Spielberg's Lincoln: In Three Paragraphs

[cybercoma]

Since when is pointing out a fact "bragging?"

Nothing to say about what I posted

The US is 6th with an HDI value of 0.910. Canada is 4th at 0.908.

Given the nature of the metrics used this difference is not material and to use what appears to be a standard competition ranking system makes the differences appear bigger than they really are.

In this case, a difference of 0.002 means a drop from 4th place to 6th which is silly.

Yeah. That UN report is not well respected. It gives you a vague idea of who's at the top and who's at the bottom, but nations that are closer together are indistinguishable in it. That's why the OECD reports give a much better idea of how industrialized nations compare to each other.

[sharkman]

To my review, I will add that I was surprised that it was the Republicans who were pushing for abolition of slavery rather than the Democrats. And yet blacks as a voting block seem to forget this.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet blacks as a voting block seem to forget this.

That's pretty ridiculous. They should vote Republican forever because Lincoln's war ended slavery ? Should the pro-business lobby vote Democrat too because Lincoln was against free trade ?

[cybercoma]

To my review, I will add that I was surprised that it was the Republicans who were pushing for abolition of slavery rather than the Democrats. And yet blacks as a voting block seem to forget this.

The parties flipped ideological positions in the early to mid 1900s.

[wyly]

To my review, I will add that I was surprised that it was the Republicans who were pushing for abolition of slavery rather than the Democrats. And yet blacks as a voting block seem to forget this.

could it be they remember it was democrat (Johnson) who fought for their right to vote in the 60s? or that it was republicans in the last couple years who sought to deny them the vote in this last presidential election?...

[bush_cheney2004]

To my review, I will add that I was surprised that it was the Republicans who were pushing for abolition of slavery rather than the Democrats. And yet blacks as a voting block seem to forget this.

The abolitionist movement was the foundation for the Republican party (Whigs and Free Soil Democrats).

[sharkman]

That's pretty ridiculous. They should vote Republican forever because Lincoln's war ended slavery ? Should the pro-business lobby vote Democrat too because Lincoln was against free trade ?

Something wrong with noticing that Black folks hate the party that freed them from slavery? I'm just curious about it is all.

By your logic, whatever the reason may be that Blacks vote Dem these days is ridiculous, which is a shortsighted view. I think all groups should vote their conscience, and not simply because they have always done so or that their cultural leaders tell them so(not that I am saying this is the situation today).

Edited November 25, 2012 by sharkman

[sharkman]

The abolitionist movement was the foundation for the Republican party (Whigs and Free Soil Democrats).

I have to admit that 'm not so well versed in American history. One reason why I found the Lincoln movie so fascinating.

[wyly]

Canada is 6th and the US 4th. Hardly something to be bragging about. Especially considering Canada over the last decade has closed the gap on the US in education and the overall HDI score, while creating more distance from the US on the health indicator.

There's also a number of problems with this system for ranking countries. To give one example, when you look at the Programme for International Student Assessment, which is an international study of education done by the OECD, Canada ranks far ahead of the US in education. PISA's report is the one that is used in academic communities to evaluate how countries are doing when it comes to education, so I wouldn't put much stock in the UN's numbers, at least for the education portion. Canada has better healthcare than the US regardless of whose assessment you look at (the UN or OECD). UN's report says that income is higher in the US, but just recently there were reports of that Canadian household income was greater than in the US because they took a nosedive after the 2008 crash.

What was it you were saying now...

it's kind of difficult accepting the US ahead of canada in education, canada has the best edcuated population in the world 51% having tertiary education, the usa ranked 4th with 40% ...

[Guest American Woman]

I have to admit that 'm not so well versed in American history. One reason why I found the Lincoln movie so fascinating.

You may find this OP interesting - "What would Lincoln say about today's GOP?"

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/04/25/what-abraham-lincoln-would-say-about-todays-republican-party

[Michael Hardner]

By your logic, whatever the reason may be that Blacks vote Dem these days is ridiculous, which is a shortsighted view.

Right. It's shortsighted because it doesn't take into account party positions from the 1860s.

I think all groups should vote their conscience, and not simply because they have always done so or that their cultural leaders tell them so(not that I am saying this is the situation today).

Then what are you saying ?

[sharkman]

Reading some of the man's speeches I get some perspective on him. Here is part of of his second inaugural address:

"...Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.

The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of "God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another draw with the sword, as was said 3000 years ago, so still must it be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

What he thinks about slavery here is compelling to me, that it was a sin, that to remove it might cost the nation everything financially and for every slave's spilled blood paid for with "another drawn with the sword. It rings true to me, but I think men of his conscience and courage would be pushed aside today. And I think Lincoln would weep if he could see today's America

Edited November 25, 2012 by sharkman

[sharkman]

You may find this OP interesting - "What would Lincoln say about today's GOP?"

http://www.hlntv.com...epublican-party

Interesting read, but I think the author tends to put words in Lincoln's mouth. The political spectrum has gone far afield from where it was. In Lincoln's day, prayer and the bible in schools was the norm. Sunday was the Sabbath. People were hanged for far less crimes than today, and done without all of the stays, etc. I could go on, but at the end of the day I think that Lincoln would be sick to his stomach to see what both parties have become. Abortion? Homosexually accepted? Perhaps he was just a religious nut after all.

