EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Avatar and the Genocides We Will Not See
Cameron's blockbuster half-tells a story we would all prefer to forget
Avatar, James Cameron's blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly silly and profound. It's profound because, like most films about aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures. But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas. It's profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.
But this is a story no one wants to hear, because of the challenge it presents to the way we choose to see ourselves. Europe was massively enriched by the genocides in the Americas; the American nations were founded on them. This is a history we cannot accept.
In his book American Holocaust, the US scholar David Stannard documents the greatest acts of genocide the world has ever experienced(1). In 1492, some 100m native peoples lived in the Americas. By the end of the 19th Century almost all of them had been exterminated. Many died as a result of disease. But the mass extinction was also engineered.
When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they described a world which could scarcely have been more different from their own. Europe was ravaged by war, oppression, slavery, fanaticism, disease and starvation. The populations they encountered were healthy, well-nourished and mostly (with exceptions like the Aztecs and Incas) peacable, democratic and egalitarian. Throughout the Americas the earliest explorers, including Columbus, remarked on the natives' extraordinary hospitality. The conquistadores marvelled at the amazing roads, canals, buildings and art they found, which in some cases outstripped anything they had seen at home. None of this stopped them from destroying everything and everyone they encountered.
The butchery began with Columbus. He slaughtered the native people of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic) by unimaginably brutal means. His soldiers tore babies from their mothers and dashed their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on living children. On one occasion they hung 13 Indians in honour of Christ and the 12 disciples, on a gibbet just low enough for their toes to touch the ground, then disembowelled them and burnt them alive. Columbus ordered all the native people to deliver a certain amount of gold every three months; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the native population of Hispaniola had fallen from 8m to zero: partly as a result of disease, partly as a result of murder, overwork and starvation.
The conquistadores spread this civilising mission across central and south America. When they failed to reveal where their mythical treasures were hidden, the indigenous people were flogged, hanged, drowned, dismembered, ripped apart by dogs, buried alive or burnt. The soldiers cut off women's breasts, sent people back to their villages with their severed hands and noses hung round their necks and hunted Indians with their dogs for sport. But most were killed by enslavement and disease. The Spanish discovered that it was cheaper to work Indians to death and replace them than to keep them alive: the life expectancy in their mines and plantations was three to four months. Within a century of their arrival, around 95% of the population of South and Central America had been destroyed.
In California during the 18th Century the Spanish systematised this extermination. A Franciscan missionary called Junipero Serra set up a series of "missions": in reality concentration camps using slave labour. The native people were herded in under force of arms and made to work in the fields on one fifth of the calories fed to African-American slaves in the 19th century. They died from overwork, starvation and disease at astonishing rates, and were continually replaced, wiping out the indigenous populations. Junipero Serra, the Eichmann of California, was beatified by the Vatican in 1988. He now requires one more miracle to be pronounced a saint(2).
While the Spanish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the British who colonised North America wanted land. In New England they surrounded the villages of the native Americans and murdered them as they slept. As genocide spread westwards, it was endorsed at the highest levels. George Washington ordered the total destruction of the homes and land of the Iroquois. Thomas Jefferson declared that his nation's wars with the Indians should be pursued until each tribe "is exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi". During the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies, mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims' genitals to use as tobacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theodore Roosevelt called this event "as rightful and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."
The butchery hasn't yet ended: last month the Guardian reported that Brazilian ranchers in the western Amazon, having slaughtered all the rest, tried to kill the last surviving member of a forest tribe(3). Yet the greatest acts of genocide in history scarcely ruffle our collective conscience. Perhaps this is what would have happened had the Nazis won the second world war: the Holocaust would have been denied, excused or minimised in the same way, even as it continued. The people of the nations responsible - Spain, Britain, the US and others - will tolerate no comparisons, but the final solutions pursued in the Americas were far more successful. Those who commissioned or endorsed them remain national or religious heroes. Those who seek to prompt our memories are ignored or condemned.
