What was required of leadership to guide the colonies through a revolution, war, and working constitution of laws was less about personal power and more about working together. The United States of America was a collaboration in itself, and can't be credited to one person, like a monarch, but must be credited to all of those in the front lines of the political revolution. Many colonists can be thanked for what is now the world's superpower nation, but there were certain men in particular who should share most of the glory: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and most importantly George Washington. Each attributed their own contribution to the America of today, and it was both unity and leadership that helped insure that America was forever a democracy.
Though there was collaboration in establishing their government (the goal was to have a free, self sufficient country), the founding fathers weren't united on how that goal would be accomplished; they all clearly had a different opinion of what leadership meant. Adams felt completely comfortable referring to the president (Washington at the time) as "his highness" or "his majesty", which clearly pointed to him belonging to the federalists' party. Jefferson, on the other hand, leaned toward the republican/democratic party, 
and thought this was ridiculous and reminiscent of monarchy, even mocking him in interviews, ruining their fifteen year friendship. The fight got brutal, and federalists spread word that republicans were "radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country" This caused acrimony between the political parties, casing republicans to retaliate by saying that federalists "promote[d] aristocratic, anti-republican values" [1]. Washington, a true leader liked and respected by [almost] everyone, though a federalist himself, unified the parties enough to focus on the main goal - shaping the American government. He lead them from fighting to collaborating.
When Adams became president in 1796, this helped put a block on the collaboration process. Until the twelfth amendment was passed, the presidential candidate with the second most electoral votes was named vice president, enabling the executive branch to be comprised of two political parties. This made decision-making (a majority of the decisions about foreign policy) more difficult, each one wanting to back their own party with their decision. At the time, it was ultimately left up to the federalists, backed by Washington and the president himself. Whatever political disagreements the parties had, it didn't stop the Adams administration from making political progress. In the years between '96 and 1800, Adams built up the U.S. Navy, fought the Quasi War with France, signed Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and ended war with France through diplomacy [2]. When Jefferson was elected president four years later, (Washington had died the previous year, taking the strongest ally to the federalist party from the race) he used his experience in the previous multi-partied presidency to make this system more effective. There was less conflict between both parties, and thus unity was restored.
It's obvious that the personalities and even political views of these men didn't match, but they collaborated to make something that was never made before: a true democratic republic. Leadership was needed, but it wasn't leadership meaning one person who takes control. Leadership among the founding fathers meant not necessarily being the smartest, being the best writer, or even being the best speaker, but being able to encourage his peers to move in the direction of collaboration. Leadership meant moving them away from the disagreements that a group of differing ideas can cause and towards making something together that would last on this earth longer than any of it's founders - a free government. Both Adams and Jefferson showed some of these qualities, but George Washington showed all of these qualities all the time. Because of his indispensable leadership and true collaboration of all, The United States of America fulfilled the goals of the founders. America is, and always will be, a free, self sufficient country.
The ideas articulated in the Declaration of Independence are the foundation of a particularly American perplexity which defines both our triumphs and our failures even today. The Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and on these words alone, the very ideals of the United States were formed. Based from these few words, the current superpower nation was beginning to shape into what it is today.
A very controversial issue arises from the line "all men are created equal". The first point to mention is that all men (and women) weren't created equal, and, based on these differences, they were treated differently i
n rights. The goal of the declaration was equality for all, and setting that goal was a triumph in itself, particularly American because never before had this been attempted in any country. There was no precedent set that they could look to or nation in a similar situation that they could borrow laws from. This was a new country that said it was going to accept people from around the world and they would be given the same rights as the men who'd fought on the soil for a century. Without this statement, maybe slavery wouldn't have been abolished. Sure, everyone can talk about it being amoral, but when "all men are created equal" is put in a governmental document, it gets cogs moving in the brains of the people in charge. There had to be an idea before anything could happen.
What makes it a particularly American failure is almost the same reason; no country had ever declared that their government advocated equal rights for all, so when Thomas Jefferson wrote those famous words, it was an embarrassment to know that America proclaimed their equality but hadn't put it into practice. Jefferson, known notoriously for his opinions on the immorality of slavery, owned many slaves throughout his lifetime. The most perplexing part of this issue is what to remember it as: the first big success, or the first big failure; whether to feel proud about that statement or to be ashamed by that statement. Was it the biggest mistake America ever made, or the greatest accomplishment.
It's common knowledge that the Declaration is said to give us the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". How can Americans say we have the right to live when breaking the law means that the government can kill you. If it is the right of an American to live, why should the government be able to decide when to take their life. This is a particularly American perplexity because never had a country formally given its citizen the "unalienable right" to life. That was American, and no place else has ever wrestled with that concept before. Granted, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legally binding or law-making document, but the principals of this country, basic rights down to something as simple as life, come from this document. Was the statement meant figuratively? No, the statement is as clear and concise as the sentence before it, and invokes the same American perplexity. Does breaking the law take away your "creator given" right to live?
All people struggle with perplexity. Often events both past and present that Americans face are reminiscent of those few simple lines that begin the Declaration of Independence. The bottom line is that there is no other country like the United States, and there probably never will be. There are things in the American government and its history that are perplexing, but it's the rights set up by the Declaration of Independence that allow one to even think about wrongs its government may be committing, and that is something that isn't perplexing. The Declaration helped bring up the freedom to question the way our country is run, and that in itself is an American triumph.
Patriotism is a very ambiguous word; Patrick Henry, in his famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech opened with the line "No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House". The question is, patriotism to what? to whom? To pinpoint the exact definition of patriotism would be impossible. Looking at Patrick Henry, it's easier to make a connection between the patriotism shown to England, the patriotism shown to each individual colony (his being Virginia), and American patriotism.
