Full Version: Was the American Revolution Bad for America?
A blog entry here wonder if the American Revolution was bad for America.
I have selected some of the more interesting parts of the article, which is actually a decent What If?
Questions for Debate:
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
QUOTE
I have been thinking about some of the implications of Michael Moore's Sicko. Specifically, why is the United States the only nation in the developed world without some sort of equitable, government-funded health care?
...
Let's say the American Revolution fails. What happens?
We are Canada.
Is that so bad? I don't think so.
Sure, Britain would have executed Jefferson, Washington, and the gang. That would have been terrible.
...
Britain would have solved the U.S.' slavery problem. Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833. Slavery was never as profitable in the US as it was in the Caribbean. So the US experience likely would not have affected British opinion. In addition, if we assume that the US becomes a free nation in 1867, the same year as Canada, that gives us 34 years to figure out our race relations. Do we still have racial problems? Of course. But they would be different, at the very least.
...
Plus, we probably would not have Texas today. The American Southwest would quite possibly still be part of Mexico.
...
It's at least possible that the pushing up of the average money-grubbing white male to the top of the political process at a very early age has helped create a society focused on the individual over the group, on personal wealth over social wealth, on money over education, on white over black.
Finally, we wouldn't be basing our whole political system in the present on trying to interpret (or misinterpret) what a bunch of rich white men thought over 200 years ago. We wouldn't be trying to fit everything we do into the Constitution. We would be focusing on governing for the present, not the past.
...
Let's say the American Revolution fails. What happens?
We are Canada.
Is that so bad? I don't think so.
Sure, Britain would have executed Jefferson, Washington, and the gang. That would have been terrible.
...
Britain would have solved the U.S.' slavery problem. Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833. Slavery was never as profitable in the US as it was in the Caribbean. So the US experience likely would not have affected British opinion. In addition, if we assume that the US becomes a free nation in 1867, the same year as Canada, that gives us 34 years to figure out our race relations. Do we still have racial problems? Of course. But they would be different, at the very least.
...
Plus, we probably would not have Texas today. The American Southwest would quite possibly still be part of Mexico.
...
It's at least possible that the pushing up of the average money-grubbing white male to the top of the political process at a very early age has helped create a society focused on the individual over the group, on personal wealth over social wealth, on money over education, on white over black.
Finally, we wouldn't be basing our whole political system in the present on trying to interpret (or misinterpret) what a bunch of rich white men thought over 200 years ago. We wouldn't be trying to fit everything we do into the Constitution. We would be focusing on governing for the present, not the past.
I have selected some of the more interesting parts of the article, which is actually a decent What If?
Questions for Debate:
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
That really depends. A better place for whom? If you mean the nation as a whole, probably not. Despite thoughts to the contrary, America is doing pretty well for itself right now. We're a world economic, and military power, and that gives us the heft needed to shift the world as we see fit. I think, that we've done a pretty good job...for ourselves.
What I think you're really trying to ask, is "Would the world have been a better place, if there had been no revolution? Maybe. Without that nefarious group of "Rich white men" as your article's author so charmingly puts it, perhaps america would have entered a pacifist age, full of golden flowers and pretty pink unicorns, with happiness and wonder all around.
Then again, think for a moment. Britain now has a long and bloody history of conquest. Their social care systems recieved high marks only after they were forced to relinquish their grip on the many colonies that had occupied the British eye. If they had not wasted ten thousand troops on the war, if they had the ability to draw off of the resources and revenue of the colonies, do you really think that they would have traveled along the same path?
I say, that if it wasn't America, beating on the little guy, and ignoring world welfare, it would be britain, Or some other ambitious young state. Better us than them, right?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
The british abolished the slave trade. Whoop-de doo. Did this, in turn, spark integration of black people? Acceptance? Of course not. Regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, black people were still second-class citizens, treated worse than dirt.
And don't even get me started on India. The vilages there were kept in slavery, in everything but name. So Britian wasn't exactly a shining beacon of tolerance, either.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Those "rich white men" were some of the greatest statesmen of their age. The only flaw in their meticulously crafted constitution, was that they did not anticipate the liberal turn that the world would take, ere the future came. They did, however, plan somewhat for that contingency, by allowing their antecessors to modify their work, to make it fit the standards of tomorrow. If anything, it is our ponderous legislation that restrics the constitution, not the shortsighted ness of our forebears.
So yes, there is a group of "rich white men" responsible for this country's corruption. Today's rich white men. Blame them, and leave poor old Ben Franklin to his eternal rest, if you please.
That really depends. A better place for whom? If you mean the nation as a whole, probably not. Despite thoughts to the contrary, America is doing pretty well for itself right now. We're a world economic, and military power, and that gives us the heft needed to shift the world as we see fit. I think, that we've done a pretty good job...for ourselves.
What I think you're really trying to ask, is "Would the world have been a better place, if there had been no revolution? Maybe. Without that nefarious group of "Rich white men" as your article's author so charmingly puts it, perhaps america would have entered a pacifist age, full of golden flowers and pretty pink unicorns, with happiness and wonder all around.
Then again, think for a moment. Britain now has a long and bloody history of conquest. Their social care systems recieved high marks only after they were forced to relinquish their grip on the many colonies that had occupied the British eye. If they had not wasted ten thousand troops on the war, if they had the ability to draw off of the resources and revenue of the colonies, do you really think that they would have traveled along the same path?
I say, that if it wasn't America, beating on the little guy, and ignoring world welfare, it would be britain, Or some other ambitious young state. Better us than them, right?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
The british abolished the slave trade. Whoop-de doo. Did this, in turn, spark integration of black people? Acceptance? Of course not. Regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, black people were still second-class citizens, treated worse than dirt.
And don't even get me started on India. The vilages there were kept in slavery, in everything but name. So Britian wasn't exactly a shining beacon of tolerance, either.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Those "rich white men" were some of the greatest statesmen of their age. The only flaw in their meticulously crafted constitution, was that they did not anticipate the liberal turn that the world would take, ere the future came. They did, however, plan somewhat for that contingency, by allowing their antecessors to modify their work, to make it fit the standards of tomorrow. If anything, it is our ponderous legislation that restrics the constitution, not the shortsighted ness of our forebears.
