What are things that everyone ought to understand, but many don't?

[Debrah N.]

................

As for Jefferson, he owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime, while simultaneously hypocritically proclaiming equality for the masses of people in flowery text. Of course, his definition of "people" was comprised solely of white male landowners, despite gladly making use of his slives, Sally Hemmings among them. She, his enslaved quadroon with whom he had six children, made a deal with that devil, i.e., she'd remain his slave if he agreed to free their children as they reached adulthood.

So, no, I don't genuflect at the altar of the "sainted" Thomas Jefferson.

Not only the slavery aspect is questionable, but it occurred to me that when the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution 'all men are created equal', they weren't including women in that notation on equality either. So the devotion to the founding fathers, to me, seems a little misguided or at the very least, an exercise in avoidance thinking. After all, the American constitution was written in 1776, black people weren't emancipated until 1863 and women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. Like you said StarSong, they were only talking about white men.

 

[officerripley]

I think the text books are only a symptom of a darker problem and that is the hearts of people. To be honest, I don't know what can be done about that.

I'm afraid you're right; I used to think that when people acted cruelly, it was because they believed wrongly. However, more and more, I'm afraid it's in too many cases that they don't care about anyone other than themselves (& maybe immediate family).

 

[StarSong]

I'm afraid you're right; I used to think that when people acted cruelly, it was because they believed wrongly. However, more and more, I'm afraid it's in too many cases that they don't care about anyone other than themselves (& maybe immediate family).

Indeed that's true. Sadder still, attempts to be more inclusive are derisively dismissed as "wokeness," whether that's kindness and understanding toward members of the LGBTQ+ community, people of other (AKA non-Christian) religions, the neuro-atypical, people of body shapes and sizes that don't comport to current fashion ideals, people who are non-beautiful or don't look 25 anymore, indigenous people, recent immigrants, people of color, and so, so, so many others.

 

[ohioboy]

Not only the slavery aspect is questionable, but it occurred to me that when the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution 'all men are created equal', they weren't including women in that notation on equality either. So the devotion to the founding fathers, to me, seems a little misguided or at the very least, an exercise in avoidance thinking. After all, the American constitution was written in 1776, black people weren't emancipated until 1863 and women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. Like you said StarSong, they were only talking about white men.

The American Declaration of Independence stated "all men are created equal", not the Constitution, also, the Constitution was written during the convention of 1787, not in 1776. The EP did not mean total freedom for slaves in Confederate states, and since it was not a law, but an Executive Order, it meant freedom was not absolute until the 13th AM. That was from reading up on the EP, not from my detailed personal knowledge.

 

[Debrah N.]

The American Declaration of Independence stated "all men are created equal", not the Constitution, also, the Constitution was written during the convention of 1787, not in 1776. The EP did not mean total freedom for slaves in Confederate states, and since it was not a law, but an Executive Order, it meant freedom was not absolute until the 13th AM. That was from reading up on the EP, not from my detailed personal knowledge.

Sorry, not being an American, I guess I got the documents mixed up. But the point remains, it's pretty obvious, those old white guys weren't thinking of women or people of colour.

 

[Eupher]

Not always. Every single father I was acquainted with growing up, including my own, seemed to aspire to be a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ebenezer Scrooge and too many of the mothers, including my own, were too scared to rock the boat or were exhausted single mothers. So nowhere near being good role models. (Some of the mothers did try; don't remember a !@#$% one of the fathers trying.)

If it weren't for some of the teachers I had, I would've given up.

Good point. I should've said "ideally". As you've clearly pointed out, sometimes the morals/role angle doesn't work out. I think I was very fortunate, overall. Certainly not a perfect situation, but I had solid guidance as a kid.

 

[Buckeye]

Not always. Every single father I was acquainted with growing up, including my own, seemed to aspire to be a cross between Hugh Hefner and Ebenezer Scrooge and too many of the mothers, including my own, were too scared to rock the boat or were exhausted single mothers. So nowhere near being good role models. (Some of the mothers did try; don't remember a !@#$% one of the fathers trying.)

If it weren't for some of the teachers I had, I would've given up.

