Liberty, Part Two – On Your Mark, Get Set…

June 2, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

Liberty is a tricky concept. On the surface it seems so simple – you are either free, or you are not. You have options and opportunity, or you do not.

In practice, however, ‘liberty’ is one of the most disputed topics in history and politics, even today – not because anyone opposes the term, but because we don’t agree as to what it means.

My favorite explanation comes from Jonathan Haidt, citing philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who distinguished between ‘negative liberty’ and ‘positive liberty.’ The term ‘negative’ tends to strike us as rather, um… negative – but in this case it simply refers to the absence of restraints – the lack of things in your way to prevent you from doing as you choose.

If you’ve been in chains, and the chains are removed, you now have negative liberty. If you weren’t allowed to vote because of your gender before, but now you can, you’ve gained negative liberty. Even leaving an abusive relationship, so that the abuser no longer has direct control over your life, increases negative liberty because it removes restrictions. Students graduating high school and moving away to college or elsewhere often feel a surge of freedom from their newly acquired negative liberty! Finally! Freedom! I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WHENEVER I WANT FOREVER AND EVER AMEN!

Only they can’t. Most can’t afford to live the way they wish to live or go all the places they wish to go. They may have to work just to eat. Social mores change around them as well, and while they may still technically behave any way they wish, they’ll begin to lose friends and employment, and their romantic options will be… unpromising. If they’re not particularly attractive or bright, the possibilities are even more limited. In a few years’ time, they’re back in mom and dad’s garage apartment, tolerating dinner conversation and being called ‘Brandon’ instead of ‘Sharktooth’ so they can eat something that doesn’t come in a box with a toy.

Why? With all of that freedom, how could they go wrong?

It’s because they lack ‘positive liberty’ – the power, knowledge, and resources to fulfill their potential. What good is negative liberty if you’re stuck in an economy or a society that offers you few real options? What good is ‘freedom’ if you haven’t been trained and oriented to take full advantage of it?

Often it’s about money or education. Sometimes it’s more about exposure to a different people and situations, and learning how to navigate them. Maybe it’s work ethic, or some desirable skill or trait – speaking Arabic, playing the drums, or even looking really good in the right shorts. These things all provide different degrees of ‘positive liberty’ – the power to DO, to ACCOMPLISH, to take advantage of whatever this life might offer you.

The Wizard of Oz is full of examples. Dorothy and her cohorts encounter all sorts of opposition attempting to limit their ‘negative liberty.’ Angry trees, flying monkeys, and that green chick who sang ‘Defying Gravity’ all try to restrict or destroy them. When the primary source of this opposition – the Wicked Witch of the West – was removed, their negative liberty went way, way up!

And yet, the Scarecrow still thought he lacked a brain, the Tin Man a heart, etc. Only through the mechanizations of the faux Wizard were they enabled to utilize attributes which were technically there ALL ALONG. We don’t judge them harshly for not knowing already – if anything, we look down on the Wizard for not having mentioned it sooner. Apparently the old white guy who happenstance placed in charge figured it worked better for him if they didn’t too quickly recognize their true strength and value.

Wait for it. OK, ready to move on?

And Dorothy and those shoes! The entire story she just wants to get home – why doesn’t she just click the damn things together and go, save us all some peril and musical numbers?

Because she doesn’t know how. She doesn’t even know the shoes work that way. The rules in Oz are not the same as those in Kansas. While some realities transfer well (relationships matter, dogs are inconvenient and essentially useless), others must be explicitly taught. And as Alice discovered in Wonderland, sometimes what’s obvious to a native never does quite make sense to the newbie… so off with her head!

Freedman after the Civil War were suddenly given ‘negative liberty’. They could go wherever they wished, and do whatever they wanted. Most, though, ended up doing pretty much what they’d been doing before – working the soil for food and shelter. They lacked ‘positive liberty’. Why the fuss over ’40 Acres & a Mule’? Because a plot of land and a work animal, taken from their former oppressors, would have given them at least minimal resources to take care of themselves, to make choices, to rise or fall on their own merits. Without those two essential bits of positive liberty, their negative liberty meant little.

The Joads. Newsies. Immigrants. Black protestors in the 1960’s or the 2010’s. Occupy Wall Street. Any Middle Eastern nation we’ve “liberated” from an evil dictator. Viewed through the single lens of liberty as absence of restraint, these folks simply MUST get over themselves. Get a job. Work harder. Stay in school. OMG, I did it – why can’t you?

