America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It, C. Bradley Thompson
This phrase-by-phrase exegesis of the opening of the Declaration of Independence, is, in my humble opinion, one of the most essential reads of the year. Marshaling the letters, pamphlets, and speeches of the founding generation, Thompson politely but firmly counters the narrative of today's black-washers and establishes that, yes, our nation was rooted in liberty and individual rights (and not, as some would have it, in slavery/exploitation/ist and ism).
"America", in Thompson's (I think accurate) view, coalesced as a unique nation during the Imperial Crisis. Faced with the escalating intrusions of the British government, the Founders assimilated the free-floating ideas of the political Enlightenment and generated a philosophical synthesis that was genuinely revolutionary. What were the features of that synthesis? The belief that human nature is universal; that one's rights to life, liberty, and property are inherent in that nature and are not dependent on government largess or social status; and that government, though necessary, must be restrained to ensure maximum freedom for each human being.
So what are we to make of the existence of slavery in the early American republic? It was a lingering feature of the old order, not an essential component of the new. Thompson points out - again through documentary evidence - that the Founders (even the weakest and most hypocritical) were instantly aware of the contradiction that slavery represented and, in many cases, put the ball in motion to abolish it through local laws and voluntary manumissions. Even some places in the South participated in this outpouring of anti-slavery sentiment!
To put it another way: "American" ideas enabled the eventual end of legal slavery on our continent - even if, tragically, it took generations (thanks to the fallen and sinful nature of man) for the full consequences of those ideas to manifest.
More importantly: Thompson further reveals that mid-19th century slavery apologists were historicists who rejected the animating ideals of the Declaration. They did not believe, as the Founders did, that rights were natural, absolute, and inalienable. Thus, to argue that John C. Calhoun and the rest were in any way expressing a fundamentally "American" point of view is 180 degrees opposed to the truth. Said southern thinkers were aberrations influenced more by modern German philosophy than by Jefferson, Adams, et. al.
Much of the above might seem like old hat to those of us who happen to be enthusiastic students of the Revolutionary period - but even though I've done quite a bit of reading on the Founders, Thompson still taught me several new things. I didn't know, for example, about the Southern towns that manumitted their slaves - or that some towns in the New Hampshire interior didn't really consider themselves part of New Hampshire (heh). And yes: the chapter on the South's pro-slavery political thinkers was an absolute revelation.
"America" is not perfect, but as Thompson makes clear, it is good at its base. So don't listen to whatever oikophobic nonsense is being the peddled by the New York Times. Instead, buy this book and be proud.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Remember You Are Human -- Before It's Too Late
When it comes to fiction, I have a type.
(Actually, I have two types, but the second is not relevant to the thrust of this post.)
The type in question is the striving sinner -- the character whose concupiscence leads him to make poor decisions but whose core of goodness allows him to scrounge some form of redemption out of the ashes. Give me a character like this and I connect - and connect hard - to your story. A character like this is, in my view, so painfully universal that I can't help but love him whenever he appears.
Hell, I even love him when he appears in our history. Every year around the 4th of July, I always do the same thing: I watch the director's cut of 1776 followed by HBO's seven-part John Adams. I've read enough history to know that both take Hollywood liberties with the actual life and accomplishments of their central figure, shuffling events around and adding face-to-face conversations that probably didn't take place for dramatic effect. Taken together, however, both are generally faithful in capturing John Adams' true character (at least as I understand it from the several biographies I've read). He was prickly and prone to Moods with a capital M. He was fiercely independent and stubborn. He did have a dim view of human nature born of reflection on his own flaws. And yes, his choices as a statesman were not free of error. But he also had an unquestionably brilliant mind -- and, significantly, a heart big enough to embrace people with whom he strenuously disagreed. It was Adams, please note, who initiated the long correspondence that ultimately rekindled his friendship with Thomas Jefferson after years of estrangement. (His first letter in that correspondence is dated January 1, which makes me suspect it was some sort of New Year's resolution. Heh.)
On the whole? John Adams was so wonderfully and beautifully human that I adore him with my entire soul. And through Adams, I've come to appreciate his entire generation. I haven't taken as deep a dive into the personalities of the other Founders, but I'm sure I would make similar discoveries if I were to embark on such a project -- and would feel just as emotionally invested for having done so.
