Black People : Difference Between Democracy and Freedom

[Hildegard von Krone]

True. Given you have scoped the discussion, we can talk about Athenian democracy.

Chattel slavery was rampant in Athens.
Women and metics could not vote nor participate in politics.

Surely democracy as evolved since then. On a side note, Sparta and Athens were sworn enemies of each other and both had very different ways of doing things. I dont know if Sparta was a democracy, but spartan women certainly enjoyed more rights than their athenian counterparts.

Romans (who were influenced by the Greeks) took slavery to a whole new level, and a lot of the slave force was comprised of ethnic europeans. I dont know if you have heard about it, but I recommend reading about Spartacus.

Also, what of Juan Peron and his oppressions in Argentina during the 1950s?
Argentina was a democracy during that time, yes?

Yes it was a democracy. Repression was directed mostly againts political and ideological dissidents: right vs left *yawn*. My parents have been peronistas since they emigrated to Argentina and they passed it on to me, sort of...althought I dont like politics.

By the way, im not saying that democracy doesnt have faults. Goverments tend to give their own interpretation of democracy to legitimicize their policies so I tend to digests their speeches with a grain of salt.

Well there was slavery, Indian removal courtesy of the US military, discrimination based on ethnicity or religion, taking of lands ... err.... "right of discovery" courtesy of the Marshall Supreme Court, State sponsored terrorism through such groups as the KKK, Jim Crow, Slave Codes, Black Codes, and much more !!

That's merely the tip of the iceberg ....

*gasp* reading about all that is going to take a while man... but thanks for pointing me in the right direction .

 

[Shikamaru]

Surely democracy as evolved since then. On a side note, Sparta and Athens were sworn enemies of each other and both had very different ways of doing things. I dont know if Sparta was a democracy, but spartan women certainly enjoyed more rights than their athenian counterparts.

Sparta was a oligarchic diarchy with primacy given to military and martial state of affairs.
Athens practiced direct democracy, rarely implemented in most states.
Most modern states practice representative democracy.

Romans (who were influenced by the Greeks) took slavery to a whole new level, and a lot of the slave force was comprised of ethnic europeans. I dont know if you have heard about it, but I recommend reading about Spartacus.

I'm quite familiar with Romans as well as Spartacus.
My exposure is primarily through Roman Civil Law and Roman history.

Plus, Spartaus: Blood and Sand is my show !!

 

[Shikamaru]

Democracy being a form of government and freedom being a state or condition ...

.. they are not quite of the same class for effective comparison, in my opinion.

 

[Ankhur]

yes, I would absolutely believe that many now believe after the 2008 elections the abuse of power thus demonstrated as being 'inherently evil' and naturally causing corruption, and a result for some, it has become something to deny and renounce.

I also read the other post and saw a break down on 'republican process' and etc. but I also remember how Benjamin Franklin and others were said to have copied the 'Iroquoise' and etc. in how they designed this system. I studied about the 12 tablets during the Rome-Etruscan period and etc., nevertheless, this system should not have attacked the 'Indians' and forced them onto reservations and take their land to set up their system and then deprive these First Nations people of their lands and natural resources just because they did not want to be apart of their government system. This government whether it is Republican, or democratic, punished the First Nations people for not totally giving up their souls and therefore, it really didn't matter how many of them sided with the europeans or not, they were completely 'done in' regardless. that is what I believe.

ps. they set brother against brother even. I slightly remember a story in this regards amongs the Iroquoise concerning Joseph Brant, I think.

That tends to a conclusion that freedom and democracy, have an indegenous mutual support, that allows ofr collective recirpocity of concerns and needs.
The concepts, "an injury to one is an injury to all" and "it takes a village to raise a child" illustrate the indegenous concepts of democracy of the First Americans as well as our ancestors, was based on a natural Heart, or altruistic empathy.

What Black leadership has missed, is the necessity to look back into our history at the traditional chief, system and king system of West African nations and that, democracy did exist within that monarchal system.
The real power of the chief was not simply ceremony without substance, but the exacting responsibility to manage the needs and concerns of his or her people with care and concern, and if failing to do so, could be voted out of office by a council of elder women.

The question of can there be freedom in a dictatorship,
is something argued around the
world on the grassroots level,

and pimped by globally collective oligarchies who
have propped up dictatorships as long as they have
served their interests, and like the mafia,
destroy them when they are no longer of use or interest!

The term freedom, in this post 9/11 world has become as individually
determined as the term love.

Can folks live without democracy and feel free? In Cuba, or formerly Libya or Venezuela?

Some say yes some say no,and ironically like whether a person is really loved in a relationship or under the illusion of love, is something only to be determined in the heart of the individual.

Can a person have all of their needs met, cares taken care of and still not feel free?
only the individual can decide that, by how they feel.

Another can live within a democracy and have to fight and scrape for even the barest of necessities, so under that democracy is that person free, or do they feel they will be free at some future time?
these are questions of the heart and feelings, only decided by the individual.

 

[MimiBelle]

We grew up thinking the American Revolutionaries were fighting for democracy. In truth, they feared democracy as much as they feared British rule. They understood that democracy and freedom are two different things.

Hear the words of Benjamin Franklin: Of course, we know if the lamb's fleece is not as white as snow, he will be seen as a terrorist rather than a revolutionary. We could do a study on how and when democracy took hold in America. Such a study might reveal some interesting things about what we should and should not be fighting for.

Bear with me, it's been a while since US Govt 1420 (or whatever), ok? *laugh*

I never understood the revolutionaries to be fearful of democracy.
The 'fear' was momentary. Drawing board stages, if anything. We don't have a 'pure' democracy. We have some sort of a 'representative' democracy/republic hodgepodge. An 'experiment'.
...and the above is why.

When did 'democracy' take hold in America?
I don't understand the question. Democracy didn't just happen. Nothing operates in a vaccum. The 'rights of the people' was a developing idea...based on Britain, mostly. It's power, 'taxation', overstepping local boundaries of the colonial govt and all that jazz. The colonists felt that Britain's concept of 'business as usual' stifled personal liberty and believed that someone ought to check the power of 'the Royal Crown'. The drama didn't start in the Americas. It was carried across the Atlantic...from England.
Anyway, these events have forged a durable and long-lasting link that carries on to the present. i.e., between colonial mistrust of expansive and remote governments....America's state's rights issues(that bubbled into a civil war)....and Americans of today, with their kneejerk suspicion of 'big government' (and 'central banks').

ANYWAY -
The framers feared a strong and oppressive central govt.
- That's why they were all for 'limited govt'.
- That's why there are 'checks n balance' among the branches of govt. Why? Because 'ambition must be made to counter ambition' (james monroe). They understand human nature and knew all too well that politicians are moreso motivated by political self-interest than anything else.
- That's why 'We, the people' are sovereign.
- That's why the constitution is the 'law of the land'. This govt does NOT decide the rules and it MUST exercise powers expressly granted by the Constitution, too. It's on 'the people' to maintain this democracy.

*****************************

Freedom?
Meh. I think others said it best. This post is long enough, so I'm gonna start piggy backing *laugh*:
We have rights. They just aren't 'absolute'. *shrug*
But - nothing's written in stone, though. The constitution is something of a 'living document'. Well, according to some. I guess....
Point is -- opinions are like buttholes (or so I'm told) and...the funny thing about resources?
They're tend to be 'limited'.
So, someone's bound to have a difference of opinion about anything. What we don't like, we change. We compromise.
(Social) conflict is just a 'something' that's going to happen.
...and we have the freedom to agree to disagree(within reason) - to clarify, if necessary.
(Among other things).