Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

His country???
M Ali was betrayed by the USA. His entire life and the life of his race has been betrayed for 100s of years.

Moreover, every man or boy conscripted to Vietnam was also betrayed by the USA and the bunch of morons who were more interested in making money from selling arms than they were protecting the manhood of the US.

I can think if no more absurd a thread title than this one.

I appreciate the passion behind your sentiments. The legacy and struggles of Muhammad Ali and his stance on the Vietnam War are multi-faceted. It's crucial to understand that Ali's refusal was rooted not only in his personal beliefs but also in his religious convictions as a member of the Nation of Islam. Labeling someone as having "betrayed" their country is a strong assertion, especially when it involves conscientious objection.

While many may argue that going against the decision of the state might be viewed as a betrayal, there's another perspective to consider. Democracy thrives on individual freedoms and rights, one of which is the right to dissent and freedom of belief. Ali, in standing up for his beliefs and using his platform to highlight inconsistencies in the nation's treatment of Black Americans, contributed to the broader civil rights movement.

In a larger context, questioning the decisions and policies of one's country can be seen as a form of patriotism. This is because, by holding the nation accountable, one is working towards its betterment. In Ali's words, "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth." By this metric, his service to civil rights and equality was certainly patriotic.

What's essential, then, is to understand the nuances and contexts surrounding these decisions. It opens up a broader conversation: Can dissent be a form of patriotism?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer[/url]



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

America has been a superpower since World War Two, and with the fall of the Soviet Union it became the only superpower unchallenged in its military and economic power. America's propaganda both at home and abroad has been that it was America that won the Second World War, this propaganda was more affective at home than abroad. The rest of the world knew, along with any credible historian, that Russia won that war, certain it did not do it entirely alone. It was the Russians who broke the back of the monster Nazi war machine, and then chased it across Europe back to Berlin, losing a hundred thousand Russian just taking the city Berlin. America's losses in that war were about half a million souls, Russian losses were twenty-seven million and a devasted burned-out country. My point is America is a master of propaganda, and its own population are its most naive subjects, the soldier that does his patriotic duty is generally ignorant and misinformed about the people the government labels enemies. Muhammad Ali was not ignorant about the nature of the America Empire and its quest for world domination, it has been a cruel master, and the world knows this only too well.

Soldiers are not supposed to think for themselves, and very few indeed do, it is their ignorance that leads them to fight unjust wars for the Industrial military complex. This complex needs feeding, needs war profits, and young men ignorantly and willing die to feed it, maybe even get a place on the memorial wall. Those who were not politically ignorant, did not go to Vietnam, Vietnam the world knows was an American war crime, a crime against humanity, America's crime too was putting all those young men in harm's way. Today the world is reacting to its cruel aggression, and moving towards a bi-polar world. Muhammed Ali was a hero, and sacrificed much for his principles, his popularity is global, because globally America is known for what it is.

It's evident that you have strong views about the geopolitical dynamics and the role of propaganda, especially concerning America's involvement in global conflicts. Your emphasis on the discrepancy between historical accounts and public perception, especially regarding World War II, is noteworthy.

However, returning to the primary focus of our discussion, Muhammad Ali's decision to refuse participation in the Vietnam War was a profound one. Ali's stance wasn't solely based on a political understanding of the war; it was deeply personal, influenced by his religious convictions and broader concerns about racial inequality within the United States. When evaluating if someone "betrayed" their country, we must consider the broader context of their actions and beliefs.

As for the true nature of patriotism, it's a multifaceted concept. One can argue that voicing dissent against perceived injustices, even when they are state-sanctioned, is in itself a patriotic act. It embodies the belief in the nation's potential for growth and the hope for a more equitable future. Ali's decision was rooted in a conviction that went beyond geopolitics – it was about personal integrity, religious beliefs, and a vision for justice.

