Do you agree that the USA was, in many ways, founded on racist principles?

[mhatrw]

Or do you agree with Sean Wilentz that stating this is furthering "one of the most destructive falsehoods in all of American history"?

[tishaLA]

1. Anyone who argues otherwise is stupid, being fatuous, or lying

All you have to do is read Federalist 54 and watch Madison's pretzel logic as he tries to defend the 3/5ths compromise.

[steve2470]

2. yep! nt

[enough]

3. Given the centrality of slavery and the extermination of native peoples,

I can't see how any other conclusion can be reached.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of old rich guys of their time.

Racist, sexist, and whatever other ists you want to throw around. Our system of power was devised specifically to keep power in the hands of the few, the rich, the male, and the white. Ie, people like them.

[arcane1]

5. I can't imagine anyone honestly claiming otherwise n/t

[Starry Messenger]

6. And it still is.

Here is one of the many wonderful threads in this forum on the topic of American systemic racism that new posters to the AA group could rec and read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/118727107

[elehhhhna]

7. ask the slaves and indigenous peeps and call me back

[gollygee]

8. Well, yeah . . .

Huh? Is that a question?

[randys1]

9. It is an attempt to BASH Hillary because the person who made the comment

is allegedly an advisor to HIllary.

Most everything that happens on DU anymore is either an attack of Hillary or less frequent an attack of Bernie.

[gollygee]

11. Oh. I've been avoiding the GD: P area

but maybe I'll wade in and check it out a bit.

[Number23]

20. And they wonder why so few people even bother with GDP, especially posters with melanin

This is an important topic and it gets cast as "Hillary's historian sez..." I saw that OP and didn't even read it.

These people will do anything to politicize everything. What Sanders said is correct but that's not enough. There needs to be an angle to demonize Clinton in the process. It's so fucking unnecessary.

[Chitown Kev]

21. Yeah, I ignored most of that stuff

and focused on...oh, I don't know, historical texts and interesting arguments that people could pursue (the Douglass defense of the Constitution is an awesome one, quite frankly...)

I'm not even passionate about the primary anymore; if anything I'm getting kinda indifferent.

[JI7]

26. yeah, it's the whole "hey black people, look at the racist you are supporting"

i said before they would do a lot better in getting minorities to support Sanders by using Obama's positive words on Sanders run in the Dem Primary as part of the promotional material instead of trying to convince people Clinton is a racist who hates them.

but they can't because many of them hate obama also and can't bring themselves to see him in a positive way.

[Chitown Kev]

10. Of course.

But (as I was saying on the main thread of this topic) Frederick Douglass is CORRECT in that it is not stated in the plain language of the Constitutional text as it was written at that time...now the good question is why was Frederick Douglass (who had already denounced the racist implications of the term "manifest destiny&quot making the argument that he did.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Where is this thread?

As an FYI - I'm not seeing MrScorpio or onpatrols threads. I'm only able to access them via bookmark and my posts. Did one take a turn?

[Chitown Kev]

14. R-A-T here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=599122

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Ahh I'm not supporting Clinton in the primary

So I'm bypassing a lot of threads about her.

[Chitown Kev]

16. Understood

Although people want to make everything that they can about Hillary...I'm so indifferent to it right now (outside of my own studies of the candidates) that I want to sit back and contribute to the discussion without all of the partisan rancor...which I could care less about, for the most part.

[JI7]

25. i thought your posts were interesting. maybe in GD the issue might be better

but even there i don't expect much. it would be good to discuss without the primary thing.

[JI7]

13. because douglass was arguing against anti black laws

[mhatrw]

17. Yeah, it made sense for Douglass to argue that the Constitution was not inherently racist.

But I highly doubt he or anyone with a brain would have informally argued that the USA was not founded on racist principles.

[Chitown Kev]

18. Douglass was no fool, correct.

[GeorgeGist]

19. As a descendant of native americans ...

definitely yes.

[betsuni]

22. Dammit, a pop quiz. I hate essay questions. I know I'm going to fail this course, I just know it.

[MisterP]

23. thing is--there were always countering voices, always ways out

but even without the massive financial considerations and an expansionism that spread itself to even the very slang of the 19th century, America had ultimately trapped itself, had built an ideology that crippled its ability to deal with any of its problems, that tripped up its utopias and piled the dead in the bayous and prairies
LA can't even get a rail line to the Westside because the locals are afraid that people with deficient albedo might ride it--and hired a black guy to pull that little white-guilt lever in order to keep those dusky hordes away from Cheviot Hills

[lovemydog]

24. Yes.

[Stargleamer]

27. It was racist since Plymouth Rock n/t

[rusty quoin]

29. Yes, the Pilgrims did think they were superior because of their God.

But there was a short time when the Native Americans and they both needed each other. "Peace between the Wampanoag and Pilgrims lasted for another fifty years." Post Squanto's' death in 1662.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto

That is my favorite part of our history. After that, well all racism.

[cantbeserious]

28. Yes

eom

[steve2470]

30. founded on racism for sure nt

[MADem]

31. The founding documents studiously avoided the issue. In actual fact, the rich, racist, sexist guys

running the joint, many of them (not all, of course) were racist as hell, found dark-skinned people inferior, and thought they had a right to subjugate them.

Good thing the founding documents were ambiguous on that score--Lincoln would have had a tougher time if those founding fathers had come right out and said "Shit yeah, we're racists. Oh, and YAY slavery--write that down, now!"

It's possible for two truths to exist. Everywhere except DU, apparently.

The founding documents don't build on slavery, but many of the people who wrote the doggone thing sure used that noxious system to their benefit, even if they declined to enshrine the institution into their founding directives.

[mhatrw]

32. Douglass on the Constitution in theory vs. in reality

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160663

Wilentz claims to agree with Frederick Douglass' view that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document. But Douglass did not believe the Constitution was an anti-slavery document either. His position was much more nuanced. In 1849, Douglass wrote in The North Star:

"The Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument."

But in the same article Douglass also wrote:

"We hold it to be a most cunningly-devised and wicked compact, demanding the most constant and earnest efforts of the friends of righteous freedom for its complete overthrow . . . We have to do with facts, rather than theory. The Constitution is not an abstraction. It is a living breathing fact, exerting a mighty power over the nation of which it is the bond of the Union. Had the Constitution dropped down from the blue overhanging sky, upon a land uncursed by slaver, and without an interpreter, although some difficulty might have occurred in applying its manifold provisions, yet so cunningly is it framed, that no one would have imagined that it recognized or sanctioned slavery. But having a terrestrial, and not a celestial origin, we find no difficulty in ascertaining its meaning in all the parts which we allege to relate to slavery."