I guess my family must really be ****** up, since out of the 16 kids in my mother's and father's family, 7 men and 9 women, I can't think of a one who fits your narrative. Nor any of their spouses (not all survived to adulthood). I know there are some bad ones out there, but to me they are the exception, not the rule.

Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Vida May]

I do agree with most of your points but I don't think it's impossible to discuss education without a teacher. Every moment we're alive, someone or something is teaching us. We parents educate our babies just by our actions so it's not just text books that guide our absorption of information. I think what is needed is the willingness to open up individually and discover our own biases and then look for information to either refute or support those biases.

For example, I grew up in an era and culture where it was perfectly acceptable to buy salmon out of a native person's trunk but also perfectly acceptable and customary to look down on our First Nations people as lazy, etc. But then, I read an article on the problems in Canada's reserve schools and the reasons behind those problems (generational issues, hopelessness, low funding, low opportunities, etc.) and I opened up to both learning more and changing my view points.

While I completely agree that there's a severe problem with jurisdictions changing text books to suit a narrative (rather than just to teach facts as they happened) and apparently my own province is guilty of that just recently, I think the text books are only a symptom of a darker problem and that is the hearts of people. To be honest, I don't know what can be done about that.

What lovely talking points. I see right off the word "education" needs to be clarified. I have been using the word to mean the defined purpose of education that the authority defines and then controls for the school meeting that purpose. Until recently, parents determined school policy and it was thought the federal government was forbidden to control our education by the constitution and I think you can understand why. In no country did minority groups have a say in education and the results were as horrific as you have said.

You have stated that education molds our thoughts of others and our behaviors. That is culture. Culture can encourage prejudice and injustice or make prejudice and injustice unacceptable. Textbooks support that culture, and parents should examine the textbooks the children are using and complain if the textbooks are found harmful.

Texas was requiring schools to teach Creationism as equal to the theory of evolution. At least one person here is a perfect representative of this education. The teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court and argued Creationism is not science and does not belong in science books and they should not be forced to teach it is equal to science. They won.

Another part of the teachers' fight in Texas is Texas Republicans made it their agenda to prevent the teaching of higher order thinking skills. That means Texas children do not learn the logic skills to judge if something is true or not. Someone here demonstrates the problem with that. Asking these people to think through what they believe is like asking them to fly. Their brains can not organize information and form arguments. The Republican argument was that teaching the logic skills made children disobedient and were a problem for their parents.

Finally, in Texas, the oil Industry is the greatest source of state revenue, so the Texas test books support this industry while suppressing annoying facts such as global warming.

Because Texas buys a lot of textbooks, the textbook producers are agreeable to teaching what Texas wants taught. Also because Texas has a lot of lobbying and voter power, it can control some things at the federal level. While in a state like Mississippi, lack of commerce and poverty can leave their children unprepared for the high-paying jobs in rich high-tech states. It could be argued oversight of education at the Federal level is a good thing, or because Federal control destroys parental control, it can be argued the Feds should stay out of education decisions, as some thought the Constitution does.

I want you to know, that without your thinking on this subject, I would not have a cause to say what I said. I know I said too much for a post but hey, these are the things we need to understand and talk about so we are prepared to act on what we know and be responsible for how children are educated, our culture, and the future of the world.

Education for technology prepares the young to rely on authority and this becomes a culture that relies on authority. That was what the US fought against when it fought the American Revolution.

 

[Vida May]

I guess my family must really be ****** up, since out of the 16 kids in my mother's and father's family, 7 men and 9 women, I can't think of a one who fits your narrative. Nor any of their spouses (not all survived to adulthood). I know there are some bad ones out there, but to me they are the exception, not the rule.

Happy Thanksgiving

The importance of democracy is everyone's voice. We can know our reality is not the same for everyone. When we are aware of other realities we can change our lives and the lives of others. This has been how our civilization has evolved, unlike the civilizations that are authoritarian and restricted to reading the Torah, or the Bible, or the Quran and grow up thinking their experience of life is the same as everyone else's. One blanket explanation of life, we are born sinners who must be saved and must read their holy book and strictly follow what the book says. That can unite people into a nation, but it does not lift us out of ignorance and poverty.

