How familiar are you with the writings of Emerson, Thoreau..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 1:12 am

Melville, Hawthorne....etc

I'm interested to see if any of you Americans understand your own literary heritage. Despite the fact this is an obviously non aggressive thread, other than to gauge an understanding of your own nation's literature and philosophy, I'm sure a number of you will resort to the usual idiocy.

Disregarding that comically embarrassing bullshit, I put it to you, how do you think they would consider the modern America, and the opinions of certain members of this board, in regards to politics, opinion, socialism, society, change and hope.

Put your money where your mouth is oh educated ones.

Edit: Will Winnow use some bigoted term, or Kilmoll threaten physical violence on a message board, within 24 hours of this post?

I can happily not even contribute to the thread if it would assuage the fears of those who wish I didn't partake in their inward looking thoughts, I'm simply looking to see whether the "real americans" can back their claim up and explore what being a "real american" is.

Should be interesting, or at least funny. Looking forward to it (don't threaten me with physical violence now Kilmoll!!!! I'm scared!!!!) ha.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 1:15 am

I don't read.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 1:16 am

grats mate

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 1:17 am

Thanks. I'm not a literary scholar.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 1:22 am

Spang wrote:Thanks. I'm not a literary scholar.

That's cool. I guess I just think it's somewhat important to see how a country's philosophical basis has been founded and how that may be relevant to now - which it clearly is - especially since the US is so fond of recalling its own heritage as gospel (and which, it may surprise you to hear, I feel a strong affinity to) (I know, a liberal human rights loving man having an affinity with the early founders of the American nation who espoused similiar ideals, crazy huh!) . Call me ridiculous, but given it's place in modern politics and popular thought, it may have a little relevance at least.

And when I say at least, I mean obviously, and when i say obviously, I mean, "oh, by the way, it factually does"

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 1:36 am

Nick wrote:That's cool. I guess I just think it's somewhat important to see how your country's philosophical basis has been founded. Call me ridiculous, but given it's place in modern politics and popular thought, it may have a little relevance at least.

And when I say at least, I mean obviously, and when i say obviously, I mean, "oh, by the way, it factually does"

You're absolutely right. The United States is a very uneducated country. Seriously.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 1:39 am

Spang wrote:
Nick wrote:That's cool. I guess I just think it's somewhat important to see how your country's philosophical basis has been founded. Call me ridiculous, but given it's place in modern politics and popular thought, it may have a little relevance at least.

And when I say at least, I mean obviously, and when i say obviously, I mean, "oh, by the way, it factually does"
You're absolutely right. The United States is a very uneducated country. Seriously.

Yes, that is what I said

Not that you have done anything to contradict such a popular opinion. Although I know you're being ironic, so I can dig it, you probably surpass about 90% of the general consensus.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 1:40 am

Nick wrote:Yes, that is what I said

That's what I'm saying, because we are. Live in East Tennessee for a month if you don't believe me.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 1:42 am

Spang wrote:
Nick wrote:Yes, that is what I said
That's what I'm saying, because we are. Live in East Tennessee for a month if you don't believe me.

I think that's a global thing mate, you should see the people that live around me. It's depressing indeed

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 27, 2009, 2:05 am

How familiar are you with having a job?

It's nice of you to pretend as if you read these things of your own volition instead of your curriculum.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 2:09 am

Nick reminds me of Will Hunting, to be honest.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 2:11 am

Fash wrote:How familiar are you with having a job?

Very? I've spent 5 of the last 8 years working fulltime, in everything ranging from inter-religious/cultural mediation to labouring on a building site. Why? What are you doing?

It's nice of you to pretend as if you read these things of your own volition instead of your curriculum.

And how else does a man learn Fash? In your ridiculous little interpretation of the world should people become ashamed of learning? You were never as shallow minded as your brother, but it's no wonder you are considered amongst the lower levels of discourse here. Not that anyone in this forum could hold their head high in that respect.

So no real offence is meant mate

Answer the question?:)

Spang wrote:Nick reminds me of Will Hunting, to be honest.

Thanks

Best compliment I've had here in years!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 27, 2009, 2:22 am

Nick wrote:Thanks Best compliment I've had here in years!

That wasn't intended to be a compliment, per se. It wasn't necessarily an insult either.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 27, 2009, 2:31 am

No problem.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » February 27, 2009, 3:45 am

Well, Thoreau and Emerson are pretty much heroes of mine and both have been inspirational figures in my life. Their view on man and man's relationship with nature is key to most that I believe in.

