 Hello there. It's Thursday at noon. I know it is. Do you remember our arrangement? Thursdays at noon on CFUV. Are you ready to get started? What do you have in mind? What I want to do now is called first person plural. You make it sound excessively attractive. That's what I have in mind. Most people in the United States know that July the 4th is a holiday. Read newspaper ads or watch commercials on television, and you will see the July 4th sales. Some of these ads will also use the words Independence Day interchangeably with July 4th. Red, white, and blue are the colors associated with the holiday. And in a number of states, fireworks are bought, displayed, and watched by thousands of onlookers. Because we are Americans living in Canada, because we have reasons for being here, because we are living in a time when people are not satisfied with their governments, not only in America but all over the world. Because many people in Canada and a few people in America are asking some hard questions about the war on terrorism. We spent some time this year reflecting upon Independence Day, and more specifically on the U.S. Declaration of Independence and what it means to the American culture and the world. We are going to devote this hour to sharing with you these meditations. To which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from a consent of the governed. That wherever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. And to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. We begin with a question, what do other Americans think about the Declaration of Independence? We searched the World Wide Web for information on the Declaration of Independence or United States Independence Day, yielding a plethora of essays, news articles, and advertisements using these words to promote ideas and items, including movements to lower taxes, spiritual discussions about the real meaning of freedom, psychological discussions about whether independence was possible on a personal level, a wide variety of patriotic e-cards ready to inspire your friends through email, barbecue recipes, fireworks safety, and almost as many hits on the blockbuster sci-fi thriller Independence Day as on the historical markings. Well there are numerous sites allowing us to read the official history of the making and signing of the Declaration of Independence and of course the actual text of the document is available online. We didn't find any indication that Americans knew anything about this history or about the document itself. The words quote, Independence Day, close quote, and quote, Declaration of Independence, close quote, are hegemonic symbols, evoking patriotic fervor, but beyond the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness quotation or the evoking of inalienable rights, it seems that not many people discuss what the document contained or how it might be relevant to contemporary life. It is certainly not part of the tradition of the day to read the document or talk about its contents, though historical Fourth of July speeches abound and usually evoke Americanism as a philosophy that seems quite different from the original intent of the document. Consider Calvin Coolidge's 1919 speech evoking religious metaphors along with American ones. July 4, 1776 was the historic day on which the representatives of three millions of people vocalized, anchored, and lectured in Bunter Hill, which gave notice to the world that they proposed to establish an independent nation on the theory that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The wonder and glory of the American people is not the ringing declaration of that day, but the action then already begun and in the process of being carried out in spite of every obstacle at war to be deposed, making the theory of freedom and equality a reality. We revere that day because it marks the beginnings of independence, the beginnings of a constitution that was finally to give universal freedom and equality to all American citizens, the beginnings of a government that was to recognize beyond all others the power and wealth and dignity of man. Zaya began the first of government to acknowledge that it was founded on the sovereignty of the people. Zaya, the world, first beheld the revelation of modern democracy. Democracy is not to tear him down. It is a building up. It is not denial of the divine right of being. It supplements that claim with the assertion of the divine right of all men. It does not destroy its fulfillings. It is the confirmation of all theories of government, the spirit of which all the nations of the earth must yield. It is the great construction force of the ages. It is the alpha and omega of man's relation to man, the beginning and the end. There is and can be no more doubt of the triumphs of democracy and human affairs than there is of the triumphs of gravitation in the physical world. The only question is how and when its foundation lays hold upon eternity. It is unconcerned with the idolatry, our despacism, our treason, our rebellion, our betrayal, that bows in reverence before Moses, our handling, our Washington, our Lincoln, are the lights that shine on Calvary. The doctrine of the Declaration of Independence predicated upon the glory of man and the corresponding unity to society that the rights of citizens are to be protected with every power and resource of the state and a government that does any left is called to the teachings of that great document called to the name American. We decided to examine the U.S. Declaration of Independence as a cultural icon rather than a historical event. In doing so, we found quite a contrast between the American dream expressed in the Declaration and contemporary American culture. The history of the piece of paper is outlined in detail by the United States National Archives and Records Administration. Keeping the document safe