 

[HermitHogan]

Education for technology prepares the young to rely on authority and this becomes a culture that relies on authority. That was what the US fought against when it fought the American Revolution.

What do you mean by "education for technology?" I agree with the rest of your post, but you lost me with your conclusion.

 

[Vida May]

My grandchildren attend public schools and I wouldn't characterize their educations as amoral. Non-religious, perhaps, but by no means amoral. What is your experience, if any, with the way children are currently being taught that makes you think that? I don't know where you are in the US - perhaps your local schools aren't up to snuff.

I am glad you asked. I would love to show my library explaining education since ancient civilizations tamed the earth and through recent times.

My grandmother was a teacher and when she died I realized she would no longer be able to defend our democracy in the classroom. She became a teacher when we were mobilizing for the First World War. I would love to share the 1917 National Education Association Conference book with everyone so everyone would have my source of information and come to realize how important education is to how we all think and behave and especially what education has to do with war and the dramatic changes of the USA. From a country everyone loved to the target of enemies

I knew the purpose of education had changed because I will never forget one of the most frightening days of my life. Not until a male teacher explained why our teachers were behaving so strangely did I stop fearing the teachers knew we were about to be hit by a nuclear bomb.
In a way they had been hit by a nuclear bomb because they had just been informed the purpose of education had been changed. At that moment in time, we went from what Eisenhower called our "domestic education" to education for a technological society with unknown values. This was our reaction to Russia having the nuclear boom and proving it could deliver it anywhere in the world. Sputnik had proven this possible.

My grandmother defended democracy in the classroom her whole life. When she was forced to retire because of her age, she volunteered. I thought we would have to nail her in her coffin because she was not giving up teaching and in so doing, defending our democracy. Okay, so what does it mean to defend democracy in the classroom? What are the American values that every child once learned?

I didn't have any education books at this time. I thought it would be easy to find an old textbook in a second-hand book store, and the list of the American values every child learned.
Oh my, that was the beginning of an obsession that would take over my life. That first day in the bookstore I found a copy of the 1917 National Education Association conference AND a 1912 copy of Charles Sarolea's "The Anglo-German Problem". Sarolea was warning the world Germany was preparing for war. His book was ignored until WWI began.

Fast forward, I have volunteered in schools and the best example of the lack of morality comes from a grade school library that had books like Captain Underpants, and no classics! Captain Underpants is a series about a school principal who flies around in his underwear and a cape. My grandmother's generation was strong on human dignity and there is no way my grandmother would have had that book in her classroom.

There was a teacher who was thrilled to show me a story of the new bully on the block. I read through one offensive page after another until it was revealed the new bully was a girl. And the teacher loved this! What kind of value is that? Do you want your daughters taught it is great to be a bully?

Next was the teacher who had to entertain a group of children and pulled a hilarious book off the shelf to read to them. He must have felt the knives flying out of my eyes as I glared at him because he began explaining to the children that what made the book so funny was inappropriate behavior.

The justification of these bad reading and no classics is, the children will read the offensive books and they will not read the classics. Oh yes, they will read the classics if they are taught to appreciate them and the moral lessons that once made them essential on a child's reading list. The book-buying decisions are made on a false understanding of a past that taught only the "technological skills" of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Please see if you can find old textbooks in a second-hand store. All of the ones I have found teach children how to make good moral choices and how to be valuable citizens. And this is done without religion.

The 1958 National Defense Education Act is for a technological society with unknown values, and hopefully, everyone has a great sense of humor, because education is no longer about children having a well-rounded education for independent thinking. We are now in the era of "group think" and we can see this cultural change in the change of Star Trek from the original crew to the Next Generation.

 

[Vida May]

As for Jefferson, he owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime, while simultaneously hypocritically proclaiming equality for the masses of people in flowery text. Of course, his definition of "people" was comprised solely of white male landowners, despite gladly making use of his slives, Sally Hemmings among them. She, his enslaved quadroon with whom he had six children, made a deal with that devil, i.e., she'd remain his slave if he agreed to free their children as they reached adulthood.