So yes, there is a group of "rich white men" responsible for this country's corruption. Today's rich white men. Blame them, and leave poor old Ben Franklin to his eternal rest, if you please.
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Tough question... I happen to think that the example set by the American Revolution helped inform the policy the UK took towards its other colonies.
They were careful no to let Canada or Australia go all screwy like the US did
.
The Canadians made noise to that end in a couple of rebellions and were quickly placated by a British government that had learned it's lesson.
Responsible government
Without the American revolution that may have taken much longer, so on the whole I'd say no...
...but that depends on who's perspective. Slaves and those without health care might have to say 'Yes, a thousand times yes!:
It's a mixed bag.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Substantially. So much of American history has been defined by racism, the sooner we got a start weeding out the poison of slavery and its accompanying ideologies, the better it would have been for all.
Got to give the Brits credit, though to be fair it's likely the comparative economic incentives that won the day, they handled the whole race thing a lot better.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Ooh. Now that's an interesting question.
The answer is... yes... but not quite in the ways you might imagine.
The aristocratic nature of the Constitution was tempered by the philosophical nature of its authors and backers but its omissions are telling.
To be brief:
The rich typically viewed the government as the primary... indeed nearly only... threat to freedom. This was part keen observation and part blinding ignorance.
They did not understand the threat the private sector ("...but Boss you are the man...") could pose and so the Constitution did not address it at all.
This wasn't so bad in an agricultural society (unless you were a sharecropper)... but it got real ugly come the industrial revolution.
I would rather have liked the Constitution to have clearly said human rights could not be abridged by any power, not just government.
We're still banging that kink out.
As for "white" that's a little more obvious... ask Frederick Douglass how well the Constitution protected him..
Tough question... I happen to think that the example set by the American Revolution helped inform the policy the UK took towards its other colonies.
They were careful no to let Canada or Australia go all screwy like the US did
.The Canadians made noise to that end in a couple of rebellions and were quickly placated by a British government that had learned it's lesson.
QUOTE
In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the British government was sensitive to unrest in its remaining colonies with large populations of British colonists. After Louis-Joseph Papineau's abortive Lower Canada Rebellion in 1837 and William Lyon Mackenzie's matching Upper Canada Rebellion, both of which lasted through the next year, Lord Durham was appointed governor general of British North America and given the task of examining the issues and determining how to defuse tensions. In his report, one of his recommendations was that colonies which were sufficiently developed should be granted "responsible government", a term which specifically meant the policy of British-appointed governors bowing to the will of elected colonial assemblies.
Responsible government
Without the American revolution that may have taken much longer, so on the whole I'd say no...
...but that depends on who's perspective. Slaves and those without health care might have to say 'Yes, a thousand times yes!:
It's a mixed bag.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Substantially. So much of American history has been defined by racism, the sooner we got a start weeding out the poison of slavery and its accompanying ideologies, the better it would have been for all.
Got to give the Brits credit, though to be fair it's likely the comparative economic incentives that won the day, they handled the whole race thing a lot better.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Ooh. Now that's an interesting question.
The answer is... yes... but not quite in the ways you might imagine.
The aristocratic nature of the Constitution was tempered by the philosophical nature of its authors and backers but its omissions are telling.
To be brief:
The rich typically viewed the government as the primary... indeed nearly only... threat to freedom. This was part keen observation and part blinding ignorance.
They did not understand the threat the private sector ("...but Boss you are the man...") could pose and so the Constitution did not address it at all.
This wasn't so bad in an agricultural society (unless you were a sharecropper)... but it got real ugly come the industrial revolution.
I would rather have liked the Constitution to have clearly said human rights could not be abridged by any power, not just government.
We're still banging that kink out.
As for "white" that's a little more obvious... ask Frederick Douglass how well the Constitution protected him..
Questions for Debate:
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
I just wanted to say, I'm not sure what the British attitude towards southern slavery would have been had we remained under the crown.
Yes, the British were largely against the slave trade-- but the Caribbean slavery the British were against was at least in terms of mortality a far crueler system: West Africans fell dead like sugar cane in malarial Jamaican plantations, only to be replaced by a new waves of imported Africans. Women were hardly ever carried to the West Indies, because sugar plantation owners were not interested in a self-sustaining slave population. Just a load of overworked, whipped and abused men, dying in the heat. This is quite possibly part of why Jamaica is still the most hyperbolically anti-Gay culture in our hemisphere, if I can carefully make that off-topic generalization.
Conversely, American Chattel slavery was seen as a more humane, Christian system. Killing a slave was widely illegal, even if it happened anyway. Slaveowners were more than interested in pairing up their slaves and creating families. Sometimes, masters 'taught' their field hands how to dress. Christianity was often used to civilize the slaves. The British, recognizing the difference, quite nearly came down on the side of the South during the civil war, if only for the economic reasons. As did France.
Suffice it to say the reigns of government would not have been handed to southern slaveowners, and that in itself, is a hard what-if question to complete.
But what about those other races? America, after all has never simply been a ying-yang of black and white.
The real difference, I posit, would have been our treatment of Native Americans. Canada, after all, was where the Nez Perce were trying to reach in 1877. Perhaps, under British control the Cherokees could have completed their westernization, which was cut short by Andrew Jackson's expansionist agenda and the discovery of gold in the north Georgia mountains. The Louisiana purchase was offered to us precisely because the French didn't want the huge expansive territory to fall into British hands. Much of that land was contested by Spain: it is possible the Midwest, as well as Westen Louisiana would be Spanish territory. The history of Mexico suggests that this would have been a far preferable option for the former residents of the interior. I bet there would be very few pure European-blood Americans living in the interior of this country, especially in the Southwest (Which would probably be Mexican) had we not left British rule. I realize this seems at odds with Canadian History, but it is quite in tune with Mexican history and I guess you can split the difference as you please.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
I just wanted to say, I'm not sure what the British attitude towards southern slavery would have been had we remained under the crown.
