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.

 

Follow Alison Owings on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlisonOwings

Comments

[Jack2011]

05:08 AM on 08/17/2011

I agree there is no excuse for ignorance and bigotry, but I also appreciate the fact that our founders were aware that the views of their day would change over time and what we can appreciate is that the Constitution was written to allow for that. We cant erase / deny the bad in it. We know our history books are missing alot of the ugly and horrific, but the Constitution is one document that cant edit out the past. Those people with their pocket Constitution who are crying out about what our founders intended and "getting our country back" are all ignorant of what it's all about. Our founding fathers knew that our society would grow and they needed to give the power of change to future citizens.

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” - George Washington

(Note: a certain faux network website banned me for attempting to use this quote.)

[Danny Littlejohn]

12:59 PM on 07/19/2011

I haven't read all 3000+ comments, but as an enrolled "real" American Indian I realize the language came from a different time and viewpoint.

I think about what it meant to the Indians of the time and my opinion is that they had no idea they were being disrespected on a piece of paper that would last until 2011 and beyond or that they'd be a conquered people for the rest of their lives.

Had they known, history may look different today. Just because the movies show an elder shaman type telling the young warriors that he had a vision that we as Natives need to learn the white man's ways and walk in both worlds doesn't mean that's how it went down. I'm sure there was a lot of confusion and speculation as to what these land grabbers were up to.

It's going to take many, many more years to right what has gone wrong when it comes to dealing with the Nation to Nation problems that started way before the Declaration of Independance. Indians of today are no longer uneducated and ignorant of when they are being disrespected, so hopefully sooner than later the Native voice will be heard and taken seriously.

Danny Littlejohn
Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Member
US Citizen

[BurntOffering]

10:35 AM on 07/15/2011

I too love Thomas Jefferson who considered the Native American Indian as "merciless savages" due to their forms of war fare. I also know the Natve American Indian woman was the head of the household by their religion, and when the White man came to lands not their own with a Mayflower Compact in Hand claiming they came In the Name of God; Amen. Unfortunately after having understaken for the Glory of GOD and the Advancement of the Christian faith those sons of guns and witches came up with the 1st AMENdment. Or in other words by their choice of NO law respecting an establishment of religion" decided to Rob God and Keep the Glory for themselves because they had pledged their allegiance to a Dont Tread On Me Serpent Spirit of Independence flag pole. Unfortunately, Now Satan is Risen, and Reborn in the Flesh of a woman; who because of the 1st Amendment has a Just Cause; to Dissolve, Sioux and Throw-Off the body of government men who allowed such evils to exist; cause they are unable to stop thinking about sex or Right themselves.

[psychobombshell]

05:48 PM on 07/08/2011

I am offended by the language, but I understand the historical reason behind it. Prior to and after the Revolutionary war, Native Americans chose to side with those who served their best interest. In this instance, a majority sided with the British because the Red Coats had always stopped settlers from moving past a certain line and pushing the Natives off their lands. They had been assured that this would continue. However, not all Natives fought on the side of the British. In fact, the Iroquois Confederacy of Tribes almost perished because different tribes within it fought on either side and it became a sort of intra-tribal civil war.

[cegrubbs]

10:25 AM on 07/11/2011

A close reading of Thomas Jefferson reveals a deep racist and abusive person. To excuse him because of his time, or circumstances is to miss the point, he was wrong. And many white people did not hold his vicious views, but he had power and access to powerful others and it was his sick world view that got institutionalized in the new White Republic.

[busterggi]

04:11 PM on 07/07/2011

Impopsicle, the founding fathers made no mistakes!

[detroitblkmale30]

03:13 PM on 07/06/2011

Sadly not in the best terms but at least they garnered mentioned in the Declaration at all.. Obviously African-Americans were not included in the famous "all men" seeing how Jefferson owned slaves when he penned this.

[hazyafternoonsunshine]

01:47 AM on 07/06/2011

History is a sordid affair. Century upon century of cruelty, brutality, and genocide. History is a glorious affair: century upon century of scientific mathematics, literary, musical, artistic, theatrical and cultural advancement. History is multi-faceted, with many truths, some of which are uncomfortable. Our ambivalence and discomfort with the past is a force that works against repetition of our most grievous errors, and is therefore useful to the extent that it actually works.

[JOHNSPEAKS]

10:21 PM on 07/05/2011

I find liberal language and ideas to be unamerican and offensive, now do we get to have these ideas and opinions eliminated from everyday conservations???