And from time to time I have sheltered homeless people and I was not exploiting them. We were at the height of a recession when life was hard for everyone, especially teenagers who could not compete for jobs because they didn't have years of experience. A time when Oregon cut off welfare to two-parent families so fathers abandoned their families so the wives and children could get help and many teenagers left home because they didn't want to be a burden. I think my point of view is a little different from yours. I think circumstances need to be considered when judging what people do.

What else do you know of Jefferson other than he had slaves? Are you aware of his efforts to end slavery? Please share what you know of Jefferson so I can understand why you are against him.

 

[wcwbf]

DST and standard time. we never gain or lose "time", we don't even gain/lose hours of sunlight. changing clocks only moves when we have the extra sunlight.

 

[Vida May]

What do you mean by "education for technology?" I agree with the rest of your post, but you lost me with your conclusion.

Oh dear, I am not sure I can answer your question without getting into trouble for being political.

Can we start with WWI? Yes, this might work.

"The German military organization is the world's model. At least from the standpoint of immediate accomplishments of results, and therefore we can hardly do better than to emulate it in its perfect working. It was effected in the its minutest detail by the very essence of scientific thought and application. In that organization every tongue fitted its grove, every tooth its socket.

We have seen how the Kaiser's, marvelous soldiers carried their banner to the very outskirts of Paris in August and September 1914. It is the Great God efficiency, to which the Germans were required by their commanders to pay the homage of worship-and it behooves us either to effect a thing that will operate as well or to copy theirs. The fact of the world at war has silenct the erring lips that declared against the necessity for preparation against disaster, like that of Belgium and Servia."

J. A. B. Sinclare, Surgeon, United States Navy, Portland Recruiting Station, Portland, Ore. from
National Education Association of the United States--- Addresses and Proceedings of the Fifty-Fifth Annual Meeting Held at Portland, Oregon July 7-10 1917 Volume LV

"the erring lips that declared against the necessity for preparation against disaster" What is Sinclaire talking about?

In the general activity and uprising of ideal interests which every one with an eye for fact can discern all about us in the American life, there is perhaps no more promising feature than the fermentation which for a dozen years or more has been going on among the teachers. In whatever sphere of education their functions may lie, there is to be seen among them a really inspiring amount of searching of the heart about the highest concerns of their protection.

The renovation of nations begins always at the top, among the reflective members of the State, and spreads slowly outward and downward. The teachers of this country, one may say, have its future in their hands. The earnestness which they at present show in striving to enlighten and strengthen themselves is an index of the nation's probabilities of advance in all ideal directions. The outward organization of education which we have in our United States is perhaps, on the whole, the best organization that exists in any country...

in Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery. The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year, - not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philological thesis to prepare,

or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and us apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out some peppercorn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himselve as an efficient instrument of research.
William James "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY: AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS"

That is a lot to unpack and it seriously needs another explanation of Prussia's impact on Germany.

The German ideal and the US ideal were different. One favors democracy and the other favors authoritarianism. However, both were Christian Republics.

One demands people be specialized and the other demands that a person be a generalist who learns of many different things. One demands following orders and the other demands individual responsibility.

The organization of these different societies was different but since the US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education, the organization in the US is not what we defended in war.

One system of education is liberal education which depends on literature. The other tends to be conservative, focused on religion, obedience, and technological skills.

One leads to a higher morality based on knowledge, the other does not.

Quotes had to be broken up to fit the limit on paragraph size.

 

[Vida May]

How to live within your means and stick to a budget. All schools should teach basic, personal finance.

Sounds like you believe a single mother can adequately provide for her children without government assistance if she just budgets her money. If the young and the poor understood finances there could be a revolution. On the other hand, all the people demanding higher wages make me nervous. If employers must pay more for labor the price of the product will increase and that is inflationary. It is a spiral that could cause our economy to collapse.

Frankly, I thank my stars that I am not young and with children. It must be very frightening for the low-wage workers who support our economy by being affordable labor when they will never earn enough to become homeowners and may not even be able to afford medical care.

 

[Eupher]

Sorry, not being an American, I guess I got the documents mixed up. But the point remains, it's pretty obvious, those old white guys weren't thinking of women or people of colour.

