Gogouyave.com's Forum

Views expressed on this website are those of the person or persons posting the message and does not reflect the views of Gogouyave.com

Rules Of this Talk Shop

  1. Do not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, abusive, threatening, or an invasion of a person's privacy, or otherwise a violation of any laws.

  2. Finally, the owners of this web site reserve the right to remove any messages posted, for legal reasons. 

So please! please! try to keep your posts clean. Webmaster

Gouyave Talk
Start a New Topic 
“Somebody else’s babies”(?)

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Whenever I read those lofty ideals contained in the preamble to the Constitution, I am always perplexed as to what meaning or conclusions I should draw because of what some folks would like to have us believe.
Were the Founders absorbed purely with the preservation of a race, or a principle about man in society that dates back to John Locke and the French Philosophes?

If they were referring to a particular group or race, then no one should or could argue with the promoters of white supremacy. After all the David Dukes of the world are only preserving and complying with what America from its very origins, was supposed to be. Their argument that immigrants ought to be limited strictly to Caucasians therefore makes perfect sense.

But if on the other hand, the Founders’ focus was principally directed on an ideal of how man ought to live in society, then the argument of a racial purity goes straight out of the window. Living up to an ideal clearly does not require one to be of any particular birthright. Anyone with a similar mindset could easily identify and accept that principle, and likewise assimilate into the culture that promotes it. That should explain why folks the world over would rather flock to America than go to China.

The defenders of a White European culture would have a hard time explaining why Black people from Africa were brought against their will to suffer in a land so far and strange when racial purity was the Founders’ goal. How could they justify bringing those non-Whites to live in the midst of a people hell-bent on preserving their white purity? Didn't they fear contamination? How could that white racial purity be maintained and preserved when slave owners including some of the Founders themselves, were only too willing and ready to sleep with their Black slave women whom they supposedly were bent on excluding from what America was supposed to be? Didn't they know or understand the magnetic power of Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" or Sparrow's "ah never eat a (Black) meat yet?"

How then does one argue for racial purity with a straight face in view of what some of the American Founders were doing with their Black slaves? It didn’t make sense then, nor does it make any sense today. We therefore have to assume and believe that cultural idealism lay at the heart of what the Founding Fathers wanted America to develop into ... "The Land of the Free."
Ellis Island, the words of Abraham Lincoln, the Statue of Liberty and the other symbols of American freedom and liberalism can only make sense and have meaning in the context of an America that was built not for racial purity, but on the principle of accepting people yearning to pursue their dream of freedom, happiness and a better life. That yearning is what drew and continues to draw the world regardless of color or creed or race or religious belief to America.

Iowa congressman Steve King’s “somebody else’s babies” tweet should be seen and understood in the context of what it clearly is.

Re: “Somebody else’s babies”(?)


I have decided to post an excerpt from a link that may shed some light on the confused racist minds, the likes of David Duke and the now Congressman Steve King. In particularly King as he occupies a space in the Congress, his controversialy twitted diatribe  saying "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies" is just his latest pronouncement on racial purity; his! of course. I remember he had opined some time ago in one of his usualy bellicose arguments against other races, ;encouraging White people to "increase their birth rate in order to ensure their continued dominance as a race". Both controversial statements can be regarded as "Mana from Heaven" in the ears of those harboring racist sentiments.

As perverted as this mentality may be to us, one cannot deny that it serves the purpose of what they see as necessary for the continuity of their race but at the expense of all other races. WE! on the other hand must get out of this mode of complacency and recognize that by implication, it is always WE! they are speaking about as the designators to receive the shorter end of the stick . As such, it behooves all of us to make congruent arguments to ensure that they never rise to any pinnacle of power by remaining vigilant in our rememberance of that relationship between "the dog and our supper and whose belly that eventually got full".
These are the realities of a continuous fight the must be waged by those who do not fit into "their theory of evolutionary civilization", US!

