Wouldn't it be shocking to find that one of the United States' two most important founding documents contains a racial slur? That it denigrates lazy "darkies"? Or conniving "slant-eyes"? Or bloodthirsty "savages"?

Those first two examples aren't in the US Declaration of Independance, but the last one is. When airing their grievances against King Geroge III, the Founders wrote:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and had endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Of course, the truth of the matter is that some Native Americans did indeed massacre settlers. But some settlers, not to mention military troops, were also slaughtering Indians. And just who was encrouching on whom?

Now, I'm not saying we should change the Declaration; I'm opposed to revising the past, and that goes double for such a momentous document. But if I were a Native American, knowing that my country's first landmark document slurs my people wouldn't sit well.

On a related note, California's Constitution (the second version, from 1879, which is still in force) contained horrible slurs and measures against Chinese people. It specified that no private or public employer may hire Chinese, that Chinese should be thrown out of cities and towns, and that the state should bar them from entering. A particularly vicious clause called on the legislature to take action against the "burdens of evils arising from the presence of aliens who are or may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invallids infected with contagious diseases, and from aliens otherwise dangerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State." Those racist sections were soon declared unconstitutional by the courts and were struck from the constitution.

One should search for the "U.S. Constitution & 3/5". It names no people in general, but the intent is there.

Again such is the perils of forcing the ethics and morality of one age against another. There of cource were those outspoken aginst such issues like slavery etc. But in an interests of compromise some stuff like that was included.

A testament to the foresight and ingenuity of the founding fathers they put forth mechanisms that allowed the Constitution etc. to be modified to keep pace with the times.

Look at faith, the Catholic Church is still trying to sort out condoms. The current Pope has sent it to the medical and ethics commission to weigh up the sin of putting your seed on the ground versus AIDS. If all you've got to worry about is a few disparaging remarks as seen 200 years on, then you're doing ok. (I'm British, just don't get me on guns.......)

((TRG* stands in the line with all the 'bloodthirsty savages'.........not only am I 1/4th Apache but I love a rare steak
Count me as one ))

Consider the time period it was written.

Also, it was written by those who won a war against the native american indians. The invaders won.

History and documents are written by the victors of wars.

It happens all the time.

You can't use todays standards against people from 250 years ago.

Different time period. Different thought process. Different situation.
We aren't living through it.

"consider the time period it was written"

why does that seem to be the catch phrase?

what would this time be?
what would the future time be?

thats a cop out response, considering the grand scheme...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Consider the time period it was written.

Also, it was written by those who won a war against the native american indians. The invaders won.

History and documents are written by the victors of wars.

It happens all the time.

You can't use todays standards against people from 250 years ago.

Different time period. Different thought process. Different situation.
We aren't living through it.

This is a little strange, you talk about 'standards from 250 years ago' and to 'consider the time period it was written' as reason to dismiss or ignore this particular detail and yet, you wouldn't think of dismissing or ignoring the rest of the content of the Constitution would you? Isn't this really being selective and 'cherry-picking'?

Why not say, 'well let's look at the time period, the context of 250 years ago, we'd just had a war with Britain but it was such a long time ago, it doesn't really matter now' and just get rid of your right to bear arms?

You talk about the standards of people 250 years ago, yet aren't Americans constantly using those standards of 250 years ago as a moral and legal compass on these threads all the time: "it's in the Constitution!", "it's unConstitutional!", "they're threatening our Constitution!" and so on.

Originally posted by Grock
But if I were a Native American...

You'd have a Casino.

Maybe we have reached a time where we can delete or change that remark.

While i enjoy being a savage and i enjoy being remarked about in the constitution, it still dont feel right. People are changing school names, sports teams, geographical landmarks etc... why not the big C?

I bet you wouldnt think that way if you were a Native American... Savage.

"we conqured you so deal with it"

is the main response generated by this thread btw...

by the way, this is literally in the Constitution:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and had endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."


just to bring those who refuse to read, up to speed...

Originally posted by Grock
Maybe we have reached a time where we can delete or change that remark.

But we can't change a line in the Declaration of Independance. Wether we want to change it or not is irrelavent. It WAS a declaration of what the people of THAT TIME were doing, and why they were doing it.

IT'S DONE.

We are free from British rule(on paper anyway, but that's another conspiracy). The Declaration itself is now part of history. It is NOT a legal document.

It would be like going back and changing the wording of our declaration of war against Germany in WWII. It wouldn't make any sense would it?

Btw, I'm native american. Many people 250 years ago were racist. Many people are racist now. We've changed very little...

Vas