Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

46°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

We're not forsaken

Editor: Murder everywhere. In shopping malls, offices, churches, schools. Why? Our history may shed some light. Wasn't the U.S. founded on violence and as it grew violence remained a vital part of our growth?

Europeans came to a world inhabitant by natives. As the white man took land, natives defended themselves. The natives were finally defeated and placed on reservations or were killed. Once the U.S. was formed we moved, with a big stick, westward. Mexico lost half of their land when we perpetrated the Mexican War. To take what they wanted, and for some to protect themselves, guns were helpful for cowboys, cattlemen and others. Television programs and Hollywood have shown violent episodes personifying the gun.

There is the matter of parental involvement. Do parents allow their children to watch violent movies on TV? Some parents don't know what their children watch.

The question whether the gun or people kill has not been settled. Will it ever be solved? With a history of wars and the big stick policy how can we ever solve this nagging problem.

Some parents have a hard time teaching their children the difference between right and wrong. Today young people, looking for recognition and a chance to show their manliness, turn to gangs. To some, the commandment "thou shall not kill" means very little. Maybe a little religion in the public schools wouldn't hurt. We may not be able to teach religion but we could teach about religion. Have some of us forsaken God? I do not think God has forsaken us. There is hope!

We claim to the world that we are a peaceful nation, as we try to spread democracy and also try to have them adopt our form of government. Actually we have a long way to go. In order for others to even consider our form of government some of our people have to practice what we preach. Where do we start? And when?

History is full of nations trying to spread their form of government. Sound familiar?

Simon Lakritz

Hanford

(Feb. 8, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Sid wrote on Feb 8, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Mr. Lakritz, it is so easy to bash your own nation isn't it? Especially when you take things out of context back & forth...

Name ANY nation that hasn't experienced or perpetuated violence in some shape or form...

You may THINK the US today is acting "imperialist" when it is actually responding to previous and current conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan (1991 cease fire, Al Queda-9/11 etc.). Americans don't want to be there either.

Your apparent "guilt" over the Mexican-American War is totally absent of historical context. Sure the US had "manifest destiny" and wanted to buy the land in question. However, the violence aspect is a direct action and started by Mexico in President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna who was in the process of suppressing legal citizens of Mexico (many Anglos too) in Texas as he reneged on the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Remember the Alamo and Goiliad? He left NO SURVIVORS including those who surrendered (kinda violent isn't it?) Yet promised Texas independence to Sam Houston in exchange for his life after the slimy nut was captured at San Jacinto. The later US war with Mexico is the DIRECT result of Mexico not honoring their promise. "

jeff wrote on Feb 12, 2008 5:38 PM:

" TO: Sid – How did you come to the conclusion that he is bashing America? I take it you think kids entering into gangs and a life of violence is good for our country? He’s simply stating that we have a problem and is opening a discussion for ideas on what to do about it. Nowhere does he ever say he thinks we are acting imperialistic and if you think we went to war with Mexico for any other reason then a land grab you are naïve. Now I do have issues with some of his article and that is, if we want to steer kids away from violence I fail to see how teaching anything about religion is going to help. The first question is which religion would we teach, all of them? You would have many people arguing over how they don’t want their Catholic kids being taught Baptist, Pentecostal or Evangelical ideas, Jewish parents arguing over Christian ideas and Atheist parents arguing against everything. These are the kinds of arguments that have brought entire nations to war with themselves and most religions were founded on war and murder anyways so what would we be teaching exactly? "

Sid wrote on Feb 12, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Jeff,

The world isn't black and white and both you and Mr. Lakritz list our Mexican-American War thusly and with the full revisionist left tilt to it. I acknowleged "Manifest Destiny" in my earlier blog. I also mentioned how Mexico was not then, nor is now, "innocent" or a pure victim in its dealings with the USA, it's own people, or folks on it's own southern border for that matter.

The religion bent is your thrust (and Mr. Lakritz), not mine. And no, I never would endorse gangs nor their by products.

