Angry Lobsters Want Your Guns

Dr. Hersch; there are three relevant class-related posts below this, but I thought since we've got a couple of weeks of vacation on the way, there would be no harm in a spot of fun...

A fascinating NRA pamphlet has popped up on the Internet recently, and it's worth a look for the aesthetics alone.

The pamphlet, titled Freedom in Peril, cryptically warns of the Coming Confrontation, which of course refers to the day when all those New World Order-type liberal Democrats will swoop in like thieves in the night and rob the good people of planet Earth of all of their firearms.

The full pamphlet can be found here (PDF). The picture above clearly depicts one of the primary threats to the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment; crazed animal rights wackos with their gang of mad-pissed critters. Note the Evil Dynamite-Wielding Owl of Doom just to the left of the hairy-legged woman (probably a feminist, no doubt).

I think this pamphlet is a fine piece of propaganda if I've ever seen one, and I don't mean that sarcastically. The illustrations are, in my opinion, beautiful.

This last photo depicts a God-fearing American family observing the impending doom which is about to envelop them and everything they hold dear (i.e. guns). I think readers are to assume that the tsunami is composed primarily of New World Order-type liberal Democrats, or else it wouldn't really be all that threatening.

Enjoy what remains of your summer!

"Will I ever find a liberated man?"

It wasn't just Ms. Magazine and other "lib" magazines that discussed the women's movement. Mainstream publications such as McCall's, Ladies' Home Journal, and Redbook all sought to cater to the growing population of liberated consumers.

These magazines attempted to maintain the status-quo as much as was possible while at the same time catering to the concerns of feminists. Often times the women featured in such mainstream articles decided that the home really was the best place for them, and that's were they'd stay.

Of course, as mentioned before, the movement was not monolithic, and many feminists did opt to remain or become housewives. Still, these magazines often served as platforms for opportunistic advertisements seeking to capitalize on the movement.

"You've Come a Long Way, Baby," Virginia Slims told their female audience. After their long days battling those mean old men, they deserved a refreshing, mild cigarette to calm their nerves and help them keep their trim figures! Dewar's Scotch informed women that alcohol consumption was a sign of independence. The list goes on.

And while it's no surprise that corporations saw women's weaknesses and took advantage of them, it's nonetheless disappointing to think about. Glad nothing like that goes on today.

"We, black women, do both."

If white women in America were discriminated against and undervalued, black and minority women were even more so. If one needed any more proof that the women's liberation movement was not monolithic, one needn't look further than black feminists.

The so called "double jeopardy" situation dealt with by black women would be a tough burden for anyone to bear. However, it simply wasn't in the best interest of many African-American females to join the ranks of their white counterparts in the burgeoning movement.Writer Celestine Ware described why:

Feminist goals, like abortion on demand and easily obtainable birth control, are viewed with paranoid suspicion by some black militants at a time when they are literally fighting for their lives and looking everywhere to increase their numbers.

Of course, these militants were predominately male, and their suggestions that "their women" not use birth control in order to populate were not taken well by many women. For them, they had been seen as nothing more than breeding machines by slave masters in the past, and were now seen as the same thing by their lovers and husbands, although for different reasons.

When the nationalist Black Unity Party declared that "none of the sisters should take the pill [so that they could produce more black warriors]," a group of black women responded:

If we practice birth control, it's because of poor black men ... who won't support their families, won't stick by their women ... Poor black women would be fools to sit up in the house with a whole lot of children and eventually go crazy, sick, heartbroken, no place to go, no sign of affection -- nothing.

Indeed, social and economic disparities left many of these women with precisely that -- nothing. And black men were clearly just as insensitive to the needs of black women as white men were to those of white women: Chauvinism is truly colorblind.

Photo: New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman to fun for president of the U.S. c. 1967.

"[He] participated in the Junior Year Aboard program in Liechenstein, where he learned to make dumplings."

What is the best way for a group and/or movement to make others sympathetic to their cause and/or struggle? Do protests and public demonstrations cause onlookers to think deeply about the group's cause, or are they mostly turned off by what they perceive as "fringe" or "extreme" actions? How does a group strike that balance between passive (conservative) and active (radical)?

This is something that I've thought about a great deal, and not just regarding 2nd wave feminism. I think about it whenever I hear about folks protesting the war, or listen to a candidate give a speech, or read about nonviolent resistance methods during the Civil Rights era.

