What would justify the overthrow of the American Government?

reply to post by Wolf321


What? You've only just come to that deliberation? Whilst there is a 'government' in place, whatever country you live in, you will never have any chance of overthrowing any government. End of!

Of course there is already enough justification to overthrow the American government as there is the UK government and so on.

The day EVERY individual country's citizen is consulted on EVERY individual political matter from health care to war, will herald the end of the 'government'

But as you all should know the reason we all have governments is to control us all.

It does not matter who or which party is in government, the outcome will be the same : Unchallenged control of the masses.

The solution?

A nationwide electoral board of individuals who specialise in all the essential fundamental political issues of a modern economic and scientifically forward thinking society.

Originally posted by elysiumfire


I'm sorry, but you don't get away that easy. We have to draw a distinction between the decree of a king, and the issue of 'right' to bear arms.

But that isnt what I am responding to. I am responding to your attempt to color the UK's history as one that is;

Originally posted by elysiumfire
How about the cultural maturity and cohesiveness of their society in which they live disavows any requirement to bear 'private' arms?

and

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Britain is not a society that has made that preference a reality for me, but it has shown that its society has got along quite well for thousands of years without a citizenry privately armed.

In your latter quote which I was responding too, I was merely pointing out that your country had NOT gotten along quite well without a privately armed citizenry, in fact, it was so beneficial it was ordered by a King. I was not discussing OUR right to bear arms, only that your assertion that your country had been thousands of years just fine without a privately armed citizenry was simply not so.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
The abuses of the so-called ruling class did not stop because people upped and left their mother country to head for the shining beacon of the 'new' country to establish a life away from the abuses.

Which is one of the misconceptions that I clearly hold that you in your native wisdom know to be inaccurate. See, you seem to think we all "upped and left for a shining beacon of hope," of our own free will. Where here, some of us know that for many, there was no choice. Some were forcibly deported, some stolen right off the streets, and others compelled by threat. But surely you are correct, and this was NOT the case. No one was compelled to populate the colonies. A mere fiction no doubt.

The highland clearances are still remembered especially in the areas affected by the forced emigration and hardship endured by the peoples of the Highlands and their descendants across the world.

Besides, my point was mostly that a people unable to defend themselves against their rulers are often abused by said rulers, so in that sense you make my point for me.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Let us not forget, that when the migrants established a foothold in the 'new' country, the first thing they did (after many years of peaceful trading) was to abuse the native population out of their traditional land spaces.

And, lets not forget that the government who first abused the native Americans here was......British.

www.britannica.com...

(1675–76), in British-American colonial history, war between Indians and English settlers, the bloodiest conflict in 17th-century New England, temporarily devastating the frontier communities but eventually eradicating native resistance to the white man’s westward thrust in that region. For years, mutual helpfulness and trade were fostered by both the early Massachusetts colonists and the Indian leader Massasoit, grand sachem of the Wampanoags. The peace was first shattered by the Pequot War in 1637. By the 1660s settlers had outgrown their dependence on the Indians for wilderness survival techniques and had substituted fishing and commerce for the earlier lucrative fur trade. From 1640 to 1675 new waves of land-hungry settlers pushed into Indian territory, particularly in Massachusetts.....

Last time I checked America wasnt a country in its own right for another 100 years or so. How convenient it must be to just pass off the brutality of British colonization to the successors. Not that I in ANY WAY deny that atrocities against the Natives continued well after we had formed our own nation. But lets not get too smug over there about how the Native Americans were treated, hmm? At that point in time, my country and yours had not yet divided. We have enough atrocities of our own as "America" to account for without you "conveniently" unloading YOURS on us.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
How do you arrive at this assumption? Have you weighed the historical perspective, or are you simply assuming that something conspiratorial has been inserted into the historical record to deny the British a 'true' account of their own history.

I arrived at that assumption by the fair number of Brits that I know who know nothing about why Ireland might have wanted out of the safe little cocoon that is British rule, nor do they seem to realize that not all emigration to America was not "free" or wanted by the person doing the traveling. I also know this because NO country tells the worst about itself, if it can avoid it.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I have to say that your statements are coming across as being incredibly naive (historically at least), and if left unchallenged would continue an error-filled perspective of the rightness of their accuracy.

Be specific as to what you would like me to support. I actually provided more than opinion in my post you are responding to here, I linked numerous sources. Just let me know what you are questioning specifically so I can support it directly. I will be happy to.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I too am Irish/Scottish, and here in the 'mother' country.....

Which mother country? Ireland? Or the "UK?" I know some Scots too who are deliberate in separating Scotland out by name when identifying their country of origin. Quite a few bristle when you call them "British." But, I know, your birth there trumps my personal observation that all is not so cohesive between the conquered and the conquerors.

www.angus-reid.com...

Many adults in Scotland express support for sovereignty, according to a poll by ICM Research published in the Sunday Telegraph. 59 per cent of respondents believe Scotland should become an independent country. In a sample of English respondents, 52 per cent agree with the premise.