Yes, Mr. Lakritz is "bashing" the USA. It was mentioned by name. Please reread his article, specifically his two opening paragraphs and his closer.
"

jeff wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:35 PM:

" TO: Sid – I understand you pointed out the ‘Manifest Destiny’ aspect but the Mexican/American war was started because we stole Texas from them. They didn’t like foreigners invading their country and taking their land. No nation would accept this lying down and they didn’t. We would do the same thing if some other country came to America and started claiming land in their name. The fact is Texas was their land and we stole it from them. It doesn’t matter if we offered them money and they didn’t accept. It was their land to sell or keep it wasn’t ours to take. The fact that he left no survivors at the Alamo or at Goliad is moot, if we weren’t trying to steal their land there wouldn’t have been any fighting. He only promised us land so we would let him back into Mexico and since we originally just tried to steal it I see no reason why any man wouldn’t feel completely justified in lying to us. "

jeff wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:35 PM:

" TO: Sid - I read the article again as you asked me to and I don’t agree. I don’t feel he is bashing America, just because someone brings up a problem that is not the same as bashing. I never really thought you endorsed gangs or violence I was trying to make a point. His first 2 paragraphs say to me here is a problem in America and here is a brief view of how this country got started which is true. The last paragraph again is also true; we are a violent nation. What he says is true and that is not bashing. "

Sid wrote on Feb 13, 2008 7:56 PM:

" Jeff,

Sorry, it is not a "fact" that we "stole" Texas from Mexico, it is much more complicated that that, an 1830-40s version of why we are at war with Al Queda/ in Iraq.

There was relatively NO ONE in Texas (native Americans excluded) in the early 1800s. Mexico encouraged settlers, including and ESPECIALLY white-anglo ones (there was no one else), to settle in Texas. The state capital, Austin, is named for an approved by Mexican government Empresarios that encouraged white-anglo settlement of Texas. They were also supposed to become Catholics to embrace the main religion of Mexico. All was fine until Santa Anna became nationalistic and suspended Mexico's own 1824 Constitution which the Texas settlers were brought in under. ("1824" is supposed to have been on the flag over the Alamo...) and suppressed with the sword his own people in Texas, until he himself was captured at San Jacinto and promised Texan independence.

I knew with illegal immigration today the history of the southwest would come up. Check it out.

it was US "bashing" or at least heavy handedness by Mr. Lakritz. Evidence? He only used the US as his example(s) and no other nation. "

Lakritz is Correct wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:08 PM:

" Agree with everything he has said. With the violence in "entertainment" we have grown accustomed to killing, torture. Films that are rated PG and PG 13 would have been rated R not that many years ago, Flip through TV channels and see blood, torture, sexual perversity and all kinds of aberations of human depravity. How can a child grow up thinking that the world is a safe place and that he/she should behave as a civil law abiding person, when all around there is violence. Violence against each other and huge increases in violence against children and women.

It has carried over to the treatment of animals, too. Newspaper articles about cows being skinned alive in meat processing plants. Drive around Kings County and see cattle on their knees too sick to stand sititng in 100 + degree heat on the roadside outside a dairy or ranch waiting for the wagon that takes them somewhere to become food. Even though that is illegal. I see it as I drive to and from Fresno.

No, God has not forsaken us. Many of us have forgotten that we are children of our Heavenly Father and should behave as such. "

A HISTORY BUFF wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:20 AM:

" Proud democratAs usual, Sid is 100% correct and speaks truthfully and accurately.

Proud democrat Lakritz IS bashing America and moreover is a hypocrite too. His chosen democratic party actually ignited, desired, and supported the Mexican War. Proof is here, on that great bastion of liberal free-thought and truth, PBS Online:

"Democrats wanted to supply abundant land to the nation's poor and to future immigrants. To attain this laudable goal, however, they relied on bribery, bullying, and warfare to wrest land from Native Americans and Mexicans. Often idealistic, they were also racist and materialistic." - source: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_expansionism.html

And to the atheist blogger here, who erroneously wants us to believe that "we stole Texas" and who conveniently ignores his other pet peeve, namely God and religion, Lakritz makes this point:
"Maybe a little religion in the public schools wouldn't hurt. We may not be able to teach religion but we could teach about religion. Have some of us forsaken God? I do not think God has forsaken us. There is hope!"

