America is one of the few countries where equal rights and opportunity is a fundamental belief. MAGA could just as easily go to another country if they don’t like that.
it was 100% never a belief. it was always propaganda. source? ask any native american. or descendant of a slave. or descendant of an irish immigrant. or mexian person. or poor person.
In the Deceleration of Independence it states that “All men are created equal” and have certain rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In practice, sure, things are different.
neat. propaganda written is still propaganda. heck it took literally more than a century for AMENDMENTS (ie: changes) to be written and agreed upon. Heck it took shutting down a terrorist organization in the process.
The belief in equality is what ultimately lead to slaves being free, right? The country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal as a goal to achieve, not a statement of how things were.
But you are right, it was hypocrisy to say that and have it not apply to everyone.
You may want to go reread some of those declarations of secession by assorted states…. There’s a lot of “it’s our God given right to own humans as property” in them. But also you believe taxation equals theft so who even knows man.
From Georgia “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.”
South Carolina “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .”
Mississippi "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "
Taxes are a hassle and can frustrate me, especially when used for things I don’t agree with, but they also build roads and waterways and allow society to lift each other up. All that aside, the Civil War was fought because the Southern states wanted to continue owning people as property. They plainly stated it in their assorted articles of secession, I’m sorry you feel that knowing that somehow means I wasn’t taught US history I guess?
no. use of appropriate violence lead to the slaves being free*. you cannot vote away slavery, fascism, and other facets capitalists use to keep hold of their control and profits.
and they’re still not free. just locked up in for profit prisons. see a theme here?
So then, what actual difference does it make? So many other countries have adopted the same principles. What real world difference does it make that the US adopted them (in theory but not in practice) at conception?
I guess I just dont understand the point of your original comment.
“I might repeatedly demonstrate that I jump to conclusions and make shit up without taking more than a passing notice of what I’m replying to, but making fun of me for it is just plain arrogant.”
John Rutledge of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, read excerpts of various Iroquois Treaties to the drafting committee, however an English translation of the Great Law of Peace was not created until the 19th century.[37][38]
The influence of Six Nations law on the U.S. Constitution is disputed by scholars.[39] Haudenosaunee historian Elisabeth J. Tooker has pointed to several differences between the two forms of government, notably that all decisions were made by a consensus of male chiefs who gained their position through a combination of blood descent and selection by female relatives, that representation was on the basis of the number of clans in the group rather than the size or population of the clans, and that the topics discussed were decided by a single tribe. Tooker concluded there is little resemblance between the two documents or reason to believe the Six Nations had a meaningful influence on the American Constitution and that it is unclear how much impact Canassatego’s statement at Lancaster actually had on the representatives of the colonies.[40] Stanford University historian Jack N. Rakove argued against any Six Nations influence, pointing to lack of evidence in U.S. constitutional debate records and examples of European antecedents for democratic institutions.[41]
Journalist Charles C. Mann has noted other differences between The Great Law of Peace and the original U.S. Constitution, including the original Constitution’s allowing denial of suffrage to women and majority rule rather than consensus. Mann argues that the early colonists’ interaction with Native Americans and their understanding of Iroquois government did influence the development of colonial society and culture and the Suffragette movement but stated that “the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law.”[41][42]
Other critics of the Iroquois-influence theory include Samuel Payne, who considered the Iroquois division of powers as seen by Adams as being unlike those in the U.S. Constitution;[43] William Starna and George Hamell, who described errors in Grinde’s and Johansen’s scholarship, particularly on Canassatego and the Lancaster Treaty;[44] and Philip Levy, who also wrote that Grinde and Johansen had misused Adams’s material, stating that he was not describing the Iroquois Confederacy government separation of powers and model of government but that he was instead describing England’s structure.[45]
Nice citation of Britannica that says absolutely nothing about your claim, by the way.
If your argument is that this wasn’t always the case “before the country was formed” this holds for the US as well before it was united or still native American tribes.
America is one of the few countries where equal rights and opportunity is a fundamental belief. MAGA could just as easily go to another country if they don’t like that.
it was 100% never a belief. it was always propaganda. source? ask any native american. or descendant of a slave. or descendant of an irish immigrant. or mexian person. or poor person.
In the Deceleration of Independence it states that “All men are created equal” and have certain rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In practice, sure, things are different.
neat. propaganda written is still propaganda. heck it took literally more than a century for AMENDMENTS (ie: changes) to be written and agreed upon. Heck it took shutting down a terrorist organization in the process.
stop pretending america was ever a good idea.
Except the slaves and “negros.” You really are brainwashed by colonist propaganda.
The belief in equality is what ultimately lead to slaves being free, right? The country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal as a goal to achieve, not a statement of how things were.