Pure fantasy on my part, I am sure.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
There are nationalistic elements that cannot or will not allow history to rest peacefully, and abuse the memory of it by perpetuating the hate and disatisfaction in modern times. The painful times of history evident in the growth of nations, should lead us (if we can accept the vast difference between adolescence and maturity)

I do accept the difference. Maturity seems to be "those who agree" with your view, and adolescence seems to be "those who disagree" with it. There is a clear difference.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
into peaceful futures. Nationalism is merely the colic in the belly of a nation's history.

You should give that speech to the Iraqi's who are upset at the US presence. Or any other group of people who have had their country taken over by an outside force and are hoping to reclaim it. Tell them they are "merely the colic in the belly of a nations history." The "colic" that was Ireland is now a country in its own right again last time I checked.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
By the way, when was the last war between England and Scotland? The time that has since passed should speak volumes as to the cohesiveness of the British society.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Jacobite Risings were a series of uprisings, rebellions, and wars in the kingdoms of England, Kingdom of Scotland (later the United Kingdom of Great Britain), and Ireland occurring between 1688 and 1746. The uprisings were aimed at returning James VII of Scotland and II of England, and later his descendants of the House of Stuart, to the throne after he was deposed by Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The series of conflicts takes its name from Jacobus, the Latin form of James.

If one were simplistic it could speak volumes as to the cohesiveness of British society. Or one could look at all the other factors. As I pointed out in my earlier post, that population reduction, and the "terror" imposed by the clearances and other events, like the Potato famine, and the waves of emigration to the US, a couple world wars, etc., influenced the "cohesiveness" of the UK more so than any "mature" agreement among the native people that things were to their liking.

You are free to actually read the material linked to, such as this one about the clearances. I cannot quote it all.

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 26-9-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Hi There,

Illusion:

But that isnt what I am responding to.

It should be. All responses to this thread should be directly related to the 'OP's' question...What justifies,etc. We are not discussing the potential for overthrowing the British government, but the American one.

I have responded to off-topic comments because they required clarification, and I believe the responses I gave were of adequate clarification. The bee-in-your-bonnet syndrome regarding the British clearly shines out of your comments, but that is of no concern to me...accuracy of your statements is.

Neither you nor I can change history, but we can certainly lay foundations in the present for a better future. How we go about that is determined on how we view the past. We can dwell there, in the interminable suffering and struggle of our predecessors, grumbling away on history's colic, unable to forgive (if not forget), and thus lay ourselves bare to the repeating of past errors. If we cannot get past history's grievances, if we constantly allow nationalism justify patriotism by pandering to emotive history, we do not as nations, races, or species, deserve a peaceful future.

Justification for the overthrow of a government presents itself every four years, we need not be armed for this venture with anything more than a pen. We have to be the change we want to effect, but if we weigh ourselves down to the transgressions recorded in history, we provide ourselves the means by which to repeat those transgressions in our time.

I know what I choose. When I leave this planet sometime within the next 20 years (indicated by the natural life cycle of the human male), I want to do so safe in the knowledge that I did not add to the distemperament of anyone upon which I impacted. My issue is not about 'justification' itself, but about the conclusions we draw that present themselves as justification. That somehow, we are entitled to act in a way that rewards our suffering or struggle...well I'm sorry, but that way leads to the repeating of historical errors. That is something I personally do not choose.

Back on topic

Best wishes

Originally posted by elysiumfire

The bee-in-your-bonnet syndrome regarding the British clearly shines out of your comments, but that is of no concern to me...accuracy of your statements is.

I dont think I have a bee in my bonnet regarding the British in general, however, I do not think that telling the unadorned truth about a country or government indication of a vendetta. Sometimes the British go on a bit about the utopian paradise they have created with their mature and civilized way of doing things, and they tend to be particularly smug sometimes in their comparisons of themselves and us here in America.

I also have no problem looking at my own country and its leaders and seeing where we fail to live up to our own ideals. And we do fail. It seems we both are concerned with accuracy of statements, we simply disagree about what constitutes accuracy. I think presenting ones country as viewed through rose colored glasses IS nationalism.

We got "off topic" because of a disagreement over whether or not the right to bear arms in America was outmoded and outdated.

I still contend it is not, but we can agree not to argue that point further. It IS in our Constitution, and it was put there for a reason. The reason being the very history of the British which you seem to think is off topic, after all, our Constitution was written in direct reaction to Britain and its form of governance at that point in time. It was also written with an eye to giving people a way, a method, of NOT having to overthrow their government by force.

In that, I agree with you. We have the opportunity to make our government work every election. And, in fact, between elections. We can call for the impeachment of our leaders. The reason the leadership here in America is so poor right now is the fault of the people, not the leadership. We do not have to rely on television to tell us how to vote. There could be email campaigns, flyers, handouts, people standing on street corners encouraging others to READ about alternatives. I agree the the MSM has been hijacked, however, the MSM is not the ONLY way to do things. The fact of the matter is we are lazy, apathetic, and too quick to shrug our shoulders and say "there is nothing we can do about it."