Edited November 26, 2012 by sharkman

[August1991]

Reality is, Canada has been in wars where millions have died as well - and Canada did very little to take in the Jews during WWII. Sometimes what you don't do is as telling as what you do; and for a long time Canada had a 'lily white immigration' policy.

Sorry, AW. This statement is too much.

True, Canada has been involved in wars in which millions died. But the fact is that Canadians were willing to die on behalf of others, the good of all.

In these wars, unlike Americans, Canadians had no possibility that their government/State would win, dominate the world. Unlike Americans, indvidual Canadians fought in these wars, not for their government, not for their Republic or State, but simply because they thought it was the right thing to do.

----

Jews? Is this about Jews?

True, Canada accepted few Jews while German Nazis exterminated Polish Jews. But then, in the 1930s, few places accepted Jews. Canada was like America, marginally worse than Shanghai. What's your point? The fact is that Jews in Canada in the 1940s, like in Amerca, were at least safe.

Edited November 29, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

AW, the fact remains that you Americans killed several million of yourselves in a very bloody civil war.

We Canadians have never done such a thing.

In my book, on this fact alone, we Canadians (French and English) are civilised. And you Americans are not.

Edited November 29, 2012 by August1991

[bleeding heart]

This is silly, august, with all due respect.

Surely you must personally know some Americans? Maybe even have American friends, as most of us do?

They are perfectly civilized, lovely people, hailing from a varied, fascinating, complex culture. Plus, we're just like one another, anyway.

In fact, I feel almost bad simply pointing it out; as it's self-evidently true (that Americans are "civilized"), pointing out the fact feels almost like "some of my best friends are...."

But that's not how I mean it. I only mean that you're wrong.

Edited November 29, 2012 by bleeding heart

[The_Squid]

Both Canada and the USA have some very dark parts of their histories. No doubt that the civil war is a black mark, but Canada has its own... Treatment of First Nations... internment of Japanese-Canadians....

Sure, we are no worse... but I think the case that we were somehow "better" is a stretch.

I have no problem fessing up to the failures of Canada in the past and now. Some people can't see through their nationalism to criticize their country, on either side of the border. I think that's a character flaw.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, AW. This statement is too much.

Your entire posts/premise are too much.

True, Canada has been involved in wars in which millions died. But the fact is that Canadians were willing to die on behalf of others, the good of all.

And that's different from the Civil War - how?

In these wars, unlike Americans, Canadians had no possibility that their government/State would win, dominate the world. Unlike Americans, indvidual Canadians fought in these wars, not for their government, not for their Republic or State, but simply because they thought it was the right thing to do.

And that's different - how?

Jews? Is this about Jews?

It's about everything. It's also about First Nations people. Canada's history isn't very civilized in that regard.

True, Canada accepted few Jews while German Nazis exterminated Polish Jews. But then, in the 1930s, few places accepted Jews. Canada was like America, marginally worse than Shanghai. What's your point? The fact is that Jews in Canada in the 1940s, like in Amerca, were at least safe.

My point is that it wasn't a very civilized thing to do. You claim that Canada was fighting the good fight, for "all," as Canada refuse refuge to the Jews.

In my book, on this fact alone, we Canadians (French and English) are civilised. And you Americans are not.

At any rate, your claim that Canadians are civilized (English and French) while America is not makes me wonder if you are even aware of English and/or French history, never mind your own. It also makes me wonder if you think only English and French Canadians are civilized.

And for the record:

AW, the fact remains that you Americans killed several million of yourselves in a very bloody civil war.

the death toll was actually under one million, not several million.

[August1991]

This is silly, august, with all due respect.

Surely you must personally know some Americans? Maybe even have American friends, as most of us do?

They are perfectly civilized, lovely people, hailing from a varied, fascinating, complex culture. Plus, we're just like one another, anyway.

In general, I am "pro-American".

Both Canada and the USA have some very dark parts of their histories. No doubt that the civil war is a black mark, but Canada has its own... Treatment of First Nations... internment of Japanese-Canadians....

Sure, we are no worse... but I think the case that we were somehow "better" is a stretch.

There is simply no comparison between the treatment of Canada's minorities, and US slavery. As to secession, there is no comparison between Quebec's two referenda and the US Civil War.

[August1991]

And for the record:

the death toll was actually under one million, not several million.

Thank you for that statistical correction.

We Canadians have managed a civilized society of two languages, two religions for well over a century, without a civil war. Moreover, our Protestant, Anglophone (WASPs) first elected a Roman Catholic, francophone politician in the 19th century. They chose a leader from the minority community.

How often do Americans do that?

----

IMV, the true measure of a civilized society is how the majority treats the minority.