Sometimes the answer is that they don’t actually have the negative liberty we assume. A central theme of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is that police departments across the country forcibly prevent them from pursuing happiness, and sometimes take their lives as well. The Joads discovered serpents in the Promised Land of California – armed authorities limiting their movements, their speech, and their lifespans. Those are limits on ‘negative liberty’. Those are chains.

More deceptive and entrenched, though, is the dominant cultural expectation that those from vastly diverse backgrounds be held accountable for achieving the same outcomes, and for valuing those particular outcomes to begin with. Take a look at this picture:

Consider the boy on the left. Do you think his parents read to him? Take him interesting places? Push him to do well in school? How many balanced meals do you think he has each day? How quickly is he taken to the doctor if ill? We can’t say with 100% certainty, but odds are good he has every advantage – and that he’s probably going to be very successful by most standards.

What about this kid?

His parents aren’t making kale smoothies – his father is with his ‘new family’ in Vermont and his mom’s at work. How often does she read to him? Take him interesting places? Help him with his homework? What are the chances he’s eating balanced meals? You get the idea.

COULD he work hard in school anyway? Choose healthier food from whatever options are in the house? Utilize the blessings of technology and public libraries as partial substitutions for travel and interesting experiences?

I’d like to think so. And the first kid COULD become a screw-up, a drop-out, a ne’er-do-well. But would you bet on it? Out of a hundred of the first kid and a hundred of the second, what percentage of each would you predict become ‘successful’? Why?

At some point even Kid #2 will become at least partly responsible for the choices he makes. Eventually ‘fair’ becomes irrelevant when talking individual, personal accountability. And there will hopefully always be stories of those from worse backgrounds who make it, who achieve.

But there’s no such thing as a truly ‘level’ playing field. We’re all too diverse economically, and culturally, and the variety of one person’s life experiences are never quite the same as another’s. Life is unfair, and just to complicate matters, time and chance happen to us all.

As blessed as we are by the freedom and opportunity in this semi-progressive society of ours, it’s never as simple as making sure all of the ‘gates’ are ‘open.’ We absolutely must keep fighting to empower every last child with the understanding, agency, and resources to actually move through whichever of them he or she chooses.

Liberty, Part One – The Causes Which Impel Them

June 1, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

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…

Hopefully this sounds vaguely familiar. It’s from the Declaration of Independence – history’s first and most famous combination break-up letter and birth certificate.

If you’ve had a longstanding relationship with someone – whether a lover, parent, spouse, or child – and that someone suddenly bails, you’re well within your rights to expect some sort of explanation. A midday text of “Not wrkng out – CU ltr… or not. Lev my stuff w/ Tori?” simply won’t do. T.J. and the Founders understood this, and explained their break-up in an ‘open letter’ to England and the world.

Your friends are all going to be asking what happened anyway, right? Might as well copy them on the text.

But it’s also a birth certificate in the sense that it describes and proclaims a new nation – a whole new KIND of nation, in fact. Lincoln will refer back to this Declaration in those terms fourscore and seven years later when he speaks of a nation ‘conceived in liberty’ and brought forth by fathers – in this case, ‘Founding’.

Then come the Big Three Rights. They’ll be expanded – or at least clarified – in a subsequent Constitution and its famous First Ten Amendments, but these are the foundation.

The phrasing was presumably borrowed (and modified) from John Locke, who wrote that governments have one job and one job only – the protection of property, defined specifically as life, liberty, and estate. Why T.J. and crew changed the phrasing is subject to discussion, but whatever their motivation, our lil’ nation wasn’t birthed by Locke (as far as we know – although we do have his nose… oh god, what if- ?!). Our legal birth certificate says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – not ‘estate’. Everything else is commentary.

So… what do they mean?

That’s the catch. We generally agree on the phrases – Democrats and Republicans, Chicks and Dudes, a wide variety of colors, religions, professions, and educational attainments… we pretty much all love those words.

We just don’t agree on what they mean. So… wrinkle!

Crane Britton in Anatomy of a Revolution argued that when taking over an existing government, there’s no need for a new flag – just change what the flag means. No reason for an entirely new government – so long as existing officials are willing to ‘adapt’. The more extant anthems, slogans, and other nationalistic symbols and phrases you can keep, the better – as long as you effectively reshape what they stand for. What they MEAN.

