America, Part II

The American mythologisation of their own political history is something I find fascinating, as evidenced by some of my previous writing on the subject.

The history of the US is to this day blighted by the legacy of slavery; this is not to say that other countries haven’t got their hands dirty with slavery too;  many countries bear the social ills of deprivation and poverty which can be traced back to the trade in people; nevertheless there is a definite tension to that particular racial history.

Which I find a little weird, frankly, because it was the Native Americans who got a lot more screwed by the incursion and growth of the European transplant American nation. At first contact, it’s estimated that there were around 20-50 million Native Americans; by 1890, there were only 250,000, and today there are but 2.8 million. They were ravaged both by the transmission of European diseases, and by deliberate policy to drive them from their lands and way of life.

The history of the relations between the Native Americans and the new nation show the hypocrisy with which the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were treated. 800 treaties were made between the United States and various Native American nations; 430 were never ratified by the Senate (though their conditions were still taken to be binding upon the Native Americans) and the United States violated provisions of the remaining 370 treaties which it did ratify.

When they said “all men are created equal” they meant: “all white, preferably Anglo-Saxon, males are created equal”. The consent of the governed meant nothing if you were black, or Native American, or god forbid, a woman. Black people were counted for 3/5ths of a person in determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives, for instance, and neither black people nor women could vote at all.

I should point out that the only crime displayed here is that of hypocrisy; the ownership of African slaves and the brutalisation of native peoples by colonial powers were entirely commonplace in the rest of the world, and a thing to be remarked on as abhorrent only in their totality; singling out any one nation only serves to obscure the collective nature of our guilt.

The extent to which the founding documents of the United States, and the men who drafted them, are venerated is totally incommensurate with their intrinsic worth. The trouble with this veneration is that it makes these ideas inviolate; one cannot hold these founding documents up to critical scrutiny, let alone revision, without committing blasphemy against this mad secular religion.

For instance, gun-lovers point to the second amendment to the Constitution almost like it was scripture, guaranteeing their right to possess arms as if it were holy writ.  The easiest way to solve the gun control issue would be to simply amend the second amendment itself, and remove the right to bear arms, or at least clarify the notion of a well-regulated militia.

Unfortunately, this will never happen; as a brief historical note, the first ten amendments constitute the American Bill of Rights, and are more-or-less contemporaneous with the Constitution itself, and can thus be considered as de facto part of it. The possibility of amending the second raises the spectre of amending the first (the right to free speech) or the fifth (the right to not self-incriminate). One wonders what the outcome will be when the language in which the Constitution is written becomes ever staler and divorced from the English of the day, and the meaning of the words is slowly shifted to something steadily more unrecognisable, the text left unaltered as the language evolves around it.

This is luckily not a problem in the UK; that great document of ancient English freedom, the Magna Carta, has been more-or-less entirely repealed and replaced with newer legislation, the most recent of which being the Human Rights Act. It’s never the document that’s important; the document is only a symbol. What’s important are the ideas, and the principles, and keeping those principles alive in the hearts and minds of mankind. Our documents should never be inviolate; our ideals should be.

Some facts and figures on Native American populations and treaties were drawn from the book “Why Do People Hate America?” by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies. Others were from Wikipedia. Interpretation and conclusions entirely my own (terrible) work.

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    When it was being drafted, one of the arguments having an American constitution was that precisely the sort of thing you discuss here would happen. It would be held up as “this is what happens”, and wouldn't be changed to reflect the nation that it actually applies to. Slavery is a good case in point, because I'm fairly sure that a lot of the language specifically referred to “free men”.

    IIRC using the 2nd amendment to justify the individual's right to bear arms is a complete bastardisation of what the actual intent was. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” – that wasn't meant to mean that individuals should have the right to have a private collection of weapons. It's about the right of the state to have a militia, and for people to “keep and bear arms” for use in that militia. It's completely outdated! The argument that it's “unconstitutional” to have tough gun laws is just really retarded.

    I meant to comment last time you wrote about this, but I forgot…

  • http://aiusepsi.co.uk aiusepsi

    Yeh, re: the 2nd amendment, that was my point exactly. Language has tended to shift, which has muddied the way that those lines are interpreted, and the bizarre sanctity in which those lines are now held prevents their revision into clear modern language.

    Maybe most of the language does specificy “free men” but the famous line I was referring to:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Is pretty unequivocal, unless the meaning of “men” is modified by some evil legalese elsewhere.

    And don't worry about forgetting to comment, it happens often.

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    Yeah, I cant remember where specifically the “free men” thing occurs, but I'm fairly sure it's in there *somewhere*. I do know that Jefferson, the guy who wrote much of the Declaration of Independance that the quote you gave comes from (so not strictly part of the constitution, I think?), had some completely interesting views on slavery (even had some himself – Wikipedia says he owned 267 at one point).

    I quite admire certain bits of how the American government is structured, but the way the constitution is seen as some sort of “sacred” document has to be one of the stupidest things about it.

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    Yeah, I cant remember where specifically the “free men” thing occurs, but I'm fairly sure it's in there *somewhere*. I do know that Jefferson, the guy who wrote much of the Declaration of Independance that the quote you gave comes from (so not strictly part of the constitution, I think?), had some completely interesting views on slavery (even had some himself – Wikipedia says he owned 267 at one point).

    I quite admire certain bits of how the American government is structured, but the way the constitution is seen as some sort of “sacred” document has to be one of the stupidest things about it.

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    “had some completely interesting views”

    Thats what you get when you get distracted halfway through writing a sentence (and don't proof-reading properly). I meant “pretty interesting”; “completely interesting” sounds a bit over-eager :p

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    “had some completely interesting views”

    Thats what you get when you get distracted halfway through writing a sentence (and don't proof-reading properly). I meant “pretty interesting”; “completely interesting” sounds a bit over-eager :p

  • jenny_mohan

    That was a beautiful piece of commenting :P . Fail.

    Meanwhile Jefferson was from the South so he probably had a Plantation and if by 'interesting' you mean 'pretty standard for the South at that time' then you're probably right.

  • http://bbtmn.co.uk/ Dickie

    Fuck knows why it double-double posted like that. I can't remember whether I wrote them in IE – maybe a bug? :-S

    Watch this one doublepost now too…

    “if by 'interesting' you mean 'pretty standard for the South at that time' then you're probably right.”
    Irrespective of whether those views were standard, don't necessarily make it right for someone who was so vocal about the abolition of slavery to be involved in slavery themselves. Anyway by “interesting” I did actually mean “interesting”. Google it cos I can't remember all the details now :-P

  • http://aiusepsi.co.uk aiusepsi

    This is exactly part of the point I was making.

    Making an absolute judgement on the behaviour of Jefferson w.r.t. slaves is tricky at best because he was absolutely typical of his era. He just didn't know any better.

    We can judge him on his hypocrisy, though, and make the point that he was a man, he was fallible, and his views and ideas are not the be-all-and-end-all they're often made out to be.

    The Constitution of the US, like anything, should be an evolving mechanism. Finished products are for decadent minds, to paraphrase Asimov.