I just wanted to take a moment to thank each and everyone of you for checking out this website.
Doing this project has been quite the endeavor. I have tried things like this before and never lasted more than a week or two but your constant feedback and support have been so critical to this thing surviving as long as it has. To my guests thank you so much for your brilliance and diversity of opinion. Yesterday Tornello's post got the second highest number of "unique visitors" in the history of the project. Mr. Anderson's post still holds the record for the most page views in total though so we will see if we can capitalize on this momentum. FYI, 212 people have looked at this website in just the past seven days and over 1000 in the past month! Not bad for a lowly Social Science teacher in Loudoun County, Virginia and his friends. For those that have written comments, thank you for that as well! Glad to hear from you, even if writing an entire article may seem overwhelming. There is still space if you want to contribute, just contact me @MrG_Unit. Let's keep the momentum going for the rest of the summer and enjoy!
0 Comments
By Laura Tornello
This morning, I’m thinking about the danger of accepting things as they are. I’m thinking about one of my favorite lines from Henry David Thoreau’s essay Walden; the author decides to move to an isolated cabin in the woods and reflect on who he is apart from society, but even within a short time there, he finds himself falling into routines: “I had not lived there a week before my feet wore a path from my door to the pond side; and though it is five or six years since I trod it, it is still quite distinct. It is true, I fear, that others may have fallen into it, and so helped to keep it open. The surface of the earth is soft and impressionable by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels. How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity." I’m also thinking about one particular line of “The Declaration of Independence” that keeps resonating with me: “All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” And most of all, I’m thinking about the movie V for Vendetta, which depicts a dystopian world in the not-so-distant future, where the UK is ruled by a fascist police state. In one pivotal scene, a masked revolutionary named “V” takes over the state-run British Television Network and broadcasts his message to the world: "Allow me first to apologize for this interruption,” he begins. "I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition.” And then he goes on to say: "There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?...How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.” I’ll admit it’s a difficult morning to be an American. Let’s be honest: it’s a difficult morning to be a human. I woke up to news of the Dallas shootings and am still grappling with the two men shot and killed by police in the past few days. I also still haven’t forgotten, of course, about the lives lost in Orlando, and Baghdad, and Istanbul. And this is all happening against a political landscape that day by day feels increasingly more polarized, corrupt, and disenfranchising to the majority of citizens (or perhaps it’s always been that way, but the spectacle of the 2016 election season is making these problems even more glaringly apparent.) I think everyone would agree that there are large-scale changes that must, absolutely must happen in our society. But why haven’t they happened already? There’s this overwhelming sense in the public discourse right now (whether it’s on major news outlets or your Facebook feed) that it’s simply too difficult to make any substantial reforms. The issues change (gun control, police brutality, systemic racism, LGBTQ equality, women’s rights issues and access to reproductive health, campaign finance reform, the prevalence of super PACs and lobbyists dictating the political agenda, universal health care, even standardized testing), but the response is often six quite simple and, in my mind, dangerous words: “That’s the way it’s always been.” Because it’s always easier to stay the same, isn’t it? We cling to patterns and traditions and routines because they give us a sense of stability and bring order to what can often feel like an overwhelming world. At our core, we are creatures of habit. Thoreau recognized this; in spite of literally removing himself from the constraints of society, he found himself carving the same paths over and over. The founding fathers recognized this too; they acknowledge that we are often far more likely put up with evils rather than “abolishing the forms to which [we] are accustomed.” We did ultimately rebel against Britain, of course; the Declaration outlines a list of very specific grievances and makes it clear that the colonists are no longer willing to put up with the way things are. The scales have shifted; suddenly the “forms to which they [were] accustomed” seem far worse than the unknown. The risk and uncertainty are worth it, for the potential to create something better. But what do you do when there isn’t a ruling power? How do you declare independence from your current selves? I’m struggling to answer this question myself. But I do know this: the first step is always what V advocates at the end of his speech in V for Vendetta: “you need only look in a mirror.” I’m spending a lot of time right now reflecting on my own life experiences (as a teacher, as a white person, as a woman) and trying to stay unbiased and open to others’ perspectives. I’m reflecting on my own privilege and drawing on times where I’ve felt marginalized and discriminated against in order to find empathy for others, while making sure that I don’t presume to step inside someone else’s experiences and struggles. And because it’s me (absurdly enthusiastic English teacher who is borderline obsessed with The Great Gatsby, for those of you new APUSHers who don’t know me), I’m reminding myself of a passage from the screenplay for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”: “For what it’s worth: it’s never too late... to be whoever you want to be. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”
Last week, Tyler Anderson talked about the idea of "us and them" in the Declaration. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he articulated an anger towards King George III and that anger is certainly reminiscent of the anger percolating throughout this country today.
