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

Forum: Gouyave Talk
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
“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.