Nick, if you appreciate those two, then you must check out Wendell Berry. He is a Kentucky farmer who also happens to be a brilliant poet and writer. To me it seems he was inspired by some of the great American writers...his poetry and prose is reminiscent of Thoreau, Emerson, Twain, and Steinbeck....yet he has a voice of his own. He also happens to be a devout Christian....

Check out this audio clip. It is not read by him, but it is his words... I am not religious, but goddamn, if more Christians shared his ideals then we would be soooo much better off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcidMKCKJBk

Listen to it in it's entirety before you even think of judging a word of it.

Listen to it a few times, especially the last minute and a half.

Here's a poem of Wendell Berry's to go along with my earlier post for Nick (and everyone else, don't get jealous)

[Show]: "THE PEACE OF WILD THINGS"
by Wendell Berry

When despair grows in me
and I wake in the middle of the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting for their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.

The last half of that poem brings water to my eyes no matter how many times I read it.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 27, 2009, 4:16 am

Fash wrote:How familiar are you with having a job?

I'm vaguely familiar with that. Oh the good ole' days...

As far as American literature is concerned, I never really got into it. I was exposed to a lot of it in high school and college, but never really dove in like I did with philosophy, which was my major. After college I went for years without reading a single book. That's not to say I didn't read at all, just didn't read fiction. Lately, I've read a couple of non-fiction books. So, I guess to answer your question, I'm not too familiar with their work. Although I've been to Emerson's house, and seen his 100+ 6-toed cats.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » February 27, 2009, 6:11 am

Real Christians cheering for a real meaning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgfMu2NxtZI

Post by **Sylvus** » February 27, 2009, 12:27 pm

Nick wrote:Melville, Hawthorne....etc

I'm interested to see if any of you Americans understand your own literary heritage. Despite the fact this is an obviously non aggressive thread, other than to gauge an understanding of your own nation's literature and philosophy, I'm sure a number of you will resort to the usual idiocy.

Disregarding that comically embarrassing bullshit, I put it to you, how do you think they would consider the modern America, and the opinions of certain members of this board, in regards to politics, opinion, socialism, society, change and hope.

Put your money where your mouth is oh educated ones.

Edit: Will Winnow use some bigoted term, or Kilmoll threaten physical violence on a message board, within 24 hours of this post?

I can happily not even contribute to the thread if it would assuage the fears of those who wish I didn't partake in their inward looking thoughts, I'm simply looking to see whether the "real americans" can back their claim up and explore what being a "real american" is.

Should be interesting, or at least funny. Looking forward to it (don't threaten me with physical violence now Kilmoll!!!! I'm scared!!!!) ha.

Man, you always come off like such an asshole. The thread is nominally non-aggressive, but seriously, read your original post again.

Ideologically we're a lot closer than I am with a lot of other people on this board, but your attitude and arrogance are so distasteful that it's no wonder very few people here want to discuss anything with you without becoming aggressive.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 27, 2009, 1:00 pm

Just curious, are we being judged on how much of an American we are based on writers from our country? Does it have to be literary authors or would Stan Lee count? Or Hugh Hefner?

I started out as an English major but the professors mostly only wanted to know the regurgitated responses on what a book meant instead of entertaining new perspectives. That rather turned me off so I switched and got my degree in History instead. Ironcially, I really am not a fan of American history.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 27, 2009, 1:12 pm

I have read works from most of those gentlemen. Some I found interesting, some I disliked. I think in some cases it was the way they were presented to me. In school we had to read "the classics" like Melville, but afterward we had a teacher that presented the book as an allegory to Jesus and his disciples. The whale (Jesus) stuck with 12 harpoons (The disciples), blah blah blah.

Same with Crane's Red Badge of Courage. The teacher said when one guy dies that he throws his arms out to the sides like Jesus on a cross. Unless a writer comes out and tells you he meant something specific, it should be left to the reader to decide what they think and school takes that discovery away. I see it in my kids who are forced to read books, instead of loving to read books.

I try to read 15-20 books a year, modern, classics, work related. We never stop learning and so I have encouraged my children to dig deeper in the choices they are required to read. My daughter ended up loving The Invisible Man.

