Open Left

Stop being such a buzz kill ... (4.00 / 2)

you can poo-poo the signers of the Declaration of Independence all you want .. but they took huge gambles that could have cost them their lives .. most of the Senators and Representatives today aren't fit to shine the Founding Father's shoes

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 22:35:42 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Not to mention (4.00 / 2)

it would do this country and our future a world of good to actually learn about the Declaration of Independence and its history. That is, if we could keep from white washing it all as we've done to Martin Luther King and the holiday in his honor (as I've mentioned previously in one of Paul's great posts):

History (written by the victors) has neatly boxed MLK (and the holiday in his name) into a tidy, nonthreatening little box of nothing more and nothing less than "I Have A Dream". It can be no accident that his strong pro-labor and anti-war stances have been all but forgotten because they are never taught

.

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 00:16:01 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Not To Mention (4.00 / 1)

The folks Freeze names were all from the bourgeoisie, not the aristocracy.  While the Southern planter class certainly had aristocratic pretensions, the rejection of aristocratic titles in the Constitution was almost as striking and novel a feature as the absence of any reference to God, and the rejection of any religious test.

The fact that Freeze in his typical righteous indignation would fail Class Analysis 101 gave me quite a chuckle last night.  But I wanted to wait and see how others would weigh in before adding my paltry two cents.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:42:37 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

"Aristocracy" (0.00 / 0)

If there's no aristocracy in the United States, because there are no "aristocratic titles," as Paul Rosenberg now claims, it doesn't make sense to talk about rooting out "royalism/aristocracy," which was the premise of his silly diary..

The usual definitions of "aristocracy" cover anything at the top of a social pyramid (and it's more or less superfluous to include a hereditary component in the definition, because every ruling class is adept at perpetuating itself)...

The aristocracy are people considered to be in the highest social class in society, who traditionally have land, money, and power.

And apart from the internet currency of Wikipedia, there's also a long line of American historians like George Bancroft,  Frederick Jackson Turner, and especially Charles A. Beard, who analyzed the early history of the United States as an interplay of the "counter-revolutionary" aspirations of the old colonial aristocracy against populist resistance on the frontier.

Although Beard was much more hostile to the aristocracy than Turner and Bancroft (Beard actually called the Framers of the Constitution "anti-American"), Turner was also haunted by a vision of the old dichotomy between aristocrats and frontiersmen transformed into permanent classes of plutocrats and proletarians, and yet...

In spite of infinite differences in emphasis and approval, no reputable American historian ever denied that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were designed and enforced by American aristocrats.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 13:09:04 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]