Edited December 1, 2012 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

There is simply no comparison between the treatment of Canada's minorities, and US slavery. As to secession, there is no comparison between Quebec's two referenda and the US Civil War.

I guess that depends on which side you're looking at it from - the minorities you speak of likely view things quite differently.

Furthermore, Canada had no need for slavery as your climate isn't conducive to the plantation economy, so it's quite easy to be pious under such circumstances; but even at that, it's not as if your history is free from slavery, and you don't hold the moral high ground in your treatment of First Nations people/minorities.

Thank you for that statistical correction.

You're welcome.

We Canadians have managed a civilized society of two languages, two religions for well over a century, without a civil war.

You do realize that we've managed to do the same thing, right? No civil wars for well over a century here, either - and we do have people speaking multiple languages. I'd wager that we have as many Spanish speaking citizens as you do French. Furthermore, we have ten times the population that you do and likely our population is spread out over ten times the area that yours is, as 80-90% of your population is living within 100-200 miles of the border.

Moreover, our Protestant, Anglophone (WASPs) first elected a Roman Catholic, francophone politician in the 19th century. They chose a leader from the minority community.

How often do Americans do that?

How often do Canadians have a Catholic head of state? Oh that's right - never. It's not even a possibility the way things stand. Furthermore, in the 19th century, Canada wasn't even a sovereign nation.

IMV, the true measure of a civilized society is how the majority treats the minority.

Yet you think Canada's killing millions in war was a noble thing - as you don't feel that way about a civil war which freed the slaves. At any rate, you don't hold the moral high ground in how you treat your minorities.

[August1991]

Yet you think Canada's killing millions in war was a noble thing - as you don't feel that way about a civil war which freed the slaves. At any rate, you don't hold the moral high ground in how you treat your minorities.

AW, this is a thread about an American movie about an American president. I have no desire to argue the good from the better.

You are right to be proud of fellow Americans who died to rid your country of this scourge of slavery.

----

But make no mistake, Lincoln made Republicans largely unelectable until Kennedy/Johnson in clumsy fashion tried to deal with America's minority. Then, Nixon exploited the breach, and southern Democrats began to vote Republican. You Americans still live with these divides, between North and South, between Black and White.

As I say (unoriginally), the ultimate measure of a society is how the majority treats the minority.

Edited December 1, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...But make no mistake, Lincoln made Republicans largely unelectable until Kennedy/Johnson in clumsy fashion tried to deal with America's minority.

This is patently false. Republican tickets have been very successful since the Civil War:

Election year Result Nominees President Vice President
1860 won Former Illinois Representative Abraham Lincoln[1] Maine Senator Hannibal Hamlin
1864 won Tennessee Governor Andrew Johnson[2]
1868 won General Ulysses S. Grant House SpeakerSchuyler Colfax
1872 won Massachusetts SenatorHenry Wilson[3]
1876 won Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes New York Representative William A. Wheeler
1880 won Ohio Representative James A. Garfield[1] Former Collector of the Port of New York Chester A. Arthur
1884 lost Former Secretary of State James G. Blaine Illinois Senator John A. Logan
1888 won Former Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison Former Ambassador Levi P. Morton
1892 lost Ambassador Whitelaw Reid
1896 won Former Ohio Governor William McKinley[1] Former New Jersey State SenatorGarret A. Hobart[3]
1900 won New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt
1904 won PresidentTheodore Roosevelt Indiana Senator Charles W. Fairbanks
1908 won Former Secretary of War William Howard Taft New York Representative James S. Sherman
1912 lost Vice President James S. Sherman,[3] Columbia University President Nicholas Butler[4]
1916 lost Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes Former Vice President Charles W. Fairbanks
1920 won Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding[3] Massachusetts GovernorCalvin Coolidge
1924 won President Calvin Coolidge Former Budget Director Charles Dawes
1928 won Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover Kansas Senator Charles Curtis
1932 lost
1936 lost Kansas Governor Alf Landon PublisherFrank Knox
1940 lost Wendell Willkie Oregon Senator Charles McNary
1944 lost New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey Ohio GovernorJohn Bricker
1948 lost California Governor Earl Warren
1952 won General Dwight D. Eisenhower California Senator Richard Nixon
1956 won

Edited December 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

This is patently false. Republican tickets have been very successful since the Civil War...

BC, I beg to differ. Your list is misleading,

Lincoln made it very difficult for a federal Republican until Kennedy/Johnson and the federal Civil Rights Act. Then, southern Democrats began to vote Republican, and Nixon astutely exploited their vote.

In Canadian terms, FDR managed (like Trudeau/King) a curious coalition of northern, urban leftists and southern rural nationalists.

Edited December 1, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

BC, I beg to differ. Your list is misleading,

No, "my list" is factual. Republican tickets won the presidency with frequency after Lincoln's term(s).

In Canadian terms, FDR managed (like Trudeau) a curious coalition of northern, urban leftists and southern rural nationalists.

Trudeau was no FDR, in anyone's terms.