> This is equivalent to saying "We need to always mention that americans abused and raped black slaves when US constitution was written, so we should never talk about it without talking about slavery."
So... you think you don't have too?
So... you think you don't have too?
Think about it this way: you don't rehash the rules of football (or "soccer", if you're from the US) every time you talk about a match. You don't go into the history of how those rules came to be what they are now. It's all part of the context and you only revisit that context when there's a reason to do so.
The relationship of slavery and the US constitution should be part of the context everyone is aware of. That means it should be part of education everyone receives. Thinking that it needs explicit mention in every discussion of the constitution implies a belief that most people aren't aware of the context, and that is a problem that needs a proper solution.
Why should someone in for instance Brazil know of these details of the USA history? The context for the Brazilian constitutions is part of the education everyone receives here in Brazil, but I don't recall learning anything about the USA constitution in school. Don't forget that HN has an international audience.
I believe that we should live in a society with much better education. An essential ingredient of that education -- much more important than the mere learning of facts -- is the understanding of how to approach a discussion, how to think logically, how to question things, etc. A crucial element of that "essential ingredient" is the understanding of the importance of context and of being informed.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that someone in Brazil should be taught, as part of their standard education, about the US constitution. But that puts the onus on them to get informed about the topic of the discussion before jumping into a discussion of it. And when participating in such a discussion, they should also probably indicate that they might not have the same understanding of the context that everyone else might have.
In short, I believe that we should all receive the education that teaches us not only the relevant context of the things we are expected to be dealing with in the future, but also that it's our responsibility to be informed when participating in discussions.
Whatever your point, this is a strange hill to die on because slavery is explicitly discussed in the US Constitution. It was a foundational to the founding of the US (three-fifths compromise) and remains legal as a form of punishment to this very day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
We should utterly destroy and banish the kind of national pride over symbols that carry with it the opportunity to become an unchallengeable chant.
Talking about the founding of a country should be a bit like reciting the Miranda rights in an arrest. It's a moment for the citizens to remind themselves of their rights and responsibilities, of pride and humility.
If only as a purely practical concern – how many paragraphs does it take to enumerate the sins of the United States? Or any permanent member of the UN Security Council? Imagine every news story getting an additional six paragraphs of boilerplate for every country mentioned!
If an article were specifically about Antebellum architecture, some mention of slavery seems fairly reasonable. If an article were instead about snowboarding in America, mention of slavery is probably less expected.
It's perfectly acceptable to discuss the politics of a fragmented new nation struggling to establish a new government, post revolutionary war without feeling obliged to discuss the institution of slavery.