Declaration of Independence: Damaging Three Words

[lakhota]

The Damaging Three Words of the Declaration of Independence

When I moved to San Francisco decades ago, I was invited to any number of July 4th gatherings. They all had two things in common.

First, they were freezing. What was with this fog?

Second, at someone's suggestion - I think mine, but cannot claim authorship for sure - we started reading the Declaration of Independence out loud. I had a World Almanac that contained a copy. Yes, the New York Times prints a full page version of the original, but those old f's for s's, among other stumbles, made us choose more modern type.

Our tradition was to set out the picnic stuff, run back to the car for another jacket or sweater, maybe a hat or gloves, then, once the shivering merriment was underway, pull out the Almanac, and open it to the Declaration.

We took turns, each person reading a paragraph or two, or part of one, depending on such factors as the reader's dramatic interpretation inclination, or shyness. Then the reader would pass the book to the next person.

I really liked doing this - if not then, when? - but the tradition took place years before I started working on my book, Indian Voices: Listening to Native Americans and, well, I was not paying a lot of attention to certain phrases. My Euro-centric background was just fine with Th. Jefferson's prose. So much of it was thrilling. "He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts ..." Whew! "... circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy" what rhythm, what cadence, I thought.

Eventually, however, we get to "domestic Insurrections amongst us," and here it comes, the phrase that distresses me so much after spending close to a decade meeting, and listening to, Native Americans, that I can barely stand to read it, nor type it.

"... the merciless Indian Savages."

Say what? From the elegantly-quotable Jefferson? Yes. "... the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions."

While Native Americans celebrate this 4th of July weekend, probably with hotdogs and fireworks, and possibly a powwow (as far as I know, the day has not attained the level of dislike or dismissal in Indian country that there is towards Columbus Day), I wonder whether we might all read the Declaration of Independence out loud, consider what that three word phrase wrought, not to mention the words about "undistinguished Destruction." Destruction of who by whom? Native people, among others, may ask.

The words themselves are so savage, it is a wonder to me that there had already been a celebrating of Thanksgiving.

www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-owings/a-radical-suggestion-exci_b_888897.html

[lakhota]

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
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.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=declaration_transcript_content.html&title=NARA%20|%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> "... the merciless Indian Savages." <<<

>>> I wonder whether we might all read the Declaration of Independence out loud, consider what that three word phrase wrought, <<<

...four words...

[privateinvestor]

Are the savage indians still there?

>He excited ... the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, >is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Did the USA ever get to officially denounce this sentence from the Declaration? I can't see how this is different from Hitler declaring that jews poison wells.
We can't really change the Declaration of Independence now, but we have stopped referencing the Grievances section. The specific grievances against King George aren't applicable today and most people aren't even aware of that particular exaggeration. We give reverence once a year to the Principles of the Declaration of Independence which founded our country, made it great, and don't include any slams of the British or the Indians. The important thing is that we keep striving to make a more perfect union, rather than finding reasons to tear each other down. --Zephram Stark 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[privateinvestor]

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

This is not the only passage that is not relevant today as it was in in 1776

The Indian Wars

For the American rebels the American Revolutionary War was essentially two parallel wars: while the war in the East was a struggle against British rule, the war in the West was an "Indian War". The newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for control of the territory of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. The colonial interest in westward colonisation, as opposed to the British policy of maintaining peace by designating areas reserved to Native Americans west of the Appalachians following the end of the Seven Years War, was one cause of the revolution. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to reduce settlement and expansion onto their land. The Revolutionary War was "the most extensive and destructive" Indian war in United States history.[9]

Some native communities were divided over which side to support in the war. For the Iroquois Confederacy, based in New York and Pennsylvania, the American Revolution resulted in civil war; the Six Nations split, with the Oneidas and Tuscaroras siding with the rebels, and Mohawks, Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas, fighting for the British. While the Iroquois tried to avoid fighting directly against one another, the Revolution eventually forced intra-Iroquois combat. Both sides lost territory under the new political dispensation. The Crown aided the landless Iroquois by rewarding them with a reservation at Grand River in Ontario. In the Southeast, the Cherokee split into a neutral (or pro-rebel) faction and a pro-British faction, which the rebels referred to as the Chickamaugas, led by Dragging Canoe. Many other tribes were similarly divided.

Both immigrant and Native noncombatants suffered greatly during the war, and villages and food supplies were frequently destroyed during military expeditions. The largest of these expeditions was the Sullivan Expedition of 1779, which razed more than 40 Iroquois villages.