during the Revolutionary War was a high priority. Several copies were made and distributed to the colonists after it was adopted, but before it was signed. Most especially copies were sent to troops in the field. These are called the Dunlap Broadside copies because they were set and pressed by Dunlap. Only 24 copies are known to be in existence today. A rough draft written in Jefferson's own hand with notes and corrections made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin has survived. Jefferson indicated in his journals that he rewrote a fair copy to be read and reviewed by the Congress, but that copy is not survived. The copy that most Americans think of as the Declaration is an engrossed copy that was made in late July and signed by all but two members of the Second Continental Congress by August 1776. That copy, however, was kept secret, as were the names of the signers until 1777 for fear of British reprisals against them. The whereabouts of the engrossed copy were sketchy until after the Revolutionary War. In 1785, it was taken to New York City in the center of federal government and was kept at the Department of Foreign Affairs, now known as the State Department. It was moved to Washington, D.C. in 1800. The document has left Washington three times since 1800. For two months in 1814, when the British attacked Washington, D.C., it was hidden in a grist mill at an undisclosed location in Maryland. In 1941, two weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, it was taken along with the Constitution to Fort Knox, Kentucky, and kept in a vault under armed guard until 1944. The only other time it was moved was for the Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia in 1876, where it was displayed as part of the festivities. During the first 100 years of the existence of the copy, it was not handled with care. Kept in direct sunlight, it was handled by onlookers and reporters, traced by a number of people, and possibly used for a wet transfer to create copies. It suffered considerable wear and tear. In 1876, several writers observed that the signatures were almost gone. They were faded so much. Since 1876, more care has been taken, though it was 1903 before it was kept out of sunshine. The National Archives have been the keepers of the document since 1952. Like a religious icon, the document is kept in specific atmospheric conditions, protected by people who learn the best techniques to keep it intact. One wonders with all this attention if the fear is that the fading of the document will render it null and void. Certainly the fear that it would be destroyed during the war attests to its symbolic value, beyond its legal standing. Consider also that with so many copies of the document being published, and its declarative nature, it is a resolution, not a law, it is misleading that we even use the definite article at all. The Declaration of Independence actually underwent several iterations and multiple duplications. The attention and care is telling, especially when one considers that a corresponding attention and care to teach Americans about the content of the document isn't apparent. When one walks through the National Archives in Washington DC, one is rushed through a showcase of around 30 such documents or pieces of documents. Yes, there are signs on the wall giving the text of each document, but with long lines of admirers waiting, and in the spring and summer the wait can be 30 minutes or so in hot, sticky weather. One feels the need to pass by the parade. No interpreter is available of whom to ask questions, though guards are certainly everywhere. The assumption seems to be that if you have come, you know the importance of these documents. With low lights and controlled climate, one feels like one is viewing a body at a funeral home. It suggests a show of respect for the past and a desire to honor the symbol of the history. The whole is regarded as being somewhere else. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to write themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses or patience pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To this let facts be submitted to a candid world. What makes this document so important anyway? The Americans cited as the birth of the United States of America. However combat in the Revolutionary War began the year before the document was crafted and signed. Two years before a similar list of colonial complaints with their treatment by the British the declaration of rights and grievances was drafted. Colonists were angered by the British Parliament's passing of what came to be known as the Intolerable Acts or coercive acts by Americans. A set of laws which punished the colony of Massachusetts for among other things the Boston Tea Party. They were also fueled by anger over and this may surprise some Canadians the establishment of Quebec as a Roman Catholic colony and of the new system of government in Canada one that Americans feared would be imposed on the 13 colonies. 