Your points raise another important question: To what extent should individuals be expected to support state decisions that conflict with their personal beliefs, and how do we navigate the fine line between allegiance to a nation and personal integrity?

[Sculptor1]

His country???
M Ali was betrayed by the USA. His entire life and the life of his race has been betrayed for 100s of years.

Moreover, every man or boy conscripted to Vietnam was also betrayed by the USA and the bunch of morons who were more interested in making money from selling arms than they were protecting the manhood of the US.

I can think if no more absurd a thread title than this one.

I appreciate the passion behind your sentiments. The legacy and struggles of Muhammad Ali and his stance on the Vietnam War are multi-faceted. It's crucial to understand that Ali's refusal was rooted not only in his personal beliefs but also in his religious convictions as a member of the Nation of Islam. Labeling someone as having "betrayed" their country is a strong assertion, especially when it involves conscientious objection.

While many may argue that going against the decision of the state might be viewed as a betrayal, there's another perspective to consider. Democracy thrives on individual freedoms and rights, one of which is the right to dissent and freedom of belief. Ali, in standing up for his beliefs and using his platform to highlight inconsistencies in the nation's treatment of Black Americans, contributed to the broader civil rights movement.

In a larger context, questioning the decisions and policies of one's country can be seen as a form of patriotism. This is because, by holding the nation accountable, one is working towards its betterment. In Ali's words, "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth." By this metric, his service to civil rights and equality was certainly patriotic.

What's essential, then, is to understand the nuances and contexts surrounding these decisions. It opens up a broader conversation: Can dissent be a form of patriotism?

Ali's persecution and the persecution of the Vietnamese people are counter the the principles of the USA.
Ho Chi Minh was educated in the USA and inspired by the American Revolution to seek the emancipation of the Vietmanese people from French colonialism. The military/industrial complex has other ideas
He even invited the US to assist in this struggle.
Instead the US chose a minority Catholic dictatorship in the South and plunged the region into suffereing for decades.
Ali was a true American.

[popeye1945]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer[/url]



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.

The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

America has been a superpower since World War Two, and with the fall of the Soviet Union it became the only superpower unchallenged in its military and economic power. America's propaganda both at home and abroad has been that it was America that won the Second World War, this propaganda was more affective at home than abroad. The rest of the world knew, along with any credible historian, that Russia won that war, certain it did not do it entirely alone. It was the Russians who broke the back of the monster Nazi war machine, and then chased it across Europe back to Berlin, losing a hundred thousand Russian just taking the city Berlin. America's losses in that war were about half a million souls, Russian losses were twenty-seven million and a devasted burned-out country. My point is America is a master of propaganda, and its own population are its most naive subjects, the soldier that does his patriotic duty is generally ignorant and misinformed about the people the government labels enemies. Muhammad Ali was not ignorant about the nature of the America Empire and its quest for world domination, it has been a cruel master, and the world knows this only too well.

Soldiers are not supposed to think for themselves, and very few indeed do, it is their ignorance that leads them to fight unjust wars for the Industrial military complex. This complex needs feeding, needs war profits, and young men ignorantly and willing die to feed it, maybe even get a place on the memorial wall. Those who were not politically ignorant, did not go to Vietnam, Vietnam the world knows was an American war crime, a crime against humanity, America's crime too was putting all those young men in harm's way. Today the world is reacting to its cruel aggression, and moving towards a bi-polar world. Muhammed Ali was a hero, and sacrificed much for his principles, his popularity is global, because globally America is known for what it is.

It's evident that you have strong views about the geopolitical dynamics and the role of propaganda, especially concerning America's involvement in global conflicts. Your emphasis on the discrepancy between historical accounts and public perception, especially regarding World War II, is noteworthy.

However, returning to the primary focus of our discussion, Muhammad Ali's decision to refuse participation in the Vietnam War was a profound one. Ali's stance wasn't solely based on a political understanding of the war; it was deeply personal, influenced by his religious convictions and broader concerns about racial inequality within the United States. When evaluating if someone "betrayed" their country, we must consider the broader context of their actions and beliefs.