Obviously, the folks involved in said movements are usually the ones giving this dilemma the most thought:

From the beginning, Ms. [Magazine] faced the double task of speaking to the converted and recruiting new readers. Ms. covered grassroots organizing activities of feminists activists as well as the different problems faced by minority and poor women. But more often the magazine focused on the problems encountered by its largely middle-class audience of white women.

Of course, the women's movement was effective in many areas, and Ms. Magazine no doubt contributed to that effectiveness. But could it have been more effective by practicing different methods? Should activists have been more conservative in their efforts, or more radical? Obviously, a question that is impossible to answer today, but one that I believe is worth contemplating.

Photo: First Ms. Magazine to hit newsstands, July 1972.

"I learned about women from men"

"I learned about women from men," lamented the female character in Erica Jong's Fear of Flying. It may be a fiction book, but it's incredible when one thinks about how true that statement was for countless women of yesteryear. Afterall, who else would they learn about women from?

Men were the gatekeepers of not only the media, but popular culture and opinion. This is the way it had been for, well, ever. Women's views simply were not represented in general discourse. Sure, you had a female author pop up here and there, but it was nearly impossible for her ideas and/or opinions, no matter how relevant, logical or creative, to be taken seriously by more than a handful of people. And why should they? Freud spoke for women psychologically, and Hugh Heffner portrayed them culturally -- what more could they ask for?

Isabel, Jong's protagonist from Fear of Flying, offers another striking nugget for contemplation:

Until women started writing books there was only one side of the story ... Until I was twenty-one, I measured my orgasms against Lady Chatterley's and wondered what was wrong with me. Did it ever occur to me that Lady Chatterley was really a man? That she was really D.H. Lawrence?

Eventually, this did occur to women. But for many, it was too late. Women had been defined by men in every conceivable way for so long that it was fully ingrained. Not until authors like Freidan, Greer and Jong came along was the full story presented.

"Days when you don't learn something can be a drag."

Caught between the civil rights movement and various hippie and anti-war groups of the New Left, the modern woman's liberation movement struggled to achieve recognition and coherence.

Students for a Democratic Society and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, organizations which one might think would've been sympathetic with the struggles of women, proved to be just as male dominated as society at large. This being the case, Rosen writes that the chaotic unraveling of Students for a Democratic Society fueled the real beginning of the women's movement.

At a time when many African-Americans involved in the struggle for civil rights decided that white involvement served as a hindrance to their cause, many women came to the same conclusion regarding men.

Now on their own, women sought to define themselves and their goals. What exactly should they be fighting for? Who would raise their children while they rallied and went to work? These were some of the questions they now grappled with. Nanci Hollander submitted for consideration what Rosen calls "striking" and "years ahead of its time," but what seems rather tame today:

Instead of women assuming the major responsibility for raising the children, the man and woman should assume and share the task equally. In order for this to work, however, society would first have to re-arrange work and make it more flexible.

Looking only at this aspiration, has it come to fruition in the U.S.? Do men and women share this task equally? Should they? I would argue that they should, but that they do not. As many strides as the women's movement has made over the years, I believe there is still much to be done in terms of full equality.

When women earn on average only 77% as men for the same work, then there is still something wrong. But this single statistic is arguably indicative of a more pervading societal attitude toward women and their value within society.

Photo: Alice Paul, New Jersey, National Chairman, Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage. Edmonston. ca. 1910-16. Library of Congress

"In the fifties, the only thing worse than sleeping with a man was to telephone him."

Rosen begins her book by saying that it's not just about women:

This is not a book just about an isolated section of society. Dissident movements provide a microcosmic view of the dominant culture's values, assumptions, and social structure.

I will surely not disagree with that statement. I think that the way a society treats its minorities reflects well that society's character. Obviously, this also applies to the civil rights movement, among others.

I found Rosen's analysis of the post war social environment to be quite convincing. Not that I hadn't heard her argument before, but I think that she did a nice job of clearly articulating it:

Reared in the Depression, most had grown up in a culture that valued duty, thrift, long-term commitment, and an old-fashioned work ethic. But they married and bore children in a culture of abundance that prized planned obsolescence and disposability, glamorized leisure, and promised individual happiness through the purchase of products.

Personally, I believe the second sentence in that statement sums up the current situation in the U.S. -- if not the rest of the Western world -- today. And personally, it sort of annoys me that this sentiment isn't seriously discussed in our mainstream outlets. If you don't agree that our disposable consumerist culture is the Greatest Thing Ever, says conventional wisdom, then you're obviously some sort of extremist reject who ought not to be voicing such outrageous opinions and upsetting everyone.

