Standard Mischief » A “subjects” changed to “citizens” story made my day.July 3, 2010 8:22 am
[…] Claire) 2010-07-03 11:21 by Standard Mischief, Filed under:deranged rants No Comments […]
E on the left coastJuly 3, 2010 9:14 am
So, what does this have to do with the price of egg’s in china?
PatJuly 3, 2010 9:36 am
“So, what does this have to do with the price of egg’s in china?”
Probably a lot more than you know, when you consider how Washington (and China, et al) insists on considering its “citizens” as property-of-the-government.
Personally, I’d prefer to be called a resident-in-liberty.
For a man who railed for individual liberty while keeping over 200 slaves at his Virginia estate, the slip also hints at “The Sage of Monticello” struggling to resolve the revolutionary social and cultural changes in the late 17th century and shows, in the blotting of fresh ink, the resolve needed to break from European patriarchal politics.
“It actually may represent a dawning in the mind of Jefferson, mid-sentence, that with this document the whole relationship between individuals and government is turned on its head from what had been accepted for thousands of years before,” writes commenter “An American Expatriate” on the conservative Free Republic website. “For an historian this is like an astronomer seeing a snapshot of the Big Bang.”
The philosophical difference between “subjects” and “citizens” indeed defined the Declaration of Independence, making the correction that much more intriguing to historians.
“It’s almost like we can see him write ‘subjects’ and then quickly decide that’s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn’t even want a record of it,” said Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden on Friday. “Really, it sends chills down the spine.”
I agree with Pat on the present state of things. If going from “subjects” to “citizens” was a huge philosophical change (and it was), then it’s time for another similar leap. Something to think about this Independence Day.
I wonder, too, whether articles about this (that are making major mainstream media rounds) might get a few people thinking. Most will probably just take it as a bit of historical trivia and move on. Ho hum. But what if a few thousand people who haven’t been coherently “political” hear about this say, “Hm … what have we become now? What are we to the government and what’s the government to us?” Could happen …
Kent McManigalJuly 3, 2010 2:24 pm
I’m pretty opposed to the concept of “citizen” as well, and have written about that: here and here
Jim B.July 3, 2010 7:31 pm
Opposing “citizen” here as well. There are lot of stories that basically insults any person, being called “Citizen”. Kind of like it’s become another word for cattle.
Using the word “subject” in a document declaring independence from the monarch would have been blatantly laughable, as in:
“We subjects declare ourselves to no longer be, er.. um.. subject to the King’s rule.”
I can see why Jefferson crossed it out.
I agree that “citizen” isn’t a great replacement, but in 1776 it wasn’t encumbered with any baggage from the French Revolution. “Comrade” would have worked, too, since the Russian Revolution had not happened yet, either.
PhilalethesJuly 4, 2010 5:35 am
I thought this paragraph was rather apt:
“It’s quite amazing how he morphed ‘subjects’ into ‘citizens,’ ” she said. “We did the reverse morphing back to ‘subjects.’ “
PhilalethesJuly 4, 2010 5:50 am
The concept of “citizen” to which commenters are objecting is the modern one, defined in the “Fourteenth Amendment”, wherein the “subject” that Jefferson “obliterated” was reintroduced:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The word “subject” appears numerous times in the Constitution, but this is the first place it is used in the same sense as the word Jefferson replaced with “citizen” — by which he meant perhaps something rather different from our experience of the term (given that he clearly regarded it as something radically different than “subject”).
The “Fourteenth Amendment” is regarded by many students of history as the actual “Constitution” under which American “citizens” now live, the rest having been reduced to the status of mere window dressing.
Standard MischiefJuly 4, 2010 9:50 am
“resident-in-liberty” is nice, but I’d like to warn y’all that the “euphemism treadmill” doesn’t really go anywhere.
PatJuly 4, 2010 12:36 pm
Not at all; that only describes what I’d like to be (as opposed to property-of-the-government, which is how we’re now treated — and that ISN’T a euphemism, it’s a fact!). As for what I am, I’ll settle for: free woman, individualist — or just Pat.
~~~~~
Re: the 14th Amendment terminology: There, the word “subject” is a verb, whereas citizen/“subject” is a noun — and I recognize the difference in usage as the Constitution was written. However I think it’s safe to assume the meaning of the words (v. vs n.) comes from the same root, the root that places one authority over another — or in the case of a nation, one authority over all others.
I object to the verb as it’s applied in the 14th Amendment, since I do not consider ourselves subject to any jurisdiction. We are individuals who happen to have been born, and now live, in a given jurisdiction; that incident of birth should impose no *automatic* subjection over anyone.
In all things American-revolutionary, we have to remember that the Founders were still trying to set up a *nation* (Republic or otherwise), on a par with other nations at that time. In doing so, they might well have misinterpreted or forgotten how individuals *or* “authorities” should best relate to each other. Even the Founders were not omniscient.