Yes, the British were largely against the slave trade-- but the Caribbean slavery the British were against was at least in terms of mortality a far crueler system: West Africans fell dead like sugar cane in malarial Jamaican plantations, only to be replaced by a new waves of imported Africans. Women were hardly ever carried to the West Indies, because sugar plantation owners were not interested in a self-sustaining slave population. Just a load of overworked, whipped and abused men, dying in the heat. This is quite possibly part of why Jamaica is still the most hyperbolically anti-Gay culture in our hemisphere, if I can carefully make that off-topic generalization.
Conversely, American Chattel slavery was seen as a more humane, Christian system. Killing a slave was widely illegal, even if it happened anyway. Slaveowners were more than interested in pairing up their slaves and creating families. Sometimes, masters 'taught' their field hands how to dress. Christianity was often used to civilize the slaves. The British, recognizing the difference, quite nearly came down on the side of the South during the civil war, if only for the economic reasons. As did France.
Suffice it to say the reigns of government would not have been handed to southern slaveowners, and that in itself, is a hard what-if question to complete.
But what about those other races? America, after all has never simply been a ying-yang of black and white.
The real difference, I posit, would have been our treatment of Native Americans. Canada, after all, was where the Nez Perce were trying to reach in 1877. Perhaps, under British control the Cherokees could have completed their westernization, which was cut short by Andrew Jackson's expansionist agenda and the discovery of gold in the north Georgia mountains. The Louisiana purchase was offered to us precisely because the French didn't want the huge expansive territory to fall into British hands. Much of that land was contested by Spain: it is possible the Midwest, as well as Westen Louisiana would be Spanish territory. The history of Mexico suggests that this would have been a far preferable option for the former residents of the interior. I bet there would be very few pure European-blood Americans living in the interior of this country, especially in the Southwest (Which would probably be Mexican) had we not left British rule. I realize this seems at odds with Canadian History, but it is quite in tune with Mexican history and I guess you can split the difference as you please.
QUOTE
I have selected some of the more interesting parts of the article, which is actually a decent What If?
Actually, only the What If itself is decent, the rest of it is schlock.Questions for Debate:
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
No, I don't think so.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Different? Yes. Different how? I don't know. Consider race relations in Australia, race relations in Canada, even in England, not to mention relations in South Africa, and its pretty clear that things aren't all puppies and kittens.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
No.
As would be expected, I take issue with this:
The Brits opposed slavary...technically, but as has been noted, they certainly were not what we'd call progressive with respect to race relations.
CP
QUOTE(Turnea)
The rich typically viewed the government as the primary... indeed nearly only... threat to freedom. This was part keen observation and part blinding ignorance.
They did not understand the threat the private sector ("...but Boss you are the man...") could pose and so the Constitution did not address it at all.
This wasn't so bad in an agricultural society (unless you were a sharecropper)... but it got real ugly come the industrial revolution.
I would rather have liked the Constitution to have clearly said human rights could not be abridged by any power, not just government.
The private sector consists of voluntary exchanges between people. Therefore the free market and those within it cannot violate human rights; no voluntary action can.They did not understand the threat the private sector ("...but Boss you are the man...") could pose and so the Constitution did not address it at all.
This wasn't so bad in an agricultural society (unless you were a sharecropper)... but it got real ugly come the industrial revolution.
I would rather have liked the Constitution to have clearly said human rights could not be abridged by any power, not just government.
QUOTE
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
No. America sans the Constitution and the acts of the first 10 Presidents would be a shell of its current form if it were still controlled by the Brits. I suspect that if we did not later become an independent country we would currently be very similar in government structure and in general to the United Kingdom [i.e. a welfare state with a nominal monarch].QUOTE
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
I don't think so...Although it would be funny to hear some of my black relatives with a British accent. The Brits opposed slavary...technically, but as has been noted, they certainly were not what we'd call progressive with respect to race relations.QUOTE
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
It was written by 'rich white men' for 'rich white men' and therefore reflects 'rich white men'. 'Corrupt' is a bit much. CP
QUOTE(ConservPat)
The private sector consists of voluntary exchanges between people. Therefore the free market and those within it cannot violate human rights; no voluntary action can.
Define voluntary. When does it become involuntary, when they threaten to lock you up? Or just fire you and evict you from your home?
Technically all actions are voluntary, except reflexes. Civil disobedience is a great example of that phenomenon.
QUOTE(ConservPat)
The Brits opposed slavary...technically, but as has been noted, they certainly were not what we'd call progressive with respect to race relations.
Relative to whom? They were certainly better than the US.
QUOTE(ConservPat)
It was written by 'rich white men' for 'rich white men' and therefore reflects 'rich white men'. 'Corrupt' is a bit much.
It was ostensibly written for all people.
Corrupt here meaning "acting against its own stated purpose" which, considering that even most white males couldn't vote in the earlies elections.... it clearly was.
QUOTE
Define voluntary. When does it become involuntary, when they threaten to lock you up? Or just fire you and evict you from your home?
I'll start at the last point first. "They" fire you or "they" evict you because you have done something that runs counter to the legal agreement you entered with "them". At that point, your contract is voided...But you knew that that was a possibility when you signed it...Hence, while the result was someone forcing you to do something, it was a result of you in someway violating a contract that was mutually agreed upon. Voluntary derives from that. A voluntary situation arises when two or more parties agree to given conditions without coercion.QUOTE
Relative to whom? They were certainly better than the US
Clearly, I did not mean to [nor do I think that I did] give the impression that I believe anything to the contrary.QUOTE
Technically all actions are voluntary, except reflexes.
