Jump to content
The Education Forum

Virginia Tech Spree Killer


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

John Dolva

I agree with a great deal of what you posted.

However for those not living in the U.S., it must be extremely difficult to imagine the EXTENT of the disparity between "Haves" and the growing number of "Have Nots". I know for a fact that in Sweden, and probably Switzerland, which have been in this thread compared to the U.S........it is not only difficult, but rationally impossible, to make such a comparison.

In the countries mentioned, there are not aged people having to decide whether to spend their "pennies" on life preserving prescriptions or food!

There are not aged and poor who freeze to death each winter because they cannot afford heat. There are not homeless persons and "bag ladies" roaming the streets, which by the way, are physically removed often, prior to the arrival of certain international visitors.

I recently posted that I recently, on two ocassions, have watched elderly gentlemen filling only a "portion of their prescriptions". I at first thought this odd, until it penetrated my thick skull that they could not, at one time, pay for the entire prescription. "Should I buy food or life saving drugs?"

There are schools here, that teachers would rather go unemployed than to risk working. Most of these problems are usually not observed by tourists who are affluent enough to be attracted to the better areas.

The U.S. has been usually considered an affluent nation. However when studied more closely, there is great disparity between various living conditions.

When my children were young we derived much pleasure from attending professional sporting events and concerts as a family. It would today take more than a weeks salary, of one who is on minimum wage, to buy one ticket to such a sporting event or major concert.

Families are financially unable to engage as families, in activities which they once enjoyed and which also united them.

I realize that Australia has aborigines and Canada has immigrants..........but the U.S. has been a "melting pot" forever. I would venture to say that there are more illegal aliens in the U.S. than all of the immigrant population of Canada.

It is very easy for some Europeans to smugly sit back and "asess" a situation of which they have had no practical experience. Most of these, only "partially educated" SMUGS, are too stubborn to admit that they actually have NO WAY of knowing the conditions that persist within the U.S. I recently stated in a post that neither I nor anyone in my family, have ever been mugged, harmed, or robbed.

But we are not forced to live in certain areas, and we also know what to avoid. So too are most tourists guided.

We can philosophise to no end, of what life should be, but one does not truly understand a problem until one has actually been involved in it. "Passing thru", in my opinion, is not involvement!

The problem of violence has little to do with guns.

I am certain that the world has watched the devastation of the Watts and other racial riots.

As I think that I stated in my first post on this thread, that there would be many who would attempt to turn this thread into an appeal for stronger anti gun legislation. And it is being done by those who will not open their minds and eyes to the true probems. I suppose that some on "the Education Forum", feel that they are far too well educated to be hampered by truth and fact.

I suppose thre are some who are comfortable at this stratospheric height. However I am forced to reside in this worlds actual atmosphere.

I have not entered "this" post as a matter of furthering debate, or as an attempt to individually criticise anyone. This is what I truly believe and I feel that it is based entirely on actuality......

and not on the "philosophy" of how things should be in this country !

Charles Black

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John Dolva

I agree with a great deal of what you posted.

However for those not living in the U.S., it must be extremely difficult to imagine the EXTENT of the disparity between "Haves" and the growing number of "Have Nots". I know for a fact that in Sweden, and probably Switzerland, which have been in this thread compared to the U.S........it is not only difficult, but rationally impossible, to make such a comparison.

In the countries mentioned, there are not aged people having to decide whether to spend their "pennies" on life preserving prescriptions or food!

There are not aged and poor who freeze to death each winter because they cannot afford heat. There are not homeless persons and "bag ladies" roaming the streets, which by the way, are physically removed often, prior to the arrival of certain international visitors.

I recently posted that I recently, on two ocassions, have watched elderly gentlemen filling only a "portion of their prescriptions". I at first thought this odd, until it penetrated my thick skull that they could not, at one time, pay for the entire prescription. "Should I buy food or life saving drugs?"

There are schools here, that teachers would rather go unemployed than to risk working. Most of these problems are usually not observed by tourists who are affluent enough to be attracted to the better areas.

The U.S. has been usually considered an affluent nation. However when studied more closely, there is great disparity between various living conditions.

When my children were young we derived much pleasure from attending professional sporting events and concerts as a family. It would today take more than a weeks salary, of one who is on minimum wage, to buy one ticket to such a sporting event or major concert.