I found that Melville was long winded and boring, I was much more interested in Homer, or Chaucer. I loved Dan Simmons Hyperion novels because they mirrored the Canterbury Tales. I loved some of Kafka's work, Voltaire has some interesting reads, but loving works like these doesn't imply that one is more intelligent or "gets it" as I think your message was to imply here.

This country, and to your point, most countries operate at roughly a 5th grade equivilent. Exposure to novels like these is, most likely, based on education or parents. I hope my kids learn to read and love works like Thoreau, but there is a good chance they will not. I will try and encourage them to read, but with video games and instant gratification that kids crave today, the book medium is a tough sell.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 28, 2009, 6:04 am

Nick wrote:Melville, Hawthorne....etc

I'm interested to see if any of you Americans understand your own literary heritage. Despite the fact this is an obviously non aggressive thread, other than to gauge an understanding of your own nation's literature and philosophy, I'm sure a number of you will resort to the usual idiocy.

Disregarding that comically embarrassing bullshit, I put it to you, how do you think they would consider the modern America, and the opinions of certain members of this board, in regards to politics, opinion, socialism, society, change and hope.

Put your money where your mouth is oh educated ones.

Edit: Will Winnow use some bigoted term, or Kilmoll threaten physical violence on a message board, within 24 hours of this post?

I can happily not even contribute to the thread if it would assuage the fears of those who wish I didn't partake in their inward looking thoughts, I'm simply looking to see whether the "real americans" can back their claim up and explore what being a "real american" is.

Should be interesting, or at least funny. Looking forward to it (don't threaten me with physical violence now Kilmoll!!!! I'm scared!!!!) ha.

The bigot questions whether others will be bigots?

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » February 28, 2009, 11:39 am

Nick wrote: I'm interested to see if any of you Americans understand your own literary heritage. Despite the fact this is an obviously non aggressive thread, other than to gauge an understanding of your own nation's literature and philosophy, I'm sure a number of you will resort to the usual idiocy.

I don't know that basically calling us all uncultured swine in a veiled way is a the way to start a "non-aggressive thread".
Your tone completely comes off as "I am going to show them just how much they don't know."

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 28, 2009, 11:59 am

Nick is the smartest motherfucker in here.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 28, 2009, 1:23 pm

You seriously want us to write an essay about how

Emerson
Thoreau
Melville
Hawthorne
"etc"

would view current America, and specifically the members of this board's, views on

politics
opinion
socialism
society
change
and hope?

That's not a subject for an internet post; that's a subject for a graduate thesis. Or six. I couldn't even write a coherent paper on this if you gave me 50 pages.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » February 28, 2009, 3:22 pm

They all would hate America because the president is black, especially Melville

the end

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 28, 2009, 5:03 pm

Sorry Sueven! Are only a few members allowed to try and elevate discourse nowadays lest we all break out of our stereotypes?

Tyek, I agree with you in some degree about Melville, but god I hated Chaucer and the late Medieval literature stuff a million times more. Never again :O

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 28, 2009, 7:40 pm

I could completely see someone not liking Chaucer. I think when I read it, the structure hit me more then anything, to have this overarching tale and then these smaller, dynamic backgrounds woven into them was something I had seen very little of when I read it.

I liked certain Steinbeck books, like the Pearl, but others took everything I had to get through them. I had the same problems with Dickens, tooooo slow.

I tend to read more pop culture stuff now. My favorite writer over the last 15-20 years is Dan Simmons, I just feel like he is what you graduate too after you read all the King books. His story Carrion Comfort is still one of my all time favorites, but I love the historical depth he plums, the characters he creates and his ability to move from Sci-fi, to horror to crime noir and still keep you riveted. I mean the guy made me rip through a book about a car accident investigator. I also like the Agent Pendergast novels of Preston and Child. I just love the character.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 28, 2009, 11:18 pm

It wasn't so much the structure I disliked, as the language itself. We were doing 14th century literature, riddled with random letters that dont exist anymore. It wasn't massively difficult, until you go onto Camelot territory, but the Chaucer stuff still annoyed me, I just simply can't get into that language like I can even with comparitively simple stuff like Shakespeare, who I deeply enjoy.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 1, 2009, 6:40 pm

Interesting sidenote....I have a direct lineage going to Chaucer. If only that had translated into my ability to write I would be much better off! For some reason I have trouble putting my thoughts into writing. My mind goes so much faster than I could ever hope to write that I tend to lose half of what I want to put on paper. I think that is why I can't read much of the classics any more either....I tend to zip through things so quickly that I lose at least half of the book without even really comprehending what was said.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 1, 2009, 6:51 pm

What's the next subject you're taking in school so we can prepare beforehand to help you.