Not in terms of how 'voluntary' is practically defined within the context of a society. Could you stop paying taxes...Sure. And tommorow your house would be under siege and your dog dead. Socially speaking, not all actions are voluntary, and most, if not all that involve the government are not.CP
QUOTE(ConservPat)
I'll start at the last point first. "They" fire you or "they" evict you because you have done something that runs counter to the legal agreement you entered with "them". At that point, your contract is voided...But you knew that that was a possibility when you signed it...Hence, while the result was someone forcing you to do something, it was a result of you in someway violating a contract that was mutually agreed upon. Voluntary derives from that. A voluntary situation arises when two or more parties agree to given conditions without coercion.
1. Contract? That contract typically states we can let you go when we want... a long as we give an excuse. We're um... downsizing....
Historically even that was unnecessary. Civil rights protesters and union organizers were routinely fired. Even today if a Wal-Mart worker is caught unionizing, he's likely to be unemployed very soon.
2. Define coercion.
Need someplace to live? Something to eat?
Before welfare and labor laws for many poor blacks (for example) that meant sharecropper or factory worker. either way you typically lived on your boss's land and he owned everything but your hide.
QUOTE(ConservPat)
Clearly, I did not mean to [nor do I think that I did] give the impression that I believe anything to the contrary.
..but then wouldn't that affect your answer to the second question?
QUOTE(ConservPat)
Could you stop paying taxes...Sure. And tommorow your house would be under siege and your dog dead. Socially speaking, not all actions are voluntary, and most, if not all that involve the government are not.
Agreed. I simply point out that without restraints which largely came after the Constitution, the private sector could do nearly as much damage.
QUOTE
1. Contract? That contract typically states we can let you go when we want... a long as we give an excuse. We're um... downsizing....
Right. You don't have a legal right to a job, and your employment is contigent on mutual consent. If your employer no longer consents to your employment, you become unemployed. When you enter the job, you accept that principle of mutual consent.QUOTE
Even today if a Wal-Mart worker is caught unionizing, he's likely to be unemployed very soon.
Then it stands to reason that if you want to work at Walmart, you probably shouldn't attempt to unionize...or if you do, expect to be unemployed very soon. You don't have a right to the job, your employment is based on mutual consent.QUOTE
2. Define coercion
Extra-contractual force. If we enter a contract that states that if you don't pay me X dollars every moth, I evict you, and then you don't pay X dollars...and I evict you, that is not coercion. That is contractual execution. Now, if you DO pay me X dollars and I evict you anyway, you have been coerced.QUOTE
..but then wouldn't that affect your answer to the second question
Not necessarily. Being better than America in the sense of race relations in the late 18th Century is not exactly a monumental accomplishment. If anything, the difference would be very slight.
QUOTE
Agreed. I simply point out that without restraints which largely came after the Constitution, the private sector could do nearly as much damage.
And I am pointing out that a truly free market cannot result in the violation of rights.I'm headed to bed. Good debate so far.
CP
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
This is a sort of on-going debate that we have in Britain - Britain was moving towards democracy at the time of the American revolution - and indeed the American revolution hastened that end as it did with France, but I think Britain probably would have become a democracy based on a consitutional monarchy as it did do, but potentially much later than it did - the American & French revolutions had a huge effect on political thinking here (mainly along the lines of 'yikes! looks like those poor folk really can cause trouble!') - which arguably progressed the cause of British democracy quite a bit.
On the other hand, given that the first country to install a succesful democracy was a British colony, it does suggest that Britain would have got there in the end, even if the American and French revolutions had not occured.
How the British Empire might have evolved is hard to say. In Britain we have very mixed views about the Empire - many people strongly believe that it was a good thing and that we were spreading western civilisation across the world (Neo-conservativism aint as new as the name suggests). Many people would refute the claim that India was an enslaved nation and that it benefitted hugely from the British Empire for example. The same people also tend to gloss over our actions in Kenya, or the slave-trading and everything else. (That's just the way things go - people interpret history in their own way.)
So if those people are right - or if their view of history contains some elements of truth, then it may be that, over time, the British Empire evolved into something more democratic and less racist. But equally it might not have - it could have developed into something closer to the sterotyped British Empire you see on Hollywood films - arrogant white men whipping all the natives. The problem is that Britain was profoundly affected (in a good way) by the American revolution - and it is hard to know how Britain would have developed without the presence of a democracy composed of people of ex-Britons to compare itself against.
Um - that was all a bit disjointed - but I think that it is important to remember that the development of Britain (and the way it behaved in Canada and Australia) was profoundly affected by the American Revolution - and I suspect that democracy would have been moved another 50 years down the line or so if the American Revolution hadn't happened (but I do strongly believe that Britain would have become a democracry at some point regardless - political and philosophical thinking had been going that way anyway).
2) Slavery might have been abolished earlier - but it would be a mistake to think that this would have made white people view black people as their equals any faster - I think Britain and America were both equally slow in making that particular moral step.
3) No - why? It strikes me that it has lasted very well and is a very highly regarded piece of legislation across the world and for it's time, it was extremely forward-thinking.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
This is a sort of on-going debate that we have in Britain - Britain was moving towards democracy at the time of the American revolution - and indeed the American revolution hastened that end as it did with France, but I think Britain probably would have become a democracy based on a consitutional monarchy as it did do, but potentially much later than it did - the American & French revolutions had a huge effect on political thinking here (mainly along the lines of 'yikes! looks like those poor folk really can cause trouble!') - which arguably progressed the cause of British democracy quite a bit.
On the other hand, given that the first country to install a succesful democracy was a British colony, it does suggest that Britain would have got there in the end, even if the American and French revolutions had not occured.
How the British Empire might have evolved is hard to say. In Britain we have very mixed views about the Empire - many people strongly believe that it was a good thing and that we were spreading western civilisation across the world (Neo-conservativism aint as new as the name suggests). Many people would refute the claim that India was an enslaved nation and that it benefitted hugely from the British Empire for example. The same people also tend to gloss over our actions in Kenya, or the slave-trading and everything else. (That's just the way things go - people interpret history in their own way.)
