U.S. Constitution now labeled as "harmful content".

[7thKeeper]

So they're saying the entire archive of founding documents is harmful? Imagine what they must think of the country itself.

English language isn't your native language is it? That or you are just intentionally being obtuse here.

 

[Petros2015]

they might want to read what they actually think of it

Not for children?

NARA’s Statement on Potentially Harmful Content

We could just slap the warning label on the internet and all of human history and be done with it. They are not singling anything out here, they are just not un-singling out a particular thing.

I fell like this is the equivalent of saying "life and history are rated PG-13". Or maybe "please understand, we try to do things better these days"

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, that's history as it was written at the time it was written. Some people could be offended by what is written today in 250 years. That would especially go for the "woke" speak currently being done. People living 250 years from now will read it and get a good laugh.

But think of this: Those who lived a couple centuries ago may have spoken differently than we're used to, and had somewhat different views on things, but they managed to break away from an oppressive government and find a new land to birth a brand new country that has become the greatest nation on earth. The "woke" of today could never accomplish anything like that, no matter how refined their newspeak is, and how politically correct they may try to be.

What are people like you accomplishing today? People who read the Federalist and get whipped up over obvious untruths? You guys fixing a lot of problems or are you just sitting around whining about trigger warnings and how you need statues to remember your confederate war heroes?

The Founders of this country knew how to do what needed to be done, and make it last for centuries.

The Founders’ first attempt at creating a country lasted about 11 years. I have t-shirts older than that. Their second attempt lasted 73 years before descending into civil war. My house is older than that.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Founders’ first attempt at creating a country lasted about 11 years. I have t-shirts older than that. Their second attempt lasted 73 years before descending into civil war. My house is older than that.

I actually never learned about the Articles of Confederation growing up. A lot of people think the Constitution was the first attempt. I also think there is a issue where people don't realize how radically the Reconstruction Amendments actually changed our system of government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I actually never learned about the Articles of Confederation growing up. A lot of people think the Constitution was the first attempt. I also think there is a issue where people don't realize how radically the Reconstruction Amendments actually changed our system of government.

I think I heard about the Articles, but I don't recall any sort of hammering home of the message that it was a form of government that failed and had to be scrapped because it imposed so little centralized control that it was functionally useless.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Can we slap a warning label on this thread because I think I just got cancer reading through some of the replies here.

 

[Sparagmos]

Well, that's history as it was written at the time it was written. Some people could be offended by what is written today in 250 years. That would especially go for the "woke" speak currently being done. People living 250 years from now will read it and get a good laugh.

But think of this: Those who lived a couple centuries ago may have spoken differently than we're used to, and had somewhat different views on things, but they managed to break away from an oppressive government and find a new land to birth a brand new country that has become the greatest nation on earth. The "woke" of today could never accomplish anything like that, no matter how refined their newspeak is, and how politically correct they may try to be. The Founders of this country knew how to do what needed to be done, and make it last for centuries.

. The confederacy did not become "the greatest nation on earth," it was rightfully defeated.
What does this have to do with the disclaimer? The archives don’t exclusively house the writings of revolutionaries, they also house the writings of traitorous white supremecists and people who slaughtered Native Americans. It’s important history to read but its offensive. Have you even looked through it?

 

[Sparagmos]

So they're saying the entire archive of founding documents is harmful? Imagine what they must think of the country itself.

So you didn’t even read the disclaimer if you have to ask that question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If anyone still believes that our leaders are sincere when they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, they might want to read what they actually think of it, as if they haven't already made it clear already:

"The National Archives Records Administration placed a “harmful content” warning on the Constitution, labeling the governing document of the United States as “harmful or difficult to view.” The warning applies to all documents across the Archives’ cataloged website, including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence."
National Archives Slaps 'Harmful Content' Warning On Constitution

Also interesting is that the same people have also declared that their own Rotunda that houses the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights – is an example of “structural racism” and that the Founding Fathers and other White, historically impactful Americans are portrayed too positively.
National Archives task force cites Rotunda as 'racism' example

Sounds similar to the early church in regards to the scriptures. False interpretations can definitely cause problems.