[newworldman777]

08:05 PM on 07/06/2011

Who is trying to get Jefferson's words eliminated from the D of I? 99% of these comments are merely underscoring the hypocritical attitudes of your so-called "Founding Fathers." They were a bunch of racist European-descended slave-owners who placed themselves and their own race upon some non-existent pedestal of racial superiority. They ignored their own atrocities while highlighting the atrocities of others. As despicable as that is, that is what they did, and that is what we are pointing out.

[John P Slevin]

11:29 AM on 07/07/2011

Probably not. However, surely we can agree that there should be no more showings of any movies featuring Pauly Shore.

[grailknight]

07:29 PM on 07/05/2011

Let's see, Jefferson's usage was not uncommon in his time, so in order to make a 21st century, politically correct blogger comfortable, we must change the phrasing? Next thing you know someone will be censoring the works of Mark Twain!

[YoBear]

08:25 PM on 07/05/2011

Tell this to all the constitutionalists out there who seem to think every nuance from 200 years ago still applies.

[grailknight]

10:54 PM on 07/05/2011

well you know those originists forget that the constitution implies a living document by providing for amendments, and that one of their most famous members a Supreme Court Justice wouldn't qualify as a citizen by strict construction. Oh the paradox!

[schnauzergirl]

03:25 PM on 07/05/2011

You must also take in to context the fact that the definition and intention of words has changed over time. In thime of Jefferson and Franklin any person who was part of an less civilized culture (as demmed by their measure) was a "savage" it was not used to only denote those who were war like and brutal but used as a general description to mean primative, which is why in the Declaration its specifies "the merciless".

Even more recently, A book written in 1899 "TANGWEERA,LIFE AND ADVENTURES AMONG
GENTLE SAVAGES"


PREFACE
"This book was written in my old age ; but it is a record of
my youth, passed among the gentle savages of Central
America, amid the gorgeous scenery of the tropics — an ideal
life for a boy, and such as not one boy in a million has ever
enjoyed."

[cegrubbs]

10:48 AM on 07/11/2011

By any standard of wisdom and aesthetic culture the indigenous peoples of America were more civilized than the white settlers of the vicious British Empire. They didn't call them 'savage" because that were less civilized, rather they called the indigenous "savage" because they estimed their own sky god worshipping, patriarchal, slave owning, class divided, nature hating culture, with its absurd "objectivity" and "mechanistic world view" and sought to destroy the land of North America just as they had the land of Europe.

They had not learned to take baths, and listen to their souls. As Gandhi said "Western Civilization? That would be a good idea."

[schnauzergirl]

11:18 AM on 07/11/2011

I did not say I agreed with the colonists in their description. I was just merely stating that for quite a while, before and afte, the Declaration of Independence was written, "savage" was often used to describe any of the worlds tribal culutres regardless of the violence level. To European-centric thinkers of the time it did not automatically mean visciousness.

[aaronburr]

03:00 PM on 07/05/2011

The phrase in question is actually excerpted from one of a long list of enumerated offenses by King George III of England toward the American colonists, specifical­ly the inciting of Indian tribes to attack the American colonists. The complete sentence (in the original language of the Declaratio­n) was:

"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."

It is an indictment of George III's offense against the colonists, not an indictment of the Native American's themselves­. The presentati­on in the article significan­tly alters the context of the phrase and most of the comments here end up have nothing to do with the factual text of the Declaration of Independence but are rather opinions about Jefferson himself, the founding fathers in general and the abhorrent treatment of Native Americans both pre and post American independence.

As a matter of history, Jefferson actually had high regard for the Native Americans and his instructio­ns to the Lewis and Clark expedition were very explicit that they were to be treated with civility and respect.

[FJ 1200]

11:11 AM on 07/06/2011

HERE HERE!

[John P Slevin]

11:32 AM on 07/07/2011

As well, though most tribes fought on the side of the British (though most of them also didn't actually do all the fighting the British wished them to do)---it was the "smart money" bet to believe the Brits would prevail.

Some tribes fought on the side of the colonials---and most of them also limited fighting to their own territorial needs.