You're comparing what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution (who were busy trying to form a new government) did over 230 years ago to today? That's an apples and oranges observation.

Women didn't even have the right to vote at that time. They since obtained the right to vote in 1920. Slavery and indentured servitude was an acceptable practice at that time, though it was highly controversial even then. Slavery was eradicated in 1865, with many other civil rights issues addressed as the U.S. matured. Jim Crow laws were enacted in certain parts of the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which meant a huge step backwards, but the last of those laws were eradicated in 1965.

Slavery was such a hot button issue when the Framers began forming the Constitution that they deliberately put it aside. Several reasons for that, in addition to the more pressing and immediate issue of getting a Constitution ratified. Concerns over private property rights and protection of same overruled the need to immediately address slavery. Franklin, in particular, believed that emancipation would eventually come about.

No country is perfect, even Canada, but the Framers ensured that they created a system whereby inequities could be addressed within that framework.

One item of interest, perhaps: The Framers had a completely different outlook toward women than most Americans today. This article from the Smithsonian addresses some of that and, in particular, with how some Framers interacted with women who were not their wives.

The term "Coverture" as adopted from English common law, restricted women, particularly married women, who required them to adopt their legal status from their husbands. It didn't take long for women to begin activism toward suffrage.

Federalist 54, as written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius addressed slavery only within how seats in the House of Representatives were to be apportioned. Madison recognized slaves as both being property and people and thus proposed a solution, the so-called "three-fifths" solution which allocated a single slave as three-fifths of a person. This was eventually annulled by the 14th Amendment.

My point in all this is that the Framers were aware of these issues (blacks and women) but could not address those at the time. It took time and even some blood to get to where we are today.

 

[Buckeye]

Sorry, not being an American, I guess I got the documents mixed up. But the point remains, it's pretty obvious, those old white guys weren't thinking of women or people of colour.

Maybe then you should stick to Canada issues. For the record, most of the folks you are calling "old white guys" were not so old. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, Ben Franklin (the oldest) was 70, but the average age was 44 and more than a dozen were less than 35. The youngest (Edward Rutledge) was 26. And the folks in Washington DC, regardless of how old or white or male they were, could not vote in the Presidential Elections until the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[dilettante]

There is so much baseless claptrap above that it is breathtaking.

After all, the American constitution was written in 1776, black people weren't emancipated until 1863 and women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. Like you said StarSong, they were only talking about white men.

It is pretty judgmental to assume that every person of African descent in the Americas of this time was a slave. They weren't.

... certain states, such as Wyoming, New Jersey, and Utah, granted women the right to vote decades before the 19th Amendment was ratified. In some instances, women were allowed to vote in certain elections; for example, in 1838 widows in Kentucky who owned property could vote for school trustees. In other cases, women enjoyed full voting rights before the 19th Amendment.

And it was broader than that, even though things changed back and forth in various States and Territories prior to 1920.

In any case it hardly matters. It has been 100 years! Yes, I realize that's still within the memory of a lot of the old bats here but get with the times if you can and pull the sticks out of your asses. The coronaries you prevent may be your own.

 

[Olivia]

There is so much baseless claptrap above that it is breathtaking.

It is pretty judgmental to assume that every person of African descent in the Americas of this time was a slave. They weren't.


And it was broader than that, even though things changed back and forth in various States and Territories prior to 1920.

In any case it hardly matters. It has been 100 years! Yes, I realize that's still within the memory of a lot of the old bats here but get with the times if you can and pull the sticks out of your asses. The coronaries you prevent may be your own.

Yes and some other asses bumping into walls.

 

[oldman]

How to act or behave on an airplane. It gets pretty bad when one of the pilots has to go back into the coach and remind the parents of their child’s behavior, especially if the child is a seat kicker.

There were a few times when I had to threaten the parent that if their child continued to kick the passenger’s seat in front of him, I would land the plane and they would be removed from the aircraft. If the parent attempted to get me into an argument with them, I would tell them they are 8 minutes away from being expelled from the plane.

In the case above, we were near St. Louis and I told the parents it would take me five minutes to land the plane and three minutes for the police to remove them.