When the British made peace with the Americans in the Treaty of Paris (1783), they ceded a vast amount of Native American territory (without the consent of the indigenous peoples) to the United States. The United States treated the Native Americans who had fought with the British as enemy allies, a conquered people who had lost their land. The federal government of the United States was eager to expand, and the national government did so by purchasing Native American land in treaties and through warfare

[lakhota]

Native Americans were at a disadvantage in many ways, including the fact that most Indians didn't understand the concept of individual land "ownership" like their white aggressors.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 3, 2011 0:05:19 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Native Americans were at a disadvantage in many ways, including the fact that most Indians didn't understand the concept of individual land "ownership" like their white aggressors.

Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to reduce settlement and expansion onto their land. The Revolutionary War was "the most extensive and destructive" Indian war in United States history.[9]

[lakhota]

Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to reduce settlement and expansion onto their land. The Revolutionary War was "the most extensive and destructive" Indian war in United States history.[9

That in no way negates what I previously stated.

[deziloooooo]

At the time, the Indian wars were as dangerouse to the Colonists as the British were, thus those words..understandable when viewed with what was happening at the time..the "Declaration ,.... " wasn't written as a revered document at the time but just what it was, a Declaration of Independence, a Declaration of War against the Crown and the reasons for that declaration and any other injustices and problems they had at the time spelled out, and the Indian Tribes , Nations, were also of concern of the Colonists, , so they did what is done today..make the most of the written word to degrade your enemy..the Indians at that time were the enemy as much as the Crown, the British were..

As Roosevelt said to congress.. "A day Of infamy.."...after the attack at Pearl Harbor..we were declaring War,..and to be nice to the enemy, no way , any and all rhetoric to whip up the masses against our now enemy, the Empire of Japan..the JAP, not the Japanese..same in the declaration...Indians in their minds the enemy, whipping up the masses..the stronger the words against the enemy , the better..

[Deleted]

>>> "... the merciless Indian Savages." <<<

I don't see anything wrong with those words. As I remember history Indians were considered merciless back then. As for savages, to European settlers they were pretty much savages (no 3 cornered hats or anything ). Of course I believe that it doesn't matter what your parents (or for that matter family) did in the past, but what you do now & in the future that matters.

Besides, one could point out that the pilgrims were such religious nuts that they had to leave Europe because in a society of religious nuts they were so far out that they didn't (& couldn't) fit in. So what was said about indians back then was No big deal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[privateinvestor]

Native Americans are not too happy with the NFL team from Washington DC called the "Redskins"...Or the MLB team from Atlanta called the "Braves" and fans doing war chants and beating tom/tom drums while they are at it.. And you cannot call Native Americans "Chief" anymore since that is considered poltically incorrect, I guess but need to check with our resident expert P._I. who is also Politcal Incorrect to verify this ..

[deziloooooo]

There is nothing wrong in being "Politically Correct " and listening to how the other side, usually a minority , feels about some things..and consider their feelings , IMHO..though at times one has to wonder a bit..and think, "lighten up already.." and in these specific cases as mentioned above, the terms were picked in admiration of what the average fan, booster, American, who is not thinking of wanting to degenerate the group being mentioned, really wanting to honor them for what is considered strengths of ..bravery, toughness, warrior stature, wisdom..good sense...

I still like the St Johns old name for their sports teams , "Red man " over the new..Red Storm "..what the hell does that opitimize..and Braves for Atlanta, [They can take the tomahawk chop and stuff it you know where by the way, IMHO of course } and the "Red Skins " for Washingtons NFL team, to me a honor of..but if the majority of the Native Indians of today really object to those names, I guess we should reconsider them..but come on, "Red Storm "..the best a University of their standing could come up ? [sheesh]

[safeharbor37]

canerossi.us/ftmims/massacre.htm

[lakhota]

The Pilgrims: Children of the Devil

Puritan Doomsday Cult Plunders Paradise

"We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us, very loving, and ready to pleasure us. We often go to them, and they come to us.... We can walk as peaceably and safely in the woods as in the highways of England. We entertain them in our houses, and they give us venison... They are a people without any religion or knowledge of any God, yet very trusty, quick of apprehension, ripe-witted, just." - Pilgrim Edward Winslow, letter to a friend in England (1621)

Much More: www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/lenape.html

[ed1066]

Jul 3, 2011 0:05:19 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Native Americans were at a disadvantage in many ways, including the fact that most Indians didn't understand the concept of individual land "ownership" like their white aggressors.

You never heard of King Philip? Go learn something, don't just repost other peoples' drivel...

[deziloooooo]

Jul 3, 2011 17:18:46 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jul 3, 2011 0:05:19 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Native Americans were at a disadvantage in many ways, including the fact that most Indians didn't understand the concept of individual land "ownership" like their white aggressors.