Nick = that dork in Good Will Hunting that Will owns at the bar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQezXbiroiE

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 1, 2009, 6:57 pm

It's always fun to converse with excited students who think that they're the first ones to study or appreciate a certian subject!

miir · Post by **miir** » March 1, 2009, 9:53 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's always fun to converse with excited students who think that they're the first ones to study or appreciate a certian subject!

Nick may be a crass douchebag, but he's not a moron.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 2, 2009, 12:35 am

Ultimately, I'm happy to accept most of the complaints here. I tend to get so pissed by idiotic American thinking I usually just go into a blind rage. I know it's an old cliche, but the views of most American's here are not in the least bit similiar to those shared by most people in the UK or Ireland. Or Europe for that matter. That almost goes without saying, but it's still a fact.

Yeah, sorry Fairweather, I bothered to educate myself a little more, I hope you don't have to resort to the usual HURR STUDENTS idiocy that South Park and other such hip and edgy websites like to consider. Although I can accept I'm no expert in really any field, I'm getting there, so put your money where your mouth is.

Winnow's analogy to who I may be is fundamentally retarded, simply because, well..it is. And I say so, so that's that!

Or more realistically, it's born out of a fear that I don't support the kind of foolish beliefs that he holds so dear (omg you guys are all so retarded McCain is OBVIOUSLY gonna WIN THE ELECTION HURRRRR).

Discussing Thoreau's Walden, and other such essays by Emerson like Self-Reliance and Nature, are massively important to the social and political direction of the USA in the 21st century. It boggles the mind that a country that had men with such fucking awesome ideas has become filled with the absolute antithesis of intelligent thought. Largely, even the "moderates" on this board, tend to hide behind pseudo intellectualism and fence sitting, fearing their actual passion will result in a flamefest towards them (At least Xyun is honest, I'm talking more about the Sueven's and Sylvus', who tend to sit back and become the archetypal politicians, rather than people bringing anything of value or truth to a debate.)

In America, telling the truth has become anathema. It seems like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have castrated the self belief of otherwise intelligent people - obviously this doesn't apply to disciples of his like Winnow or Kilmoll, who are effectively parodies at this stage.

Anyway, I don't expect to get much intelligence out of a board mainly frequented by Americans. That may be considered bigotry, but frankly, history speaks for itself. There's always the exception, but it's a rare thing. Several on this board cover that, others think they are but aren't, and others simply love being degenerates.

America's forefathers had a lot of great ideas, we just happen to live in a time where intelligence is hated, idiocy is considered "balanced" and fence sitting has become the middle ground. Most of the "liberals" (the term itself even becoming accepted highlights this stupidity) on this board are little more than wannabe Colmes', and no one feels embarrassed by that.

I've never been one to strive for popularity, and that's not going to change now, but jesus christ, the dumbass element of this board, supported passively by some of the more cowardly/lazier posters, has gone through the roof in recent years (since Iraq, the genocide that the uneducated adore and the self professed "!educated" want to pretend never happened, or even worse, find some way to justify, lest their entire faith in their own country be pointed out so starkly as futile as it is) - and if none of you pussies will point out a bit of truth now and again, for fear of ridicule by irrelevant online names, then frankly, who gives a fuck what you think?

America is in love with itself, and you people prove it every single day on this board, yet you wonder why I'm a "crass douche"

It's called perspective. Try it sometime, if that's even possible for an American in the 21st century.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » March 2, 2009, 2:05 am

My main problem with your entire post is this, you seem to assume you are correct at all times. Your thoughts an beliefs do not necessarily mirror mine, but that does not invalidate either of our opinions.

Liberal does not = correct. I have said it before, there is not a perfect solution, your talking about situations that change, nothing you have brought up has an easy solution. It was kind of comical watching people think that as soon as Obama took over things would change. They won't, the US government is a giant fucking ship and it is going to take some time to steer this bad boy.

9/11 did not happen because of Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, it was some insane assholes, they would have done it with anyone in office. Bush was inept, but he was never the devil he was made out to be. The congress, both the Republican and Democratic controled groups in office during his time are just as much to blame as Bush was.The US is envied and therefore hated. Some of it is well deserved and some of it is from religious assholes who want to forward their own agenda. (I included, gun-nuts, eco groups, PETA and any fringe or extreme group in the religious category for simplicity sake).