Clearly, marketing executives knew exactly what they were doing when aiming their products at women in the '50s and '60s (and today), as made clear by author and consultant Anita Colby when she exclaimed "Honestly now, where would you be without the little woman's rebellion?"
She was saying that business men ought to thank heavens that their wives are mentally unstable, because it causes them to buy more stuff!

Savages.

"Paralysis of Analysis"

It doesn't matter how many times I read about black civil rights in this country (as well as slavery), I never cease to be amazed at how much the U.S. failed these people.

That being said, I intrigued when I read Malcom X's idea to bring the issue before the United Nations and have them hold the U.S. in violation of the Human Rights Charter. Yesterday was the first time I'd heard about that. Of course, it never ended up happening, and it very well may never have happened; regardless of X's death. But that's not to say that it shouldn't have happened.

The U.S. government was entirely complicit -- and sometimes cooperative -- with the systematic oppression of millions of people. I think a few of Lewis' quotes on the matter pretty well capture the mind-blowing silliness of the facts:

Sheriff Jim Clark proved today beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is basically no different from a Gestapo officer during the Fascist slaughter of the Jews...
This is but one more example of the inhuman, animal-like treatment of the Negro people of Selma, Alabama. This nation has always come to the aid of people in foreign lands who are gripped by a reign of tyranny. Can this nation do less for the people of Selma

And:

I don't know how President Johnson can sen troops to Vietnam. I don't see how he can send troops to the Congo. I don't see how he can send troops to Africa, and he can't send troops to Selma, Alabama!

Lewis was right to wonder why his government was more concerned with the plight of people on the other side of the globe than it was with those living within it's borders. Not that people halfway around the world don't deserve our help. They often do. But to ignore and/or support the gross violations of human rights on it's own shores while criticizing other countries for doing the same thing didn't do much for the credibility of the folks running the show here.

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

In defending his decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln points to the following provision of the Constitution:

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

It's not easy to refute him here, as it was in fact the case that a genuine rebellion was going on. Lincoln goes on to say that civil courts are "utterly incompetent" when it comes to handling the large number of cases as the circumstances would produce.

After the war, Lincoln says, everything will be fine again, and there's no reason to believe otherwise. Habeas will be restored, just as it was after President Andrew Jackson revoked it years earlier. Although history backs him up on this claim, I don't find it a particularly reassuring argument on his behalf: "Trust me, everything will be fine later. You'll get your rights back -- I swear!"

Second Inaugural Address

Much of Lincoln's writings contain many quote worthy passages, but the following was my favorite from today's readings:

...Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.

I think this observation has many applications. In any struggle of ideas, people on each side of the argument believe themselves to be correct -- often times 100% correct -- and see the other side as having some obviously evil and ulterior motive. And I'd venture to guess that in most cases, neither side is 100% correct, nor is either necessarily evil. Lincoln acknowledges as much here, and eloquently expresses so.

"They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people."

AS was mentioned in today's class, it's tough to put a finger upon Lincoln's true feelings towards African-Americans, and tonight's assigned readings (in my view) did nothing to clarify the matter.

Consider first his efforts to draw a clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican parties. The former, says Lincoln, sees nothing inherently wrong with the practice of slavery, while the latter does, and seeks to abolish -- or at the very least limit -- it.

Strong language is employed by Lincoln as he lampoons the Democrats:

They are the van-guard -- the miners, and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

Lofty rhetoric, to be sure. He has a point, however, which he articulates further here:

Turn in whatever way -- whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where it will stop...

Very convincing use of logical reasoning here. But then Abe throws this out there:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...

If that's the way you feel, then I ask you, Mr. Lincoln, if we are to deny the social and political equality of a certain group of people based solely upon predetermined physical attributes (pigment in this case), then what is to stop us from later denying such freedom and equality to another group based upon a different set of physical attributes? Perhaps all men who stand over six feet tall and wear whiskers ought to be denied the opportunity to hold political office, due to the fact that they are too darn scary looking to possibly represent the people in a proper fashion? Where, Mr. Lincoln, will it stop?

"To violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty."

In Address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln makes clear his deep respect and belief in the rule of law. The beauty of law, he implies, is not just as a guardian of citizen from the evils of government, but also the guardian of citizen from the evils of his fellow citizen.

