We shouldn't have to, no. Ask yourself why you think it should be necessary to always explicitly talk about slavery whenever we discuss the US constitution.

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.

From my view, I think the habitual exercise in humility brings a refreshing and productive new spirit to the national discussion. Especially as we can see that the consequences of past mistakes linger on today.

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.

> 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.

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.

That's a very interesting question! I think it shifts the goalposts a bit from what I've originally replied to, but I say that as a good thing, because it makes the discussion even more interesting and it allows me to better explain what I believe.

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.

In many discussions about "how things are and should be", one side often talks about the Constitution as an absolute source of truth, as if its authors were infallible. This is the reason why I believe slavery should be kept in mind in such discussions.

>Ask yourself why you think it should be necessary to always explicitly talk about slavery whenever we discuss the US constitution.

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...

Do you think most people are aware of that context?

I think it’s fair to say that yes, we don’t have to address all the bad things an entity has historically done any time we want to talk about that entity in any capacity.

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!

How closely are the sins related to the subject matter?

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.

Is that an honest question? The answer to that question is in their comment and your asking of it seems to be rhetorical.

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.