Xatrei wants a more socialist government, I favor a more balanced one. I think we should help the needy, to an extent, but the moment it becomes more favorable to sit back, pop out 8 kids and exploit a system for payments on your ADHD kid, calling him handicapped, well, for me the well runs dry. Does that mean my opinion is more or less valid then Xatrei's? Hardly, there is no right answer. If you take away welfare, people will suffer and die, if you leave it, assholes will exploit it. All you can do is try and control both sides and hope for the best.

I think the venom spewed towards you by most here is just mirroring your own vicious attacks. You have claimed to want to engage in intellectual discourse with people and ultimately resort to one line cheap shots and claims of American stupidity. I enjoyed talking books with you. I have enjoyed music discussions with you, in the CE forum, you seem to develop a very hateful and thin skinned persona.

As someone said, you are a smart guy, you have interesting takes on things. If you want to talk about subjects, then talk. We have some great resources here that could increase your knowledge. I still read about my industry at work, I talk with guys who have been doing this longer then me, the moment we think we know it all is the moment we have lost. If you truly are as smart as you say, then an opposing view offers no threat, it will either strengthen your conviction, or give you an even broader view on it.

I have used the old quote a couple times here, but it rings true. This is not an indictment on your age, just a statement of fact. A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
Muhammad Ali The fact is that we meet people, we learn through experience, we develop and grow. Please do not shut yourself off from a lifetime of experiences and opinions just to prove how smart you are.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 2, 2009, 2:08 am

Tyek wrote: I have used the old quote a couple times here, but it rings true. This is not an indictment on your age, just a statement of fact. A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
Muhammad Ali The fact is that we meet people, we learn through experience, we develop and grow. Please do not shut yourself off from a lifetime of experiences and opinions just to prove how smart you are.

If you beat Nick around the head a lot I'm sure his thinking patterns will change too... who the fuck quotes Ali on getting wiser with age...

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » March 2, 2009, 2:18 am

Well, it is true, so something must have been functioning when he said it. It is a beautiful truth and as I approach 40 its wisdom is amazing.

The guy was pretty smart...

Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn't matter which color does the hating. It's just plain wrong.
Muhammad Ali

He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.
Muhammad Ali

I figured that if I said it enough, I would convince the world that I really was the greatest.
Muhammad Ali

I hated every minute of training, but I said, ''Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.''
Muhammad Ali

I know where I'm going and I know the truth, and I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want.
Muhammad Ali

I never thought of losing, but now that it' s happened, the only thing is to do it right. That's my obligation to all the people who believe in me. We all have to take defeats in life.
Muhammad Ali

I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me. It would be a better world.
Muhammad Ali

It isn't the mountains ahead to climb that wear you out; it's the pebble in your shoe.
Muhammad Ali

My way of joking is to tell the truth. That's the funniest joke in the world.
Muhammad Ali

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 2, 2009, 12:21 pm

Nick wrote:Melville, Hawthorne....etc

Much like you, I read them (along with a host of others...) in high school and college as part of my curriculum. I enjoyed Hawthorn and Melville, but I found Emerson and Thoreau to be quite dull. I'm a (world) history buff who likes a good story. I don't much care for most philosophy, although I did enjoy Atlas Shrugged (which I'm sure you'll write all sorts of things into

).

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 3, 2009, 12:37 am

I'm more a fan of Poe, Frost, and Twain. I of course read Walden and all that other crap, but I found most of the shit we were forced to read in Am Lit 101 terribly boring. Not as bad as Wuthering Heights, but still fucking boring.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2009, 2:06 am

I hate Ayn Rand so much. I can't imagine anyone who's more fundamentally wrong about the world.

Nick:

Two things.

First, I think that you dismiss people too quickly without bothering to learn what they actually think. In my case, at least, I draw a distinction between politics and philosophy. When I discuss an issue in a political context, I typically assume the restraints on action that exist in real life-- problems of institutional control, political will and capital, and so forth. This tends to lead me to moderate, fence-sitting positions, because those are the positions that I think would do most good, selected from the range of real-world alternatives. That's almost exclusively what I talk about on this board, because that's almost exclusively what the conversation on this board is about. There are a few occasions when I've discussed issues from the position of philosophy-- what I, personally, think about an issue, or what a policy would look like in my ideal world. My posts on Michael Vick-- which I doubt you read or care about, because they pertain to the racialized treatment of an American football player-- are an example of this.