PhilalethesJuly 4, 2010 6:48 pm
Pat: Actually, in the 14th Amendment, “subject” is an adjective, describing those to whom it is applied, i.e. “all persons born….” And the 14th Amendment was not written by the Founders; it was the post-“Civil” War measure that cemented in place what that war had accomplished: converting the previously sovereign American citizen into a subject of the now-supreme unitary national state, formerly the federal government. In other words, it reinstated the very relationship which Jefferson had tried so hard to “obliterate”, less than a century later, thus essentially ending the American experiment in republican self-government, despite lingering appearances.
Like the lady said, “We did the reverse morphing back to ‘subjects.’ “
PatJuly 4, 2010 9:32 pm
You’re right, of course; sorry about that. I didn’t carry through my thinking, and got side-tracked into something else. My position still stands, however, regarding “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. (or any country).
[…] Claire) 2010-07-03 11:21 by Standard Mischief, Filed under:deranged rants No Comments […]
So, what does this have to do with the price of egg’s in china?
“So, what does this have to do with the price of egg’s in china?”
Probably a lot more than you know, when you consider how Washington (and China, et al) insists on considering its “citizens” as property-of-the-government.
Personally, I’d prefer to be called a resident-in-liberty.
E … I think a partial answer can be found in this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0703/Thomas-Jefferson-a-closet-royalist-Hardly and in the fact the J. obliterated and didn’t merely cross out (as he did with other words) the word “subjects.” From the article …
I agree with Pat on the present state of things. If going from “subjects” to “citizens” was a huge philosophical change (and it was), then it’s time for another similar leap. Something to think about this Independence Day.
I wonder, too, whether articles about this (that are making major mainstream media rounds) might get a few people thinking. Most will probably just take it as a bit of historical trivia and move on. Ho hum. But what if a few thousand people who haven’t been coherently “political” hear about this say, “Hm … what have we become now? What are we to the government and what’s the government to us?” Could happen …
I’m pretty opposed to the concept of “citizen” as well, and have written about that: here and here
Opposing “citizen” here as well. There are lot of stories that basically insults any person, being called “Citizen”. Kind of like it’s become another word for cattle.
Me don’t like.
Just call me sov.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft
S.
Using the word “subject” in a document declaring independence from the monarch would have been blatantly laughable, as in:
“We subjects declare ourselves to no longer be, er.. um.. subject to the King’s rule.”
I can see why Jefferson crossed it out.
I agree that “citizen” isn’t a great replacement, but in 1776 it wasn’t encumbered with any baggage from the French Revolution. “Comrade” would have worked, too, since the Russian Revolution had not happened yet, either.
I thought this paragraph was rather apt:
“It’s quite amazing how he morphed ‘subjects’ into ‘citizens,’ ” she said. “We did the reverse morphing back to ‘subjects.’ “
The concept of “citizen” to which commenters are objecting is the modern one, defined in the “Fourteenth Amendment”, wherein the “subject” that Jefferson “obliterated” was reintroduced:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The word “subject” appears numerous times in the Constitution, but this is the first place it is used in the same sense as the word Jefferson replaced with “citizen” — by which he meant perhaps something rather different from our experience of the term (given that he clearly regarded it as something radically different than “subject”).
The “Fourteenth Amendment” is regarded by many students of history as the actual “Constitution” under which American “citizens” now live, the rest having been reduced to the status of mere window dressing.
“resident-in-liberty” is nice, but I’d like to warn y’all that the “euphemism treadmill” doesn’t really go anywhere.
Not at all; that only describes what I’d like to be (as opposed to property-of-the-government, which is how we’re now treated — and that ISN’T a euphemism, it’s a fact!). As for what I am, I’ll settle for: free woman, individualist — or just Pat.
~~~~~
Re: the 14th Amendment terminology: There, the word “subject” is a verb, whereas citizen/“subject” is a noun — and I recognize the difference in usage as the Constitution was written. However I think it’s safe to assume the meaning of the words (v. vs n.) comes from the same root, the root that places one authority over another — or in the case of a nation, one authority over all others.
I object to the verb as it’s applied in the 14th Amendment, since I do not consider ourselves subject to any jurisdiction. We are individuals who happen to have been born, and now live, in a given jurisdiction; that incident of birth should impose no *automatic* subjection over anyone.
In all things American-revolutionary, we have to remember that the Founders were still trying to set up a *nation* (Republic or otherwise), on a par with other nations at that time. In doing so, they might well have misinterpreted or forgotten how individuals *or* “authorities” should best relate to each other. Even the Founders were not omniscient.
Pat: Actually, in the 14th Amendment, “subject” is an adjective, describing those to whom it is applied, i.e. “all persons born….” And the 14th Amendment was not written by the Founders; it was the post-“Civil” War measure that cemented in place what that war had accomplished: converting the previously sovereign American citizen into a subject of the now-supreme unitary national state, formerly the federal government. In other words, it reinstated the very relationship which Jefferson had tried so hard to “obliterate”, less than a century later, thus essentially ending the American experiment in republican self-government, despite lingering appearances.
See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=subject
Like the lady said, “We did the reverse morphing back to ‘subjects.’ “
You’re right, of course; sorry about that. I didn’t carry through my thinking, and got side-tracked into something else. My position still stands, however, regarding “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. (or any country).