 

[Arcangl86]

So they're saying the entire archive of founding documents is harmful? Imagine what they must think of the country itself.

No, they are saying that some of the millions of documents being maintained by the NARA are harmful, including some of those which are accessible through the catalog.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I'm not saying that.

Have you read the actual warning or been to the site?

That said, i am glad you now see the horse wallop that is reporting at The Federalist.

I asked if THEY were saying that.
But if you don't like the report being from The Federalist, here are other sources reporting the same thing. Take your pick about which messenger you approve of:
National Archives introduces 'harmful language alert' for records, including Constitution

National Archives introduces 'harmful language alert' for records, including Constitution

National Archives now has 'harmful content' warning for US Constitution, all other documents

 

[Aldebaran]

Sounds similar to the early church in regards to the scriptures. False interpretations can definitely cause problems.

A big difference here is that the church has opened up and allowed open access to scripture. At the same time, our government has gone from proudly celebrating our Constitution to being ashamed of it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A big difference here is that the church has opened up and allowed open access to scripture. At the same time, our government has gone from proudly celebrating our Constitution to being ashamed of it.

What makes you think they’re ashamed of it?

 

[Ligurian]

The Federalist is nothing more than a low brow hysteria rag feeding you nonsense so that you juice their ad revenue. They don’t have your best interests at heart and yet you seem to have no problem trusting them.

But then, you probably think the same thing about The Federalist Papers, so...

Pretty funny, all things considered, especially in a thread where harmful content is considered to be terms like "elderly" and "handicapped" and "illegal alien"... which are just descriptions of a factual nature... unlike your term "low brow"...

"Want gone?" These are literally the people preserving and making sure that everyone has access to these historical documents.

By slapping perjorative warning labels on the files, they're actually creating interest in people for whom the forbidden is a lure. What happens next? Because like it or not, race war and class warfare is also in the wheelhouse of the man behind the curtain.

Who is hiding anything? These are the people preserving history.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

What do they have to say about the indentured servants who were never released? And how about all the people sent to the colonies as punishment for stealing a crust of bread or a withered apple? Anything? No, probably not. Because that won't foster race war will it. Regardless of the fact that most of us don't come from families that could have owned such a luxury item, we continue to hear it as though we ourselves handed the money to the slavers. Every time I see bleeding-hearts going on about the black slaves, I'm reminded of the Chinese slaves snagged by those same slave ships who seem still to go unmourned. And I wonder why nobody cares who the slavers were in the first place. Certainly not many people care that the indigenous people of the colonies were the first to be made slaves by The Vaunted, albeit misremembered, Colombus.

They're not hiding anything*. It's an online searchable archive of historical material available for public use. That's the opposite of hiding things.

*Well, except for the documents pulled in the 2000s for "national security" reasons.



The US relationship with the Soviet Union during WW2 was an alliance of convenience, forced on both by the war. It fell apart rapidly in the years immediately following the war.

The pre-WW2 relationship between the US and the Soviet Union was limited and tenuous. The Soviet Union was primarily inward looking, and there was a strong streak of isolationism in the US - which was only exacerbated by the Great Depression.

Are you not taught any of this in the US?

The US knew about the Bolshevik Revolution... we have the paper trails to prove it. So, what would've made them really want to join up with the Communists to take German lands? Well, thankfully, we also have that paper trial, too. They carved up Europe and stole the technology of the Germans along with the German scientists. This makes the war with Germany highly suspect, in my book.

"National security reasons"... yeah... wonder what that could be. I've read some of the backstory of the how and why of WWII in books where you'd never think to find such things, including one about South African banks... someone read some archives that weren't sealed for "National security reasons", and the cat got out of the bag. They certainly knew what Stalin was... damage control soon followed.

That’s ridiculous.

If they were hiding it, you wouldn’t be able to find it in NARA.