So if those people are right - or if their view of history contains some elements of truth, then it may be that, over time, the British Empire evolved into something more democratic and less racist. But equally it might not have - it could have developed into something closer to the sterotyped British Empire you see on Hollywood films - arrogant white men whipping all the natives. The problem is that Britain was profoundly affected (in a good way) by the American revolution - and it is hard to know how Britain would have developed without the presence of a democracy composed of people of ex-Britons to compare itself against.
Um - that was all a bit disjointed - but I think that it is important to remember that the development of Britain (and the way it behaved in Canada and Australia) was profoundly affected by the American Revolution - and I suspect that democracy would have been moved another 50 years down the line or so if the American Revolution hadn't happened (but I do strongly believe that Britain would have become a democracry at some point regardless - political and philosophical thinking had been going that way anyway).
2) Slavery might have been abolished earlier - but it would be a mistake to think that this would have made white people view black people as their equals any faster - I think Britain and America were both equally slow in making that particular moral step.
3) No - why? It strikes me that it has lasted very well and is a very highly regarded piece of legislation across the world and for it's time, it was extremely forward-thinking.
QUOTE(ConservPat)
Right. You don't have a legal right to a job, and your employment is contigent on mutual consent. If your employer no longer consents to your employment, you become unemployed. When you enter the job, you accept that principle of mutual consent.[...]Extra-contractual force. If we enter a contract that states that if you don't pay me X dollars every moth, I evict you, and then you don't pay X dollars...and I evict you, that is not coercion. That is contractual execution. Now, if you DO pay me X dollars and I evict you anyway, you have been coerced.
...but when a contract is open-ended like employment contracts typically are, they don't mean anything.
Pay cut: "Mutual Consent"
Fired: "Mutual Consent"
Without other legal framework, that is a complete joke.
History shows just how true.
I'll play Birmingham since I live here. It was a town built and run by the steel industry. The suburb of Fairfield as one example was a company town where US Steel stored its workforce. Blacks were paid lower wages on what was , literally, called the "race wage" system.
If you didn't like it, starve, it's the only show in town.
Ever read Rocket Boys (the book October Sky was based on) or The Jungle?
That teaches you what mutual consent meant.
Living on company land, payed in scrip, overnight you could lose everything, modern-day feudalism. Just like sharecropping, which most African-Americans can say is in their family history, certainly in mine.
QUOTE(ConservPat)
Not necessarily. Being better than America in the sense of race relations in the late 18th Century is not exactly a monumental accomplishment. If anything, the difference would be very slight.
Race relations went downhill from there in America for quite a while.
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Faced with the intolerable conditions in the South, many blacks tried to leave. In 1879, Logan notes, "some 40,000 Negroes virtually stampeded from Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia for the Midwest." More famously, beginning in around 1915, many blacks moved to Northern cities in what became known as the Great Migration.
Whites had mixed reactions to the migration of blacks, sometimes encouraging it and sometimes (violently) discouraging it. For blacks themselves, however, life outside the South was often little better than life inside it. During the nadir, the United States as a whole, not just one section of it, became more racist. Having abandoned the fight for egalitarianism, the North largely abandoned the ideal as well. In the Midwest and West, many towns posted "sundown" warnings, threatening to kill any African-Americans who remained overnight. Monuments to Confederate War dead were erected across the nation—even in, for example, Montana—symbolizing the sympathy of the nation as a whole with the racial hierarchy of the Confederacy. (Loewen, Lies Across America, pp. 182-183, pp. 102-103) Black housing was segregated in the north, and, in many regions, blacks could not serve on juries. Blackface shows, in which whites dressed as blacks portrayed African-Americans as shiftless, ignorant clowns, were popular in North and South. The Supreme Court — which gutted the 14th and 15th Amendments by legalizing segregation in a series of decisions culminating in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson—was made up almost entirely of northerners. (Logan, 97-98)
Racism in the North did not improve later in the nadir; in fact, if anything, as more blacks moved north, it became worse. In academia, eugenics and "scientific" racism gained stature (see Franz Boas). Even more calamitously for blacks, in 1912, Woodrow Wilson, a southern Democrat was elected to the Presidency. Wilson was a historian in the Dunning mode and an outspoken white supremacist; shortly after entering office, and despite promises to black groups, he introduced legislation to limit black civil rights nationwide.
Whites had mixed reactions to the migration of blacks, sometimes encouraging it and sometimes (violently) discouraging it. For blacks themselves, however, life outside the South was often little better than life inside it. During the nadir, the United States as a whole, not just one section of it, became more racist. Having abandoned the fight for egalitarianism, the North largely abandoned the ideal as well. In the Midwest and West, many towns posted "sundown" warnings, threatening to kill any African-Americans who remained overnight. Monuments to Confederate War dead were erected across the nation—even in, for example, Montana—symbolizing the sympathy of the nation as a whole with the racial hierarchy of the Confederacy. (Loewen, Lies Across America, pp. 182-183, pp. 102-103) Black housing was segregated in the north, and, in many regions, blacks could not serve on juries. Blackface shows, in which whites dressed as blacks portrayed African-Americans as shiftless, ignorant clowns, were popular in North and South. The Supreme Court — which gutted the 14th and 15th Amendments by legalizing segregation in a series of decisions culminating in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson—was made up almost entirely of northerners. (Logan, 97-98)
Racism in the North did not improve later in the nadir; in fact, if anything, as more blacks moved north, it became worse. In academia, eugenics and "scientific" racism gained stature (see Franz Boas). Even more calamitously for blacks, in 1912, Woodrow Wilson, a southern Democrat was elected to the Presidency. Wilson was a historian in the Dunning mode and an outspoken white supremacist; shortly after entering office, and despite promises to black groups, he introduced legislation to limit black civil rights nationwide.
Nadir of American race relations
QUOTE(ConservPat)
And I am pointing out that a truly free market cannot result in the violation of rights.
Define free.
This is certainly not true under a laissez-faire market.
QUOTE(drewyorktimes @ Aug 2 2007, 05:35 PM) 
I just wanted to say, I'm not sure what the British attitude towards southern slavery would have been had we remained under the crown.
