Historical Documents Vs Poitical Correctness

[SweetWitch]

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

Have we gone too far?

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

I'm not a big fan of biassed news networks, but this article has to make you think.

And maybe scratch your head...

 

[sr71plt]

Sounds sort of like the label some thought should go on MacDonald's cardboard coffee cups: "Hey lady, don't put this cup of coffee straight out the window between your thighs and then do a wheelie in your car."

 

[SweetWitch]

Sounds sort of like the label some thought should go on MacDonald's cardboard coffee cups: "Hey lady, don't put this cup of coffee straight out the window between your thighs and then do a wheelie in your car."

You're so bad.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That small publishing company needs to go out of business. We teach the Constitution straight, point out that slavery existed at the time and that women didn't have the vote at the time and that things change over time. That's just regular curriculum in American History. And it was back when I took U.S. history, too. What's their candy-assed problem?

 

[SweetWitch]

That small publishing company needs to go out of business. We teach the Constitution straight, point out that slavery existed at the time and that women didn't have the vote at the time and that things change over time. That's just regular curriculum in American History. And it was back when I took U.S. history, too. What's their candy-assed problem?

I wonder what country they come from?

 

[3113]

Too Far? According to many of the founders, not far enough!

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

Have we gone too far?

Why too far? And why not? History is history. Why not explain to a bunch of kids that slave owners signed a document about all men being created equal, while not allowing women, blacks or Native Americans equality? Why not discuss with them why a war for "freedom" didn't include the slaves they owned? It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. How can they respect what they read if it reeks of hypocrisy and no one gives them the context to understand why?

Besides, the VERY SAME questions were asked back then, back during the war of Independence and afterwards. The VERY SAME critiques were made back then. If the framers of the constitution, the founders, etc. asked all these VERY SAME questions of themselves and what they were writing...why shouldn't parents and children reading it now?

Thomas Jefferson, among others, said that the one thing he never, ever wanted was for the founders to be held as sacred or like gods, nor for the things they wrote to be viewed as infallible, holy writ. This is not a Bible. These are living, breathing documents and many of those who wrote it expected, wanted, and believed that they should change and be changed as the future demanded. And they expected, wanted and believed that for America to remain true to itself, people needed to argue, think, discuss and understand whether what the founders had written was still true or if new information made it false--like whether blacks ought to be viewed as citizens, and women on par with men.

Why shouldn't a publisher urge parents to discuss the context of what's written there? Or let me put it another way--why should such documents be read, memorized and/or followed by children blindly? Is that REALLY what you think the people who wrote them wanted us to do?

Stop viewing this "warning" label as nonsense. I would argue that it is exactly in the spirit of those who wrote those words. To take nothing for granted, to examine, argue, consider, think, and discuss. People died and gave their lives in hopes that we would never, ever accept such documents as unquestionable laws passed down by a king. That we would always recognize it as our duty to question and critique them. The label is right to suggest discussion rather than just telling parents to force it down their kids throats as if it were holy writ.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

They do publish some odd things . . .



http://wilderpublications.com/

 

[3113]

Sounds sort of like the label some thought should go on MacDonald's cardboard coffee cups: "Hey lady, don't put this cup of coffee straight out the window between your thighs and then do a wheelie in your car."

Talk about apples and oranges. I see nothing in a story about a woman requiring painful skin grafts on six percent of her body thanks to a hot coffee spill as equal to a label suggesting parents discuss the historical context with children of the framers of the constitution.

 

[3113]

That small publishing company needs to go out of business. We teach the Constitution straight, point out that slavery existed at the time and that women didn't have the vote at the time and that things change over time. That's just regular curriculum in American History. And it was back when I took U.S. history, too. What's their candy-assed problem?

Their candy-assed problem is that places like Texas are requiring teachers NOT teach anything negative about U.S. history. Their problem is that places like Arizona are outlawing "Ethnic" history.

So where do you discuss that the founders were slave owners?

I think this "warning" quite timely given what we're seeing. Like governors who celebrate the confederate and insists the war was about states rights and not slavery. In such a revisionist climate, maybe we do need candy-ass warnings on how to discuss the historical context of the constitution rather than listening to so many talk-show hosts who insist we feed it to kids as rote, as if historical context doesn't matter.

 

[SweetWitch]

Ah, I've rattled your cage with that one, 3113. My work here is done.

 

[TE999]

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

Have we gone too far?



I'm not a big fan of biassed news networks, but this article has to make you think.

And maybe scratch your head...

Scratch my head? This pisses me off. The founders words were well thought out, excruciatingly rewritten and fought over. They were creating a form of government heretofore never known in human history. They meant what they said and they said what they meant. They also allowed the document to be amended... appended actually...to take into account societal changes. It is the foundation on which this countrys' form of government rests. Putting warning labels on our founding documents like they're a toaster or a stepladder is both insulting and demeaning.