But you are right, it was hypocrisy to say that and have it not apply to everyone.
Removed by mod
You may want to go reread some of those declarations of secession by assorted states…. There’s a lot of “it’s our God given right to own humans as property” in them. But also you believe taxation equals theft so who even knows man.
Removed by mod
Oh the 13th Amendment does some shifty stuff with incarcerated people to this day, I get that. That being said, maybe read through the articles of secession from the various states, it’s enlightnening.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
From Georgia “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.”
South Carolina “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .”
Mississippi "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "
Taxes are a hassle and can frustrate me, especially when used for things I don’t agree with, but they also build roads and waterways and allow society to lift each other up. All that aside, the Civil War was fought because the Southern states wanted to continue owning people as property. They plainly stated it in their assorted articles of secession, I’m sorry you feel that knowing that somehow means I wasn’t taught US history I guess?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Was also crucified by merchants in the Church.
Is this what libertarians propagandize now, that Abraham Lincoln freed his slaves because he utterly believed his slaves had rights?
Fucking what.
…
no. use of appropriate violence lead to the slaves being free*. you cannot vote away slavery, fascism, and other facets capitalists use to keep hold of their control and profits.
… by a massive state apparatus that was elected by people who believed in abolition.
Jesus Christ. Dogmatic thinking that would make a religious fanatic blush.
sure, elected. that’s a consistent facet - and elections happened on the confederate side too.
the fix was, and has been shown throughout all history, not voting harder. it was violence.
elected except for people like John Brown. but you go ahead and keep thinking voting harder is what “fixed” the confederacy.
Written while slavery existed, to just mention one example. What it teaches is that the US was build on lies and hypocrisy if nothing else.
The US doesnt even crack the top 20 in the Human Rights Index my dude.
propaganda*
slaves and natives didn’t have much opportunities in the colonies.
One of the few? Sounds like you have not been abroad much or suffer from “American exceptionalism”.
I thought for many other countries equality wasn’t a foundational belief, it was adopted later after the country was formed.
One could argue that when they adopted them they became a new country or at least a new form of their country allowing them to lay new foudations.
Hum hum… “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. Fuck off, American exceptionalist.
Kinda an unfair comparison when most other countries were created in antiquity.
That’s not an unfair comparison, it’s literally the point. I swear, we need all internet access locked behind reading comprehension tests.
So then, what actual difference does it make? So many other countries have adopted the same principles. What real world difference does it make that the US adopted them (in theory but not in practice) at conception?
I guess I just dont understand the point of your original comment.
It wasn’t me, and I sincerely doubt you’re capable of reaching understanding even if you weren’t bound and determined not to understand.
Solid copout. I like the touch of arrogance while doing nothing to earn it.
“I might repeatedly demonstrate that I jump to conclusions and make shit up without taking more than a passing notice of what I’m replying to, but making fun of me for it is just plain arrogant.”
— You
… not really? Most countries were created in modernity or early modernity, and almost all of them have deep ethnic and linguistic roots.
The USA was founded on a few idealistic scraps of paper.
We can argue whether that helps or hurts, but it is unusual in world history.
Seems you’re skipping forward to the current founding of the united states, which was ~1776.
The us constitution was modeled after the local Haudenosaunee Confederacy population’s government.
They were finally ousted by white (terrorist) settlers during the Sullivan-clinton campaign.
… considering that there was no ‘United States’ prior to 1776, this seems a pretty natural position to take.
This is a pop history myth.
I don’t think you should just trust me about the Sullivan-Clinton atrocities either, unlike your claims.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-clinton-sullivan-campaign-of-1779.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/memory-wars
The Clinton-Sullivan Campaign of 1779
Nice comic, bad attitude OP.
I didn’t dispute the Sullivan Expedition. Sorry that your reading comprehension is so sub-par.
Since you relied on your ‘trust me because I post a lot’ position in responding (you are making it up off the cuff);
Here’s some additional details about what you allege is a myth:
Library of Congress Blog Post: https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/
Britannica post regarding the Confederacy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Haudenosaunee-Confederacy
Do click in there if you doubt that there’s a plethora of backing information.
Why lie or feign ignorance? Is this to further the point? Doesn’t it function without the lies?
The current nation’s founding is rooted in several theories of antiquity and the ground they occupy had centuries of similar government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace#Influence_on_the_United_States_Constitution
Nice citation of Britannica that says absolutely nothing about your claim, by the way.
“When the country was formed” is quite vague. Most European countries have constitutions with the same principles:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22
https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf
If your argument is that this wasn’t always the case “before the country was formed” this holds for the US as well before it was united or still native American tribes.