He concedes that there are indeed "bad" laws that exist, but adds "still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed."

I agree with Lincoln's assertions here in full, and find it personally troubling that many of our current political leaders do not seem to share Lincoln's beliefs. The primary example of this would be the Bush administration's so called warrent-less wiretap program.

The laws are too restrictive, say administration defenders, and this warrants the outright breaking of those laws in order to protect the homeland. Lincoln, however, would argue that the cavalier disregard for the rule of law is but the first step in the unraveling of liberty itself, despite the intentions of doing so.

Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws...

"Life is our dictionary"

In The American Scholar, Emerson lays out what is wrong with the scholarly mindset of the time.

He hearkens back to his essay Nature when he says: "The tradesman scarcely ever gives an ideal worth to his work, but is ridden by the routine of his craft, and the soul is subject to dollars." By this of course he means that people cannot see the forest for the trees, and instead of truly appreciating the natural wonders around them, they are reduced to seeing their duties as mundane and solely materialistic.

Emerson also talks about the dangers of uncritical reading. "The writer was a just and wise spirit," he says, "henceforward it is settled the book is perfect; as love of the hero corrupts into worship of his statue." When men have such an admiration for the writers and scholars whose works they study, it is easy to take these writers at their word, and to look past or to tune out the flaws in their theories ("Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments"). Books, Emerson says, are for nothing but to inspire. Man must continue to think critically.

From what I can gather, I think the old phrase "idle hands are the devil's workshop" sums up Emerson's views on "action." He likens inaction to "cowardice," and says that the "true scholar grudges every opportunity of action past by, as a loss of power." He insists that actions serve to shape and mold one's thoughts, ideas and philosophies, and only by staying active can one truly experience life.

What exactly the sort of action that one busies himself with doesn't seem to matter. Emerson speaks of "country labors," as well as "frank intercourse with many men and women." Apparently, whether the scholar is frankly debating economic policy with his fellows or toiling in the fields, he's alright; as long as he's doing something.

As far as the scholar's duties are concerned, Emerson writes that they are chiefly to promulgate reason. This seems reasonable enough: If one is knowledgeable in any given subject that is somehow relevant to the public, it's incumbent upon that individual to share this knowledge with his fellows so that he might enlighten them.

I didn't find much of anything to disagree with here. In fact, I've held similar views for quite some time now. Since you only live once, why not do what you can to make a difference now?

If there is any period one would desire to be born in, is it not the age of Revolution; when the old and the new stand side by side and admit of being compared; when the energies of all men are searched by fear and by hope; when the historic glories of the old can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new era? This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.

Touche.

"Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies?"

While arguing for a unification of the states in Federalist No. 6, Hamilton raises some interesting and relevant points.

As Madison said in No. 10:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts.

Riffing off this theme, Hamilton (in No. 6) argues that if the states do not band together under the proposed constitution, they will be destined to battle one another for all time. If they are not united into a more consolidated nation, he says, they will be disposed to "waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other." His opponents suggest that commerce will be enough to prevent such "ruinous contentions" between the states, and that the unification called for under the constitution is not necessary. And hence comes Madison's retort:

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? ... Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory?

Indeed, Mr. Hamilton. I don't think that I'd be misspeaking if I were to say that many people might disagree with Hamilton here. Democratic Republics, they might argue, are certainly less prone to war than monarchies or empires. What Hamilton is saying pretty much flies in the face of democratic peace theory, which posits that liberal democracies rarely--if ever--go to war with other liberal democracies. And while this theory has many adherents, it isn't 100% viable (but not much is in the social sciences).

And while I may be one of those adherents, I also agree with Hamilton. What amazes me is that many Americans seem to think that the U.S. is above all of that love of wealth and power stuff; that those desires could never taint our foreign policies. Sure, there were overreaching empires in the past that had an insatiable lust for wealth and power -- Rome, Great Britain, etc. -- but not us; we're different. Anything and everything that we do as a nation is for some incredibly farsighted and lofty "good," rather than some shortsighted, parochial and purely nationalistic interest.

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I swear. But when plans began to surface of giant, permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and the number of private contractors begin to eclipse the number of soldiers in that chaotic country, it really makes one wonder whether the U.S. government is really quite as altruistic as some make it out to be.

While we're on foreign matters...

In Federalist No. 63, where [probably] Madison discusses the features of the proposed senate, he says that one of the reasons for the lengthier terms for senators is to provide stability:

Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy...but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.