Families are financially unable to engage as families, in activities which they once enjoyed and which also united them.

I realize that Australia has aborigines and Canada has immigrants..........but the U.S. has been a "melting pot" forever. I would venture to say that there are more illegal aliens in the U.S. than all of the immigrant population of Canada.

It is very easy for some Europeans to smugly sit back and "asess" a situation of which they have had no practical experience. Most of these, only "partially educated" SMUGS, are too stubborn to admit that they actually have NO WAY of knowing the conditions that persist within the U.S. I recently stated in a post that neither I nor anyone in my family, have ever been mugged, harmed, or robbed.

But we are not forced to live in certain areas, and we also know what to avoid. So too are most tourists guided.

We can philosophise to no end, of what life should be, but one does not truly understand a problem until one has actually been involved in it. "Passing thru", in my opinion, is not involvement!

The problem of violence has little to do with guns.

I am certain that the world has watched the devastation of the Watts and other racial riots.

As I think that I stated in my first post on this thread, that there would be many who would attempt to turn this thread into an appeal for stronger anti gun legislation. And it is being done by those who will not open their minds and eyes to the true probems. I suppose that some on "the Education Forum", feel that they are far too well educated to be hampered by truth and fact.

I suppose thre are some who are comfortable at this stratospheric height. However I am forced to reside in this worlds actual atmosphere.

I have not entered "this" post as a matter of furthering debate, or as an attempt to individually criticise anyone. This is what I truly believe and I feel that it is based entirely on actuality......

and not on the "philosophy" of how things should be in this country !

Charles Black

Charles Black

tell it like it is, Charlie....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie is right in that America's problems extend way beyond the gun lobby or a need for stronger gun legislation. "Bowling for Columbine" did a good job of assessing the situation, in my view. Most every gun owner with whom I've discussed guns (and the common perception that owning a gun provides a certain level of protection) has suggested or said straight out that his concern is an extension of his racial concerns. All too many white people are afraid that at any given moment the black race will rise up and roam door to door killing white people. Call it Nat Turner syndrome if you like. This fear was exacerbated in the Rodney King riots when back youths pulled a white truck driver from his truck and pummeled him with bricks in front of TV cameras. While this was but one incident, this image haunts white America as sure as a televised lynching would haunt black America. The proliferation of rap culture keeps this image alive in the minds of many.

Logical or not, white America feels they need guns for protection from black America. While black America's immersion into gun culture came in part from its own fear of white America, much of black America today is more scared of those sharing its skin tone than of white America. Over the last twenty years many of the black ghettos have been diluted, as blacks anxious to escape the violence move out to the suburbs (and as a certain percentage of whites move out to the suburbs of the suburbs). The country is gradually coming together. Inter-racial dating and marriage are at an all-time high. Even the Bush family is integrated culturally, with the next George Bush half-hispanic.

Cho would have been better off dropping out of college and joining a metal band, IMO. Unfortunately, there are incredibly strong cultural forces among Asian Americans, that inhibited his doing so. The cultural emphasis on higher education could very well have led to this tragedy. One can't use his act for a broadside against all things American, IMO, without acknowledging the specifics of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie is right in that America's problems extend way beyond the gun lobby or a need for stronger gun legislation. "Bowling for Columbine" did a good job of assessing the situation, in my view. Most every gun owner with whom I've discussed guns (and the common perception that owning a gun provides a certain level of protection) has suggested or said straight out that his concern is an extension of his racial concerns. All too many white people are afraid that at any given moment the black race will rise up and roam door to door killing white people. Call it Nat Turner syndrome if you like. This fear was exacerbated in the Rodney King riots when back youths pulled a white truck driver from his truck and pummeled him with bricks in front of TV cameras. While this was but one incident, this image haunts white America as sure as a televised lynching would haunt black America. The proliferation of rap culture keeps this image alive in the minds of many.

Logical or not, white America feels they need guns for protection from black America. While black America's immersion into gun culture came in part from its own fear of white America, much of black America today is more scared of those sharing its skin tone than of white America. Over the last twenty years many of the black ghettos have been diluted, as blacks anxious to escape the violence move out to the suburbs (and as a certain percentage of whites move out to the suburbs of the suburbs). The country is gradually coming together. Inter-racial dating and marriage are at an all-time high. Even the Bush family is integrated culturally, with the next George Bush half-hispanic.

