Research Question I: Today's News
Explore what is currently being written about the Declaration of Indpendence. Use search engines such as Google, news websites and the library's newspaper databases to find a piece published within the past 12 months that's of particular interest to you. Once you've found a resource, find a second resource on the same topic. Write a brief synopsis of your articles and briefly explain the search strategies you used to find them. Post that information as a response to this post.
I used Google and found an article about Nancy Pelosi talking about how healthcare reform is tied to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I just googled and found the article on the Politico site. You can find a link to the article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77160.html
Trish, that's an interesting article. One thing you might want to consider when using Google to look for current events is to search news content only. When you access Google, you'll see there is a navigation bar at the top of the page. That will allow you to limit your search to "images", "youtube", "news" etc. Once you've found an article, such as this one, it's worthwile to take a look at the site on which it was published.
DeleteWhile the writers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestants and their lives were intricately woven with religious doctrine and tradition, they did have the foresight to make this document as inclusive and religiously ambiguous as possible for the times. In its most famous sentence, they authors who penned it, states that that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. Rather than saying, “god”, they not to make the document deliberately religiously motivated. While they use religious words, they don’t limit the language to a particular faith or denomination. This concept was furthered by the separation between church and state, however, how well it was maintained remains to be seen.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304211804577504923449570972.html
The separation between church and state was a major conflict in the past. Previously, the Pope assumed all power over the government because of his status in the Catholic Church. The Pope wrote the laws with God’s beliefs in mind. When the Declaration of Independence was written, there was hardly any influence of religion in the document. The colonists did not have to rely on the church to structure their ideals. As an independent nation, Americans could believe in anything they wanted to. Colonists embodied a new set of laws and rights that they wanted to have separate from the church and British influence, and they sought to fight for those rights in the Revolutionary War.
DeleteThis is a good point. The American colonies beliefs were intertwined with their religion. I think that the Christian ideals of the time played an important role in how the writers of the DOI declared their freedom. It is interesting to see how our society today is trying to remove these religious ideals from our government background and history, when our government was built off of them.
DeleteAmy Hanlon
The Declaration of Independence is still present in today’s society. The most recent activity from the Declaration of Independence can be found in news articles about September 11th. This significant and patriotic document is used in both positive and negative ways for this tragedy. One article from ABC News described how the document is used as an example of our independence and right to live freely and with justice on September 11th. Political leaders read this document on 9/11 in order to promote patriotism and remind Americans that the United States is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even on such devastating days. The other article I read showed that the Declaration of Independence was used in advertisements on September 11th. The one advertisement they showed was very disrespectful and inappropriate. It showed the words of the Declaration used to form a picture of the two towers, promoting a consumer credit company. They use the document in order to remind citizens that the “things we stand for still stand”, even though the Twin Towers had fallen eleven years before. While they are trying to show that America still leans on the support of the Declaration for things like equality, freedom, and capitalism, it was not right to use the display of the Twin Towers. The Declaration of Independence should only be used in positive ways to help citizens remember why they are American on days like September 11th. In order to find these articles, I searched the ABC News website and I used the Google search engine for the other article.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ground-politics-free-911-17202361#.UFNwco1lQ0U
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/the-most-exploitative-911-adverts/story-fnd11ay0-1226472753712
I agree with your claims regarding the usage of the Declaration of Independence as an advertisement in conjunction with September 11th. The advertisement has the correct theory, but it is inappropriate to reconstruct the towers using the Declaration of Independence. September 11th is still a very sensitive day for many Americans now. The company took a risk by walking this fine line of trying to get their message across and I believe that they crossed the line in this case. Even looking at a reconstruction of the towers can be upsetting for many.