 

[Lawrence00]

The Yankees suck. Don't run with scissors.

 

[Debrah N.]

There is so much baseless claptrap above that it is breathtaking.

It is pretty judgmental to assume that every person of African descent in the Americas of this time was a slave. They weren't.


And it was broader than that, even though things changed back and forth in various States and Territories prior to 1920.

In any case it hardly matters. It has been 100 years! Yes, I realize that's still within the memory of a lot of the old bats here but get with the times if you can and pull the sticks out of your asses. The coronaries you prevent may be your own.

I'm not assuming that every person was a slave. I said, the founding fathers were only thinking about white men who should have equality. I also went on to point out that slavery didn't end for something like another 80-100 years and women only got to vote (like equals) about 200 years later. I think my point was pretty clear and embroidering my statement with suppositions, doesn't make it so.

 

[Debrah N.]

You're comparing what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution (who were busy trying to form a new government) did over 230 years ago to today? That's an apples and oranges observation.

Women didn't even have the right to vote at that time. They since obtained the right to vote in 1920. Slavery and indentured servitude was an acceptable practice at that time, though it was highly controversial even then. Slavery was eradicated in 1865, with many other civil rights issues addressed as the U.S. matured. Jim Crow laws were enacted in certain parts of the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which meant a huge step backwards, but the last of those laws were eradicated in 1965.

Slavery was such a hot button issue when the Framers began forming the Constitution that they deliberately put it aside. Several reasons for that, in addition to the more pressing and immediate issue of getting a Constitution ratified. Concerns over private property rights and protection of same overruled the need to immediately address slavery. Franklin, in particular, believed that emancipation would eventually come about.

No country is perfect, even Canada, but the Framers ensured that they created a system whereby inequities could be addressed within that framework.

One item of interest, perhaps: The Framers had a completely different outlook toward women than most Americans today. This article from the Smithsonian addresses some of that and, in particular, with how some Framers interacted with women who were not their wives.

The term "Coverture" as adopted from English common law, restricted women, particularly married women, who required them to adopt their legal status from their husbands. It didn't take long for women to begin activism toward suffrage.

Federalist 54, as written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius addressed slavery only within how seats in the House of Representatives were to be apportioned. Madison recognized slaves as both being property and people and thus proposed a solution, the so-called "three-fifths" solution which allocated a single slave as three-fifths of a person. This was eventually annulled by the 14th Amendment.

My point in all this is that the Framers were aware of these issues (blacks and women) but could not address those at the time. It took time and even some blood to get to where we are today.

Aware!!! of the issues??? They had slaves for goodness sake! Six of them had multiple slaves and even Ulysses S. Grant had one.Of course they weren't going to address the issue! Sounds like you're whitewashing their 'intentions'. Taking into consideration the time lag between that document, the freeing of slaves and women getting the vote, it seems pretty clear who they thought should be considered equal.

 

[dilettante]

https://www.historymuseum.ca/virtual-museum-of-new-france/population/slavery/

... black slaves arrived in Canada only towards the end of the seventeenth century. Despite colonial officials’ oft-reiterated yearning to have African slaves imported to the colony, no slave ship ever reached the St. Lawrence valley. Those black slaves who arrived in the region came from the neighbouring British colonies, from which they were smuggled or where they were taken as war captives. A number of Canadian merchants also brought black slaves back from their business trips to the south, in Louisiana or in the French Caribbean.​

​

In Canada, the majority of slaves were not of African, but rather of Aboriginal origin. Native populations customarily subjugated war captives before the arrival of the French, but this practice acquired new meanings and unprecedented proportions in the context of western expansion.​

A large number of Canadian slaves were actually liberated as the US took over many territories, of the French in particular.

 

[Buckeye]

Aware!!! of the issues??? They had slaves for goodness sake! Six of them had multiple slaves and even Ulysses S. Grant had one.Of course they weren't going to address the issue! Sounds like you're whitewashing their 'intentions'. Taking into consideration the time lag between that document, the freeing of slaves and women getting the vote, it seems pretty clear who they thought should be considered equal.

So, when did Canadian First Nations people get the absolute right to vote in your national elections? Hint: It was within my lifetime.