[nis0s]

For secular and democratic nations, multiculturalism isn’t inherently dangerous if there are principles and ideals around which newcomers to any nation can assimilate and integrate. America attempted that to some degree of success with its melting pot ideals till the 90s, but there wasn’t enough emphasis on civic duty, from either the commoners or the elite. The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision, btw, including Muslims. The failure in any integration and assimilation goals from the past few decades result from enabling unjust narratives which pose America as the only country with the social ills and issues it’s being criticized of, when there isn’t any other country in recent memory with a more socially diverse congress.

[chgs]

> The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision, btw

Of course many were only 3/5th included. And half the population weren’t included at all.

[nis0s]

That’s not a fair or reasonable thing to point out given that few countries at that time gave slaves or women voting rights. The U.S. was one of the first majority White countries to give Black men voting rights in 1870, after France did some time in late 1700s. Haiti was the first country to give all people, regardless of race, voting rights in 1804. I agree that the U.S. was really late to enter into women’s suffrage compared to other majority white countries.

[chgs]

So the vision included a tiny minority of land owners.

General suffrage in 1789 was about 1 in 20 people, almost entirely white land owning men.

20 years later the vote was actually taken alway from many of the few black men who had it. White men still needed property. In parts of the US this property requirement lasted until the 1850s, and after that the requirement to be rich enough to pay taxes survived well into the 20th century.

I’m not criticising anything other than this idea that america was a government of the people by the people - at least until the 20th century.

[nis0s]

I don’t dispute anything you’re saying, I just don’t understand what frame of reference any leader or policymaker at that time could have used to do anything differently. What country at that time was some paragon of social justice or progressivism? I think the US founding fathers did pretty well for their time, when most countries in the world were part of empires, or were monarchies.

People are more socially progressive now because of the passage of time, and the accumulation of sociopolitical observances it allowed. The average person now is only less of a brute because of the cultural training they’ve experienced, but it’s not something to be taken for granted.

In general, there are very few people (sages) who are more moral, ethical or curious than the average person of their own time. Often times their behavior makes them look like a loser or a weirdo to their contemporaries or society.

[chgs]

Your statement was “The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision”

It isn’t true. And the idolisation some people have for wealthy white landowners from 250 years ago is just weird. Judge the world on today

[nis0s]

I am judging it from today—if the founding fathers developed that framework today, Enlightenment ideals would rationally lead them to include everyone based on the progress of social thought up to this point. I won’t hold their lack of social progress against them because they were pioneers for their time.