I admit...

[Spooky]

That this is inflammatory, but it terms of historical context, would you agree that it holds some truth? I ask, because you guys, unlike some, seem to be of the mindset that critcising a nation does not been by neccesity that you are anti everything they stand for.

What Jefferson really meant to say when looking in its historical context

'We hold these truths to be self evident, that anyone that is a man ,as in of the male gender, and certainly not a female, and defintely not a non-white indo-european, or a poor person, or a slave for that matter, because slavery is good don't you know, those Brits want to get rid of it for some reason but we are more enlightened so we are going to keep it, and they don't know what democracy is with their Constitutional Monarchy and Parliament. We will have government by the people and for the people made up of us aristocrats, some may call it oligarchy, I call it democracy. But I digress. All men, ie those that are not the excpetion above are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.'

I know that here the response, while adversarial will remain rational, and open.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

hmph. When ethel bejamin was trying to get admitted to the barr, her peers told her that 'any man' was to be interpreted as just that - any MAN. Bloody hell.

Off topic, but, as much as I am in to 'man' encompassing women, don't you hate microwanks fucking anal retentive grammar check with it's gender neutralisation??? I was writing an essay a while back, and it wanted me to replace 'mankind' with 'peoplekind'... gender specifics aside, it just sounds stupid.

------------------
"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites. Morality ends where a gun begins."

[Lightbulb]

Interestingly, Microwank Turd pick up 'whore' and suggests replacing it with 'prostitute' but fails to spot that 'nigger' might be served by a better use of the language.

Many people take the grammer checker in Turd to be gospel truth. It's dictionary and thesaurus is shite too.

We are willingly enacting Orwell's finest nightmare.

I'm going to start using Simpletext to write in again. No spelling, no typesetting, no nothing.

Just thought.

Edit: This entire post was off topic. Damn.

[This message has been edited by Lightbulb (edited 07-04-2001).]

[wittyhandle]

Spooky, I agree with that assessment. In fact, I've argued that many times. Of course, I suppose it helps that I'm non-white, poor and born of immigrant parents. At least the man part I've got covered. Anyhow, it is indeed a sad truth. My dad calls it an oligarchy all the time. Though, he calls lots of things an oligarchy...mainly the "British oligarchy" and the "Venetian Oligarchy." That's what Lyndon H. LaRouche will do for you. I, on the other hand, recognise that I live in a Republic and I don't let the fuckers fool me. Some say it's a democracy; they're blind. bah, i'm not making much sense anymore. I had somewhere to go with this but I'm lost again...oh well, off to burning my flag to celebrate the holiday.

------------------
I think, therefore I'm
dangerous.

[Dog Breath]

To say that is in context is out of context.
Yes that is roughly what he meant but that is the way things were then. Women were WILLINGLY SUBSERVIENT it was the culture as were slaves.
Today culture is much different and if Jefferson was born now he would have meant and said "All humans". Demonizing him by using modern context is again taking what he said out of context. You are on some sort of US One-Upmanship. Thomas Jefferson was a Moral and Honorable man whom genuinely wanted what was feasibly best for all Americans. If you want to bash Americans bash the ones that don't vote and would rather not bother knowing their own government.

I am aware you got gang raped on a couple posts but this one is clearly one aimed at those whom don't agree with you. Your tone is confrontational and you seem to be looking down your nose on America. I don't recall any one going after you specifically so I guess this is a petty attempt to regain respect.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>

[Mudflap]

<FONT COLOR="Orange">What if:

Thomas Jefferson realized that the U.S. would undergo social, political, and cultural changes in the years following the founding of the nation. Perhaps he drafted a carefully worded Declaration of Independence that would inspire future generations to strive toward positive, idealist changes. Perhaps he had a vision of a country that could someday be greater than what it was in his lifetime.

Ever consider THAT possibility? If you haven't, consider yourself unreasonably biased against my country. Go drink some freakin' tea and eat some freakin' crumpets.</FONT c>

------------------
<FONT COLOR="orange">Even the losers...
Get lucky sometimes.</FONT c>

[TimeSlipping Mark2]

The problem with the American Constitution was that they thought that those following would have the same sense of duty and personal dignity and honour, an idealism of making the country better. But they stuffed it big time there, didn't they. But they left the framework so if a few good men did come along (and they have(FDR, Eisenhower, and yes, in my opinion Reagan, and perhaps Clinton in the early years) they would be able to do a greater good..........

------------------
Death is only the end of the beginning.........

[Buddha's Penis!]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by TimeSlipping Mark2:
a few good men did come along (and they have(....and perhaps Clinton in the early years)
[/quote]
duck and cover



------------------
you don't know anything until you know everything.

[Koliedrus]

"Some of my best friends are human."

--Koliedrus

[MAC]

I tend to over generalize....

But what if he meant that we are all born.
Whether you "become" a king or a pauper you were born just like everyone else.
And you are allowed the same opportunity to try.
As for womens "Rights" and slavery.....

They were part of the social order at that time.
No different than driving vehicles we know pollute our environment.

It doesn't mean we don't want to change it.

Hell, each of us here can be in total agreement about HOW something should be done. Then we go out in public and see that no one cares what we think. They live their lives and you'd better compete if you want to live here to.

Or maybe he was a biggoted two-faced swine.

Let your predjudice be your guide, I always say.

------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

[Spooky]

I don;t in anyway mean to degenarte the vison within the word of the Declaration of Independence. I can rember reading it fully at University and thinking that it was as inspirational piece of text as the MAgna Carta of 1215 was in the England.

But still I realised that it had to be understood best in context, and with hindsight. Of course, I am not suggesting Jefferson wasa bigot. A bigot is someone, IMHO that knows that what they say is not in tune with current thinking, and Jefferson certainly was not in that catergory.

However, I do, admitedly, find it strange that some see a historical analysis of the context of his words to somehow being directly, and distinctly anti-american. I admit, that in the context that I posted in the other forum they were inflammatory, however, in this forum I did not see them as such, and actually desitred to have a debate on the historical significance of words and ideas.

It is after all arguable that Marx's thesis, when put forward in the late 19th Century held more attraction than they do now. This is because they were written within the climate of Victorian Britain, as expressed in the likes of Hard Times, and David Copperfield. For me, analysing those words in that way is not 'anti-marxist' but instead learned anaylsis of prior exisiting conditions. It does not devalue the words as such, or the visonary meaning behind them, but instead places them within a context that is boith historically accurate and contextually sound.

Why should that bve considered as a personal attack? And now, because I feel the need I am going to start a new thread on something that I have just thought of relating to this.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.