So I have to give this presentation in my english 102 class about Radical America. I need to know if what im trying to say makes sense. So here it goes....

I believe that radicals in America are only righteous in their ideals if it falls within the realm of Democracy and Capitalism (Their violent actions aside). So therefore John Brown could be considered righteous, and our founding fathers (Considered radicals) could be considered righteous.

Those who are not righteous would be groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis who look towards facism. The student led revolt of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Communist, social parties etc.

I'm also pointing out that America shouldn't only look at foreign threats, but at themselves. Cause there are threats inside America. Threats that seek to overthrow democracy and capitalism (And hey they're not Muslim!).

I'm not sure what you're going for here. . . are you trying to start up a debate, or looking for help w/ your report?
If this is for an English 102 class, I'd get rid of the sentence fragments and starting a sentence with 'Cause'.

This is kind of vague, and the immediate qualification doesn't help.

What do you mean by democracy, and what do you mean by capitalism? Those can encompass all kinds of things. Is a constitution a part of democracy? Does capitalism stand for laissez faire economics or does market regulation have a role? And so on.

USA = constitutional republic.


Have you considered talking about the currently trendy Che worship? This guy was one of the most violent radicals of the last century and even faux-radical college kids wear t-shirts with the guy's picture on it. If they think he is someone to aspire to be like, then domestic radicals are very dangerous.

Do you have a problem with Columbus worship?

I see the two differently. What Columbus did what acceptable to society at that time. Like slavery was at that time. What Che did; the firing squads, rapes, terrorizing of civilians, that certainly is not 20th century behavior.

And I think when discussing radical America, you must look at those whom they admire. Columbus aint one of them.

My sentences are not in a paper I was just explaining what i was going to talk about

And I'm glad you asked if i was debating something. The instructor told us to pick a side but dont be bias. I don't know if that makes any sense. But no im not debating, just wondering if it makes sense. And you guys are really helping out so thanks

By righteous do you mean justified?

Justified so it fits Americas profile yes

Okay. I would use justified instead of righteous, then. 'Righteous' is kind of more religious in connotation, and I think a little bit more of a self perception than on outsider's perception. IMHO, anyways.

"Okay. I would use justified instead of righteous, then. 'Righteous' is kind of more religious in connotation, and I think a little bit more of a self perception than on outsider's perception. IMHO, anyways.[/quote]




yeah you're right. Sounds good.



Checked out that Che Guevera. Thats interesting man thats fucking interesting

I find this argument wholly unconvincing. There are plenty of people, even among Columbus' own ranks who disagreed with his actions at that time.

That "civilization" had come to a point where genocide was acceptable is embarrassing in and of itself, and it certainly does not warrant reverence in spite of it, in future ages. Atrocity is atrocity regardless of the time in which it takes place. It's not to be revered, and it's not to be played down.



I'm putting "radical America" in a broader context and asking the question: how different is this worship? What makes the atrocities of Che different to the atrocities of Columbus?

"Columbus ain't one of them" is common knowledge.

shades,

as much as you don't want to believe it, all culutres including native americans practiced wars of extermination and "colonialism" type behavior at the time Columbus arrived in North America. Civilization had reached a point where genocide was acceptable, that's backwards. We had always been there and are really only a breath away from it still. What columbus did was horrific, I agree. But in the context of similar behaviors from all over the globe at the time, it was not that unusual.

Find me a genocide in the name of Buddhism or Hinduism from that era, or indeed any era, and I'll revisit my views.

I'm not buying this relativist apology for Columbus. My point is simply that I don't revere any civilization or a representative of that civilization if their values don't hold up to what we consider acceptable today-- simply because these are things that should have been self-evident. And there are enough instances, even stretches, in history where this has been the case.

That we are but a thin veneer away from that kind of conduct-- frankly, I'm not convinced of this either-- but even if I concede that you are correct on that, I still don't see any value in being an apologist for Columbus.

Incidentally, what I've said so far should make it pretty clear that I have little time for Che Guevara too, right?