[MokkNoir]

09:20 AM on 07/05/2011

No shortage of condemning the “European American” around here, however, the first major problem with that is there is no such thing as a country called “Europe America”. Secondly, those Europeans have been killing all sorts of people including their own for a long damn time. Third, those nice little natives that got butchered, well…seems they were doing the exact same thing to each other the whole time as well. So, let’s not pretend just because they ran into a stronger force from a different continent that they are innocent bystanders. If they weren’t so busy killing each other with their fanatical inter-tribal conflicts, the white man never would have gained a foothold to begin with. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying any of the wars or atrocities committed throughout all of human history in the fight for land, resources, or religions. It is only now in the modern world that we have enough education and knowledge to understand a higher purpose and goal. Only now are we within reach of obtaining and being able to change the world from being a baseless and bloody existance to a much more respectable and enlightened world that embraces tolerance, education, understanding, and a quality of life for all.

[montanason]

12:49 PM on 07/05/2011

"a higher purpose and goal"-the goal now as it has always been is the
acquisition of resources and to hell with whoever stands in the way.
Somehow that doesn't resonate as a higher purpose to me. Neither
does the "drill baby drill" mentality, or the wanton headlong destruction
of the environment. I find no higher purpose in lobbyists and corporation
in effect writing legislation that serves only them, or bailing out banks
and commercial institutions while people get thrown out of their homes.
Apparently a product of this education and knowledge you speak of.
Fanatical inter tribal conflicts-sounds like the ongoing history of the
world wouldn't you say? And this is an enlightened world? It is a world
where money and power talk and everything else walks.

[TanzaniaTeacher]

03:08 PM on 07/05/2011

Are you actually making the two wrongs make a right argument? They were killing each other so it doesn't matter that the Europeans decided to join in on the party.

That's an apologist's argument, and is not valid.

[OlongapoEd]

04:09 PM on 07/05/2011

There have been an inordinate number of apologists on this thread, sad to say.

[Absolute]

08:55 AM on 07/05/2011

How is it surprising that a man who owned slaves referred to Indians as savages?

[nullcodes]

09:46 AM on 07/05/2011

I don't see the problem here. I don't believe he was referring to all Indians as savages. In fact it was very specific in talking about the "merciless" Indian savages. Nothing in that statement shows a belief that ALL Indians were merciless or even savage. We know from other wrtitings that Jefferson praised Indians and showed respect for them. If Jefferson meant to say that all Indians were merciless savages he would have phrased it differently. He would have called for their destruction etc. It's clear he was referring only to a select group of people. If I said "evil men should be put in jail" .. does that mean all men should be put in jail? No, it means only men with the characteristic of being evil should be put in jail.

[OlongapoEd]

04:11 PM on 07/05/2011

Not at all surprising. He was *clearly* stating that they were "merciless" *because* they were "savages*.

[mailguy]

08:53 AM on 07/05/2011

Merciless Indian Savages I should hope so. imagine a hoard of foreign settlers, invading our shores, taking our land, destroying our customs and way of life. I think you would have a hoard of Merciless Americans. It's amazing that even now in N.Y. State treaties are being ignored and the NATIVE AMERICANS who as a race live a life standard somewhat below their white brethren use selling goods, like cigarettes and gasoline tax free in order to better themselves, being persecuted by the greedy politicians in the state that want that tax revenue so the can live their privileged status. The state has over 220 politicians running the state, the federal government has less than 600 why can't a state with that many "leaders" over 40 per cent of what the whole U.S. has run the state without a deficit that runs in the billions of dollars unless they are part of the problem. It's estimated that each state senator and assemblyman needs well over a million dollars to run his office. Cut the size of government in half you save over 100 million alone, after all this state hasn't passed a budget on time since Rockefeller was governor and being billions in debt how much worse a job could they do.

[bllbgwll]

07:58 AM on 07/05/2011

We are the most self aware and self involved species on the planet. Our capacities for destruction and progress are symptomatic of the not yet understood schizophrenia (the root definition-"split mind") that we seem to suffer. Good luck to us.

[MokkNoir]

08:37 AM on 07/05/2011

Oh, and don't forget the most pompous, arrogant, contemptuous, and self-righteous species as well. See, this is why humans are so stupid, most are just so enthralled with the concept of us being superior, and yet there isn't really that much evidence to support that concept. Yes, I know....a bunch of clowns are going to say our technology is proof enough, yet I fail to find one single species that is stupid enough to destroy its own habitat like we so willingly do. While on the other hand, it is easy enough to find many species of life that are FAR SUPERIOR to us.