In his capstone paper for the class, Mr. Damsky argued that the framers had intended for the phrase “We the People,” in the Constitution’s preamble, to refer exclusively to white people."

joker-amerikkklap

[–] Boynomoder@hexbear.net 44 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I mean…he’s not wrong. doggirl-sweat

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I think he's wrong because that was before the idea of a unified white people. This would have been pre "Irish need not apply" surely.

So unless he really wants to split hairs about the type of white people and a drop of different whiteness can ruin you (late fascism which is nothing but a kind of aesthetic purity born out of incredible violence) then the alternative is an admission that the concept of "our people" is capable of widening to include people once thought unworthy

[–] D61@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago

Well, if we define "white" as a political class then it would absolutely include everybody that needed to be included.

The poor need not apply.

The unlanded need not apply.

Those without a guild membership need not apply.

And on and on.

[–] Boynomoder@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

Tbh my first thought trying to be charitable was maybe he was making an argument to illustrate how silly this kind of originalism is…but that doesn’t seem to be the case from the article

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

It goes beyond that; apparently not everyone white was apparently white enough. Benjamin Franklin (I think it was him) actually referred to Germans as swarthy; so if this guy wants to be honest here, there's a lot of white people who'd no longer be part of the in-group (possibly even this guy himself), but I've a feeling that's not the path he'd like to go down.

load more comments (1 replies)