It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Perhaps The Declaration of Independence wasn't perfect...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:12 PM
What's so horrifying that we don't even consider that maybe, when the founding fathers said, "all men are created equal." that they meant "all white males."? All the evidence seems to point that way (slavery, lack of female political inclusion). For a second, let's pretend they did mean "all white males". So what? Then they were wrong. We have since altered the interpretation to mean all humans regardless of sex or race. Maybe someday we'll find all animals should be included, in which case we would alter the interpretation again. So what? People grow, people improve, people make mistakes. The founding fathers were great men, not gods. And yes, they were great white males who likely thought themselves superior to many other humans. Oh well, their mistake. We know better now and it in no way makes The Declaration of Independence any lesser a document. It remains the great foundation of our nation. In fact, such an understanding might even make it a truer, more honest document and show a little more integrity for the United States. Just a thought...

[edit on 7/15/2008 by verbal kint]

[edit on 7/16/2008 by verbal kint]

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:20 PM
appreciate you being brave enough to put your view out "there," but i am sure if they meant all animals, they would have said all animals. obviously, when viewed in light of all animals, we are above all animals. that is not to be taken lightly for it means that we have a much greater responsibility than do all animals.

and i am also sure if they meant all white males, they would have put "white males" or "only white males and this excludes all females and all males who are not white."

i disagree w/ the premise of this thread insomuch that i believe this is and/or was the holy grail all men seek as individuals. to realize that you alone are responsible for your choices and answers to those choices is the greatest freedom one could experience as an adult (whether you are black, white, red, yellow, brown, male, or female... and obviously animals do not have the same kind of freedom).

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:37 PM
First off, the notion of "all men are created equal." referring to animals was a hypothetical example highlighting how attitudes can change and in no way was such an idea implicated as being an intended meaning.

As for them not meaning "all white males" when they say, "all men". Let's look at what they did mean then... did they mean to include females? Last i checked, when one refers to "men" they mean males, not females. This is why we have the terms "female" and "human". Lets see now, did they mean male slaves (black men)? Best I can remember, black men were not regarded as equal and in fact, distasteful as it may be, were considered and treated as animals. Seems unlikely that when stating "all men are created equal." that they were including black men at that time.

We have since opened our eyes and view "all men" as including "all humans". What is so taboo about the founding fathers having had such a (seemingly obvious) short coming; which we have since over come?

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:51 PM
Interesting analogy and one that it needs more debate, as you said they were all white males, women and slaves were \no treated with equality during their times.

I will like to know what historians will say about this littler interesting issue when it comes to the meaning of all men are created equal.

But then again men or males in the time of the founding fathers were considered patriarchs that could have included all men of any races.

I think that the only ones that didn't have much role into politics at the time were females.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by verbal kint
Last i checked, when one refers to "men" they mean males, not females. This is why we have the terms "female" and "human".

hey, i'll give you this view!! as a female (and this will be an unpopular view), with exceptions, we tend to act out on emotion which isn't alway the best scenario.

fortunately too though, we have come to a place in history where we take "men" to mean women and men. i only say this bc seems like most men have given way to the popular idea of "feminism," thus allowing for women like me, who understand the importance of logic to step up to the plate.

if things could be as they were meant to be, men would be able to make the right decisions based on fair logic (fair would be w/ the input of us women [via our husbands] to a degree; and truth and justice.... the last two being something most women seem to ignore [as is our nature generally]).

obviously, i am not a feminist and know my place (which is in the background unless men do not know their place).

**ready for the flames**

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by verbal kint

Which one? The original one or the one copied and pasted by CORP US in 1871?

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:28 PM
Sure, It COULD have meant all men regardless of race. I think if a black man had dropped by the drafting meetings (one who hadn't been killed for his learning to read) and asked for clarification of the issue, it would have been made quite clear that he was not included and that he was NOT their equal. So, while it always will be ultimately uncertain, it seems more likely that females AND men who weren't white were not included in "all men are..."; given their "off camera" actions towards black people.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by pluckynoonez

which one what? if you're referring to the Declaration of Independence, I'm not aware of such a distinction and would love a reference so I might compare the two? cheers

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:48 AM
If, by men, they mean the term "mankind" as it is commonly refered to, then i believe:

Slavery would not have been allowed
Women would have been allowed to own land and at the very least, vote.

I'm glad you posted this. I share your feelings. I respect the founding fathers, but i dont wish to idolize them like we're taught in school these days.

They were men too, going with the flow of their time.
Modern times chooses to amplify the good, and omit the bad. How 'good' would white Americans feel if they admitted that the white founding fathers were, indeed, racist, sexist men who started a country.

They were Racist
They were Sexist
but those were the times they lived in. Society naturally progresses in thought and action as time goes along
I hate to sound like captain obvious, but had we never had prejudice back then, we wouldn't have "equality" right now.

[edit on 7/16/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

new topics

top topics


log in