 

[R. Richard]

The people who wrote the Constition, the Declaration of Independence, etc. were business people of their day. They had to let the slave owners keep their slaves, or the South would never have signed on. It was accepted at the time, that only property owners really deserved the vote. If you had no skin in the game, you didn't count.

Not too well known is that most of the major figures involved in the American Revolution owed big bucks to English interests, mainly the King. If the Americas remained a colony of England, they were heavily in debt. If there was a successful revolution, they were rich men.

The Civil War/War Between The States theoretically could have been avoided. The South told the North, "If you don't want us to have slaves, then buy our slaves from us at prevailing market rates." The North could afford to buy the slaves, so there was a war.

 

[sr71plt]

Talk about apples and oranges. I see nothing in a story about a woman requiring painful skin grafts on six percent of her body thanks to a hot coffee spill as equal to a label suggesting parents discuss the historical context with children of the framers of the constitution.

Guess you walked into the movie in the second reel then. The woman is just as responsible for not being stupid as those reading historical documents are. Personal responsibility. I guess we should put a label on that coffee cup not to wrestle alligators while drinking the coffee too. And . . . and . . . Well, you see what I mean (but then maybe you don't).

Bottom line. A woman ordering hot coffee through a MacDonald's window should take care of herself on what she does with it--and those reading historical documents should get a clue on how to read them--both without handholding or running off and blaming someone else when they haven't been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[xssve]

One of the many religions founded in the Ninteenth century, The New Thought movement, pretty harmless, similar to Scientology without the paranoia.

They probably object to the fact that women are not mentioned in the Thirteenth amendment.

 

[3113]

Ah, I've rattled your cage with that one, 3113. My work here is done.

You've rattled my cage by being cliche and boring, once again. Is this the most imaginative your brain gets? Single parents, political correctness (or a small publisher that likely no one reads?). Really? What's next? Whether women should be burning their bras and what about these hippies?

it's so...20th century. Isn't it about time you brought that brain up to date? Maybe argued something new instead of sounding like some little old lady in a rest home?

And regarding this desire to rattle cages....given how dull your topics are, I'm not surprised you're starved for attention. Nor that you get a thrill on the rare occasions someone gives it to you.

 

[sr71plt]

Scratch my head? This pisses me off. The founders words were well thought out, excruciatingly rewritten and fought over. They were creating a form of government heretofore never known in human history. They meant what they said and they said what they meant. They also allowed the document to be amended... appended actually...to take into account societal changes. It is the foundation on which this countrys' form of government rests. Putting warning labels on our founding documents like they're a toaster or a stepladder is both insulting and demeaning.

They weren't creating a form of government, really. They were trying to clean up a form of government (under the Articles of Confederation--the Constitution came a decade later) they'd already created and that wasn't working well. They discovered that a purer form of democracy wasn't working--the electorate were dumb as rocks on how to keep a ship afloat. So the framers wrote a Constitution that tried to make it all more workable (principally by pulling back on individual rights). And, in response, the states couldn't garner enough support to pass the Constitution the framers had written until they had watered it down by pulling back in some of the individual rights the framers were trying to get rid of in the form of the Bill of Rights. They didn't "allow the document to be amended." The amendments were forced down their throats.

The Constitution isn't some sort of Hollywood bible that Charleton Heston brought down from Mount McKinley.

It was hammered out by men who didn't agree on everything and compromised and then had to compromise again big time after they signed it and wanted to go home.

Nor did they give much thought to the evils of slavery at the time. Most of them were either using them or shipping them.

The U.S. system has stayed afloat by trimming and padding the underlying documentation continually throughout U.S. history--and by writing nice flowery phrases for public consumption on how great and noble and farsighted the framers were. Not everyone needs the hoodwinking to know the foundations need to breathe with the changing times.

 

[SweetWitch]

You've rattled my cage by being cliche and boring, once again. Is this the most imaginative your brain gets? Single parents, political correctness (or a small publisher that likely no one reads?). Really? What's next? Whether women should be burning their bras and what about these hippies?

it's so...20th century. Isn't it about time you brought that brain up to date? Maybe argued something new instead of sounding like some little old lady in a rest home?

And regarding this desire to rattle cages....given how dull your topics are, I'm not surprised you're starved for attention. Nor that you get a thrill on the rare occasions someone gives it to you.

To be honest, I enjoy watching you—and a few others—get worked up in your self-righteous and pious self-absorption. Don’t be offended. It’s how you’re made, this “angry woman” thing you have going on. I’ve don’t recall seeing you contribute anything other than rants and rage to any discussion, but that’s okay. It’s your thing.

Others make jokes, make valid points and don’t resort to attempting to point out the flaws in those with whom they are conversing. But a few people like to feel better by tearing at others. I was merely giving them the opportunity. It is my wish that you enjoy yourself and make the best of it.