This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz complains that the film resembles a "revisionist western" in which "the Indians became the good guys and the Americans the bad guys."(4) He says it asks the audience "to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency." Insurgency is an interesting word for an attempt to resist invasion: insurgent, like savage, is what you call someone who has something you want. L'Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, condemned the film as "just ... an anti-imperialistic, anti-militaristic parable"(5).
But at least the right knows what it is attacking. In the New York Times the liberal critic Adam Cohen praises Avatar for championing the need to see clearly(6). It reveals, he says, "a well-known principle of totalitarianism and genocide - that it is easiest to oppress those we cannot see". But in a marvellous unconscious irony, he bypasses the crashingly obvious metaphor and talks instead about the light it casts on Nazi and Soviet atrocities. We have all become skilled in the art of not seeing.
I agree with its rightwing critics that Avatar is crass, mawkish and cliched. But it speaks of a truth more important - and more dangerous - than those contained in a thousand arthouse movies.
Notes:1. David E Stannard, 1992. American Holocaust. Oxford University Press. Unless stated otherwise, all the historical events mentioned in this column are sourced to the same book.
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-miracle28-2009aug28,0,2804203.story
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/amazon-man-in-hole-attacked
4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/350fozta.asp
5. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2802155/Vatican-hits-out-at-3D-Avatar.html
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat4.html
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


125 Comments so far
Show Allyes and 13 million Congolese holocausted by Belgian Colonialism...1 million Herreros by German colonialism in what is now Namibia...and ..should I go on? it will make many books ..
Thank you. I believe it has been previously documented in many books.
Avatar is stunningly realistic, imaginative computer animation (even the 2D version I saw) wrapped around a rather weak plot and dialogue. But it's anti-imperialist (and anti-transnational mining industry) and ecological wisdom message was there, even if rather unsophisticated in it's presentation.
But, I fugured if this is the way to get the message to the youth of America, more power to it.
The theater where I saw Avatar was showing the 3-D version and I must say it was spectacular beyond belief. If there is any way possible the 3-D version IS A MUST SEE!!!! It takes the experience of seeing a movie to another level just as popcorn, talkies and Technicolor film did.
Having said that, the message of Avatar goes well beyond the struggle of any single culture against another culture with different values and technology. Rather it embraces that struggle where ever it takes place, whether it’s in the Americas after Columbus, Africa or world far across the galaxy.
Is the plot perfect? No. Are there contradictions in the film? Yes. (The people of Avatar exhibit a broad love for the environment in which they live, seem to abhor the killing of animals, yet in the scene where the two main characters agree mate she offers that another woman is a better hunter than she is...WTF?) Is some of the dialogue stiff? Yes, but considering that its dialogue between different species a certain amount of stiffness would be expected.
The thing about the movie that struck me is that it will withstand all the axe grinding its critics can throw at it and will still leave a far more powerful message than the knee-jerk reactions of its critics.
The sheer pace and mindless sensory-bombardment of current-day "action films" give me vertigo as it is. So, I deliberately chose a 2D screen at an independent in-town theater that needs my business more than a chain megaplex in suburbia or the strained re-creations of suburbia on the old steel mill sites.
No amount of hig-tech razzle-dazzle replaces a good, thought provoking or romantic story and good acting. While entertaining, "Avatar" will cetainly not be memorable in the way, say, the far more sophisticated and romantic anti-war message in the emotionally wrenching film, "The English Patient" did (whish would have also been anti-imperialist if it had followed the novel better). And the plot and dialog free film "Koyanisquatsi" delivered a far more scathing indictment on superstructure of modern terchnological society.
But a young USAn today would probably either fall asleep or have trouble following "The English Patient", and, they would almost certainly do so while watching "Koyyanisquatsi". So, if stuff like Avatar" is needed to educate USAn youth, I'll accept that.