T.J. and the Founders weren’t going for anything so sneaky; they were proclaiming their goals openly, if a bit poetically. But they did give us words and symbols around which to rally, and were then kind enough to establish before the proverbial ink was dry that the difficulty lie in how those words and symbols are defined. The next three decades were defined by arguments over what our Constitution and accompanying documents actually mean – or should mean, at least. Eventually we went to war with ourselves over it, so… here’s to clarity next time, gentlemen.

We hold these truths to be self-evident

This is either seriously profound or a rather evasive way to confess we’re not actually sure why we believe these things. I’m going to go with profound, because… Jefferson.

that all men are created equal

Pretty tricky to reconcile slavery and subsequent treatment of immigrants and Amerindians with this one, isn’t it? It’s one thing to limit ‘men’ to, well… MEN; it’s another to presume this grand claim of the equality was obviously only intended for Anglo-Saxons of a certain income level. A more accurate rendering of the Founders’ general mindset might have read, “far more men are created essentially equal than most of you thought, although let’s not get carried away and think that’s necessarily everyone, or even a majority.”

Imagine reciting THAT on Declaration Day every year in school.

But when given a choice between accuracy and rhetoric, T.J. often chose the latter. I have no doubt he was entirely sincere – like many of us, Jefferson was quite comfortable believing several contradictory things at once. “I think, therefore I am distorting reality to fit my own needs.”

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

The ‘Creator’ part is also vague enough to mean whatever the reader wished it to mean. Many read ‘God’ without even consciously considering alternatives, while those less dogmatic could easily assume a less specific life force – be it Clockmaker, First Causer, or Nature itself.

As to those ‘unalienable’ rights, well… that’s rather bold! ‘Unalienable’ suggests these rights exist even when they’re being violated, or denied. They exist the same even if we attempt to surrender them voluntarily. They exist even if we’re bad people.

Even after the whole ‘all men’ issue was clarified (thank you, 14th Amendment), this is probably the greatest gap between our rhetoric and our actual beliefs as evidenced by our history. And lest we feel all 21st Century superior to our forebears, read it again and then think ‘Guantanamo Bay’. See the problem?

But for now let’s move to those Big Three highlighted earlier.

that among these are

That’s smart. “We’re going to list three biggies here, but we’re not saying these are the only ones.” A similar clarification will be made in the 9th Amendment after detailing various rights in the first eight. It’s not so different from what we do when making school policies – after skirt length and no guns or drugs or sexual harassment usually comes something like “and pretty much anything else we decide gets in the way of what we’re trying to do here.” That way, when some kid comes up with something you simply didn’t anticipate – like, bringing his Komodo Dragon to school – you don’t have to find a specific rule against that in order to send him and his pet home.

Life

This one should be easy, right? And in some ways it is. It does get messy when we’re talking about anything involving a ‘right to die’ for the elderly or seriously damaged. Things get especially tricky when addressing reproduction – especially when it comes to ending existing pregnancies. Even the ‘do some heroin and have sex with your dog’ Libertarians are split over abortion, since this ‘right to life’ is so fundamental in the most original of American documents.

Very few of the folks chanting for choice are against ‘life’. It’s that definition thing again – what do we mean by ‘life’? When, exactly, does it begin – and what does that even mean? Who decides?

So maybe that first one isn’t so easy after all.

and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yeah, yeah – I skipped one, I know. And I’m not sure what this one means, other than sounding much more positive than ‘estate’, or ‘stuff’. Perhaps it promotes the value of seeking personal fulfillment over simply meeting one’s obligations to community or country. Maybe ‘pursuit of happiness’ is drawn up in contrast to ‘serving one’s king.’ But I’m speculating.

Liberty

Liberty. Yeah… that one’s going to take a while.

The Power of Persuasion (To Prove or To Move?)

May 2, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

I came across an amusing piece the other day which I’d seen before, enjoyed, then forgotten. I’ll excerpt a bit so you can get the idea even if you don’t read the full thing right this minute.

