Is the Declaration of Independence a "racist" document?

[RolandCuthbert]

This subject came up in my discussion group. A few of folks reminded me of what the document says. And they wonder why it is allowed to be displayed in government buildings and in public spaces. I really don't have an argument for explaining why it should be allowed. But I figured GaG, being what it is, maybe there will be a someone here who could put together a rational explanation. Of course, I will need to sift through a lot of rants first. But I have some Indigenous friends who reminded me of this paragraph;

https://www.cnay.org/merciless-indian-savage/?fbclid=IwAR2rTM1CYQYqH3mOn8Ihfz6R3dsYSPSRSV0g5JXIBqJT7ymeAV5vU2ghL70

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has 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.

Updates

+1 y

Sorry. If you guys can't respond to my friends' query. You don't get to post.

[Anonymous]

Technically its true, the native American tribes were known to have said rule of warfare. Likewise the word "savage" is also technically correct description of many of the Native American tribes at that time from a European perspective.

See the definition of the word "savage" among its definitions are:
1: Vicious or merciless; brutal.
2: Characterized by or showing hostility; unforgiving.

Its hard to not agree that this was true of many of the tribes waging war upon them from the European far more limited war perspective of the time.

[RolandCuthbert]

Are you arguing that this was not true of European-Americans?

[Keishio]

Course not but say if Europeans never arrived and settled the Americas and Native tribes grew larger, competing with eachother for territory and resource, I'm sure those waring tribes wouldn't have the nicest terms for eachother. I wouldn't even call this racist since here in Europe terms equal to savage were used to describe other European tribes at that time. The only thing linking the phrasing of merciless Indian savages to racism is that the two enemies happened to be of a different race. If this was a fight for territory still in Europe and one side referred to the other as savages but both groups were of the same race then racism would never even be mentioned

[Dargil]

Well, I have several drops of Cherokee... one of the "civilized tribes". "We fought the Union to a draw and they decided "our" land, which has proven rich in gold later on, wasn't worth fighting for.
But the majority of my blood is Celt, notorious for their viciousness or merciless brutality. So I just suck all around. But it was the blood of the dead, as the Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman) said in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.

[Opinion Owner]

@rolandcuthbert I am just arguing that from the American colonial perspective their many of their military enemies among the Native American tribes were savage as a rule. This does stand in contrast with the more limited war waged by European powers.

This is not to say they were not capable of such excesses just that it was more the exception than the rule at the time among the more limited warfare their leaders waged.

Today our mode of warfare is a less limited than what was waged then.

[Opinion Owner]

@Dargil All of us have ancestors who were at some point quite savage in war. Some more recent than others.

Its important to understand the period of the late 1700's as a period of more 'limited war'.

Modern warfare often enough might have qualified as savaged by the standard of Americans in the late 1700s with indiscriminate bombing. The South certantly felt that way about the Sherman's march to the sea in the civil war.

[Keishio]

Course not but say if Europeans never arrived and settled the Americas and Native tribes grew larger, competing with eachother for territory and resource, I'm sure those waring tribes wouldn't have the nicest terms for eachother. I wouldn't even call this racist since here in Europe terms equal to savage were used to describe other European tribes at that time. The only thing linking the phrasing of merciless Indian savages to racism is that the two enemies happened to be of a different race. If this was a fight for territory still in Europe and one side referred to the other as savages but both groups were of the same race then racism would never even be mentioned

[Keishio]

This was meant as a reply... I have no idea why it posted alone. I'm going to copy and paste it where it was intended to go so that'll be why this pops up twice

[Sargentcaptain]

So what is supposedly racist here? Indians weren't exactly holding each others hands singing Kumbaya till Europeans came. Incomplete list of totally not savage things Indians did: rape, slavery, torture, murder, ritual sacrifices, cannibalism, genocide. Mind you things got even worse once Europeans came.

