The second American Revolution

[DREDIOCK]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Thats a sign that happens to be on a statue. It is NOT our law.

It is an excerpt from a  poem called "The New Colossus"  by Emma Lazarus

The poem was written as a donation to an auction of art and literary works  conducted by the "Art Loan Fund Exhibition in Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund for the Statue of Liberty", the aim of which was to raise money for the pedestal's construction  The contribution was solicited by fundraiser William Maxwell Evarts. Initially Lazarus refused, but Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that the statue would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor .

"The New Colossus" was the only entry read at the exhibit's opening, but was forgotten and played no role at the opening of the statue in 1886. In 1901, Lazarus' friend, Georgina Schuyler, began an effort to memorialize Lazarus and her poem, which succeeded in 1903 when a plaque bearing the text of the poem was mounted on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" "[/b]

[Furball]

Actually your tending to rewrite history. You are no doubt referring to the English Empire of old. Its true England controlled many peoples and nations around the world, mostly stealing their wealth and regulating the inhabitants as inferior people. While not quite as bad as the Spanish, French, Russians, and other Euro empires of the 18'th,19'th, and 20'th centurys you werent much better either. On the plus side Englad did leave a civilized footprint in many of their former colonies, its also true they didnt much like giving them up either. Often useing brutal methods to keep control. The interesting thing about England is they were mainly interested in trade and theft. They werent really religious orientated when they raped and pillaged. As far as England becoming a multicultural, diverse nation herself that mostly happened post WW-ll with more liberalized immigration policies.

In my opinion the Brits are the finest friends we have. They are a just, decent people who also have a lot of guts. But dont try re-writing history about your journey to 2008. Yes you had a rich Empire but it was an Empire where you subjugated foreign peoples and stole their wealth and labor. The entire time backing it with a juggernaught navy.

In the same way the Romans thrived on different nationalities too. Their first order of business was to conquer and enslave them, stealing their wealth as well. Its true they also believed in alliances when it suited their interests and as long as the tribes/nations paid tribute to Rome.

Make no mistake, the British Empire, like the Roman Empire was created by the sword.

I am attempting to rewrite history, eh?  Just what part of this:-

England is and has always been a 'mongrel nation' made up of many nationalities and cultures.  It didn't do us any harm - we had the largest, richest empire in the history of the world.

The Roman Empire thrived on different nationalities too, and look at what that did for the western world.

Is rewriting history?  Do you know the make up of the people of the British Isles? It is basically a melting pot of immigration and invasion from the Europe.

I didn't say it was a rose garden for all the countries we controlled, but as a controlling force we better than any other empire i can think of.  Most countries had a lot of freedom for self government, and many nations we controlled are now worse off because they are no longer in the British Empire.  It is difficult to judge history with a modern perspective, especially since many of the modern ideals are learned from the mistakes of our predecessors.  Empire, good or bad, was part of history and required for human development.

[Dowding]

It's British Empire by the way. The Victorians would not know what St George's flag looked like - I hate how the Union flag has been almost superceded by the 'national' flags.

[SirLoin]

Thomas Paine on his death bed refused the clergyman's offer of forgiveness and salvation from God.He was a non-believer,much like Jefferson and Lincoln.Nice try at revisionism whomever the guy in the costume is.

[Rich46yo]

Name me one empire that wasn't?

Yeah, I know. But it was England and Rome as the subject wasnt it?

I am attempting to rewrite history, eh?  Just what part of this:-
Is rewriting history?  Do you know the make up of the people of the British Isles? It is basically a melting pot of immigration and invasion from the Europe.

Here was your original statement.

England is and has always been a 'mongrel nation' made up of many nationalities and cultures.  It didn't do us any harm - we had the largest, richest empire in the history of the world.

It implied, actually outright stated, the English Empire was made up of a melting pot of equals, and it wasnt. In the British Empire, on the one hand you had the Brits, and on the other hand you had the subjegated, inferior peoples. Britian herself wasnt populated by a rainbow of peoples equal under the law until fairly recently in her history.

America was really no better. Tho we never really had an empire it could be argued that we had the beginnings of one in the far east and we did use inhuman methods to control the populaces. For instance in the Phillipines against the Muslim insurgancy at the end of the 19'th century.