Announcement Regarding the Bureau of Caucasian Affairs – BCA
United Native Americans (UNA) is proud to announce that it has bought the state of California from the whites and is throwing it open to Indian settlement. UNA bought California from three winos found wandering in San Francisco. UNA decided the winos were the spokesmen for the white people of California. These winos promptly signed the treaty, which was written in Sioux, and sold California for three bottles of wine, one bottle of gin, and four cases of beer…
Of course, whites will be allowed to sell trades and handicrafts at stands by the highway. Each white will be provided annually with one blanket, one pair of tennis shoes, a supply of Spam, and a copy of The Life of Crazy Horse…
All courses will be taught in Indian languages, and there will be demerits for anyone caught speaking English. All students arriving at the school will immediately be given IQ tests to determine their understanding of Indian Language and hunting skills… Each hospital will have a staff of two part-time doctors and a part-time chiropractor who have all passed first aid tests. And each hospital will be equipped with a scalpel, a jack knife, a saw, a modern tourniquet, and a large bottle of aspirin.
Certain barbaric white customs will, of course, not be allowed. Whites will not be allowed to practice their heathen religions, and will be required to attend Indian ceremonies. Missionaries will be sent from each tribe to convert the whites on the reservations. White churches will either be made into amusement parks or museums or will be torn down and the bricks and ornaments sold as souvenirs and curiosities…

It’s effective satire. It bites enough to hurt, but it’s still funny. It’s what John Stewart does when he’s at his best – throwing out a little red meat to those who already agree, and sharply prodding those who don’t, moderated somewhat by humor.

But sarcasm and hyperbole are risky if you’re serious about changing minds (as opposed to being funny or venting a tiny bit of rage). If they work, they really really work – but if they don’t, they alienate and offend. Risk big, win big – or, you know, fail.

Sometimes we have to consciously decide whether we’d rather be right or be effective. Standing our ground on moral absolutes is all well and good – and sometimes the only acceptable choice if we’re to live with ourselves. But are there pathways to positive change that don’t require either the complete submission of our adversaries or sacrifice of our own foundational values?

In 1851, a largely unknown former slave going by the name ‘Sojourner Truth’ took the stage at a women’s rights convention in Akron, OH. There are several versions of her exact words, but something pretty close to this segment shows up in all of them:

I have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
As for intellect, all I can say is, if woman have a pint and a man a quart — why can’t she have her little pint full? You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much — for we won’t take more than our pint will hold.
The poor men seem to be all in confusion and don’t know what to do. Why children, if you have woman’s rights give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and there won’t be so much trouble.

There are two things about this argument which I really like and from which I hope to learn.

First, Truth doesn’t pick fights she doesn’t need to or take on battles she probably can’t win. She works as much as most men? That’s easily verifiable. But intellect… that’s trickier. How would you even measure that? They didn’t have Common Core back then, or IQ tests, or even those ‘Which Failed 1970’s Sitcom Are You?’ quizzes.

Truth doesn’t bother arguing what she cannot prove. IF a woman has a pint only, while you men have quarts – fine. Why not let us fill up our little pints?

That’s much more difficult to refute. She gives her detractors little to kick against, while still claiming the rights for which she’s orating.

Second, Truth frames what she wants in terms compatible with her opponents’ needs – “the poor men… don’t know what to do.” Let the ladies have their little rights and you’ll feel better. They’re not wanting so very much. You need not sacrifice much to appease us. Things can get back to normal.

Sometimes it’s a bit more layered…

In 1830, a “Workingman’s Committee” was assembled in Philadelphia to “ascertain the state of public instruction in Pennsylvania” and propose improvements. Whatever their official status, their report reads like blue collar fathers wanting better for their children:

It is true the state is not without its colleges and universities, several of which have been fostered with liberal supplies from the public purse. Let it be observed, however, that the funds so applied, have been appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the wealthy, who are thereby enabled to procure a liberal education for their children, upon lower terms than it could otherwise be afforded them.

And you thought vouchers were a brand new scheme.

The Committee could argue for better funding so their kids would have more opportunity, lead richer lives, get better jobs. They could even bust out terms like “college and career ready.” But I suspect they knew those with political and economic power cared little for such things, whatever lip service may have been paid. They had to find something their targets DID care about – a common cause which could still nudge along their specific hopes:

Funds thus expended, may serve to engender an aristocracy of talent, and place knowledge, the chief element of power, in the hands of the privileged few; but can never secure the common prosperity of a nation nor confer intellectual as well as political equality on a people.

Whoa there, cowboy – an aristocracy of what?!

The original element of despotism is a MONOPOLY OF TALENT, which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers. If… the healthy existence of a free government be… rooted in the WILL of the American people, it follows… that this monopoly should be broken up, and that the means of equal knowledge, (the only security for equal liberty) should be rendered, by legal provision, the common property of all classes.

