Freedom and peace don't mix
Apparently if you are a peace organization in Winslow, Maine there is no place for you in the annual July 4 parade. I guess the irony of not allowing dissenters in a parade celebrating dissent was lost on the organizers.
The US Army recruiters were allowed to march. Got to love conditional freedom of speech.
Thanks to the friend who pointed me towards this.
The US Army recruiters were allowed to march. Got to love conditional freedom of speech.
Thanks to the friend who pointed me towards this.
posted by mochi at 7:27 PM
15 Comments:
Not giving the thumbs up or down, but is a parade really a forum for protest?
At the least its pretty uncouth...
Is a parade really a forum for recruiting troops?
When almost half the country (according to polls) opposes the war, then I think the parade is an appropriate forum for free expression. Especially whan celebrating the revolutionary overthrow of colonial rule by a bunch of rebel insurgents.
Mochi, I suppose not, but troops have been in Independence Day parades since the first one....
Shea, aren't parades more about having a good time, pomp and circumstance and that sort of thing? Is it really appropriate to turn a parade into a protest, or is there a proper venue for that? Personally I would have let the protest group enter their float.
Insurgents? Are you talking about the terrorists in Iraq and comparing them to the American revolutionaries?
-Jack
"Insurgents? Are you talking about the terrorists in Iraq and comparing them to the American revolutionaries?"
Jack -- read what the British occupying force thought about the colonial revolutionaries ... any history book will do .. includng the current David McCollough bestseller "1776".
And truely ... is the Fourth of July about having a good time ... and not really a forum for protest?
The Fourth of July is a celebration of the anniversary of the extraordinary document that marked the beginning of this nation, a document that begins ..
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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."
That's a political protest document if I've ever seen one.
Hi Anon,
See some of your points....although the celebration of our 4th is the celebration of our Independence from tyrannical rule, not a protest of foreign wars, or a time for activism. Geez, save that stuff for another parade day or make one up! (Nor do I think it is particularly celebrating the document so much as the event.) Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Kind of like parading the easter bunny down the street during the Christmas parade...
Anon, hate to say it, (and I am RARELY confrontational in conversation:), but you're way off if you equate the revolutionaries to the terrorists. To do so demonstrates first a fundamental ignorance of historic and contemporary Islam and its central message. The terrorists are about imposing a theocratical and tyrannical rule upon others, the revolutionaries were about removing the yoke of bondage. This is rather simple no matter who's perspective you look at it from (unless you're a revisionist--in that case there is little I or anyone can say that will convince you otherwise).
Of course equating the Islamo-fascist terrorist with American revolutionaries is close to the Ward Churchhill variety of reasoning. One that is the result of a spoiled and sheltered American...but I'm sure you weren't doing that...
Regards,
-Jack
P.S. If you need other examples differentiating the Muslim terrorists from the American revolutionaries let me know. There are a ton of them.
Jack --
Continuing the desire not to be confrontational, but, if you notice in the dialog above, YOU were the first to equate Shea's comment "celebrating the revolutionary overthrow of colonial rule by a bunch of rebel insurgents" as making reference to Muslim terrorists. I would never do such a thing, nor do I believe that they are in anyway equivalent. You are setting up a strawman to knock down.
But, as I made reference to, the occupying army and government in ANY situation will view those who seek to fight them as insurgents and traitors .. see King George's proclamation below about the American revolutionaries .. or as he called them, those dangerous and ill designing men, wicked and desperate, authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.
"Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs."
On Independence Day, we celebrate our insurgency, and the ultimate success of that insurgency. Our forefathers fought and died for the MEANING of the sentiments in that document, and we should remain faithful to their sacrifices and grateful for that insurgency. Perhaps we'd be a lot better off as a nation if we remembered that as the true meaning of the 4th of July, and not simply think of it as fireworks and barbeque.
Anon,
I get your point on perspective. I wasn't sure how to take Shea's comment, that is the reason I asked him. It's not like Shea to make such comments, but I was just checking.
Also, I thought by your comment that you were also, Anon.
One thing of note though, the term "insurgents" is a technically inaccurate term. The majority of conflicts in Iraq have been the result of outside influences and foreign terrorists who have come there to fight against "satan". I don't think I would dignify people who treat women like cattle, strap bombs to their children and kill innocent people with the label "insurgent".
Check out:
News Snipet 'Blog: TERRORIST IS A TERRORIST IS A TERRORIST
(excuse the pop-up. i have NO idea where it came from or how to get rid of it)
Enjoyed our exchange, and thanks for setting me straight! (Its getting harder to do the older I get:)
-Jack
All this talk about the war gets me to thinking, what the hell are we still doing there? If progress was going to be made, there would have been some made already. Yes, yes, elections were great. They were great as a symbolic event. But I am sick and fucking tired of symbolism; let us have some actual improvements. Oh, they elected government officials? What the hell is a government that cannot maintain civil order? That is no government at all, that is anarchy, and that is Iraq. We have removed the 'threat' as that country has gone to shit. I dont think Iraq can be accused of doing anything they never did anymore. I dont think "teeer will spread if we set a date for troop removal." They fight back at us because they want us to get the fuck out of that country, and I thought long and hard about this one, I think it's because WE HAVE NO LEGAL FUCKING RIGHT TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! They lie, they allude to 9/11 when talking about a war in Iraq even though these shitheads know Iraq did not attack us. Before Halliburton invaded Iraq, this country did not even have the capacity to power their sewage plants; sanctions forbade them to have the generators to do so since they could potentially be used for nefarious means, like WMDs. And honestly, if Osama bin Laden and his inexperienced mickey mouse pilots, who flew planes with the utter preciseness of expert military pilots, did attack us on 9/11, what the hell are we doing in Iraq?
Can anyone else say First Lady Bill Clinton?
Okay, I am home from work now, so I can defend my statement.
Jack, two things: 1) try to consider the American revolution in context, not as an idealized end-product of Norman Rockwell cultural filtering; and 2) read this definition of "insurgent" and tell me if that does not describe, in accurate historical context, the American revolutionary founders of this country. If you disagree, then I do not believe you are considering what the American revolution realistically.
PS, Jack, I answered your questions in the "did rove screw up" post about walmart, and I left you a challenge regarding "free education."
Hi CH!
Long time no see!
If you get a chance, read this with an open mind and let me know your thoughts:
News Snipet 'Blog: CREDIBILITY ISSUE
Shea, I see your point. But I fail to see the terrorists in Iraq fighting for freedom so much as trying to establish a theocratic rule--like they always have tried to. I just think we dignify what they do, what they have done in London, on 9/11 and before when we give them the name insurgent.
I'll check out the other post, and look forward to the challenge!
Take care!
-Jack
But Jack, you're falling into the old trap: letting the media and politicoliguists redefine the word "insurgent" to mean something different than what it really does. Insurgent means any rebel, not just the Iraqi ones. The American insurgents were still, by definition, insurgents, and proud of it!
I understand what you mean, Shea. I think you're right on this one. Another example I guess would be the word "fundamentalist". The media has redefined that word over the last two decades to mean something it isn't. Don't you long for the days when language was a little more pure?
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home