12 of the 13 colonies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress where it was decided to boycott the British declaring the Intolerable Acts as quote, impolitic, unjust and cruel. Close quote. The document stopped short however of declaring an independence from Britain. Instead it asserted the British rights of citizenship and representation in government for the colonies and it did not show the unity that the later document did with the absence of anyone representing the colony of Georgia and with not everyone signing it the 1774 document presented less than a united front. Thus the legitimacy of the declaration of independence is found in the fact that all 13 colonies had agreed to split from Britain. It is no accident that the document begins the unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of America. But this unity came at a price especially for women and slaves. A great deal was discussed about slavery within the Second Continental Congress but in the end nothing was mentioned in the document. In order for the document to be legitimated it was decided that all members of the Congress must sign it though two members refused to sign an enduring myth of unanimity was born and perpetuated. Anything less and it would not stand up against the king and British laws. The shooting war had already begun and this document was going to be used to keep the morale of the troops high. Among other things the declaration of independence can be regarded as war propaganda. It was a symbolic gesture to the troops to reassure them that they were not going to be the only ones who sacrificed for the cause. It was a symbol that wasn't lost on the British. Many of the signers of the document were dead by the end of the war. Several of them hung for treason. Of those who didn't die, many of them lost everything. Their properties were targeted by the British and what didn't get taken or burned was contributed to the war effort. The symbolic gesture had teeth in the end and this added to its legitimacy as well. The fact that the war is now called the American Revolution and not the American Rebellion Revolutions are won, Rebellions are not also adds to the legitimacy of the document. History is written by the winners and the document remains important in history because the Americans won the war. Thus the effort was legitimated in part by the choice to bear arms and by the violent use of those arms in the cause. Many things in this world are legitimated by force. With all this context of the document one wonders if it stands on its own merit. Much is made about the words inalienable rights and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the political theory that stands behind this declaration that when a government refuses to represent the best interests of its people it is no longer the government. But in truth most of the document isn't legal theory or political theory. Most of the document is a list of grievances against King George III. He has refused his ascent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation till as a set should be obtained and when so suspended he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature a right inestimable to them and formidable for tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies that places unusual, uncomfortable and distant from the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly for opposing them with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected whereby the legislative powers incapable of annihilation have returned to the people at large for their exercise the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states for that purpose obstructing the laws of privatization of foreigners refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices and hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has effected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for protecting them by a mock trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world for imposing taxes on us without our consent for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretend offenses for abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province establishing therein an arbitrary government and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies for taking away our charters abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments for suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever he has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us he has plundered our seas ravaged our coasts burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people he has at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death and with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation he has constrained our fellow citizens to take captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country to become the executioners of their friends and brethren or to fall themselves by their hands he has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of the Kyrus the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury a prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant to be the ruler of a free people nor have we been wanting inattentions to our British brethren we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us we have reminded them of the circumstances of our immigration in settlement here we have appealed to their native justice in magnanimity and have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations and interrupt our connections and correspondence they too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity we must therefore acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind enemies and war and peace friends since the crown had lost much of its power in 1689 when the English Bill of Rights was signed into law yes, a full 102 years before the American Bill of Rights one might wonder why the beef with king and not parliament unlike those who had reigned immediately before him George stretched and by some accounts broke the limits of the powers of the crown he manipulated the prime minister's office and parliament to his own ends and the colonists were quite right to locate the grievance with him as much of the legislation against them was the result of his machinations 19 grievances with some sub points were listed against George and only three against the British people it was an interesting tactic not to go directly after the parliament this was in part motivated by their desire to keep the best of what parliamentary government had while getting rid of the crown and the lack of representation afforded colonists we therefore the representatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions due in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and