Gotta disagree with ol' CL there, Sig. The tyrannies throughout history that are imposed on conquered lands are much more oppressive than good intentioned tyrannies, not even close.
Look at Hitler's occupations of Europe. The SS and Gestapo terrorized those folks just for the fun of it. Ditto the Mongol conquests, you really didn't want to be oppressed by ol' Ghenghis and the boys. If you were oppressed by Ghenghis, you STAYED oppressed.
Our current tyranny here in the US under Obama is heaven on earth compared to conquered folk.
That CS Lewis quote sounds cute, but it doesn't mean anything, and couldn't be more wrong.
Fredd - Good point. But these men were out and out tyrants, no posturing one way or the other, you know exactly where you stand with them. I took CS as meaning those who masquerade their intentions. There's a lot more to that way of thinking, particularly when considering the typical forms of government that have held sway over the centuries.
Everything is in context. Was Khan considered to be the most brutal conqueror, more so than the Romans, the Scythians, or Alexander?
They were all conquerors and what they accomplished was expected of them; they were the norm. People fled at their approach.
Not so today (well, except for the Muslims). :-)
We do not anticipate those same kind of actions from our existing, allegedly more humane, forms of western government today.
Sig: there's no 'but' here. Oppression is oppression. There's more oppressive and less oppressive. And medium oppression. The oppression we have under a well meaning but misguided liberal philosophy here in the US today only limits our growth, our freedom of choice and other oppressive forces foisted on us because our oppressors promise us all a chicken in every pot, but fail miserably in their delivery of this utopian foolishness. They truly mean well, but are so far off in their administration of their socialistic tools to accomplish their aims, it comes off as mild oppression in reality, and far from CS Lewis' 'most oppressive.' In fact it is hardly oppression at all the way we understand the definition of oppression.
CS Lewis just wrote that as a throw away, and he could not have possibly meant it to be accurate, because that little tidbit of his is about as inaccurate as could possibly be put out as 'wisdom.' Just ask the average occupant of a Siberian gulag how he would rate his current oppressive situation: mild, medium or bad.
Then read that CS Lewis quote again. I hope you see my point, Sig.
Here is the rest of his quote: "“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”"
4 comments:
Gotta disagree with ol' CL there, Sig. The tyrannies throughout history that are imposed on conquered lands are much more oppressive than good intentioned tyrannies, not even close.
Look at Hitler's occupations of Europe. The SS and Gestapo terrorized those folks just for the fun of it. Ditto the Mongol conquests, you really didn't want to be oppressed by ol' Ghenghis and the boys. If you were oppressed by Ghenghis, you STAYED oppressed.
Our current tyranny here in the US under Obama is heaven on earth compared to conquered folk.
That CS Lewis quote sounds cute, but it doesn't mean anything, and couldn't be more wrong.
Fredd - Good point. But these men were out and out tyrants, no posturing one way or the other, you know exactly where you stand with them. I took CS as meaning those who masquerade their intentions. There's a lot more to that way of thinking, particularly when considering the typical forms of government that have held sway over the centuries.
Everything is in context. Was Khan considered to be the most brutal conqueror, more so than the Romans, the Scythians, or Alexander?
They were all conquerors and what they accomplished was expected of them; they were the norm. People fled at their approach.
Not so today (well, except for the Muslims). :-)
We do not anticipate those same kind of actions from our existing, allegedly more humane, forms of western government today.
Sig: there's no 'but' here. Oppression is oppression. There's more oppressive and less oppressive. And medium oppression. The oppression we have under a well meaning but misguided liberal philosophy here in the US today only limits our growth, our freedom of choice and other oppressive forces foisted on us because our oppressors promise us all a chicken in every pot, but fail miserably in their delivery of this utopian foolishness. They truly mean well, but are so far off in their administration of their socialistic tools to accomplish their aims, it comes off as mild oppression in reality, and far from CS Lewis' 'most oppressive.' In fact it is hardly oppression at all the way we understand the definition of oppression.
CS Lewis just wrote that as a throw away, and he could not have possibly meant it to be accurate, because that little tidbit of his is about as inaccurate as could possibly be put out as 'wisdom.' Just ask the average occupant of a Siberian gulag how he would rate his current oppressive situation: mild, medium or bad.
Then read that CS Lewis quote again. I hope you see my point, Sig.
Here is the rest of his quote:
"“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”"
Post a Comment