My point is that I think you would be legitimately surprised by the actual positions I hold, if you bothered to ask about them. For instance, I'm more or less a prison abolitionist, I believe in a policy of government-provided minimum income which is provided to any citizen contingent on their either (a) opting in to a public-works draft program or (b) providing some other useful social service, like raising children, and my political outlook could probably best be described as non-Marxist communist. I'm not saying that I agree with you on everything on a philosophical level-- for instance, I'm philosophically OK with the death penalty (although, in practice, I'm opposed to it), and I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I assume you're probably opposed to these positions. I also know that I'm not alone in drawing a distinction between the practical and the philosophical-- Xatrei, at least, makes a similar distinction. If you started a thread called "What would your ideal state-run welfare policy look like," you'd probably be surprised by at least a couple of the responses.

If you don't have the effort or the inclination to make the effort to find out what people think, that's fine. I like you and think you're a pretty interesting guy and I couldn't possibly care less that you view me as a sissy fence-sitter. I just want to let you know that you're willfully defining several of us in a way that's not necessarily accurate.

Second,

Nick wrote:the views of most American's here are not in the least bit similiar to those shared by most people in the UK or Ireland. Or Europe for that matter.

I have some real issues with this statement. This is probably the most common argument that you make on this board to explain why Americans are wrong about everything (although, this time you considerately said "Europe" instead of "the world other than America," which you sometimes seem to think are coextensive), and each time it utterly fails to be convincing. Perhaps if you could explain WHY the approach that Europe prefers is preferable to the approach that America prefers, that'd be something, but I have yet to see such an explanation out of you. Without that explanation, I don't care, and here's why.

This is my brief history of Western Europe.

The ascension of Western Europe began several centuries ago, shortly after the Mongol conquests of Asia and the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe and North Africa. The Mongol conquest, followed quickly by the disappearance of Mongol control, set the stage for Western European ascension by razing the cities and destroying the infrastructure and resources of what had previously been highly advanced areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Simultaneously, the Mongol conquest provided a channel for the flow of information and knowledge. The end result is that Western Europe retained its resources and infrastructure while its local competitors did not, and Western Europe was provided with access to parts of the learning of the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Chinese, etc. These resources led Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment.

Now, the Enlightenment was a good thing in a lot of ways, sparking tremendous progress in science, the arts, philosophy, you name it. However, it also had some unequivocally negative consequences. A self-deluding focus on empiricism, rationality, and objective, universal truths led to a host of bad consequences: The age of exploration, colonialism, and empire, which led to the near-complete cultural and human genocide of the inhabitants of North America, South America and Australia, three of the five populated continents outside Europe, and Africa sure wasn't left in particularly good shape either. Western thought also fed directly into ideas like eugenics, manifest destiny and racial hierarchy, with devastating consequences. European states continued to war with each other, leading to two world wars, which constituted by far the most horrific and widespread acts of violence and murder in the history of humanity. This is, to put it mildly, a heavy price to pay for the fruits of the enlightenment.

Now, filled with the riches of imperial conquest, most of Europe sits back, hoards most of its treasure, and criticizes everyone else. Understand this: The current level of material success and comfort which Europe enjoys is due to imperialism and colonialism. Without the gorgeous cities and buildings and culture that you were able to construct with blood money, you would have vastly reduced infrastructure and resources, and you would receive vastly less tourism, forcing Europe to do a hell of a lot more producing of actual goods than it currently does in order to be financially viable. The number of cultural artifacts that Britain has stolen from other cultures and continues to brazenly display in museums is criminal. The caveat is that obviously Europe is a diverse place, and there's a wide variety in how completely different European nations embody this outline.

It's also important to realize that none of this was inevitable. Consider China. China has a more-or-less continuous culture spanning several thousand years, vastly longer than the existence of any coherent European culture. For much of its lifespan, China has been the most advanced place in the world, at least on technological, scientific, and political fronts. China had the opportunity, long before Europe, to become a dominant, expansionist, imperial power. China had developed substantial naval technology and had reached Africa, but decided not to pursue an expansionist project. China decided that China was enough and closed its doors, both those coming in and those going out.

