An experience I had

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

know what always gets me about "what the founding fathers intended"

Who the hell cares

They are dead and had antiquated 200 year old views of human society. Whole reason the constitution is alterable is because they knew their opinions would be outdated and needing revising. What they intended is for americans to make up their own minds about issues

The general historical view (emerging in the last 40 years of the so) is pretty much the exact opposite of that. There was an intense fear and worry about democracy as it was pretty much untested since Roman times (adn this is why they took large parts of Roman laws and stuffed them in) and so that is why they made a constitution that is hard to change and filled it full of checks on the power of the people- so that you didn't have "mob rule" as it were. They were pretty much shooting at a state of the people but one guided by father figures who make sure the people don't get out of hand.

Also 1700s mandatory to own guns? I can't find any sources that mention this?

[shiney]

You can't find sources to support 90% of the crazy shit they say.

And yeah I might have left that out, what Magic said. You guys started to learn, started to think, and opened your eyes. Now, don't stop, never stop in the fight to open everyone else's eyes. Except for in the case of your stepdad Bob, he just sounds like a real winner.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

The general historical view (emerging in the last 40 years of the so) is pretty much the exact opposite of that. There was an intense fear and worry about democracy as it was pretty much untested since Roman times (adn this is why they took large parts of Roman laws and stuffed them in) and so that is why they made a constitution that is hard to change and filled it full of checks on the power of the people- so that you didn't have "mob rule" as it were. They were pretty much shooting at a state of the people but one guided by father figures who make sure the people don't get out of hand.

my point is why should we care what they wanted. Like a bunch of 18th century WASPs know whats best for a 21st century multi-cultural super power

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Also 1700s mandatory to own guns? I can't find any sources that mention this?

probably mandatory out of necessity. This was back when most americans were farmers and our nation expanded mostly by way of war. Probably more mandatory in the same sense shoes were mandatory

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

my point is why should we care what they wanted. Like a bunch of 18th century WASPs know whats best for a 21st century multi-cultural super power

Does anyone else find the term WASP incredibly racist? Look at it objectively. Like, 3/4th of the definition for it is saying "White dude", and the other part is saying "Protestant". To say, "Dude, all white protestants are X" is -incredibly- short sighted and silly, and just as dumb as saying something about "All those black kids in the ghetto who are all doing crimes".

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Does anyone else find the term WASP incredibly racist? Look at it objectively. Like, 3/4th of the definition for it is saying "White dude", and the other part is saying "Protestant". To say, "Dude, all white protestants are X" is -incredibly- short sighted and silly, and just as dumb as saying something about "All those black kids in the ghetto who are all doing crimes".

I was not using it to say they were all the same, but that at the time the nation was mostly white anglo-saxon protestants. At the time America was not a great melting pot, it was mostly people from the UK that felt new world would offer them a better life and their decedents. The entire congressional party, every single founding father, was from the exact same background. They had no frame of reference for what it would be like to have such diversity that a "majority" was really just the largest minority, something that to this day no other nation has had to deal with.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I was not using it to say they were all the same, but that at the time the nation was mostly white anglo-saxon protestants. At the time America was not a great melting pot, it was mostly people from the UK that felt new world would offer them a better life and their decedents. The entire congressional party, every single founding father, was from the exact same background. They had no frame of reference for what it would be like to have such diversity that a "majority" was really just the largest minority, something that to this day no other nation has had to deal with.

But even so, to use the label WASP to describe them is just saying, "All the people who fall under this sweeping category are pretty much the same", which I think ought to be a direction that we steer away from no matter who we're talking about.


Edit: In particular, your description of them consisted entirely of "1800s", and "WASP". If WASP isn't meant as a way of labeling the entire group as being one thing, then why use it as half the way that you describe the founding fathers? 1800s alone would have been enough.

[Aerozord]

cause I'm lazy and wasn't going to write out their race, nationality, and religion, considering it is, by your own admit ions, a very minor point in what I was saying. Its why I only used four letters, and you have it backwards. I am not saying all WASPs are the same, I'm saying all the founding fathers were WASPs, because its true. Just as its true they lived during the 18th century. I still feel its inclusion was justified as it contrasts the immense amount of religious and cultural diversity that we have today that, as I said in my last post, was something they had no familiarity with.

You are reading subtext that simply isn't there

edit: unless you are suggesting that they were not white aglo-saxon protestants, which to my knowledge, they all were. Thus what I said is wholly accurate

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

cause I'm lazy and wasn't going to write out their race, nationality, and religion, considering it is, by your own admit ions, a very minor point in what I was saying. Its why I only used four letters, and you have it backwards. I am not saying all WASPs are the same, I'm saying all the founding fathers were WASPs, because its true. Just as its true they lived during the 18th century. I still feel its inclusion was justified as it contrasts the immense amount of religious and cultural diversity that we have today that, as I said in my last post, was something they had no familiarity with.

You are reading subtext that simply isn't there

edit: unless you are suggesting that they were not white aglo-saxon protestants, which to my knowledge, they all were. Thus what I said is wholly accurate

No, what I mean is, why's it matter? Like, if they were black gay women, would you go, "What do 1800s black gay women know about anything?" There's no reason that you'd mention it as a factor in their decision making abilities, if you didn't think that it was a factor in their decision making abilities. Regardless, I was mainly against the term in general as opposed to the specific case, because WASP is just used to label a sweepingly broad group as being a certain way, based on skin color and culture, which is the same as any other racist language. The only difference is that it's white protestants that it's labeling, which is okay, apparently?

Edit: I mean, if you can think of a good reason for the term that -isn't- just to sweepingly label people, I'm open to hearing it. But it seems like you'd want to rail against it the same way that you'd rail against people saying, "The ghetto rap music", and such.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

No, what I mean is, why's it matter? Like, if they were black gay women, would you go, "What do 1800s black gay women know about anything?"

no I'd say "they were black homosexual women from the 18th century that lacked any frame of referance of what it would be like to live in a nation of such cultural diversity as modern america" cause, you know, it would be true. Just as its true with white anglo-saxon males in the real world.

The specific background they all belong to isn't my point, my point is they all belonged to the same background. That I doubt they really had any freakin clue what it is like for a black homosexual woman in the 18th century, let alone what its like for one in the 21st century.

[rpgdemon]

That's reasonable I suppose. The way it came off to me was that you were saying that by being a WASP, they inherently had a poor ability to make decisions, rather than by all being the same cultural background, they didn't know what people would have to deal with who weren't of that cultural background.

I am still going to blindly state that the actual background wasn't important here, and in fact the point would have been clearer had you not mentioned their specific background, and instead just said the same cultural background. Or something. In my defense, I haven't slept in 31 hours, aside from a few naps while watching old Doctor Who episodes (), so I have an excuse for lack of reading comprehension.

I'm trying to figure out now if I ought to sleep and screw up my sleep schedule even more, or just forego it until later tonight.