This might be the most correct thing Mr. Lakritz has ever said! "

jeff wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:20 AM:

" Sid, I agree Santa Anna was not a great guy and the citizens of Texas at that time were very unhappy and they wanted to leave Mexico anyways. However, from everything I have ever read or any documentaries I have seen about this I would have to classify what we did as thievery. For example if California wanted to leave the US and become part of Canada but the US govt didn’t let them then Canada attacked the US would you call that perfectly legal? I believe Mr. Lakritz only talks about the US because our country is the one that he is concerned with and our country is the one he wants to help. It’s quite obvious we are at very opposing view points on this subject and neither one of us will change the others mind. I generally agree with much of what you say but on this topic I couldn’t disagree more. I feel our best foreign policy some times would be to not have one and leave other countries alone. We have enough trouble in this one that needs assistance before we start policing/saving/attacking the world. "

Koolaid wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Someone's drinking the liberal Koolaid. "

jeff wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:13 AM:

" TO: History Buff – Your comments on how violent we were in stealing land does nothing but to show evidence that what Mr. Lakritz says is true and I am confused as to how you believe this proves your point. As far as conveniently ignoring religion, I have no idea what you’re talking about as I brought that up in my first comment. How is that conveniently ignoring anything? Your comments make no sense, you call yourself a history buff yet offer no proof in the form of historic material. You call Democrats names and on one hand you say how violent the Democrats were at bribing, bullying and starting warfare to wrestle land and on the other think no land was stolen. You go onto call Democrats racist and materialistic. Last time I checked we have 2 major political parties in this country, Democrats and Republicans so that would mean our country our government did horribly violent things. You state this in your own words and this again only supports Mr. Lakritz’ view. You’re right on one thing, God has not forsaken us because there is no God to forsake us in the first place (Is that too convenient?). "

A HISTORY BUFF wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:48 PM:

" The atheist blogger here says: "I feel our best foreign policy some times would be to not have one and leave other countries alone.."

So I take it that you want to let the genocide in Dafur continue? That we should do nothing about it? Nice attitude...

Also, the atheist blogger states: "God has not forsaken us because there is no God to forsake us in the first place ."

Well, PROVE that there is no God if you can!

"

A HISTORY BUFF wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:58 PM:

" In reality, and I stress real history, the Mexican government let a certain number of Americans settle in the Texas territory prior to the Mexican War. After the quota was filled, even more Americans crossed the border to settle there. They were the illegal aliens of their day I guess; like now, but in reverse. Then, these settlers were not getting satisfaction from the Mexican government so they VOTED (not via theft, but a democratic vote) to secede from Mexico.

Isn't that how the United States came into being?

"

jeff wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:46 PM:

" TO: A History Buff – Yes I think we should stay with our current plan in Darfur, which is to do nothing. That is what we have been doing. I would like to see us fix our own country first. You want proof there is no God, pray tonight as earnestly as you can that he show himself to you in 2 weeks even pray every night for 2 weeks and see what happens. Pray to God that he stops the genocide in Darfur and see what happens. When I said that God does not exist I should have been more specific. No God written about in any book known to man exists. I can’t disprove the possibility a God exists no more then I can prove that unicorns don’t exist but I sure haven’t seen any proof yet that there is one. Google godisimaginary, Socrates meets Jesus, evilbible or ‘Why the Christian God is Impossible’. The Sentinel would not like me to post all the evidence I have that proves to me that God does not exist and I don’t think most of the people here would either. Try doing some thinking and research for yourself. "

Alan G. wrote on Feb 15, 2008 4:12 PM:

" HISTORY BUFF, you should already know that it's not necessary to prove a negative. No matter what the subject of the debate is. "

Sid wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Mr. Lakritz had a good point about the culture of violence in movies, etc. Vilolent movies make Hollywood liberal hypocrites a fortune,,,but I digress. Lakriz tied that salient point up in the same bundle of US bashing. Apples and oranges, but hint at his leanings isn't it?

