I declare this offensive...

[Gob]

A famed British historian has hit out at 'moronic' National Archives staff who decided to erect a 'trigger warning' next to the Declaration of Independence for fears its 'outdated' content could cause offence.

Professor Andrew Roberts said that a rare copy of the 18th century document, which represents the founding papers of the United States, is now adorned with a trigger warning for 'outdated, biased and offensive' content at its home in the National Archives in Richmond, London.

The visiting professor at King's College London and critically-acclaimed author said: 'Anyone who thinks an 18th century document is not going to be outdated, biased and offensive is frankly a moron.


'When you go to see the declaration, you read what it says about Native Americans and so on, you won't be so offended that you can't stand up,' he said sarcastically of the trigger warning.

It comes just days after it was revealed that Bath Spa University had slapped offensive content caveats on the likes of celebrated English poets William Wordsworth and John Keats - though the addition of content warnings to historical texts suggests the 'moronic' practice is being taken one step further.

Trigger warnings have gained popularity in recent years in response to concerns that people could be adversely affected by any troubling content.

But there has significant pushback from historians on any mention of trigger warnings being applied to historical texts or documents for fear that the practice will lead to attempts to censor or erase important parts of history.

A spokeswoman for the National Archives said: 'We are aware that some of the terminology used at the time [of the declaration's writing] is not appropriate or may cause offence today.

'If we are using documents in a talk or webinar, for example, then we would endeavour to make people aware that the documents may contain terms that we would not use today.'

The US Constitution was written as part of a months-long process that included deliberations and compromise by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The most notable delegates included some of the nation’s founding fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.

The convention was presided over by George Washington, the country’s first president.

It was convened in order to remedy the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, which to that point was the country’s governing document.

Adopted after the 13 states won their independence from Great Britain, the Articles proved ineffectual in allowing a central government to perform basic tasks, like taxation, raising an army, and adjudicating interstate disputes.

But in recent years, as the nation has wrestled with its history that saw non-white communities like Native Americans and African slaves severely marginalized, some have proposed changes to the language of the founding documents.

Critics note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution still includes the ‘three-fifths compromise’ whereby a slave was considered ‘three-fifths’ of a person.

The compromise was struck in 1787 to settle a dispute over how slaves were to be counted in a state’s population for the purposes of apportioning representation in Congress.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

The Constitution’s language is also considered outdated by gender rights activists who note that the document only refers to a man when prescribing who can be president.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution reads: 'The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

'He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...'

[Bicycle Bill]

Makes me think of the movie based on the Broadway musical '1776', about the Second Continental Congress and their debate over the proposed wording of the Declaration of Independence, and the line spoken by John Adams (played in both cases by William Daniels):

"This is a revolution, dammit!  We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

The Declaration of Independence (A legal announcement of sovereignty of no legal weight on the current government of the USofA) begins with a statement about rights granted by the supreme cause; basic to the structure of the universe, which cannot be changed by human action.

I don't remember any reference to a life free of ever being offended in that document. IMNSHO, the right to never be offended is now assumed to be one of those unenumerated rights recognized in the Ninth Amendment and referred to in the recent Judiciary Committee Senate Hearings.

I did not know the carefully unwritten British Constitution included that right.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

Where's Mother from Raised by Wolves when she's needed?

[Big RR]

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

Here is the 13th Amendment:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I see nothing about Fugitive slaves; but perhaps someone can identify it?

As for the 14th amendment, since slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, how did it incorporate the 3/5 clause if slavery was ended by the 13th amendment?

Sure, there are archaic ideas in it, many of which were taken care of by amendment (or can later be addressed) and even some archaic language, even if the meaning is clear (We have had many female presidential candiates, and even a current female vice president, but I saw no challenges based on that language). It makes no sense.

[Sue U]

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

Here is the 13th Amendment:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I see nothing about Fugitive slaves; but perhaps someone can identify it?

As for the 14th amendment, since slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, how did it incorporate the 3/5 clause if slavery was ended by the 13th amendment?

Sure, there are archaic ideas in it, many of which were taken care of by amendment (or can later be addressed) and even some archaic language, even if the meaning is clear (We have had many female presidential candiates, and even a current female vice president, but I saw no challenges based on that language). It makes no sense.