Alas, there are people in our society today - a diabolical faction, I think - who argue that I should not feel such profound loyalty to these men -- that I shouldn't cry whenever I remember what they managed to accomplish despite their frailties and blind spots. To these people, John Adams and all the rest are "problematic" - God, I hate that word - because they failed to wholly rid the early American republic of history's ills. Never mind that they put forth in writing the liberal principles that would inspire their descendants to grapple seriously with those ills. Never mind that, after much wrangling, they took whatever steps they could to restrain and restrict the impact of America's original sins in their own time (as insufficient as those steps may seem to our modern sensibilities). No: to modern-day leftists, the Founders are unpersons worthy of complete erasure because they neglected to, shall we say, immanentize the eschaton.
To these people, I say: How arrogant are you? Are you really so convinced of your own righteousness - of your own infallibility - that you actually think future social justice warriors will not find you wanting in some way? Are you really so devoid of Christian charity and empathy that you can't imagine yourself making similar mistakes? Because I have news for you: you are not that special. As your bullying and street violence reveals, you are just as terrible as the rest of us -- and are, in fact, more dangerous because you can't see it. Because you refuse to examine your own consciences. Because you fail to heed Solzhenitsyn's wise observation that "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
Mark me, radicals: I have no illusions regarding the wrongs of our forebears. In this day and age, who does? But when you tell me I can't embrace some imperfect hero - either fictional or real - because they are "problematic" (ugh), it makes me want to double the hell down on loving them. Because I feel I must. Because I fear I will lose my own humanity if I stop. You would do well to pause and reflect on what exactly you're abandoning in pursuing your ceaseless and ever-more exacting purges instead of choosing the path of mercy and understanding.
God bless our Founders. And God bless the United States of America.
(Actually, I have two types, but the second is not relevant to the thrust of this post.)
The type in question is the striving sinner -- the character whose concupiscence leads him to make poor decisions but whose core of goodness allows him to scrounge some form of redemption out of the ashes. Give me a character like this and I connect - and connect hard - to your story. A character like this is, in my view, so painfully universal that I can't help but love him whenever he appears.
Hell, I even love him when he appears in our history. Every year around the 4th of July, I always do the same thing: I watch the director's cut of 1776 followed by HBO's seven-part John Adams. I've read enough history to know that both take Hollywood liberties with the actual life and accomplishments of their central figure, shuffling events around and adding face-to-face conversations that probably didn't take place for dramatic effect. Taken together, however, both are generally faithful in capturing John Adams' true character (at least as I understand it from the several biographies I've read). He was prickly and prone to Moods with a capital M. He was fiercely independent and stubborn. He did have a dim view of human nature born of reflection on his own flaws. And yes, his choices as a statesman were not free of error. But he also had an unquestionably brilliant mind -- and, significantly, a heart big enough to embrace people with whom he strenuously disagreed. It was Adams, please note, who initiated the long correspondence that ultimately rekindled his friendship with Thomas Jefferson after years of estrangement. (His first letter in that correspondence is dated January 1, which makes me suspect it was some sort of New Year's resolution. Heh.)
On the whole? John Adams was so wonderfully and beautifully human that I adore him with my entire soul. And through Adams, I've come to appreciate his entire generation. I haven't taken as deep a dive into the personalities of the other Founders, but I'm sure I would make similar discoveries if I were to embark on such a project -- and would feel just as emotionally invested for having done so.
Alas, there are people in our society today - a diabolical faction, I think - who argue that I should not feel such profound loyalty to these men -- that I shouldn't cry whenever I remember what they managed to accomplish despite their frailties and blind spots. To these people, John Adams and all the rest are "problematic" - God, I hate that word - because they failed to wholly rid the early American republic of history's ills. Never mind that they put forth in writing the liberal principles that would inspire their descendants to grapple seriously with those ills. Never mind that, after much wrangling, they took whatever steps they could to restrain and restrict the impact of America's original sins in their own time (as insufficient as those steps may seem to our modern sensibilities). No: to modern-day leftists, the Founders are unpersons worthy of complete erasure because they neglected to, shall we say, immanentize the eschaton.
