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.
I've yet to see that many inappropriate uses of the word "consumer". For those of us versed in economics, it's a real word with a real meaning, and there's no evidence in this thread that the usage of "consumer" deviates very far from that meaning.
Changing language for political purposes is a dubious business to begin with. Everyone just learns what the new euphemisms mean and no one's actual thinking is changed.When the existing semantics are already pretty accurate, the process of euphemism just makes the language inelegant and confusing. "Citizen" has a distinct meaning--there's no need to turn it into a euphemism for "consumer", or to discourage frank and precise discussion of how things affect people in various economic roles.
Your argument tends to support the point that it is better to be a citizen than a consumer, but that doesn't imply that it is better to call Americans 'citizens' rather than 'consumers.' If Americans really are better summed-up as 'consumers,' then it would be a kind of political correctness not to apply that label. Do you see it as inaccurate to call most Americans 'consumers'?
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?
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.
I guess it would be hard to make that change on a completed document where ink has already dried. I believe they used to have special rollers that would sock up fresh ink if one wanted to make a change.
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'"
[+] [-] CulturalNgineer|15 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jamesbritt|15 years ago|reply
These are people who happen to have access to power. Not much leading going on, and I certainly don't consider anyone as leading me.
Stop conceding authority.
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
Changing language for political purposes is a dubious business to begin with. Everyone just learns what the new euphemisms mean and no one's actual thinking is changed.When the existing semantics are already pretty accurate, the process of euphemism just makes the language inelegant and confusing. "Citizen" has a distinct meaning--there's no need to turn it into a euphemism for "consumer", or to discourage frank and precise discussion of how things affect people in various economic roles.
[+] [-] cia_plant|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|15 years ago|reply
You are a Citizen, not a Consumer!
[+] [-] jackfoxy|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sili|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thebigshane|15 years ago|reply
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'"
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]