So in reading this wonderful article my initial thought was this: Who am I? Don't get me wrong, I'm Ben Gibson but who is Ben Gibson? Well, he is a lot of things. I am a teacher, a father, a NoVa resident, a UVA graduate, a husband, a Freedom Eagle, a male, a history lover, a blogger apparently and a Hamilton enthusiast (in no particular order). Identity is a fundamental theme of American history, so much so it is one of the key themes in the College Board AP US History curriculum. What does it mean to be an American? Who is included and who is excluded? A major goal of the Declaration is to define what is an American I would argue. This document lines out what it means to be an American, this is what we believe in and if you believe it then come join our cause. So our bond is not based upon common ancestry or nationality but an ideology. This is very different from many countries in world history. This concept is amplified by the famous question "What is An American?" by Michel Guillame Jean de Crevecoeur. His "Letters From an American Farmer" is often quoted in AP classes throughout the country, the most quotable part being: What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. This melting pot notion has a modern equivalent in this viral video that I saw on July 4th.
So defining an American is a difficult task and yet one we have constantly been obsessed with throughout our history.
Are Native Americans, American? I mean technically they have the biggest claim to the title and yet they are normally put in that "other" or "them" category. Are non-English speakers American? I know legally they can be but culturally there is a stigma there. Just ask Tim James. How do you "prove" your Americanness and why does it matter so much? I think it stems back to the final point Mr. Anderson made, in order to prop up the American there must be an other, even if it is a straw man. There has to be two identities for a comparison to take place. This becomes dangerous because labels typically do more damage than good. Yes labels can bring solidarity and camaraderie. I watch sports fans bond over nothing except the love of their team. I hugged random people when UVA football beat Florida State in 2005 and I would do it again. Yet that unifying force is just as powerful at dividing. That same passion for your soccer team leads to hooliganism and violence in France, like Russian and British fans did in the Euros this year. Love of one thing can easily lead to hate of the "other". Passions can overflow when we lose sight of what truly matters. Case and point, this week of violence where people of all labels and all backgrounds felt scared, angry and confused at what happened in Louisiana, Minnesota and Texas (among others). Exploiting labels for political purposes is heinous. Ignoring realities of life for groups of people is reprehensible. We could do a lot better in this country and this world if we emphasized one label above everything else. Not the label of your nationality or race or gender, I am talking about the label every single one of us shares. Human. When we lose sight of this label, when we stop treating people like humans, incredibly scary things happen. That is the greatness of this document I am obsessed with studying: "ALL men are created equal". The Declaration is not for Americans it is for everybody. These are not civil rights, they are human rights. It is what we believe and if you are a true American then you believe in the rights of life, liberty and happiness for all. That's an identity I can live with.
This week I thought I would go off course, ever so slightly, with this selection.
A few things you should know about Sam Cooke if you've never heard of him. Just like Elvis is the "King of Rock and Roll" and Michael Jackson is the "King of Pop" most music historians will tell you that Sam Cooke is the "King of Soul". James Brown may be the "Godfather" of soul music but Cooke came first in the heart of the Civil Rights Era where violence and discrimination stained many corners of our great nation. During a seven year period, coincidentally the same years as the Little Rock Nine to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Cooke had30 top-40 hits. Most of his highest charting singles were typical pop songs about young love and feelings of loneliness and infatuation. Yet his most famous work was a far cry from his mainstream musical repertoire. In 1963, Sam Cooke was denied access to a Holiday Inn in the South since the facilities were segregated. Cooke's anger combined with other folk songs that were openly questioning and critiquing racism in society helped convince the crooner to work on what he hoped would be an anthem. The problem is that a "crossover" artist like Sam Cooke could not dare go political or risk losing his rather large fan base. Although involved in the Civil Rights Movement, Cooke wanted to do more with his music. Hence, "A Change Is Gonna Come" was recorded in early 1964. In December of that year, Cooke once again found himself at a hotel except this day he would be shot and killed by the owner of the hotel. The police officers ruled it a "justifiable homicide" and less than two weeks later this song was released as a single. Revolutions bring about change and sometimes you are living in moments of immense change. You are simply anticipating these moments, the precipice of history. Without question this is one of those times of immense change and tension. This song is over 50 years old but it rings true today. Listen. On Monday our latest guest post will be written by no other than Laura Tornello.
