Slashdot Mirror
Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'
Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."
Considering the mindset of the era, this actually is a good indicator of how Jefferson and other founding fathers understood that there was something wrong with the status quo and managed to change it.
If I recall correctly, they still considered themselves subjects of Britain that were being mistreated, but I can see why Jefferson changed it. It would be admitting that they were seceeding from a legitimate rule despite their grievances. And it's pretty cool how they found this too.
The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.
Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind.
Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.
Now we have made the transition from Citizens back to Subjects of our Federal Empire. In many cases we can't even travel within our own state's boundaries without having to present our identification and travel papers to a Federal Officer and get their permission to make the trip. We could probably solve the energy crisis if we could tap into the founding fathers continuous spinning in their graves....
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?
From Wikipedia: "although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version"
And in recent times, citizens are referred to as "consumers"; those who don't consume, effectively don't exist.
To digress a bit, but related to this topic, many organizations, instead of saying they offer programs / activities / education, now often just use the word "programming" - seems very Orwellian to me.
Ron
Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?
Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.
BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, you don't think, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.
I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Nature performs its own desecration. It's called rot. Or incineration. Or consumption. Any way you choose, you will be "mutilated." The difference between them is time, a concept that loses all meaning without life.
You assume default omni-directional compassion in a capitalist society where people not only jokingly, but some (many?) times actually, hate one another.
I could kill my boss if it were legal and all that.
Some people may be aesthetically displeased of a fat bastard they hate sporting their organs.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
Some religions (like Judaism) teach the sanctity of even dead bodies. The concept is that the body belongs to G-d even after death. Autopsy and other forms of desecration of the body after death are not in line with those beliefs, and society should respect that fact. (Judaism also teaches that whatever happens to the body after death has an impact on the soul that came from it, which is why religious Jews don't do organ donation or cremation.)
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Actually that's correct. White people didn't enslave blacks because they hated them. They did it because they saw that slave labor could make them rich. They started hating blacks *after* enslaving them, as a retroactive moral justification so they wouldn't have to admit they were willing to brutalize people for money.
Because Doctors might not try do hard to save you if they know they can harvest your organs for cash.
That subject was turned into citizen is not too surprising.
No, the surprising bit was that it was a pretty instantaneous change. You can't exactly write something in ink, give it a formal review and then erase what you want changed; you'd redraft it. With that timeline, the first draft, say, v0.1, would have 'subject' in it. They'd review it and replace it with 'citizen' in v0.2.
But what happened here was 'subject' was down, in ink, erased (well...wiped off) and replaced with 'citizen' for the v0.1 release.
That, IMO, makes it much more interesting than simply changes made throughout various drafts: it shows the thought process when it was being written, not after.
Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody? Ever think of that? Well - people who trust politicians, celebrities, the wealthy, and all medical personnel would never think of this possibility. Of course, I might call such people "gullible", or "tools", or - well, you get the idea.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Are there any citations to show that there is a real shortage of people on this planet? Maybe it would be good if we didn't save so many lives?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's not that you need your organs when you're dead, it's that other people want your organs and you becoming dead would be awfully convenient to that end.
I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!
Keep in mind where this is. A pretty huge amount of people actually do believe that they might need those lungs again. Personally, I think they're almost clinically insane. But that's people for you. So in denial about their own mortality that they'll look at a rotting corpse and think that he might take a turn for the better any day now.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Wow, I can't believe you asked that. Most people don't (that is Do Not) have any objections (religious or otherwise) when I ask to barrow their car for a day. If they normally don't care "why the hell should the law assume they do". I mean I shouldn't automatically be in trouble because I didn't ask to use your car, and who knows, you may be just like everyone one else I have asked and said you didn't mind, or you may be a prick and say no, especially seeing how you don't know me.
Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981
You do realize that the UK still has a King/Queen, right?
So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.
Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I think that anyone who either opts out, or doesn't opt in, to organ donation, should be last on the list to receive an organ should they need it.
A latent existence
I guess we'll have to add this "doesn't properly cnesor documents" will have to be listed to the other UNFAIR criticisms modern idiots like to level against Thomas Jefferson.
And yes I know you were just joking but I'm making a point - People level criticisms against Jefferson that, in his day and age, were considered acceptable behavior. Like not allowing women the vote, or only limited suffrage to property owners. People should be judged by their own culture not by 2010 US culture.
For me, despite his character flaws, Jefferson still remains the best president we've ever had.
I can only wish I was as wise, intelligent, and pro-liberty as he was.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Great idea; both logic and justice prevail. Of course it'll never happen because that would inconvenience selfish bastards, and selfish bastards must be appeased at every opportunity. This is truly a golden age for sociopaths. Not so much for the rest of us.
"No matter where you go, there you probably are." -- Buckaroo Heisenberg
Not in America; we still believe the government has the right to wage the drug war. Ergo, subjects' bodies belong to society, and any say they are given in the matter, is a privilege for which they should be grateful.
Some minority might disagree with that, but 99% of the voters repeatedly confirm their deep conviction that people are the government's property, over and over and over again.
"Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass.
No matter how angry you get, your handwaving won't increase the soundness of your argument. It is compulsory to follow an opt out procedure if you don't want your organs to be harvested, therefore the organ donation system is compulsory. You must get involved with the system whether you want to or not.
By contrast, "compulsory" and "opt in" are likely to be mutually exclusive because you can do nothing and find yourself facing no obligations. The system adds no compulsion.
The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor.
The NY donation system punishes you if you do not have the ability and opportunity to learn the donation system and take the time to follow the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to opt out. It does this by harvesting organs from your dead body without your consent.
Similarly, you gave my sheep consent to graze on your lawn because you didn't sign the opt-out form on my desk and advertised in the appropriate basement.
You, Sir, ought to start a business as a spammer. According to part 419 of the Universal Spam Code, it's moral if you put a genuine opt-out link at the bottom, rite?
That's what "+1 Insightful" is for.