They called on shared ideals. Who was going to argue against “of-the-by-the-for-the”?

This is a common tactic used still today, although often much less convincingly. Every time a politician or business leader speechifies that “what Americans want is _______” or proudly proclaim they “BELIEVE in buzzword, patriotic catchphrase, and congruent parallel third item!” they’re trying to use shared values to persuade. They just do it so badly it makes us hate them.

But this committee did it beautifully.

In a republic, the people constitute the government, and by wielding its powers in accordance with the dictates, either of their intelligence or their ignorance; of their judgment or their caprices, are the makers and the rulers of their own good or evil destiny…
It appears, therefore, to the committees that there can be no real liberty without a wide diffusion of real intelligence; that the members of a republic, should all be alike instructed in the nature and character of their equal rights and duties, as human beings, and as citizens; and that education, instead of being limited as in our public poor schools, to a simple acquaintance with words and cyphers, should tend, as far as possible, to the production of a just disposition, virtuous habits, and a rational self-governing character…

Like I said before, I’m all for standing unashamed on your convictions. There are times when budging one more inch is simply unacceptable! Immoral! When we’d rather fail with flair than move forward in shame and the ignominy of “compromise”!

On the other hand, if your goal is to change something, we may need to set aside such glories for a bit. The Committee at some point had to decide whether they cared more about venting their true spleen regarding inequity and the power structure of the society around them, or improving education in a meaningful way for their kids.

Sound familiar?

Listen to those whose cooperation you require. What’s important to them? What common ground do you share? At the very least, what argument will they find hardest to deny or refute?

“In a republic, the people constitute the government” may or may not be entirely true in practice, but it’s a hell of an argument, and one no good ‘Merican is likely to openly oppose. “We don’t want dumb people ruining things for everyone else” is particularly savvy if your target audience is made up of the rich and powerful who tend to be tired of, well… dumb people ruining things for everyone else.

Remember “island-hopping” in WWII? We don’t always need to win every part of every battle. Why sacrifice actual progress for idealistic – er… for letting ourselves end up in – well…

Is there a culturally appropriate term for ‘Chinese finger traps’?

Sometimes the best arguments are made by taking an existing idea or text and substituting, like the Declaration of Sentiments did for women’s rights, but it’s not a particularly entertaining read. And sometimes a little outrage and passion can grab hearts and minds, circa William Lloyd Garrison.

But honesty can still be subtle. Persuasion can be intelligently coy, surely.

Your assignment for next time: an excerpt from Harriet Jacobs, an escaped slave who wrote of her experiences and published them in 1861. What does she want? How does she use vocabulary and shared ideals to convey her feelings and nudge a variety of readers towards her worldview? In what ways does this excerpt demonstrate the importance of HOW we write as much as WHAT we write about?

It’s serious stuff, on a subject worthy of outrage. I respectfully suggest she gives us something better – effectiveness.

I’ll expect your analysis typed and double-spaced, on my desk by morning – or NO STICKER FOR YOU.

I now entered on my fifteenth year–a sad epoch in the life of a slave girl. My master began to whisper foul words in my ear. Young as I was, I could not remain ignorant of their import… I turned from him with disgust and hatred. But he was my master. I was compelled to live under the same roof with him–where I saw a man forty years my senior daily violating the most sacred commandments of nature. He told me I was his property; that I must be subject to his will in all things. My soul revolted against the mean tyranny.
But where could I turn for protection? No matter whether the slave girl be as black as ebony or as fair as her mistress. In either case, there is no shadow of law to protect her from insult, from violence, or even from death; all these are inflicted by fiends who bear the shape of men. The mistress, who ought to protect the helpless victim, has no other feelings towards her but those of jealousy and rage.
The degradation, the wrongs, the vices, that grow out of slavery, are more than I can describe. They are greater than you would willingly believe. Surely, if you credited one half the truths that are told you concerning the helpless millions suffering in this cruel bondage, you at the north would not help to tighten the yoke. You surely would refuse to do for the master, on your own soil, the mean and cruel work which trained bloodhounds and the lowest class of whites do for him at the south.

Oh – #11FF BCE Coffee Cup if you really submit something (email or comment below) before I follow up with mine. They are rare and coveted – and the next one could be yours.

