Home | About | Donate

Democracy in Jeopardy


Democracy in Jeopardy

Judy Wicks

This year marks the 95th anniversary of the 19th amendment’s ratification, which granted American women the vote in 1920. Another way to think about it – America took 144 years to enfranchise half of its population. It was also 50 years ago that the Voting Rights Act passed when we started to reckon with the discriminatory practices towards black voters that survived the 15th amendment like a drug-resistant bacteria.


Judy, Judy, Judy! Come on. The good old days narrative sounds more and more tea partyish. The invaders were not very nice to the indigenous inhabitants on this side of the Atlantic. The brutality expressed then is in full voice today as the drums of death beat louder and louder.


We need to take our country back from the politicians.


"beginning with the colonists who fought English tyranny,"

BULLSHIT. They didn't want to pay their due taxes, just like they don't want to pay their due taxes today.


Re-read the tale of Cromwell...

There is a reason that the colonists wanted the power to levy their own taxes. They owned their own land, as much or more as many of the landed gentry did too. But they couldn't vote for their own Members of Parliament.

They ended up paying more in taxes to the new USA than they would have to the crown. Pity George's government didn't work a bit harder to accommodate their lawful demands.


I find it ironic that in the UK in 1776 taxes were considerably higher than those requested from the British north American colonists, who had benefited markedly from the expensive British efforts that had kept them from having to speak French. It should also be noted that the British north American colonists had about as much parliamentary representation as the bulk of the British population (full male voting rights in the UK were not achieved until the late 1800s). That is, sweet FA in respect of voting rights. The British north American colonists also had land and opportunities that most of their counterparts in the UK could only dream about, which is why they were British north American colonists in the first place, and why the British kept on coming to northern America.

In respect of land ownership. The British north American colonists were technically living on land owned by the Crown (irrespective of the ideas otherwise of the original inhabitants), just as we do today in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. We only own our improvements to the land. In New Zealand and Australia, the previous inhabitants now have greater land rights than the European population.

So, my cyncism about the tax dodging north American colonists. It was ALL about not paying taxes and gaining power to further their wealth and NOTHING to do with liberty, democracy and freedom. Those notions just added gloss as a PR exercise.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


No, you don't find anything ironic.

In BNA the colonists were land rich and money poor. In the UK they were land poor but the rich had money.

The people who owned land, or enough other property, in the UK could vote for MPs, the ones who didn't have property couldn't. The people who lived in BNA who owned land had no representation at all. In spite of owning more real property than many of those who had peerages.

You're comparing the poor of the UK with the rich of BNA, apples and oranges my dear delusional monarch. :smile:

The ironic thing is that if King George III's parliament had decided to talk to the colonists, they could have kept the USA in the empire. But the MPs were as mad as George was.


The European colonists did not own their own land. They used (or did not use) the land they had occupied, sometimes violently and other times stealthy, the land that they had stolen from the original owners, the indigenous people who lived on it before the arrived in the 15th Century.


By everyday law they did. Even by aboriginal law they did (when the Apsaroke were driven out of their lands all the way to what's now Montana by the Ojibwe and Sioux peoples, the taking of their land was generally accepted as a fair outcome even though a dreadful one for the Apsaroke),

The First Nations people in North America had Stone-Age weapons, their unit of organisation was the tribe/clan, and they no concept of land ownership, only of land tenure. The Europoid invaders had Early-Machine-Age weapons, nation-level organisation, and a well-settled concept of land ownership. As long as the Europoids were willing to commit genocide, which too damned many of them were, the eventual outcome was only too predictable.


Which all goes to prove that jaw jaw is better than war war.

The land-rich cash-poor unrepresented colonists of 1776 were a damned sight better off than the majority of land-deficient, cash-deficient, unrepresented agricultural and industrial wage-slaves in the UK, and they had a lot more opportunity for improvement. But Hollywood must have its myths.

But then again; looking at the vast social problem that the USA has become, George III and his wastrel Ministers were rather wise...................G-III seems to have suffered severely from depression, which is not madness, though it might have seemed so back in the 1770s.


porphyria, a genetic disease, wasn't depression.

He was quite mad. That's why his son served as Regent.