Imperialistic America?

Is America an empire builder? Certainly, some would say yes, but a careful look at our history reveals a much more complicated picture. True, America has dabbled in expansionism, think about Hawaii, parts of the Caribbean, and the Philippines. It would seem, however, America's heart has never been completely in it, and as a result, we've never been very good at it. Also, our expansionism has almost always generated tremendous debate, think about President Cleveland's reluctance to annex Hawaii and the Senate debate on the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. In fact, lets look at a few primary sources from the controversy over annexing the Philippines. The following documents demonstrate some of the wide ranging opinions Americans and Filipinos had concerning annexation. President McKinley, presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, Senator Alfred Beveridge of Indiana, President Emilio Aguinaldo of the Independent Philippine Republic, an article published in the Boston Post on behalf of African Americans living in Boston. Finally, read "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling. 1. Which speakers discourage imperialism? (1pt) 2. Which speakers support imperialism? (1pt) 3. Choose a statement likely to be considered racist today. Identify the speaker and explain why you picked their document. (2pts) 4. Identify three reasons given for annexing the Philippines and and three reasons against annexation. Be sure to identify the speaker for each reason for and against. The same speaker may be used for more than one reason. (12pts)

The Right To Rebel

Lets consider the right to rebel as its found in the Declaration of Independence. The fourth self-evident truth is pretty exciting stuff, however, its often lifted out of the Declaration without considering its context. Politicians may use it to draw attention to themselves, media outlets may take said candidates statements even farther out of context in order to make them squirm, extremists of various stripes love to justify their acts of random violence by cloaking themselves in the words of Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of us are often left wondering just what Tommy J. meant. Well, Thomas Jefferson probably meant exactly what he said, however, let us first remember that it was written after the Revolution was underway and it was brutally clear that reconciliation with the British Crown was impossible. So, look at the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (here is where we find its political theory) read closely the portion discussing the altering or abolishing of governments which are said to be "destructive to these ends." What are the "ends" to which Thomas Jefferson is referring? Correct! Governments are established to protect the self evident truths of equality, the unalienable rights, and the consent of the governed. And when a government has become destructive to these truths, its time for a change. Now, look at the section on "light and transient causes." Yup, you got it, governments shouldn't be changed for fluffy reasons. Next, check out the section dealing with " a long train of abuses" and "absolute depotism." That's right! Tommy J. is arguing the right to rebel requires a significant history of abuses from a government heading toward absolute power with little responsibility to or respect for the governed. While a few may still find this open to some interpretation, it does set the bar for rebellion pretty darn high! Now, lets take a look at an exchange between congressional candidate Stephen Broden and an interviewer over this vary topic. (Its about fifteen minutes long and the right to rebel come up about half way through the interview) What do you think? (1) Is Stephen Broden being badgered or treated unfairly by the interviewer concerning his statement about violent overthrow being "on the table" as a means to change the government? (2) Is Stephen Broden merely trying to add energy to his campaign for Congress by making a controversial statement? (3) Even though Stephen Broden says violent overthrow isn't the first option, can we find anything today that meets the threshold set by Thomas Jefferson for using violent overthrow? If so, explain. (4) Is Stephen Broden actually suggesting violent overthrow should be considered at the present time? (5) What is Stephen Broden careful to say is the preferred way to alter the government? In closing, I would like to offer that the right to rebel is not meant to be "a call to arms" only. While the Revolution and the Civil War are obvious examples of its most extreme application, let us consider that each time we pass legislation or elect a new official we are altering our government. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 effectively abolished the Articles of Confederation. (America's first government) And, finally, each of the amendments to the Constitution are also alterations of the government. All of these peaceful changes fall under the domain of the "right to rebel" just as appropriately and definitely more commonly in our history than does violent overthrow.

To be an American

What does it mean to be an American? Its a curious question, one most of us probably don't spend too much time thinking about. It is, perhaps, long overdue that we as Americans start thinking about what and who we are. Having a social security number, citizenship papers, a big house in the suburbs, a car for every teenager? Hmmmm. I think Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence may be a better place to start. In the Declaration, Tommy J. sets out four self evident truths: all men (people) are created equal, the unalienable rights, consent of the governed, and the right to rebel. All people being equal is the foundation for everything that follows and the truth I'd like us to focus on. The unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are most secure when we accept that all people are created equal! Accepting the equality of all people (not sameness, see Harrison Bergeron) makes a much stronger argument for consent of the governed, that is, the power to be held by those who govern or represent us should flow directly from the people. Finally, without equality we have very little foundation for altering our governments when they fail to live up to the principles found in the Declaration. Do all U.S citizens believe in the principles found in Declaration? Doubtful, I'm sure we all know people who more or less subscribe to the values of the Klan, neo-nazis, or various other hate groups (some are pretty slick at glossing over their true nature in order to gain new converts). So, where does this leave us? I believe it takes us to the somewhat uncomfortable position of having to admit that being a U.S. citizen may not mean we're an American. It requires more than a social security number. To be an American requires an understanding of and an unshakable belief in the principles of the Declaration. It requires us, if you will, to walk the walk, to think hard about and to practice the values we say we know. Finally, I'd like to suggest that spending time thinking about who the Declaration says we should aspire to be, will help arm us against the tragic consequences of ignorance. Abu Ghraib.