

Jefferson changed 'subjects' to 'citizens' in Declaration of Independence - zeynel1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html

======
CulturalNgineer
On a similar note:

I'd like to see an effort to eliminate the word "consumers" from our leaders
lexicons.

Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers...

Consumers are commodities that are fattened until they're slaughtered!

Words have significance on both conscious and subliminal levels.

Beware a government AND a corporate elite that has come to think of you as a
'consumer'... a 'subject'.

'Citizens' are a nuisance!

Jefferson, Franklin and Adams knew that words were important.

Personal Democracy: Disruption as an Enlightenment Essential
[http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/06/personal-
democr...](http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/06/personal-democracy-
disruption-as.html)

~~~
michael_dorfman
_Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers... Consumers are commodities that
are fattened until they're slaughtered! Words have significance on both
conscious and subliminal levels._

How about "Bunnies are consumers. Kittens are consumers. Consumers are cute
and fluffy!"

Actually, consumers are, umm, those who consume things. As opposed to
producers.

If you've got some subliminal association between consumption and livestock,
well, that's you.

~~~
gruseom
I don't think it's subliminal. The issue isn't the technical meaning of
"consumer" but the fact that it has replaced "citizen" as the default for
referring to human beings in our society. Humans walk, but one would never
hear "What does this mean for walkers?" in a news item, unless of course it
were a news item about traffic or something.

The implication of this usage of "consumer" is that consumption isn't just
something we do, it's what we are. That is deeply fucked. I couldn't care less
about the political agenda of everybody-should-consume-less, but the idea that
humans' primary role in society is not to be active members of a polity (the
meaning of "citizen") but rather essentially to eat things, is a violation of
our best traditions and intuitions. We are called to more than that.

The replacement of "citizen" with "consumer" is as significant as the
replacement of "subject" with "citizen" was in the first place.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Where do you see "consumer" used with "citizen" would do better?

Besides the Consumer Protection Agency (where it is completely appropriate), I
can't remember hearing it used by the government.

I only hear "What does this mean for consumers?" when it is in reference to
prices, or purchasing, etc. "What does this mean for citizens?" only makes
sense when discussing civic issues.

Could you provide a concrete example of the mis-use you claim is rife?

~~~
gruseom
Next time I see one I'll try to remember to come back and post it here. In the
meantime, any suggestions for how we can measure this? One crude measure:
Google comes up with 88M hits for "citizen" and 270M for "consumer".

~~~
codingthewheel
Searchable full-text databases of political speeches. I've done it. You'll
find both words used all over the place, with roughly the same meaning.

------
jackfoxy
The article fails to mention Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were the other
two members of the committee charged with drafting the document. Producing a
hard copy in those days was a real chore, and probably only done in order to
present a working document to the full committee.

So did Jefferson make this change on his own, and take the extra care in
changing the words so the rest of the committee wouldn't notice? Or in
discussions with Adams and Franklin did they all recognize how momentous the
change was and expunging "subjects" was a kind of ritual?

~~~
michael_dorfman
_So did Jefferson make this change on his own, and take the extra care in
changing the words so the rest of the committee wouldn't notice? Or in
discussions with Adams and Franklin did they all recognize how momentous the
change was and expunging "subjects" was a kind of ritual?_

I don't think there's need for either alternative. The most parsimonious
explanation, it seems to me, is that he wrote "subjects" out of habit, and
then (quickly, I imagine) realized that it was no longer appropriate. No
hiding, no ritual-- just a correction.

------
thebigshane
Instead of arguing the politics over this, I am more interested in the
discovery of the revision. How cool is that we were able to peak into amateur
version control of over 200 years ago?

Imagine the possibilities of all of the online stored version control of
documents and code today. I bet it won't too long before the government
publicly version-controls laws (it could already exist for all I know). Then
think about some junior congressman who wanted to change the wording of some
clause 10 years from now and how in 20 years from now the populace can look
back in amazement of how much might have changed if that changeset was never
merged and tagged as HR_123. Headlines in 2030: "Researches searching through
git histories from 2020, find that Congressman Santos is to 'blame' for the
'Google-Monopoly Loophole'"

