October 26, 2001

8:59 AM

The American Declaration of Independence.Given the debate over whether the US can or should try to do nation-building in Afghanistan, I wonder if revisiting our own Declaration of Independence would clarify things. It strikes me that this document (especially the preamble) would apply to anyone, anywhere. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
posted by mrmanley (39 comments total)

And while I'm at it, here's the Bill of Rights.
posted by mrmanley at 9:06 AM on October 26, 2001

And here are the MeFi posting guidelines.
posted by jpoulos at 9:07 AM on October 26, 2001

jpoulos:

Ummm...your point?
posted by mrmanley at 9:11 AM on October 26, 2001

While I agree that the American Declaration has universal themes, I think the Taliban are already practicing the "...all men are created equal" part. And as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, good luck implementing the "freedom of religion" rights in post-Taliban Afghanistan. (Or, in that case, in 99.9% of the Islamic countries).
posted by Rastafari at 9:14 AM on October 26, 2001

no, jpoulos raises the important point. what is the point. hell, mommys grounding me is in the declaration. Ho used it. Mao used it. lenin used it. Use it, please. BUT SEE WHAT COMES OF THE WORDS.
posted by clavdivs at 9:23 AM on October 26, 2001

mrmanley -- most people have seen what you're linking before, is the problem. Metafilter starts with a link people haven't seen before and which hopefully then prompts discussion. You're doing it backwards, asking an interesting question that's worth discussing, and then throwing in links for reference. have a fab weekend
posted by luser at 9:24 AM on October 26, 2001

Crap, I was going to link to some stone tablets but I don't know the html for that.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:28 AM on October 26, 2001

The Declaration of Independence is just that - an announcement. It is not a governing document. Revisiting it clarifies nothing. You might as well look at the Quran. If you have a point, argue it, but no point is advanced by vagure references to ideological doctrine capable of supporting competing views. Just ask Mohammed Atta - he thinks the Quran instructed him to fly into building.
posted by geronimo_rex at 9:31 AM on October 26, 2001

You could have posted this in a thread about nation building in afghanistan, for instance.
posted by Doug at 9:32 AM on October 26, 2001

Not trying to be a dick. Sorry if I came off glib. My point is pretty much what luser said. I think the discussion you're trying to start here is a good one, but I disagree with the method you're using to start it. Posting a link to something as ubiquitous as the Declaration of Independence doesn't jive with the guidelines, IMO, and it opens up a can of worms for the site in general. If this link is OK, what about just linking to a chapter in the Bible or Koran and saying "what do you think"?

I don't want to raise a stink as I think it's all been done to death and it lowers the signal/noise ratio, so I haven't started a MetaTalk thread, but I encourage someone to do so if they feel this conversation is worth continuing. If not, please carry on.
posted by jpoulos at 9:32 AM on October 26, 2001

MeFi FreeRepublic non est. MetaTalk, anyone?
posted by holgate at 9:35 AM on October 26, 2001

So links to kitties with strobe-lights flashing from their eyes is topical, but a link to a founding document of the nation is not.

Ooookay.
posted by mrmanley at 9:42 AM on October 26, 2001

"He (King George) 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. "

Some things never change...
posted by quercus at 9:48 AM on October 26, 2001

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Heehee....wonder if bin Laden will invoke that one.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

*cough*Cuba*cough*
posted by boaz at 9:59 AM on October 26, 2001

a link to a founding document of the nation is not.

Dude, that link is 225 years old. If it's not stale by now, I don't know what is.
posted by kindall at 10:31 AM on October 26, 2001

Oh, wait, here it is
posted by Outlawyr at 10:39 AM on October 26, 2001

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

*cough*Cuba*cough*

We have a sanctions against Cuba, not an embargo. Our sanctions don't stop Cuba with trading with anyone other that us. Hardly the same thing.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:43 AM on October 26, 2001

You obviously have never heard of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, lj. That contains plenty of examples of laws that go well beyond 'we won't trade with them'.
I agree it's not a perfect example; a better example would be our forbidding Puerto Rico, a colony of ours, to trade with Cuba. That hardly sounds unfair now that we're in the catbird's seat.
posted by boaz at 11:03 AM on October 26, 2001

You obviously have never heard of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992

That is a very weak act compared to the 17th century Navigation Acts. And calling Puerto Rico a colony isn't a very accurate description.

Maybe if we controlled Cuba and prevented them from trading with anyone except the U.S. you would have a point.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:22 AM on October 26, 2001

And calling Puerto Rico a colony isn't a very accurate description.

I think I would have noticed if those flags had 51 stars on them nowadays.

Maybe if we controlled Cuba and prevented them from trading with anyone except the U.S. you would have a point.

And we have been trying to cut off their trade with the world, including us. If you're going to call bullshit, it's best not to be full of it yourself.
posted by boaz at 12:21 PM on October 26, 2001

And calling Puerto Rico a colony isn't a very accurate description.