Oh, and when I say torture/murder I mean: scalping people and having their kids wear the remains like a hat, amputating limbs of POWs, shoving wooden poles in POWs assholes and pushing on said pole till it came out the persons mouth, burying people alive, burning people alive, disembowelment - while the subject is still alive, cutting of POWs tongues - and eating them. Again, this is an incomplete list.

The moral grandstanding from people like you, seems like you OD'd on the noble savage kool aid.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am the one grandstanding? Dude, just come to my group, so you can speak directly to Indigenous folks. And if you don't you are coward. Because this question was put to me. And I I had not completely read the Declaration of Independence since I was 13. Because I had to take a test on it.

But in their words, are you saying that the Europeans did not rape, torture, murder, perform ritual sacrifices, etc?

[Sargentcaptain]

Murder, sure. But as far as I'm aware, rape, torture and ritual sacrifices were all very much illegal in the 1700s and the perpetrators would be punished. I'm not aware of a single instance of colonists perpetrating ritual sacrifices anyway, and if you were to google '1700s America human sacrifices', guess which group of people shows up. And even when it comes to torture the natives were way more extreme than nearly anyone in all of history.

[imfreeze95]

No it’s not it says all men are CREATED equal this is not to say that all men were at that time enjoying their God-Given right to freedom but it did state that they were created with equality in mind.


Furthermore they set the constitution. Up in such a way that the slave states did not have the power to perpetuate slavery to the point they were hoping it would be legislated out of existence or die of natural causes.


Ethics aside Economically it’s a crappy system it’s means housing, feeding, medically supporting and clothing a workforce who has no motivation to work hard since it does not share in profits and they constantly try to escape. It’s doomed to eventual failure.

[noohair]

The founding fathers did a huge amount of work to get the constitution done. Southern states wanted all slaves counted so they could have more representation In the House. The North said, no. Salves can’t be counted. The compromise was 3/5th. Northerners knew in the beginning that slavery will not fit into the vision of the kind of government that the founders wanted. When then civil war started, southerners asked how they could be compensated, because it was looked at as property and not humans. The Southerners also argued state rights, but if you read the, Constitution of the Confederate states. It was all about slaved as property.

[Leopard23]

Well everyone at the time was racist by todays standards. The British did employ Native Americans to raid the lands of the American colonies and native American warfare was pretty savage, ruthless and absolutely merciless the killed all the males of a certain age and took the younger girls as concubines, natives did this to each other. Were the comanche's racist when they drove their rivial apaches and others out of the great plains in what would be described today as genocide?

[RolandCuthbert]

We are talking about the Declaration of Independence. A document that we all are supposed to honor as one of founding pillars of American democracy. You mean you would be happy if it read that "White" people were merciless savages who murdered without regard for age, sex, or "condition"?

[Leopard23]

Would be truthful. I mean it doesn't say "all men are created equal except those poor fellows picking cotton in our fields" does it? Are we going to censor or ban the bible for all the donkey dick, incest, genocide and racism in it.
We learn to accept the ugliness of the past without trying to clean it up or reedit it.

[RolandCuthbert]

That's what I am asking you. Is it truthful? You seem confused about it. And leaving "merciless savage" in, is learning from the past?

Just put together a logical argument.

[Leopard23]

They were merciless and savage it is truthful and truthfully the founfing fathers were racist. The colonists were not any better. It was a savage period of out history.

[goaded]

I can't see how it could possibly be seen as anything else. The best you can say for it is that it is a product of its time.

What should be done about it?

I'd say nothing. It is what it is. It shouldn't be presented as a perfect document in schools, though, but as an example of how people used to think.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I hope to have a meetup discussion with the Indigenous folks leading it. Most folks in my group are horribly ignorant.

They have no idea of what the Declaration of Independence actually states.

[goaded]

People do tend to only quote the beginning "We hold these truths...". It's quite a bit longer than I expected..