RELATED POST: By Any Means Necessary

The Gettysburg Address, Part Three (Lincoln’s Big ‘But’)

April 16, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

This one’s a little longer than I normally like – a fact which isn’t exactly helped by adding 54 words up front to tell you so. I wanted to wrap this one up, but couldn’t bring myself to cut more than I already have. For the #11FF actually plowing through these with me, my apologies

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation — or any nation so conceived and so dedicated — can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
BUT –

This may be the most powerful word in the English language. This ‘but’, at least, is a BIG, BIG BUT. And it belongs to President Lincoln.

I like it, and I cannot lie.

“Gary, you’re such a great guy. You’re funny, you’re smart, and it’s been such an amazing past four months together. Any girl would be lucky to have you as her boyfriend… BUT-“

You know what’s coming, don’t you?

“Ms. Terry, we appreciate your hard work over the past year and your creativity with kids. You’ve handled some tough circumstances as you prepared them for their CRTs… BUT-“

‘But’ can overturn everything that’s come before. Whatever follows is often MORE powerful as a result, like pulling back on the rubber band before letting it go. Here, Lincoln uses his big ‘but’ to take his message an entirely different direction suddenly and powerfully.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot consecrate — we cannot hallow — this ground.

What beautiful sentence structure. He’s already hit us with repeated uses of ‘dedicate’ in the opening segment. Either he needs a thesaurus, or he’s intentionally layering in a theme before becoming more specific with his thesis.

In class, we stop to define ‘dedicate’, and I ask for examples of things commonly dedicated – a tree, a book, a building, a scholarship in someone’s memory. ‘Dedicate’ can be pretty intense, like the baby dedication I mentioned last time, or mostly fun, like requesting a song on the radio for Marcia Stiflewagon, who looks awkward in a dress but kinda hot in her weightlifting gear.

Then Lincoln takes it up a notch. ‘Consecrate’. We define this as well. There are fewer examples of things commonly ‘consecrated’ – sacramental bread, wine, marriages, etc. It’s getting’ all spiritual up in Gettysburg – and they were only about 90 seconds into his speech.

And there’s a third and final step.

We can’t ‘hallow’ this ground either. That’s a tough one. No one uses this word in normal conversation. Given some prodding, students will connect ‘Halloween,’ although they don’t generally know where that comes from either. Some reference Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – that kinda brushes the concept for which we’re reaching.

When I was a kid, every day during announcements we recited the Lord’s Prayer, right after the Pledge of Allegiance. (I know, I know – it was a different time and place, and no one thought much of it, at least not that I was aware.) And of course we used the King James version, which began like this:

“Our Father, which art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name…”

The name of Jehovah (Yahweh) was so sacred, one did not commonly say it aloud. You don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t draw cartoons of Mohammed, and you don’t speak this particular name of God lightly – let alone ‘in vain’. Like touching the Ark of the Covenant or entering the Holy of Holies without proper cleansing, some things were so divine as to be dangerous.

Holy can be serious business.

So we came here to dedicate this ground, and that’s fine. But really… we can’t. Can’t dedicate it. (*up a notch*) Can’t consecrate it. (*up another*) Can’t hallow this ground.

We’re suddenly in sanctified territory – and rather unexpectedly. Why, Mr. President? Why can’t we do this?

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

This part is difficult for my kids. Even those who are Sunday-go-to-Meetin’ types don’t really do much super-sacred any more. We talk about what these ‘brave men’ must have done to ‘consecrate’ that ground. They came, they fought, they died, all for a hypothesis about men being created equal, according to Lincoln.

All of this is true, and all important.

But more specifically, most of them shed their blood. They bled into the soil – literally. And in the Christian faith (for by now it’s obvious this is Lincoln’s chosen framework), blood has power.

In the Old Testament, sin and failure were purged through animal sacrifice. The rules regarding what you could and couldn’t do with blood were rather detailed. In the New, it was Jesus on the Cross who offers redemption. Subsequent discussions of this sacrifice often specifically reference the shedding of blood, and if you came back in time with me to that little church where I grew up, you’d find us singing about it all the time.

“Would you be free from your burden of sin? There’s POWER in the BLOOD, POWER in the BLOOD…”

“Are you washed in the Blood? In the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb?”

“What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus…”

Lincoln is calling up the most sacred imagery of the Christian faith – one everyone in his audience understood and most practiced on at least a superficial level. He’s declaring the soil on which they stand – in which these men were now buried – to be ‘consecrated’ by the blood spilled there defending this hypothesis.