To these people, I say: How arrogant are you? Are you really so convinced of your own righteousness - of your own infallibility - that you actually think future social justice warriors will not find you wanting in some way? Are you really so devoid of Christian charity and empathy that you can't imagine yourself making similar mistakes? Because I have news for you: you are not that special. As your bullying and street violence reveals, you are just as terrible as the rest of us -- and are, in fact, more dangerous because you can't see it. Because you refuse to examine your own consciences. Because you fail to heed Solzhenitsyn's wise observation that "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
Mark me, radicals: I have no illusions regarding the wrongs of our forebears. In this day and age, who does? But when you tell me I can't embrace some imperfect hero - either fictional or real - because they are "problematic" (ugh), it makes me want to double the hell down on loving them. Because I feel I must. Because I fear I will lose my own humanity if I stop. You would do well to pause and reflect on what exactly you're abandoning in pursuing your ceaseless and ever-more exacting purges instead of choosing the path of mercy and understanding.
God bless our Founders. And God bless the United States of America.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Another Week That Was
A Civics Lesson
Quick question: In the late 1780's, when the US Constitution was written and ratified after lengthy argument, which state was the most populous? Children?
Yes, that's right, Sarah: my home state of Virginia. Virginia was enormously influential during this period; except for my boy John Adams, all of the first five presidents were Virginian. But for certain strictures (ahem), Virginia could've used its bigness and reputation to curb stomp little states like Rhode Island and Delaware and drive the entire country according to its interests. Given that Virginia was a slave state, how do you think that would've turned out?
Thank the holy God that the Framers had the wisdom to realize that a nation ruled by Virginia and its allies was less than ideal. Thank the holy God that they therefore created institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College to kneecap the tyrannical majority and force politicians to appeal to national - rather than regional - concerns.
Right now, roughly a fifth of the US population is rural. If we switch to a national popular vote - or dispense with the Senate - this minority will be effectively silenced. If you are among those agitating for the complete destruction of our republic, I beg you to reconsider. You would never treat any other minority of comparable (or even smaller) size in this manner.
Our federal system, with all of its weird complications and roadblocks, was born of careful deliberation and years of assiduous examination of human history. Forgive me, then, if I trust it more than the fanciful ideas of ill-educated Current Year politicians and activists who are pissed they lost an election.
Regarding the Importance of Careful Deliberation...
The message of this video needs to be tattooed on certain people's eyeballs.
No, it's not admirable that New Zealand is rushing to confiscate guns, ban books, and squelch speech after Christchurch. It is, in fact, yet another terrifying demonstration of the importance of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
In Other News: Dissatisfied Fans Are Not "Entitled Manbabies"
Last night, I saw another manifestation of this attitude in a Facebook group I follow, and to be quite blunt, I'm fucking sick of it. If you're a game developer, a comic book writer or artist, a genre film maker, or any other creator in pop geekdom, you are not some grand ah-teest who can spit on his audience and do whatever the hell he wants. Dial the arrogance way, way back, bucko. You are, effectively, a guy in a rubber mask screaming at a green screen like it's chasing him. And if you're working with an established IP - as many of you are - you're playing with something that, ultimately, is not yours to "fundamentally transform".
Do the fans want you to do the same thing over and over again? No: just to take one example, the principal critique I've seen of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is that it's a weaker copy of A New Hope that strips out all the struggle of the original story. In other words, what we hate about the film in question is that it lacked creativity and heart -- not that it failed to perfectly replicate something we've already seen. So go ahead: as long as you respect the history of the IP you're borrowing, you can - and should - tell an entirely new story. We love evolution; what we don't like is rupture. 1990's Star Trek? Good. Rian Johnson's Star Wars? Bad.
Do the fans want you to completely avoid political themes? No, this is another strawman. What we hate is inorganic, in-your-face politics that stacks the deck in favor of one worldview. What we hate is boring, predictable politics; we hate the thousands of "Orange Man Bad"/"America is -ist and -phobic" stories that all unfold in identical fashion and therefore are never insightful and never surprise. What we love are things like DS9's "In the Hands of the Prophets," which tackles the theme of science versus religion in a manner that respects (and reveals the flaws of) both sides.
Do the fans hate diversity? No: we hate toxic diversity.