As for the true nature of patriotism, it's a multifaceted concept. One can argue that voicing dissent against perceived injustices, even when they are state-sanctioned, is in itself a patriotic act. It embodies the belief in the nation's potential for growth and the hope for a more equitable future. Ali's decision was rooted in a conviction that went beyond geopolitics – it was about personal integrity, religious beliefs, and a vision for justice.

Your points raise another important question: To what extent should individuals be expected to support state decisions that conflict with their personal beliefs, and how do we navigate the fine line between allegiance to a nation and personal integrity?

Excellent post. Yes, your right, it was on a personal level that Ali refused the draft for personal integrity, and religious beliefs. I suspect, however, in the absence of those religious beliefs he still would have refused the draft. As I stated previously, anyone familiar with the imperialist nature of the American empire, and its behaviors globally would not have gone to Vietnam. The war machine relies on well-indoctrinated ignorant young men to volunteer themselves as cannon Faulder, thinking the war a righteous cause. The millions upon millions of dollars Ali sacrificed to his personal religious, and personal integrity made him one extremely outstanding individual. He simply was, THE GREATEST!!!!

[Sushan]

His country???
M Ali was betrayed by the USA. His entire life and the life of his race has been betrayed for 100s of years.

Moreover, every man or boy conscripted to Vietnam was also betrayed by the USA and the bunch of morons who were more interested in making money from selling arms than they were protecting the manhood of the US.

I can think if no more absurd a thread title than this one.

I appreciate the passion behind your sentiments. The legacy and struggles of Muhammad Ali and his stance on the Vietnam War are multi-faceted. It's crucial to understand that Ali's refusal was rooted not only in his personal beliefs but also in his religious convictions as a member of the Nation of Islam. Labeling someone as having "betrayed" their country is a strong assertion, especially when it involves conscientious objection.

While many may argue that going against the decision of the state might be viewed as a betrayal, there's another perspective to consider. Democracy thrives on individual freedoms and rights, one of which is the right to dissent and freedom of belief. Ali, in standing up for his beliefs and using his platform to highlight inconsistencies in the nation's treatment of Black Americans, contributed to the broader civil rights movement.

In a larger context, questioning the decisions and policies of one's country can be seen as a form of patriotism. This is because, by holding the nation accountable, one is working towards its betterment. In Ali's words, "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth." By this metric, his service to civil rights and equality was certainly patriotic.

What's essential, then, is to understand the nuances and contexts surrounding these decisions. It opens up a broader conversation: Can dissent be a form of patriotism?

Ali's persecution and the persecution of the Vietnamese people are counter the the principles of the USA.
Ho Chi Minh was educated in the USA and inspired by the American Revolution to seek the emancipation of the Vietmanese people from French colonialism. The military/industrial complex has other ideas
He even invited the US to assist in this struggle.
Instead the US chose a minority Catholic dictatorship in the South and plunged the region into suffereing for decades.
Ali was a true American.

Your points shed light on the often overlooked facets of the Vietnam War. The complexities surrounding Ho Chi Minh's relationship with the U.S. and his aspirations for Vietnamese independence from colonial rule are significant. Your mention of Ho Chi Minh's education in the USA and the parallels he drew between Vietnam's quest for freedom and the American Revolution is particularly thought-provoking.

Your statement highlights a crucial aspect of understanding patriotism: it's not always about alignment with the state's actions but can be about alignment with the foundational principles upon which a nation is built. In this context, Ali's actions and beliefs, grounded in the principles of freedom, justice, and equality, resonate deeply with the foundational ideals of the USA.

It's essential to differentiate between the policies of a government at a given time and the core principles that define a nation. Ali's stance against the Vietnam War and his contributions to civil rights reflect a commitment to these principles, even when they seemed at odds with government policy.