I couldn’t agree more about the mind numbing excesses of current action/adventure films.
I’ve been known to get sea sick before the boat has left the dock and years ago I nearly hurreled at an I-Max theater at King’s Island after riding roller coasters then seeing one on I-max.
For these reasons we chose to sit in aisle seats near the exit. I was ready to remove my 3-D glasses and head for the exit at the first hint of motion sickness.
I’m more than pleased to say that I found the 3-D effects of the movie added greatly to the realism of the computer animation of the movie and my brain adjusted to the 3-D effects within the first minutes of the film. Yes, it’s high tech razzle dazzle, so were the stereo sound effects of the music of the 60’s.
The trailers before the movie included one for a 3-D version of Alice in Wonderland coming out this spring and another one for a 3-D version of the type of over the top action adventure films that dominate the suburban multiplexes.
Sometimes art is remembered for advances in technology and I think it’s more than probable that Avatar will gain that recognition.
"Koyaanisqatsi" is one of the most depressing movies I have ever seen, because it is true.
Yes, I have cried at the end, (I have it and Powaquatsi on video) although I can't entirely place in my mind why. It's one of those handful of films that always haunts me.
I saw it on a big theater screen when it came out, I'd love to see it again on a big screen - maybe the whole "quatsi" trilogy. There are a couple art-theaters and a film society in my town that could show them, but the US is far from the self-examining mood that it was in when Regggio made Koynaisquatsi, so this move will likely be incomprehensible to many or most.
I agree any movie that tells this morality tale to new generations on such a successful level needs to be heralded as a very good thing. Otherwise these generations only see what exists in front of them, which usually is not too inspiring from a humanity point of view.
Kids can come out of this movie with a different point of view about money, morality & unregulated capitalism. It seems very possible.
Yes! But even more than the genocides alone, currently many indigenous peoples are fighting to protect their mineral and natural resources from foreign colonization -- just like the Na'vi in Avatar. After seeing Avatar, I thought to myself, "What a beautiful movie with a positive ecological message! But what a scandal that it cost over $300 million to produce, and has already earned over $1.3 billion. Meanwhile, native people on planet Earth are struggling and dying right now, with little help. If even a fraction of Avatar's money was donated to support non-profit indigenous environmental organizations on our planet, it could make a huge difference." Folks are now building a movement for exactly this idea over on Facebook -- come join over 1,000 people calling for Avatar and their $1 billion+ to "Save Planet Earth, Share The Money!" -- http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=265905035119&ref=mf
And how, exactly is a "Facebook" page going to convince all these high-tech-libertarian "Reason"-reading capitalists enjoying their profits (either in an offshore account of taxed at a measly maximum of 15%) to give a penny to real indigenous people?
It's well worth a try -- the money is there, there has to be some shame in retaining it. And it takes a push of a button to join for those on facebook.
And will the facebook page produce a letter or e-mail to the shareholders of the film venture? Do you even know how to contact the shareholders?
Facebook requires someone signs up to use it. I know many people who have not signed up. By trying to do anything through Facebook you are immediately diminishing your potential audience. Creating a website and then maybe using Facebook as part of promoting that site makes a lot more "marketing" sense.
I must admit the stuff about Brother Juniper and his "meeseeions", the hero of even Anglo-californians, was news to to me. Even the Fransiscans! No wonder my brother, a former friar, left the order in disgust.
I was under the notion that the Jesuits were a little more "moderate", but that is based mostly on fictitious movies like "The Mission" (set in Brazil/Paraguay or, at the other end of América, "Black Robe" set in Quebec.
Like the unconscionable efforts of the current Buffalo Soldier-in-Chief?!
"...troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies, mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims' genitals to wear on their hats"
the forefathers of the Teabaggers?
Pretty much! The modern American Conservative movement is, in my eyes, made up of people who would have been murdering and mutilating Indian kids in the 1800's; being an unlikely mix of Cherokee, Celt and Punjabi, I can't stand their sanctimonious hypocrisy at all! They insult all of my ancestors.