Patrick Henry was more than a well-spoken scofflaw. He spoke up when changes needed to be made. In 1763, while arguing the Parson's Cause (a price raise in tobacco due to the shortage in 1758) Henry was quoted saying that a king who would veto a good and necessary law decided on by a local voting body was not a king at all, but "a tyrant who forfeits the allegiance of his subjects (Colonial Williamsburg 1)." When arguing against the stamp act on May 30, 1765, he went as far as to call what the king was doing treason. It was actions of the king that motivated Henry, among other colonists along the coast, to turn against him. It was not a undying need to cause trouble.
During this stir, Patrick Henry still considered himself, first and foremost, a Virginian. His obvious rebellion against the king left him no longer an Englishmen, and it was in Virgina that he shared the closest connections with like-minded people. However, there were pressing problems that all colonies had, and in 1774 he represented Virginia in the first continental congress to discuss the Intolerable Acts. What came out this meeting are some of the most famous words spoken in American history: I am not a Virginian, but an American. "By 1772, he'd already realized that there was a unique, special, distinct American Identity, that we were somehow different all of a sudden from our English cousins overseas" (Shumon). Patrick Henry was the first to think of such a thing as an American, but he certainly wasn't the last.
In March of 1775, Henry encouraged his fellow Virginians to prepare to defend themselves for war. He said himself that "the war is inevitable--and let it come!" He said, "there is no retreat but submission in slavery", and he decided that he would rather make the sacrifice of war than know surely that Virginians and Americans alike were under the rule of an unjust king overseas. He organized the militia and obtained the gunpowder stores which stirring some trouble with the King-appointed governor of Virginia. His restitution of the gunpowder is considered by many to be the start if the American Revolution. Never was there a Virginia Revolution, but a revolt of Americans together for the first time as patriots fighting for their country. "This Democratic Republic of Virginia, and eventually America, had never been attempted before, and it worked. I think the forefather would be proud and amazed" (Shumon).
He closes his speech for the war saying, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." In quoting Richard Shumon, it'd be more than fair to say that Patrick Henry "was the chief advocate if Independence". He wanted freedom, as a country, from oppressive England, and he was willing to fight for it using both weapons and words. However ambiguous the word, there's is no doubt that Patrick Henry showed patriotism when building the "America" lived in today, even if it took a whole new kind of patriotism to do so. He may have been born a Virginian under British rule, but he died an American.
Works Cited
"American Revolution." 9 May 2007 .
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death." LibertyOnline. 9 May 2007 .
"Patrick Henry." Colonial Williamsburg. 9 May 2007 .
Shumon, Richard. Interview with Lloyd Dobbins. Colonial Williamsburg. 9 May 2007
.
While I was in New York, I missed a video on advertising. From what I was told later, it compared older advertising campaignes that talked about the product to newer campaignes that talk about the feeling you will get from using the product.While watching TV last night, I saw a commercial for a perticular brand of alcohol. It's slogan said something similar to "Feel like the life of the party!" It didn't say "This alcohol will make you the drunkest!" or "This alcohol tastes the best!" because that's not why people want to drink; they drink to be the life of the party. They drink to be accepted. If this alcohol promises popularity, why not drink it? Doesn't everyone want to be accepted? Advertiments play on what you want to get out of life, not what you need from a particular product.
Weapons of privilege are armor in both a figurative and literal sense. For one, Europeans had literal weapons that gave them privilege; they had guns, while Native Americans didn't. More recently, this phrase has been used to describe the privilege there is to being male, white, and/or heterosexual, These are qualities you're born with, and they arm you for life with something that is just as important as guns in a war.
It is statistically proven that two people with almost identical resumes will be looked at for something more: their color, sex, or sexual orientation. It is more likely that a white man will get the job over an equally qualified man of of a different ethnicity. It is more likely that a man will get the job over an equally qualified woman. Since there was a law voted on last year on whether it's okay to not hire a gay person because they're gay, I'd say that sexual orientation is also a factor.
What does this all mean to me? I know it makes me sick to think about thinking about whether it's more beneficial to be white. IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A THOUGHT IN MY HEAD! I don't want to be thankful I'm white because I can't morally do so, but I think I am on a subconscious level. It's disgusting.
What makes me feel a little better is knowing that there may be something I can do. If I use my white benefit to be a voice for the less privileged, I might be able to be something besides sickening. I want to do something, an dyet here I am sitting on my butt doing nothing but worrying about the quarter closing. I am worried about a C in math when there's so much more important things, bigger things, life changing things to do.
I too have a dream, but right now it's only a dream. I will make it reality.
I competed for drama this weekend, and the competition was held in Skowhegan Area High School. Their mascot is the Indians. No, they don't mean people from India. Okay, I didn't like it. But hey, I am always too PC, right? That's what I get told, so that's what I was thinking. I guess it shouldn't have bothered me.
At the end of day two, we went to the gym for some "fun" games. They were pretty lame, so I walked across the gym to talk to some of my friends. Then I saw the mascot painted on the wall: there was a Native American man in a loincloth with a spear. Like, are you kidding me? Cavemen wear loincloths. White men killed more people than any Native American people ever did. So why, then, was this picture of the INDIANS a simple, half naked, belligerent fool?
You tell me.
and thought this was ridiculous and reminiscent of monarchy, even mocking him in interviews, ruining their fifteen year friendship. The fight got brutal, and federalists spread word that republicans were "radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country" This caused acrimony between the political parties, casing republicans to retaliate by saying that federalists "promote[d] aristocratic, anti-republican values" [1]. Washington, a true leader liked and respected by [almost] everyone, though a federalist himself, unified the parties enough to focus on the main goal - shaping the American government. He lead them from fighting to collaborating.