Delete"The declaration of Independence should not be a mystery", writes David Dunlap of the New York Times, and I completely agree with this statement. For so long, as long as we have been a nation, this fabled document has acted more like a fairy tale and less like a pact between gentlemen and traitors that helped to shape our nation. Even before I began this course, I believed wholeheartedly that the Declaration of Independence was one of the most important documents in our nation's history, and its signing perhaps the most important event. However, even though I believed these things, I didn't actually understand why. The first article listed below does not really shed light on this mystery of the declaration so much as it strengthens Americans' obsessions with it. For 90 years, The New York Times has been including a facsimile of the document in the July 4 edition, and this is something that has become tradition not necessarily because people want to read the document or because they understand it, but because it fills them with pride. And although it rightfully should fill any American with pride (for it freed our nation from British rule and acted as a template for later declarations of independence), there is really more to the document than what is being relayed here.
ReplyDeleteIn a separate article from CNN, the second source, we find that the Declaration of Independence has significance not just to other nations now, but also to our own. Abortion has been a hot topic for many years now, and with a possible change to a GOP president this November, it is becoming even more contentious. In the rewording of a new abortion bill, the declaration of independence is being called in as a piece of evidence, that the "self-evident" truths discussed within also apply to unborn children because they constitute life, which is certainly highlighted in the declaration. There are obviously those that will believe with this line of thinking, and there are those that will think oppositely as well, but no matter the line of thought, the significance of the declaration is still being used in modern times to settle debates. Although some may believe that this significance is only to serve some political agenda, I believe that the fact that we are returning to a document written 235 years ago signifies some deep significance of this document.
To find the information in this blog post, I visited The New York Times online archives and the CNN News archives.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/full-gop-platform-statement-on-abortion/?iref=storysearch
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/us/a-clearer-facsimile-of-the-declaration-of-independence.html?_r=1&ref=declarationofindependenceus
An abrupt and shocking topic arose from a debate between American and British lawyers on October 10, 2011, namely "Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?" This fundamental topic pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession. In the American perspective, "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified." To the British, however, secession was not the ideal tool by which to settle internal disputes. They argue "What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right." To some English folk, the United States Declaration of Independence will forever be seen as a totally illegitimate and illegal document. To us Americans however, it will continue to be an everlastingly justified and unquestionably legal proclamation of freedom.
ReplyDeleteI used the search engine Google and came across an article written by BBC News questioning the legality of the US Declaration of Independence. Here is the link to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
I think it's still shocking that they are even debating something like this 235 years ago, but its not like the colonies just up and said "we out". The colonies went about secession in every correct way possible. Without a "declaration" I can understand where the British are coming from, but the Conntinental Congress spent a very long time debating and coming up with a formal Declaration of Independence.
DeleteIt really isn't that surprising that the British would find the dismanlting of their empire "illegal," and that the Americans, who have proven with over 230 years of hisotry that they had the most to gain from a move like that, find it "legal." Even with lawyers, who are supposed to be rational, logical people who use reason to debate, bias creeps in.
DeleteThis is a video of an interview with Melissa Harris-Perry on Hardball with Chris Matthews about Paul Ryan's quoting of the DOI in August in regards to where people get their rights from and Harris-Perry is not pleased with Ryan's commentary. Check out the video and decide for yourselves!
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2012/08/13/msnbc-host-paul-ryan-quoting-thomas-jefferson-a-lovely-thing-for-a-wealthy-white-man/
Is there a difference between inalienable rights and those made "official" by the US Government? Who do you side more with in this situation? What do you think Jefferson would say about this?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/signers-declaration-independence-paid-price-freedom-personal-and-financial-sacrifice
ReplyDeleteMost people don't know (well at least i didn't) what the signers of the Declaration of Independence actually signed. By signing that document, all 56 men were risking their lives and the lives of everyone related to them. Contemporary history does not bring to light that some of the signers (4 to be exact) were taken captive by the British and most of the homes of these men were destroyed or damaged for their acts of treason against King George III. The quote taken from the last line of the Declaration gives light to the dangers that the signers knew they would be facing once they signed the document. “And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
That is really interesting. I always believed the signing of the independence was a huge celebration, after all look at the 4th of July. Its crazy to see the depth of the last quote of the Declaration. By simply looking at the quote on the surface, I would have never thought that the signers were actually risking their lives in signing the document. Now I know that the 4th of July wasn't really as grand as Americans make it seem today.
