8 ms·
Declaration of Independence in American (1921)
- wgrover 10y agoRemarkable how much this reads like the libretto of Hamilton, 90 years earlier.
- smhenderson 10y agoWhen, during the Wilson-Palmer saturnalia of oppressions [1918-1920], specialists in liberty began protesting that the Declaration plainly gave the people the right to alter the government under which they lived and even to abolish it altogether, they encountered the utmost incredulity. I find this true today as well. A lot of people just can't seem to accept the idea that the founding fathers of the USA wanted to allow their descendants the same right to start over that they were exercising at the time. I must admit that even given an appreciation of that I am hard pressed to imagine what a popular uprising and establishment of a new government would look like in today's America.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago> I find this true today as well. It has literally always been true, since the very beginning of the country.
- themartorana 10y agoI don't think that can happen. I don't know, obviously, but despite our support for popular uprisings in other countries, I can't imagine the federal government not engaging in battle with the "traitors" knocking at their gates. I don't know what it looks like for the US military to engage its citizens en masse, but I'm guessing that happens before capitulation. Other speculations? Edit: I mean, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service are all built up around protecting the government from its people, right? The US government had been setting up a firewall between itself and its people for decades. (The NSA ostensibly not, but we know they were spying on Americans since at least 1945 [0]). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23/how-the-nsa-spied-on-americans-before-the-internet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23...
- Swizec 10y agoA civil war in the US would be brutal. On the US and on global economy. The devastation of modern western society would be absolute. I can't even begin to imagine what the outcome would be. Mind you, the US government has the largest military force in the world by far. Bigger than the next 3 or 4 biggest militaries combined. Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No.
- nfoz 10y agoOr we can just allow secession without a civil war.
- matheweis 10y agoThe last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
- afarrell 10y agoBut what was the cause of secession? Well, if you believe the various southern legislatures, the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...
- Swizec 10y agoLet's say California wants to secede. Do you really think the government will part calmly with its largest economy?
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoLet's say Britain wants to leave the EU. Do you really think Europe will part calmly with its second-largest economy?
- 10y ago
- juk9 10y agoWell...in history nobody has ever needed a document to start an uprising. And we aren't going to see one (atleast in the US) today cause most people have better things to do with their lives.
- stcredzero 10y agoWe may well be heading towards a future where some large fraction of the populace doesn't have anything better to do with their lives.
- khm 10y agoMartin Luther disagrees.
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoFor a minute I assumed you were referring to King, Jr. He used some writing, but relied much more on oration and protests. But yes, the Protestant theologian is a great example. The short time delay from the printing press to the Reformation, I think, highlights the immense power of the written word. In modern America, I suspect the medium is more likely to be television than text.
- chiph 10y agoThere is the possibility of calling a Constitutional Convention. But most people have the heebie-jeebies over that, as everything then comes up for grabs. Women's voting rights, separation of powers, two-term limit for presidents -- having a president at all. You name it.
- unethical_ban 10y agoOr the second amendment, which a growing number of Americans feel no needed for, unfortunately. As of disarming the populace works well long term for citizens.
- psychometry 10y agoIt's worked pretty well for citizens of other first-world countries who have practically zero chance of dying from gun violence. So, yeah, I'd say it works great long-term.
- GregBuchholz 10y agoArticle V is the part of the Constitution that governs conventions. It is just for recommending amendments that get approved in the usual way. So there really shouldn't be any more concern about it than normal. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.htm...
- humanrebar 10y agoIt's worth pointing out that the Constitutional Convention started out as a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoYou say that, but look at what happened last time they held a convention.
- SerLava 10y agoI was really excited about referencing this, until the racist part. 1921 you old dog.
- schoen 10y agoAlso note the original (pre-Mencken) version's reference to "merciless Indian Savages".
- grossvogel 10y agoThat section struck me like a brick when I heard them reciting the Declaration on NPR yesterday morning. Later I saw this NYT opinion piece: "Did a Fear of Slave Revolts Drive American Independence" [1]. The article doesn't quite support the sensationalist headline, but it's interesting nonetheless. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slav...
- GregBuchholz 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago> until the racist part This one? "He stirred up the Indians, and give them arms and ammunition, and told them to go to it, and they have killed men, women and children, and don't care which." That translates to "The King was protecting the Indians too much." Which was probably true.
- SerLava 10y agoThe first racist part was about South Americans and "coons".
