Revolting.

[policraticus]

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

When we consider the US founding document, we spend a lot of time talking about the first, tasty, juicy section, where Jefferson lays out in elegant prose an expression

Comments

[hardblue]

In case you missed the last David Brooks column (knowing you must be a devoted follower of the NYT), he also its on this point, using the Civil War as the focus point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/opinion/brooks-why-they-fought.html?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0

[meus_ovatio]

I'd be quite willing to sign a piece of paper that made me more popular with my colleagues and fought out by some poor farmer's son in the cold winter. Sign me right up for that.

For what and with whom would you pledge your Life, your Fortune and your sacred Honor?
It's called mawwiage. Everything else doesn't come anywhere close.

[mindstalk]

Of course, a couple of the grievances amount to "preventing us from taking more land from the Indians".

[htpcl]

Could you edit the picture to make it a bit smaller so it could fit on the screen? It's screwing up the whole comm page. Thanks in advance.

[policraticus]

Don't know how to re-size, but will gladly remove it.

[htpcl]

Thanks. Anyway, here's how:

Step #1. Edit post:

[policraticus]

Hmm. That seems easy. Next time.

[weswilson]

I think it's easier to believe your side is righteous in all things when communication is limited. It's also easier to believe war can accomplish a goal when the ability to demarcate yourself from your enemies is stronger. I suppose warring against the British Crown was orders of magnitude more rational than fighting wars on terror or confronting modern nations over dubious contentions. We are all horrendously interlinked, and the enemy this year could be our ally in a dozen years. It seems even the simplest of ideological stances is muddied by modern complexity and the understanding that almost every issue has more than one side with legitimate stances. Self-righteousness is often a key motivator in instigating aggression, and I think that's harder to muster nowadays without be a hypocrite.

So what would it take for me to take up arms and act? Egregious aggression without legitimate provocation that has a strong chance of permanently impacting the world or the world of my loved ones.

[policraticus]

It think that by our standards, communication in the 18th century was exceedingly limited. No one could text! No one could tweet! No one had an Instagram! But, by their standards, the Declaration was the culmination of a generation of increasingly contentious and divisive communication. It is worth noting, for example, that the British enemy of 1776-1789 would be, by 1792, a US ally under the Jay Treaty, then an enemy again by 1812. So, the more things change, eh?

[weswilson]

Perhaps my original intent was lost in my words.

I think it's easier to think yourself righteous without feedback from your "enemies". When communication is done by post, you don't have the constant feedback that generates empathy and compassion like when you are next to someone and interacting with them. We have the tendency to fill in the blanks of communication with our own extrapolations. With more communication, it's harder to misunderstand, to overgeneralize, and to demonize. It has nothing to do with trite communications and everything to do with actions and immediate feedback.

But yes, the more things change...

[enders_shadow]

I'm unsure that immediate feedback does much for the Phelps clan, or his ilk; or for most hate-groups out there.

Though, perhaps folks who are more middle of the road are the ones who are impacted the most; I fear that people are frequently so dug in to whatever position they have adopted, it is almost worthless to try and change minds.

That said, changing minds is a goal of mine.