Collaboration Within a Nation

During the American Revolution, leadership was constant and unfaltering. At least one influential leader at the time was willing to step up to bat. When one man lacked a quality crucial to control, such as power in public speaking, the others would find somebody to compensate for it. The personalities of the founding brothers all varied so much that it seems unlikely that they were unable to collaborate and form an autonomous country free and separate from Britain. However, each had the charisma and desire to “emancipate” their country from the motherland. Joseph Ellis, author of Founding Brothers, tells the stories of each of the founders and how they work in partnership to work towards the common goal – a free and equal democracy where a monarch was not needed in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leadership during the revolution needed charisma, ego and most of all tolerance(but not acceptance) to handle disagreements among each other. Each needed to be involved in politics and the willing to do anything to ensure that the newborn America would thrive.

George Washington, usually regarded as the primary leader at the time, did not have the brains one would think were required to be the father of a country. However, his experience in the military and his audacity made him a likely candidate. He was well-respected and esteemed. Thomas Jefferson, strong in writing, was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. Although Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had separate beliefs when it came to Federalism, before the duel they tolerated each other well. James Madison, the author of the Constitution, was extremely influential with words. How did all of these men disregard their differences when founding the country? Each of them (with some doubts, however) believed in the Democratic-Republican parties and were opposed to the Loyalists back in Britain.

In Washington’s farewell address, he spoke about the differences he desired between the American and British governments. Washington was esteemed by even Benjamin Franklin, and although hasty and rash in his decisions, he could always back them up with his skills in public speaking and his strong will. Believing in the abolishment of slavery, Washington always wanted what was new and on-the-rise in America. This was what made him revolutionary. When you look at the big picture, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson and Madison all became presidents of the United States of America – which must say something about their character. The leadship of the U.S. of A. during the American Revolution required extreme ego, a talent in either the military, writing, speaking or persuasive power, and a desire to do what would benefit the newly founded country the most.

Propaganda

Essay - The Declaration

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good
People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united
Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they
are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be
totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power
to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do
all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — 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.

The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Most people, even those studying it in grammar school, know this. However, do many people know what the Declaration actually contains? Most would respond that it contains our freedom and was the first document to do so. However, that's what it is - a declaration by the signers. But who are they declaring their independence to? We know they're declaring their independence from Britain, but who is saying that this document is valid? Who says we ever really separated from the British government? Because we are now our own free country, we assume we simply had a stand-off and declared ourselves independent. But can a new country do that? Can they say they are no longer citizens of the country they hail from? The British government, of course, would not allow the colonists to do this, had they any say over the matter. So what was allowing the newborn America to claim outright independence without granted legal permission from their mother country?
Because the colonies were newly founded, their government was still in the works, meaning the Declaration of Independence was the first step towards establishment. It listed the faults of the country which they derived from, and the wrongdoings Britain had done to its citizens. We as a country assumed that once this document was signed, it was valid – but who ever said that it was? Was it authorized by anybody, excluding the colonists themselves? Britain, obviously, did not approve of America’s newfound autonomy, as they still tried to make the United States dependent on their goods (see The Boston Tea Party). Nowadays, it does not matter whether we made this document legal or not. We are the political top dog, and we employ a good percentage of the impoverished countries. Moral issues aside, we are the world’s supergiants, and we are definitely a country by the rulebook. But whose rulebook are we going by? Do countries need to get permission from their mother country, or is that just inflating the power of the country which they came from?
This is a typical quality of Americans. It obviously started early on, where we presume we have so much power we can do everything ourselves. The United States assumes it can rule everything from where it stands. We gain power over other countries by employing their populace, and working from the inside to make smaller countries inferior.

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. — 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.

Although it seems like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a good ideas to try and attain, is that what our “fresh, innovative” new government was doing by assuming it has all the power? The writers of the declaration may have thought they were doing what was best for its citizens by seeming omnipotent when writing the document. “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…” Why do Thomas Jefferson et al. have the rights to instigate unalienable rights? As Americans, most of us have been instilled with self-empowerment that appears to be confidence here, but arrogant to other countries.
“The revolutionary generation” (as put by Joseph J. Ellis) was one of overconfidence. Although without it we may not have all of the civil liberties which we have today, with it we have quickly accelerated ourselves downhill with overconfidence in our republic and arrogance when associating with other countries. The perplexing issue of our original independence is a completely American subject. We do not know who made the document legal, but we assume it is so.

About Tolerance...

To tolerate, or to accept?

Toleration seems to have a bad rap in society. It seems as though accepting all religions and beliefs should be the answer.

But if you accept a belief, it means it could happen to you. You believe in it.

Doesn't that undermine your whole belief system? To be able to think that both are correct?

Do people choose to be gay, or are they ["decidedly" gay people] born that way?

Do you pick a religion to believe in, or is that religion the only true one?

Do you believe your religion is the only one possible? At least then, you know.

Or do you believe all other religions are possible? If that's true, how can you live day-by-day and still believe in yours?

One can't go to a hell if they don't believe in a hell. How can a faith exist and apply to me without my belief in it? I would have to believe in it, and defy it. However, that is a personal belief I have. I do not embrace other views on this topic, because I know where I stand.

Many people can tell me that a hell exists, but why would it? Why would one religion's hell exist when so many others have been introduced into the pool of infinite beliefs?

Is it your moral duty to warn somebody of a hell they don't believe in? Can they even possibly go there?

