What do you think of this quote from John Jay?
“one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”
Well, to start I’d need to know the context of the quote.
Secondly, I doubt someone who’s ancestry involved this:
Believed the colonies & U.S. should be of one religion.
Look up the quote.
Anyways I don’t really feel the need to continue this discussion we’ve already had I will just sum it up:
character of a nation is not established by a founding document; instead, the founding document chronicles the character of a nation. PEOPLE MAKE THE NATION, THE NATION DOES NOT MAKE THE PEOPLE. If the people change, so does the nation, into whatever form the replacement people find most familiar, which usually means a facsimile of their native homelands they left behind.
This is something the founding fathers knew and is reiterated in their words.
Sure
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp
It was just a throwaway line that had zero to do with the actual content being discussed in The Federalist #2.
Really…
Yes. Guilt by association fallacy doesn’t work on me
You literally took this dude’s words verbatim…
It’s good stuff
Remember lines about America’s ethnicity composition are just throwaway lines that can be ignored
No wonder your future descendants will be speaking Spanish.
Edited
If you read the Federalist - heh, I amused myself in suggesting that, as if - you’ll see that Jay’s statement is not aspirational, but observational in pursuit of the purpose of arguing the need to consolidate more strongly into a Union, as opposed to staying fragmented. He was appealing to voters by invoking commonality of the people. Jay knew Americans at that point had a variety of backgrounds, religions, etc., but was invoking a shared heritage as a reason to knit the states more closely together.
It had ZERO to do with the topic of the paper.
I love how you’re hanging your entire view on one out of context paragraph by John Jay while ignoring the multiple exampes in the article I linked to that destroy your premise.
Maybe you can find an appropriate retort from some other idiot online.
I think the accusations are highly over exaggerated.
You’ve been outed as a racist piece of trash for some time, so your quoting of Richard Spencer shocks precisely no one - but at least don’t be a plagiarizing racist piece of trash.
Funny how he nor founding fathers ever discussed their love for diversity but that is automatically assumed as their motive.
I’m not quoting Richard Spencer it’s in the comment section by a random.
That’s okay you can call me racist.
But let’s be honest about something. My people will live on, while yours are being weeded out of existence.
You’re really bad at this.
I haven’t seen anyone argue the Fouhders’ “love,of diversity”
Every single time you get your ass handed to you, you resort to some straw man and a subject change.
You did. You said they were fond of other cultures when I pointed out the FFers created America to be a western white Christian nation (in our old discussion). And not a multiracial one
I am merely opining that many European nations do not invest enough in their own defense, relying too much on NATO, a.k.a. the U.S. to do the bulk of the job militarily for western interests around the world. I am suggesting that our NATO allies have more than a token army, I.E. they should invest in themselves.
I know Germany has an army, I was excluding them from the expansion of their own military given their fairly recent history with large armies and their military exploits of the 20th century. But that requiring a proxy army for the bulk of their defense, they need to pay their NATO bills on time and fully.
I am pretty sure Germany wants those bases there as much as we do. I don’t think they would be too happy if we took our ball and went home.
They generally were, but that isn’t the same as saying they promoted diversity as a policy choice.
Do you get anything right?
OK then clarify
They didn’t want a racially homogeneous society and didn’t promote a multiracial one.
Then what was their vision for the racial makeup of America?
They didn’t have one.
You need evidence? Read the Constitution.
Good Lord.