Jeff, the world was a different place in the 1800's . Santa Anna was more than, "not a great guy" and that Texans were not "happy" with him. He KILLED THEM IN COLD BLOOD, after SURRENDERING. (Scott Tucker, where are you when I need you?)

Yes, even US Grant thought the "taking" of Mexican Land was not right back in those days. Manifest Destiny wasn't "good" in todays standards just as Santa Anna's killings are not up to the Geneva Conventions...(which didn't exist).

Mexico shouldn't hold a grudge today over that war. Why? The war ended in 1848-49. In 1853, Mexico willingly and eagerly SOLD TO THE US MORE OF THEIR LAND, the Gadsden Purchase in Arizona...

As for the "God"/athiest aspect of this conversation, count me out.

"A History Buff" brought up a good point here about the 1840's democrats. Bravo! See how time changes things? "

dose wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:31 PM:

" To History Buff:

You want me to prove there is no god try calling him and see if he picks up the phone. "

A HISTORY BUFF wrote on Feb 16, 2008 10:28 PM:

" I called God but the line was busy, so I left voice mail. Meanwhile...

...Seems like all of the atheist bloggers flock to the defense when one of their own is perceived to be set upon. Just like the Hanford crow population,
eh ?

Wait, I found a reply here:
"MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! If people don't already hate me, they will."

Wait, that's not him...Really mature!

Never mind

PS. Scott Tucker is in transit back to Switzerland but I'm sure will eventually comment on Mr. Lakritz' attack on America.

"

dose wrote on Feb 17, 2008 5:27 PM:

" To History Buff:

Wha??? "

jeff wrote on Feb 18, 2008 8:40 AM:

" TO: History Buff – It is interesting to note that this wasn’t an argument until you got involved. Sid and I were having a discussion. I respect his ideas because he does his homework and even when we disagree he disagrees for all the right reasons. Sid, I’m surprised you would be behind anything this guy says. He is obviously just trying to start conflict and adds nothing of value. His comment about Democrats in the 1800’s could easily be said about Republicans in the 1900’s and now. I’ve been trying to do a lot more research into the Mexican/American war and I have to be honest I was able to find several web sites that side with your ideas. I have found many more that side with Mr. Lakritz. I am left to wonder what the real truth is. I can definitely understand your side of this but as you say, it’s not that black and white. This in no way means what you say is true either. From what I can tell there was some level of fault on both sides, no one was innocent but this doesn’t make actions on either side right. "

Sid wrote on Feb 18, 2008 10:11 AM:

" Jeff,

Congrats, you are now kinda-sorta where I am. Things were different in the 1800s and 1900s. Yet revisionist historians OR pokitical pundits from any side will twist it to suit their short term goals of today. Your only defense is to read & learn from multiple sources. Your own pattern will emerge. And yet, that will always change too as more info is added to the mix.

Today: Recall how Pearl Harbor is in the minds of many forced upon the Japanese via a haughty US policy. The atomic bombings of Japan were "war crimes" performed by the US.

In WWII: Japan was a imperialist/expansion minded nation which we oppsed politically. The a-bombs made it unneeded to invade Japan SPARING the lives of those who would have invaded (and those who would oppose). Ask a veteran of the Pacific War, they appreciated the use of the a-bombs. Today's US basher does not.

"History Buff" made a point of how the Democratic Party of old was much different than that of today, very aggressive in fact with other nations. I agree with that analysis. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (120) Albums

: Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo; Friday, November, 6 2009; (14) Photos

: Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball; Friday, November, 6 2009; (22) Photos

: Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football; Friday, November, 6 2009; (13) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (35) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts