"Let my people go!"

[Stand_watie]

Famous quotation.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that we don't have any understanding of the historical significance of the quote, and are just taking it as a quotation regarding any oppressed people anywhere.

Your suggestion as to where this demand best applies in the world today?

Your suggestion (internationally speaking) as to the person who is the most deserving person to state this message currently?

Bonus points for  finding  a good candidate other than those from mainstream American or western European politics.

***


"Thus says The L_rd, the G_d of Israel, 'Let My people go, that they may hold a Feast to Me in the wilderness." But Pharaoh said, "Who is The L_rd, that I should heed His voice and let Israel go? I do not know The L_rd, and moreover I will not let Israel go."

[Preacherman]

I'd vote for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader who's been imprisoned by the military junta there for years.  She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts - one of the few, IMHO, who've really earned the honor.

For a more detailed profile, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1950505.stm.

[Werewolf]

The demand applies nowhere...

If a people are oppresed and choose to remain so without fighting against their oppresors then they deserve their status.

History has proven over and over again that for a people to be free and remain so they must earn it. Though the fight doesn't necessarily have to be violent more often than not the price of freedom is paid in blood.

This is why the Democracy Mr. Bush so wants to install in Iraq will fail - because the Iraqis will not have earned it (no Iraqi is fighting for freedom and democracy - the insurgents are fighting to kill and embarass the US - they are fighting for supremacy of the Sunni or *expletive deleted*it sect, they are fighting because that's all they know how to do but don't be fooled - the only blood being shed in Iraq today in the name of freedom and democracy is that of US soldiers). If the US prevails (doubtful) the Iraqi people will have had their freedom handed to them and as a result it will be easily taken away by those more willing to pay the price for their beliefs what ever they may be.

[Perd Hapley]

The demand applies nowhere...

If a people are oppresed and choose to remain so without fighting against their oppresors then they deserve their status.

What does that have to do with the quotation? 

[Mannlicher]

One man's "oppressed person" is another's what? Terrorist?  Duly elected official, freedom activist?  What......
With the Citizens of most of the world's 192 nations living under a dictatorship, theocracy, or other flavor of totalitarian government, there are lots of "oppressed" folks these days.
Some folks claim to be oppressed simply because they have been inconvenienced, others because they simply have had a bad day.   The Tutsi in Rawanda sure were oppressed.  There are probably 125 or more qualified candidates for the title of "Most Oppressed".

[Werewolf]

The demand applies nowhere...

If a people are oppresed and choose to remain so without fighting against their oppresors then they deserve their status.

What does that have to do with the quotation? 

The question was where best does the demand "Let my people go" apply in the world today.

My answer - no where - ignoring the biblical reference the phrase "let my people go" is IMO pretty meaningless. Just words. Unless they act as a call to action and stir an angry populace up enough to take action against their oppresors - violent or non-violent - they're just so much hot air, a pure waste of oxygen.

On the other hand I suppose the action has to start somewhere and it is possible that "let my people go" is the match that lights the fire under the rear ends of the oppressed people.

Still - I don't see anywhere in the world today where the so called oppressed don't pretty much accept their oppression.

This whole thread reminds me of the quote where someone (I don't know who or when) said something to the effect that one who doesn't have anything he is willing to die for has nothing to live for either...

[Antibubba]

I see this being used at the top of a full-page ad in the AARP magazine, trumpeting the FDA approval of a new drug to reduce prostate swelling.   

[bstrambo]

The biggest problem with the "let my people go" concept is the people more often than not, fall flat on their faces when they get their wish.  South Africa post apartheid is a hellhole from what I hear, Russia isn't doing so hot either.  The focus is always 100% on getting out from under the current regime, when that happens, they have no plan for a stable government.  Technically free and starving isn't much better than oppressed and halfway starving.  I'm not saying the prior govts were good, or necessarily better, but they provided structure and that structure needs to be replaced.