DeleteThe treatment of some of the signers by the British army seems to justify independence. If the British were willing were burn estates over heads of their heads, scatter their families, and imprison one of their wives (a woman whose only crime was being married to a traitor), then the British were really as tyrannical as the D.O.I. made them out to be. The fallout from signing that document seems to completely vindicate why it was written.
DeleteI had the same naive misconceptions as everyone else in regards to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I never realized that Americans, by committing to this independence, were turning their backs to their own friends and families back in England. I have much more respect for the signers in their stand against one of the most powerful imperial nations of the time.
DeleteI never thought of signing the Declaration of Independence a risk. I always thought that they signed the DOI with pride and glee. I was surprised to read that the signers families were also in danger and some were even harmed, because I never thought of the DOI as a bad things. I also never knew how diverse the signers were. I always assumed they were highly prestigious like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, I never would have thought that some of them were farmers or even as young as 26.
DeleteIm a multitude of Obama's speeches he references the Declaration of Independence while omitting key phrases. For example, he has removed the terms "created", "Creator" and "Life". By doing this Obama successfully generates the audience to have vague recollections of the Declaration of Independence and then rewrites it. By doing this, Obama is going against his promise which was to not give up the original ideals that our nation was based on. This brings up many questions, is Obama trying to deconstruct the document the USA was founded on? The answer is unclear but since Obama has rephrased the Declaration of Independence various times it seems to be a deliberate and calculated act.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/obama_edits_the_declaration_of.html
I did not know that Obama had left out certain words from the Declaration of Independence when he references it in his speeches. I agree that he is opening up the interpretation of the document in many different ways. Instead of trying to get his point across to the minds of his audience, he wants the audience to determine their own perspective about his speeches. This can be both good and bad for the President. The audience might interpret the speech different than what he wants which can work against him, but also he can create a more diverse argument by opening up his speech to interpretation.
Deletehttp://blog.oup.com/2012/08/declaration-of-independence-campaign-finance-reform
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal… [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” This statement pertains to the recent Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. F.E.C. because the Court used the Declaration of Independence for its ruling. THe D.O.I states that all men are created equal. The Supreme Court defined the word "men" as people and corporations. Therefore, the ruling grants corporations with the same inalienable rights as people. The author of this article, Alexander Tsesis, disagrees with the Court's ruling. He states that corporations are not people because they have a "perpetual life", were created by articles of incorporations, and they do not have the right to vote. The basic point this article was trying to point out was that the writers of the D.O.I would have never fathomed corporations having the same rights as people.
Should corporations share the same inalienable rights as people?
I was really drawn to this article in class because of the controversy with which it is presented. In class we discussed the fact that people today are looking to the Declaration of Independence more as the Constitution, where they discern various human rights from a document that was meant to declare independence. Indeed, this latter point was the true intention of the DOI, with human rights being only a means to an end for the authors to accomplish their argument. I was therefore very surprised when I found out that the Supreme Court used the DOI as a constitution of sorts, citing that corporations could have been included under the term "Men". This is a completely ridiculous thing to assume, especially when one considers that corporations did not even really exist during this time. Furthermore, even if big business did permeate the fledgling America like it does today, the colonists would have been completely against equating these large corporations to mankind.
DeleteI believe it is absurd for the Supreme Court to even reckon the idea that the word "men" relates to people as well as corporations. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's 'ruling' is really just a prime example of corporate greed. I highly doubt that the makers of the Declaration of Independence intended the word 'men' to incorporate corporations, but to me that is obvious.