I'm glad Monbiot steps forward to say this.
First of all, the majority (almost all) of the people who praise this movie and shout out loud for everyone to see it, do so from the standpoint of its amazing computer-generated special effects (especially in the 3D). I couldn't give a rat's ass about that stuff, quite frankly, and this only shows how low-brow and easily-entertained most Americans are.
Second, as a progressive college-trained historian, I don't need to see the "message" of the movie. The movie is preaching to the choir with regard to me. I already understand the parallels here and wish MORE Americans would open their eyes to America's continuing genocides.
So I guess that means I agree a bit with PJD412. If more people see it and understand a little more of the parallels with American history (and present), then I consider that a good thing.
Still, I can't hold my sarcasm in check too much, for the exact same reasons Monbiot mentions. Yet again, the "message" (as important as it is) gets watered down and diverted by Hollywood.
Agreed, ultimately, all that computer-generated razzle-dazzle is invariably used with rather low-brow results! I despair at ever seeing a good, memorable US produced film again (The last I can think of was "Cold Mountain") and certainly not from any US director.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH: You need to smoke peyote under the stars and sleep outside more! Otherwise, you have banished your "inner child." Your post reminded me of why I once gave a lecture (actually twice) to a group of MENSANS entitled, "Why the intellect blocks the spiritual process." They invited me back, which I found amusing, since the lecture was aimed at their achilles heel.
Invitation accepted! Yes, I have always been too much in my brain . . . I acknowledge this. It is one of the reasons I do yoga, meditate, and visit our good friend Mary Jane every now and then -- to get out of my head.
And I appreciate your insights on the movie that you posted below. In fact, I appreciate EVERYONE'S thoughts on the movie that have posted on here. I have needed to hear all this thoughtful praise.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH: Thanks for not taking offense. Great that you can be so gracious if something is pointed out to you. It's really a matter of "Be ye as children to enter the kingdom." There is a part of me that is still 5 or 6 years old, and that's why I get along great with my grandchildren and enjoy playing with children. That state of mind which is open to wonder is the state where grace is most likely to touch us. I think the film has the potential of delivering that, if we hold to that childlike place in ourselves while experiencing it. This is where so much intellectual tearing apart works against the higher potentials... maybe at some point such THE invitation can be extended to a group of us...
Why say "we have all become skilled in the art of not seeing"?
I haven't and obviously Monbiot hasn't. And the compilers at CD haven't. And the regular visitors haven't.
I thought "Avatar" was basically the plot line of "Dances with Wolves" remade as outer space science fiction/fantasy. Monbiot captures this spectacular 3-D action extravaganza's essence when he calls it "both profoundly silly and profound."
Viewers of "Avatar" are treated to a clash of cultural stereotypes, with the traditional Hollywood boy-meets-native-princess, boy-loses-girl, boy-saves-girl, girl-saves-boy, boy-gets-initiated-into-native-tribe-and-they-all-live-happily-ever-after subplot. The bad guys in the black hats are the commanders of the US Marine Corps and the corporate plutocratic pigs out to pillage the natives' valuable resources - militarism ultimately running brutally rampant when the locals fail to see the handwriting on the wall and voluntarily buy in to the engulfing global (intergalactic) corporate economy.
The good guys and gals are the beleagured indigenous peoples, plus a mere handful of middle echelon participants in the invading imperial force (token "honorable" Marine warriors like the movie's male lead, and token "sensitive" civilian apparatchik whose benign efforts are continually thwarted by the clumsy, arrogant excesses of the military/industrial complex). Message: some colonialists have hearts of gold, but the system is fatally corrupt at the top.
