为了纪念7月4日美国独立日，Nike设计了一款新鞋，鞋后帮带有星条旗的前身图案（Betsy Ross flag）。这批鞋已经到了店里，准备开卖。被kaepernick（第一位在橄榄球场为反对所谓种族歧视，而在升国旗下下跪的球员，后成Nike的代言人之一）和他同伙看到了，表示老星条旗来自美国的黑奴时代，非常冒犯人。于是，Nike把这款鞋撤了，不卖了。

原本Nike要在Arizona 开工厂。撤鞋事件发生后，AZ州长立即决定撤销州对Nike迁厂的政府财经资助。州长的推写得非常入情入理，建议通读（附后）。关于Betsy Ross其人其事，大家也可以搜索了解一下。

令人瞠目的是，人们发现2013年奥巴马第二任总统就职典礼上，巨幅Betsy Ross Flag高高悬挂，与国旗一起飘扬在国会山上！为什么没有人反对，没有人说这是对奴隶后裔们的羞辱？可见左左们完全无视事实，TDS太重，失心疯了！！

左派leading progressives坚称种族歧视（slavery)问题是伴随着美国建国而来的。还声称，美国就是建立在白人至上原则的国家，因为宪法的第一条就说奴隶是3/5的法人。虽然独立宣言中写道“all men are created equal”,但草拟法案的55人中有30人蓄奴。那么如何看待历史？是不是所有的历史都必须用当今的标准来衡量？这个话题留给大家讨论。在独立日来临之际，我们来重温一下历史的事实。

首先，建国之前，奴隶制已经在美洲存在150年以上。从1776年正式独立，到1865年永久禁止奴隶制被写进宪法（13修正案），奴隶制在美国成为国家后，只存在了89年。也就是说2/3的奴隶制时间是在建国之前。

其次，建国者看到了奴隶制的残酷，却不能在建国的同时，立即废除奴隶制。正如Jefferson形容的那样：“正像我们抓住狼的耳朵一样，既不能牢牢控制住他，也不能放心让其离开不伤及他人。在主张正义的同时，不能不顾及自我保护”

“As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is on one scale, and self-preservation in the other”

第一层是现实的考量： 当时，为了联合来自不同背景的13州人民（白人），为美国独立而战，必须最大限度求同存异，先立国，再逐步解决奴隶问题。

第二层是民主的考量: 重温独立宣言的第一段：

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that they are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

人生而平等；而政府的正当权利，则是经被统治者同意授予的。美国独立宣言主张政府的正当性力量来自于“被治者的同意”，意思是政府的目标是保护人民权利，而只有是建立在人民同意之上的政府型态才是具有正当性的。——请特别关注！

Jefferson进一步解释在当时解放黑奴和他们融入美国社会不仅仅是问题，而且不现实。当时不直接废奴，更主要是出于自我保护，并且要提出这废奴，必须得到被统治者的同意 （consent of the governed).当时的实际情况是，要求美国独立的大部分白人相信解放黑奴是会导致社会动荡，冲击他们的福利！对于一个民主体系，the consent of the governed至关重要。当时如果将废奴强加在大多数民意之上，会冲击民主的根基。何况，当时建国是首位，取得共识的。

第三，在立即废奴不现实的情况下，建国者卓有远见，将“人生而平等 all men are created equal”写进了独立宣言，并尽力限制奴隶制的扩大。而恰恰是美国的独立，开始了奴隶制的结束：建国时代，大约有六分之一的黑奴得到解放，13个州中有7个废除了奴隶制；1808年，国会禁止奴隶的买卖。林肯指出： 1784年的Congress of Confederation, 4 位未来在独立宣言上签字的framers,有三位在反对在西北地区（Ohio, IN, IL, MI, WI)推行奴隶制上投赞成票； 1789年，第一次正式国会召集大会上，所有16位framers一致赞成执行1787年禁止在西北地区推行奴隶制；林肯做过统计，39 位建国者中有23位曾倡议禁止或限制奴隶制。就连自己蓄奴的Jefferson, 1784年他在国会提出新法律，在美西部全面禁止奴隶制（差一票，没通过）；1807年，他公开支持废除买卖奴隶，国会通过。

第四，为什么开始的宪法黑人只能算3/5的投票人？左左们常常据此攻击建国者。而恰恰是这3/5， 是建国者用以平衡南北两方的权利：否则，南方因大量的黑人票数长久掌握权利，会导致废奴完全不可实现。

两害取其轻，林肯和废奴运动黑人先驱Frederick Douglass都认为建国者做出了最明智的选择：建国者保证了主张蓄奴的南方一直在美国国家内，并长期置于北方废奴主张的压力之下。Frederick Douglass曾说过 “I am, therefore, for drawing the bond of Union more closely, and bringing the slave States more completely under the power of the free States”

林肯曾说过“ Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil to avoid one”。对于独立宣言中声明的平等，林肯是这样评论建国者的“They [the signers of the Declaration of Independence] did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right; so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.”

他们并不是要断言当时所有人真正享有平等的明显谎言，他们也不会立即将这种平等交给他们。事实上，他们无权赋予这样的恩惠。他们只是为了确定平等的权利，直到条件许可时真正实现。

结语：

建国者确立了任何时候的平等权利，而他们当时努力做到的是建立一个国家，一种制度，并为美国成为自由标杆奠定了道德和政治基础。随着时间变迁和社会条件成熟，直到林肯时期彻底解决奴隶制，完成宣言中的人生而平等。他们不应该被指责成“giving America a false start. 更不应该声称美国就是建立在白人至上原则的国家。美国是世界上最自由，最开放包容，最平等的国家，我们应该为此骄傲。正如AZ州长所言：(We) should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.

https://twitter.com/dougducey/status/1145980544909340672?s=12

Today was supposed to be a good day in Arizona, with the announcement of a major @Nike investment in Goodyear, AZ. And then this news broke yesterday afternoon.

Words cannot express my disappointment at this terrible decision. I am embarrassed for Nike.Nike is an iconic American brand and American company. This country, our system of government and free enterprise have allowed them to prosper and flourish.

Instead of celebrating American history the week of our nation’s independence, Nike has apparently decided that Betsy Ross is unworthy, and has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism.

It is a shameful retreat for the company. American businesses should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.

Nike has made its decision, and now we’re making ours. I’ve ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority to withdraw all financial incentive dollars under their discretion that the State was providing for the company to locate here.

Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike. We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history.

And finally, it shouldn’t take a controversy over a shoe for our kids to know who Betsy Ross is. A founding mother. Her story should be taught in all American schools. In the meantime, it’s worth googling her.

强烈推荐参考书及电影：Death of a Nation；作者是一位美籍印度裔作家Dinesh D'Souza