DeleteSince the signing of the Declaration of Independence woman have gained more rights in the United States, however the country is still dominated by men. Flora Nicholas took it upon herself to draft up her own feminist version of the Declaration listing complaints against the men of this country instead of the King of Great Britain. Nicholas starts of strong by claiming that “President Obama should immediately step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to top the democratic ticket.” She states how men and woman ARE equal and all laws should acknowledge that, which means that there should be equal pay and opportunity for woman in the workplace. Nicholas includes a clause for woman healthcare stating that "we therefore insist that women's health matters and decisions be left to those of us in possession of vaginas." Her article overall portrays how woman are strong, intelligent, and driven human beings who are capable of running this country as well as their households.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/flora-nicholas/the-declaration-of-indepe_1_b_1640119.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-New-Declaration-Of-Indep-by-Bob-Burnett-111104-392.html
ReplyDeleteIn this article Bob Burnett compares the American Revolution to Occupy Wall Street. He makes two seemingly unsimliar topics seem similar. During the time of the 13 colonies, the colonists asked King George III to intervene on their behalf and help them out. King George refused and claimed that they were rebelling. The 99% that make up the working class asked Washington to intervene on their half, but some conservatives claim that they are rebelling. The connection being, Burnett claims, is that the conservatives set the stage for a new Declaration of Independence. Simliar to the American Revolution, Occupy Wall Street is driven by the vision of unfair government.
This article seemed very interesting to me because of the parallels that are being drawn between the Occupy Wall Street and the American Revolution. As we all know, the latter was the war that brought America its freedom. It was a seemingly hopeless encounter that could have ended very differently were it not for some key players, and the support of a large portion of the nation, along with other countries. The Occupy Wall Street is similar in many respects to this, although it is also very different. For one, there is not as large a group that is supporting it. There is a supposed war between the 99 and 1 percent of the nation, but in actuality there is only a small portion of the country that is actually in full support of this movement. In broader terms, the Occupy movement is also not being supported by other countries that would give the movement credibility. For instance, the French supported the colonists in the Revolution and this played in significantly to the victory. However, there are no other countries supporting this 99 percent of the American population, and this could have been one of the reasons that the movement has all but fizzled out.
DeleteThere are also a few more difference between Occupy Wall Street and the American Revolution. Although both were protesting against their "oppressors", one was much more organized than the other. The American REvolution was much more organized than the Occupy movement. The Revolution had a clear objective which could be seen in the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, the Occupy's objectives were all over the place and there were no clear leaders. When I went to visit the Occupy Providence protests, it was in mass confusion. There were signs everywhere at the protests that range from "legalize marijuana" to "I am the 99%". The clear difference between Occupy and the Revolution was organization. Although both movements were protesting the government, the Revolution had a much more successful outcome.
DeleteThe article I chose to read raised several questions about patriotism in the United States. The author, Gary Gutting, focuses his article on one central question of the morality of our patriotism. July 4th is a day which many Americans rejoice in their freedom brought about initially by the Declaration of Independence. There are many different opinions on what patriotism is. Some think that patriotism has firm roots in our Declaration of Independence which was fundamental to our nation’s founding. Others think that patriotism is helping your fellow countrymen and harming your enemies. This point of view creates a negative connotation of patriotism by wanting to do harm to other humans just because they owe loyalty to a different nation. Some countries rely on the natural resources of other countries. If one country cuts off trade with other countries in an effort to be more patriotic, then there would be a major uproar over these trade disputes. Even though it is logically correct to cut off trade with other countries in patriotic terms, it is not a moral act to do so. Those other countries may rely heavily on your resources which could have drastic effects on their population and economy. The Declaration of Independence does not state that we should benefit ourselves at the expense of other nations. Patriotism should not be a game where points are scored, but a natural balance between promoting your country and a sense of pride from being a member of that country.
