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
0 Comments
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! At least that it was it has become.
To be fair, America's Independence Day was really July 2nd. that was the day 240 years ago that the vote took pace and the signatures began. The process was finished today the Fourth and announced to the world and as a result, John Adams looks kind of foolish when he talked about how important July 2nd will be to this country. Regardless 240 years ago American and World history changes forever and this website is dedicated to studying and reflecting upon it. This afternoon Mr. Tyler Anderson will put in his contribution on this famous day. Even if the fame is a bit erroneous.
We all know that most people find history boring.
So historians must do everything in their power to make it interesting, even at the expense of embarrassing yourself to be "hip". This video combines two of my loves, the American Revolution and One Republic. While I think I could have written this song, don't forget my Taylor Swift/Andrew Jackson musical montage from Freedom Faculty's Got Talent 2015, it is very well done for what it is. Before this project is done I should make a song of my own. Please suggest songs to use as my base for the Declaration of Independence song in the comments section and go America! We have been following the Declaration of Independence and we have reached one of the most surprising things of the entire document, Jefferson's ad lib of John Locke's natural rights.
While the "pursuit of happiness" sounds wonderful and has some unique American connotations, leaving our property does seem like an odd decision. Yes, it could be implied in the clause "that among these rights...", but not being explicitly articulated seems strange for Jefferson, a lover of Locke. It would be like quoting Dr. Legnini without a British accent, Mr. Sessoms without saying Milton Friedman, Mr. Stoneking without mentioning the Imperial March or Mr. Thill without Missouri (see what I did right there, I just hit every demographic). So what gives? Let's explore.
Most Americans had never heard of Nigel Farage before the famed Brexit vote last week.
Farage was seen as an architect behind this vote and his cantankerous attitude mixed with a vitriolic political style has likened more than a few people to call him the Donald Trump of England. Farage's star is probably helped the most by the latest vote and he calmly explains to CNN why people are overreacting to this moment and even makes an American comparison. P.S. At the end he does make sure to send a jab Hillary Clinton's way
Now, as I said, MOST Americans were unaware of Nigel Farage in any meaningful way but not a former US government teacher like me.
Six years ago, before being so callous was cool, Farage went after the EU Leader and Belgium in terms that would make "Savage Susan" herself blush. It's not exactly the poise and elegance of the Declaration of Independence but this rant is pretty memorable. Enjoy! |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|