Swirling Thoughts

I just want to say I totally called the reference Zinn made to Locke philosophy, particularly on its dis concern for those who didn't have property to begin with.

Considering the hour, (which is punny because I'm up late after working on The Houre Which We Knew Nothing of Eachother) my thoughts are all over the place. But I'm going to try and pull something together, particularly in refference to a point brought up in class on Friday. We spent a lot of time talking about the dual nature of the declaration of independence as a list of grievences against a figurehead king as well as a list of reminders to those already living in America. I support this idea and it makes sense, but there is some subtle contrast and support between our Amcon opinion, that of Williams and that of Zinn.

First off, William emphasizes the use of pronouns in the declaration. Jefferson begins by speaking in broad humanistic truths of freedom and shifts into "He" attacking the King and "We" to speak to the responsibilities of Americans. Jefferson is approaching all the angles; he wants to appeal to a general philosophical audience, wants to eloquently list the grievances to the king and wants to rally Americans to a cause. His pronoun usage supports this, so I suppose there is less contrast between his rhetoric and our general opinion than I thought.

Zinn has a slightly different opinion. He seems to suggest that the early Americans were already itchin' for a revolution. They needed no reminding, and this document was only an official display from the aristocracy to the Royal Government as a list of grievances and really nothing else. It's debatable whether or not they actually expected to go toward after this or if they just expected to be comfortably reinstated as full English citizens. A full independence in the hands of an angry people lead to democracy, a scary thought to those holding power in an area full of uneducated fools.