ReplyDeleteA different article explores additional questions regarding the Declaration of Independence. In this article, the questions are focused on slavery and the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was the catalyst of a new movement for freedom and independence from Britain. The British would no longer have sovereignty over the colonists especially in their own nation. However, what about the African American slaves at this time? They were Americans too, and they understood that the Declaration declared all men equal, but how come that didn’t apply to them? Therefore, many moral issues came about from the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Both African American men and white men co-existed, but white men got freedoms under the Declaration and African Americans did not. Thus a moral struggle ensued between African Americans and white Americans in America for many years to come. The issue was resolved almost two hundred years later with the Civil Rights movement. In the eyes of a white American man, the Declaration of Independence was a moral and patriotic document, but African American men saw the Declaration as a moral flaw.
To find my online resources I used the Google.com web search and searched for articles regarding the morality of the Declaration of Independence.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/is-our-patriotism-moral/?ref=declarationofindependenceus
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2i1600.html
“The astounding thing about American slavery is not that it existed, but that it persisted.” This past January, the National Museum of American History opened a new exhibit appropriately named “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty.” This exhibit aimed to open our eyes to the fact that the same revolutionaries that wrote the ideals of freedom and liberty we cherish today are the same people who owned hundreds of slaves.
ReplyDeleteI really admire the rebellion this museum takes against the usual glorification we give to our founding fathers; because despite the huge role that Thomas Jefferson played in our Declaration of Independence, he was also the biggest hypocrite. At the time, American’s were up in arms, fighting for their own human rights, and yet withheld them from slave populations. This exhibit includes over two decades of research on the lives of both hired and enslaved workers that labored at the Jefferson residence. Rightly so, it gives us American’s a better perspective and reveals the contradictions that coincided with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
I agree with you. This museum is a step in the right direction to teach the actual history to Americans as opposed to the history congress wants us to learn.
DeleteYour article seems very similar to the one I read in that it exposes new truths that are not necessarily spoken about in a typical history classes. So many of us have been taught to glorify the “revolutionaries that wrote the ideals of freedom and liberty we cherish today” and famous documents such as the Declaration of Independence. However, as you explain in your summary, there are facts that are hidden from us; we aren’t supposed to know the truth because it might taint out adoration of America. If we want an accurate portrayal of America, though, we must learn that Jefferson and “revolutionaries that wrote the ideals of freedom and liberty we cherish today” did in fact own slaves and documents such as the Declaration of Independence spoke so poorly about the “merciless Indian savages”. They should not be as glorified as they are today.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/arts/design/smithsonian-and-monticello-exhibitions-on-jeffersons-slaves.html?pagewanted=all
ReplyDeleteAs I was searching for an article to read that hadn't already been blogged about, I found myself wandering further and further away from the July 4th articles and into the heated debate of the presidential elections. One article in particular, written by Michael Cooper, presents the "new" controversial platform of the G.O.P on abortion. The article's title itself, "G.O.P Approves Strict Anti-abortion Language in Party Platform", sparks controversy. Getting back to the Declaration of Independence, the G.O.P directly references this article in its platform draft where it says "Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed". The G.O.P's use of the Declaration of Independence to support its claim that every person has the right to life and liberty, even unborn children, demonstrates how that document from 1776 is still relevant today. Isn't it interesting how a document written over 200 years ago is still playing a main role in our society and politics today?
ReplyDeleteHere's the article! Check It Out!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/
Amy Hanlon
I thought this article was very intriguing as well. Abortion has always been a sensitive topic in the United States. I believe that the Republican Party has taken the interpretations of the Declaration of Independence too literal in this issue. While unborn children may be viewed as having a “fundamental individual right to life”, I believe that women should have the right to choose in certain situations. If a woman is raped or knows she cannot support the child then it is her own decision whether she continues with her pregnancy or not. Women can use the same justification in the Declaration of Independence for their stance of prochoice. They have the “inalienable rights” to “justice and liberty” that allows them to make the choice that suits them best in a situation like this. This article demonstrates how even after 200 years, the Declaration of Independence still makes an impact on current issues in today’s society.
