Constitution and Declaration are racist and dated

[AZRedhawk44]

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=25288

If you read yesterday’s thread in George Washington, “Oops! My, bad” you might have seen this mentioned by @racist. He bought a copy of the Constitution from Amazon, and upon reviewing his purchase, read a shocking statement from the publisher inside the book. He was kind enough to scan the page for iOTW and it is for real.

Here is the book’s page on Amazon.com. If you read the reviews-other folks are surprised/shocked/angered too. Why does Amazon still use A&D Publishing/Wilder Publications if their product is defective and biased? You might want to ask them.

Or, maybe you’d like to write a letter directly to:

A & D Publishing
PO Box 3005
Radford,Va 24143-3005

or contact: Wilder Publications

If you do contact them be respectful. As with the tea party, it takes one nasty comment or sign to paint everyone else with a broad rightwing/racist etc…brush. Show them more respect than they show to our Founding documents.

I’m wondering, is this what Obama and company think about the Constitution? Is this the copy that Elena Kagan has been using to determine rulings of cases and teachings in school? Things that make you go, WTF?!?

AND…another hattip to @joeclark77 who found more info about this “Warning Label” over at Cato@Liberty

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the values as it would if it were written today."

Yep.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not reflect modern values.  According to Amazon's contracted printer for distribution of the COTUS and DoI.

I found this and just feel suckerpunched.  How do you keep fighting insidious bovine excrement like this, when it is so cunningly embedded with the intent to brainwash the novitiate and be benignly ignored by the likes of us?

[MicroBalrog]

Failing to see the problem.

The Constitution does not reflect modern values. It is not meant to. It was written by inhabitants of the 18th century. It is still binding law today, (of course it has been amended).

If you want to understand the Constitution or the DoI, you must understand the values and behavior of 18th-century Americans and Colonials, and of the Founding Fathers in particular. To assume the Founders were exactly like modern Americans is dangerous. Even the English language was different.

[gunsmith]

I'm speechless!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

there were parts of the constitution that needed explanation for my kid   was it different for you guys?

[AZRedhawk44]

Failing to see the problem.

The Constitution does not reflect modern values. It is not meant to. It was written by inhabitants of the 18th century. It is still binding law today, (of course it has been amended).

If you want to understand the Constitution or the DoI, you must understand the values and behavior of 18th-century Americans and Colonials, and of the Founding Fathers in particular. To assume the Founders were exactly like modern Americans is dangerous. Even the English language was different.

Micro:

First off... this isn't a "book."

It's the Supreme Law of the Land.  It is the Law against which all other law is judged.  It is nothing but factual, and there is no "debate" as to whether or not the Constitution actually says what it says.  It does, it means it, and is enforceable.  

The Declaration is also not a book.  It is too short to be a book.  It is a key political document of the 18th century, yet carries no power of Law.  

The Articles are also not a book.  They used to be the Supreme Law of the Land.  THOSE retired laws could very well be subject to such a disclaimer... but bundling them with the COTUS and implying that editorializing the COTUS in a book form is acceptable... is not acceptable to me.

In fact, the only thing that should be considered bound by the disclaimer is the rampant editorializing throughout the primary texts.  

[MicroBalrog]

First off... this isn't a "book."

Yes. It's a book containing a variety of historical documents.

It's the Supreme Law of the Land.  It is the Law against which all other law is judged.  It is nothing but factual, and there is no "debate" as to whether or not the Constitution actually says what it says.  It does, it means it, and is enforceable. 

Which is why the leading Constitutional scholars in the world say you need to be aware of the historical context in which the Constitution was written to understand the Founders' intent.

This is called originalism.

This is the judicial philosophy of people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This isn't somehow some radical leftoweenie idea.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ay  caramba! mb has it right

[AJ Dual]

ay  caramba! mb has it right

No he doesn't. He's being willfully obtuse to the larger meaning that intends to undermine constructionisim/originalisim.

I'm glad some of you can turn that statement around to support what you feel about originalism, but I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you seriously think that's what the publisher/editor intended.

Other than the execrable three-fifths compromise in terms of counting slaves/Africans for the purposes of apportionment under the census, the Constitution is silent on issues of gender and sexual orientation until the 19th Amendment, but before then it said nothing that forbade extension of the franchise or any right either.

So I could see a small blurb about "race" in terms of the three-fifths compromise, a stain that will be on the document forever, but the rest of it clearly is intended to diminish the Constitution and DoI, or if there was no ill intent to do so, reflects the arguably even more troubling worldview of someone so warped that the Constitution is the "living document" living to the point it can be construed to believe any liberal collectivist feel-goodisim of the moment.