[Dowding]

In the British Empire, on the one hand you had the Brits, and on the other hand you had the subjegated, inferior peoples.

Not true. You had the upper classes and you had the lower classes. Regardless of the colour of your skin, if you found yourself in the lower working classes, you were subjugated. Most of the population fitted into that category - the Industrial revolution and the migration to the great industrial cities of the North and London made that a reality. Class distinction was an equal opportunities precursor.

A white factory worker in Manchester or Sheffield or Glasgow was no more better off than a native farmer in India, in either life expectancy or quality of life. I love how people like to assume that life was just peachy in Britain during the Empire days. It was as bad as anywhere in the Empire, if you happened to be born into the lower eschelons of society, of which most of British society was built on.

At the end of the day, between 1600 and 1939, your nation either had an Empire or had pretentions of Empire - and if that wasn't the case, you were securing your borders or 'assimilating' your native population.

[crockett]

I agree with everything he said in that video until he turned it into an infomercial.

The Phone number was to the US Congressional Switchboard.. (ie your govt) The number wasn't there to sell you anything but to tell you to contact your congressman and squeak at him.

[Elfie]

I think *assimilating* the native population would be an incorrect term. It was more like conquering and subjugating them.

[Rollins]

I think *assimilating* the native population would be an incorrect term. It was more like conquering and subjugating them.

Go back to the argument that no empire's been forged sans sword.

[Elfie]

Go back to the argument that no empire's been forged sans sword.

Agreed, I was just pointing out to Dowding that he might have used a term that was less than accurate in describing America's treatment of the native population.

[Rollins]

Then agreed.  You and I are keeping the same schedule tonight lol.   

[DREDIOCK]

Thomas Paine on his death bed refused the clergyman's offer of forgiveness and salvation from God.He was a non-believer,much like Jefferson and Lincoln.Nice try at revisionism whomever the guy in the costume is.

actually the notion that TJ was a non believer is a myth.
Seems he was alot like many of us are now

We do not have complete records of Thomas Jefferson's church-going habits. Jefferson himself did not keep such records, and church records from Virginia during that time are irregular. Jefferson did serve as a vestryman in Fredericksville Parish as a young man.[5] As President, Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives.[6] After his retirement to Monticello, Jefferson continued to attend church services, riding into Charlottesville to the court-house on horseback carrying a small folding chair.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Jefferson%27s_Religious_Beliefs

Seems Lincoln wasn't a that way either
He was like me. Against organized Christianity

    Considerable uncertainty arises... when Lincoln's own religion is examined... it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life. His father was a member of Regular Baptist churches in Kentucky and Indiana. Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively... during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs... Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell [suggested that Lincoln's views on Christian theology] were not orthodox... It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances...

http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Abraham_Lincoln.html

[Furball]

Yeah, I know. But it was England and Rome as the subject wasnt it?

Here was your original statement. It implied, actually outright stated, the English Empire was made up of a melting pot of equals, and it wasnt. In the British Empire, on the one hand you had the Brits, and on the other hand you had the subjegated, inferior peoples. Britian herself wasnt populated by a rainbow of peoples equal under the law until fairly recently in her history.

No i didn't... i said England is and was a mongrel nation, and that didn't harm our aspirations towards empire.

England is and has always been a 'mongrel nation' made up of many nationalities and cultures.  It didn't do us any harm - we had the largest, richest empire in the history of the world.

[Steve]

a non-believer,much like Jefferson and Lincoln.Nice try at revisionism whomever the guy in the costume is.

Wrong on both counts.

[Shuckins]

Jefferson's own letters and writings give the lie to the modernist notion that he was a "non-believer."  The inspiring prose of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence is entirely his.  It is replete with references to the Almighty and the inalienable rights that he gave to man.

Thomas Paine eschewed organized religion, after having first-hand experience with the hypocrisy and excesses to be found in Europe's state-controlled religions.  He was a deist...which is NOT a form of atheism.  He believed in a higher power which had an entirely different nature than that promoted by the aforementioned state religions.

"A House divided against itself cannot stand" was not conjured by Lincoln out of thin air.  It comes from the New Testament, and was first spoken by Christ.  Lincoln's speeches contain frequent references to God:  see, specifically, his Second Inaugural Address.