So if we must begin with a preamble to the conversation in making our argument, it is important to first recognize that the "original Founding Fathers" were not a monolithic group that suddenly had an epiphany; found purity in their hearts and a desire to be righteous. In fact they had found conveinences, only in the words they had written but in practice, took accommodations in a system of subserviancy. One has to remember that it was that same group that presided over the Slavery Economic System at the time that had designated Blacks as property to be owned and be dispatched with, at will. And it is also from that group where Conservatism had taken its roots to be emualated now by the Scalias, Kings,Dukes, Trumps and Cruzes of the world. 

 So by way of practicing  their pathological hypocracy,  'We the people' of 1788 did not and could not have recognized Blacks/Slaves as being in the "WE group", as de jure Slavery had continued until 1865, almost eight decades later before it was abolished and continued on (albeit in the more de facto form of Jim Crowe) for more than another eight decades. It was therefore necessary for a new connotation, one that had conjured up an implied recognition as a conveinence, in order that we could get to the 'We The People' of 2017. It was purely by virtue of societal changes that incorporated 'new babies from someone else's Mothers, coming into fruition to make their contribution to the civilization process while "They"  perceived themselves as their birthright to remain in that privileged group. Both Duke and King followers harbor  sentiments that come from the reality that civilization had left them behind with their arrogance of false superiority complex, hence their continued grunting in our ears.

Here is an explanation of the preamble, "which gets its relevence from the ever-changing beliefs within the structure of society and its incorporated ammendments of the continuing evolving concepts and principles of the "new Founding Fathers".

Thus revisionist version they would say, is what gives them agita.

">>>>......The Preamble can be broken down into many important phrases. All of these phrases are very important for understanding the purpose of the United States Constitution.

We the people: This phrase means all the citizens of the United States of America. Even though the Constitution was written up by some of the most well-educated men of the new country, the rights given under the document were given to all American citizens.

In order to form a more perfect union: The previous government was based on the Articles of Confederation, which were very limited.  When the Framers wrote this, they felt that they were making new government that would be a better way to govern the country.

Establish justice: The reasons why there was Revolution against England were still important to the American citizens, so they wanted to make sure that they would have justice under the Constitution.

Insure domestic tranquility: One of the main reasons why the Constitutional Convention was held was because of Shays’ Rebellion. This was an uprising of farmers in Massachusetts against the state for having to repay war debts. Citizens were worried with the keeping peace within the country’s borders.

Provide for the common defense: There was still a change of being attacked by other countries. No individual state had the power to defend itself against attacks. Because of this, the Framers knew that it was important for the states to defend the nation together.

Promote the general welfare: This phrase meant that the well-being of the citizens would be taken care of as well as possible by the Federal government.

Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity: The point of this phrase in the Preamble, and the constitution as a whole was to help protect the country’s hard-earned rights for liberty, unjust laws, and freedom from a tyrannical government.

Ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America: This last phrase of the Preamble is a powerful statement saying that the people made this document, and the people give the country its power......<<<<<<"

And it continues to evolve as it rightfully must, in the same manner as the territory of the US have; something the original Founding Fathers could have never imagined.

VJL,in contempt of Scalia, "lying Ted" and De Donald new nominee, Gorsuch.

Re: “Somebody else’s babies”(?)

>>Both Duke and King followers harbor  sentiments that come from the reality that civilization had left them behind with their arrogance of false superiority complex, hence their continued grunting in our ears.<<

That's precisely the problem with those people. Reality has indeed left them behind, but to assuage their supposed importance, they still have to cling to and talk about their self imposed sense of superiority.
While there was definitely no original attempt to include Black people within "We the people" there was no way that preclusion could continue forever. How could it when so many, many Africans were brought here to serve and live among them? Unless White men had the stamina to leave slave women alone, and White women would never yield to the temptation of Jungle Fever, and slavery would last forever, that white man's thing was doomed to failure from the start never mind how long it took. Sooner or later inclusion for their own women and every one else had to be a fact of life in America as it is today.

One of these good days those purist supremacists would eventually recognize the stupidity of their beliefs. Whether they like it or not the times are changing, and the demands to live up to the spirit of the written constitution that they so revere, had to come to fruition in the long run. That's what is killing them!