I think I would have noticed if those flags had 51 stars on them nowadays.

Not being a state doesn't mean it's a colony. Is the District of Columbia a colony?

And we have been trying to cut off their trade with the world, including us. If you're going to call bullshit, it's best not to be full of it yourself.

Since we don't control Cuban trade, we can't control who they trade with other than us except in the most indirect ways. Anyone who's bought a cigar on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls would know that.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:27 PM on October 26, 2001

The District of Columbia's a bad example, since they suffer from "taxation without representation".

Home rule for the District!
posted by djfiander at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2001

Not being a state doesn't mean it's a colony. Is the District of Columbia a colony?

Here's the definition of colony (from Dictionary.com):

A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

You figure it out. If you've got something to offer beyond semantic bullshitting, please continue.
posted by boaz at 12:51 PM on October 26, 2001

Anyone who's bought a cigar on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls would know that.

And anyone who's bought a joint understands the difference between intentions and what's possible to do.
posted by boaz at 1:00 PM on October 26, 2001

A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

Glad you can read a dictionary. By that weak definition, Hawaii and Alaska are colonies.

Nice try, though. Doesn't change that fact that your initial argument about Cuba versus colonial America had no foundation.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2001

Glad you can read a dictionary. By that weak definition, Hawaii and Alaska are colonies.

Glad you keep up on your semantic bullshit, but that doesn't change what it continues to be.

Doesn't change that fact that your initial argument about Cuba versus colonial America had no foundation.

Wow, you're a great reader; you can even read what isn't there! I was contrasting the US's behavior when it was an oppressed little colony to when it became a powerful country with colonies of its own. Your counterclaim that the US is content to merely restrict trade between us and Cuba is the bullshit humdinger so far. (except for that whole colony-not-a-colony crapola)
posted by boaz at 1:33 PM on October 26, 2001

boaz and ljromanoff, I'd to congratulate you both for removing any trace of civility and intelligent discourse from a thread that barely had any to begin with. Is typing the word "bullshit" really that much fun?
posted by Optamystic at 1:39 PM on October 26, 2001

I was contrasting the US's behavior when it was an oppressed little colony to when it became a powerful country with colonies of its own.

Yeah, and Cuba is not one of our colonies, nor are we forcing Cuba to limit it's trade to the U.S. only. Your argument is paper-thin.

except for that whole colony-not-a-colony crapola

That would be your crapola my friend. Feel free to keep trying to make a point, though.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:42 PM on October 26, 2001

boaz and ljromanoff, I'd to congratulate you both for removing any trace of civility and intelligent discourse from a thread that barely had any to begin with. Is typing the word "bullshit" really that much fun?

I wouldn't know, I've only cut and pasted it from Mr. Stuller's enlightening contributions.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:45 PM on October 26, 2001

Optamystic, thanks for the sanity check; this is probably what trolls consider warmup. Bye-bye lj.
posted by boaz at 2:01 PM on October 26, 2001

Optamystic, thanks for the sanity check; this is probably what trolls consider warmup. Bye-bye lj.

Ah, toss around the word 'troll' then run for the hills. Classy. Good evening, Mr. Stuller.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:06 PM on October 26, 2001

?
posted by boaz at 2:22 PM on October 26, 2001

Wow. What a great discussion.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:53 PM on October 26, 2001

?
posted by boaz at 2:22 PM PST on October 26

What?
posted by ljromanoff at 3:44 PM on October 26, 2001

Woo, it's like battle of the hissy fits.
posted by rodii at 9:38 PM on October 26, 2001

Crybabies.
posted by elvissinatra at 12:26 AM on October 27, 2001

It strikes me that this document (especially the preamble) would apply to anyone, anywhere.

Outside of the preamble (that will be the first two paragraphs, yes?) it's not that relevant to anyone anywhere apart from of the North-eastern part of North America in the late 18th century, except possibly the court of George III at the same time.

I'm not sure that Afghanistan needs to declare independence from anywhere, least of all the Court of George III. If they do, they might find this just as useful.

Or are the Afghani people beset by New Offices, having their substance eaten out by swarms of harassing officers?

Pretty nasty, officers eating out your substance, I can tell you.

Are you sure you weren't thinking of the constitution?

It may well be a philosophical mistake to hold any "truths" to be "self-evident". Discuss.

(All references above to George III may well be references to George IV. Getting it to within one George is good enough for me.)
posted by Grangousier at 6:47 AM on October 27, 2001

boaz and ljromanoff, I'd to congratulate you both for removing any trace of civility and intelligent discourse from a thread that barely had any to begin with. Is typing the word "bullshit" really that much fun?

If you're going to address these sort of comments to me, could you at least cite an example of incivilty on my part? And furthermore, take it to MetaTalk.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:08 AM on October 27, 2001

he wont back his stuff, eh opty?
posted by clavdivs at 7:55 PM on October 27, 2001