The narrative of Chinese history is complex, but is basically the ebb and flow of a series of dynasties ruling China. This continued, disrupted occasionally by the imposition of a foreign dynasty (like the Mongols) until the middle part of the 19th century, when the Chinese Century of Humiliation began. This is around when Europeans showed up and started knocking on China's doors, and refused to take "go away" for an answer. Europe forced China open and then subjected the country politically, a history which involved sinking the entire Chinese Navy in order to force China to accept European opium importation. Is it any wonder that China-- a nation which existed in insularity for several thousand years-- would be skeptical of the Western world, when its contact with that Western world consists of being violently forced open, and then seeing Europe's ongoing devastation of not only itself (the World Wars) but almost all of the rest of the world outside China (three continents worth of peoples and cultures and civilizations gone, most of Africa anarchic and warlike, Japan turned into a European-aligned power and then bombed with nuclear weapons, etc)?

That is the place that you're talking about when you tell me "Europe doesn't agree with you." So tell me: Why should I give a shit if Europe is against me? I'm happy to agree with Europeans-- the fact that European success is built on genocide, slavery, imperialism and colonialism doesn't mean that all modern Europeans are genocidal racist imperialist dogs, and additionally I myself am the progeny of both Europe and America (which has some serious blood on its hands as well)-- but I'm going to need some explanation beyond "My position is right because Europe thinks it is so, and your position is wrong because America thinks it is so."

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 3, 2009, 12:03 pm

Sueven wrote:I hate Ayn Rand so much. I can't imagine anyone who's more fundamentally wrong about the world.

She does hate on the commies, I'll give you that sir.

I'm very interested in your thoughts of prison abolition, especially given that you're against the death penalty (in practice) as well. What do you think should be done with those individuals (rapists, murderers, etc) that refuse to abide with the rules society has put forth?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2009, 1:35 pm

Well, to be fair, I'm not a complete prison abolitionist. In an ideal world, I think that prisons should exist solely to lock up those prisoners who are actively dangerous to society-- murderers, rapists, etc. I'd probably like to see a sort of two-tiered system, with a prison devoted to prisoners who will be spending life in jail, and a different sort of prison, based far more around rehabilitation, for those who need rehabilitation.

In practice, however, our prison system is completely fucked and causes all sorts of problems. The prison system teaches and perpetuates criminality and is a critical part of a cycle which leads people to be career criminals. If I had only two options: Immediately releasing all prisoners from jail or continuing the current system, I think it's likely that society would be better off with the former option.

Realistically, I think we need to cut our prison population to a third or less, prevent individuals and prisons from profiting from imprisonment, thereby destroying the perverse incentives of the prison-industrial complex, and vastly reform our model so prisons become engines for rehabilitation and reformation instead of training grounds for criminals.

Regarding the death penalty, I have no problem with it philosophically, but our criminal justice system is so incredibly corrupt and racially biased that I have no confidence that it will be used fairly, on the correct criminals, or even exclusively on those who are guilty of crimes.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 3, 2009, 2:09 pm

With the advent of DNA, there should be an express lane to the electric chair. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters should be eliminated the day the trial ends if DNA evidence is involved. Go back to chain gangs and hard labor camps for all violent prisoners. White collar type crimes should be punished in similar ways if they affect enough people or the economy.

One thing that Sueven really reinforces with his thoughts is how political differences really seem to tie in with people's personalities. Liberals seem to be idealists across the board.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2009, 2:14 pm

Kilmoll wrote:Go back to chain gangs and hard labor camps for all violent prisoners. White collar type crimes should be punished in similar ways if they affect enough people or the economy.

Personally, I think that this is far more "idealist" than advocating a rehabilitative and reform-based model. What you're recommending is punishment-- these people did something wrong, so fuck them, they're being punished. That has an intuitive idealistic appeal-- they're getting what they deserve, etc. Advocating my approach requires me to say "well, they've done a terrible thing, but we would all be better off if we tried to help them change instead of punishing them for having done something wrong." That's pragmatic in that it aims to create the best possible world for both society and the prisoner. It's not idealistic in that it doesn't give us the opportunity to punish someone adequately for his wrongdoing.

