Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

A pathetic way to argue! Don't you think?

---

Not really. I think it's spot on to point out that our government has actually moved in a liberal direction since its inception.

The 'rights' of the citizens published at the beginning WERE largely limited to white landowners, and the basic trend towards inclusion has been a long, difficult struggle.

And modern racism has its roots in older racism, both for individuals and institutions.

Our Governor, Bonehead, has been trying to limit gay marriages in this state by enforcing a law created to prevent interracial marriages back when they were illegal in many states.

We cannot understand what we have unless and until we understand how we got here. Among other things, we have to understand that the Declaration of Independence (which you quoted) wasn't exactly legislative, but largely the same group that wote that wrote the Constitution. And it was exactly the desire to include the slavery and abolitionist states that led to the compromises of the constitution.

So, no, it is not nonsensical to criticize our modern government inertia against change by showing just how far we've come in 200 years, and how far we have left to go.

Quote:

---

Regardless of the fact that the quote didn't apply to all men, in actual day-to-day life, it is genuinely regarded as applying to all men by the people who quote it today. They're inspirational words, regardless of the history.

---

I think it's more inspirational to regard the history. To see that we haven't failed the Founders, we've actually carried their banner farther.
And not all people who quote it today feel that it applies to all humans. SOme like to point out the slavery of the time and use it to show this was founded as a White Nation.
OThers have shown that women were never intended to have the Vote.

Quote:

---

Is the quote an endorsement of racism? That's the main question.

---

It is in context.

They said 'all men' but they excluded many men. And women. They honestly thought they had a liberal attitude, in that they did not divide society by inherited royalty, nobility and so on. But by modern standards, their 'open mindedness' was still pretty closed minded. You can't just look at the one quote and say it meant what many use it to mean today. Even today, not everyone accepts that it would apply to blacks, or homosexuals, telemarketers, women, migrants.

Quote:

---

I would answer "No." And I would say that the sentiments expressed in the quote played a part in improving race relations.

---

A part, maybe. A very small one. Especially since, again, the Declaration is not part of the laws of the land.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided just over a year ago that one of the phrases in it (can't quite recall, but something about not allowing laws that restrict the rights of individuals for fuckwit reasons....something like that) actually protects Same Sex Marriage. The language hasn't changed in 200 years, but the recognition of homosexuals as people has. The quote you post is the least of part of 'improved race relations.' Society recognizing people as being people was far more instrumental.

Quote:

---

Is it more sensible to denounce the quote, or to accept it as a milestone on the road to equality?

---

It is more sensible to put the quote in context, neither to dwell on our 4father's shortcomings, or gloss over them. The contradiction between the quote, as implemented 200 years ago, and the view taken by the courts today, is a valid point in showing the inherrent racism of the past.

Quote:

---

The examples you gave don't sound like they're denouncing the quote as racist.

---

The quote itself isn't racist until you look at how they actually implemented their 'equality.' Educated white landowners had the vote. That's not 'all men are equal.' But it can be used to show how classist and arrogant they were, apart from any racism.

Quote:

---

Did Malcom X, in his early pro-Black speeches, use the quote as an example of the White man's racism? That's the side my imaginary debater is on.

---

I would not be surprised if he had. If he showed 'they promised us equality, but they didn't give us the vote for 160 years. This is not a nation concieved in liberty, it was concieved in exploitation.'

After all, even those signatories who were against slavery didn't seem to find the rights of all the blacks in the south to be more important than getting the southern representatives to sign on with the Constitution.