"Avatar" is all about a clash of civilizations writ large. From a cinemagraphic standpoint, I think Cameron's special effects up the ante on what is technologically feasible in moviemaking the way that "2001: A Space Odessey" and Disney's "Fantasia" once did. In terms of political message content, however, "Avatar" sets the stage brilliantly for everyone in the audience to root for the oppressed innocents against the warmongers who foisted the global war on terror on planet earth, but the big picture abruptly falls flat at the end.
Low tech, asymetrical militarism miraculously prevails over the hi tech militarism of the Masters of the Universe. The evil doers are booted back where they came from. That's sure not what happened to the Incas or the Hurons.
Oh well. It's all fiction and fantasy anyway.
Bill from Saginaw
It's "Pocahontas" with blue people! Check this out -- pretty funny!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/reddit/james-camerons-pocohontas-err-avatar
If I remember correctly, they were EX-military, i.e. mercenaries, what the MSM so sweetly call, "contractors." Think Blackwater/Xe.
Sioux Rose
Hey, Bill... don't give it ALL away! And as for the ending, it's about time GOOD won out over evil! Part of our passivity and conditioning is the belief that we are powerless against this MIC machine that's running roughshod over us, our green world, and all things sacred within it. Did you forget that it was also an odd ad hoc collection of not-exactly trained, orthodox warriors that took out Darth and his Death Star?
I think the images cast by this film into the collective consciousness provide the sense that there IS hope. I loved the way the creatures of nature played a role in creating havoc for the military. What is to say that a flight of geese can't take down a war plane? That a dust storm can't mess with military technology? Maybe a comet passing too close to the earth can disable other sensitive military equipment! A friend of mine was in the air force and he was tasked with doing something with bombs... he told me that his jacket was checked for static electricity (you know, sometimes sparks happen when you brush your jacket against something or even comb your hair)... he said just those tiny sparks could set off a reaction.
As soon as we humans disabuse ourselves of the notion that military power trumps all others... we begin to envision what truly IS possible. Just as modern technology has advanced beyond sci-fi assumptions of 100 years ago, we do not yet know, nor have we human beings tapped, the latent potential powers of the mind. This film tweaked some important chords. Hopefully some yet to blossom in the collective consciousness.
Let me give you another analogy. My sister has a Masters degree in Art. Once we were touring the MET in NYC and she said to me, "the artists broke the planes of matter before the physicists did." She was utterly correct, and while I am not sure if this was her own insight, or something one of her professors related... if you look at the period of cubism or some of the abstract painting that became popular just at the turn of the l9th century, it seems that artists indeed depicted the changes in form that later were echoed through nuclear fision reactions.
Our own Pentagon and its weapon suppliers study comic strips and sci-fi... and what Darpa is working on (courtesy of articles posted on this site by Nick Turse) stuns the imagination. Imagine if all that money and talented minds used resources for OTHER than destructive ends? This film is all about the HIGH imagining... humanity is starved for it!
From your lips to God's ears. Nice.
Lot of talk about this film being an allegory for the European genocide in the Americas, but it seems more obvious to be an allegory for the US genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why is no one talking about US imperialism, the biggest elephant in the room?
Cameron has guts for making an unambigously anti-imperial film in this day and age. Plus, corny though it is, I loved the movie.
Na'vi = Native Americans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, all victims of Western, especially U.S., imperialistic genocide.
Yes, Avatar is "Dances with Na'vi", with a weak, predictable plot. But the fact that its message infuriates the Right (which is usually wrong) and the Vatican tells me that it's not all that bad.
But imperialistic wars and genocide are still so profitable that they will continue, regardless of well-meaning "message" films such as this.
Smedley Butler told us long ago that War is a Racket, and, until the profit is taken out of it, we will be unable to end it. Corporatism-militarism is the most serious threat to our existence, causing both wars and much of climate chaos, and the U.S. is the pre-eminent corporatist-militarist state on the planet.
