3 ms·
That’s definitely not completely true what you just stated. Only allowing land owning white men to vote in a country that already had people with their own vari
by alphabettsy 8y ago
That’s definitely not completely true what you just stated. Only allowing land owning white men to vote in a country that already had people with their own various forms of governance such as the Iroquois Confederacy doesn’t seem much different than aristocracy looking at it with a present day lens, and some, see indigenous people, probably didn’t think it was so great even then.
I think to say there were no benefits to others would be inaccurate, but it would also be completely inaccurate to pretend the good fortune of black peoples, indigenous people, etc were even considered.
- honestoHeminway 8y agoSurely, those opressed where pure of heart and ideology? Communistic, noble natives. Not some warlord ruled bands, constantly fighting one another like afghani triebes, opressing there females like the aborigines. And these social structures where of course created by the great nemesis of the authors- the white men today, as they where back then. And surely the slaves escaping to managed villages of theire own in the swamps did not just recreate tribal africa, with its great accomplishments, like constant refugee waves and warlords. There should be at least acknowledgements of the grey areas of history, before releasing a propaganda piece.