DeleteEven while two centuries have passed, there is still debate as to whether The Declaration of Independence is legal. An October 2011 History article discusses a debate over its legality between a group of British and American lawyers. British lawyers argued that taxation without representation was not a valid enough point to declare a war on them. Americans on the other hand, pointed out that the Declaration of Independence reflected many British theories such as “Natural” law. The article unfortunately seemed relatively biased as significantly more information was given of the British point of view. It also highlighted the fact that the jury was made up of primarily Americans and the debate took place in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin Hall, a few blocks away from where the Declaration was originally drafted, implying that the results were biased and invalid.
ReplyDeleteThe second article, a BBC news article, gives a brief summary of the debate through a more neutral point of view. It points out that the English had once used a Declaration of Rights to dethrone James II that was considered lawful. In addition it adds the British’s point that they feel the Declaration is treasonable, allowing a group to create their own laws because they want to.
The major question here is, what were the lawyers expecting to accomplish from this debate? If it were decided that the Declaration of Independence were illegal, what would happen? Would Americans be put under British rule again? The Declaration of Independence was written so long ago that no debate could ever change the course of history.
I found the first article through the Google search engine and found the BBC article linked in the first article.
http://www.history.com/news/is-the-declaration-of-independence-illegal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
David Quinn begins his article Hate: An American Value by stating “Since the day that Thomas Jefferson referred to Native Americans as ‘merciless Indian savages’ in the Declaration of Independence, hate has been an American value”. Jefferson, in a way, set a precedent for Americans to follow by singling out a group to hate and look badly upon. Whether it be in 1857 when it was “acceptable” to speak hatefully against African Americans, in 1882 when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, or in 1924 when the target of hate was moved towards European Jews, hate has been commonly felt towards various groups over the years. With this history of hate, Quinn writes, it should not be surprising to hear about the amount of hate that exists in our country today. Presently, racist slurs and unacceptable homosexual sayings are heard more and more frequently. At the Republican National Convention, the GOP “stated their intent on passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and their intention to reinstate the ban on gays in the military”. With the present-day government discriminating against this group and the writer of one of the most acknowledged historical documents in our nation speaking so poorly of another group, it seems logical to think that people in the country would find groups to hate on as well. Why wouldn’t they? The documents they read and the government officials they follow invite hateful thinking.
ReplyDeleteQuinn picks up on one line in the Declaration of Independence and is able to draw an interesting conclusion from it; hate has been a common American value since Jefferson spoke poorly of the “merciless Indian savages” and continues to play a prominent role in America today.
September 12, 2012
http://www.chicagonow.com/arkielad/2012/09/hate-an-american-value/
For this source, I typed in Declaration of Independence into Google and clicked on the news tab.
http://kavika.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/12/7070091-the-declaration-of-independence-the-merciless-indian-savages
For this second source, I typed in “merciless Indian savages” into Google.
It is interesting that certain phrases spoken by a prominent Founding Father are kept kind of under the radar since they now make our country look bad. Thomas Jefferson is thought of as a powerful, brilliant man and a hero; it is not very heroic to call Native Americans 'merciless Indian savages,' especially when they were in America long before the European settlers arrived. Unfortunately, the longstanding attitude of patriotism in our country is often accompanied by hate because Americans tend to think they are better than those of another race. The same-sex marriage debate is so controversial because so much hate surrounds it. For some, the ban on gay marriage seems to be in direct violation of the "pursuit of happiness," which, in my opinion, it is. I wonder if we can resolve issues such as this without having people express so much hate.
DeleteIt is scary to think that hate is rooted in our nation since the DOI. It is interesting when you think of how we have prided ourselves on equal rights and freedoms since before the country even won the Revolution when we declared them in the Declaration of Independence. Centralized hate against one group started in the DOI when Jefferson called Native Americans "merciless Indian savages" and continues today with poor treatment of homosexuals and Hispanics. Throughout our country's history the government has turned away from those discriminated against, silently showing their support through their actions of these unjust acts. Unfortunately, many of the people that the country decide to alienate have actually risked there lives to defend America, like the Native Americans in the Revolutionary War, African Americans in the Civil War, and today both homosexuals and hispanics are in the armed forces and in return we discriminate against them. I hope that one day our country will no longer find the need to focus hate on any specific group of people, but that seems unlike given our country's past.
