Read on Twitter
*cackle* I loooove when a journal article's first sentence is almost entirely wrong.
Like, general citizenry is who, dude? Because I can guarantee you that this shit's wrong. (People who valorise Jefferson need to calm down.)
Like, general citizenry is who, dude? Because I can guarantee you that this shit's wrong. (People who valorise Jefferson need to calm down.)
Oh, yes. People-first. Again, which people? Because that might answer a lot of questions that you're about to throw out the window.
Hahaha, WHAT? He only wanted most white men to be able to read well enough to handle elections and for white men to do enough math that let them figure out business.
And everyone else could go fuck themselves in terms of governing. But okay.
And everyone else could go fuck themselves in terms of governing. But okay.
Oh, thank goodness. Someone did respond to this nonsense article after it was published. I may actually get some useful information from someone.
Especially because the awful article I'm currently reading just blew right by this bit and didn't stop to examine who fit into which group.
I mean... who are labourers and who are the learned? This is difficult. /s
I mean... who are labourers and who are the learned? This is difficult. /s
For the record, this is where the man who wrote this article should've stopped and gone "Oh, yeah. The 'learned' were part of the wealthy classes and were basically the new non-blood-based aristocracy in the US."
Also, who were the labourers? Ah, yeah. That's also a problem.
Also, who were the labourers? Ah, yeah. That's also a problem.
The more I delve into this guy (see attached thread), the more I feel like this article would be a perfect piece for some video about reading things critically.
Because fucking YIKES. https://twitter.com/whatanerd/status/1386043135185334272
Because fucking YIKES. https://twitter.com/whatanerd/status/1386043135185334272