Heck, look at the biblical example.  The Hebrews ended up wondering around in the desert for 40 years and many would have preferred to go back to Egypt.  It was all Moses could do to barely hold them together.  It is unfortunate, but the radical socialists usually have the long term view and sense of self sacrifice required to revolt, then build a stable (but oppressive) society.  Our founding fathers had that....the current democracies we are propping up don't.

[Stand_watie]

...heck, look at the biblical example.  The Hebrews ended up wondering around in the desert for 40 years and many would have preferred to go back to Egypt.  It was all Moses could do to barely hold them together.  It is unfortunate, but the radical socialists usually have the long term view and sense of self sacrifice required to revolt, then build a stable (but oppressive) society.  Our founding fathers had that....the current democracies we are propping up don't.

Don't get caught up in the example, my friend. Let your imagination soar regarding what should be rather than reality. If we can't dream for a better world, our freedom is an illusion.

[Guest]

I'd vote for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also,  (I've seen the info on her on the liner notes for U2's albums) and the people of China in general (Tianamen Square).

[Perd Hapley]

Werewolf, I think you're thinking too hard about this.  I don't think Stand_Watie is asking for anything more than "Who is the most oppressed today?"


My vote goes to unborn children anywhere abortion is legal. 

[The Rabbi]

The demand applies nowhere...

If a people are oppresed and choose to remain so without fighting against their oppresors then they deserve their status.

What does that have to do with the quotation? 
[/quote]The question was where best does the demand "Let my people go" apply in the world today.

My answer - no where - ignoring the biblical reference the phrase "let my people go" is IMO pretty meaningless. Just words. Unless they act as a call to action and stir an angry populace up enough to take action against their oppresors - violent or non-violent - they're just so much hot air, a pure waste of oxygen.

On the other hand I suppose the action has to start somewhere and it is possible that "let my people go" is the match that lights the fire under the rear ends of the oppressed people.

Still - I don't see anywhere in the world today where the so called oppressed don't pretty much accept their oppression.

This whole thread reminds me of the quote where someone (I don't know who or when) said something to the effect that one who doesn't have anything he is willing to die for has nothing to live for either...
[/quote]

So anyone who doesnt sacrifice his life isn't oppressed?

[Art Eatman]

fistful, the deal is that for all practical purposes, no people were ever let go.  Them that got gone fought for it.  If someone else did the fighting, the freedom was either illusory or short-lived.

The most egregiously oppressed folks, seems to me, are those in a great many of the African countries.  Chad and Zimbabwe come instantly to mind.  North Korea probably heads the list, of course.

Rabbi said, "So anyone who doesnt sacrifice his life isn't oppressed?"

That's a sort of "Duh?" question, seems like.  The issue seems more to call for a willingness to die for one's freedom from oppression, if need be.  If you're not willing, hey, you're gonna have to live with it.

I think a lot of this philosophizing has to do with the word "deserve".  Implicit is that if somebody deserves something, somebody oughta provide it.  That's the basis for a welfare state, ain't it?   By extension--and not very much of one--it gets us into situations like the Gulf Wars.  That's the big trouble with what might be called "active compassion". 

Howzat for thread drift? 

Art

[richyoung]

1.  Tibet - Dali Lama
2.  Mexico - Vincente Fox   

[The Rabbi]

So Art, Nelson Mandela was not let go.  Jews under the Soviet Union were not let go.  American Blacks living under Jim Crow  laws were not let go.  One could go and on here.
By the same token, I guess E.Europeans deserved life under the Communists, the Tibetans deserve life under the Chinese, and AUng San Suu Kiy deserves to live under house arrest indefintely since they havent committed suicide yet.

[Werewolf]

This whole thread reminds me of the quote where someone (I don't know who or when) said something to the effect that one who doesn't have anything he is willing to die for has nothing to live for either...

So anyone who doesnt sacrifice his life isn't oppressed?

Did I say that? No where did I say that. But for the reading comprehension impaired I will repeat what I did say:

If a people is oppressed and is unwilling to fight, be it violently or non-violently, to end that oppression then those oppressed people deserve their oppressed status.

To delve into that a little more there are various levels of oppression - most of which can be endured and are not of a level worth fighting for. If the oppression can be endured and is in fact endured then the oppressed still deserve their status.

[Perd Hapley]

No, Art, the deal is that some people are reading this in a wooden, literal sense, that interprets the phrase as "Please let us go, or if not, perhaps we could have lighter chains?"  That's not implied at all.   

[The Rabbi]

This whole thread reminds me of the quote where someone (I don't know who or when) said something to the effect that one who doesn't have anything he is willing to die for has nothing to live for either...

So anyone who doesnt sacrifice his life isn't oppressed?

Did I say that? No where did I say that. But for the reading comprehension impaired I will repeat what I did say:

If a people is oppressed and is unwilling to fight, be it violently or non-violently, to end that oppression then those oppressed people deserve their oppressed status.

To delve into that a little more there are various levels of oppression - most of which can be endured and are not of a level worth fighting for. If the oppression can be endured and is in fact endured then the oppressed still deserve their status.

Ok, so now you are altering what you said to include non-violence.  By that token no one is really oppressed because most oppressed people engage in some kind of opposition.  You have essentially made your argument devoid of any value whatsoever.

[roo_ster]

Hmmm.

The phrase & moral argument only has ever been effective against W Civ.  Other civilizations just don't give a rat's behind about the plaintive voices of suffering or morality-based arguments.

Among folks suffering today, I would nominate Tibet.

[Werewolf]

Ok, so now you are altering what you said to include non-violence.  By that token no one is really oppressed because most oppressed people engage in some kind of opposition.  You have essentially made your argument devoid of any value whatsoever.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Rabbi and believe you hadn't read the entire thread when you posted the above nonsense...

Here's what I said in my original post. Note the reference to non-violent action:

My answer - no where - ignoring the biblical reference the phrase "let my people go" is IMO pretty meaningless. Just words. Unless they act as a call to action and stir an angry populace up enough to take action against their oppresors - violent or non-violent - they're just so much hot air, a pure waste of oxygen.

Your turn...

[The Rabbi]

Ok, so now you are altering what you said to include non-violence.  By that token no one is really oppressed because most oppressed people engage in some kind of opposition.  You have essentially made your argument devoid of any value whatsoever.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Rabbi and believe you hadn't read the entire thread when you posted the above nonsense...

Here's what I said in my original post. Note the reference to non-violent action:

My answer - no where - ignoring the biblical reference the phrase "let my people go" is IMO pretty meaningless. Just words. Unless they act as a call to action and stir an angry populace up enough to take action against their oppresors - violent or non-violent - they're just so much hot air, a pure waste of oxygen.

Your turn...

You're right.  Your arguments were uninsightful right from the beginning.  It doesnt take a genius to say that talk without action of some sort eventually resulting is a waste of time.  I should have caught that at first.  My apologies.

[Art Eatman]

Rabbi, fistful, we got us a certain amount of dictionary problem.

Anyhow, Rabbi, I don't think it's a matter of "deserve".  To me, it's more about "can't".  I imagine that Mandela would have been willing to die if it meant that his people became free--but his physical incarceration obviated any opportunity to fight and die in any meaningful manner.  As as been brought up in so many gun arguments, the unarmed have a poor chance in any physical effort against the armed, so long as those with arms have the will to use them.  (The rulers of the USSR lost the will.)  Sometimes, those who are subjugated have no choice but to bide their time.

Biding time also applied to the blacks in America.  For all the legal freedom resulting from the Civil War, it was not until after WW II that a more real freedom came into being.  Overall, full legal equality took a hundred years. 

Arms aren't the only answer.  For those who felt subjugated under the British Empire, economics was the solution.  It became unprofitable to have the Empire, so the Brits gave up and went home.  That's an obviously lengthy process, of course.

Art

[The Rabbi]

Art,
I dont disagree with you.  I am responding to the idea that because people arent throwing themselves in front of tanks they don't deserve freedom and their oppression is their own fault.  I strongly disagree with such sentiment.