I don't think fans have the right to completely control what creators do. I respect artistic freedom. But the vast majority of fans aren't asking for that power. What we're asking for is craft and professionalism. Within those boundaries, multitudes can exist.
Quick question: In the late 1780's, when the US Constitution was written and ratified after lengthy argument, which state was the most populous? Children?
Yes, that's right, Sarah: my home state of Virginia. Virginia was enormously influential during this period; except for my boy John Adams, all of the first five presidents were Virginian. But for certain strictures (ahem), Virginia could've used its bigness and reputation to curb stomp little states like Rhode Island and Delaware and drive the entire country according to its interests. Given that Virginia was a slave state, how do you think that would've turned out?
Thank the holy God that the Framers had the wisdom to realize that a nation ruled by Virginia and its allies was less than ideal. Thank the holy God that they therefore created institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College to kneecap the tyrannical majority and force politicians to appeal to national - rather than regional - concerns.
Right now, roughly a fifth of the US population is rural. If we switch to a national popular vote - or dispense with the Senate - this minority will be effectively silenced. If you are among those agitating for the complete destruction of our republic, I beg you to reconsider. You would never treat any other minority of comparable (or even smaller) size in this manner.
Our federal system, with all of its weird complications and roadblocks, was born of careful deliberation and years of assiduous examination of human history. Forgive me, then, if I trust it more than the fanciful ideas of ill-educated Current Year politicians and activists who are pissed they lost an election.
Regarding the Importance of Careful Deliberation...
No, it's not admirable that New Zealand is rushing to confiscate guns, ban books, and squelch speech after Christchurch. It is, in fact, yet another terrifying demonstration of the importance of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
In Other News: Dissatisfied Fans Are Not "Entitled Manbabies"
Last night, I saw another manifestation of this attitude in a Facebook group I follow, and to be quite blunt, I'm fucking sick of it. If you're a game developer, a comic book writer or artist, a genre film maker, or any other creator in pop geekdom, you are not some grand ah-teest who can spit on his audience and do whatever the hell he wants. Dial the arrogance way, way back, bucko. You are, effectively, a guy in a rubber mask screaming at a green screen like it's chasing him. And if you're working with an established IP - as many of you are - you're playing with something that, ultimately, is not yours to "fundamentally transform".
Do the fans want you to do the same thing over and over again? No: just to take one example, the principal critique I've seen of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is that it's a weaker copy of A New Hope that strips out all the struggle of the original story. In other words, what we hate about the film in question is that it lacked creativity and heart -- not that it failed to perfectly replicate something we've already seen. So go ahead: as long as you respect the history of the IP you're borrowing, you can - and should - tell an entirely new story. We love evolution; what we don't like is rupture. 1990's Star Trek? Good. Rian Johnson's Star Wars? Bad.
Do the fans want you to completely avoid political themes? No, this is another strawman. What we hate is inorganic, in-your-face politics that stacks the deck in favor of one worldview. What we hate is boring, predictable politics; we hate the thousands of "Orange Man Bad"/"America is -ist and -phobic" stories that all unfold in identical fashion and therefore are never insightful and never surprise. What we love are things like DS9's "In the Hands of the Prophets," which tackles the theme of science versus religion in a manner that respects (and reveals the flaws of) both sides.
Do the fans hate diversity? No: we hate toxic diversity.
I don't think fans have the right to completely control what creators do. I respect artistic freedom. But the vast majority of fans aren't asking for that power. What we're asking for is craft and professionalism. Within those boundaries, multitudes can exist.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
In Honor of Constitution Day...
... here's a link to the Constitution itself:
From the National Archives: The Constitution of the United States
Here's a link to the Federalist Papers:
From the US Congress: The Federalist Papers
And just because I'm feeling cheeky, here's a link to some Anti-Federalist arguments:
The Anti-Federalist Papers
Every American citizen should know this history. Unfortunately, many do not -- including prominent politicians who are currently running for office!
From the National Archives: The Constitution of the United States
Here's a link to the Federalist Papers:
From the US Congress: The Federalist Papers
And just because I'm feeling cheeky, here's a link to some Anti-Federalist arguments:
The Anti-Federalist Papers
Every American citizen should know this history. Unfortunately, many do not -- including prominent politicians who are currently running for office!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)