To be clear, I believe that a rehabilitation-and-reform approach would lead to less crime and fewer criminals. If advocating a criminal justice policy on that basis isn't pragmatic, I don't know what is.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » March 3, 2009, 4:01 pm

no one's answered Nick's question btw. except me!

anyway Nick, i thought Mody Dick was masturbatory, never really liked transcendentalism and I can't really remember the others. They cram these authors down our throats in American high school, so I think you'll find a lot of us have purposely repressed any knowledge we've gleaned from these authors' works. better than not reading them at all, some would say.

i share some of the views that Tyek touched on. If a writer wants to convey a message, than just fucking say it. Though I've never liked poetry either. Obviously I read a lot of trash, and I readily admit that. I don't think that makes me less of an American, as Nick's initial post implied to me.

I guess it's pretty obvious to say Thoreau would be disgusted with our environmental policy.

Hawthorne's idea of sin may work quite well with some of our public's positive view on Pres. Clinton

But I think it's impossible to postulate what they think. I imagine the response Nick is looking for is that they would be outraged or disappointed.

Hypothetically, you could also ask what more contemporary American literary masters think of America too. Toni Morrison would say "awesome, but needs more work" since Obama is president as would Harper Lee, since their literature is focused on race. It's an odd question, IMO.

But anyway, Nick, since you're framing yourself as the master, and asking us to "put our money where our mouth is," than tell me Nick what would these authors think of today's America? I think it's only fair you answer such a complex question before indicting all Americans on this board as unthinking, uneducated fuckwits. Maybe if you gave your ideas first, we could have a more constructive debate. Also, to be fair, what do you think British and Irish authors of the same era would think of today's Ireland and UK? maybe i'm a shit for lumping them together.

Jane Austen and Charles Dickens are the two that come to mind immediately.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 3, 2009, 5:29 pm

Sueven wrote:
Advocating my approach requires me to say "well, they've done a terrible thing, but we would all be better off if we tried to help them change instead of punishing them for having done something wrong." That's pragmatic in that it aims to create the best possible world for both society and the prisoner. It's not idealistic in that it doesn't give us the opportunity to punish someone adequately for his wrongdoing.

This IS idealism at its very core. The thought that everyone has good in them just oozes idealism. The reality is that people are not all good. There are evil people in this world....a lot of them. There are people who would take everything you have because they are greedy assholes who truly have no thoughts about how it affects you and never will no matter what you do to "rehabilitate" them. Does punishing them change them? Nope...but neither does your idea and at least we get non-corporal vengeance and maybe some productivity out of them that WILL benefit society.

To be clear, I believe that a rehabilitation-and-reform approach would lead to less crime and fewer criminals. If advocating a criminal justice policy on that basis isn't pragmatic, I don't know what is.

So would frying them up en masse. Alternately, we could enact laws akin to the Middle East and really have some teeth to our laws. There is a reason their crime rates are so much lower....and it sure as fuck is not rehabilitation.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 3, 2009, 5:43 pm

I am partial to Stephen King and George RR Martin, tbh.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 3, 2009, 6:44 pm

Favorite Author? that guy who wrote "Pull tab to open".

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 3, 2009, 7:03 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So would frying them up en masse. Alternately, we could enact laws akin to the Middle East and really have some teeth to our laws. There is a reason their crime rates are so much lower....and it sure as fuck is not rehabilitation.

Stop and think for a second before answering this... Are you seriously advocating an approach to criminal justice that is modeled after places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.? If the answer to this is yes, are you honestly surprised by the fact that so few people take you seriously around here?

Also, how do you explain the significantly lower crime, incarceration and recidivism rates in European countries where a greater emphasis is placed on rehabilitation?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2009, 8:09 pm

I agree that there are some people who are "evil" and cannot be rehabilitated.

I also think that there are a lot of people who are convicted of crimes and do not fall into this category. These are people who can be rehabilitated. I know several of them-- one of my housemates was charged and convicted of crimes three separate times, spent a decent portion of time in jail, went to rehab (on his own initiative and his own dime), has been sober for six years, has gone back to and graduated college with straight A's (he had failed out of college previously), has gone to and (almost) graduated from a top law school with honors, and has secured a good job doing beneficial work for his community. It happens. A lot.

It's my contention that the vast majority of our criminals belong in the second category, not the first.

Your proposal is overinclusive. I agree that those who are "evil" need to be put away. I also think that mixing those who can be rehabilitated with those who are evil, and treating them identically, is a recipe for turning the reformable into the evil. That sounds like a stupid idea to me.

My proposal is to lock up those who are evil and rehabilitate those who are capable of rehabilitation.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 4, 2009, 11:10 am

My proposal is to kill off the evil and use the prisons as we envisioned them to be with the schooling and all that to rehabilitate.