are right ought to be free and independent states that 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 that is free and independent states they have full power to loving war conclude peace contract alliances establish commerce and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do 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 the heart of the declaration lies in these final words it is called a declaration because it is a declaring of the intent of the colonies to form their own government it does not rely upon legal theory or history as much as it does the anger the people felt towards their government it is the grievances that make the case for the declaration in short the Americans were mad, fighting mad in any government that could make the people or any significant segment of them this angry was no government at all according to Jefferson and the congress lack of consent by the colonists for the government's actions towards the colonies was taken in the document as sufficient reason for the claim that British rule of the colonies had ended not had been ended but had ended contrast this anger and passion to the ways that the document is used in American society today and a picture of how different the world is 226 years later will emerge the cultural meta narrative of the declaration of independence is one of personal independence I have a right to life I have a right to liberty I have a right to the pursuit of happiness the collaborative and collective efforts needed to accomplish protection of human rights are not part of the symbol anymore feelings of anger are still often linked to the declaration popular narratives that make such a connection often center on stories of radicals who are depicted as somehow misusing the text of the declaration for their own misguided anger episodes of the American television show Law and Order in which far left or far right terrorists bomb buildings or rob armored cars and then evoke the declaration of independence in court as part of their defense asking juries to reject the tyranny of the government replicate the meme that it is crazy to be that angry at the American government after all the American government unlike King George's is the keeper of law and order there is a fear of such anger and perhaps rightly so it is from anger that revolutions are forged social change often begins with anger over the status quo however it would be misleading to suggest that anger is repressed or absent from American culture hostility is everywhere in cultural productions and in everyday life news programs emphasize violence as much if not more than television dramas and films talk shows built their audiences on the basis of how loudly guests scream at each other and how often fisticuffs break out road rage is now considered as dangerous as drunk driving people call in and call each other names on radio and television feedback shows on a daily basis all of these examples of hostility are paraded as spectacles for consumption across cable television and broadcast radio or in newspapers and magazines daily when do expressions of anger become the basis for social change or perhaps a better question might be why doesn't all this anger lead to social change an answer may lie in Jean-Francois LaTard's post-modern condition LaTard suggests that the underpinnings of knowledge most especially what is legitimate knowledge have changed considerably since 1776 among other strategies the writers of the Declaration of Independence depended upon an appeal to a humanistic philosophical foundation that suggested universal values that superseded cultural and political boundaries LaTard calls such appeals meta-narratives suggesting that these are the stories that other stories are based upon within a culture knowledge in the latter half of the 20th century has become much more complex and such appeals to meta-narratives are no longer regarded as legitimate simply if they are consistent with the meta-narratives or illegitimate simply if they are not LaTard writes we no longer have recourse to the grand narratives we can resort neither to the dialectic of spirit nor even to the emancipation of humanity as a validation for post-modern scientific discourse is all lost then are we so cynical that we can find no common ground upon which to build a legitimate place for our grievances anger violence and hostility are spectacles and ring as hollow as the meta-narratives LaTard pronounced dead in 1979 but LaTard doesn't leave us collectively hanging off the cliff with no solid ground upon which to build legitimacy he suggests an alternative to the meta-narrative he calls parology parology is a localized discussion in which all players are invited to the table and encouraged to speak it is a creative process that is meant to find meaning and agreement through inclusion the legitimacy of the outcome is founded on the process itself rather than any pre-existing universal feature of the content according to LaTard the enemy of parology is terrorism and unlike George W. LaTard defines what he means by the term quote by terror I mean the efficiency gained by eliminating or threatening to eliminate a player from the language game one plays with him he is silenced or consents not because he has been refuted but because his ability to participate has been threatened close quote so let's return to the question at hand why did the grievances in 1776 lead to social change whereas the hostilities of the present do not a plausible answer might be the grievances in 1776 were used within the text of the declaration of independence to argue for the necessity of allowing players to be heard in public language games in order to create social and political change while violence and spectacles of violence in contemporary society are used by the texts of cultural productions to argue the necessity of eliminating