Constitutional Convention of 1787-89

[smitcompton]

Hi,

The Encyclopedia (SP) Britanicca stated that "even as suffrage was broadly extended among adult white males,
though radical for its time, was by later standards highly unsatifatory. The right to vote originally was based on property, which included slaves. But unpropertied white men were not originally included. Of course women and blacks couldn't vote until much later, but white men also couldn't vote. There was much heated discussion of how the new Fed Gov would be represented. They could not agree on one house representing the population and so they had two different houses for representation.

There were many differences among the rep. Some refused to sign it. Out of 55 rep only 39 signed.

I looked it up because that woman from Canada who seems to think she knows all and tries to make others look stupid needed a response. I don't understand all the confrontations that some people thrive on. My memory is still good. I do forget the details at times but remember the gist.

Annette

 

[redwood66]

Pay it no mind @smitcompton. You are a lovely person with your own opinions. Trolling comments don't need or deserve a response.

Since we all like history:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-voting-rights

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/voting-in-early-canada-feature

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/franchise

 

[AGBF]

Pay it no mind @smitcompton. You are a lovely person with your own opinions. Trolling comments don't need or deserve a response.

Agreed. Annette is wonderful.

Since we all like history:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-voting-rights

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/voting-in-early-canada-feature

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/franchise

You, on the other hand, must be some sort of commie to be using foreign dictionaries. I hope the government investigates you.

Deb

 

[arkieb1]

I think most of the younger people on here would have no clue what an Encyclopedia even is, they have the internet for everything and they seem to believe all the cr@* written on it like it must be the truth.

 

[redwood66]

Agreed. Annette is wonderful.



You, on the other hand, must be some sort of commie to be using foreign dictionaries. I hope the government investigates you.

Deb

Love you too. Though I needed to go to the source right?

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think most of the younger people on here would have no clue what an Encyclopedia even is, they have the internet for everything and they seem to believe all the cr@* written on it like it must be the truth.

So true! I remember my grandparents had an entire Encyclopedia set/series. I used to spend hours perusing them; I wish I had them today, if nothing else as a conversation piece and nostalgia.

 

[redwood66]

So true! I remember my grandparents had an entire Encyclopedia set/series. I used to spend hours perusing them; I wish I had them today, if nothing else as a conversation piece and nostalgia.

Oh my dear, I still have the set my parents bought when I was in high school. Plus a full set of Time Life Great Ages of Man, and a full set of the Time Life Popular Mechanics. Time Life book sets were very popular with my parents when I was a kid. No internet but we sure had tons of books to read and every month it was so exciting to see what was going to come in the mail.

Edit - my kids enjoyed them too.

 

[stracci2000]

Yes, @redwood66, Dad liked the Time/Life books! We had Great Ages of Man, too! I loved those books, especially Ancient Egypt!
We had Nat'l Parks, WWII, etc. And we had the World Book Encyclopedia. It helped me so much in school. It really was my 'go to' for all my school projects and reports.
Not to mention our National Geographic subscription since 1977.
And when I married, I picked right up on the subscription and I still get it to this day.

 

[redwood66]

Yes, @redwood66, Dad liked the Time/Life books! We had Great Ages of Man, too! I loved those books, especially Ancient Egypt!
We had Nat'l Parks, WWII, etc. And we had the World Book Encyclopedia. It helped me so much in school. It really was my 'go to' for all my school projects and reports.
Not to mention our National Geographic subscription since 1977.
And when I married, I picked right up on the subscription and I still get it to this day.

I would like to get my parents set of Time Life The Old West eventually. They look leather tooled and it was so interesting reading them. Probably my favorites. My grandma (97) is still living in her home, built in 1959, and she has a closet full of National Geographics that they started when my mom was a kid. All of the generations have looked at them for years when visiting.

 

[cmd2014]

I looked it up because that woman from Canada who seems to think she knows all and tries to make others look stupid needed a response.
Annette

What??? Did someone hack my account while I was at work and make snide remarks about voting?

Hey, we aren’t perfect here either. I think every country has its own history of oppression and discrimination. The US is neither unique or alone here. Read what Quebec is doing re: banning people from wearing religious symbols in public and you’ll quickly realize that it is stemming from the same populist racist anti immigrant, anti Muslim garbage that is circulating elsewhere.

 

[AGBF]

I am too young to have have enjoyed having a set of World Book Encyclopedias in my home while I was growing up. I am sorry that I cannot relate to the discussion that you older ladies are having.

 

[Gussie]

Remember looking up journal publications in a HUGE book with tiny print and then going to another huge book to Xerox the articles or print from microfilm...in an actual library?

Thank goodness I had to do that - may never have met DH!

