History is a Guilt Trip? (Page 5) Zanjan: "Do you think history focuses too much on warfare, or that it's a sad and pathetic truth to our past? " History is actually a collection of biographies of all kinds - what this world library says depends on what you want to read in its collection. We've kept record so posterity will have evidence of human progress - that is, where did we come from and how did we get here? We know that change has been painfully slow. However, the history we're writing in modern times is very different from anything in the past - there's been a sudden, unprecedented, major shift in thinking. Evolution has taken a dramatic turn: http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_shift/ (Edited by Zanjan) Zanjan: Fortran, that WAS a summary. Getting smaller wont help - you gotta see the big picture. The name of this topic is too small but if you want to zero in on one thing, it doesn't make sense to blame yourself for nasty things others in the past have done. That's as rediculous as praising yourself for what they've done. I, too, was once ashamed to be called a human - I didn't see myself as part of that race because I was only looking at one corner of it. Once I expanded my view, it brought me to where history is right now, and to one place - what my role is in it. I wanted to be on the cutting edge in some way and for that, one has to make the cut.  Metaverseguy: The video was ok. Deepak Chopra is a whack job whom along with Oprah, sells people on spiritual healing, holistic therapy, and other non-sense. If everyone in those videos was charitable and tries to help the world then I think it's great, but I know that contributions that an individual can make are typically small from the brochures I get. Donate $50 here or $100 and help maybe 20-50 people with food, or medicine, or dental help or whatever. Then you donate and next month you still get a mailbox full of pamphlets to help impoverished people all over the world. That's beside the point though. While we can try and improve the world now and I'm amazed at how kind some people are in this generation and the last few ones, obviously history has already happened and yes we can look at it from other perspectives; some pieces and patterns are definitely hard to swallow, and weird events that came along.  davidk14: . It's all well and good to donate money to help people in immediate need of aid. The challenge is to not 'respond' to this social epidemic of those that need humanitarian aid and focus on be 'pro-active' in finding solutions. It doesn't matter if they live in a mud hut on one side of the planet or chillin' on the couch on the other side of the planet. We must focus on moving these individuals into becoming 'non- victims'. In the long run, training, educating, will cost so much less. . . Zanjan: The video wasn't talking about throwing money at everything to cure it. It takes all kinds of people to change the world; to go in the right direction, requires the same vision. The changers drive that bus, they don't not paste ads on it.  lori100: Holistic healing is real...it is about healing the whole person...the mind does effect the body for positive or negative.... Metaverseguy: My criticism is that I feel like as an individual my contribution to try and fix their problems is so miniscule. Say like 100,000 to 500,000 need aid. I can help maybe 10-20 people. The more I help it really starts to dig into my pocket and I just can't do it because of course I have my own expenses. It's great they want to improve the world, but they discussed 50 topics in the course of 5 minutes. Kind of like cramming an elephant into a sardine can. Holistic healing is garbage. They claim natural cures to real diseases. People run to them many times because they are cheaper cures, but end up paying more in the end. They talk about weird energy moods and states that need to be in sync, how some goat weed, or expensive herb is a panacea that fixes a giant list of symptoms. It's a lie though and many times these charlatans give fake medical advice to sick patients.  duncan124: You don't have to help anyone else Fortran and if you are interested in what is happening to others then people reporting it will keep on finding more people in need for you. It is a matter for your Government that all people are treated fairly. Metaverseguy: Well a stomach ache might be able to be fixed by some tea if you don't mind waiting 10 minutes for it to brew, but a lot of these whack jobs claim treatments for things like cancer. Metaverseguy: So to continue the debate and I was thinking about this today after reading some Wikipedia articles about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. It's just pathetic that people had to demand and beg for their freedom. Just seems pretty common sense that everyone should be respected and treated equally in the eyes of the law. Why is history littered with so many pricks that take advantage of everyone and waste every tax dollar on war, luxury castles, lavish clothes and vacations. It's really too bad that there isn't a direct line of responsible people that understood things like slavery were wrong even in pre-history and let people have freedom of speech, fair trials, vote for the politicians, etc. davidk14: . Hobbes stated that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of the people. The people that wrote the Constitution were an enlighten bunch of guys. They wrote the constitution without one woman. Does that negate the document? Of course not. It was during a time where male dominance was acceptable. It was also a time of slavery. Does that negate the document? Of course not. In both instances, amendments to the Constitution changed both. It, the Constitution was designed specifically to be allowed for change. "WE the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." . Metaverseguy: Hobbes thought power should be representative of the people, but that people should submit their will to the state and give up some of their freedoms for the government. So if they were taken advantage of by the government it was their own fault for being representative of it. On the other hand Locke said that individual rights were most important above all else. So if a tyrant came into power and began to rule absolutely Locke felt it justified that he should be overthrown by a revolution so the people could be liberated. I'm not necessarily complaining about the USA and its form of slavery which was btw only a stone's throw away because there are still quite a few people angry about the idea, despite never being enslaved themselves (even before the people who compare minimum wage to slavery). I just feel that the entire criticism and then finally rejection of theocratic governments and dynasties came so very late in written history. I've got a timeline of hundreds of cultures and civilizations on my wall leading up all the way back to the Sumerians. Why did people take so long to realize that politics should be limited and that things like military control, money, law, property, etc. should be controlled by more than just one hereditary dynasty? Sure Congress and Senate are 2,000 years old that go as far back as Rome (not sure if Asia or Russia had something similar) but they were really nothing compared to the emperor who had the last word on everything. Of course, let's not forget that quite a few places on Earth today still behave in this manner. So between Egypt and Rome no one could implement anything better than pleasing one man or family. Then between Rome and the British empire (circa 17th century) hardly very many things had changed, but now people were beginning to guarantee things like liberty in laws and constitutions and Rights of Man before of course anyone who disagreed with the way things were sent to the guillotine. The Roman Catholic Church finally began to lose some of their power and couldn't burn alive anyone who didn't believe in the sky god Yahweh and donate their money towards the construction towards giant domed cathedrals. If you wanted to be wealthy though and some type of rich merchant you probably had to be connected to the aristocracy in some manner though of course. Too bad if you got a university degree and were still unemployed. And that is the progress of history, except of course for all the thousands and millions of people that don't follow the law. | Politics Chat Room 50 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