Cho would have been better off dropping out of college and joining a metal band, IMO. Unfortunately, there are incredibly strong cultural forces among Asian Americans, that inhibited his doing so. The cultural emphasis on higher education could very well have led to this tragedy. One can't use his act for a broadside against all things American, IMO, without acknowledging the specifics of the situation.

Thank you Charles and all,

During the years of the era we are mostly talking about on this forum, the 'no longer uncle Tom', prepared and able to defend themselves with guns, black people in the south also served a role. However they tended to be careful in adopting a defensive posture.

This, in particular instances, stayed the hand of white supremacists.

However I agree that the courageous, deliberate, organised non-violence of people like MLK have a powerful, worldwide impact, particularly then with the advent of live TV. He was treated well in Europe, receiving the Nobel Peace price, while the FBI COINTEL, Hoover et al did their best to get him discredited, and even tried to get him to commit suicide by manufacturing 'evidence'.

I can't make a comprehensive argument for it, but there are from my spotty reading so far indications that Hugo Black could be responsible for much of the problems. There are contradictions I don't have the knowledge to be able to resolve. (if anyone can point to a balanced analysis of this man that would be much apprediated)

However, firstly the southern states quickly formed the Ku Klux Klan to control black people. At the same time, and up till today, various religious groupings in tandem with various scientists and philosophers redefined what a 'human' is. IOW the black person was not subject to the laws of equality because this person is not somehow 'human'.

The southern states also, while accepting the constitution, in many instances refused/refuses to accept the union. The last battle of the Civil War, in Texas, after the surrender, was a victory for the Confederates.

Then the brutal aspects of the reconstruction era did not help.

Then there were created a range of barriers as to who could register to vote, with such things as poll tax, reading and writing tests, and outright brutal intimidation. Much of this was accepted in the White House, where the showing of 'the Birth of a Nation' in 1915 contributed to a resurgence of the KKK.

The armed forces were one place where whites and blacks in many instances found each other in a new way. Yet until the late 1940's the armed forces remained largely segregated. After demobalisation, the assertion of this new found 'equality' by blacks was often brutally destroyed by the status quo when the blacks took a defensive posture, particularly in the southern states. (eg. post-WW I Tulsa Massacre)

The economy of the southern states depended on a hierarchy of power from the lowest levels of society upwards, where Emmett Till IMO is a good study of how an 'uppity' northern black boy was murdered because his very persona, formed growing up in a relatively free environment, threatened the economic viability of his mudererers, the sharecropper overseer and the goods supplier to the black workers. The control of the freedom of movement and education of the lowest rung, the blacks, was embedded in society. IOW it formed the basic interests of the lowest rungs of the white population.

Hence: the THREAT of of the educated, unafraid MLK types presaged the end of an era with McCartyism already having transformed the mindset of many that made the tag of 'Communist', usually unwarranted, sufficient to divide the populace. Further The Texas School Book Depository companies and its control over school books eliminated tracts that may 'lead people astray'. Add to it Christian Fundamentalist influence and a dumbed down, consumer oriented society and you have the opposite of freedom. You have a pervasive application of the pavlovian response. This is Fascism. It's how Hitler took power. He was never popularly voted into the position of Dictator.

Hugo Black continued a tradition of reforming Costitutional Interpretation, and in the most 'bizzarre' form to redefine what a 'person' is. Ultimately the last of the segregated Educational Instiutions held on because they were allowed the status of 'person' and therefore the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of association. Thus the segregationists hangs on till the end, through terrorist means, legal rulings, amd IMO ultimately the assassination of the one man who finally said 'the time of waiting is over' in June 1963, after one hundred years, J. F. Kennedy. Because this determined person did what he said he would, leaving no doubt, he and his ilk were eliminated from the political scene in the sixties leaving us with the still problematic situation we find ourselves in.

Who needed to do this in order to survive?

IMO, (it's a notion in the making, not a conclusion) the (Patriarchal) Corporate Fascist, and those who had come to depend on the crumbs from their table.

Blacks and Women still hit a 'glass ceiling' (see ERA). The anti-political-correctness rules for now, (thank you, Mr. Reagan, for that, + economic rationalism) the newer sleeker Uncle Tom, the Comic Relief in Movies, and the Corporate Conservative Woman finds a niche.

Possibilities remain.