You never heard of King Philip? Go learn something, don't just repost other peoples' drivel...

In Connecticut...he hid out in a cave on Talcott Mountain..Heublein Tower is there, great place to go fior a hike..

drivel? tsk, tsk..be nice now ed..

[privateinvestor]

My grand kids like Pocahontas in case you are interested Lak..

[deziloooooo]

www.summitpost.org/king-philip-mountain/361525#chapter_5

This attack on Simsbury, Connecticut, was in 1675..a looonng time ago, way before our country was even thought of...Indians and settlers were still trying to figure out who was going to be in control...to call it drivel?

This was seriouse stuff back then, actually a precurser as to what the final happening happened between the two races..a natural occurence, one society more advanced then the other..both wanted the same thing, the land and control..the less advanced was going to lose..but it took time before that was settled..

Same occurences happening today, weapons are different, but with all the better communications of today, education, good fellowship..same occurances are happening..from Tibet,Middle East, Africa, and not that long ago, Europe too..

[lakhota]

KING PHILIP’S WAR

William Bradford died in 1657. Massasoit died around 1660 and was succeeded by his son Wamsutta. With the passing of the first generation, the personal bonds which had maintained peace between the two very different groups were broken.

Tensions had long existed due to the two cultures’ different ways of life. Colonists' livestock trampling Native cornfields was a continuing problem. Competition for resources created friction. Regional economic changes forced many Natives to sell their land.

In 1662, in an arrogant attempt to exert control, colonial forces took Wampanoag leader Wamsutta at gunpoint to Plymouth. The Wampanoag were greatly angered when Wamsutta sickened and died shortly afterwards. Wamsutta's brother Metacom (King Philip) became leader and ultimately led his people into war to preserve their traditional way of life.

Colonists' hunger for land and their heavy-handed treatment of Natives led to one of the most disastrous wars in American history. The mysterious murder of John Sassamon, a Native liaison between the two groups, resulted in a complete breakdown in relations.

In 1675, the war, named for the Wampanoag leader Metacom (or King Philip), broke out in the town of Swansea. Hostilities spread north and west, soon threatening much of New England.

JOSIAH WINSLOW (1629-1680): The son of Mayflower passengers Edward and Susanna (White) Winslow, wealthy and Harvard-educated, Josiah Winslow was a distinguished member of the "second generation." Winslow did not continue his father's good relationship with the Natives. He acquired lands by dubious methods. His high-handed treatment of Wamsutta earned him the hatred of Wampanoag leader Metacom (King Philip). Elected the first American-born governor of Plymouth Colony in 1673, Winslow's volatile relationship with the Wampanoag leader did nothing to quell the tensions which exploded into King Philip's War in 1675. Winslow was appointed Commander of the New England forces. Winslow died in 1680.

King Philip's War lasted little more than a year. Beginning in Plymouth Colony in June of 1675, the war spread throughout New England. Boston itself was threatened. Colonial resources and manpower ultimately prevailed.

King Philip's warriors attacked the town of Swansea in western Plymouth Colony in June of 1675. Encouraged by success, they carried the war to neighboring Plymouth Colony towns. In August of 1675, hostilities expanded to the Connecticut River Valley; many settlements were burned. In December, Philip's winter quarters in Rhode Island's Great Swamp were destroyed in a crucial colonial victory. In February of 1676, Native forces swept east; Boston seemed threatened. War returned to Plymouth Colony, with a raid in Plymouth itself. Colonists considered abandoning the frontier, but time was on their side. By June of 1676, the tide of war had turned. Native forces, lacking food, manpower and arms, retreated. King Philip's death at Mount Hope in August 1676 effectively ended the war.

Not all Native Peoples sided with King Philip. Native soldiers joining with the colonists helped turned the tide of war. Those Natives who fought alongside the English or remained neutral were, however, not always trusted by the English. Many Native neutrals were interned on outlying islands under inhumane conditions.

The war ended in 1676 when Philip was killed by a Wampanoag soldier in Captain Benjamin Church's force.

King Philip’s War resulted in the destruction of families and communities, Native and colonist alike, throughout New England. It took decades for the colonists to recover from the loss of life, the property damage and the huge military expenditures.

The war was devastating for Native Peoples. Entire families were sold into slavery abroad; others were forced to become servants locally. The Wampanoag had to adapt aspects of their culture to survive; their political independence ended. Nevertheless, Native Peoples continued to live in Plymouth Colony. Many maintained tribal ties and a strong sense of community.

More: www.pilgrimhall.org/philipwar.htm

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I'm not sure I follow your line of discussion, Lak.. did you post this article to help justify why the founding fathers used the words, "merciless savages," and, if so, why post the thread?