Yes, the British were largely against the slave trade-- but the Caribbean slavery the British were against was at least in terms of mortality a far crueler system: West Africans fell dead like sugar cane in malarial Jamaican plantations, only to be replaced by a new waves of imported Africans. Women were hardly ever carried to the West Indies, because sugar plantation owners were not interested in a self-sustaining slave population. Just a load of overworked, whipped and abused men, dying in the heat. This is quite possibly part of why Jamaica is still the most hyperbolically anti-Gay culture in our hemisphere, if I can carefully make that off-topic generalization.
Conversely, American Chattel slavery was seen as a more humane, Christian system. Killing a slave was widely illegal, even if it happened anyway. Slaveowners were more than interested in pairing up their slaves and creating families.
Yes, the British were largely against the slave trade-- but the Caribbean slavery the British were against was at least in terms of mortality a far crueler system: West Africans fell dead like sugar cane in malarial Jamaican plantations, only to be replaced by a new waves of imported Africans. Women were hardly ever carried to the West Indies, because sugar plantation owners were not interested in a self-sustaining slave population. Just a load of overworked, whipped and abused men, dying in the heat. This is quite possibly part of why Jamaica is still the most hyperbolically anti-Gay culture in our hemisphere, if I can carefully make that off-topic generalization.
Conversely, American Chattel slavery was seen as a more humane, Christian system. Killing a slave was widely illegal, even if it happened anyway. Slaveowners were more than interested in pairing up their slaves and creating families.
I think you've hit on the reason slavery ended for the British before it ended for the Americans. The British were likely not motivated by any newfound conceptions of human rights, but rather found it more economically feasible to pay slave wages rather than actually own slaves, beat them to death, then have to buy more. By contrast, Americans found it more economically feasible to breed and own slaves though this required that they care for them "well enough" that they could generally survive longer.
So I doubt that slavery would have ended sooner here, because the British did depend on our cotton supplies and until the Civil war commenced, slavery was still an economically expeditious way to run things.
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
No. I think the world would be different, but America would not be a better place. What we started here had a tremendous impact on the whole world, and I doubt that Canada would be the same today, had we lost, either.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Doubtful.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
No. Can you point to any "nonwhite" government that is inherently less corrupt than we are? Maybe the tiny Island of Fiji...
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
No. Can you point to any "nonwhite" government that is inherently less corrupt than we are? Maybe the tiny Island of Fiji...
Probably a few more in there but I think this may be the wrong question.
Would the Constitution have been better if more women or other races or even white men that weren't so terribly rich were involved?
I'd say most likely...
It was a document reflecting the concerns of the aristocracy.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 3 2007, 09:05 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
No. Can you point to any "nonwhite" government that is inherently less corrupt than we are? Maybe the tiny Island of Fiji...
Probably a few more in there but I think this may be the wrong question.
Would the Constitution have been better if more women or other races or even white men that weren't so terribly rich were involved?
I'd say most likely...
It was a document reflecting the concerns of the aristocracy.
There were virtually no "nonrich white men" back then who could even read. The document was represented by aristocracy at the time because in order to have stability it had to be. You can't place a heavy saddle on a chicken. It was not feasible to do otherwise, but that founding document was still about the most revolutionary and "freedom based" that any nation had ever seen up until that time.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2007, 08:22 AM)
There were virtually no "nonrich white men" back then who could even read. The document was represented by aristocracy at the time because in order to have stability it had to be. It was not feasible to do otherwise, and that founding document was about the most revolutionary and "freedom based" that any nation had ever seen up until that time.
I suspect a hefty difference between "few" and "none" when the context is so small as that of constitutional writers. There were educated people of all races and classes to be found if the framers wanted a representative sample. The convention was made up, purposefully, not of the educated, per se, but of local big shots.
Relatively free, but on an absolute scale it could have been far better.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 3 2007, 09:33 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2007, 08:22 AM)
There were virtually no "nonrich white men" back then who could even read. The document was represented by aristocracy at the time because in order to have stability it had to be. It was not feasible to do otherwise, and that founding document was about the most revolutionary and "freedom based" that any nation had ever seen up until that time.
I suspect a hefty difference between "few" and "none" when the context is so small as that of constitutional writers. There were educated people of all races and classes to be found if the framers wanted a representative sample. The convention was made up, purposefully, not of the educated, per se, but of local big shots.
Relatively free, but on an absolute scale it could have been far better.
On an absolute scale your post could be better. On an absolute scale this thread could be better. On an absolute scale the internet could be better!
Who are the luminaries of the day that fit your bill that should have been involved? That's not rhetorical.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Aug 3 2007, 08:54 AM)
On an absolute scale your post could be better. On an absolute scale this thread could be better. On an absolute scale the internet could be better!
Who are the luminaries of the day that fit your bill that should have been involved? That's not rhetorical.
Who are the luminaries of the day that fit your bill that should have been involved? That's not rhetorical.
Luminary?
I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that many absolute luminaries were necessary Madison and Jefferson could handle that end.
However, I believe that a more representative audience at the convention could have given women the vote and not limited it to white male land-owners for one.
Could have included more on freedom on oppression from private employers as well. Skipped the whole fight over direct election of Senators...
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
No. The mere size and population of the American colony means that eventually it would have broken away from Great Britain. Whether it would have occurred peacefully or violently is unknown. The creation of the United States is the single most important event in the history of liberalism. It inspired the French Revolution and gave credence to self-governance. Great Britain was certainly on the road to democracy, but it was slow and pragmatic, like everything British. Without a victory in the Revolution, the idea that people can be free to make their own choices in matters of government probably would have been squashed. Socialism, communism, fascism, and other collectivist ideologies would have persevered and shaped the world that we know today. The American Revolution was the first time that freedom was given a chance...so there is no way that losing the war would have been good.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Great Britain did abolish slavery earlier than it occurred in the Americas, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that race relations would have been any better. Just because they abolished slavery in most of their territory doesnt mean that it would have occurred in the American South, especially with their dependence on the cotton trade. If anything, slavery would have prolonged past the 1860s until cotton was no longer profitable at the end of the 19th century.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
No. The Constitution is a compact that is supposed to limit the power of government. Anyone learned in history would know that the aristocracy had never done such a thing before. The aristocracy usually sided with government in order to maintain and consolidate their power. For the aristocracy to relinquish that idea in favor of something where power is distributed among a populace is profound.
