Davidthomas1572@comc... has shared: Texas textbooks and the trut.
04-06-2010 04:09 PM
04-06-2010 06:34 PM
A brief response to David: Remember, we have our symbolic blinders, too. Members of any orientation, left, right, or what have you, have selective perceptions, selective symbolic means, selective conceptions of causation and linkages of events, and a selective dialectic between those in their morally superior "symboic universe" and their less righteous opponents, who are not. Noting this defining human rhetorical tendency is not to embrace an uncritical relativism. It is to take cognizance of the need for perspetive by incongruity, some consideration of all the parliamentary voices, comic-frame double vision, a self-reflective linguistic skepticism, indeed, something of a humbly ironic outlook. Also, anytime we reflect on the necessity or relative justice of major warfare, past or present, we're not outside the orbit, I don't believe, of Burke's admonition, "Ad Bellum Purificandum." Those who don't cast some doubt on, and learn from, history may be more likely to repeat it. As aye, not exactly a lockstep liberal, Ed
05-06-2010 07:51 PM
While on the suject of secession, ala Michael Lind's essay linked to by David, I've got a suggestion for Arizona, in response to the myriad cancelations and boycotts from across the U.S., tendered and threatened, it's been subjected to in recent weeks: In your state legislature, take steps toward secession from the United States of America---immediately. Why not? Arizona has the perfect rationale! It's being successfully invaded, mostly peacefully, to be sure, by Mexico. Not actually invaded, but rather repossessed. Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico (1848), the agreement that ended the Mexican-American War (1846-48), what is now Arizona was part of a Mexican province. To his credit, President Polk tried to "buy" this territory, short of war, along with California and Texas (already actually annexed by the U.S. in 1845, but without the consent of Mexico, which did not look kindly upon Texas' independendence (1837-1845). We claimed that Mexico precipitated armed conflict by attacking and killing troops under the command of General Taylor (spilling "American blood" on "American soil"!) just east of the Rio Grande. But that supposed part of Texas was in dispute, and Taylor's forces had already blockaded the mouth of the Rio Grande, surely an act of war on our part and a casus belli for Mexico. Even though we sweetened the final transaction with a $15,000,000 payment, we fundamentally stole Arizona from Mexico, took it by force. It was "Manifest Destiny," after all. I'm not saying Arizona should go ahead with secesseion, and then ask for readmittance to its "rightful" and historic role as a Mexican province. I'm just saying (a) there's some legitimate historic and diplomatic justification for such a course of action, and (b) the threat would be a way for Arizona to thumb its nose at the likes of California, etc., and say, you want to play hardball?, then we'll play hardball, too. Start figuring out now where you're gonna make up for the 25 percent of your electrical power we'll be taking with us! Go play your major league all-star game, America, in Fairbanks, for all we care. And you can take the spring-training Cactus League to the outer banks of southern Louisiana, while you're at it. I think Mexico would look benignly on such an action. One way or the other, if consummated, it would clarify in sharper outline who our Southwest really belongs to. Ed