Propoganda

For my propoganda project, I plan to make a fast-paced video using a screen-capture program making everything digital. The video will be on advertising media affecting the youth of the American population. It will have several shots of the kinds of commercials and stories in the news that are supposed to appeal to the youth using the "mook" and "midriff" targets.

Paul Revere's Ride

When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride" was published in 1861, it became complete and utter widespread historical inaccuracy which wrongly influenced youth everywhere. The poem, although catchy, is completely mistaken. Revere did not ride alone, actually, he did not ride at all. Although Longfellow is not the only writer responsible for it - this incorrect idea of the valiant Revere galloping on horseback in the wee hours of the morning to forewarn citizens - his poem is actually recited in primary schools, and published in most textbooks without any mention of what actually had happened. American history become glorified and turned into a Hollywood vision. History needed a glamorous hero, and Revere was the perfect one to glamorize. He had a story that could be turned into an American legend.

According to the infamous poem that made Paul Revere a household name, every “Middlesex village and farm” was awakened by lone Revere on his horse. He was a hero for issuing the famed call, “The British are coming!” and the only person who assisted in this singular act of duty was a scarcely-mentioned “friend” who was to give the light signal from the belfry. The idea of the ride was to warn the people during the battle of Lexington and Concord of the British army’s advancement towards Lexington, collectively, on the night of April 18^th, 1775. From the poem’s point of view, Revere made his way over mountains and valleys and across rivers with his faithful steed to warn colonists of the British invasion. Then, later, the British fled after being fought by the citizens of “every Middlesex village and farm”.

Even if one were to believe Paul Revere were a true American revolutionary hero, they could not deny the complete and utter falsehoods written by Longfellow when his poem was published 40 years after Revere’s death. In reality, on the night of April 18^th, 1775, something very different happened. Paul Revere did not gallop gallantly through the streets alone. He was accompanied by many others, including William Dawes and Samuel Prescott who were apparently tossed to the side when the poem was written. Also, Revere never actually made it to Concord, unlike the poem stated. Longfellow obvious wanted to leave this out of the poem, because without reaching Concord, the entire point of the poem was undermined. The poem also completely fails to mention that after the glorified ride, Paul Revere was arrested and detained by British officers - meaning, the British were, in fact, already in Lexington and Concord. This deflates the poem somewhat, losing the dramatic effect the author provided before. And for a final blow to the great literary work, the famous lamp signal was misrepresented, too. It was not Paul Revere at all who waited for the lights from the belfry, so sixteen lines of that poem where Revere is waiting for the signal are completely false. Also, he was, at one time, arranging the signals himself. Longfellow could not possibly write a poem about Revere when he wasn't the one who started the ride upon seeing the signal in the belfry, so something had to be altered.

So this is all incorrect. What impact does that have on modern American society? The children who have recited that poem, and the adults who memorized it as children for decades, learned the heroic story of Paul Revere's ride to save the colonists. A theme to this comparison would be that it's usually a collective effort that makes the difference, and not just the frontrunning man. Longfellow has inspired people for the wrong reason, making them believe a singular hero is the one who can save the day when it's really the work of several people. The inaccuracies of history and the way they were recorded give the American population false beliefs about its past.

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
>From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Perplexity

When I think of the word "perplexity", there is only one issue that comes to my mind. It bothers me constantly, and it is impossible to determine. It isn't for a lack of knowledge, for there isn't any knowledge to be had.
There is a notion I have about some kind of fourth dimension. Not exactly time travel, but something beyond that. It could be considered about some kind of religion, or the soul, but I generally only see it as a baffling issue that I will never debunk.
From several movies, books and musings of others, collectively, I have seen trends of time travel in culture. Were time travel real, it would mean we already had some kind of destiny or fate. You could not go to your future if your future didn't yet exist. However, I have been thinking - what if there were no definitive end, where you went to heaven or hell or into the ground or whichever said destination - what if you were constantly alive on all planes? You could be sixty and four at the same time, and you would never know it from moment-to-moment, because you would have the thoughts corrosponding to your age. You would be being at all levels at one time, and not on a track that led simply to the end.
Since I saw an old movie called, "The Time Machine", I have been racketing my brain for possibilities scientifically. It seems completely plausible to me. In the movie, a man was to presents his mini-model of his time machine to his colleagues who were skeptical. He brought out the model and set it to be some number of years in the future. For whichever reason, the time machine was no longer there. His colleagues mocked him, but he simply replied that it WAS there, just in the future. Some could grasp it and some could not. It was in the same place, just some number of years ahead. The table it was on could be a rock, or a mountain, or there could be no surface at all. Think about it - you could be existing on all levels right now.
One day I woke up completely baffled, thinking, what if when I went to sleep last night, I was four years old? I would wake up this morning and not know it at all, because I have the thoughts given to me on the timeline at my age. You would never know. You could wake up tomorrow, and be seventy, and you would never know. It takes thinking to grasp anything like this - you wouldn't know, because you would have the thoughts given to you at the age of seventy.
It sounds like some crazy philosophic notion, but it is what constantly perplexes me. It also perplexes me that people cannot grasp this - they lack the deep thinking needed to examine the possibilities. It's not that I definitely believe in this timeline structure, it's just that I think it's extremely possible that it could exist. It's one of those wonders of the universe that will never be reavealed to us, and that it why we ponder.