or threatening to eliminate players from public language games in order to preserve the status quo many well meaning people would have a seat nonviolent answers to our problems but they often confuse violence with any expression of anger grievances expressed however can lead to change or the desire for change thus eliminating anger might be one more way to eliminate players from the game what counts is the use of anger in the game the answer then is neither to respect all forms of anger nor to eliminate any forms of anger but to use anger wisely to use grievances to encourage openness and inclusion there are some contemporary examples of such wise uses of range music my name is Allison Acker I'm a raging granny how did you get involved with the raging granny's group oh I came to Toronto from Toronto to Victoria 12 years ago especially so I could join them because the raging grannies were formed in Victoria it sounded like a lot of fun I was sick and tired of doing political action that was so serious and nobody ever laughed and I thought the raging grannies would be wonderful and they are it was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek yeah well we're mad in more ways than one are you a literal grandmother well no I'm a step-grandmother I have three step-grandchildren some of us are grandmothers most of them are some of the groups and no group makes them to have to be grandmother you have to have a concern for the grandchildren of the world nobody gets turned away because they can't sing or because they're not a grandmother what kind of activities is your group pursuing you the Victoria group does protests we think of ourselves as guerrilla singers we don't do entertainment people can't rent us out for their hearty or a political function or something like this we will go to education or things of the school or if say people are protesting about housing policy or something like this would you like to come and join us so sometimes we join other groups and sometimes we do actions of our own the grandmothers in Victoria began protesting the use of nuclear armed ships coming into Victoria Harbour that's how it all started so the emphasis at the beginning was very much anti-war and anti-nuke and then we took up ecology issues like Clioquat and social economic issues so sometimes it seems like there's a gig every week we meet every week what's the genesis of the name it seems like raging is a strong word it is a strong word okay I wasn't around when this was formed the grandmothers typically argue a lot nobody can agree who came up with the idea at the beginning somebody had been reading a feminist writer who talked about using one's rage one's anger for positive action and that's how it came out and they thought well we were all what are we having homer we're all old women it began with our what are we going to do all better sing so that's how the singing began and then we thought what people looking at us and they think we all look rather strange we better look even stranger so everybody went to a value village in the Salvation Army to get themselves some more courageous folks but some granny groups some bonnets we had a granny she's left now but she wore motorcycle gear and rode a Harley we like getting a message across that grandmothers are all shapes and sizes and personalities and clothes what's your personal history how did you get involved with this what are your qualifications and experience oh I can't sing I like most of the songs I like writing songs I have been good old solid NDP and I traveled and wrote a lot I've written a couple of books about Latin America I worked with refugees in Toronto too and I seem to be working and I worked with the group called the Alliance for Nonviolent Action where we did things like this but I like taking action for instance about two weeks ago the grannies decided to have a cry in at the Ministry of Health about all the health cuts I remember reading about the you can't go into these places you get challenged at the door so we were just coming to look at the photographs on the wall we all sit down and start to cry we had signs saying don't let me keep the bucket in the hall and that sort of thing and the Ministry all the workers kept on coming down and then being pushed back to their offices and said don't come look we had quite a lot of good press and then we had to wait 40 minutes before the police came they were fine because they know us and only three of them came the nine of us you're not going to do anything so you better go and get reinforcements so you have to keep crying for another 50 we have a good relationship so they've helped us out we told us we'll go with you it takes us a long time to get up we did an awful lot of assistance wait the police literally had to help you up oh yeah and I had my arm around my neck I had to put my arm around your neck let me get on the street then as you go outside the reception guy said come back again we try and use sarcasm and humor wherever we can I'd like to know how one reconciles the obvious decorum that accompanies the role of grandmother quite appropriately and the general unseen one of us that must accompany activism otherwise it's merely taking exception if you have any tips on that for aspiring waging grannies now will be a good time to welcome that our grannies would have wanted to be like this but they were scared and they had to cope with much stricter lords of the time now granites can be anything and so they can't they can't fire us for most of us on pensions so I really think that when you're older you have a duty to act up because it's easy for you you don't have family commitments most of us don't have job commitments anymore we have the time but it's me and it's sure it's more fun than sitting home knitting I was there waging grandpas but they don't seem to be at it I'm not sure why whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world whereas member states have pledged themselves to achieve in cooperation with the united nations the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms whereas the common understanding of these rights and freedoms is the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge now therefore the general assembly proclaims this universal declaration of human rights as a common standard of achievement of all peoples and all nations to the end that every individual and every organ of society keeping this declaration constantly in mind shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures national and international to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance both among the peoples of the member states themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction not all revolutions must be bloody despite the reign of george III it is the british government's parliamentary system that has the longest although some would say slowest history of adaptation through listening to the anger of its people the british government makes mistakes with the imperialist policies of 19th century making their 18th century treatment of their un-canadian colonies in north america look kittenish but they sometimes listen to their subjects and they sometimes adjust accordingly Canada has been adaptive as well willing to reconvene and take a reflexive look at government as a matter of course asking hard questions about improvement Northrop Frye once asked the question what is distinctly canadian close quote for i critiqued both american and canadian cultures by answering his own question historically a canadian is an american who rejects the revolution Canada was perhaps treated the most lovingly of all the subservient states in the british empire and no one likes the preferred child of a matriarch who makes a point of playing favorites but like its overbearing and a formerly inflexible mother Canada has made a point of changing its political machinations for the better once in a while yes it hasn't always worked out as rapidly as it could have and yes it is messy but it takes the social pressure off and tolerates some space in discourse for the anger of the people when the second continental congress was convened Abigail Adams wrote to her husband during the spring of 1776 quote in the new code of laws which i suppose is necessary for you to make i desire you to remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands remember all men would be tyrants if they could if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation John Adams wrote his wife back rejecting her request suggesting it was not time yet for such a movement and that other issues were more important he told her that the so-called dependent tribes a classification in which he included women children, Indians, and black slaves would be represented by the men at the convention eleven years later not only was it still not time for inclusion when the U.S. Constitution was written but white men who did not own property were also excluded from the process this means that representatives from less than 10% of the population fashioned the founding documents of the United States slowly some of this exclusionary disposition has abated it was 1863 when the last African slaves were freed it was 1920 when women got the vote native populations still suffer discrimination in consistency and matters of disenfranchisement and the resultant oppression both on and off the reservations only a few people have been given reparations for these past inequities and African Americans are not among these peoples in many ways under the American system women children Indians and blacks remain dependent tribes this does not even address concerns about American imperialism or the treatment of immigrants aside from the ones who have the luxury of unmarking themselves as such the first lesson that Americans seemed to have learned from the Declaration of Independence is that an appearance of unity is more important than anything else with the subtext that the status quo must be maintained through forcing marginalized peoples into the center this remains true even when the marginalized peoples constitute a majority of the population as is the case with women and men and now on holidays such as the 4th of July one hears Americans saying things like my country right or wrong and America love it or leave it and if you don't like it here go back where you came from with the amusing irony that such a request from the original inhabitants is wholly ignored such unity is always an illusion even the Declaration has only an appearance of unity two members of Congress refused to sign it another lesson that Americans seemed to have learned from the Declaration of Independence is the belief that each individual is always more important than the group Americans have become obsessed with declaring what they have a right to with the term right being used to preclude discourse rather than encourage it to use Lyotard's terminology right's talk has become terrorist talk in the parology of public discourse on the surface it seems to be a paradox Americans want to appear united while maintaining independence from each other but when one examines the story more closely one sees that the pressure on each other in exactly the same way they want to appear American and that means asserting their rights above all else unity is not achieved through discussion or debate leading to consensus but from ensuring that each person does exactly as the next person individually and yet in unity much is made in Canada about the lack of unity and culture and politics sometimes accompanied by a wistful sigh had a comment about envying American solidarity in times of crisis Canadians seem lost at times not really sure who they are in the bigger scheme of things not really