I’m sorry but did you just quote The Matrix?

This.




Y’all acting like you ain’t talkin to a librarian or somethin

Yeah... I do quote the Matrix... I'm guessing you don't pass out the red pill with every library card you issue.

 

[Ligurian]

A big difference here is that the church has opened up and allowed open access to scripture. At the same time, our government has gone from proudly celebrating our Constitution to being ashamed of it.

Since they're sworn in, and sworn to protect the Constitution... isn't that treason?

 

[Sparagmos]

By slapping perjorative warning labels on the files, they're actually creating interest in people for whom the forbidden is a lure. What happens next? Because like it or not, race war and class warfare is also in the wheelhouse of the man behind the curtain.

So you don’t want people to read these documents? First you were concerned that the librarians were trying to get rid of them, now you think they might want to entice people to read them. Which is it?

What do they have to say about the indentured servants who were never released? And how about all the people sent to the colonies as punishment for stealing a crust of bread or a withered apple? Anything? No, probably not. Because that won't foster race war will it.

Who is "they"? The librarians? Are you complaining that the archivists aren’t publishing their own personal opinions about specific events? Why in the world would they?

Regardless of the fact that most of us don't come from families that could have owned such a luxury item, we continue to hear it as though we ourselves handed the money to the slavers. Every time I see bleeding-hearts going on about the black slaves, I'm reminded of the Chinese slaves snagged by those same slave ships who seem still to go unmourned. And I wonder why nobody cares who the slavers were in the first place. Certainly not many people care that the indigenous people of the colonies were the first to be made slaves by The Vaunted, albeit misremembered, Colombus.

. Who is this rant directed at? What is it’s relation to the disclaimer or contents of the library?

 

[dzheremi]

Slapping a warning label on the documents they're "protecting" shows their dim view of those documents.

Since when does having a warning label on something somehow show a dim view of that thing? Cigarette and alcohol manufacturers have agreed to put such labels on their own products, but they'd probably still like people to buy said products. Same with the music and film industries' respective tagging of potentially offensive content.

Similarly, I'm going to guess that the people at the archives want people to be able to access their content, even if the resulting research can be difficult.

To me this is no bigger deal than leaving a note in a film archive or at an old movie screening reminding people that your average western from the 1940s is probably not going to have the type of modern attitude towards Native Americans, women, or children that we might expect from our more regular consumption of contemporary media. It strikes me as a no-brainer when it comes to showing that they did try to warn people ahead of time, so that nobody can successfully sue or social outrage mob them in an attempt to close off access to records deemed problematic by this or that group.

 

[Ligurian]

Not really no...I think high school likes to focus on the civil rights stuff, barely mentioning the cold war except to make it sound silly and overblown.

There's really no talk of the great terror, great purge, gulag, labor camps, mass starvation, and the total failure of communism in every nation that took a stab at it.

We love talking about nazis though.

The war crime trials for these = the great white throne judgement?

https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-James-Bacque/dp/1559581735
https://www.amazon.com/British-Concentration-Camps-History-1900-1975/dp/1399011405
Japanese-American Internment | Harry S. Truman

 

[dzheremi]

I can't imagine a viewpoint from which having any kind of critical analysis of America's founding documents is treated as something tantamount to heresy, though I guess it is funny to see so many Christians make deities out of the many Deists involved in the USA's founding. Perhaps such people hope that being 'conservative' in the context of America's civic religion (US-worship) will somehow make up for their own lack of conservatism in Christian religious belief and worship. You know...the stuff that this website is supposed to be about.

 

[Aldebaran]

What are people like you accomplishing today? People who read the Federalist and get whipped up over obvious untruths? You guys fixing a lot of problems or are you just sitting around whining about trigger warnings and how you need statues to remember your confederate war heroes?

At least I don't have an irrational fear of statues.

The Founders’ first attempt at creating a country lasted about 11 years. I have t-shirts older than that. Their second attempt lasted 73 years before descending into civil war. My house is older than that.

United States of America, age 245.