Unless there are folks who stick around longer than 4 (president) or 2 (House reps) years, other nations will think we're unstable, and there will be no one in the U.S. whom they can "count on," so to speak. Makes sense.

But fast forwarding to now, does this mean that France thinks we're stable because Robert Byrd has been in the Senate for nearly 50 years? Do other nations feel like they know us better because our upper chamber is full of octogenarians? I have my doubts.

I like the fact that [probably] Madison places some importance on world opinion. Of course, it was very important that other countries saw the U.S. as a legitimate state in these early years. But some would say that since we're "on top" now, the opinions of the international community no longer matter. That assumption is nothing short of foolhardy. And if this latest Pew poll illustrating our country's plummeting standing in the world doesn't even slightly irk all Americans, something is wrong. With us.

I know we already discussed No. 6, 10 and 63 in class, but I don't think any of the points I made above were raised.

Sources...

Dr. Hersch,

Below are some sources which mention the influence of the Dutch Oath of Abjuration upon the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which you expressed interest in seeing in your last comment.

The Hague Online
"Among their influences was the Dutch declaration of independence, known as the Oath of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinghe), which was adopted by the Low Countries against the rule of the Spanish King Philip II in 1581."

The Zanesville Times Recorder
"The Declaration of Independence was influenced by the 1581 Dutch Republic declaration of independence, called the Oath of Abjuration."

Collinsville Alabama.net:
"The Declaration is heavily influenced by the "Oath of Abjuration" of the Dutch Republic and by the Discourses of Algernon Sydney, to whose legacy Jefferson and Adams were equally devoted."

Answers.com
"The Oath was a model for the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and that of the Southern Netherlands in 1789/1790 (the United Belgian States)."

I realize that these sources are all a bit secondary: Should I find any primary, more scholarly ones, I'll post them.

"Let facts be submitted to a candid world"

...These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States: they are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

And with those words, thirteen British Colonies threw caution to the wind, severed their colonial ties and began an experiment in liberal democracy. The fact that their experiment has lasted for more than 230 years is surely a testament to the foresight and determination of the Founders.

The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was an expansion of a resolution offered by Continental Congress Delegate Richard Henry Lee a month earlier.

Influenced heavily by the likes of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and other Enlightenment Thinkers, as well as the Dutch Republic's Oath of Abjuration in 1581, the Declaration served as a formal indictment against the distant and arbitrary rule of King George III.

Of course, like most everything else in life, the Declaration contains a contradiction or two, most notably the line about all men being created equal. That sounds real good, but skip ahead a few paragraphs and note the line about the "merciless Indian Savages" whom the colonists had to "deal with." Also apparently not falling under the definition of "all men" were African-Americans and women.

Aside from that dichotomous depiction of relative equality, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, while not exactly all that original (but what is), is in my opinion a work of art.

"Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther"

In one of his letters on "interesting subjects," American revolutionary Thomas Paine states what he believes a constitution should be. In letter IV, Paine seeks to differentiate a constitution from a form of government, because the two are "spoken of as synonomous things; whereas they are not only different, but are established for different purposes."

Paine made the case that England's lack of a formal constitution was an error that ought not be repeated in the "new world," for absent a constitution there exists nothing to keep leaders in check. Sure, the British have their common law, writes Paine, but that won't necessarily stop Parliament from making some arbitrary new laws that are repugnant to the people. Common law is not concrete enough to stop the monarch from increasing the number of legislatures whenever he pleases.

The problem with England's system, Paine argues, is that there's nothing (i.e. a constitution) that draws a line in the sand and tells the government "thus far shalt thou go, and no farther."

Paine concludes by writing that preserving a constitution is equally important to creating one, and that the only way to do the former is to ensure that it cannot be altered by the legislature or the crown (or any other executive branch). Instead, Paine advocates that changes to the constitution should be made only if "a clear majority of all the inhabitants shall so direct."

Paine implies that only by placing clear limits on governmental powers can a society hope to maintain it's liberty.

Might be nice to have a guy like Paine working in the current administration.

Just after publishing this entry, I came across an excellent post by Glenn Greenwald which draws some contemporary parallels to the above subject matter. Below is an excerpt:

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton described the defining power of the King which made the British monarchy intolerably corrupt: "In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred." Thomas Paine proclaimed in Common Sense "that so far as we approve of monarch, that in America THE LAW IS KING." But little effort is required to see how far removed we now are from those basic principles...

The full post is worth a read if you've got the time.