An "unsung" reason contributing to the Revolution was social rejection. While this may sound melodramatic and petty, emotions often drive decisions. The British aristocracy living in England made it clear to their American "cousins" that they (the Americans) would never be considered as equals.
In the 1760s, despite the distance separating the American colonies from the continent of Europe, the colonists were proud to be considered British. Most English colonists, recent immigrants or 4th generation descendents of 17th century immigrants, considered themselves to be British. They were fiercely proud of their heritage and their king. Let the reader understand - while at the time of the Revolution there were 13 colonies comprising Colonial America, these colonies operated much like independent nations; there was no real sense of a united America. What they had in common was the same "parent", that is, England.
Prior to revolution, the colonies hung desperately to the hope that differences would be resolved. No sane person hoped for revolution. Mother England may have been off base, but most everyone hoped for, and assumed, that differences would be addressed and corrected. During the mid -1770s, approximately 30% of the American colonists considered themselves to be Patriots - those willing to stand against England to protect their rights guaranteed under the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights (see previous blog), regardless of steps necessary. The remaining 70% were made up of about 30% fiercely loyal to England and 40% who were neutral - just wanting to get on with their daily life of survival and work.
Among the 30% who identified with the Patriot movement were men of means who were learned, successful, and greatly offended. For years, they had sought to live as Englishmen - real Englishmen. They insisted on reading newspapers from England, sending their children abroad to receive a bonafide English education, copied the art forms of English paintings, drank tea from Wedgewood cups. But their counterparts in England let them know they were little more than "posers." Political cartoons in the English print mocked Americans are provincials. Comments were made about their attempts to mimic aristocracy, pointing out the flaws attire, horse carriages, decorating, etc. Letters from George Washington to his clothier in England reveal his frustration with being sent fashions that were out-of-date and being charged exorbitant prices, implying that he was too dim to get what was going on.
When intelligent people are told repeatedly that they donít belong to the group they admire, eventually rejection leads to bitterness. Not only will they feel separated, they will grow to dislike, or perhaps detest, those they once aspired to be. As the Bible says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city..." (Proverbs 18;19) And so, this group that once so fervently identified themselves as British, learned from the admired that they would never be considered equal, and eventually sought their own social identity.
This part of the Revolutionary picture is overlooked and underestimated. Once deeply offended, people become ready to take more drastic measures. If I tell a wayward child in my family that he is behaving inappropriate, but that he will always be part of the family, and we will work through problems with him, there is hope. However, if I tell that same child he will never be like the rest of us, his behavior is inexcusable, his lifestyle is the source of family ridicule, and all the while, we are expecting him to pay the bills to help us eliminate our family debt - we have a recipe for disaster. This is why this reality of American history is grossly underestimated as a cause for revolution . Rejection and social ridicule make people mad enough to say, "I don't want to be part of that which I once admired. I'm done."
How does this compare with our circumstances today?
Forget about Republicans and Democrats - we all consider ourselves to be Americans. Increasingly, our country has become ruled by large population centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. If you study an electoral map following a Presidential election, you'll see that the vast majority, geography-wise, voted for the conservative candidate. Conversely, small regions of the country, densely populated, voted for the liberal candidate. Increasingly, conservative Americans are being told they don't count. Based on proportional representation (population), the majority of Americans control elections, and that's Constitutional. But it is unhealthy when politicians in power tell those who did not vote for the winners, that they don't really count. Further, their concerns as expressed in protests are nothing more than "Astroturf." That voices of opposition on the radio and television are trouble makers spreading misinformation, and then proposing means of silencing those voices with the Fairness Doctrine, taking control of the internet with the power to shut it down for national security, asking citizens to email names and addresses of those complaining to the White House, as a real or implied threat of retribution.
What I find particularly frustrating about politicians today is their elitist attitude; once elected, they know better. They seem to forget that they purpose of their job is to represent their constituents and address their concerns. Instead, they take their election as a self-proclaimed mandate to put forth their own agenda, and the agenda of those who financed their campaign. The really disturbing aspect of this is that during the campaign, many of these elected officials cleverly couch their real beliefs with terminology that is vague, universal, and flat out, misleading. Consider President Obama. He promised to be the President of transparency, yet he won't clarify the matter of his birth certificate once and for all. He said he was only a neighbor of Bill Ayers, did not embrace his anti-American views, but if you look at the backgrounds of czars he has appointed such as Carol Browner, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and John Holdren, there is a commonality of among these people thinking that America needs to re-formed which I find very disturbing. Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church and claimed not to hear those messages in which Wright attacked our country viciously. How could Obama miss that? (I've been to many churches throughout my life and this I've observed, pastors, reverends, and priests tend to be consistent in their themes. The message may change from week to week, but their underlying philosophy of life sets the tone of the church and the direction it takes.) How is that Michelle Obama, when 44 years of age, could honestly say, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, Iím really proud of my country..." first in Milwaukee, WI, and a second time in Madison? You may choose to pick each of these apart, one by one, but when one examines the tapestry of these variables, the picture is pretty disturbing.