“We’re here with words, and songs, and good intentions, sure!” he says. “But they DIED here, violently and valiantly, for this cause. What in the world could we add with some WORDS?”

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

Did Lincoln know this was ironic when he said it? I have no idea.

So, Mr. President… why ARE we here?

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain –

That’s a mouthful, and the hardest part for students to memorize when they’re reciting it to the class for extra credit. Lincoln’s word-weaving turns the purpose of the occasion, the war, and the entire nation inside out – bringing to the foreground the ideals we still espoused, but had long since negated through abuse and neglect.

These men died for something, and now continuing that something is on US. On YOU. The power of martyrdom multiplied by the thousands, and the obligations of a loved one’s final wishes, combined on sacred ground. Dedicated, dedicated, devotion, devotion, resolve not died in vain.

Put down your corn dogs and tiny Union flags, kids – the President just called us out. And he did it without actually saying anything we didn’t already agree with.

Baby ‘Merica was born 87 years ago, in Liberty, and dedicated to a hypothesis – that all men are created equal. In youth, it was noble and pure and full of the idealism captured in the Declaration of Independence – our national birth certificate. Growing pains brought complications, and it began compromising those ideals for the most pragmatic reasons… little realizing that such leaven almost always leavens the entire loaf.

And now, through war with ourselves, we’ve died. Many literally, the rest emotionally and spiritually. Blood has washed the ground, re-consecrating us and making possible the realization of that hypothesis – we CAN build and maintain a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal.

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom –

Lazarus, John Baptizing in the Jordan, Jesus emerging from the tomb – it’s all about the rebirth, baby. There’s a reason we hunt eggs (of all things) on Easter.

We were born once, but we ate the apple of vanity and compromise, and died. Now it’s time to be ‘born again’.

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,

Which people?

WHICH PEOPLE? He never says it, but it couldn’t be more clear.

shall not perish from the earth.

For those of you who aren’t Sunday-go-to-Meetin’ types, things are different once you’re born again. You’re purified, more true to what you were created to be, and you don’t die a second time.

And you don’t keep it to yourself. You try to pass along the good news to others – that any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can in fact ‘long endure’.

Afterward: I couldn’t end on such a positive note without acknowledging my grief and disappointment where we are 150 years later after all of that. As the Israelites longed to go back to Egypt (for the onions, no less), as dogs return to their vomit and pigs to wallow in their mud, we seem to cling as a nation to the same vanity, hypocrisy, and violence which took us into that war. I don’t have an answer or wish to be a downer, but I couldn’t wrap up in good conscience without expressing that I love the speech, I love the ideals, I love the nation – but in so many ways we’re further than ever from what we proclaim to be. It hurts my innards to contemplate.

The Gettysburg Address, Part Two (Dedicated to a Proposition)

April 14, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

When I talk about this speech in workshops, I never know how much to assume teachers already know, or whether my ‘givens’ and their ‘givens’ are likely to be compatible. We cover so many different things in so many different ways… there’s very little we can assume to be universal in Social Studies content knowledge (or pedagogy, for that matter). And that’s OK.

It’s much less complicated with students, who are gracious enough to hardly know anything ever – even if we’ve actually covered it explicitly only moments before!

All to say, this is just my take on the speech. It’s not exactly original – I mean, I read books from time to time and pick up things here and there – but I don’t think I’ve lifted it whole from any one source. If I’m mistaken, please let me know so I can give credit where due. The uninterrupted text is in the previous post if you wish to revisit before proceeding. I’ll wait.

*tap tap tap tap tap tap*

OK?

Four score and seven years ago,

We all know this one, right? If ‘score’ = 20, then ‘four score’ = 80… plus 7, 87 years ago. Lincoln gave this speech in 1863, so a little basic math takes us to 1776. Duh.

This matters because Lincoln COULD have talked about the Constitution, ratified around 1788. That was, after all, the document we were supposedly at war defending – the one purporting to form a ‘more perfect union’ than the rather anemic Articles of Confederation which it replaced. But he didn’t.

Lincoln points instead to the year of the Declaration of Independence – the ‘birth’ of our nation and a written statement not only of rebellion, but of ideals. The Constitution has rules about running for the Senate and requiring the various states to play nicely together; the Declaration proclaims all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Constitution is functional, but birthed in compromise and politics. The Declaration is idealistic and uninterested in practicalities – it glows and pretty music plays whenever we close our eyes and call its name three times.

our fathers

Why do we call them our ‘fathers’? What makes someone a ‘father’?

