I think we should remember that "all men were created equal" meant white men to the fathers of our country. It did not mean women, and it did not mean black men, or other people of color. And isn't it true that only property owners could vote?
I thought I just answered that, in the post in which you responded to. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll try to re-word my answer (although I may not succeed):
The words they wrote were correct. Obviously since these men had wives, they didn't assume that their wives were required to stay under the "Tyranny" of England, while the men formed a new country where only men were citizens. So by saying "men" they obviously were using the word in the usage of "mankind"; i.e. human beings were created equal. Clearly though, they did not abide by the words written; not until Abraham Lincoln did we have a leader who had the courage to face the hypocrisy of the day embodied in slave ownership. As for property owners only voting; it didn't mean that non-property owners weren't humans with rights. I consider that was a policy that was an extension of the representative republic form of government which was decided upon. Remember, they didn't have electronic vote-processing systems, telephones, etc. But again, certainly this was a double standard of the day, which was eventually recognised and rectified. This was a political issue after all, and if you would like me to point out some double standards that some politically motivated groups have today, I can certainly oblige you on that.
And we killed the Indians and stole their land. What a lot to be proud about!! While the words are nice, they ring hollow. While the idea of freedom has lived on, the details need to change over time.
Christine, don't even go there. The fact is, regardless of your "feelings" on this matter of stealing land from the American Indians, *you* and everyone living in the USA accepts it has water under the bridge. You are not really ashamed about it, and you do accept it, because you are right now living on former Indian land. You may have a passing twinge of regret, but when these feelings are not backed up by action, they mean *nothing*. Zero, zip, nada. This is what gripes me about liberals. They feel like they are actually "doing the right thing" by announcing things that the US has to be "ashamed of", but fail to realize that simple feelings don't accomplish anything except perhaps make the person pronouncing these feelings feel better *themselves*. Nobody else is served by actionless feelings except the person who "feels" whatever the issue is about. When the white man came to America, all even slightly desirable land was considered the "territory" of some tribe, from sea to shining sea. I don't know what tribes had claim to the SF Bay area in the 1600's and 1700's, but I can virtually guarantee that one or more tribes of Indians laid claim to the Bay area, and were eventually pushed out as the white man built settlements.
So the point is, 'enuff already about being "ashamed" of living on Indian land, unless you are prepared to give up your home to a Native American. |