[lakhota]

It was in response to a previous post.

[Virgil Showlion]

Lak, you need to make a point. You have no fewer than four bewildered PMers trying in vain to figure out what you're saying.

Do you believe that "merciless indian savages" is an unfair characterization? Fair but unfortunate? Fair but overgeneralized? Proof of white man's oppression? What?

[deziloooooo]

There was no way , IMHO, that the conflicts between the Native Indians and the settlers , from the first time whites landed here , right through the wars on the plains that what happened was not going to happen.

Unless the Indian tribes had come in in mass and said do with us what you want, we are powerless to stop it, this part of the history was inevitable.

Considering the times, the feeling toward the Tribes by the majority of the people and the leadership, even with good intentions..the demands of the white populace for the land, the minerals, there was no way to stop it..

Even today, in relationships between nations, peoples, there always seems a stronger people want what the other guy has, and if they feel they are strong enough, they go for it..

Why would we expect times to be different 300 years ago..right up to the middle of the 19th century..even today..one would have to be leary if all of a sudden some thing very valuable was found on reservations of cutrrent Indian Tribes...even with the lawyers and the awareness of today, to think some group wouldn't think abou how ton screw with those who's land it is and get a major slice of that particuler valuable what ever..

We JUST finally settled , pennies on the Doller with the native tribes from the stealing of the past , and that took how long, even with court decisions in their favor, how many years to finally settle that long injustice, it was OBAMA who signed that piece of legislation, and while i won't say another POTUS wouldn't have done so, until he did finally settle it..no other POTUS had signed off on it..

[billisonboard]

Jul 3, 2011 20:20:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Lak, you need to make a point. ...

[lakhota]

Jul 3, 2011 20:20:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Lak, you need to make a point. You have no fewer than four bewildered PMers trying in vain to figure out what you're saying.

Do you believe that "merciless indian savages" is an unfair characterization? Fair but unfortunate? Fair but overgeneralized? Proof of white man's oppression? What?

It's Fourth of July weekend. The OP makes the point. I've also included the Declaration of Independence, and some (maybe many) may not even be aware it contains those three words.

Virgil, don't harass and stalk me. If you don't like the thread, then just ignore it - or worse. In case you haven't noticed, I don't like conversing or posting with mods. What's your problem?

I would say the thread more than meets the "politics" threshold.

While Native Americans celebrate this 4th of July weekend, probably with hotdogs and fireworks, and possibly a powwow (as far as I know, the day has not attained the level of dislike or dismissal in Indian country that there is towards Columbus Day), I wonder whether we might all read the Declaration of Independence out loud, consider what that three word phrase wrought, not to mention the words about "undistinguished Destruction." Destruction of who by whom? Native people, among others, may ask.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> I wonder whether we might all read the Declaration of Independence out loud, consider what that three word phrase wrought <<<

...and then what?

...I don't see in the OP article where it asks the reader anything other than to think about it... maybe I missed the question you are asking of your readers?

...and if this is all rhetorical, then have a nice holiday...

[lakhota]

"Merciless Indian Savages" and the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is considered the founding document of the United States with its adoption date – July 4th – celebrated as America's Independence Day. Justly famed as one of the most important documents in the development of modern democracy, its opening paragraphs contain ringing language familiar to most Americans: "When in the course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another … a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…. 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 …."

Less familiar, however, is the Declaration's long list of "repeated Injuries and Usurpations" by King George III that form the basis for dissolving the "Political Bands" with Great Britain. For those who work in Federal Indian law, the list is striking as it contains several provisions that sound very much like grievances Indian Nations have against the Federal government. For example, one complaint against King George III is that "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:…For suspending our own Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever."

Even more disturbing is the Declaration's characterization of Native peoples: "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." This libel is indicative of how the Federal government has manipulated the Native role in American history to its advantage from the beginning. It is also extremely ironic as assistance from several tribes, such as the Oneida, played an important role in the success of the American Revolution.

The Declaration, as an historic document, cannot be changed; however, Congress could pass a resolution that the United States no longer stands by this particular justification for American independence. Getting history right does make a difference.

Gregory A. Smith is an attorney and government affairs specialist with the law firm of Smith & Brown-Yazzie LLP.

www.smithbrownyazzie.com/home/-merciless-indian-savages-and-the-declaration-of-independence

[privateinvestor]

Native American Quiz....Do You Know Who This Is??

[deziloooooo]

Hayes was his name I believe.. raised the flag on Iwo Jima..one of , I think , three who survived, a native american..navajo I beleive but could be wrong there.

Am I correct?