Bush killing thousands of people is not in there. Oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity. French colonialism traces are still felt in many countries, oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity. Who gives a crap about in the name of what, it's a crime.
Why do people still talk about Bush, when Obama is the current U.S. president, and routinely kills people with drone strikes?
You're missing the point. The point is thousands of people get killed by world powers and nobody cares.
I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
As quoted in Liberation Theologies in North America and Europe (1979) by Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, p. 281; this is sometimes misattributed to the more modern revolutionary, Che Guevara, and to "La Pasionaria" Dolores Ibárruri, especially in Spain, where she popularized it in her famous speeches during the Spanish Civil War, to José Martí, and to Aeschylus who is credited with a similar declaration in Prometheus Bound: "For it would be better to die once and for all than to suffer pain for all one's life." The phrase "better that we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees" was spoken by François-Noël Gracchus Babeuf in his defence of the Conspiracy of Equals in April 1797. In French it read, 'Ne vaut-il pas mieux emporter la glorie de n'avoir pas survecu a la servitude?' but transliterated this bears no resemblance whatever to the quote under discussion. see: The Defense of Gracchus Babeuf Before the High Court of Vendome (1967), edited and translated by John Anthony Scott, p. 88 and p. 90, n. 12.
Spanish variants:
¡Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!
I'd prefer to die standing, than to live always on my knees.
As quoted in Operación Cobra : historia de una gesta romántica (1988) by Alvaro Pablo Ortiz and Oscar Lara, p. 29
Variant translations:
Men of the South! It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!
With an extension, as quoted in Timeless Mexico (1944) by Hudson Strode, p. 259
I would rather die standing than live on my knees!
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!
I prefer to die standing than to live forever kneeling.
Prefer death on your feet to living on your knees.
La tierra es de quien la trabaja con sus manos.
The land belongs to those who work it with their hands.
Quoted as a slogan of the revolutionaries in Shirt-Sleeve Diplomat (1947) Vol. 5, p. 199, by Josephus Daniels, and specifically attributed to Zapata by Ángel Zúñiga in 1998, as quoted in Mexican Social Movements and the Transition to Democracy (2005), by John Stolle-McAllister
Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny.
Remarks in regard to Pancho Villa, as quoted in The Unknown Lore of Amexem's Indigenous People : An Aboriginal Treatise (2008) by Noble Timothy Myers-El, p. 158
Matt Sullivan ✔ @sullduggery
Follow
"An assault on democracy": Thursday @guardian front page with former Le Monde editor Natalie Nougayrède #CharlieHebdo
note that everyone is quoting Charb on this, sometimes just quoting the "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" that is actually him quoting someone else: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata
weired in my old greek lessons it was already said to be the motto of Athen. http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3824 Maybe Zappata went to school and studied the story of Athen?
This has surely been a widespread meme for some time. The quote triggered for me a recollection of the Metallica lines:
Living on your knees, conformity
Or dying on your feet for honesty
Some context for people wondering what this is about. Wednesday 7th, at 11am, 3 people entered "Charlie Hebdo" a very well known French satirical newspaper and shot 12 people with kalashnikov. Charlie Hebdo is also known, for their caricatures of the prophet Mahomet. "Je Suis Charlie" means, "I Am Charlie" and is a message of support to the newspaper. This is obviously a very short sum-up.
People are going in the streets to support the newspaper in France and other European cities, a map is available here: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/carte-interactive-tous... A noticeable fact is how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.
Some of their victims were likely Muslims, including the cop they executed as he laid wounded. Unlike the US, I think most French people actually at least casually know some Muslims, which helps not seeing them as an alien entity.
I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…
First I find it really offensive that you bring that point up. Because I think you are blaming the victims. They had every right to publish what they did. Because anything can be sacred to anybody, so we won't be able to discuss anything. When something is sacred to somebody it applies only to them not to non follower of these made up laws. Caving to that would be accepting de facto sharia law. You can't hide behind…
>Because I think you are blaming the victims.
Didn't you read the disclaimer?
>Religious nutjobs deserve every bit of mockery and disrespect.
I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…
> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends?
Generally, when they are inciting violence, or knowing/recklessly making statements of fact that are both false and harmful to a particular victim.
Mocking someone's core beliefs generally doesn't fall into this. It may be rude, uncouth, or undesirable, but its generally within the scope of freedom, and as much as there are specific cases where I wish people wouldn't do it, I wouldn't want to live in any society where punishing or preventing it by force -- that is, viewing it outside the scope of protected liberty -- was accepted.
Well, actually much more. If you tell me you're atheist I don't know much about your race. If you tell me you're a muslim, I can have a very good statistical chance to pinpoint you in one of several ethnicities...
> If you tell me you're a muslim, I can have a very good statistical chance to pinpoint you in one of several ethnicities... So what? A person's race doesn't determine the ideas, religious or otherwise, that they hold. Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it. A person's ideas, on the other hand, make all the difference in the world. Who can deny that these terrorists were not motiva…
>So what? A person's race doesn't determine the ideas, religious or otherwise, that they hold.
You'be be surprised. The race (or, to be precise, the ethnicity) very much determines the ideas, religious or otherwise that a person holds. Statistically very much. There's a reason a person born in Italy is far far far more likely to be Catholic and not Budhist, etc.
>Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it.
That you can point to a few specific invdividuals as examples for that, doesn't it tell you all you need to know? That these people are famous exactly as outliers?
Most people stick with the prevailing religion in their country etc.
He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics... On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades. Budhists might be better, dunno.
The difference with Islam is that the Koran advocates for violent persecution of non-muslims and that is something that the founder, Mohammed, took a great part in including murdering people [in battle and after when they refused to convert] and taking their wives as his possessions. It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those po…
>It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those positions are contrary.
Well, being contradictory is nothing that ever stopped people (religious or not). For example Jesus was all about piece, yet horrible attrocities have been done in his name by people saying their were for Jesus ideals (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Latin American indians, etc).
He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics... On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades. Budhists might be better, dunno.
Buddhists can be violent. http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
Yeah, after I wrote that it occured to me also that in the past the "poor opressed" buddhists of Tibet (with Dalai Lama as their spokesperson) actually ruled over the people there as dictatorial overlords, with slaves and everything...