Dear America,
Democracy is a bitch.
You can’t just tell everyone that they have the right to “happiness”. Seeing as how individual happiness is relative to circumstance, such a generalized term is bound to bring about conflict. But despite this matter, you seem to be quite fond of generalized terms, which becomes apparent in Thomas Jefferson’s original American manifesto: The Declaration of Independence. “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." …The only thing that’s self-evident about that statement is that it leaves room for extremely diametric arguments and interpretations. “All men are created equal”…”All men”, huh…Does that leave room for women, the financially unstable, and people of any background, religion, or race? Or is “All men” meant to be taken verbatim (to that time), including only well-off, white, aristocratic males?
Deep, thought provoking questions here…but that aside America, paper can’t speak. Thomas Jefferson cannot rise from the grave and elucidate every piece of text that gives rights to the American people. But he did however; leave room for certain adjustments to be made; adjustments that could broaden or restrict the definition of any given word or phrase in the Declaration. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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." “The people” have the power to change government leaders, policy, regulations, and what have you, as it affects their “happiness”. “The people” define their unalienable rights and now too have the right to say when they are being cheated and can actually do something about it. But there are many groups of people. As stated above, there are people of different gender, race, and financial standing. And these people tend to have different interpretations of “happiness”, but they all have one thing in common; when their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are at stake, they get their asses up and start altering and abolishing whatever policy seems to be infringing upon their so-stated rights.
Since in its original text, only “Men” were mentioned in the Declaration, it only truly protected the rights of the male species for a time, namely white, rich, aristocrats. Obviously, later on down the road, this didn’t sit well with the people who interpreted the term “All men” to include “All people”…you know the kind that maybe aren’t white or don’t have a penis. Specifically the “All people” who have the right to alter and abolish…uh oh, you better watch your backs rich white guys.
(FROM HERE LOOSE OUTLINE, SUBJECT TO CHANGE, I NEED INPUT)
talk about douglas and how slavery infringed upon rights of black people and how he sees the term all men to include black men and how eventually it did. And yeah maybe including blacks made some people happy and others unhappy it did broaden the meaning of All men.
For women talk about cady Stanton and how she saw the term all men to include women as well and that women too have the right to be happy and shit
The term “All men” is forever evolving and broadening to include every type of person.
briefly discuss how the fight for inclusion continues today with tea party and ow.
(BACK TO ACTUAL WRITING)
Yes America, I realize you are an experiment of epic proportions, and I realize that someday you’ll get it right. But for now you’re just a democratic pain in the ass that is constantly changing, caught in a centuries-old attempt to provide all men with life, liberty, and a shot at happiness…but you know, I guess that really isn’t such a bad thing.
Dear America,
Democracy is a bitch.
You can’t just tell everyone that they have the right to “happiness”. Seeing as how individual happiness is relative to circumstance, such a generalized term is bound to bring about conflict. But despite this matter, you seem to be quite fond of generalized terms, which becomes apparent in Thomas Jefferson’s original American manifesto: The Declaration of Independence. “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." …The only thing that’s self-evident about that statement is that it leaves room for extremely diametric arguments and interpretations. “All men are created equal”…”All men”, huh…Does that leave room for women, the financially unstable, and people of any background, religion, or race? Or is “All men” meant to be taken verbatim (to that time), including only well-off, white, aristocratic males?
Deep, thought provoking questions here…but that aside America, paper can’t speak. Thomas Jefferson cannot rise from the grave and elucidate every piece of text that gives rights to the American people. But he did however; leave room for certain adjustments to be made; adjustments that could broaden or restrict the definition of any given word or phrase in the Declaration. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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." “The people” have the power to change government leaders, policy, regulations, and what have you, as it affects their “happiness”. “The people” define their unalienable rights and now too have the right to say when they are being cheated and can actually do something about it. But there are many groups of people. As stated above, there are people of different gender, race, and financial standing. And these people tend to have different interpretations of “happiness”, but they all have one thing in common; when their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are at stake, they get their asses up and start altering and abolishing whatever policy seems to be infringing upon their so-stated rights.
Since in its original text, only “Men” were mentioned in the Declaration, it only truly protected the rights of the male species for a time, namely white, rich, aristocrats. Obviously, later on down the road, this didn’t sit well with the people who interpreted the term “All men” to include “All people”…you know the kind that maybe aren’t white or don’t have a penis. Specifically the “All people” who have the right to alter and abolish…uh oh, you better watch your backs rich white guys.
(FROM HERE LOOSE OUTLINE, SUBJECT TO CHANGE, I NEED INPUT)
talk about douglas and how slavery infringed upon rights of black people and how he sees the term all men to include black men and how eventually it did. And yeah maybe including blacks made some people happy and others unhappy it did broaden the meaning of All men.
For women talk about cady Stanton and how she saw the term all men to include women as well and that women too have the right to be happy and shit
The term “All men” is forever evolving and broadening to include every type of person.
briefly discuss how the fight for inclusion continues today with tea party and ow.
(BACK TO ACTUAL WRITING)
Yes America, I realize you are an experiment of epic proportions, and I realize that someday you’ll get it right. But for now you’re just a democratic pain in the ass that is constantly changing, caught in a centuries-old attempt to provide all men with life, liberty, and a shot at happiness…but you know, I guess that really isn’t such a bad thing.