eminence of the federal government over the independence of the states is of much more recent vintage than our independence as a single nation. You’d be much more correct attributing apartheid to individual states during the first hundred years rather than the nation as a hole. Half the states did not engage in such practices. Since the federal government was not recognized as having the power or authority to legislate on these issues, it’s not accurate to lay the charge of apartheid at the entire nation.
BTW, I’m not sure I prefer the approach of referring to someone as “dearest” and “sweetypie” and “ripe peach” as opposed to “racist bigot”, “ignoramous”, “b*stard” and the like. But given Nadia’s desire to feminize WAs a little, I’ll give it a fair trial with you. And for XMAS and for being such a delicious peach, this is for you CM. 
A true intellect to see my attempt to feminise our beloved World Affairs forum. So did you do your nails for Christmas? And a merry Christmas to you and your family. A Happy new year as well.
I agree they are broad brush strokes, however, comrade (better than sweetypie? )a nation is defined by all its states. Even the north treated the blacks better that didnt mean they were treated like they are treated today. There was still racism in the North and the South was ripe with it. The blacks had to fight for their equal rights. It wasnt handed over to them. That shows resistance to the idea but in the north and the south, as well as in the government.
For you.
If you celebrate XMAS, a very merry one to you as well. If not, Happy Holidays including one big New Years bash. I thought doing my nails was just a little too much given their exposure to the public view. As I write this, I am wearing the softest red satin sheets though instead of the usual cotton white ones preparing for my Clan (KKKLAN) gathering this evening. And my hood is adorned with just the cutest little bow that I am sure you would just die for.
Hard to believe that we can actually end the year on such a sympatico note and in so much agreement. We have bonded so well, flowers just aren’t enough. 
**
**
I celebrate teh commerialism of Christmas. That means the whole be jolly and good spirit and wishing the latest issue of playboy with women in fluffy red undergarments comes out sooner. So yes a merry christmas indeed. That is just wonderful. I personally have given yup my Ak47, for a more festive Uzi and decided for no target practice on innocent israelis. My gift to the world. I even got my cat a bandana with Allah-u-Akbar written in white. She is just adorable. You do anything for your pets?
**
**
Aww…she Nadia was right. All we need to be is efeminate (spelling??) and will solve all the worlds problems, as long as you dont have the same shoes as i do. Otherwise World War 3.
A hug aint enough in this jolly season :french: 
Oh God, what is this???
What? I am following Nadia's advice and acting more feminine.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
What? I am following Nadia's advice and acting more feminine.
[/QUOTE]
I think we should have more females to do that, instead of guys doing the feminine thingie.
It would work great, if some females showed up.
We wouldn't want to intrude on all this brotherly love.
Haha. Cute, guys.
So is the matter all settled? Or are you guys still at odds? I can't tell exactly where the issue itself started since the thread is split, but I would like to add that I don't think you can assume that by the 1960s the blacks were given equal rights. The struggles at the time were perhaps more prominent (as were those of women), but they continue today and given the state of many urban schools today, I think the separation and inequality (lack of equality of opportunity) is still prevalent today.