This brings us back to the initial question: Can dissent, grounded in a nation's foundational principles, be a form of patriotism? Your insights seem to suggest that it indeed can. Would you agree that it's not just about agreeing with the state but ensuring that the state aligns with its foundational principles?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, My Enemy in Vietnam by Billy Springer[/url]



In the second Indochina war US decided to take the side of South Vietnam and engage into war. So many Americans, willingly or not, joined the forces and fought with the Vietcong. But many had thoughts against this decision and many even criticized the decision openly. The famous boxing player, late Muhammad Ali also refused to go to war saying,



The author of this book too seemingly had second thoughts about the decision of his country.

Did these two betray their country by going against the decision of the state? What should a true patriot do in such a situation; take side with the state or be true to your own beliefs?

America has been a superpower since World War Two, and with the fall of the Soviet Union it became the only superpower unchallenged in its military and economic power. America's propaganda both at home and abroad has been that it was America that won the Second World War, this propaganda was more affective at home than abroad. The rest of the world knew, along with any credible historian, that Russia won that war, certain it did not do it entirely alone. It was the Russians who broke the back of the monster Nazi war machine, and then chased it across Europe back to Berlin, losing a hundred thousand Russian just taking the city Berlin. America's losses in that war were about half a million souls, Russian losses were twenty-seven million and a devasted burned-out country. My point is America is a master of propaganda, and its own population are its most naive subjects, the soldier that does his patriotic duty is generally ignorant and misinformed about the people the government labels enemies. Muhammad Ali was not ignorant about the nature of the America Empire and its quest for world domination, it has been a cruel master, and the world knows this only too well.

Soldiers are not supposed to think for themselves, and very few indeed do, it is their ignorance that leads them to fight unjust wars for the Industrial military complex. This complex needs feeding, needs war profits, and young men ignorantly and willing die to feed it, maybe even get a place on the memorial wall. Those who were not politically ignorant, did not go to Vietnam, Vietnam the world knows was an American war crime, a crime against humanity, America's crime too was putting all those young men in harm's way. Today the world is reacting to its cruel aggression, and moving towards a bi-polar world. Muhammed Ali was a hero, and sacrificed much for his principles, his popularity is global, because globally America is known for what it is.

It's evident that you have strong views about the geopolitical dynamics and the role of propaganda, especially concerning America's involvement in global conflicts. Your emphasis on the discrepancy between historical accounts and public perception, especially regarding World War II, is noteworthy.

However, returning to the primary focus of our discussion, Muhammad Ali's decision to refuse participation in the Vietnam War was a profound one. Ali's stance wasn't solely based on a political understanding of the war; it was deeply personal, influenced by his religious convictions and broader concerns about racial inequality within the United States. When evaluating if someone "betrayed" their country, we must consider the broader context of their actions and beliefs.

As for the true nature of patriotism, it's a multifaceted concept. One can argue that voicing dissent against perceived injustices, even when they are state-sanctioned, is in itself a patriotic act. It embodies the belief in the nation's potential for growth and the hope for a more equitable future. Ali's decision was rooted in a conviction that went beyond geopolitics – it was about personal integrity, religious beliefs, and a vision for justice.

Your points raise another important question: To what extent should individuals be expected to support state decisions that conflict with their personal beliefs, and how do we navigate the fine line between allegiance to a nation and personal integrity?

Excellent post. Yes, your right, it was on a personal level that Ali refused the draft for personal integrity, and religious beliefs. I suspect, however, in the absence of those religious beliefs he still would have refused the draft. As I stated previously, anyone familiar with the imperialist nature of the American empire, and its behaviors globally would not have gone to Vietnam. The war machine relies on well-indoctrinated ignorant young men to volunteer themselves as cannon Faulder, thinking the war a righteous cause. The millions upon millions of dollars Ali sacrificed to his personal religious, and personal integrity made him one extremely outstanding individual. He simply was, THE GREATEST!!!!