Whoever wrote that article doesn't understand how constitutional amendments work. The Fugitive Slave Clause (US Const. Article IV, Sec. 2) remains "in" the constitution as a matter of historical text, but the 13th Amendment effectively repeals it and precludes its enforcement. Likewise the 14th Amendment didn't literally strip out the "3/5ths compromise" language from Article I, Section 2, but superseded it, now requiring apportionment of legislative districts by "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

[Guinevere]

Sure, there are archaic ideas in it, many of which were taken care of by amendment (or can later be addressed) and even some archaic language, even if the meaning is clear (We have had many female presidential candiates, and even a current female vice president, but I saw no challenges based on that language). It makes no sense.

"Many"? In what sense? How many is many?

[Big RR]

In addition to Hillary I was thinking of Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, Jill Stein, and Elizabeth Dole, but , as I recall, there were others throughout history. If I get a chance I will google it. But, if you don't think five is "many", I will change my descriptor to "a number of". And let's not forget, the last democratic prmaries had "a number of" women candidates.

[Scooter]

Calling a contender in a primary a "presidential candidate" is a stretch, but ok.

[Guinevere]

In addition to Hillary I was thinking of Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, Jill Stein, and Elizabeth Dole, but , as I recall, there were others throughout history. If I get a chance I will google it. But, if you don't think five is "many", I will change my descriptor to "a number of". And let's not forget, the last democratic prmaries had "a number of" women candidates.

Oh I can name every single one of them, and count them on my two hands, with fingers left over.

I really can’t believe you think that is “many.”

[Bicycle Bill]

Calling a contender in a primary a "presidential candidate" is a stretch, but ok.

Every person who enters a contest, whether it's the Boston Marathon, the Olympics, a NASCAR stock car race, or the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes, is an entrant and has a chance of being the winner — although I will grant you that most of those people have about the same chance of winning as I have of being selected Miss Black America (and yes, there still is such a segregated contest, even in the woke world of 2022).

The same holds true when someone submits papers to stand for election to the office of POTUS, or any other elected office.  In fact, the common term IS 'running for office'.  The only difference is that in these particular 'races' the term used for the participants is 'candidate', not 'entrant'.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Call me crazy, but I reserve the term "candidate" for those who actually get their names on the election ballot.

[BoSoxGal]

I’m not picking up what you’re putting down Scooter.

In the whole of my lifetime it has been the practice of the USA media and political parties to call all the persons with paperwork duly filed and contending in the presidential primary process *candidates* for the office of the presidency of the United States of America.

I cut this bit after rereading your post. Yes, you’re crazy.

[Econoline]

I don't think I've had many opportunities to make this statement (this may be the first): right now, I agree with Bill and BSG.

[Scooter]

Ok, different countries, different usages, I guess. It just seems pretty silly to be referring to Ben Carson or Pat Robertson as "presidential candidates", but if that's your custom...

[Joe Guy]

Ok, different countries, different usages, I guess. It just seems pretty silly to be referring to Ben Carson or Pat Robertson as "presidential candidates", but if that's your custom...

Yup, we have our own language down here in the lower 48. Generally speaking, they're all candidates until one of them is nominated by their party. At that point most of us keep referring to the nominees as "candidates" but we don't mean it the same way we did before. We mean it in a nominated candidate sorta way.

Y'all got schooled today on the vicissitudinous of the U.S. American vernacular and I'm proud of you and honored to have been a participant in a small part of this learning experience.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whatever the merits of a candidate, I understand that liquor is quicker.

(Hmmm that may be offensive)

[Gob]

Your system is fucked.

[dales]

Yeah but....candy is dandy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

FWIW (nothing) "candidate" is applicable to many things. One can be a candidate for organ replacement. Or for footballer of the year. The word is only relevant in the context of what "reward" one will receive should one "win"

Candidates seeking to win their party's nomination to become a candidate for the role of President are expecting that one of them will "win" the "reward" of the party nomination. They are not campaigning to "win" the Presidency. That is not the prize of the particular contest in which they are engaged.

Once the candidate for nomination has secured that nomination, that person then becomes (and not before then) a candidate for the office of President.

It is nonsense to equate those who failed to win the nomination to become candidate for the Presidency as if they had in fact succeeded and competed for the votes of the Electoral College. They didn't.

I count 8 women as having competed as candidates for the Presidency - only one was from a major party with any chance of winning. The others were the equivalent* (bless their souls) of candidates put forward in the UK by the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

*Not in their person, nor their beliefs, nor their sincerity - only in the most probable result.