RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American

RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MrrPete -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 9:54:29 AM)
Tis True folks In November 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt and some of his friends went on a hunting trip to Mississippi. After hours of searching, Roosevelt and his group had not come across any wild animals. Finally, the group did track down and surrounded a helpless bear. One of the guides asked the president to shoot the bear so he could win a hunting trophy. The president refused, and news reporters throughout the country spread the story of Roosevelt's kind act. Not long after this took place, a famous cartoonist named Clifford Berryman drew a cartoon based on Roosevelt 's rescue of the bear. When a store owner in Brooklyn saw the cartoon, he decided to make toy bears to sell in his shop. He asked president Roosevelt for permission to use the name “"Teddy's Bear"” for his toys, as a reminder of the bear Roosevelt had set free. Nowadays, everyone knows these toys as Teddy Bears, but few people know that they were named after President Theodore “"Teddy"” Roosevelt. I Googled on teddy bear origin to find the above snippet

alittleshy1 -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 9:59:32 AM)
The teddy bear was named after him due to a hunting incident in which TR refused to shoot a young bear. The papers ran a cartoon of the incident and a smart toy maker started selling "Teddy bears" and still do by the millions

philosophy -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 10:04:00 AM)
"we must all be British first and whatever else second" ...fraid i can't agree at all. To my mind the appropriate formula is human first, nationality second. The danger of putting nationality first is that then there is no higher authority than the state to judge the states actions by..........

peepeegirl5 -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 10:05:48 AM)
Well, there it is.

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 10:54:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "we must all be British first and whatever else second" ...fraid i can't agree at all. To my mind the appropriate formula is human first, nationality second. The danger of putting nationality first is that then there is no higher authority than the state to judge the states actions by.......... surely its a given that we're all humans, so that it doesnt require mentioning? And ultimately what higher authority is there than the state, to judge the state's actions by? We can piss, moan and otherwise object to whatever the state does, but we're stuck with it nonetheless, whatever notional higher authority or standard we might measure by. We're lucky to have an independent judiciary it seems, but who pays the piper? E

philosophy -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 10:59:58 AM)
.....i'm not as sure as you LE that, as a species, we are good at realising that we are all humans. Too often i have seen nationalism used as a veil to essentially deny other nationalities basic humanity. The UN declaration of Human Rights is, to my mind, a perfectly rational way of judging a states actions. The EU also can, to a degree and imperfectly, act as a higher authority than member states in human rights cases.

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 11:10:52 AM)
Judging is one thing - we can all judge. Whether anyone can do anything about it is another question, and the inadequacy of means of doing anything about it renders our judgements a purely intellectual exercise. The UN certainly can be relied upon to judge, but thats about it from what I see. But I see what youre talking about - though surely, this is the problem we have now; our lack of cohesion is the very seed whereby it becomes possible to perceive those not "us" as "them" and has all the dangers of the dehumanising factors of which you rightly warn, but not in respect of other nationalities but in respect of those of our own nationality who yet refuse to assimilate to a cohesive society. E PS - I'm going out shortly btw; sorry to have to cut it short but will catch up tomorrow if you reply!

philosophy -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 11:22:07 AM)
.....i'm not sure it's a 'national' lack of cohesion that's the culprit. Rather i'd look at the disintegration of smaller communities. A nation isn't made up of a homogenous lump, rather it is like a family with whizzing smaller children, harassed parents and Uncle Bill and his unfortunate prostate problem. When small communities are strong (and varied) then a national identity is also strong....if less defined. If a national identity is rigidly defined then small communities are often excluded, thus leading to a self fulfilling prophecy of non-cohesion. Thus it is seen that a nation is made up of a large number of individual humans.......so, human first, nationality second. In the long run such a philosophy strengthens the nation.

seeksfemslave -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 11:33:31 AM)
Theodore may well have said those very sensible things but I believe it was about that time that US policy on immigration changed and the quota system introduced favouring ....err WASPs I suppose, or WAS's ie WASP's without the P. Again fairly sensible IMO. I got that "fact" from a History channel documentary ! TR also said: talk softly and carry a big stick lol

