What do you do:

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I claim that my assertion is self-evident.

All you need to do to refute my bold assertion is to provide an example of a powerful group of people that never oppresses those with less power.

I did mention that my assertion creates a great dilemma -- because then, even if the comic book character Adam Warlock himself existed, he too would end up being ...[text shortened]... s behaves in a fair and just fashion, there may then be some hope of eliminating all oppression.

History bears out the fact that treating the oppressed people with justice and compassion instead of suppression and/or elimination leads to a stronger society overall through assimilation.
The Romans wouldn't have been nearly as domimant as they were if they did not adopt Greek culture, art, philosophy, science and many other disciplines.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I claim that my assertion is self-evident.

All you need to do to refute my bold assertion is to provide an example of a powerful group of people that never oppresses those with less power.

You make an assertion than the onus of the proof in you to prove it, not in me to disprove it.

If you just say it is self-evident than I just move along.

Originally posted by adam warlock
when your land is robbed,
when your trees are uprooted,
when your rights are ignored,
when you are discriminated,
when your livelihood is denied,
when your children are endangered?

You fight, you resist, you protest.

My new heroes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkUiziuGG5Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMjci6uB9s&feature=player_embedded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Mafia

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The only way to end the never-ending chain of peoples oppressing other peoples is for some "superpower" to step in and put the boot to enough necks until everyone agrees not to oppress each other.

Of course, this means that the "superpower" will have to be willing to put it's own neck on the line to maintain order -- and by definition, there's no outsi ...[text shortened]... ce?

maybe you'd approve of this one 😀
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AEn9HDCqSE

That's not working so well here in California because the "superpower" is the one doing the oppressing.

Originally posted by Scotty70
History bears out the fact that treating the oppressed people with justice and compassion instead of suppression and/or elimination leads to a stronger society overall through assimilation.
The Romans wouldn't have been nearly as domimant as they were if they did not adopt Greek culture, art, philosophy, science and many other disciplines.

LOL. The Romans, symbols of justice and compassion to oppressed people. 🙄

You'd like this I think. I did.

YouTube

Originally posted by adam warlock
You make an assertion than the onus of the proof in you to prove it, not in me to disprove it.

If you just say it is self-evident than I just move along.

All you need to do is to provide just ONE counter-example. Just ONE. One example of a group of people holding power who have never used that power to oppress others. Just ONE!!!! If you believe I am wrong, you ought to have some basis for that belief, so it surely should not be that difficult to come up with that one example.

But I will concede that I am wrong and you are right. That being the case, I will simply nominate the counter-example that you, Adam Warlock, refuse to name as the Superpower that should be put in charge of making sure no one else oppresses anyone else. Is there any reason why this cannot or should not be done?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
All you need to do is to provide just ONE counter-example. Just ONE. One example of a group of people holding power who have never used that power to oppress others. Just ONE!!!! If you believe I am wrong, you ought to have some basis for that belief, so it surely should not be that difficult to come up with that one example.

But I will concede that I ...[text shortened]... re no one else oppresses anyone else. Is there any reason why this cannot or should not be done?

I'll bite: The Sandinistas right after the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. Taking into account a lot of other revolutions all over the world and time these guys and girls were practically saints.

But I have to say that you used the right word to describe what I feel: "Belief". Because really that's all I got. A belief that is based on some historical examples and on a good dose of faith on human conduct.
I could even give you something remotely similar to an argument to tell you why I feel that,but frankly that would have to be a pretty long text and I'm just to lazy about it.
If you are curious about my world view you can start by "A People's History of the Word" and "A People's History of the United States" (you can look at it here for free: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html).

I don't think any superpower should have the power to watch over the rest of the world (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). People should be able to watch over themselves and take over their own lives.

I'm extremely curious to know what's your example.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
LOL. The Romans, symbols of justice and compassion to oppressed people. 🙄

You'd like this I think. I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QenLlFx4cCQ

Have you seen the interview with Howard Zinn by now?

Originally posted by adam warlock
I'll bite: The Sandinistas right after the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. Taking into account a lot of other revolutions all over the world and time these guys and girls were practically saints.

But I have to say that you used the right word to describe what I feel: "Belief". Because really that's all I got. A belief that is based on some histor d take over their own lives.

I'm extremely curious to know what's your example.

Howard Zinn concludes by making this statement - which seems to sum up his general view:

Such fundamental changes would require a radical change in priorities, from spending $300 to $400 billion a year for the military, to using this wealth to improve the living conditions of Americans and people in other parts of the world. For instance, it was estimated by the World Health Organization that a small portion of the American military budget, if given to the treatment of tuberculosis in the world, could save millions of lives.
The Unites States, by such a drastic change in its policies, would no longer be a military superpower, but it could be a humanitarian superpower, using its wealth to help people in need.

in so many words -- he is arguing that if the US (and other powerful nations) stopped being oppressive - if the US was to start treating everyone with absolute (or at least radically increased levels of) fairness, justice, and compassion -- if the US was to become a humanitarian SUPERPOWER (Zinn's own words) -- we could indeed usher in New Age in which swords were beaten into plowshares. But how does Zinn propose to do this? Does he think his history book will do the job?

The big fly in the ointment is that it never seems to be politically possible to carry out such a vision - at least not beyond a certain point. There seems to be a severe limit to how many tax dollars the American people are willing to spend on feeding the poor or building infrastructure in the developing world (for that matter, there's a severe limit on the tax dollars we're willing to spend on building our OWN infrastructure or feeding our OWN poor).

And if a nation as "civilized" as the US is so unable to change its views and become a model of humanitarianism, is there any hope that any other oppressive agent around the world will spontaneously do so either?

I actually do have an optimistic view regarding what human beings are capable of - it's just that I do not have an absolute optimism.