I’m not looking for one of those deep, Level Three, English class answers (“What color is honor? What food would gerunds be if books were meals?”). Biologically – literally – what’s the difference between a ‘dude’ and a ‘dad’?

That’s right – offspring. Making bebbies.

brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty,

Conceived? I always ask what this word means, and we take a bit to discuss.

My students are all in Biology class the same year I have them for American Government. That means at some point they’ll be shown the most fascinating little film. A gang of angry tadpoles, possibly albinos, are chasing down and attacking a golf ball which has presumably done them wrong. Eventually, one will break through, and go in to ransack the place while the rest lose interest and wander off to die. These are very single-minded albino tadpoles.

THAT moment – that’s “conception.”

It’s different from birth, although we often use them interchangeably. But ‘conceived’ is that earliest moment of new life – and it matters where and how you’re conceived. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. If your parents are rich, you’ll gestate differently than if they’re poor. If your parents are Eskimos, chances are good you’ll be Eskimo-ish before even being born. And if you’re the result of Liberty and Founding Fathers getting busy…

and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I grew up in a pretty orthodox Protestant church. Baby dedications were a big thing. The lil’un would be brought up to the front of the church, we’d ooh and ahh a bit, and the Preacher Man would pray for the tiny critter, the parents, etc. The idea was to ‘dedicate’ the child to God as he or she grows up.

But Baby ‘Merica isn’t dedicated to God – at least according to Lincoln . (Don’t tell the Republicans!) It’s dedicated to an idea, a proposition – that all men are created equal.

What IS a ‘proposition’? We talk about this term in class as well. There are various sorts of ‘propositions’ – I may have a business idea in which I’d like for you to join me, or perhaps I’ll ask you to marry me. In those Science classes I referenced earlier, though, they use a different word for their kinds of propositions.

They call them ‘hypotheses’ – official-sounding ideas about how things work or what they do. And do you know what we do with a hypothesis, once formulated?

You test it, to see if it works.

I dunno… maybe I’m overthinking this. Lincoln learned most of what he knew reading by the fireplace late at night. It’s really not fair to attribute all of this ‘Enlightenment’ style thinking to him when he’s just trying to give a motivational speech. I’ll shut up and we’ll continue with what he actually said.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war,

I always stop here and ask my kids which civil war he means. It usually takes them a second to figure out how to say what they’re sure is correct. “THE Civil War – the ONE THEY’RE IN.”

Yep. And why were we fighting this war?

testing whether that nation — or any nation so conceived and so dedicated — can long endure.

HA! I SO CALLED THAT ONE! I TOLD YOU HE WAS DOING IT ON PURPOSE! **SmugHappyDance**

We have our hypothesis – that ‘all men are created equal’. It’s right there in our own Declaration of Independence. We built an entire nation on this premise, conceived in ‘Liberty’ by our ‘Fathers’. Now we’re testing that hypothesis.

Does that work? This… ‘all men are created equal’ – can you run a country based on that, or will it fail?

Note that the results aren’t merely for us – that would be pressure enough. This war, according to Lincoln, is about whether THIS nation can survive built on this hypothesis, and by extension whether ANY nation with similar values – so conceived and so dedicated – can long endure.

We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

Which battlefield would that be? Come now, I know you know this one. I’ll wait…

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.

Wait, what?

It’s worth stopping at this point to make sure we’re all on the same page – especially since Lincoln is setting us up. We’re gathered to dedicate a cemetery, some ground, for those who died in this war.

Died… why? So “that nation might live.” That nation dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.” To prove that this was true, and that you can build a country on such a foundation. They died, according to Lincoln, to prove a hypothesis.

This, incidentally, would have been news to many of the men being honored that day. Most thought they were fighting for the Constitution, the Union, maybe their states or families, or just because they were annoyed with the people on the other side. A few sensed the long game, but it was hardly the norm.

It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

Well, that’s a relief, given the months of planning and the four hours we’ve already been standing here doing it. Woulda been a shame to find out it was all one big faux pas.

But,

But.

But?

But!

‘But’ may be one of the most powerful and underrated words in the English language. And this ‘but’ – Lincoln’s ‘but’ – is a big one. That’s right. Lincoln had a very big ‘but’, and we’re going to look at it next time.