You are misunderstanding the whole emplyer-employee relationship. As CP stated, you have no right to a job. When there is a job opening, an employer interviews various potential emplopyees for the job. After choosing one applicant, they would both agree to the terms of their contract (salary, work hours, vacation, benefits, exc...). If at any point one of the aspects of the contract is unfavorable to the applicant, they could decline the job offer. However, if they agree to the terms, they are bound to it with the knowledge that such things are dependent on the viability of the business. If the company takes a major financial loss, it cannot afford as many workers and is forced to downsize. Would you rather the company continue to keep the employers only to go bankrupt and put even more people out of a job? If a company cannot afford to maintain its current level of labor, then downsizing is a necessary step in ensuring that the company can still function.
You confuse difficult choices with no choice. Life is about difficult choices and making decisions that may not be favorable to you personally in order to fulfill some personal interest. Many unskilled workers of today face the same dilemma that steelworkers of Birmingham had. Since they do not have any usable skills, they are forced to work in jobs that do not require them. Those jobs are usually low paying. That is a fact of life. You cannot get paid large salaries if you do not bring any value. Accepting a job in an industry that makes you easily expendable is a risk that you have to recognize when you accept the job. Why would a company that is struggling financially hold on to aging workers when they can bring in new workers with the same production and lower wages? If companies were forced to hold onto those workers...much like the situation in present-day France, then they would continue to struggle. This monopolizes the industry because you hurt their competitiveness and give the largest corporations an advantage.
No. The mere size and population of the American colony means that eventually it would have broken away from Great Britain. Whether it would have occurred peacefully or violently is unknown. The creation of the United States is the single most important event in the history of liberalism. It inspired the French Revolution and gave credence to self-governance. Great Britain was certainly on the road to democracy, but it was slow and pragmatic, like everything British. Without a victory in the Revolution, the idea that people can be free to make their own choices in matters of government probably would have been squashed. Socialism, communism, fascism, and other collectivist ideologies would have persevered and shaped the world that we know today. The American Revolution was the first time that freedom was given a chance...so there is no way that losing the war would have been good.
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Great Britain did abolish slavery earlier than it occurred in the Americas, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that race relations would have been any better. Just because they abolished slavery in most of their territory doesnt mean that it would have occurred in the American South, especially with their dependence on the cotton trade. If anything, slavery would have prolonged past the 1860s until cotton was no longer profitable at the end of the 19th century.
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
No. The Constitution is a compact that is supposed to limit the power of government. Anyone learned in history would know that the aristocracy had never done such a thing before. The aristocracy usually sided with government in order to maintain and consolidate their power. For the aristocracy to relinquish that idea in favor of something where power is distributed among a populace is profound.
QUOTE(turnea)
...but when a contract is open-ended like employment contracts typically are, they don't mean anything.
Pay cut: "Mutual Consent"
Fired: "Mutual Consent"
Without other legal framework, that is a complete joke.
Pay cut: "Mutual Consent"
Fired: "Mutual Consent"
Without other legal framework, that is a complete joke.
You are misunderstanding the whole emplyer-employee relationship. As CP stated, you have no right to a job. When there is a job opening, an employer interviews various potential emplopyees for the job. After choosing one applicant, they would both agree to the terms of their contract (salary, work hours, vacation, benefits, exc...). If at any point one of the aspects of the contract is unfavorable to the applicant, they could decline the job offer. However, if they agree to the terms, they are bound to it with the knowledge that such things are dependent on the viability of the business. If the company takes a major financial loss, it cannot afford as many workers and is forced to downsize. Would you rather the company continue to keep the employers only to go bankrupt and put even more people out of a job? If a company cannot afford to maintain its current level of labor, then downsizing is a necessary step in ensuring that the company can still function.
QUOTE(turnea)
I'll play Birmingham since I live here. It was a town built and run by the steel industry. The suburb of Fairfield as one example was a company town where US Steel stored its workforce. Blacks were paid lower wages on what was , literally, called the "race wage" system.
If you didn't like it, starve, it's the only show in town.
Ever read Rocket Boys (the book October Sky was based on) or The Jungle?
That teaches you what mutual consent meant.
Living on company land, payed in scrip, overnight you could lose everything, modern-day feudalism. Just like sharecropping, which most African-Americans can say is in their family history, certainly in mine.
If you didn't like it, starve, it's the only show in town.
Ever read Rocket Boys (the book October Sky was based on) or The Jungle?
That teaches you what mutual consent meant.
Living on company land, payed in scrip, overnight you could lose everything, modern-day feudalism. Just like sharecropping, which most African-Americans can say is in their family history, certainly in mine.
You confuse difficult choices with no choice. Life is about difficult choices and making decisions that may not be favorable to you personally in order to fulfill some personal interest. Many unskilled workers of today face the same dilemma that steelworkers of Birmingham had. Since they do not have any usable skills, they are forced to work in jobs that do not require them. Those jobs are usually low paying. That is a fact of life. You cannot get paid large salaries if you do not bring any value. Accepting a job in an industry that makes you easily expendable is a risk that you have to recognize when you accept the job. Why would a company that is struggling financially hold on to aging workers when they can bring in new workers with the same production and lower wages? If companies were forced to hold onto those workers...much like the situation in present-day France, then they would continue to struggle. This monopolizes the industry because you hurt their competitiveness and give the largest corporations an advantage.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
No. The Constitution is a compact that is supposed to limit the power of government. Anyone learned in history would know that the aristocracy had never done such a thing before. The aristocracy usually sided with government in order to maintain and consolidate their power. For the aristocracy to relinquish that idea in favor of something where power is distributed among a populace is profound.
Magna Carta.
Written by aristocrats for aristocrats.