Ultimately, it seems to me, the USofA can, in times of crisis, produce, not only the worst, but also the best. I can see that there are indeed Americans who do think deeply about these issues, and I can see that the outsider seeming to dictate what Americans should or should not do about things is naturally cause for resentment. I see that there is a consciousness beyond what we receive through the general media.

Note, I've never concluded gun ownership is the problem, that was the particular intent of referencing Switzerland. I see now that there is a genuine recognition of the disparity of wealth, and yes, starving, and choosing to buy life saving drugs or food is not a problem in Sweden.

I think most on this forum, and many in the world wish ALL the people of the United States the best solutions to whatever the problems are. The same wish goes to the troubled nations of the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, firstly the southern states quickly formed the Ku Klux Klan to control black people. At the same time, and up till today, various religious groupings in tandem with various scientists and philosophers redefined what a 'human' is. IOW the black person was not subject to the laws of equality because this person is not somehow 'human'.

I get a lot of complaints from Americans about my Ku Klux Klan page as it is ranked 3rd at Google (for many years it was number one). This includes complaints from the Texas School Board who are able to censor school textbooks.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

The main complaint concerns my arguments about when the KKK was formed. The white power lobby is very uncomfortable about the fact that the KKK was formed as a result of the American Civil War. At the end of the war radical members of Congress attempted to destroy the white power structure of the Rebel states. The Freeman's Bureau was established by Congress on 3rd March, 1865. The bureau was designed to protect the interests of former slaves. This included helping them to find new employment and to improve educational and health facilities. In the year that followed the bureau spent $17,000,000 establishing 4,000 schools, 100 hospitals and providing homes and food for former slaves.

Attempts by Congress to extend the powers of the Freemen's Bureau was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson in February, 1866. In April 1866, Johnson also vetoed the Civil Rights Bill that was designed to protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes (laws that placed severe restrictions on freed slaves such as prohibiting their right to vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, limiting their right to testify against white men, carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations).

The election of 1866 increased the number of Radical Republicans in Congress. The following year Congress passed the first Reconstruction Act. The South was now divided into five military districts, each under a major general. New elections were to be held in each state with freed male slaves being allowed to vote. The act also included an amendment that offered readmission to the Southern states after they had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and guaranteed adult male suffrage. Johnson immediately vetoed the bill but Congress re-passed the bill the same day.

The first branch of the Ku Klux Klan was established in Pulaski, Tennessee, in May, 1866. A year later a general organization of local Klans was established in Nashville in April, 1867. Most of the leaders were former members of the Confederate Army and the first Grand Wizard was Nathan Forrest, an outstanding general during the American Civil War. During the next two years Klansmen wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites. Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of their hatred. Between 1868 and 1870 the Ku Klux Klan played an important role in restoring white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

The Texas School Board was especially upset by my exposure of Nathan Forrest, a man that schools in the South like to portray at a hero. Forrest was a war criminal who was responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre.

Of course the KKK did not only terrorize blacks. An early target were trade union organizers. Several were lynched when they tried to recruit members in the Deep South. The KKK like other neo-fascist groups have always been used by the ruling class in an attempt to prevent equality. As Hitler once said, he got of his political ideas from observing the way that white rulers behaved in the the Deep South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Here's a thought.

1, The gap between the rich in America, and everybody else(not just the poor) is HUGE, and growing.

2, You have, as I understand it, a Constitutional obligation to remove ANY administration that is not acting in the best interests of all Americans.

3, You are all armed to the teeth.

GO FOR IT.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought.

1, The gap between the rich in America, and everybody else(not just the poor) is HUGE, and growing.

2, You have, as I understand it, a Constitutional obligation to remove ANY administration that is not acting in the best interests of all Americans.

3, You are all armed to the teeth.

GO FOR IT.....

You mean ordinary Americns taking out these guys Stephen?

I'm sure the possibility has occured, to them if not to the American people.

That, I suspect, is what underlies recent moves to set in place the esentials for a Police State... and the USA is not the only country affected by this sinister attempt to consolidate plutocratic power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Here's a thought.

1, The gap between the rich in America, and everybody else(not just the poor) is HUGE, and growing.

2, You have, as I understand it, a Constitutional obligation to remove ANY administration that is not acting in the best interests of all Americans.

3, You are all armed to the teeth.

GO FOR IT.....

You mean ordinary Americns taking out these guys Stephen?