- 10y ago
- htaunay 10y agoHe monkeyed with the courts, and didn't hire enough judges to do the work, and so a person had to wait so long for his case to come up that he got sick of waiting, and went home, and so never got what was coming to him. He made a lot of new jobs, and give them to loafers that nobody knowed nothing about, and the poor people had to pay the bill, whether they could or not. Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not. Time passes, but some things don't change.
- Yhippa 10y agoOne cool thing about learning Latin in high school was reading books from two-thousand years ago. Take Ovid's Ars Amatoria for example. He was the original PUA (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amatoria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amatoria): "The first two books, aimed at men, contain sections which cover such topics as 'not forgetting her birthday', 'letting her miss you - but not for long' and 'not asking about her age'."
- schoen 10y agoI didn't remember that the ancient Romans observed birthdays as we do, but sure enough, it's in there: > Magna superstitio tibi sit natalis amicae: > Quaque aliquid dandum est, illa sit atra dies. ("Your girlfriend's birthday should be a source of great dread for you: whenever it's time to give something, that's a dark day.")
- talideon 10y agoIt's important to note that Ars was intended to be satirical. However, when it was rediscovered, a lot of the context surrounding it was lost, so people too it seriously... and it became the basis of courtly love and thus modern romance.
- tn13 10y agoHonestly it appeared like an assessment of Obama administration. > He made a lot of new jobs, and give them to loafers that nobody knowed nothing about, and the poor people had to pay the bill, whether they could or not. > Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not.
- brunorossi 10y agoActually, net number of jobs getting created are for the educated not the poor: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-with-more-education-have-taken-almost-every-job-created-in-the-recovery http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-...
- matheweis 10y agoI think that's what he was saying?
- tn13 10y agoI think you failed to understand the sentence. >He made a lot of new jobs As you know government cant create jobs except for government servants such as TSA screening agents. Their salary bill has be then paid for by the hardworking earning Americans. I think that is what that sentence means. The Bloomberg article is talking about jobs that are creating by private industry. Government has no hand in it. If those business run a profit those jobs will be sustained else they will wither away unlike TSA people who will get paid no matter how much the passengers hate them.
- brunorossi 10y agoI wouldn't defend the TSA. They have abysmal performance, but they are a small fraction of the country. My point is that most people being employed are not loafers. In addition, taxpayers that fund the federal government are generally the upper half of income earners. The poor really don't pay that much in taxes.
- vumgl 10y agoOn the same note, a while ago I mapped Washington's farewell address. The original to vernacular. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fsaJDi5AMLicz1HKd4tgmiCcuC9RreSddfVKnO9K90U/pub https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fsaJDi5AMLicz1HKd4tgmiCc...
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago> The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. > You’ve gotta be Americans before all else. You’re for the most part the same religion and culture... It's interesting that Washington acknowledged the binding effect that shared culture has on a nation. I see the Nordic countries praised often on HN, and the counterpoint is always some variety of "but they have little diversity". I wonder what Washington would say about the US and the effects of a variety of ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural heritages now?
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoThe US has always had a diverse variety of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural heritage. I'd guess that's part of the reason he's expressly telling them to ignore the differences.
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoThat's not what Washington thought: > ....you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles...
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoYou left off the start: "With slight shades of difference, ..." Given that egregious quote mining, I guess you'd be immune to subtle arguments about context e.g. does someone stand at the head of an exclusively Lutheran Church and make a speech about how they should ignore their religious differences, no, that would be redundant. Which implies he knows there are differences enough for them to turn on each other if they don't make an effort to pull together.
- Yhippa 10y ago> Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not. Reminds me of the fight for D.C. statehood.
- bravura 10y agoH. L. Mencken also wrote: “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
- dmckeon 10y agoAnyone who has not yet seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy might do well to spend 90 minutes watching it, and contemplating the state of their nation.
- Houshalter 10y agoDespite being written in 95 year old slang, I find this surprisingly readable. Especially compared to the original. There's a lot of broken grammar though. I wonder if that was how people actually spoke, or exaggerated for effect.
- aristus 10y agoMencken's whole schtick was to be a populist intellectual. At one point he was so famous that a letter from Germany simply addressed "Mencken, USA" got delivered just fine. His usual essays and reportage use more elevated language than this. IIRC he wrote this to make the point that "American" was a separate language from "English", and stuck in every Americanism he could think of. The median American today probably speaks better English than back then. Literacy is up, radio and TV are universal so you don't just hear people on your block, fewer of us are recent immigrants, etc.
- c3534l 10y agoI think the original is easier to understand and is written in plainer speech. But the 1920s version still has a lot of poetry to it, which surprises me since I always assumed that what made the original beautiful was the exact words and phrases used.