 

[Garnetgirl]

No, we aren't perfect here in Canada. Just to clarify, the Quebec law bans religious symbols for public servants in positions of authority such teachers, police officers and other. It doesn't ban ordinary citizens from wearing what they want in public.
However, there has been some ugly backlash in that regard. I don't know if it has increased since the law came into effect, but it certainly can't be helping matters.

What??? Did someone hack my account while I was at work and make snide remarks about voting?

Hey, we aren’t perfect here either. I think every country has its own history of oppression and discrimination. The US is neither unique or alone here. Read what Quebec is doing re: banning people from wearing religious symbols in public and you’ll quickly realize that it is stemming from the same populist racist anti immigrant, anti Muslim garbage that is circulating elsewhere.

 

[AGBF]

Just to clarify, the Quebec law bans religious symbols for public servants in positions of authority such teachers, police officers and other. It doesn't ban ordinary citizens from wearing what they want in public.

La France est comme Québec. Il y a beaucoup de séparation entre l'état et l'église.

In the United States we have the freedom to practice any religion or no religion. The French restrict how much people can practice religion in a zelous effort to keep religion out of public spaces. Or might there be ulterior motives with some religions?

 

[Garnetgirl]

La France est comme Québec. Il y a beaucoup de séparation entre l'état et l'église.

In the United States we have the freedom to practice any religion or no religion. The French restrict how much people can practice religion in a zelous effort to keep religion out of public spaces. Or might there be ulterior motives with some religions?

Definitely, the law seems to target certain religions, though the politicians swear black and blue that that's not the case...

 

[cmd2014]

Definitely, the law seems to target certain religions, though the politicians swear black and blue that that's not the case...

The law is clearly designed to discriminate against men and women of certain religious backgrounds no matter what the politicians say. People can tuck crosses and Stars of David discretely underneath their shirt collars and not be in violation of the law; you can't do the same with a hijab or a turban. And there was talk of banning people (not just public servants) from wearing religious symbols while using public services (so banning women from wearing a hijab on the bus, for example, or from going to a public library or a hospital or appearing in court), but iirc, that has not yet been put into effect.

And there has been a lot of ugly backlash since this has occurred. Like what has happened in the US, these populist movements seem to have given people permission to say and do things that they would likely have otherwise refrained from doing (at least in public). There have been a number of incidents caught on camera of predominantly white men harassing predominantly Muslim women and saying terrible (racist, sexist, and just plain foul) things to them. I was shocked the first time I saw it on the news. Sadly, I'm not now. There have always been people who have expressed these feelings behind closed doors, but now they are loud and proud and they don't care who knows it.

So anti-immigrant sentiment is not exclusive to the US or Europe (where it is becoming increasingly more common as well). This is something spreading across all corners of the world. I am seeing it more and more where I live, even though we don't face the same pressure that our Francophone populations have in regard to maintaining their cultural identity.

 

[AGBF]

So anti-immigrant sentiment is not exclusive to the US or Europe (where it is becoming increasingly more common as well). This is something spreading across all corners of the world. I am seeing it more and more where I live....

I have always loved the French language. My father was stationed in France during World War II and I heard him speaking French, not much but with a great accent, when I was a child. I always opted to take French over Spanish when I had to choose between the two in school, but eventually was able to add Spanish as another language when I attended a high school that required two foreign languages for graduation.

Even now, many years after I qualified for all my university degrees I am still working on my French. I am about to finish my French "tree" on Duolingo, a language website where I am also studying four other languages. I do not always love the French approach to law and culture, however, although that is a huge subject that could take up many threads.

For our purposes here perhaps it is enough to stipulate that neither the French Canadian nor the French in France appear to be greatly more tolerant of people who are different from the majority of their population than are Americans or Europeans. And that is what you just stated, cmd.

Deb/AGBF

 

[cmd2014]

Deb, I wouldn't exclude the rest of Canada from being intolerant either. Or other parts of Europe other than France. I did not mean to single out Quebec (or the French) - it was merely an example of what we are seeing here too. Sometimes people here like to be a bit smug when comparing ourselves to Americans, but the truth is that we struggle with many of the same issues here that you do there. Perhaps just on a slightly smaller scale, given that there are so many more of you than there are of us.

 

[redwood66]

The law is clearly designed to discriminate against men and women of certain religious backgrounds no matter what the politicians say. People can tuck crosses and Stars of David discretely underneath their shirt collars and not be in violation of the law; you can't do the same with a hijab or a turban. And there was talk of banning people (not just public servants) from wearing religious symbols while using public services (so banning women from wearing a hijab on the bus, for example, or from going to a public library or a hospital or appearing in court), but iirc, that has not yet been put into effect.