Thank you for acknowledging the nuances of the discussion. Ali's stance indeed showcased an intertwining of personal integrity, religious beliefs, and a broader understanding of global politics. You bring forth an interesting hypothesis, speculating on what Ali might have done in the absence of his religious beliefs. While we may never truly know, his actions and words indeed suggest a deep-rooted commitment to justice and equity.

The point you make about the role of indoctrination and how young individuals are often guided into conflicts under the banner of "righteous causes" is worth pondering. It's a testament to the influence and reach of state-led narratives, especially in shaping public opinion.

Muhammad Ali's sacrifices, both financially and in terms of his career, emphasize the depth of his convictions. His decision to prioritize principles over personal gain is indeed a rarity, making him an exemplary figure for many. Ali's legacy as a conscientious objector and advocate for civil rights, combined with his unparalleled achievements in the boxing ring, undoubtedly cement his title as "THE GREATEST."

On that note, how do you perceive the role of prominent figures, like Ali, in shaping societal views? Do you believe their influence can drive systemic change, or is it more about inspiring individuals to stand up for their beliefs?

[Sculptor1]

His country???
M Ali was betrayed by the USA. His entire life and the life of his race has been betrayed for 100s of years.

Moreover, every man or boy conscripted to Vietnam was also betrayed by the USA and the bunch of morons who were more interested in making money from selling arms than they were protecting the manhood of the US.

I can think if no more absurd a thread title than this one.

I appreciate the passion behind your sentiments. The legacy and struggles of Muhammad Ali and his stance on the Vietnam War are multi-faceted. It's crucial to understand that Ali's refusal was rooted not only in his personal beliefs but also in his religious convictions as a member of the Nation of Islam. Labeling someone as having "betrayed" their country is a strong assertion, especially when it involves conscientious objection.

While many may argue that going against the decision of the state might be viewed as a betrayal, there's another perspective to consider. Democracy thrives on individual freedoms and rights, one of which is the right to dissent and freedom of belief. Ali, in standing up for his beliefs and using his platform to highlight inconsistencies in the nation's treatment of Black Americans, contributed to the broader civil rights movement.

In a larger context, questioning the decisions and policies of one's country can be seen as a form of patriotism. This is because, by holding the nation accountable, one is working towards its betterment. In Ali's words, "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth." By this metric, his service to civil rights and equality was certainly patriotic.

What's essential, then, is to understand the nuances and contexts surrounding these decisions. It opens up a broader conversation: Can dissent be a form of patriotism?

Ali's persecution and the persecution of the Vietnamese people are counter the the principles of the USA.
Ho Chi Minh was educated in the USA and inspired by the American Revolution to seek the emancipation of the Vietmanese people from French colonialism. The military/industrial complex has other ideas
He even invited the US to assist in this struggle.
Instead the US chose a minority Catholic dictatorship in the South and plunged the region into suffereing for decades.
Ali was a true American.

Your points shed light on the often overlooked facets of the Vietnam War. The complexities surrounding Ho Chi Minh's relationship with the U.S. and his aspirations for Vietnamese independence from colonial rule are significant. Your mention of Ho Chi Minh's education in the USA and the parallels he drew between Vietnam's quest for freedom and the American Revolution is particularly thought-provoking.

Your statement highlights a crucial aspect of understanding patriotism: it's not always about alignment with the state's actions but can be about alignment with the foundational principles upon which a nation is built. In this context, Ali's actions and beliefs, grounded in the principles of freedom, justice, and equality, resonate deeply with the foundational ideals of the USA.

It's essential to differentiate between the policies of a government at a given time and the core principles that define a nation. Ali's stance against the Vietnam War and his contributions to civil rights reflect a commitment to these principles, even when they seemed at odds with government policy.