[230RN]

Well, I think they ought to remove those arrows from the eagle's claws.  After all, while they are "arms," we now have better ones.  Ridiculously outdated.

But the principles outlined in those documents are timeless.  Is it so impossible to encounter tyranny today, and is not the ultimate solution to tyranny an armed populace?

Is it so impossible to find governmental operations which were not left to the states as they should have been?

Is it so impossible to find large-scale military operations which were not authorized by Congress?

Is it so impossible to find revenue-raising measures which were not "levied" by Congress, or, for that matter, authorized by the Constitution itself?

Perhaps, looking back on the last seven decades of my life, I could find a few instances of these.  But I ain't an historian, nor a Constitutional scholar.  But I think the original thrust of these documents is to make governing difficult.

Not easy.

And that is a timeless principle.

Terry, 230RN

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i read their blurb and to turn it into the constitution is dated and racist is a bit of a stretch.  quite a bit. heck i have to explain to my kids about no cable tv. and she brought up the 3/5ths rule on her own. her look when i explained women didn't get to vote was special too.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm glad some of you can turn that statement around to support what you feel about originalism, but I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you seriously think that's what the publisher/editor intended.

The publisher/editor intended nothing like what you imply. This is a standard blurb that they put on all books from the era. You can read more about this here.

So I could see a small blurb about "race" in terms of the three-fifths compromise, a stain that will be on the document forever, but the rest of it clearly is intended to diminish the Constitution and DoI, or if there was no ill intent to do so, reflects the arguably even more troubling worldview of someone so warped that the Constitution is the "living document" living to the point it can be construed to believe any liberal collectivist feel-goodisim of the moment.

In what way does it 'diminish' the Constitution and DoI to know that the Founding Fathers were not like modern men?

How does it imply the Constitution is a 'living document' to say 'the Constitution cannot be understood without understanding the time when it was written'? A "living Constitution" apologist would want you to ignore the ideas of the original authors and to apply understandings of the Constitution the original authors would have never intended. These people want you to teach the historical context of the original writings to your children.

Why would you not want to teach these things to your children? Why would anybody, much more an American citizen, not want their offspring to be knowledgeable about the life and outlooks of people in the Founding era?

[Hawkmoon]

i read their blurb and to turn it into the constitution is dated and racist is a bit of a stretch.  quite a bit.

Maybe not racist, but certainly dated. A "disclaimer" such as that is very subtle (or not) brainwashing, preparing readers for acceptance of the notion that the Constitution should be regarded as a "living document" and interpreted according to modern morality, ethics (now THERE's a stretch!), and attitudes and not applied literally. After all, it's a crusty old document; we shouldn't be bound by what those old birds thought.

[RaspberrySurprise]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity "

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe not racist, but certainly dated. A "disclaimer" such as that is very subtle (or not) brainwashing, preparing readers for acceptance of the notion that the Constitution should be regarded as a "living document" and interpreted according to modern morality, ethics (now THERE's a stretch!), and attitudes and not applied literally. After all, it's a crusty old document; we shouldn't be bound by what those old birds thought.

How did you read that into it?

[Perd Hapley]

Other than the execrable three-fifths compromise in terms of counting slaves/Africans for the purposes of apportionment under the census, the Constitution is silent on issues of gender and sexual orientation until the 19th Amendment,

   The Constitution mentions no race except "Indians," that I am aware.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Execrable as the compromise may have been, it was never a comment on how "human" black people are.

[taurusowner]

I think you are all really agreeing with each other, but in a confusing way.

Yes, an 18th century thought process is the correct and Originalist way to interpret the Constitution.  But saying this blurb states that is wrong.

There is a significant gap between the 18th century line of thinking and modern thinking.  We can all agree on this, and even the Leftists can as well.  The problem is, they think it's ok for us to think differently and that it makes the Constitution wrong.  We think, correctly, that our society is in fact the wrong party, and the Constitution remains true.  Two totally opposite sides of the same coin.

[AJ Dual]

The publisher/editor intended nothing like what you imply. This is a standard blurb that they put on all books from the era. You can read more about this here.

In what way does it 'diminish' the Constitution and DoI to know that the Founding Fathers were not like modern men?

Then say, "the Constitution was written by Founding Fathers who were not like modern men."

As others have said, it's guilt by association with racism, sexism etc. It's the difference between saying something is flawed up front, then admitting it may have a few redeeming qualities, than saying something is overall laudable, but may have some flaws.

And the very fact that someone felt the Constitution needed this "warning" in the first place is just mind-boggling. That such a warning is placed on ANY works is reprehensible, and IMO part of a larger plan to undermine a broad range of classic works that are important underpinnings of Western Civ. as a whole.