The Constitution was meant to define government to give it power not just limit it. Remember those wonderfully limited Articles of Confederation it replaced?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
You confuse difficult choices with no choice.
I'm simply being realistic. After all this same argument can be used of government.
You don't have to do what the government says, you could choose to go to jail, or flee the country.
There are choices and then there are choices.
My point is not about low pay but just and equitable treatment which the Constitution failed to require of the private sector and which lead directly to the upheavals of the progressive era.
QUOTE(Turnea)
I'm simply being realistic. After all this same argument can be used of government.
You don't have to do what the government says, you could choose to go to jail, or flee the country.
Exactly. The "social contract" that we are supposedly bound to is completely involuntary. Either you live by it or are jailed. The free market [and yes, I mean laissez faire], however, is composed of actions that can be voided and arbitrated and altered peacefully and without coercion. In the example of your town, are those individuals not free to look for work elsewhere? As Leder said, you are mistaking difficult choice with having 'no choice'. You don't have to do what the government says, you could choose to go to jail, or flee the country.
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Aug 3 2007, 10:34 AM)
QUOTE(Turnea)
I'm simply being realistic. After all this same argument can be used of government.
You don't have to do what the government says, you could choose to go to jail, or flee the country.
Exactly. The "social contract" that we are supposedly bound to is completely involuntary. Either you live by it or are jailed. The free market [and yes, I mean laissez faire], however, is composed of actions that can be voided and arbitrated and altered peacefully and without coercion. In the example of your town, are those individuals not free to look for work elsewhere? As Leder said, you are mistaking difficult choice with having 'no choice'. You don't have to do what the government says, you could choose to go to jail, or flee the country.
CP
....and why are you ignoring moving out of the country?
For instance if the government abridges freedom of the press can't you leave?
Yes I can. I can move to another country with another unwritten 'social contract' that has similar if not more coercive and involuntary conditions. My argument applies to all governments, not just this one. Moving to another country changes nothing in terms of being coerced into entering into a social contract similar to[if not worse than] the one here.
CP
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Aug 3 2007, 11:12 AM)
Yes I can. I can move to another country with another unwritten 'social contract' that has similar if not more coercive and involuntary conditions. My argument applies to all governments, not just this one. Moving to another country changes nothing in terms of being coerced into entering into a social contract similar to[if not worse than] the one here.
CP
CP
..and why doesn't that apply to labor?
Could a sharecropper leave one landlord for another (enforced debt in tow) and be presented with the choice of the same demeaning terms?
A steelworker could become a... um....
QUOTE
..and why doesn't that apply to labor?
Could a sharecropper leave one landlord for another (enforced debt in tow) and be presented with the choice of the same demeaning terms?
A steelworker could become a... um....
And we're back to the issue of mutual consent. As a laborer you always have a choice to sign on the dotted line or not. With the government, you don't. Again, that applies to any government; it is the nature of government in general, just as the nature of the free market is free, voluntary exchange.Could a sharecropper leave one landlord for another (enforced debt in tow) and be presented with the choice of the same demeaning terms?
A steelworker could become a... um....
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Aug 3 2007, 11:20 AM)
QUOTE
..and why doesn't that apply to labor?
Could a sharecropper leave one landlord for another (enforced debt in tow) and be presented with the choice of the same demeaning terms?
A steelworker could become a... um....
And we're back to the issue of mutual consent. As a laborer you always have a choice to sign on the dotted line or not. With the government, you don't. Again, that applies to any government; it is the nature of government in general, just as the nature of the free market is free, voluntary exchange.Could a sharecropper leave one landlord for another (enforced debt in tow) and be presented with the choice of the same demeaning terms?
A steelworker could become a... um....
CP
..and residing in a country isn't consent?
Don't you have a choice to leave?
I am, of course, likely to start a topic on this but I think it illustrates the basic problem of the "free" market.
Employers always have an overwhelming advantage in the absence of any (to use a Galbraith-ism) "countervailing power" like unions, which as Wal-Mart shows, they can simply ban.
QUOTE
..and residing in a country isn't consent?
Don't you have a choice to leave?
I am, of course, likely to start a topic on this but I think it illustrates the basic problem of the "free" market.
No, it is not consent, submission, sure, but not consent. Again, Turnea [and you really should start a topic on this, I think it'd be great], every single government on this Earth, in essence has the same social contract. There are only nominal differences between them. Whereas in the private sector, contracts can be negotiated, arbitrated, mediated, voided, extended, etc. in a peaceful manner.Don't you have a choice to leave?
I am, of course, likely to start a topic on this but I think it illustrates the basic problem of the "free" market.
At the risk of moderatorial action
I think we may have to take this conversation elsewhere, though.CP
QUOTE
Questions for Debate:
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
Do you think America would be a better place if we'd lost the American Revolution?
Do you think race relations in America would be different had we lost the American Revolution?
Is the Constitution inherently corrupt due to "rich white men"?
BA-This is one heck of a topic, I haven't checked it out until now, but it's a great one in my esteemed opinion.
I don't believe that America would've been a better place had we lost the revolution. The Spanish system of colonization led to a hierarchical structure that makes us look utopian in regards to equality. The political corruption and weird political issues with juntas, strongmen, and corruption are evidence of their own unique path towards independence. Our own trajectory was very fortunate to have an English root in regards to having a profound respect for contracts, documents, due process rights, not to mention collecting the oppressed rabble of Europe. Political dissidents, religious curmudgeons, and other outcasts helped to theoretically create a better government, or at least, one that could be changed through concerted effort. While we aren't perfect, we have the most promise in that regard. This last point touches on the third debate question. I believe that while we aren't perfect, the process avaialable to us as a result of the founders is prerfect. The founders knew they couldn't solve the various social problems that they had at the time. I believe they knew slavery was wrong deep down adn that at one time, ti woudl be dealt with, they were wise to put it off for later generations to solve. Our stability and cohesiveness as a nation required it quite frankly. Of course, they couldn't have forseen the whiny south leaving anyways, but you can't blame them for that necessarily.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.