ah i see. i was just kinda confused by the assertions you were making because you seemed like a liberal to me & i thought you would be sympathetic to 1776 so when you opposed capitalism i was kinda thrown off haha

what are you politically?

what are you politically?

i agree with you that there was vast inequalities, but the point of 1776 wasnt to opress more people but to reform & create more free laborers that could contribute to the stock of existing things. capitalism as an oppressive force didnt truly become a prevailing tendency until the industrial revolution & boarder labor movement, bourgeois society was revolutionary when the artisenal, guildsmen, & indentured servants were becoming & getting afforded the same rights as englishmen, but the industrial revolution, king cotton, & the like caused the intensification of exploitation of slaves

dont get me wrong either, im not a 1776 apologist, but most of my thinking really comes from gordon wood's analysis, because the US revolution didnt come tied with the baggage of the culture it came from, unlike france or china, which were tied to their historical context, the american revolution was primarily driven by the political and humanist ideals of the founding fathers.

in the name of trying to explain why theres a disonance between the good small government goals of the founding fathers wanted to achieve, others blame the state for being not getting trimmed down enough, too bureaucratized, there should, or that the wealth of the west was built on slavery rather than being limited by it.

the point that i disagree with 1619 is that they think that the american revolution was a counterrevolution by the slaveowners so they could keep black people oppressed because white people are comically evil & systemically racist with no nuance, & while i believe some aspects of that happens SIGNIFICANTLY much later in american history, the founding fathers nor pretty much no elected figures had no racially essentialist views until the 1810's

dont get me wrong either, im not a 1776 apologist, but most of my thinking really comes from gordon wood's analysis, because the US revolution didnt come tied with the baggage of the culture it came from, unlike france or china, which were tied to their historical context, the american revolution was primarily driven by the political and humanist ideals of the founding fathers.

in the name of trying to explain why theres a disonance between the good small government goals of the founding fathers wanted to achieve, others blame the state for being not getting trimmed down enough, too bureaucratized, there should, or that the wealth of the west was built on slavery rather than being limited by it.

the point that i disagree with 1619 is that they think that the american revolution was a counterrevolution by the slaveowners so they could keep black people oppressed because white people are comically evil & systemically racist with no nuance, & while i believe some aspects of that happens SIGNIFICANTLY much later in american history, the founding fathers nor pretty much no elected figures had no racially essentialist views until the 1810's

dont get me wrong either, im not a 1776 apologist, but most of my thinking really comes from gordon wood's analysis, because the US revolution didnt come tied with the baggage of the culture it came from, unlike france or china, which were tied to their historical context, the american revolution was primarily driven by the political and humanist ideals of the founding fathers.

in the name of trying to explain why theres a disonance between the good small government goals of the founding fathers wanted to achieve, others blame the state for being not getting trimmed down enough, too bureaucratized, there should, or that the wealth of the west was built on slavery rather than being limited by it.

the point that i disagree with 1619 is that they think that the american revolution was a counterrevolution by the slaveowners so they could keep black people oppressed because white people are comically evil & systemically racist with no nuance, & while i believe some aspects of that happens SIGNIFICANTLY much later in american history, the founding fathers nor pretty much no elected figures had no racially essentialist views until the 1810's

i will admit that just because we had an imperfect revolution doesnt mean the goals that our founding fathers aspired to achieve werent exactly as radical then as they are now. the point of the constitution was to create a radical reform project for the following century of free laborers, including the endentured servants & slaves, to create a non centralized nation state akin to a yeoman farmer republic in jefferson's case & a hamilton aspired to use patronage in the absense of republican adhesives to foster free trade & create a strong european nation state & expand an empire of liberty. none of them sought out the deliberate goal to oppress people because in the former he wanted to expand self governance & the latter wanted free laborers.

the point of establishing the US was percisely because the US thought that since there was so much violence & disposession while under british rule, that if the founding fathers created their own country, the violence & fight over land would go away & the natives could be civilized & become yeoman farmers or industrial laborers.

for instance, this view is reflected by the views of our jefferson, he believed that property was transformative & added stock to the existing things by not enfringing on private property rights, & thought that natives could spurn the division of labor, maintain gainful employment, accumulate property, & finally reach the property qualifications to vote.

So then this notion of private property was actually quite emancipatory at the time, obviously in contrast to the European idea that there was only so much finite land and territory that needed to be divided and redivided amongst the great powers, that would then be passed on to their family, alongside political titles, stock dividends, interest payments on their bonds, royalties on their land and mineral holdings, rents on their properties, control over the banks, factories, industries, and media, to exert political capital and become secretaries of state, CIA directors, filter out candidates suitable for presidency in the money primaries, and making the world safe for the fortune 500 by patron states installing military dictatorships over client states to beat workers who get out of line and rolling back vocational safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protections, labor and collective bargaining laws, consumer protections, and child labor laws to suck more resources out of client states.

i will admit that just because we had an imperfect revolution doesnt mean the goals that our founding fathers aspired to achieve werent exactly as radical then as they are now. the point of the constitution was to create a radical reform project for the following century of free laborers, including the endentured servants & slaves, to create a non centralized nation state akin to a yeoman farmer republic in jefferson's case & a hamilton aspired to use patronage in the absense of republican adhesives to foster free trade & create a strong european nation state & expand an empire of liberty. none of them sought out the deliberate goal to oppress people because in the former he wanted to expand self governance & the latter wanted free laborers.

the point of establishing the US was percisely because the US thought that since there was so much violence & disposession while under british rule, that if the founding fathers created their own country, the violence & fight over land would go away & the natives could be civilized & become yeoman farmers or industrial laborers.

for instance, this view is reflected by the views of our jefferson, he believed that property was transformative & added stock to the existing things by not enfringing on private property rights, & thought that natives could spurn the division of labor, maintain gainful employment, accumulate property, & finally reach the property qualifications to vote.

So then this notion of private property was actually quite emancipatory at the time, obviously in contrast to the European idea that there was only so much finite land and territory that needed to be divided and redivided amongst the great powers, that would then be passed on to their family, alongside political titles, stock dividends, interest payments on their bonds, royalties on their land and mineral holdings, rents on their properties, control over the banks, factories, industries, and media, to exert political capital and become secretaries of state, CIA directors, filter out candidates suitable for presidency in the money primaries, and making the world safe for the fortune 500 by patron states installing military dictatorships over client states to beat workers who get out of line and rolling back vocational safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protections, labor and collective bargaining laws, consumer protections, and child labor laws to suck more resources out of client states.

like what specifically?

just because 1776 is more accurate than 1619 doesnt mean that we should censor inaccurate history