Avatar actually goes further than most movies its genre, although I think this distinction is lost on people who are used to analyzing the plot along more predictable lines. White guilt fever or racism charges are not new -- they have been advanced for many movies, some also highly acclaimed hits. However, its seems in this case that these charges actually miss the big picture, and are actually deflecting attention away from the film's central message which is both purposefully unsubtle an refreshingly obvious.
Interestingly with its technological sophistication, Avatar is most directed at the gamer/grunts who are beginning to fill up the ranks of US Army recruits. If it can compete against the US Military's own initiatives to indoctrinate youth into fighting for imperial wars through free first-person shooter games, then the film will have made a powerful contribution.
Sioux Rose
CETI: Great post.
I have to say I fell in love with the movie. Monbiot, as one would expect from his other writings, fails to consider the environmental argument and focuses only on the genocidal argument. But it is enough of an argument to suggest that this picture transcends the pablum to reach a pinnacle of fantastic achievement. And, I confess, I am a tree hugger and love the forest so much that I live in it. There is no doubt in my mind that genocide and ecocide are twin pillars of imperialism. Unfortunately, our country remains the main driver of this kind of foolish thinking (non-thinking?). As climate change rears its head, how will America wage war against Mother Earth? Stay tuned for Avatar, part II.
I'm concerned that Monbiot's article leaves the impression that Native Americans were completely exterminated. The current President of Bolivia is Native; and the recent struggles in Bolivia and Equador have involved Native peoples struggling for their rights.
There are Native communities throughout the Americas, who are really insistent that they still exist and have a right to decent lives.
I'm concerned that Monbiot's article leaves the impression that Native Americans were completely exterminated. The current President of Bolivia is Native; and the recent struggles in Bolivia and Equador have involved Native peoples struggling for their rights.
There are Native communities throughout the Americas, who are really insistent that they still exist and have a right to decent lives.
Reactionaries find it hard to explain themselves when they're painted correctly. That African-Americans are involved at the top levels of planning the US Empire's current genocides proves the wholesale inferiority of a school system that cannot allow the truth of the Americas's history to be told. There is another genocide related to the period of "discovery" Monbiot neglects--those of poor whites transported to the Americas, Ireland, Australia, or India as slaves for the "crime" of being poor or "idle." Elites have long been monstors, and today's are no different.
Excellent comment. It is the oligarchs and plutocrats, who are mostly hollow souls, that often need purged completely from positions of power.
The punishments described here were for not paying taxes. The Queen of Spain sent Coumbus to Hispaniola to demand taxes from the natives. The natives who paid their taxes were given a token to wear around their neck, the natives who did not pay their taxes were punished in the ways described in this article. The gold that was being demanded from them was for paying the taxes owed to the Spanish government. That's one way that the story of Avatar differs from Columbus. Columbus was basically a tax collector for the government not part of a private business like in the movie.
I guess one can find a "libertarian" angle in everything!
I agree with some libertarians because I'm a left-libertarian (not a socialist libertarian more of an anarchist libertarian ) but a lot of them are too conservative or too corporatist.
I don't see how it is so surprising to find an anarchist angle in a story about imperialism.
pjd412
Would you agree then, that you can find a "progressive" angle in everything? Or a liberal angle? Just asking.
By "libertarian" I meant the anti-tax, anti-public-sector, anti-compassion attitude, which is the single most dominant thing that is wrecking the USA. It seemed quite contrived that a modern-day anti-tax/anti-public sector message could be found in the story of Columbus's genocide of the Arawak.
And don't say it is becasue the taxes go to the bloated MIC. The taxes they scream about the most are local taxes that go to public transit, schools, and social programs particularly if the taxes affect the rich.
In fact, here in Pennsylvania, a constitutional amendment to change to a graduated progressive tax immediately gets dismissed as a "socialistic tax increase" even though it would decrease the taxes of a majority of workers. But a highly regressive extension of the sales tax to clothes and food would probably slide right through with minimal protest.
"By "libertarian" I meant the anti-tax, anti-public-sector, anti-compassion attitude, which is the single most dominant thing that is wrecking the USA."