This brings us back to the initial question: Can dissent, grounded in a nation's foundational principles, be a form of patriotism? Your insights seem to suggest that it indeed can. Would you agree that it's not just about agreeing with the state but ensuring that the state aligns with its foundational principles?

Not only can dissent be grounded in great values, but such dissent is vital to the core of those beliefs.
There would never be an American were it not for dissent against the government. The American Revolution exploited the Lex Brittania for that purpose too, and called attention to a tyrrany that ran counter to British culture.
America is one of Britains greatest inventions. In practice many Brits were in support of the Revolution, as many "americans" were not. Stirrings in France paralleled themselves to that struggle. Sadly the loss of the colonies and the tragedy of "The Terror" following the Revolution in France gave the British establishment fuel to resist political change at home. Nonetheless in the post Napoleonic period social reform accelerated masively in the early 19thC, ending the slave trade (1809) then ownership throughout the empire (1832), whilst reforms stalled in the US, until the civli war.

S0

But I would go futher - dissent is not just to demand compliance with foundantional principles, but to always question those principles and change them. In the UK the workings of Parliament is a rolling challenge and evolution to its constitution. In the US change is more difficult and the Constitution and its ammendments can act like a ball and chain, imposing a sort of inertia against change.

[Sushan]

I appreciate the passion behind your sentiments. The legacy and struggles of Muhammad Ali and his stance on the Vietnam War are multi-faceted. It's crucial to understand that Ali's refusal was rooted not only in his personal beliefs but also in his religious convictions as a member of the Nation of Islam. Labeling someone as having "betrayed" their country is a strong assertion, especially when it involves conscientious objection.

While many may argue that going against the decision of the state might be viewed as a betrayal, there's another perspective to consider. Democracy thrives on individual freedoms and rights, one of which is the right to dissent and freedom of belief. Ali, in standing up for his beliefs and using his platform to highlight inconsistencies in the nation's treatment of Black Americans, contributed to the broader civil rights movement.

In a larger context, questioning the decisions and policies of one's country can be seen as a form of patriotism. This is because, by holding the nation accountable, one is working towards its betterment. In Ali's words, "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth." By this metric, his service to civil rights and equality was certainly patriotic.

What's essential, then, is to understand the nuances and contexts surrounding these decisions. It opens up a broader conversation: Can dissent be a form of patriotism?

Ali's persecution and the persecution of the Vietnamese people are counter the the principles of the USA.
Ho Chi Minh was educated in the USA and inspired by the American Revolution to seek the emancipation of the Vietmanese people from French colonialism. The military/industrial complex has other ideas
He even invited the US to assist in this struggle.
Instead the US chose a minority Catholic dictatorship in the South and plunged the region into suffereing for decades.
Ali was a true American.

Your points shed light on the often overlooked facets of the Vietnam War. The complexities surrounding Ho Chi Minh's relationship with the U.S. and his aspirations for Vietnamese independence from colonial rule are significant. Your mention of Ho Chi Minh's education in the USA and the parallels he drew between Vietnam's quest for freedom and the American Revolution is particularly thought-provoking.

Your statement highlights a crucial aspect of understanding patriotism: it's not always about alignment with the state's actions but can be about alignment with the foundational principles upon which a nation is built. In this context, Ali's actions and beliefs, grounded in the principles of freedom, justice, and equality, resonate deeply with the foundational ideals of the USA.

It's essential to differentiate between the policies of a government at a given time and the core principles that define a nation. Ali's stance against the Vietnam War and his contributions to civil rights reflect a commitment to these principles, even when they seemed at odds with government policy.

This brings us back to the initial question: Can dissent, grounded in a nation's foundational principles, be a form of patriotism? Your insights seem to suggest that it indeed can. Would you agree that it's not just about agreeing with the state but ensuring that the state aligns with its foundational principles?