Ms. Tornello is so awesome in so many ways, I will be curious to see if she can break this website as well as Mr. Anderson's post did. Which reminds me, if you want to catch up on the guest articles. They are linked below. Enjoy your weekend the best you can. With all the craziness going on right now you can take a moment to imagine the anger, violence and tension prevalent throughout America 240 years ago, We as a society need to examine not just the horrible atrocities going on right now throughout this country but the causes of it. We need the intelligence and the courage to articulate our thoughts, our fears and our goals. What is this country about? What is it's goal? Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers decreed a goal for America so poignant that it has sort of let us off the hook. Each successive generation has not had to articulate their own goals and ambitions for themselves and this country because the Declaration did it so well. Perhaps that is a cheap excuse 240 years later. It is important to study this document but it is also important to realize what our own interpretations and thoughts about our country and our role in society are. Do not be slaves to history but do not be ignorant of it either. We need an enlightened citizenry to move forward. So let's continue this intellectual journey with strength in our convictions. Education empowers us to face difficult challenges, it gives me purpose as an educator to challenge people to find their voice and their beliefs. This website is more than a passing fancy, it is a forum to connect all types of people with all types of beliefs, talents and passions. It unites us on a mission towards analysis and reflection. So let's move forward together! Caitlin Lansing-Chipotle and Freedom Austen Bundy-Brexit and Us Tyler Anderson-Trump and the Declaration
Earlier this summer you may have seen or heard of this acceptance speech at the BET Awards by Jesse Williams, an actor on the ABC show Grey's Anatomy:
This speech elicited a variety of reactions from across the pop culture landscape and has only been exacerbated by the tragic events around Alton Sterling's shooting this week.
While many will focus on the larger racial and social implications, the role of police in society, the language used etc. I want to focus on one key line: "We are going to have equal rights and justice in our own country or we will restructure their functions and ours." This is not a new concept but it is a revolutionary concept because it is the same message Jefferson is sending in the passage we are currently looking at: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. These statements represent a continuity of American thought, that governments must evolve and if they do not then they must be replaced. Call it "Political Darwinism" if you will, survival of the fittest on full display. As Stokely Carmichael ended in his famous Black Power speech "Move over or we're gonna move on over you". So this leads to a critical question, what is the tipping point? How do we know it's time to start over and not just tweak the system we are currently in? How do we reach the "consent" necessary for this and does that even matter? After all, newspaper writer H.L. Mencken once said: "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause." So what do we do with a country that was born of revolution and yet has the oldest Constitution in the history of the world? Have we changed? If not, is that because of our greatness and the lack of necessity or are there other issues at play? After all the first U.S. government lasted less than 20 years under the Articles of Confederation. Despite their best hopes, the Founding Fathers would never have believed the Constitution would still be in-tact today in 2016, even with amendments. So what makes people revolutionary? The Black Lives Matter group has been fighting a battle against police brutality and a disproportionate amount of African Americans being arrested, profiled and ultimately injured or killed while in police custody. Their tactics have been straight out of the "Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Playbook", non-violent protest, spectacles and empowering speakers to represent them. While it has increased awareness, little has changed when it comes to their goals. The problems they meant to solve are not going away and social media has made the problem even more obvious. Anyone with internet access can see Alton Sterling being shot and killed on demand, a horrifying and desensitizing notion. Especially when you consider that just a generation or two ago the first live murder on television was Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. This gives credence to Malcolm X in his most famous speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" who argued that "liberty or death brought about the freedom of this nation" . "If we want our rights, then we must fight for them". This is a line from the John Adams mini-series but it is not too far removed from what Jesse Williams is saying at the top of this article. Jefferson says that revolution comes when all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted and is justified when securing "safety' and "happiness". I do not want the Black Lives Matter group to turn violent, their entire goal is to stop the violence. It would be tragic to see them befall the same tactics that led to this crisis in the Hammurabi world of "an eye for an eye". On the other hand, the Declaration shows a path of legitimacy towards violence. After all, if revolutions are to be fought for government structures that "shall effect safety and happiness" than that is exactly what Black Lives Matters want. Jefferson claims that revolutions should not be for "light" or "transient" causes. This problem is neither light (death is pretty severe) nor transient (Emmit Till, Rodney King, Trayvon Martin, Freddie Grey, etc.). Now has every peaceful alternative been reached? That remains to be seen, we do not have the benefit of hindsight with this current American predicament. All we have is the knowledge that American revolutions have been few and far between. Our government, since its violent inception, has been one of the most stable in the modern era. So I guess this begs the question once more, just how revolutionary are you? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So for awhile we have been focused on the idea of natural rights and breaking down what words like life, liberty and happiness really mean. Now the Declaration of Independence moves forward and says that rights mean nothing if they are just philosophical principles argued about by intellectuals like John Locke and Jean Jaques Rousseau. We need government and this is why: "to secure these rights". This is the goal of government and Jefferson lays forth pretty heavy consequences for failure to live up to these expectations. Let us look at this passage and examine the role of government, the role of the people in government and how the "voice" of the people is measured.