[Wade12345]

It's a legal document which brings criminal charges against both the Native Americans, which the author calls "savages" (i. e. evil) and of course criminal charges against the King George, whom he says George was hiring the Native Americans to attack the 13 colonies.

The only thing racist about this document is that they didn't kill enough of the criminals in the war and shouldn't have taken prisoners.

[NostalgiaSenpi]

Well, considering the time period, they still used that as justification for taking over Africa, other parts of the Americas, Asia, just about anywhere that wasn't European. It is racist but I severely doubt that anything would be done about the wording as it's an over two hundred and fifty year old document.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, if we had a real political system, we could change the wording.

But as things are now, that won't happen. I guess that's why so many tribes are taking to the courts to win back concessions, land, etc.

www.culturalsurvival.org/.../get-involved-landback-movement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1jHnkOxIYM&t=2s

[NostalgiaSenpi]

So, let's say they get the land back, are they just going to kick whoever is currently on it? How does this work anyway?

[RolandCuthbert]

Well yeah, they can kick off whomever they wish from the land. Not all of these movements are about land only. They are also about sovereignty. I met up with some African-Americans whom were getting enrolled in tribes around the midwest. One guy show me enrollment card and his passport. He is no longer subject to Federal jurisdiction. He only has to worry about state/local taxes, when he is off the reservation.

I am trying to get him to join my discussion group. I have his business card, but he hasn't called me back yet.

[Anonymous]

Not racist it just wasn't wrote for non white Anglo saxons protestants of mostly English, Scottish and Welsh descent. Some people consider the American war of independence as the 2nd English Civil War because after the monarchy was restored all the Puritians, calvanists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers.

[NewtoTheSouth]

Kind of, but not really. That's like how crazy right wingers think all taxation is communist. I mean, kind of, but not really. It used to be "communism, communism, everyone and everything is communist!" Now its "racist, racist, everyone and everything is racist!

[Avicenna]

I think the relevant question is "What are the main ideas of the Declaration of Independence", i. e., for what purposes was it written?

[exitseven]

It has been a long time since I read this document so I went back to read it again. I found no racism in it. I did find something that said all men are created equal.

[DiegoO]

It shouldn't be modified or changed. Those times were different and further on, if humanity doesn't extinguish, we will be judged by other standards.

[Dargil]

Reflected conditions at the time, I'd guess.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

If it’s very similar to the Yankee Constitution, yes.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I was just talking about the Declaration. It is a point some Indigenous folks bring up.

Since you are going on about Yankees, another point they brought up was. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM-cSOWca8

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I was talking about their Constitution of their land, not the citizens themselves. I watched the video. Even if the hangees were guilty, death by the gallows is bloody barbaric. It takes about nine minutes for the victim to be murdered, and each of the 540 seconds seem very painful. Linkkkoln really was a twat.

[Still-alive]

Well they all definitely hated American indians including Washington. so yeah i suppose.

[RolandCuthbert]

I asked them about what if the Declaration was rewritten. Would they be opposed to it.

They haven't responded yet. I want to do an in-person/online discussion. You know. . . a hybrid meetup to see what they truly think.

[Still-alive]

Well we shouldn't run from our past. we should accept it and learn from it. we should keep it in as a reminder of our racist past that unfortunately still remains to this day.

I think that paragraph is referring to britain who did in fact inspire the native americans against the revolutionary army.

[Still-alive]

i wouldn't be opposed to rewriting it or omitting that paragraph at least.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I know what the paragraph is referring to. But that didn't make a bit a difference to the former Director of AIM in Florida.

And it didn't change the opinion of a single Indigenous member.

[Msputiton]

Dang. That is very racist

[WanderingLoveWizard]

Man just shut the fuck up and enjoy your freedom

[WanderingLoveWizard]

Jesus Christ. You assholes really have nothing better to do than complain about stupid shit like this

[Anonymous]

Yes absolutely

[KrakenAttackin]

Of course, everything is racist.

[notwoke]

everythings racist