Deletehttp://capegazette.villagesoup.com/column/columnpost/pursuing-happiness-requires-good-health/896134
ReplyDeletehttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/
The two articles that I picked to read and write about are very different in every way shape and form. The first article that I read into I found by typing "Declaration of Independence" into the news section of Google. The author/editor Dennis Forney talks about the Declaration in a different way than I had expected. He explains about how the Pursuit of Happiness is a necessary part of life, and how the Declaration of Independence says that this is so. My other article on the other hand, goes in a completely different direction and focuses more on how the presidential debate topics such as abortion laws are conflicted by the Declaration in different ways. I thought it was very interesting how there can be so many different interpretations of the same document, and also how it can be related to things as obscure as living a happy life. Either way it is presented however, It is definitely evident that even today, the Declaration of Independence still plays a role in our ever growing and ever changing society.
I agree with you, Connor. I find it really interesting how such an old document can still have so much relevance to our lives today and how as the times change the meaning of the Declaration of Independence changes as well. Although at times I feel as if people twist the Declaration and change its meaning too much so they can use it as evidence to defend their points, which I don't think is right. It is interesting to think about how the Declaration of Independence will change in the future, too.
Deletehttp://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/road-revolution/essays/declaration-independence-global-perspective
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mapsofworld.com/american-revolution/declaration-impact.html
While I was looking for a articles on the Declaration, I found one by David Armitage. Both of them, however, explore the different ways in which the world's states have been influenced by the American Declaration of Independence. In the contemparary time of the DOI, communities across the world began questioning and debating about thier own governments. Overall, they have seem to taken the message of the DOI and run with it in their own, more original way. The French drafted their own Declaration of the Rights of Man. Later on, some went to Independence Hall and declared their sovereignty in a move to symbolize what thye were doing, while others like Ho Chi Minh paraphrased the general meaning of the document to hit precisely the meaning they were looking for. In the end, the world commmunity has taken inspiration from a then-unique document, following a template to their freedom.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/5985/according-to-the-declaration-of-independence-it-may-be-time-abolish-our-current-form-government/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/obama_edits_the_declaration_of.html
A significant point of the DOI states that the citizens have the right to stop obeying a government when it becomes corrupt. The author of the first article wants the readers to think about the form of government the U.S. has today and to think about where the line is drawn before a government becomes tyrannical. Da Tagliare makes an extreme statement that Obama has created a tyranny, and Americans need to abolish the current form of government. To back up his/her claim, he/she provides a direct quote from the Declaration and cites specific passages that apply to modern society. The passages show that Obama has maybe violated some of the terms; therefor, we must "provide new Guards for [our] future society." The second article also talks about Obama but not in the negative terms of the first article. In several of Obama's speeches, he references the DOI while omitting some key words, such as "created," "Creator," and "Life." He talks about not giving up the ideals listed in our Declaration, yet he excludes some of the very words that define our country. In a way, Obama is rewriting the script in a sneaky way. Is this a precursor to future revision of this document?
Both of these articles really made me think about the government we, as Americans live in today. I found it very interesting that Da Tagliare made that extreme statement, however it did make me think about and question how tyrannical our government really is, and how it compares to other nations and countries. I still do agree that this was a very rash and extreme statement made by him however, because there are many other nations in the world who are living in terrible governments and situations far worse than America. On the other hand, It did make me a little confused as to why Obama continues to omit key words in the DOI. I don't think that this could be a precursor to the revision of the DOI in our lifetime because it has just withstood so many things, however I do believe that at some point in the future there may be revisions to this document.
Delete