Here are some revolutionary things you can try this week.
1. How revolutionary are you? Would you have been a patriot in 1776 or nah? www.historyisfun.org/how_revolutionary_are_you/quiz.html 2. Relive the greatest declaration since "The Declaration" by Tyler Anderson
You have to believe me: I really didn’t want to do this. In fact, I specifically told myself to out run all of my Trumpian temptations as I prepared for this article, but, alas, I have failed. I am slave to the illogical, contradictory blabberings of the presumptive Republican nominee, and I as I closely read and re-read our Declaration of Independence, I couldn’t deafen the blaring modern parallels between Trump and King George’s “Despotism”, specifically regarding safety and immigration. My contribution will probably not be an entirely original analysis—Trump has been likened to despots for almost a year now—but I couldn’t conscionably ignore the violations Jefferson cites in the Declaration of Independence that would (or still) persist today under a Trump Presidency. First, Jefferson remarks on The King’s “[endeavor] to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…”. Of course King George purposefully gummed up immigration to the colonies out of population management concerns—not necessarily to alleviate the colonists’ concerns for national safety--but it’s hard to not connect the King’s overreach to Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim refugees and immigrants in 2016. Based off what I’ve read, the American colonists welcomed immigrants simply because there is a solid, reassuring strength in numbers. Today, we welcome immigrants in hopes of diversifying our economy, culture, and education. To “ban” an entire population from our shores, regardless of reason, compromises the foundation we rest our entire republic on: independence. To be wholly independent means to move where we want to move, believe what we want to believe, explore what we want to explore and live amongst others in harmony without stifling political and philosophical directives. Like King George, Trump is actively seeking to obstruct a population’s freedom of movement; however, he is doing it in the name of public safety. Regardless, he’s taking a page straight out of the 1776 playbook to further his position. Government officials can’t institutionally ban an entire population of people or complicate immigration and integration unless they drum up a resounding fear of amongst the masses, and how does an institution do that? Dehumanization of course! Sadly, our esteemed Founding Fathers weren’t immune to this tactic either. In fact—perhaps regrettably?--they are kind enough to deliberately draw out the dehumanization of entire population in our country’s most important document when listing one of King George’s transgressions: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us”….. San Diego, anyone? Chicago? Potentially Cleveland? ‘[He] has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Here, I don’t think it’s a stretch to replace “Indian Savages” with “Muslim Refugees”. Of course I am not implying that all foreign “Muslims” are savages; rather, I’m contending that Jefferson’s characterization of the “Indian Savages” parallels Trump’s inane characterization of the foreign Muslims who are seeking refuge in America. Trump has gone on the record with quotes such as, “I think Islam hates us”, and “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension”, and " our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” Of course Trump has recently softened his stance on Muslim-banning, but please note the generalities and the connotation of almost inevitability in the above lines, as though each Muslim is genetically made up of an unabated hatred for America and its values, not unlike the Founding Fathers’ use of “merciless”, “Savage”, “known rule”, and “undistinguished destruction” in their characterization of the Native Americans. However, the primary difference between these two characterizations is context: The relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans was notoriously violent and strained; several Native American tribes did in fact ally with the British in hopes of avenging tribal losses and conserving pockets of their land. On the other hand, Outside of ISIS—a group that reportedly makes up only 31,500 (at most) of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims—there simply isn’t an Islamic-fueled existential threat to America that warrants Trump’s recycling of such incendiary language. Unlike the British in 1776, modern nations are not contracting out warriors to further their own political agendas on America. North Korea isn’t contracting out scores of Syrian suicide bombers to attack The Capitol. Russia hasn’t hired Libyan nationals to terrorize American schools or workplaces. The fact of the matter is misguided outsiders of all races and religions carry out terrorism in America, and Trump’s lines are a reminder of how poorly we have escaped our bigotry and prejudice over the past 240 years. We are still led to believe that a group incorrectly deemed unconscionable and “savage” threatens us existentially, a belief that only cuts and divides. Two hundred and forty years later, and there is still very much an “us”, and very much a “them". Congratulations!
You survived the Fourth of July and America's 240th Birthday. Since we were all busy, I've decided to make the Open Forum today. What were some of your thoughts yesterday? Ever wonder why were are so obsessed with fireworks? Did the rain but a damper on your patriotism? Did you watch some patriot-related television? Are you surprised College Board decided to release APUSH scores today and not yesterday? It's an open forum so it's all about you and your thoughts. So share them and go 'Murica! |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|