7 ms·
Absolutely ridiculous - do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?
by rubyist5eva 6y ago
Absolutely ridiculous - do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?
- dmd 6y ago.
- mirekrusin 6y ago- knock knock - who's there? - homeland security
- chuckSu 6y agoI don’t think most care
- bladegash 6y agoDo you? Not to over simplify things, but freedom, liberty, and equal treatment were pretty much empty words and applied only to white American men (see: treatment of Native Americans, the Mexican-American war, slaves, and women). Federalists were very clear in their commentary and design of the Constitution that they were in favor of broad federal powers and feared populism and direct democracy. The Bill of Rights was not in the original drafts of the Constitution and likely would not have existed had it not been for the Anti-Federalists. Not to mention gems such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Three-Fifths Compromise, Manifest Destiny, etc. Many of the tensions and fears that existed back then, are some of the same ones we are dealing with now. Edit: Original comment suggested Patrick Henry was against the Bill of Rights - which was inaccurate and a big error on my part. Apologies for the misleading quote!
- forest_dweller 6y agoPeople like yourself that constantly bring up the wrongs of the past and constantly remind people that things were less than perfect in the past constantly don't seem to understand that: * Much like many things society progresses, generally in the western world that progression has tended towards greater liberty (in most respects) of its citizens e.g. Tom Holland (a documentary film maker in the UK) argues the separation of church and state can be traced back to the Bible and it been a steady progression to secularism from there (whether that is valid or not I have no idea). * You cannot judge people of the past by the standards of today. Someone that would have been seen as progressive back then would be seen as some sort of ultra-traditionalist far-right fridge thinker. You have to judge them by the standards of the time. I am sure in 200-300 years people will see us as backwards, poorly educated and barbaric. I don't know the history of the events or the characters that led to American indepedence (I am not an American) but what I do find when people feel the need to character assasinate important figures of the past is that they do massively over simplify events and the people involved.
- Ntrails 6y agoGp was refuting a claim that the American State was formed on an "anti state oppression" platform. He is not claiming the people were bad, but that their ideals were not what was being claimed of them
- benrbray 6y agoTo be fair, the person you're responding to only brought up this viewpoint in response to another poster who seems to hold the view that the founding fathers were just as progressive as we are today.
- forest_dweller 6y agoI've already addressed why that is in all likelihood incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794
- blunte 6y agoI didn't read it as character assassination. I read it as a reminder that we're should not romanticize and fill in details that were not there. People interpret history differently, and it is a problem when those interpretations differ too much and lead to fundamentally different expectations.
- bladegash 6y agoLet's not generalize "people like yourself", when people like myself hold a much more nuanced view of U.S. history and progress than your post suggests. Yes, we have made a lot of progress over time and will continue to do so. However, I think you need to read my comment in the context of the original post, which was "do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?". I think a perfectly reasonable response to a question like that is to put the founding of the country into perspective. Not sure how you can compare something to the past, but only look at the positive sides instead of the negative. Or at the very least, not provide just a understanding of an interpretation as you have done, except towards the present.
- 6y ago
- Consultant32452 6y agoI would add one additional qualifier to your statement, it was wealthy white men, not merely white men. To the extent we tend to project the past onto the present, it doesn't make sense to see a random white male construction worker as part of this powerful elite who was denying women the right to vote or enslaving anyone. It was a very small number of people who had power, and like all people in power, wrote rules that maintained and/or expanded their power.
- bladegash 6y agoThat is a great point and I wish I had added that in! It definitely wasn't comparable with that of those in power, and much of the Anti-Federalists' fading into nonexistence was due to that power imbalance. However, I would say white men lower in socioeconomic status still held far greater rights than that of, for example, slaves and women.
- konjin 6y agoThe right to be drafted and die yes. The rich could literally bribe their way out of conscription.
- bladegash 6y agoI was more so referring to the right to vote, run for office, etc. You are certainly not wrong about the other parts though.
- konjin 6y agoRich blacks could vote in more states after independence than poor whites. And that remained the case for 50 years. Leading to the hilarious case where the first recognized black slave in the US was owned by a black man. Regardless, offices again had property and tax qualifications in virtually all states.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stephenhuey 6y agoWhile I agree with a lot of your comments, I was alarmed by your Patrick Henry misquote. He was arguing FOR the Bill of Rights, not against it. https://wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/multimedia/ch07/research_02c.htm https://wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/...
- bladegash 6y agoYeah, that was a huge oversight on my part and thank you for bringing it up! I added an edit to the original comment to correct it/apologize (based on another comment mentioning the same thing).
- addicted 6y agoI think what you’re saying goes to show that the US needs to go beyond the idea that it’s a great country because of its founding myths. Americans need to define greatness based on what they are and what values they currently promote, as opposed to basing it on hagiographies of about 20 men from the 18th century.
- vezycash 6y ago>Edit based on comment below (thank you Supermancho): Patrick Henry's quote above was related to the absence of the Bill of Rights and was an Anti-Federalist. This is confusing. Had to read 5-10 comments down to understand your edit. If patrick henry wasn't against bill of rights then remove it from your original statement. And then place the errata statement / disclaimer at the end. Sample: I previously claimed that Patrick... Thanks to supermacho for the correction.
- bladegash 6y agoFair point, was trying not to make it seem like I was hiding the original error, but your suggestion does that in a much clearer way. Thank you!
- konjin 6y agoYou forgot landed and rich. Which is understandable since the point of history classes in the US is to divide the working class along whatever lines they can, currently race and gender. Previously ethnicity, religion, language, etc
- leftyted 6y ago> Do you? Not to over simplify things, but freedom, liberty, and equal treatment were pretty much empty words and applied only to white American men (see: treatment of Native Americans, the Mexican-American war, slaves, and women). This is nonsense. The US was a left-wing experiment. It was a repudiation of the way things were done in Europe. The fact that it didn't solve every single inequity in one blow is not an interesting observation. It's fair game to criticize the US, but to misunderstand its history to this extent is just sad. The US was radically egalitarian at its founding and served as the example for the rest of the world for at least a century and a half. John Adams: "I always consider the settlement of America as the opening of a grand scheme and design in Providence for the illumination and emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
- jessaustin 6y agoIt's understandable that you have been misled in this way; enforcing this particular myth seems to be the primary purpose of USA public schools. I recommend historian Gerald Horne. He has identified Somerset v Stewart as an important event in inspiring American slaveholders and their sometime lawyer John Adams to start the Revolutionary War. That is, they fought a war in large part so that they wouldn't have to give up the practice of slavery.
- leftyted 6y agoHorne is a clumsy propagandist and you've been thoroughly propagandized. In this kind of history, all nuance (like Adams' views on slavery) is lost and all historical events are made to fit a predetermined narrative. In addition to being wrong, it's incredibly boring stuff.
- jessaustin 6y agoA clumsy propagandist for whom? A secret cabal of evildoers who plot the day that USA will do less racist shit?
- 6y ago
- Fluid_Mechanics 6y agoHumans will do whatever makes them feel good. The rest doesn’t matter.
- marcinzm 6y agoPractically speaking the US was founded because a political elite minority, concentrated in certain geographic regions, pushed war on a mostly indifferent population.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agoit could be argued it was because people didn't like to pay taxes.
- itronitron 6y agoSpecifically, American colonists wanted representation in the the British Parliament and because they didn't have that they considered taxes a denial of their rights as Englishmen.