Gotcha. I cannot disagree.
Taxes MUST go up, we are going to have to pay for all the spending by the last two presidential fools and Congress's. At the same time, we need to cut spending where we can without hurting exactly the things you mention. education, public transit, energy production,social safety net, etc. These are services that people need more than ever.
We can easily cut the budget of the Armed services and the MIC and produce a stronger military than we have now. And that is even more important than ever from the looks of things. We could easily cut money from education and produce better results. Social services I believe are going to require more funds for the next 5-6 years. Getting real about our own energy sector, how to reduce energy use and emissions as a by product is extremely important.
The sales tax is the most regressive because it does burden exactly the folks thast can afford it less. Arkansas even taxes food which I find repulsive.
It seems we are closer together here rather than apart.
"Taxes MUST go up, we are going to have to pay for all the spending by the last two presidential fools and Congress's."
No they don't have to go up. People just have grow the balls en masse to stop paying them & believe me the bankers/ Treasury couldnt do a damn thing.
We are lazy fools to continue to pay for decisions that were not supported by the mass of citizens.
Corporations are the biggest consumers of raw product....let there be a sales tax & the largest consumers pay the most.
Income taxes are for fools. Just because some bankers & their buddies passed a law in 1913 when communication was not as speedy as it is now....
Now we understand it was a pure bank robbery, but shouldnt we reanalyze the law now that we have a better grasp of the facts & see what a sham it is.
I mean come on...... a tax on your blood, sweat & tears to earn a living.
It is almost tragic comedy when you think about it (or slavery).
Anti-tax is anti-compassion? What about Quaker tax protestors? Is that out of lack of compassion? I'm descended from Quakers in Pennsylvania actually, many of whom disobeyed the government's laws for centuries and were imprisoned and executed for it. That's why my ancestors had to move to Pennsylvania, to escape the government. For instance they helped with the underground railroad in which my ancestors were some of the most well-known participants. I am not a Quaker today but I sympathize with the ones who protest military spending by not paying their taxes. I think that might be closer to my own beliefs than the conservative libertarians. But I do appreciate the libertarians for standing up to government power. I know there are a lot of hypocritical people who claim they are libertarians but there are a lot of hypocritical liberals and progressives too. There are also a lot of libertarians who question war, military spending, curtailing of civil liberties as much as any other government power. I don't trust big powerful government. I don't think that means I lack compassion.
Here's a wikipedia article about the history of tax resistance that you might want to review before saying tax resistance means lacking compassion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tax_resistance
I didn't specifically make a comparison between today's taxes and Columbus but I guess it was implied. I think there are some common themes that would not be too contrived. What if for instance everyone in Spain had been a libertarian who refused to pay their taxes to the Queen? She wouldn't have been able to afford all those soldiers and ships that went there to kill and rape people. What if everyone did it today like the brave Quakers who do? I know if you read this you are going to say you are talking about libertarians not Quakers and libertarians don't want to pay taxes because they are rich bad people who just don't want to help those less fortunate. Of course that stereotype is incorrect. Who owns antiwar.com? Raimondo is one of the most important libertarians in the world today and I think I've read that his site is the most widely read libertarian site.
I loved the film. But as I sat in the theatre waiting for it to begin I was amazed and sickened by a long, disgusting propaganda screed on the National Guard. Over and over, images of our mighty peacekeepers where displayed in all their humanitarian glory. Helping those poor children in the Middle East, saving our own people from floods, fighting those evil-doers worldwide... I was so sickened I had to leave the theatre--- while it continued on and on, indoctrinating Americans to "support the troops" or join them in their great mission. Then the movie started.
Yeah, Apparently that national guard ad, produced in that same computer assisted, acclerated-action pace that I absolutely hate in modern filmmaking, plays on practically every screen in the USA.
pjd412
Well, thank God. I thought it was just me! I just detest it.
It was like something out of Nazi Germany.