It may sound paranoid to say so, but I really do believe something like this is a front in the culture war.  I really question the need for such a warning, you'd have to be a complete idiot to have no idea of historical context when you find something "offensive" in an old work. And the number of children who don't have a parent or a teacher who can explain such content to them (and would actually care to read the Constitution) can probably be counted on one hand. There may not even be a great deal of concentrated hostility to the Constitution or any other classical work such a warning gets put on, but I do believe that ideologies and movements are themselves capable of emergent behavior and coordinated effort that's greater than the sum of it's constituent members.

Oh... and the Libertarian think-tank, the CATO institute which you cite above in your as an explanation of the "standard" warning that publisher puts on many documents seems to agree with me. They don't approve of it either and seem proud of the fact they don't do such a thing.

A bit of Googling revealed that the same publisher slaps the same boilerplate language on other reprints including the Federalist Papers and The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc. Do they perhaps put it on all works composed before a certain cut-off date? Wilder Publications is described here as in the business of “publishing print-on-demand books (mostly self-help and public domain reprints).”

I am happy to report that the Cato Institute’s excellent pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution daringly omits any warning and lets readers take the Constitution straight up.

[taurusowner]

Keep in mind that it's not just that it might really be offensive to some people, but that it's also an attempt to make itself come true.  If they can convince enough people the Constitution is just some old historical artifact, they can make it so.

[sanglant]

hmm,i wonder how long the warnings on "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" are. i bet they took more paper than the books.

[MicroBalrog]

There is a significant gap between the 18th century line of thinking and modern thinking. We can all agree on this, and even the Leftists can as well. The problem is, they think it's ok for us to think differently and that it makes the Constitution wrong. We think, correctly, that our society is in fact the wrong party, and the Constitution remains true. Two totally opposite sides of the same coin.

I believe neither of those things.

The people who lived in the 18th century were different from us in many surprising ways. They had entirely different understandings of family life, religion, property, even things like love. They had different perceptions of time and distance. Sometimes they were racist and sexist, but that’s not the point (did you know some of the Founders supported women’s suffrage? That some founding states had it in the 18th century?).

In many ways, I think our society is better than the society of Founding-era America. In other ways it is worse. In some ways I think the Constitution is flawed - it is a human document, and the product of a compromise between two political factions that were not always sympathetic. Its adoption was fraught with political struggles, lying, cheating, and even violence. Many reasonable people at the time believed the Constitution was unnecessary and the Articles were enough.

I do not necessarily think that our society is in some form of moral collapse.

We must know these things, and our children must know these things.

Yet I don’t believe this invalidates the Constitution. Not only is the Constitution current law, but it expresses the combined learning of generation in respect to human nature and government. We must learn these things and teach them to our children.

Yes, placing warning labels on the Constitution, and any other historical texts, is misguided - but not because anything the warning label says is actually wrong. It’s because a reasonable person should already know these things, just like a reasonable person should know that a Superman suit doesn’t allow it’s owner to fly. (Which is I think the point Cato is trying to make).

Yes, the Constitution was produced by men with entirely different values from those of modern men. Yes, you should explain this to your children.

And come!

Why would you not want to?

History is like the best action movie and romantic film, all in one!

[HankB]

This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today . . .

This is nothing more than a not-so-thinly-veiled dismissal of the bedrock documents of our Republic. Inclusion of this type of disclaimer with references to irrelevancies (where, exactly, do the documents refer to "sexuality" or "interpersonal relations" at all?) opens a window into the publisher's thought processes and political viewpoint - and it's not a pretty sight. 

At the risk of reading too much into this odious disclaimer, the part that suggests parents "discuss" views on ". . . race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations" with their children ". . . before allowing them to read this classic work" almost suggests they want the book to have an "R" rating for being politically incorrect.   

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

my kid covered the constitution in 3rd grade  and she needed help with the idea of slaves slavery and the idea that women didn't vote.  the sexuality part of the blurb baffles me unless its boilerplate they put in all their books that deal with historical documents.

[Hawkmoon]

How did you read that into it?

Sarcastically, of course.

[MicroBalrog]

my kid covered the constitution in 3rd grade  and she needed help with the idea of slaves slavery and the idea that women didn't vote.  the sexuality part of the blurb baffles me unless its boilerplate they put in all their books that deal with historical documents.

Which it is. The article I linked provides examples of other historical stuff they publish with this blurb.

[taurusowner]

I do not necessarily think that our society is in some form of moral collapse.

Who's society are you talking about here?