Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...henation/12208
America has become a profoundly -- and tragically -- ahistoric country. As such, the 273rd anniversary of the birth of George Washington will pass this Tuesday with little note. Washington's legacy has been so disregarded by its heirs that his birthday has been stirred into the generic swill of "President's Day," an empty gesture that blunts the memories of both the first chief executive and the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, in order to avoid cluttering February with too many holidays or too much history. The memory of Washington has become an inconvenience for men who occupy the high stations and his fellow founders occupied. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), Donald Rumsfeld, John Negroponte and their ilk certainly do not want the work of remaking America in their own image -- as a greedy, self-absorbed and frequently brutal empire -- interrupted by reflections upon the nobler nation that Washington and his compatriots imagined. Considering the ugly state to which the American experiment has degenerated, however, it would make sense for the rest of us to renew our affiliation with the first GW. Indeed, patriots need to call General Washington back into the service of his country -- not merely as a clarification of national memory but as a blunt challenge to the who have usurped America's promise with their illegal invasions and multinational misadventures. It will not be the first time that the wrench of Washington's memory has been tossed into the machinery of American empire. When dissenters from the impulse toward American empire held their annual gatherings in cities and towns across the United States in the early years of the twentieth century, they would meet on the anniversary of George Washington's birth. It was the accepted wisdom of the day that, in addition to having been "the father of his country," Washington was, as well, the father of the anti-imperialist movement. The first president had given his ideological descendants ample evidence on which to base their claim. His 1793 proclamation of American neutrality in regards to European political and military conflicts explicitly rejected international entanglements, with Washington later explaining that, "The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations." But it was Washington's Farewell Address, delivered in 1796 toward the end of his second presidential term, that became a touchstone for ensuing generations of anti-imperialists. Washington used his last great statement to the nation he had shepherded through the struggle to loose the grip of British colonial rule, "to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." Washington saw great danger in any step that would "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice" but it was not just alliances with European states that worried him. The first president counseled that it should be "our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." The commander of America's revolutionary armies did not want his country to follow the European course of collecting colonies and establishing spheres of influence that would need, ever, to be defended. He warned that the new United States might "pay with a portion of its independence" for involving itself in "projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives." And he asked a question that would echo across the ages as his presidential successors moved the country further and further from its founding principles: "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" An American political leader who uttered those words today would be set upon by the self-appointed guardians of false patriotism -- Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and a thousand imitators -- and accused of undermining the "war on terrorism" that has become such a convenient excuse for occupation Iraq (news - web sites) and the development of imperialist instincts that owe more to King George than to George Washington. But there is nothing American about a career of empire. In fact, the American impulse is the one that Washington expressed two centuries ago. The principles that Washington discussed in his Farewell Address were not new concepts. They were, in fact, mainstream opinions shared by many, though surely not all, of his countrymen. A measure of pragmatism underpinned their broad acceptance. America was a new nation, rich in resources but sparsely populated and militarily weak. A career of empire seemed not just hypocritical for the former colony, but impractical. And America was divided, not just over questions of foreign allegiance and entanglement but with regards to her domestic course. New Englanders were already objecting to the practice of human bondage in the southern states and Jefferson, himself a slaveholder, acknowledged that he trembled at the thought of the rough justice that awaited a nation that countenanced the sin of slavery. While the Pennsylvania Quakers imagined cooperation and comity with the indigenous owners of the ground on which Europeans stood as newcomers, governors from Massachusetts in the north to Georgia in the south plotted violent removals of American Indians from their native lands. Washington well recognized that the United States lacked the strength and unity to survive internal struggles over alignment with particular colonial powers, let alone the conflicts and costs associated with colonialisms of its own. But there was more than enlightened self-interest in play when Washington suggested that, "Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course." From the beginnings of what would come to be referred to as "the American experiment," there was a sense that this endeavor ought to be about something nobler than the mere recreation of European excesses on the new ground of the western Hemisphere. John Winthrop's notion that an American settler might see his or her community "as a city on a hill," a model unto the world for the moral ordering of affairs, echoed across religious, ethnic and regional lines. Among a certain rebellious element, it came to be accepted that Europe's potentates, with their subjects and colonies, represented a corrupt old order that would be replaced only by a shot heard round the world. The American revolutionaries promised that their challenge to the British king and crown would in the words of their tribune, Tom Paine, "begin the world again." The revolution, which the Continental Congress pledged to fight neither "for glory or for conquest," did, in fact, inspire more revolts against colonial authorities. America's progression toward democracy -- slowed, as it was, by the hypocrisy and intolerance of the founders -- would, as well, provide a model for the systems that replaced the divine right of kings with the consent of the governed. That requirement of consent should, by its very nature, have rendered illegitimate any colonial or imperialist impulse. And, it seemed, many of the founders read it that way. Fifty years after independence was declared, it's author, Jefferson, would renew the city-on-a-hill promise with a call to globalize the democratic revolution: "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all): the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government." George Bush has throttled America's promise by mirroring the worst excesses of King George. He has cast his lot with the colonialists who believe in the spread of enlightenment at gunpoint. Patriots need to mirror the best instincts of another George and pursue that "different course" that the first president said was essential to the maintenance of our independence and our ability to inspire by fear rather than force. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...henation/12208 America has become a profoundly -- and tragically -- ahistoric country. As such, the 273rd anniversary of the birth of George Washington will pass this Tuesday with little note. Washington's legacy has been so disregarded by its heirs that his birthday has been stirred into the generic swill of "President's Day," an empty gesture that blunts the memories of both the first chief executive and the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, in order to avoid cluttering February with too many holidays or too much history. snip Nothing more than an opinion from a liberal journalist with no facts to support the claims. Another yawn So what is your view Jimcomma? Certainly you cannot agree with the *opinion* of this author 100%. I have yet to read an opinion from you when cutting and pasting internet news stories. You are capable of offering an opinion......eh? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:20:43 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...henation/12208 America has become a profoundly -- and tragically -- ahistoric country. As such, the 273rd anniversary of the birth of George Washington will pass this Tuesday with little note. Washington's legacy has been so disregarded by its heirs that his birthday has been stirred into the generic swill of "President's Day," an empty gesture that blunts the memories of both the first chief executive and the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, in order to avoid cluttering February with too many holidays or too much history. snip Nothing more than an opinion from a liberal journalist with no facts to support the claims. Another yawn So what is your view Jimcomma? Certainly you cannot agree with the *opinion* of this author 100%. I have yet to read an opinion from you when cutting and pasting internet news stories. You are capable of offering an opinion......eh? Do you really believe Jimcomma reads all this stuff? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:19:44 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...henation/12208 Same place, better story: Op/Ed - Maggie Gallagher UExpress THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY Tue Feb 1, 7:59 PM ET Add to My Yahoo! Op/Ed - Maggie Gallagher By Maggie Gallagher For a brief moment, can we just celebrate? Soon enough we'll return to the narrow, dark, arrow-slinging, testosterone-fueled world of partisans ceaselessly jousting at each other for minor political advantage. Right now, for the 1,400 American soldiers who've died to make this possible, for the millions of Iraqis who just braved death to show up and exercise their new right to vote, for the sake of the human spirit itself, can we pause a moment to wonder at an amazing sight: the birth of a new democracy. Yes, Iraqi democracy is just a baby. Yes, so many questions remain unanswered that we (and they) will have to return to shortly, including how and when the new Iraqi nation will be strong enough to defend itself so our boys can come home. Let us seize this moment to celebrate with Iraqis their achievement: "People have been thirsting for these elections, as if it was a wedding," Akil Muslim told The New York Times. "Najaf is considered the capital of the Shiites, and because they were oppressed under the old regime, they're turning out for the elections." What is democracy, and why is it worth dying for? In part, it's a commitment by a people to resolve a nation's internal disputes amicably, without recourse to violence. Because the next election is just around the corner, powerful elites agree to surrender power in an orderly way, and on a regular basis, in accordance with fixed rules. "The exercise of democracy is the rule of the majority," one cleric told The New York Times. "But the Shiites do not rule anyone out, and we respect the Kurds, Sunnis and others." When democracy works well, the general course of the nation, if not all its details, are shaped in response to what the majority of people actually want. A million heads are better than one at making decisions. "Ayatollah Sistani says your vote is more valuable than gold," said another man. And then there is the question of fundamental human dignity. Democracy transforms every Iraqi from a subject to a citizen. An 83-year-old bricklayer had trouble, for a moment, explaining to a reporter why he was standing in long lines to vote: "Under Saddam we were a people who were lost. Before, we were not able to talk to officials; they were just punching you, and kicking you. But now, with elections, we'll have good officials. We will know them, and they will know us." Let us pause, too, just for a moment to wonder at the sight of a powerful nation, with more death at its command than human nature ought ever to be trusted with, using that power (at least today) not to destroy or dominate a people, but to create a safe space for this new birth. Do you remember how the Europeans dismissed President Bush (news - web sites)'s talk of democracy in Iraq (news - web sites)? The less charitable saw it as an excuse to grab oil, the more charitable as a strictly rhetorical boilerplate for the masses: "After all is said and done, the Americans will install some sort of halfway decent government there," the realpolitikers said. There is legitimate criticism among Americans in both parties who wonder whether America can afford to spend its blood and treasure abroad on such Wilsonian dreams. That debate is an important one and will continue. Today is a day to pause and be proud: proud of being an American, proud of belonging to a country that can dream such dreams, give such an extraordinary gift. The Iraqis are celebrating their own achievement, as well they should. For only tyranny can be imposed by outsiders. Democracy must be created, day by day, by the people themselves. God bless the people of Iraq. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Questions or Comments Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Ad Feedback John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Which anti freeze in Massachusetts? | General |