Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
The Voice Of Reason

'the Donald' Trump

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Wolfsbane said:

Now what about the 'harmful language?'

Well those will be the bits where slaves are only enumerated as three-fifths of a person, and where only men are created equal (unless you're a slave or Indian of course). :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Well those will be the bits where slaves are only enumerated as three-fifths of a person, and where only men are created equal (unless you're a slave or Indian of course). :rolleyes:

The thing is, Humphrey, Wolfie can't actually see anything wrong with any of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, norbold said:

The thing is, Humphrey, Wolfie can't actually see anything wrong with any of that.

Correct.

That's how it was 200 years ago. Rewriting history is never a good thing, no matter how abhorrent it appears to us today.

Judge things that happened in the 1700s by the standards of the 1700s and judge things in the 2000s by the standards of the 2000s.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Wolfsbane said:

That's how it was 200 years ago. Rewriting history is never a good thing, no matter how abhorrent it appears to us today.

Judge things that happened in the 1700s by the standards of the 1700s and judge things in the 2000s by the standards of the 2000s.

It's not about rewriting history. It's about pointing out redundant text in a constitutional document in use today, that continues to remind certain citizens of their former inferior status. 

Not to mention that slavery was abhorrent to many even in 1787 when the document was written, and the 3/5ths clause was there to ensure the non-slave states couldn't muster enough power in Congress to actually outlaw it. 

Other national constitutions such as the Irish one, update the text when they're amended - such as removing the contentious claim to Northern Ireland. 

Edited by Humphrey Appleby
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wolfsbane said:

Correct.

That's how it was 200 years ago. Rewriting history is never a good thing, no matter how abhorrent it appears to us today.

Judge things that happened in the 1700s by the standards of the 1700s and judge things in the 2000s by the standards of the 2000s.

Yes, but that doesn't make it right not to recognise now that those ideas are not compatible with 21st century thinking, which is what the original discussion between you and Humphrey was about.

One of the main obstacles to progress in America seems to me to be that the "Founding Fathers", the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are regularly trotted out whenever anyone puts forward new proposals. So, they are not just historical figures and documents, they still have a profound effect on the way the United States is run and organised right down to this day.

Of course, historical documents are a reflection of the time they were written but that doesn't mean they should still retain an enduring and inflexible hold over a country. No-one is suggesting re-writing history and pretending those things weren't said or written down, but pointing out their irrelevance and even the harm they could do in modern day society is not something to be discounted just because things were different in the 1700s.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, norbold said:

Yes, but that doesn't make it right not to recognise now that those ideas are not compatible with 21st century thinking, which is what the original discussion between you and Humphrey was about.

One of the main obstacles to progress in America seems to me to be that the "Founding Fathers", the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are regularly trotted out whenever anyone puts forward new proposals. So, they are not just historical figures and documents, they still have a profound effect on the way the United States is run and organised right down to this day.

Of course, historical documents are a reflection of the time they were written but that doesn't mean they should still retain an enduring and inflexible hold over a country. No-one is suggesting re-writing history and pretending those things weren't said or written down, but pointing out their irrelevance and even the harm they could do in modern day society is not something to be discounted just because things were different in the 1700s.

I sort of half agree with that, more so than the way Hump expressed it. The “ all men are born equal”  part was put in the Declaration of Independence when the War of Independence was being fought, and although in some ways it is a bit of a nebulous term it is generally regarded as being not meaning the rights of the individual but rather meaning the right of people to form their own governments , given the war that was going on at the time.It’s worth mentioning though that it was not a new idea at the time, in a nation that was still finding its feet. The way in which the phrase found its way into the Constitution is a bit complicated for a speedway forum,  but it was only over time that the expression slowly came to mean what we take it to mean today. After the Civil War three amendments were made recognising the status of blacks and their right to vote but their were various ways individual states could get round it such as poll taxes.

I think what it boils down to is that like so many things we can pick holes in it with the wonderful gift of hindsight, but as Wolfers implies, hindsight is not a basis for criticism but rather a means of understanding the past, which I think is pretty much what you are saying. But it does seem to me that a lot of energy is expended by many people trying apply today’s opinions to past events and organisation like the National Trust and BBC going along with it.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

I think what it boils down to is that like so many things we can pick holes in it with the wonderful gift of hindsight, but as Wolfers implies, hindsight is not a basis for criticism but rather a means of understanding the past, which I think is pretty much what you are saying. But it does seem to me that a lot of energy is expended by many people trying apply today’s opinions to past events and organisation like the National Trust and BBC going along with it.

I don't know what the National Trust or BBC have to do with the US Constitution.

It's nothing to do with the wonderful gift of hindsight or understanding the past, but the continued inclusion of discriminatory language into current constitutional documents. Whether it should stay in or out is not my concern, but the fact remains it contains language that essentially confirmed and perpetuated slavery for 70-odd years, which is quite hurtful to certain groups of people.

I do also think it quite funny how some tell others how they should feel with respect to past history, yet become the biggest snowflakes when confronted with the mildest criticism themselves. :rolleyes:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

I don't know what the National Trust or BBC have to do with the US Constitution.

