[Blain]

According to my Latin American Professor. He tried comparing George Washington's accent to power with that of Castro’s. I don't know where to begin! :banghead:

Slight difference in the two revolutions.

[Balog]

Professor of what?

[Blain]

Does it matter?

[Balog]

Yes, it does.
If he's a history prof and has a reason to be commenting on that period, then that's one thing. Not much you can do about the fact that he's a moron. If he's a math or philosophy prof, then this is propaganda unrelated to the subject and might be actionable.

Beyond that, mere curiosity.

[Blain]

He is a political science prof. He is also a father/priest.

[w4rma]

Both of them led revolutions against a dictator/king (dictator Fulgencio Batista/King George III) and an aristocracy.

It's the governments that they built after their revolutions that are different, IMHO.

[4v50 Gary]

Washington is a role model for some terrorists. He's in on the ground floor at the start of a revolution, overthrows the existing authorities and then established as the head of states. Where Washington is different is that he refused the crown and he wanted to step down after two terms. His virtue was in recognizing the republic and setting aside any personal ambition for glory. In doing so, he gained even greater glory.

Other U.S. presidents have followed Washington's example. Andrew Jackson was a big war hero who became president. Ole Tippecanoe comes to mind as does U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Ike.

So, what lesson do the terrorists learn? By military means one achieves political power. I guess it's a variation of Clausewitz's "War is politics by another means" (or something like that). As mentioned before, they fail to see that our military men have consistently stepped down from power and have not attempted to establish a dynasty.

Other countries have followed it with varying results. In SE Asia there's Vietnam (French got booted out), Lenin in Russia, Mao in China, Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Look at Roman history when in one year, there were three emperors. Happens all the time in Africa right now.

But, as I've said, in the American example the leader steps down and willingly and yields control to his elected successor. Point that out to the good professor.

[tyme]

"War is a mere continuation of policy [german: "Politik"] by other means"
(Book 1, Ch. 1, Sec. 24; Graham translation)

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Reagan allegedly said it in reference to the Contras, but I'm not satisfied that he's the origin of the quote. Does anyone know where that quote originated?

[Mike Irwin]

Washington's rise to military command was FUNDAMENTALLY different from Castro's, and was for significantly different reasons.

Washington was one of the landed elite, American aristocracy. (In essence, Washington was what Castro was rebelling against in Cuba.)

Castro wasn't.

Washington accepted an appointment to power at the behest of a civilian government that was, on many levels, recognized by the British crown.

Castro didn't.


Washington, at all times, was subject to the whims of that civilian government.

Castro wasn't.

At the end of the revolutionary struggle Washington submitted his resignation to the civilian government and returned to civilian life.

Castro didn't.


Washington later participated in the creation of a new form of government, acting largely as a figurehead (he was President of the Constitutional Convention, but made no speeches for the record, made no motions, just sat there lending gravity).

Castro didn't.

Sorry, but Castro's and Washington's situations are so vastly different that it's not even funny.

[Standing Wolf]

Professor of what?

Socialism of course. You really needed to ask, eh?

[TekChef]

Since the Constitution is now a "living document", and it' s not owrking...

let's demonize the ones who help put it into place ..that's it!

Hrmm..let's see...

Washington was one of the rich elite who risked EVERYTHING to gain freedom for all citizens, large and small. (most signers of the Declartion of Independance were on the more wealthy side..and most lost everything-but died free men)

He had no desire to be a dictator or king-in fact, he could have been re-elected past his two terms, but decided to bow out to return to being a common citizen.

He always respected and never betrayed the citizens he was fighting for-he would take their advice and always kept them in mind.


hrmm..seems to me all Castro did was remove the current dictator and became a worse one himself.

THERE IS NO COMPARISON

the class should be called "New Socialist views on American History/Politics"

[DonP]

As a lifelong victim of Catholic schools I feel qualified to throw my .02 in the pot.

The beloved padres (especially obvious in the Jesuits, but almost as bad in the Benedictines and some Franciscans) have a tendency to critique the military actions of this country here and now, while conveniently omiting the major part they played in intitating an unqualified genocide against the meso american cultures in the 16th century, to bring the "heathen" souls to the lord.

Just for the heck of it, ask him to discuss his views on the activist role the church played in the 60's through the 90's in Latin American political struggles ... as long as we're talking about vicious imperialism.

Ha!

Don P.

[makarov1]

Don't forget that a failed rebellion led by Washington would mean a treason charge, punishable by death. Washington did not have a long string of military successes, but he won when it mattered most. Being hanged for treason was a real possibility for Washington; he was prepared to give up everything, including his own life to be free of a repressive British Monarchy.

Without the sacrifices of these great men I believe our nation would have taken a different course throughout history, and thank God that freedom was more important to Washington than making a comfortable living in Virginia.