farglebargle -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/14/2007 3:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "we must all be British first and whatever else second" ...fraid i can't agree at all. To my mind the appropriate formula is human first, nationality second. The danger of putting nationality first is that then there is no higher authority than the state to judge the states actions by.......... surely its a given that we're all humans, so that it doesnt require mentioning? And ultimately what higher authority is there than the state, to judge the state's actions by? We can piss, moan and otherwise object to whatever the state does, but we're stuck with it nonetheless, whatever notional higher authority or standard we might measure by. We're lucky to have an independent judiciary it seems, but who pays the piper? E "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 2:50:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .....i'm not sure it's a 'national' lack of cohesion that's the culprit. Rather i'd look at the disintegration of smaller communities. A nation isn't made up of a homogenous lump, rather it is like a family with whizzing smaller children, harassed parents and Uncle Bill and his unfortunate prostate problem. When small communities are strong (and varied) then a national identity is also strong....if less defined. If a national identity is rigidly defined then small communities are often excluded, thus leading to a self fulfilling prophecy of non-cohesion. Thus it is seen that a nation is made up of a large number of individual humans.......so, human first, nationality second. In the long run such a philosophy strengthens the nation. Again, I see your point, but mine still stands I feel. There is no doubt in my mind that the damage which Thatcher did to communities and thereby to the whole nation, is something we still live with and this likely feeds the whole situation. Along with the multi-cultural ethic that permits and even encourages ghettoisation amongst and between immigrant and natural populations, we have what I read is your intent for the definition of nation; many small and strong communities, but in isolation. But this to me, is no nation, but simply a land occupied by many nations, lacking any commonality but death and the taxes paid to and services delivered by central government. In the absence of any unifying idea, these are all we have in common and thats dangerous because to return to one of your points, it gives government much too strong a hold over us all, because lacking any common standard by which to judge it (but rather relying on our own group's standards which are held only as valid as any other group's) there can be no judgement, only opinion. E

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 3:00:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." In the US maybe FB. And only maybe. Its one thing to have right and wrong written down in one's constitution though, and quite another to achieve right and remedy wrong. When that document was written, the disparity between firepower of the people and the state was near equal, and nowadays it isnt. Even with all the firearms in the US, the best that could be done would be a guerilla war, which whilst unwinnable by a professional army, can be sustained for a very long time such that it isnt necessarily loseable either. I was talking to a friend last night. He joined the British Army in 1979, just prior to Thatcher being elected. On recruitment, his wage was meant to be £120-00 per week, but when she came into power when he entered service it went up to £250-00 per week. Similar happened in the police force I understand. One buys a lot of loyalty to one's cause by giving 100% pay increases, and that bitch knew she might need the army as she did the police, to do the social damage she did and ensure all opposition was quashed. In the UK meanwhile, the best most of us have is a kitchen knife taped to a broom handle, and we had a pitchfork rebellion before; an absolute massacre. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 3:43:09 AM)
Steady on LadyE, less revolutionary talk if you dont mind ! By the way, who defines right and wrong? me or thee lol

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 3:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Steady on LadyE, less revolutionary talk if you dont mind ! By the way, who defines right and wrong? me or thee lol Right and wrong are decided by our democratically elected representatives in Parliament - at least they ought to be democratically elected, they ought to represent us and they ought to decide. Problem being that our electoral system is screwed up, MPs represent the party line and most of our laws etc are derived from a minority movement called Christianity. If by way of our decisions, it becomes right to hang people from lamp posts, then thats right. But you raise an important point - that we cannot possibly build a cohesive society according to any single source of authority, nor indeed whilst also clinging on to the world in which our grandparents lived. We have to rebuild the whole thing to be inclusive of everyone. There will of course still be dissenters, because there always are, but we can produce a nation according to a model to which the vast majority can willingly subscribe I feel, regardless of background, and to which new immigrants can subscribe, without having to dispose of their entire background. we can still be a varied nation, but one nation. E

nighthawk3569 -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 4:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy *Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.* "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Too bad today's bleeding-heart liberals have lost sight of the truth of this statement. You're either an AMERICAN...or you're whatever is on the other side of that hyphen. *'hawk* I am from the GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK! *To quote an old quote 'What are you looking for...a medal, or a chest to pin it on?'* Fuck the Feds, all they do is waste money. Our Agriculture and Markets blows away the FDA, so I'm not really sure why we waste the money on the FDA. *Although I don't always agree with you, I'll have to agree with this.* Ever notice that the decline of "American Civilization" is directly related to the decline of the acceptance of cigarette smoking in popular culture? *I've noticed this also. Maybe it's a coincidence, but the time-frame sure fits.* *(Are you, by chance, a smoker?)* *'hawk*

farglebargle -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 4:07:26 AM)
I got out in 86 at about 1.25 a pack.

seeksfemslave -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 4:11:01 AM)
LadyE: post 34 makes you sound a bit of an idealist as well. Not good, not good lol Oh wait a minute you are a Liberal Democrat NO ?

nighthawk3569 -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 4:12:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 Too bad today's bleeding-heart liberals have lost sight of the truth of this statement. You're either an AMERICAN...or you're whatever is on the other side of that hyphen. *'hawk* .......human, perhaps? *So far, I've not seen anyone list themselves as Human-American. Would you like to take another shot...I believe you're better than this.* *'hawk*

LadyEllen -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 4:24:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave LadyE: post 34 makes you sound a bit of an idealist as well. Not good, not good lol Oh wait a minute you are a Liberal Democrat NO ? When standing in shit, its better to look to the heavens than to wallow in the mire. E

philosophy -> RE: 1907 Roosevelt on being an American (6/15/2007 8:30:04 AM)
".....we have what I read is your intent for the definition of nation; many small and strong communities, but in isolation." ...my idea LE, is that small and strong communities reach out to each other. They have the confidence to do that, provided that the overall culture is not exclusionary. So, in the long run, they aren't isolated. Sometimes, with cultures, there are no short cuts........

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875