Add, shamelessly enriching the elite at the expense of the people.

And, oh yeah, enabling genoocide.

  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    American independence was NOT to stop “shamelessly enriching the elites”. It was about a different set of elites being able to shamelessly enrich themselves.

    Prove me wrong.

    • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      History proves you right, though — and all of this outrage assumes that those not outraged still choose to read, think, care.

    • Kornblumenratte@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It was about the same elite being able to continue shamelessly enriching themself without interference from a wannabee autocrat.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The Magna Carta didn’t apply to serfs, but that doesn’t make it any less important to the history of political progress. I find the ideas of the founding fathers to be similar. Self serving, but an improvement none the less.

        • Kornblumenratte@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The Civil Rights the founding fathers defined did not apply to Natives, slaves and indentured servants. A step further than the Magna Charta, but less than the french revolution.