Saturday, September 26, 2009

Rewriting the Declaration of Independence?

Via Old Virginia Blog:

Moore told LSR his fifth-grader had to memorize the Declaration of Independence. One catch -- the words were altered: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..." Of course the actual text of the document said "all men are created equal."


PC Rewriting Of History?

Spencer

11 comments:

olde.fashioned said...

That's just wrong.

duva said...

Isn't it quite a logical alteration though? That declaration was made in an era when society was of, with and for men while women were seen as inferior beings; so, today when males and females are (supposedly) equal using a word that applies to them both should make sense, no?

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Well, in those days "man" was used to describe humanity as a race, but that's beside the point.

The point is, that's not what it says.

duva said...

And "man" was used as humanity as a race because humanity as a race *was* men in those days. What's the problem with changing a word to match the worldview of today? Even Edmund Burke would despise the idea of keeping it static.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Because, if you call something the Declaration of Independence and it has a word changed, then it is no longer the Declaration of Independence!

At its very best, this is merely dishonest. At its worst? Well....

olde.fashioned said...

The point is, as Spencer stated, they've altered the wording of the Declaration of Independence when they have absolutely on right to make that call. If the American people object to the usage of the word "man" and would like to change it to something else, then fine -- let's vote on it. But it is absolutely unacceptable and downright shameful for someone to rewrite a historical document to suit their personal preferences.

duva said...

Oh.. I misunderstood you. I thought it was part of the constitution (you can't expect me to keep check of all your fancy American documents, can you? ;)). Then I understand completely of course, sorry about that.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

I agree, Lauren. Even if it WAS the Constitution, duva, you can't change what it says. If we want to change the wording, then that can be done via proper legislation, NOT dishonest practices such as seen here.

Nuttycomputer said...

Seems like it was only the artwork on the front that changed the language and not the textbook itself.

Since art is interpretation and our interpretation of those words has changed to mean "people" I see no issue with it.

The teacher however should have been going off what was in the textbook and not what the pretty pictures said. That's the only problem I have.

In other news Spencer, the Supreme Court is going to hear McDonald vs. Chicago and possibly rule on Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. Better yet they may rule on the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th and overturn the Slaughter-House rulings. I'm excited to hear the case next year.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Thank you. I admit I've been waaay too behind lately. Lots of crap for me lately (will write your wife soon, you can read it then as I'm not public about it yet), so I appreciate the heads-up.

Read a bit. Now it is time to see if Heller was a fluke or their true opinion. It's in God's hands now.

Spencer

duva said...

"If we want to change the wording, then that can be done via proper legislation, NOT dishonest practices such as seen here."

Of course, I was merely stating that I don't think change should be feared for the sake of change.