All of these people mentioned, including the Obamas, are wealthy, having succeeded in a country that allowed them to pursue their happiness and openly express their views. Now, as ruling elite, they look down upon the silent majority as insignificant provincials who need to be led to a new America, a fascist and socialist America which seems very Orwellian to me.
Carol Browner: Last day in office, 2000, as head of the EPA, she oversaw the destruction of the agency's computer files in direct violation of the a federal court order to preserve them. This despite her claim that "One of the things Iím the proudest of at the EPA is the work weíve done to expand the publicís right to know." A clever trial lawyer, Browner claimed ignorance of the court injunction. Is this consistent with transparency and serving the People?
Van Jones: An avowed communist, Van Jones has been noted for calling Republicans "assholes," addressing supportive audiences using the F-bomb repeatedly to belittle the ideas and beliefs of Americans who's ideas run counter to the green movement, contends that white polluters and white environmentalist steer poison to racial minorities, and aligned himself with the "truthers," that is, those who contend the terrorism attacks of 9/11 were inside jobs designed by the Bush administration.
Cass Sunstein: Regulatory czar, in his own words - "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isnít a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."
Sunstein also argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially."
John Holdren, science czar: In 1977, Holdren co-authored the book Ecoscience. Here are some of the assertions: Forced abortions could be supported by the Constitution (page 837), single mothers could have their babies taken away by the government (page 786), mass sterilization of humans could be accomplished through drinking water (pages 787-787), governmental control over reproductively (pages 786-787), determining who may reproduce base on social deterioration (page 838), a planetary regime should control the international economy and dictate population expansion (pages 942-943), surrender national sovereignty to international police (page 917), pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are promoted through ethnic chauvinism (page 749).
Do you see any trends here? Did Obama transparently spell out this agenda clearly before he was elected? No, he promised transparency, but didn't provide it. He claimed that he would be a president who truly reached across the aisle, but is not living up to that promise one bit. Obama said he'd be the most accessible president ever, but instead, he's organizing an administration that plans on controlling the internet for "national security," encourages neighbors to turn in the names and addresses of those who spread "misinformation" about his policies, and budgeted $4.19 billion dollars to ACORN along with other "neighborhood stabilization activity" groups. Stabilization? ACORN is one of the two main thug groups intimidating voters at polling places, executive board members to provide bad loans to certain classes of borrowers, and threatening protestors at Tea Parties and town hall meetings. (The other group being SEIU).
Okay, enough. What does this have to do with my original thesis that a contributory factor to the American Revolution had to do with the British not treating the colonists as equal British citizens? The British government felt the colonists were provincials, or simply put, too stupid to determine what was in their own best interest. They allowed the colonists to "play government" in their own colonies as long as it benefited England financially. England passed several Acts, or laws, which left the colonists out of the decision making process, and they thought they could get away with it because the colonists were too slow, too ill-informed, and too rustic to stay up with the political tap dance Parliament was performing. The government of England forgot that they were supposed to represent its citizens - citizens who happened to live in the American colonies.
Today, Congress and the White House are promoting an agenda that has been put forth by the radical left. It is an agenda which is full of socialism, seeking ways to silence dissent, government takeover of private entities, destroying our ability to be self-reliant in energy, hamstringing business which rely on energy for production at a time where are slipping into an economic hole we can never get out of, promoting an agenda allowing animals their day in court, etc. Did our leaders transparently present these ideas when running for office? No, that would be too stark, too shocking. It was better to ride into office denying attachment to these ideals and allow late night comedy and mainstream news to mock those trying to bring attention the candidates' background and ties as Chicken Littles. (Thank you so much, David Letterman, SNL, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and all news agencies which are admittedly comprised of 80% liberals.)
In the days of pre-Revolution, the English government framed the 30% of the colonial population (the Patriots), who warned of England's tyranny, as trouble makers and dangerous. Our government today is doing the same thing. In order to silence voices of concern and dissent, our government is calling detractors Right Wing Extremists, the Astroturf Movement, and loyal citizens are supposed to send the names and addresses of these people to the White House. If the movement becomes too strong, the dissenters' right to Assemble and Petition (1st Amendment) is being greeted with members of ACORN, SEIU, and others - bused in to agitate, cause civil disobedience, and make it look like the conservatives are there to start a fight.
This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat argument. This is about preserving America and the Constitution, and the beliefs embedded in the Declaration of Independence. It's about believing that government exists to serve the People, not the other way round. It's about embracing the 1st Amendment as first and foremost established to encourage public debate, examination of opposing views, in order to allow the People to participate in our democratic republic. It's also about holding our elected officials accountable. If you promise to be transparent, but the people who you surround yourself with as advisors are communists, socialists, new world order types, racists who blame Whitey for everything, people who believe in giving up our national sovereignty and submitting to an international police, leaders who have a known track record of destroying government files on agency computers, and those who want to give the rest of the animal kingdom (and I assume that includes insects) their day in court, isn't it fair to wonder why this "utopia" wasn't presented before the election? Well, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment