(07-24-2012 09:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:15 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [quote='chiefsfan' pid='8095866' dateline='1343170104']
[quote='panama' pid='8095438' dateline='1343161174']
[quote='Tom in Lazybrook' pid='8095418' dateline='1343160582']

.

I think it was the forced segregation and blatant racisim that made me call it socialist.

wow I never knew the post civil war southern united states was socialist

If you had read the reasons I listed earlier for why it was close to socialism, you would understand. I used the racisim as yet another one of those reasons.

The Socialist movement, for whatever its other faults, cannot be construed as racist. True (or Orthodox) Socialists in Europe, Latin America, and in the USA were usually on the forefront of racial integration.

National Socialism and Fascism were not Socialist, but Corporatist movements, regardless of the naming. As were the Latin American Peronist and Military Governments in the post WWII period.

The big difference between Socialism and Corporatism is the fact that while the state has involvement in large industry, but those companies remain in private hands and are run by private citizens. In Socialism, the state owns the means of production and directly runs them. The profits from production are supposed to be redistributed to the economy, not to shareholders or private owners.

Russia today is Corporatist, not Socialist for example.

One has to remember that the Canal Zone was established by the U.S. Military which is not a democracy. The later system was just an offshoot with the Governor of the Canal Zone as absolute power. Its more than just another comapany town when you have a police force and courts at your disposal.

(07-24-2012 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:15 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [quote='chiefsfan' pid='8095866' dateline='1343170104']
[quote='panama' pid='8095438' dateline='1343161174']
[quote='Tom in Lazybrook' pid='8095418' dateline='1343160582']

.

I think it was the forced segregation and blatant racisim that made me call it socialist.

wow I never knew the post civil war southern united states was socialist

If you had read the reasons I listed earlier for why it was close to socialism, you would understand. I used the racisim as yet another one of those reasons.

The Socialist movement, for whatever its other faults, cannot be construed as racist. True (or Orthodox) Socialists in Europe, Latin America, and in the USA were usually on the forefront of racial integration.

National Socialism and Fascism were not Socialist, but Corporatist movements, regardless of the naming. As were the Latin American Peronist and Military Governments in the post WWII period.

The big difference between Socialism and Corporatism is the fact that while the state has involvement in large industry, but those companies remain in private hands and are run by private citizens. In Socialism, the state owns the means of production and directly runs them. The profits from production are supposed to be redistributed to the economy, not to shareholders or private owners.

Russia today is Corporatist, not Socialist for example.

You're really missing the point.

(07-24-2012 08:22 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 06:47 PM)panama Wrote:  Believe me I know. I used to live there. The Canal Zone Company had more power than any stateside entity has ever had. They could literally get you excommunicated from the Zone for any offense. There was also forced segregation until President Carter ended it in 1976.

As for Panamanian history, a little know part is that from 1850 to 1904 there were 55 rebellions against Colombia. On two occasions we actually broke away only to be reigned in. You also cannot discount the impact of 1000 days from 1899 to 1902. It was a bloody war between Liberals and Conservatives in Colombia and by extension Panama. Tens of thousands dead. When it ended the Panamanian Liberal leader Victoriano Lorenzo refused surrender until Panama was granted autonomy. They caught him and gave him a mock trial and shot him by firing squad and in an instant created a martyr. That was the point of no return. Whether by American blockade or other means there was no turning back. Also the same U.S.S. Washington that preserved Panamanian independence was used to preserve Colombia's hold on Panama a month earlier. It was only after Colombia would not sign a treaty that the U.S. flipped allegiances.

I had wondered if you used to live there. I figured the name had to mean something. The Panama Canal is one of my favorite pieces of history. Early 20th season Politicking at its finest.

The 70's and 80's and up till we ceded control to Panama was a strange time as well. Panamanians would demonstrate against something, and the US would give a concession to stop it...and some of these were little things, like whether the Panamanian flag could be displaye at the Canal.

Its an expensive Canal to use thats for sure, average toll is close to $30,000.

The only analogy I can give you is imagine if China or Russia owned 5 miles on either side of the transcontinental railway and that it was their sovereign territory in perpetuity.

(07-24-2012 09:57 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:22 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 06:47 PM)panama Wrote:  Believe me I know. I used to live there. The Canal Zone Company had more power than any stateside entity has ever had. They could literally get you excommunicated from the Zone for any offense. There was also forced segregation until President Carter ended it in 1976.

As for Panamanian history, a little know part is that from 1850 to 1904 there were 55 rebellions against Colombia. On two occasions we actually broke away only to be reigned in. You also cannot discount the impact of 1000 days from 1899 to 1902. It was a bloody war between Liberals and Conservatives in Colombia and by extension Panama. Tens of thousands dead. When it ended the Panamanian Liberal leader Victoriano Lorenzo refused surrender until Panama was granted autonomy. They caught him and gave him a mock trial and shot him by firing squad and in an instant created a martyr. That was the point of no return. Whether by American blockade or other means there was no turning back. Also the same U.S.S. Washington that preserved Panamanian independence was used to preserve Colombia's hold on Panama a month earlier. It was only after Colombia would not sign a treaty that the U.S. flipped allegiances.

I had wondered if you used to live there. I figured the name had to mean something. The Panama Canal is one of my favorite pieces of history. Early 20th season Politicking at its finest.

The 70's and 80's and up till we ceded control to Panama was a strange time as well. Panamanians would demonstrate against something, and the US would give a concession to stop it...and some of these were little things, like whether the Panamanian flag could be displaye at the Canal.

Its an expensive Canal to use thats for sure, average toll is close to $30,000.

The only analogy I can give you is imagine if China or Russia owned 5 miles on either side of the transcontinental railway and that it was their sovereign territory in perpetuity.

Yeahm that doesnt sound like a lot of fun...

(07-24-2012 09:47 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:15 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I think it was the forced segregation and blatant racisim that made me call it socialist.

wow I never knew the post civil war southern united states was socialist

If you had read the reasons I listed earlier for why it was close to socialism, you would understand. I used the racisim as yet another one of those reasons.

The Socialist movement, for whatever its other faults, cannot be construed as racist. True (or Orthodox) Socialists in Europe, Latin America, and in the USA were usually on the forefront of racial integration.

National Socialism and Fascism were not Socialist, but Corporatist movements, regardless of the naming. As were the Latin American Peronist and Military Governments in the post WWII period.

The big difference between Socialism and Corporatism is the fact that while the state has involvement in large industry, but those companies remain in private hands and are run by private citizens. In Socialism, the state owns the means of production and directly runs them. The profits from production are supposed to be redistributed to the economy, not to shareholders or private owners.

Russia today is Corporatist, not Socialist for example.

You're really missing the point.

I'm quite aware of the complexities of the situation in Panama. While I never lived in the CZ, I worked in Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela for many years, including recently. The old regime was racist (I'm not disputing that) and was insulting to the Panamanian population (in and out of the Zone) and to many persons who worked in the Zone. I was taking umbrage with the attempt to call the repugnant regime in the Zone "Socialist".

While we should rightly criticize the US government for its racist policies in the Zone, Racism is a bigger problem in Latin America today than many rubios down there wish to admit. People down there sometimes attempt to pass it off as classism, but it looks a lot like racism to me, although it isn't an absolute rule down there, like it was in the American South and in the Zone under US rule. But if you go to the rich/business areas of Bogota and Panama City, you will see a noticible paucity (in Bogota - that would be exactly zero) of persons of African origin (who make up a higher population percentage of the Panamanian and Colombian population than in the USA). If you want to apply for a job in Panama or Colombia today, you usually have to submit a photo. Brazil has a pretty bad racist problem (and police abuse against visible minorities is off the charts there). Argentina basically killed off its significant African origin population in the Chaco war in Paraguay (Buenos Aires used be 40 percent African - now - close to zero). For access to business elites in Mexico, there appear to be two sets of rules...one for those who look rubio/European and another for Morenos/Persons of color. No there was never a legal regime of segregation down there (as there was some small social mobility), but the impact, even today is quite striking.

Again not really the point.There is racism in Panama. I know.

We're talking about a particular situation where a foregn country had sovereignty within another country. You're focusing too much on the segregation part. The whole situation and government structure was unprecedented.

By the way, I am not complaining. I had a great upbringing both in Panama City and the Zone. As a kid you don't understand the what fors of what adults are doing. As a history buff it is an interesting period of time that I get to say I lived through and experienced. By the way, if you have never seen the Panama Canal you're cheating yourself. Truly the 8th wonder of the world.

Can anyone tell me how this current discussion has anything to do with "Franchione, Curry look forward to transition into Sun Belt"?

Well see we started talking Dothan and we were talking about the Panama connection and then we mentioned the Canal Zone...

It did take a strange turn, but I gotta tell ya it was nice to see some friendly discussion and especially about a subject I clearly dont know much about.

Piqued my interest.

Since when did Dothan double in size? In 2010 it was 65,000 people.

Metro Dothan is unstoppable.

(07-25-2012 09:16 AM)panama Wrote:  Metro Dothan is unstoppable.

Spent a lot of time in the Troy, Enterprise, Dothan are through 2010 & 2011 and with the soon looming military drawdown that area might be hit pretty hard economically.

You might get 120k out of all three of those cities.