Hello Kim >Greetings, >I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well.
I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. >I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing >that happened in past history and is happening today by the >corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already. A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them. http://snipurl.com/mx7r >I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain >changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of >getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a >situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the >person who hates, not the person who is hated. Morally and spiritually, indeed so. Practically, well, what will you say, Kim? At least the victims were pure of heart when they got slaughtered so it was a Good Thing for them, they didn't get the chance to pollute their spirits with negative feelings like hatred afterwards? Only a pessimistic person who sees no hope for humanity and knows nothing about history could disagree, eh? Sure, you didn't say that, but it's not far from what you did say, which you're now trying to sweep under the corner of the carpet, as usual. That's right, I'm going to unsweep it a little, did you think I wouldn't? You think some strange things. What made you think I wouldn't check the snopes reference you posted even if you didn't? Denialists don't do metaphor either, they say "I didn't say that!" >By distancing Hm. >and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race. Hating a whole race, my word. >To say that by finding good in a situation that you condoned the >original sin is nonsense. It might be. If you use the good that you look for to distract from the "original sin" it might not be such nonsense. If you set out in search of a "good" in order to use it for that purpose it'd be even less nonsense. And when you use the perceived good to disappear the original sin altogether it's not nonsense at all. Perceived good: >[Kim] For that matter, I do believe that Native women have more rights >now than they had when they were property of the men in their families. Isn't that pretty much what the US military says when they succeed in liberating a village only they had to kill most of the villagers and bomb all the buildings first, but hey, at least they're free, it's the only way to make omelettes, getting bombed is almost as good for you as getting colonised. >That would be like saying a black person who looking at the >situation in Africa and counting his blessings that his family is in >America, condoned the slavery that brought his family to America. I think a lot of Africans would object to that view, with reason. Do you think that's what the blacks in New Orleans who were on TV after Hurricane Katrina were thinking and it made them feel all warm and cosy inside, who needs a bus ticket? You had a different view of them at the time, and it's part and parcel of the current consignment. >Taking a balance view and learning to not hate for the past by >finding good in it should not be the antithesis to a sustainable >world. Indeed it's not, but that's not the same as using some perceived benefit that's far from clear to say the least to hey-presto an horrendous slaughter into a Good Thing for everybody including the victims, and just for a bonus the survivors' women are freer now too, your "balanced view". When challenged your argument was that at least you can see some hope for humanity, unlike me, LOL! Now the only option you're leaving to seeing it all your way, in the sanitised new clothes you've dressed it up in, is to be doomed to hatred as well as an historically challenged pessimist. I wonder how much you know about hatred? Me, well I don't hate anyone. It's not just armchair stuff, I've had my share of reasons for hatred. I can see them now, clear as the day they happened, scene after scene after scene, like a movie. It sort of doesn't leave you a lot of room for trying to fabricate pretences about it. How many times have you seen people being slaughtered? There's more than one way of doing it too, some of the no-blood-and-guts ways are even worse, and there are lots of other hateful things short of outright slaughter. I tried hatred once, I mentioned it the other day. I got the most powerful lesson I've ever had, in short order. Don't hate! As Gustl says, you can hate the hateful deed, but not the doer. It can be hard! >To build a sustainable world, we need to fight current evil yes, but >we also need to forgive and forget the past so we can live in peace, >not hundreds of years of fighting. Forgive and forget, fool me twice, right. You have to face up to the past and its lessons or you'll repeat them. You're just denying the past because it doesn't fit nice and comfortably with what you want to believe. That's your prerogative, but it's not your prerogative to try to weave it into the fabric of what goes on here. Somebody was talking about memes, and some of them are toxic. Forgetting isn't good for you. Forgiving has two sides to it, it requires reconciliation,which involves repentance and a mending of ways, as well as truth, and even then it might be a good idea to check under the corner of the carpet. Just turning your back on hundreds of years of fighting and running away from it thinking you can leave it all behind that way doesn't exactly cut it when you wipe out most of an entire people who happen to be occupying "your" new home and then focus on finding bigger and better ways of doing it all over the world, like now for instance. That was the objection to your scheme to colonise the stars, God help all the little green men with their peace pipes. But maybe the surviving little green women will be freer. So what's under the corner of the carpet? Hey-unpresto, the corpus delicti, or part thereof: > >Kim at Biofuel@sustainablelists.org wrote: > > > >"Each time we have opened a new area we have grown in human rights for a > >short time. " > > > >Kim, > >I doubt if Native Americans, Indigenous peoples all over the world, and > >anyone who has had their land taken by invaders will agree with this > >statement. I applaud your desire to be an optimist rather than a > >pessimist, but > >optimism should be based on a willingness to look at all facts honestly. > >Best wishes, > >Marilyn > >Greetings, >I never said it was equal or that no one suffered, but hereditary wealth >lost it's hold a bit each time a new area opened. Looking back at Ancient >Greece and Rome, this happened right up to the opening of the >Americas. For that matter, I do believe that Native women have more rights >now than they had when they were property of the men in their families. It >depends on what you choose to look at and in how general of terms you are >speaking. First Americans did practise slavery. Our right to determine >the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history. The fact >that not all people have this right, does not take away from the >achievement of this freedom. It just means that we need to work harder so >that all people can have this right. As to the view of aboriginal people, >I have also discovered that their view of the invaders depends on their >status within their people and their sex. Not all invaders were horrid, >some came to love. This is where the Metis come from. >Bright Blessigns, >Kim The comparison I made: >Sorry to say so, but that sounds horribly like this: > > > --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All I can add in our defense, is that much more good has come from > > our use > > > of the land for the good of the world, than from the natives who > > inhabited > > > it previously. Yes, you too have benefited from Jackson' s quest, > > so find a > > > better argument about the poor, savage, barbaric, nomadic though > > culturally > > > rich natives who fell easily to manifest destiny. Their children > > are being > > > well taken care of, and now have the benefit of electricity, > > inexpensive > > > housing, internal combustion, oh, and beer. :) That's because it IS horribly like that. >>Just because you can find some good in a bad situation, does not >>mean that you think the bad situation was right in the first place. >>When the world hands you lemons, make lemonade! > >You didn't even mention the bad side of it until you were >challenged, and you've been back-pedalling ever since. So you're still here, but only on sufferance. The only question is whether you can see it yourself or you're blinded by your own smoke-and-mirrors act, in which case you'll just do it again, now or later. Careful with that reply, better not to. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner >Bright Blessings, >Kim _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