knowing how much to embrace the commonwealth, the crown and their British or French histories not knowing if their neighbors to the south are their good friends or the hungry masters hoping to explore the natural resources and to impose cultural values Canadians remain perplexed about their dual identities French, English, East, West native newcomer, citizen immigrant but through all of this the Canadian consciousness stays self-reflexive a question always on the tip of the tongue Canadians is have we heard from everyone yet? Canadians complain about the wishy-washyness their messiness why can't we be more definite? what is our national character? should we be a united Canada? as Americans living in Canada we have come to appreciate this messiness because we see how discourse is encouraged through the desire to hear from all stakeholders this is a lesson we can only hope American culture can absorb someday consensus is something that is discovered unity is something that is imposed the real lesson of the Declaration of Independence is that for a government to remain a de jure government rather than a purely coercive entity it must listen to its people all of its people that listening should take place in an open atmosphere allowing voices to be heard the founding fathers shut some voices up in order to create the unity supposedly needed for war but not all of them intended for those voices to be silenced definitely in the new democracy is there a way for this America at this time in history in this culture to open up the floor for discussion and debate again? yes there is a conceptually simple way and one that Americans could learn from observing other democracies in the world and from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights sociologists Gideon Soberg and Ted Vaughn point out that human beings have the ability to take the roles of others and to recognize another's humanity and commonality with oneself such recognition is important in honoring the rights of other human beings the UN's Declaration represents such an effort and demonstrates that people of different cultural backgrounds can agree as a practical matter on some basic human rights such a cross-cultural process has not yet occurred in the United States written between January 1947 and December 1948 by a committee of eight people led by Eleanor Roosevelt widow of US President Franklin Roosevelt the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents an incredible feat of consensuality now no one knows better than the Canadians the British and ourselves how difficult it is to come to understanding and I have times when I get not only very irritated but very hopeless of achieving understanding and yet this organization weak as it is in some way still of the United Nations is only an organization it's only machinery and it's what we do as people that makes it work and it's what we do as people that will make it fail and so we must try to find ways of living even if we are not fully understanding of each other of living in the same world but I think this generation has to have the patience the vision the courage to keep on until they can make out of the United Nations a strong instrument to maintain peace after peace is established then the United Nations can come into full force and can really begin to function as it was intended to function The text went through 1400 separate votes by the 58 member states that were part of the United Nations at the time The document has been used to create over 60 human rights treaties and has been incorporated into the laws of almost every member state While the results of these efforts continue to be under scrutiny and it is quite obvious that more people give lip service to the Universal Declaration than actually enforce it or respect it The effort is a continuous one and represents a process of negotiation across national and cultural boundaries A similar process is provided for in the U.S. law through the assembly of a new constitutional convention Sociologists Joe R. Fagan and Hernan Vera call for such an assembly in their book White Racism as the best means to address racism in the United States, for example Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress relied upon their grievances to push Americans toward political and social change However, their exclusionary policies of defining some players as dependent tribes and let the American experiment falling short of its stated aims and the pursuit of happiness for all people Subsequent cultural practices have modified these dependencies but do not let go of the desire to eliminate players in the name of coerced unity Many groups have grievances that need to be and could be addressed by a new constitutional convention The work of the United Nations suggests that people from vastly different points of view can find common solutions legitimized by the process of inclusion when given a chance to do so As Americans celebrate today the 226 year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence Perhaps it would be a good time to let go of the unity at any cost in my country above all others as the dominant rhetoric and to embrace the true spirit of 1776 Consensuality of all the people by calling for a new continental congress in which all Americans can be represented It is time to come to the table to talk to you You have been listening to First Person Plural because how people get along with each other still matters First Person Plural is a show created for community radio by Carl Wilkerson and Dr. Patty Thomas to examine social and organizational issues Music for First Person Plural is performed composed and produced by Carl Wilkerson except where noted For more information about First Person Plural Dr. Patty Thomas or Carl Wilkerson visit our website www.culturalconstructioncompany.com or email us at fpp at culturalconstructioncompany.com