3 ms·
That's just kicking the can down the road, because the full sentence is: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they a
by karaterobot 3y ago
That's just kicking the can down the road, because the full sentence is:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Which would seem to be irrespective of nationality. I think that today, we understand that "men" was meant as a generic term for "person", but the rest of that sentence seems to say that everybody who is a creation of God (which is understood to be everybody) has those unalienable rights. It sure reads to me like it says "everyone on Earth has these rights" not just "people in these colonies have these rights".
I am trolling a little bit here, since I don't actually believe we (the U.S.) should insist on our Constitutional protections applying to non-citizens. But that is what it says to me.
- InitialLastName 3y agoThe person who upheld the self-evidence of those truths also asserted his property rights over other humans, so I don't think we can draw meaningful conclusions as to whom he intended to apply his terminology.
- fennecbutt 3y agoMen/man has always originated from a general term for humans. See "Herman" and "Wifman".