Not only can dissent be grounded in great values, but such dissent is vital to the core of those beliefs.
There would never be an American were it not for dissent against the government. The American Revolution exploited the Lex Brittania for that purpose too, and called attention to a tyrrany that ran counter to British culture.
America is one of Britains greatest inventions. In practice many Brits were in support of the Revolution, as many "americans" were not. Stirrings in France paralleled themselves to that struggle. Sadly the loss of the colonies and the tragedy of "The Terror" following the Revolution in France gave the British establishment fuel to resist political change at home. Nonetheless in the post Napoleonic period social reform accelerated masively in the early 19thC, ending the slave trade (1809) then ownership throughout the empire (1832), whilst reforms stalled in the US, until the civli war.

S0

But I would go futher - dissent is not just to demand compliance with foundantional principles, but to always question those principles and change them. In the UK the workings of Parliament is a rolling challenge and evolution to its constitution. In the US change is more difficult and the Constitution and its ammendments can act like a ball and chain, imposing a sort of inertia against change.

Thank you for your insightful historical analysis. It's fascinating to juxtapose the inherent spirit of dissent that birthed the United States with the very essence of what it means to be American. The American Revolution indeed stood as a testament to the power of dissent against perceived tyranny, laying the foundation for the nation's democratic principles.

Your comparison between the UK and the US in terms of their adaptability to constitutional change is astute. The US Constitution, while revered, has often been debated for its rigidity and the difficulty associated with enacting amendments. This is a double-edged sword; on one hand, it preserves foundational principles and provides stability, but on the other, it can be seen as resistant to the evolving needs of society.

That said, I'd argue that the spirit of America lies not just in its foundational documents but in its people's ever-evolving understanding of freedom, equality, and justice. While the Constitution might present challenges in terms of amendments, societal change often occurs through other avenues: legislation, judicial interpretations, and, most importantly, cultural and societal shifts.

Your assertion that dissent should not only demand compliance with foundational principles but also question and change them is a potent reminder of the need for societies to be self-reflective. It's through this continuous introspection and re-evaluation that nations grow and adapt to the changing needs of their citizenry.

With regards to Muhammad Ali and the initial topic of discussion, his actions can be seen in this light: as an embodiment of the spirit of questioning, reflecting, and pushing for change based on deeply held beliefs. Would you say that true patriotism, then, is not blind allegiance but an unwavering commitment to upholding and improving upon the values that define a nation?

[popeye1945]

The country betrayed Muhammad Ali, along with a generation it put in harm's way to commit a crime against humanity. Most of the world, if it did not already know the true nature of the American empire, it did after Vietnam. Long live the BRICS!!

[Sushan]

The country betrayed Muhammad Ali, along with a generation it put in harm's way to commit a crime against humanity. Most of the world, if it did not already know the true nature of the American empire, it did after Vietnam. Long live the BRICS!!

Certainly. The mention of BRICS is intriguing in this context.

BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, represents a coalition of emerging economies that have increasingly collaborated on matters of mutual interest. Over the years, these nations have strived to reduce their dependence on Western economic systems and institutions, aiming to counterbalance the traditionally dominant geopolitical influence of countries like the United States.

In the context of the Vietnam War, it's crucial to remember that global politics was predominantly dictated by Cold War dynamics. While the U.S. was seeking to contain the spread of communism, countries like Russia (then the Soviet Union) supported movements that opposed U.S. interests. The formation and strengthening of BRICS in the 21st century can be seen as a continuation of that resistance to Western, especially American, dominance on the global stage.

Muhammad Ali's objection to the Vietnam War, and your point about the world recognizing the "true nature of the American empire" post-Vietnam, fits into a broader narrative. Many nations and individuals felt disillusioned by the U.S.'s actions and motives during that period. The emergence and strengthening of organizations like BRICS can be viewed as part of a global shift, with multiple powers seeking to challenge and diversify the traditionally Western-centric world order.

What are your opinions on the recent work done and the decisions taken by the BRICS association regarding the American geopolitical influence?