And there has been a lot of ugly backlash since this has occurred. Like what has happened in the US, these populist movements seem to have given people permission to say and do things that they would likely have otherwise refrained from doing (at least in public). There have been a number of incidents caught on camera of predominantly white men harassing predominantly Muslim women and saying terrible (racist, sexist, and just plain foul) things to them. I was shocked the first time I saw it on the news. Sadly, I'm not now. There have always been people who have expressed these feelings behind closed doors, but now they are loud and proud and they don't care who knows it.

So anti-immigrant sentiment is not exclusive to the US or Europe (where it is becoming increasingly more common as well). This is something spreading across all corners of the world. I am seeing it more and more where I live, even though we don't face the same pressure that our Francophone populations have in regard to maintaining their cultural identity.

I find it strange that Canada would ban a hijab. It doesn't cover the face and if women are comfortable wearing it then let them alone. Now a full face covering burka is something else entirely and my objections to it are for security purposes, not any other reason. Pretty much the same reason I am against protests by people with their faces covered.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Disclaimer : I'm not French, but currently living there.
Their "laïcité" is seen as a pillar of their democracy. As opposed to most western countries (and all I've personally experienced), this doesn't mean "freedom of religion". It means to them that they aspire " freedom from any religion in the public space".
Took me a while to understand, since the "freedom of religion" term is sometimes used (falsely) in translations.
And a.) this goes for ALL religious symbols, Christian included.

And b.) it's obviously a problematic topic and whilst they aspire to it, it makes for bizarre everyday situations, since the roots of this country are deeply catholic. So the practicing catholics resent the very principle, while the self proclaimed leftists even deny the christian foundation of today's state. Which i inaccurate and doesn't help understanding today's system in a scientific context.

Example : I volunteered for a christmas workshop for my daughter's preschool. Wanted to make the CUTEST tree ornaments, that might involve references to a nativity scene (planting teeny figurines in walnut shells). Not allowed. Too religious. I did gingerbread houses instead. But Christmas is still a public holiday... So I was confused. Following that logic I would think you'd need to call it belated winter solstice again. Or not make it a holiday. But it's called Christmas and everyone regardless of religion has a day off. Evry tiniest village is heavily decorated. Bells are OK. But crosses anywhere are a big no-no.



Thus is just to clarify the long history of "laïcité" in France. And give a real life example how difficult the topic is, even for a long standing aspiration of total neutrality.

And no, it didn't make anyone more tolerant, unfortunately..

 

[cmd2014]

I find it strange that Canada would ban a hijab. It doesn't cover the face and if women are comfortable wearing it then let them alone. Now a full face covering burka is something else entirely and my objections to it are for security purposes, not any other reason. Pretty much the same reason I am against protests by people with their faces covered.

Canada as a whole didn't. It’s just in Quebec, and it’s currently limited to people in certain professions (sounds like it’s limited to people working in jobs paid for by the provincial government such as those in education, law enforcement, and health care) wearing those types of things to work. Maybe it is based in the French cultural idea of completely separating church from state, but the timing and application of it seems to suggest otherwise. We are seeing a rise in populism here too with provincial government elections reflecting it the most so far.

 

[redwood66]

Canada as a whole didn't. It’s just in Quebec, and it’s currently limited to people in certain professions (sounds like it’s limited to people working in jobs paid for by the provincial government such as those in education, law enforcement, and health care) wearing those types of things to work. Maybe it is based in the French cultural idea of completely separating church from state, but the timing and application of it seems to suggest otherwise. We are seeing a rise in populism here too with provincial government elections reflecting it the most so far.

IMO this and what @kipari described is taking it too far and involves government in parts of people's lives where it doesn't belong, not to mention being far too authoritarian. It allows people to be intolerant of others when they can use a law to complain or turn in their neighbors for something they don't agree with that isn't hurting anyone else in the slightest. How is a hijab hurting anyone? How is a nativity in a nutshell hurting anyone? What it also does is foster animosity in normal people with no ill intentions, all for the sake of making others feel comfortable. I am not talking about extremist views, just normal everyday Christians who might want to make Christmas decorations or the Muslim lady who is comfortable wearing her hijab. Neither of those things, and a myriad of others, are anyone else's business. And there are many more of those people than extremists, who will eventually decide enough is enough.

 

[AGBF]

Thus is just to clarify the long history of "laïcité" in France. And give a real life example how difficult the topic is, even for a long standing aspiration of total neutrality.

And no, it didn't make anyone more tolerant, unfortunately..

Thank you so much for your insight, kipari.

Deb

 

[AV_]

@kipari I know the side of France you mention, and have seen the same elsewhere ,( - transactions of power do not require gods.