We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal

[boutons_deux]

Knowing how 18th century America treated women, Indians, slaves, "All men" very probably meant "white European land-owning" men, not all mankind. I'm sure today's KKK-mode conservatives would go along with that "strict interpretation", even if they wouldn't admit it (except at closed CPAC-type gathering).

[Sisk]

memo to jack..back in the day 'men' = 'everyone'.....

Memo to YOU: men didn't include blacks, as back in the day they weren't men but property.

However, changing the actual text is completely ridiculous and another indication of how soft this country has become.

[jacobdrj]

PC is so dumb...

[NFGIII]

It seems like such a small thing, changing the word from men to people, but that's how these things get started. A little here and a little there until the do ent and or historical event has been changed to suit someone's perspective. Leave it alone and quote it as is. Discuss the situation and view it with a historical perspective and stop the ethnocentrism.

[DarrinS]

"men" refers to mankind. No need to change the wording -- simply re ed.

[admiralsnackbar]

Much ado about nothing. I didn't see the usual suspects give a damn when Thomas Jefferson got written out of history books.

[z0sa]

Definitely a problem and an issue to alter any source's wording when directly quoting said source. Illegal as well, I assume, in this case.

[admiralsnackbar]

Definitely a problem and an issue to alter any source's wording when directly quoting said source. Illegal as well, I assume, in this case.

Definitely an easily remedied problem, too, which is why this thread seems so unnecessarily histrionic. It isn't as though the concept of the Declaration was altered, it was just paraphrased for kids. Do the publishers deserve censure for passing a paraphrase off as a quote? Sure they do. Will they probably lose out on their next contract? Sure they will. Will a generation of kids grow up not knowing what the Declaration said? No.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Definitely an easily remedied problem, too, which is why this thread seems so unnecessarily histrionic. It isn't as though the concept of the Declaration was altered, it was just paraphrased for kids. Do the publishers deserve censure for passing a paraphrase off as a quote? Sure they do. Will they probably lose out on their next contract? Sure they will. Will a generation of kids grow up not knowing what the Declaration said? No.

This indoctrination 101. why can't you see it?

[z0sa]

Definitely an easily remedied problem, too, which is why this thread seems so unnecessarily histrionic. It isn't as though the concept of the Declaration was altered, it was just paraphrased for kids. Do the publishers deserve censure for passing a paraphrase off as a quote? Sure they do. Will they probably lose out on their next contract? Sure they will. Will a generation of kids grow up not knowing what the Declaration said? No.

oh, I agree it's "much ado over nothing", as you stated. But aren't there any standards anymore? Why can grown adults either a) gloss over their notes and paraphrase a very common and "politically-soaked" phrase or b) simply ignore the rules of English and the quote itself so they can be politically correct?

I am actually a proponent of being PC during the appropriate moments. I don't think this was one of them. Kids today need to realize, at least on some level, the context in which our history occurred, which included a large group of all-white near-plutocrats stating "men" are equal, not "people". Politicizing history will truly only lead to indoctrination, regardless of ideology, party, standard, etc. People need to know the whole truth when it comes to our history, and that's impossible without establishing context.

[admiralsnackbar]

I think the whole "politically correct" angle is an invention of the messenger. It seems just as likely -- if not more -- to believe "people" was used to make the concept clear.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think the whole "politically correct" angle is an invention of the messenger. It seems just as likely -- if not more -- to believe "people" was used to make the concept clear.

Bingo!

[DarrinS]

I think the whole "politically correct" angle is an invention of the messenger. It seems just as likely -- if not more -- to believe "people" was used to make the concept clear.

The original version in unclear?

[admiralsnackbar]

The original version in unclear?

10-year-olds can take things pretty literally.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The original version in unclear?

that's ok darrins.. you can still be outraged..

[ploto]

It isn't as though the concept of the Declaration was altered, it was just paraphrased for kids.

It is pretty obvious that this did not apply to all people at the time it was written.

"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."

[word]

Teaching people they are oppressed, in today's America, is outrageous. It makes a mockery of the word 'oppression'.

[admiralsnackbar]

It is pretty obvious that this did not apply to all people at the time it was written.

"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."

Agreed, and that's where the situation becomes ridiculous, doesn't it? If kids are taught the literal history of this country, the usual crybabies will say books are teaching kids to hate America (the 3/5ths compromise comes to mind since Galileo was harping on it last week, but it could be as simple as explaining to ten-year-olds that liberty was originally only for landed gentlemen of the white persuasion), but if a stream-lined version of history is presented, it becomes PC indoctrination, and Jeebus save us all.

I'm not defending mis-quoting the Declaration, but I'm also pretty sure kids can't grasp (just as some adults cannot) that the writers of said do ent were imperfect. If the argument is for historical accuracy down the line, then they should have the balls to accept what that may mean. Otherwise, find a better political whipping boy.