I'm sure the possibility has occured, to them if not to the American people.

That, I suspect, is what underlies recent moves to set in place the esentials for a Police State... and the USA is not the only country affected by this sinister attempt to consolidate plutocratic power.

Yes Sid, the super-duper rich parasite class. Go get em.

Thanks for the link, I love when asked why the census didnt include anyone earning above $300,000 ayear the aparatchick claimed. "The census bureau's computer could not handle the higher amounts." :pop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought.

1, The gap between the rich in America, and everybody else(not just the poor) is HUGE, and growing.

2, You have, as I understand it, a Constitutional obligation to remove ANY administration that is not acting in the best interests of all Americans.

3, You are all armed to the teeth.

GO FOR IT.....

You mean ordinary Americns taking out these guys Stephen?

I'm sure the possibility has occured, to them if not to the American people.

That, I suspect, is what underlies recent moves to set in place the esentials for a Police State... and the USA is not the only country affected by this sinister attempt to consolidate plutocratic power.

Yes Sid, the super-duper rich parasite class. Go get em.

Thanks for the link, I love when asked why the census didnt include anyone earning above $300,000 ayear the aparatchick claimed. "The census bureau's computer could not handle the higher amounts." :pop

Yeah. When I read that, I wondered whether I should lend my PC to the Census Bureau.

They must still rely on the abacus.

I wonder if the IRS does better?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought.

1, The gap between the rich in America, and everybody else(not just the poor) is HUGE, and growing.

2, You have, as I understand it, a Constitutional obligation to remove ANY administration that is not acting in the best interests of all Americans.

3, You are all armed to the teeth.

GO FOR IT.....

Stephen,

The vast majority of Americans are beyond apathetic. As long as they have their satellite/cable tv, internet, gas guzzling cars and the other creature comforts they desire, they couldn't care less what their political leaders are doing. I've tried to speak about the inequities of wealth in our country, to my own family members, and can't even get most of them to agree that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it. I now believe that the only way American males would be driven to action regarding the corruption of their leaders is if professional sports were all banned and the sale of beer prohibited. As for American women, the only way you'd ever get a large number of them motivated to act would be to close all the shopping malls, or perhaps disband all network television programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of Americans are beyond apathetic. As long as they have their satellite/cable tv, internet, gas guzzling cars and the other creature comforts they desire, they couldn't care less what their political leaders are doing. I've tried to speak about the inequities of wealth in our country, to my own family members, and can't even get most of them to agree that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it. I now believe that the only way American males would be driven to action regarding the corruption of their leaders is if professional sports were all banned and the sale of beer prohibited. As for American women, the only way you'd ever get a large number of them motivated to act would be to close all the shopping malls, or perhaps disband all network television programming.

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free “games” were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of Americans are beyond apathetic. As long as they have their satellite/cable tv, internet, gas guzzling cars and the other creature comforts they desire, they couldn't care less what their political leaders are doing. I've tried to speak about the inequities of wealth in our country, to my own family members, and can't even get most of them to agree that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it. I now believe that the only way American males would be driven to action regarding the corruption of their leaders is if professional sports were all banned and the sale of beer prohibited. As for American women, the only way you'd ever get a large number of them motivated to act would be to close all the shopping malls, or perhaps disband all network television programming.

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free "games" were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

I could say some equally demeaning but true generalities about the English, but I have a few British friends that don't exhibit such traits, so I won't insult an entire nation because of the behavior and attitudes of most of them.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of Americans are beyond apathetic. As long as they have their satellite/cable tv, internet, gas guzzling cars and the other creature comforts they desire, they couldn't care less what their political leaders are doing. I've tried to speak about the inequities of wealth in our country, to my own family members, and can't even get most of them to agree that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it. I now believe that the only way American males would be driven to action regarding the corruption of their leaders is if professional sports were all banned and the sale of beer prohibited. As for American women, the only way you'd ever get a large number of them motivated to act would be to close all the shopping malls, or perhaps disband all network television programming.

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free "games" were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

I could say some equally demeaning but true generalities about the English, but I have a few British friends that don't exhibit such traits, so I won't insult an entire nation because of the behavior and attitudes of most of them.

BK

It is also true of the UK. It was just a comment about the way the mass media persuades people not to address political issues. As one writer once pointed out, if someone cannot express their anger about the situation they find themselves in, they retreat into apathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...