As far as needing attention—well, don’t we all? Don’t you? Isn’t that why you point your finger and fall into the same pattern of name-calling and general rudeness? It’s all subjective and perfectly understandable.

Boring? Yes, I can be. There are times when I do stupid things like jumping out of airplanes or diving into frigid winter waters just to remember I’m alive.

Annoying (I believe you used the word “cliché”)? Most certainly. I have my own little pleasures in life and one of them is to be that fly buzzing your left ear until you swat yourself in the head. I get a kick out of it.

I post things like the story in this thread because I study human behavior and human nature. I use the things I learn from those who respond to formulate the characters in my stories. It’s all writerly and it’s a blast for me.

Are you having as much fun?

 

[xssve]

Wow. I actually think you Two agree more than you disagree, so if you're gonna fight, take pics.

And yeah, the whole Fox line on, "don't buy from this publisher" is purely motivated by their whole neo-con originalist bent.

I'm going to duck and run now - you don't see anything... these aren't the droids you're looking for...

 

[TE999]

The U.S. system has stayed afloat by trimming and padding the underlying documentation continually throughout U.S. history--and by writing nice flowery phrases for public consumption on how great and noble and farsighted the framers were. Not everyone needs the hoodwinking to know the foundations need to breathe with the changing times.

I don't know about that. Sure, they weren't gods, but they were intelligent men. I know the popular PC thinking now is that they were a bunch of rich, slave holding, misogynistic, racist white guys and their words don't reflect society today. To that I say bull crap. The Constitution didn't come with escape clauses and exceptions...it created a form of government that has lasted over 200 years and has allowed more personal freedom than any other country in the world.

I know there's the usual whining about racism and sexism in our history, but that was a manifestation of society not the form of government delineated in the Constitution.

 

[SweetWitch]

Wow. I actually think you Two agree more than you disagree, so if you're gonna fight, take pics.

And yeah, the whole Fox line on, "don't buy from this publisher" is purely motivated by their whole neo-con originalist bent.

I'm going to duck and run now - you don't see anything... these aren't the droids you're looking for...

Bwaahaaahaaahaaaaa

You have learned much, young Skywalker.

 

[sr71plt]

I The Constitution didn't come with escape clauses and exceptions...it created a form of government that has lasted over 200 years and has allowed more personal freedom than any other country in the world.

Sure it did. They're called amendments. And the Constitution couldn't even get passed until a bunch of them had been added on. (I kind of think you didn't even read my post.) And beyond that there is interpretation--which has come in all three forms. Judicial, legislative, and executive.

And Hallelujah for that. THAT's the reason the government has lasted over 200 years and moved (eventually) with the times on various forms of freedoms.

Perhaps printings of these really should come with labels. It appears that some folks are as simple-minded about it now as they were back then when they had to throw the "individual empowerment" Articles of Confederation out and try for something more workable and practical.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

We make rather a big issue out here about how hard it was for the Framers to hammer this thing out. We have the kids role play the participants and have "Ben Franklin" comment on the various stages of the process. We think it gives them a solid foundation on which to examine the political life of the country. That should hardly require a warning.

 

[sr71plt]

To be honest, I enjoy watching you—and a few others—get worked up in your self-righteous and pious self-absorption. Don’t be offended. It’s how you’re made, this “angry woman” thing you have going on. I’ve don’t recall seeing you contribute anything other than rants and rage to any discussion, but that’s okay. It’s your thing.

Yeah, sort of. I'd come to think of 3113 as one of the most level-headed posters here. But that response to me on this thread certainly seemed to be indication that someone mistakenly put on little sister's knickers this morning.

 

[SweetWitch]

Yeah, sort of. I'd come to think of 3113 as one of the most level-headed posters here. But that response to me on this thread certainly seemed to be indication that someone mistakenly put on little sister's knickers this morning.

Oh yeah? Well, nyaah!

 

[TE999]

Sure it did. They're called amendments. And the Constitution couldn't even get passed until a bunch of them had been added on. (I kind of think you didn't even read my post.) And beyond that there is interpretation--which has come in all three forms. Judicial, legislative, and executive.

And Hallelujah for that. THAT's the reason the government has lasted over 200 years and moved (eventually) with the times on various forms of freedoms.

Perhaps printings of these really should come with labels. It appears that some folks are as simple-minded about it now as they were back then when they had to throw the "individual empowerment" Articles of Confederation out and try for something more workable and practical.

I read your post...and I mentioned amendments earlier...what I meant was the language of our founding documents is straight and to the point. Of course now 'the pursuit of happiness' has been interpreted to mean the guarantee of happiness with the government as the provider. Lincoln once commented that God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them...he must love the dull-witted and ill-informed as well.

Pure Democracy never works...it's the tyranny of the majority.