It's nothing to do with the wonderful gift of hindsight or understanding the past, but the continued inclusion of discriminatory language into current constitutional documents. Whether it should stay in or out is not my concern, but the fact remains it contains language that essentially confirmed and perpetuated slavery for 70-odd years, which is quite hurtful to certain groups of people.

I do also think it quite funny how some tell others how they should feel with respect to past history, yet become the biggest snowflakes when confronted with the mildest criticism themselves. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think we have all noticed how you react to the mildest criticism, but we do our best to express our viewpoint notwithstanding. Carry on......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

The “ all men are born equal”  part was put in the Declaration of Independence when the War of Independence was being fought, and although in some ways it is a bit of a nebulous term it is generally regarded as being not meaning the rights of the individual but rather meaning the right of people to form their own governments , given the war that was going on at the time.It’s worth mentioning though that it was not a new idea at the time, in a nation that was still finding its feet.

Well it's not a nebulous term. It aspired that all men were born equal and women weren't even a consideration until about 200 years later. And of course it was completely hypocritical because something like 8 of the 14 colonies allowed slavery so clearly not all men were equal, quite aside from the fact that many if not most white males couldn't vote in the American colonies (and later states) either. 'Indians' basically didn't even come into the equation.

Yes a different time when there were quite different ideas about who should participate in representative democracy, but neither does this change that fact that slavery was abhorrent at the time. Half of the colonies had already abolished it by the end of the American Revolution, and there were proposals to abolish slavery outright during the constitutional discussions. 

One of the more disgraceful compromises was that union was considered more important than human rights (for some - despite all men apparently being created equal :rolleyes:), and the slave states then gerrymandered power (not for the first time) in order to maintain that status quo for another 70 years. And that disgraceful compromise continues to be enshrined in a current constitutional document, which is what the point is... 

Edited by Humphrey Appleby
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Yes, I think we have all noticed how you react to the mildest criticism, but we do our best to express our viewpoint notwithstanding. Carry on......

It's the opinion of US citizens, and in particular those referenced in the US Constitution, that actually matter. It's perfectly possible though to see the bits that some object to, even if you think it's wokeism...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

It's the opinion of US citizens, and in particular those referenced in the US Constitution, that actually matter. It's perfectly possible though to see the bits that some object to, even if you think it's wokeism...

You done a poll then?

Sweeping Statements R Us is alive and kicking.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Wolfsbane said:

You done a poll then?

Have you actually read what's on the National Archives website, quite aside from any US Constitutional documents?

There's simply a generic statement on its website at https://www.archives.gov/research/reparative-description/harmful-content which is not linked to any specific document. 

Show me where the National Archive website has specifically marked the :

# Constitution.

# Declaration of Independence.

# Bill of Rights.

as containing 'harmful language' as you posted...? :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Well it's not a nebulous term. It aspired that all men were born equal and women weren't even a consideration until about 200 years later. And of course it was completely hypocritical because something like 8 of the 14 colonies allowed slavery so clearly not all men were equal, quite aside from the fact that many if not most white males couldn't vote in the American colonies (and later states) either. 'Indians' basically didn't even come into the equation.

Yes a different time when there were quite different ideas about who should participate in representative democracy, but neither does this change that fact that slavery was abhorrent at the time. Half of the colonies had already abolished it by the end of the American Revolution, and there were proposals to abolish slavery outright during the constitutional discussions. 

One of the more disgraceful compromises was that union was considered more important than human rights (for some - despite all men apparently being created equal :rolleyes:), and the slave states then gerrymandered power (not for the first time) in order to maintain that status quo for another 70 years. And that disgraceful compromise continues to be enshrined in a current constitutional document, which is what the point is... 

 Hump. as always you dont read in context  what I wrote but just select a couple of words to suit your point. I'm not going to repeat it save to add that the term men was, until relatively recently taken to include women, and even today the expression MANkind is generally taken by almost everyone to include women, although that is not the point I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Have you actually read what's on the National Archives website, quite aside from any US Constitutional documents?

There's simply a generic statement on its website at https://www.archives.gov/research/reparative-description/harmful-content which is not linked to any specific document. 

Show me where the National Archive website has specifically marked the :

# Constitution.

# Declaration of Independence.

# Bill of Rights.

as containing 'harmful language' as you posted...? :rolleyes:

Now is the time for Wolfie to go off onto another topic :rofl:

Clearly having a good game of getting the wrong end of the stick. Almost unbeatable he is

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post

Donald proving his grip on reality is as bad as his mates, Blu and Wolfie :blink:

Ist möglicherweise ein Bild von 2 Personen und Text „BREAKING NEWS: NITE Yeucp BL OUO Ex-US marine and current Congressman Conor Lamb rips Trump for saying that Robert E. Lee would have won in Afghanistan: guess Trump and Robert E. Lee BOTH know how it feels to suffer humiliating defeat at the hands of pro-democracy forces." LIKE THIS IF YOU'RE WITH CONOR LAMB! OCCUPY DEMOCRATS“

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy