[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
What you don't seem to be grasping is that the evolution of US democracy is still not finished. Picking a point in time to deride the system is fallible. It is the strive towards and adhering to the changing will of the people and socitey in general is what makes America the most successful democracy. And it is still going.......
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely correct. If someone chose only to look at the time of the caveman, they would probably view God's creation of mankind as being flawed and ridiculous. The genius of the evolutionary plan can only be appreciated by seeing where we were and where we are. Same for governments and democracies. For every snapshot in time looking at a flaw, when one runs the reel to see the response, we can see success and progress.
You missed the entire point of democracy. It is a system of beliefs. It is a set of values. It must be refreshed and renewed and challenged and reinvigorated on a regular basis.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it must always be for all peoples in a state, not just one race of people. The American Declaration of independence famously trumpets the ideal that all men are created equal does it not, and that they can freely govern themselves? That is the very basis of democracy, and indeed the American state. That was 1776. But it took another 188 years before those ideals and democratic principles were finally enshrined into American law. Are you admitting that it took America nearly 200 years to evolve to the point where it did see all men as equal, and finally allow full democratic rights to all?
If you read the link above, you will see that it was not uncommon to consider "men" to mean "landed white males over 18 years of age" in colonial times. Later the requirement of land ownership was dropped, as was the color, and then "men" was reinterpreted to mean citizens including women. The only thing constant is change....
The fatal flaw in the study of any history is to project today's values and norms back to historic times. Your 20/20 hindsight must make you feel remarkably knowledgable, but the norms of the day are seldom questioned. A plain meaning of "All men are created equal" was actually much clearer to the colonists in terms of religious freedoms, remembering that many of the colonists were escaping persecution for their religious beliefs. At the time, slavery was not questioned, as it had been a fact in the world for thousands of years......
*A plain meaning of "All men are created equal" was actually much clearer to the colonists in terms of religious freedoms, remembering that many of the colonists were escaping persecution for their religious beliefs. At the time, slavery was not questioned, as it had been a fact in the world for thousands of years...... *
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. As I remember your colonists escaped "religious persecution" way back in 1604, even though the first thing did when landing in the United States was begin the persecution of the American Indians. Around that same time African slaves were brought to America as well. Yet it was 172 years later that the American feedom fighters released the declaration of independence, and you are still saying they were being religiously persecuted? No, they set out to create a state free of the British yes, but a white state where blacks were not seen as equal, and this was proven by the fact that many of your founding fathers/later presidents owned slaves themselves. So in 1776 or 1789 they were not facing any religious persecution, but fighting for their national independence. Blacks were kept out of this struggle, and were not even made citizens until 1863, a conscious decision to exclude blacks from the national rights and freedoms that you fought so hard for. It took until 1964 to make give blacks their full national and democratic rights, and finally make the United States a full and inclusive democracy.
It's easy to throw stones at another nation's history, while apprently being ignorant of their own historical involvement and complicty in slavery.
"You are aware, that the end of all our effort, and of this expense is to procure negroes. Please show zeal in carrying out our wishes in this capital matter." - Muhammad Ali - 1825 pg. 81
"In particular, the steady flow of negro slaves across the Sahara desert was directed mainly to the Balkans, Turkey, Syria and Egypt." pg. 93
Africa Since 1800 - Oliver/Atmore - Cambridge University Press
Again, detractors of American democracy are ignoring the fact that had the North not removed passages regarding slavery from the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, the South would have joined with Britain and/or France in attempting to regain control over the colonies.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrpockets: *
Again, detractors of American democracy are ignoring the fact that had the North not removed passages regarding slavery from the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, the South would have joined with Britain and/or France in attempting to regain control over the colonies.
[/QUOTE]
That was 1776. But for another 87 years you maintained slavery, and then for another 101 years you allowed apartheid segregation denying African-Americans their democratic rights. You can make all the excuse you want i.e. "man is created equal" means religious freedom, when there was none in 1776, or that slavery was tolerated to keep the south in till 1863. But why was segregation and the denial of African-American democratic rights accepted after you defeated the south in 1865? Why did it take you until 1964 to become a full functioning and inclusive democracy?
I am not very politically intellegent. But I feel that the US presidential system is not very democratic. I mean in the last election a candidate won the popular vote and lost- in other words more people voted for candidate A and Candidate B won. Ok granted its legal but i dont think its very democratic. A person who lives in a small state has a less important vote than someone who lives in a large state (like NY, FL, TX)
UK Lawyer, it is the same as anywhere else, in the UK, a PM is not “directly” elected, and let’s say that the majority of MPs come from small constituencies (those in the PM's party), while only a small number comes from Large ones. Would it not then be possible for a PM to be selected by fewer indirect constituents? How is that to make you politically intelligent? Also those in the PMs party only won by very nerrow margins but the one in opposition won by landslide. Do you want more examples?
UK should consider ‘directly’ electing it’s PM. But I don’t know what Queen might say to that?
Just because I mentioned the US and Uk is in my name doesnt mean I dont agree with you. It was just that this this part of World Affairs was about US Democracy. Just puttin my 2 cents in.