We hold these truths to be self-evident - That all *men* are created equal...
At the beginning of many legal contracts is a section that deals with 'customary definitions of terms'. This thread is a spin-off of nsnelson's post on racism, which caused me to recall that there was a tacit understanding that "men" in the Declaration of Independence meant 'free white males'. But there are other definitions of the word "men" and it might have been cleaner simply to redefine that word in the Constitution as opposed to adding amendments.
Obviously, one of the potential definitions is that "men" means "males of all races". But another definition provides the turning point of the Lord of the Rings, is a crucial twist in the Celtic poem Battle of Clontarf, and is present in traditional liturgical texts, eg "man does not live by bread alone". That second definition is that "man" means "mankind".
Should we just reclaim the words "man" and "men" to mean "person" and dispense with specific racial and genderic laws and regulations?
Jan
Obviously, one of the potential definitions is that "men" means "males of all races". But another definition provides the turning point of the Lord of the Rings, is a crucial twist in the Celtic poem Battle of Clontarf, and is present in traditional liturgical texts, eg "man does not live by bread alone". That second definition is that "man" means "mankind".
Should we just reclaim the words "man" and "men" to mean "person" and dispense with specific racial and genderic laws and regulations?
Jan
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
By using words designed to keep everyone happy they slipped the whole thing through without too much rancor. Unlike to day where people go looking for or imagine a reason to be insulted.
Carrying that line of historical thought a years later the same was used to create the Constitution except this time they left a great series of escape hatches knowing that some conditions needed to be changed. AND they left a way to do make changes. Never thinking that some would be too disinterested to put out the effort while others would be despicable enough to attempt changes by other means or that the citizens would be too lazy to care one way or the other.There was a poll tax at one time. In general only landed people could afford it.That was changed by amendment. The 14th or 15th guaranteed the vote to citizens regardless of financial condition. If it were me i would make it a condition of voluntarily offering to serve the nation in a military or civilian capacity and not make it an accident of birth situation.
the end point is when you read words it's a. context of the time which means an understanding of proper English and when a situation arises as you described think wwhat might be done to use the right and requirement of amendment. People who try to change any other way are not true citizens or worthy of the title. Starting with our President Obeyme Ohmshidi although he is by far not the only one who acts so despicably.. Did Jefferson believe that? The cards are stacked against. Did they believe it was something that might need changing in the future? Certainly.
I personally think that the intention was to state that Mankind as a whole had these attributes, notably as separate from 'classes' of people having different attributes (which I got from one of the comments). There was an understanding that Mankind did not include women, however, and a split on whether or not it included Indians, Negros, and people without property. Different areas made different decisions on those issue with respect to voting.
Jan
Regards,
O.A.
I thought that the issues brought up have been quite worthwhile. I have had to do research several times.
Jan
A fantastic thread. So many good contributions.
O.A.
Yes, this casual introduction to logic and the Socratic method of argument have served me well throughout my life.
Jan
(And thank you for your entertaining comments on this thread. I hope you had a great holiday.)
Jan
Carly destroyed HP, now she wants our consent to finish off America. She is part of the political;class.
The real problem today is, as Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul, say, is the career politicians of the "Political Class.
Jan
Then, while I was in the AF, I join this medieval organization. Guess what: You can't go out to JC Penny's and buy medieval garb. So I learned to sew.
I guess what taught me to cook and sew and dance was not 'instruction' but 'contact with reality'. I had goals (mostly subsumed under the rubric of "have fun") and the best path to accomplishing those goals was to learn some things I had avoided learning for inappropriate reasons.
Jan
We always had a sit-down dinner, with clean shirts on and proper settings and good conversation. My friends were aghast (and envious) about our dinner table conversations when they came to visit - we would get into a lively discussion as to whether or not flying saucers broke the laws of physics or some such. Sometimes my father would show me strategy and tactics, using the side dishes to represent opposing forces.
I learned a lot about logical conversation in that setting.
Jan
This does not work so well any more (did not work outstandingly even then, though it may have stopped a lot of wars). Now, we need a philosophical hook to hang our functional hats on. In an even slightly better world, this would be a positive and rational statement; in our world it is often a statement that potentially accuses a group of people of some hateful stance, unless the do such-and-so.
The general mode of this is: Unless you [blank] you are [Nazi]. One of the big things we have to get past is that there are "people" not men/women, black/white, straight/gay. Just "people".
If you want to start a new thread on this topic, just push the blue "Start Discussion" button at the top right. I will be glad to comment on the topic.
Jan
Load more comments...