1. Speculate on the use of subjects, pronouns (and their respective referents) in "The Declaration of Independence"
2. "Miss Watson seems to see no conflict between the religious and racial narratives she embodies" (Terrell L. Tebbetts, "Civilization, Outlawry, and a Declaration of Independence...", Mississippi Quarterly, 2023). How far is this negligence of contradictions true for the text of The Declaration of Independence?
3. How is Huck's perceived oppression and struggle for freedom comparable (or not) to that of the North American colonies in 1776?
17 comments:
In "Declaration of Independence" the use of pronouns, subjects, and their referents play an important role throughout the document which helps emphasize the message and the text's audience.
First, we can find the pronoun "we", as in "We hold these truths to be self evident..." right in the second paragraph of the text. This pronoun serves to create a collective identity/voice. Although, we all know that this text was written by one person only (Thomas Jefferson), his states are clearly in the name of all inhabitants of the United States. Not only did he want to express his desire for freedom and independence, but he also acknowledged the desire of his people to become an independent colony. We also have the derivatives of this pronoun which are "our", as in "for suspending our own legislatures", and "us", as in "...with power to legislate for us in all cases...". Meaning the same as in "we".
Next, we have the pronoun "they". This is used to refer to the British government, specifically those in charge of enforcing oppressive laws, forcing colonies to obey them without any consent, as in "They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity." We also have this pronoun and its referent "their" at the beginning of the document referring to "all men" or "the people". This could mean that the author is not only referring to the colonists but the whole humanity by defending the rights of every human being existing on this planet called Earth.
Last but not least, the pronoun "He" is also present, pointing out the King of Great Britain at that time (George III). We notice that this pronoun is put at the beginning of each sentence of this "list" Jefferson made about his acts of tyranny (as in "He has refused to pass over the laws for the accommodation of large districts of people"). This could mean that he is calling out his authoritarianism and, in some way, exposing him to the point that we can say that "he" himself is THE oppression.
In conclusion, I suppose these pronouns help to build not only a text/document but also a speech, a written one. This speech emphasizes the collective wishes of colonies in the US and also argues the moral and philosophical vision of the government.
Ana Beatriz Gonçalves
1 - “The Declaration of Independence” is a document whose main purpose was to impel to put an end to Great Britain’s abusive regime over the colonists. Thus, was very important to convey a tone that appeals for the urgency of the “Collective”, to demonstrate strength and represent a “Union” capable of meeting the grandeur that the British Empire held at that time. For that, Thomas Jeffrey uses the pronoun “we”, which appeals for an interest common to a whole; “We hold these truths to be self-evident...”. However, the use of “we” can be also be specific for the Representatives (who signed the Declaration), such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, etc, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America...”. King George III is never once directly mentioned in the Declaration — instead, his majesty is addressed by“He”. The amount of times “He” is mentioned stresses the blasphemy of his actions and never hides the criminal of his crimes. In my regard, “he” is also used to propel the idea that the singe sight of his name is an obscenity and unbearable to the colonists, or, from other perspective, that to address him “King” would perhaps reveal a certain respect for this noble title, and thus reveal weakness and inferiority.
1, In the Declaration of Independence, the use of subjects and pronouns plays a critical role in framing the argument for independence. The central subject is that the people and the colonies try to assert independence, beginning with the universal term “all men” which should emphasize equality and inherent rights. However, it already contradicts itself by focusing on only men and in reality (although it is not explicitly stated) only white, middle class men. By using the pronouns of “we” the text seems to be very representative for the colonies and the whole population emphasising a unity and shared resolve, but actually refers to the signers of the declaration. “He” on the other hand refers to the King which already creates a distance and sort of outsider position as it personalizes the oppression and points out to someone responsible for the injustices. (The same could be applied to “they”, only that it refers to the British parliament or generally the oppressive Britains. )
2. Regarding the question of how far miss Watsons negligence between her contradictory religious and racial narratives she obeys, align with the Declaration of Independence, we can find the same hypocrisy. While claiming in the first sentence as mentioned before “all men”, Thomas Jefferson can only refer to white men, as he himself obeyed racist values and practiced racism by being a slaveholder himself. So how can this document possibly advocate the inherent rights and equality of “all men {that} are created equal”. Thus the signers focused on the oppression of the British crown and advocated liberty while ignoring their own oppressive society and maintaining this system. Much like Miss Watson, who teaches religious morals while owning slaves herself.
Comment by In the Declaration of Independence, the use of subjects and pronouns plays a critical role in framing the argument for independence. The central subject is that the people and the colonies try to assert independence, beginning with the universal term “all men” which should emphasize equality and inherent rights. However, it already contradicts itself by focusing on only men and in reality (although it is not explicitly stated) only white, middle class men. By using the pronouns of “we” the text seems to be very representative for the colonies and the whole population emphasising a unity and shared resolve, but actually refers to the signers of the declaration. “He” on the other hand refers to the King which already creates a distance and sort of outsider position as it personalizes the oppression and points out to someone responsible for the injustices. (The same could be applied to “they”, only that it refers to the British parliament or generally the oppressive Britains. )
Regarding the question of how far miss Watsons negligence between her contradictory religious and racial narratives she obeys, align with the Declaration of Independence, we can find the same hypocrisy. While claiming in the first sentence as mentioned before “all men”, Thomas Jefferson can only refer to white men, as he himself obeyed racist values and practiced racism by being a slaveholder himself. So how can this document possibly advocate the inherent rights and equality of “all men {that} are created equal”. Thus the signers focused on the oppression of the British crown and advocated liberty while ignoring their own oppressive society and maintaining this system. Much like Miss Watson, who teaches religious morals while owning slaves herself.
Comment by Elli (Elena Kieschke) - continues
2. Huck’s struggle for freedom superficially resembles the struggle for independence of North American colonies, though they also differ in significant aspects. Both stories center on the quest for autonomy and resistance against a form of control, but within very different contexts.
Of course Huck is perceived oppression and struggle for freedom regarding very religiously strict and oppressive forces in his life, particularly the attempts by society “to civilize” him. Being “assimilated” and oppressed by bigger forces is a very colonial phenomenon which also American colonies in 1776 were facing, resisting the control and authority of the British crown, which imposed taxes and laws. Thus, both Huck and the colonies yearn for self-determination and the right to live according to their own values, while resisting their authorities ( in hucks case figures like widow Douglas and miss watson who impose order and religion on him, while in the case of the colonies they resisted the British economic policies and political impositions.
On the other hand it is hard to compare a governmental, political oppression of whole colonies with an individual oppression as it also comes inherently with different consequences. Huck fears Miss Watsons anger and rage by resisting her. North American colonies on the other hand were fearing bigger structural, political than individual consequences (like war?). Thus, Hucks oppression is personal and rooted in his individual circumstances and is not part of a broader systematic issue involving an entire nation. Whereas, the colonists’ desire fore independence wasn’t just a personal aspiration, but a national fight for independence affecting millions of people. Furthermore, regarding the type of oppression we notice fundamental differences, as Hucks oppression comes from personal figures in his life and societal representatives, while the colonies were oppressed by a distant, centralized power in Britain, carried out through laws for instance. Huck is primarily trying to escape personal and cultural constraints, while the colonies are struggling against political economic domination from a foreign government.
Comment by Elli (Elena Kieschke) - conclusion
2. In The Declaration of Independence, there is a similar contradiction between the proclaimed ideals of freedom and equality and the reality of society at the time, particularly with regard to slavery and the rights of indigenous peoples. Although the text affirms that “all men are created equal,” in practice these rights did not extend to slaves or other marginalized groups. Like Miss Watson, the authors of the Declaration seem to ignore or gloss over these contradictions. The rhetoric of freedom and justice is powerful, but it is not universally applied, reflecting a neglect or blindness to the racial and social disparities that persisted.
3. Both Huck and the American colonies feel oppressed and fight for their freedom, but the sources of their oppression are different. Huck, in Huckleberry Finn, feels trapped by social norms, adult expectations, and the civilization that Miss Watson represents. His struggle is more individual, a desire to break free from the moral and social restrictions imposed on him, which leads him to escape. On the other hand, the American colonies in 1776 rebel against an external government that denies them representation and rights. The colonies' struggle is more collective and political, while Huck's is personal and social. However, in both cases, there is a strong desire for independence and self-determination, which makes the stories share a common theme of resistance against authority.
Ángela María González Nieto
1. "We" is used to refer to the "good people" of the United States of America; "he" is used to refer to the King of Great Britain; and "they" is used to refer to governmental entities who act against the "laws of nature" by limiting the freedoms of men.
2. There's a common evocation of Christian God. Miss Watson's charity and teachings are based on Christian values (or the perception of it); similar to how there's repeated enphase in "The Declaration of Independence" of the unrefutable God's "laws of nature", where all men are created equal" and gave them "CERTAIN [inherent and] inalienable rights", that the King of Great Britain, in his infidel tyranny, doesn't oblige.
3. The oppression of a country is not comparable to the oppression of a kid. But both showcase an indominable spirit and are critical of what they perceive to be the tyranny of men, giving importance to the "laws of nature".
Inês Sofia Mena Maniés
1. Subjects and Pronouns in "The Declaration of Independence": In the Declaration, the subject "We" portrays the American colonies as a unified front, demonstrating that they are all in this together. It's a communal "We," which reinforces the idea of shared purpose in breaking from Britain. On the other hand, "He" alludes to King George, making him the obvious antagonist. The contrast between "we" and "he" accentuates the colonists' sense of injustice, making it clear who is to blame here, creating a public enemy (which history has proven to be the best way to unite people).
2. Contradictions in "The Declaration of Independence": The Declaration's emphasizes liberty and equality, although many of its signers were slaveholders (the hipocrisy). It's like how Miss Watson is always nagging Huck about religion and morals while owning slaves. Both the Declaration's authors and Miss Watson seem phased or genuinely ignorant to the gap between their principles and their actions. They advocate for freedom and equality, but only for a small set of individuals; like preaching about eating healthy while holding a donut on your hand.
3. Comparison of Huck's oppression to that of the North American colonies: Huck feels trapped—society is continually attempting to "civilize" him, and his father, being jealous and egotistical, wants him live the same miserable life he has. It's as if everyone has intentions for him that do not include his happiness. The American colonies faced a similar dilemma with Britain: being taxed and ruled without any voice in the matter. While the colonies sought collective freedom, Huck's war is more personal—he simply wants to be free of all the norms and expectations. The colonies battled for freedom from British taxes, and Huck is attempting to assert his "inalienable rights (...) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(...)".
1) On the 4th of July of 1776 the Continental Congress approved one of the most important and foundational documents in the history and culture of the United States – the “Declaration of Independence”. The Declaration, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, declared the independence of the Thirteen Colonies, and it was a result of several years of injustices from the “king of Great Britain” towards these Colonies. When we read the “Declaration of Independence”, although it was written in the context of 18th century America, it appears to have a universal tone, claiming that “mankind” is entitled to certain rights. However, we could also argue that the Declaration apparent universality and egalitarian precepts mask the injustices and discrimination present in American society of the time.
I would like to start by diving deep into the puzzling conjecture that “all men are created equal”. We can consider this sentence from two perspectives. On the one hand, we can consider “all men” as an all-inclusive term, that gathers all men and women. On the other hand, we can assume that this term is referring solely to men, most specifically white men, excluding minorities. I would be more inclined to consider the second option, for different reasons.
Firstly, if we look at the Declaration, we can see how the indigenous population was still seen as “merciless Indian savages” and how the clause that had been initially written reprobating the enslavement of the “inhabitants of Africa” was then struck out, perpetuating the institution of slavery. Later on, Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth would speak about the oppression and discrimination felt by the African-American community.
Secondly, considering the limited role of women in society and the few rights they were granted, I would perhaps say that the term “all men” does not include women. In fact, in the 19th century, the “Declaration of Sentiments”, based on the “Declaration of Independence”, was made in order to parallel the struggles of the Founding Fathers with those of women in America. The “Declaration of Sentiments”, written primarily by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, defends the idea that men and women are equal, denouncing the inequality in education and divorce laws, as well as the lack of representation of women in the country’s legislation and the prohibition of women’s suffrage.
As such, it can be argued that the expression “all men are created equal” does not include women or social or ethnic minorities, considering the inequalities present in American society.
It continues...
The rest of the answer to question 1:
Furthermore, we may also notice the expressions “one people” and “the people” referring to the right of a nation to dissolve their political bands from a tyrannical and despotic country and institute a new government. Here we could argue that it refers to all citizens of a nation or country. However, looking at the American context, women and slaves did not have the to vote. Therefore, political actions could only be taken by men in power, who usually did not belong to a social or ethnic minority. So, although, this may seem like universal term, in reality, only a limited amount of people had the right to decide the fate of their country. Moreover, if we look at the expression “free people”, although we can perhaps include women here, we cannot include the entire American population, as slavery was still an ongoing practice.
I would like to look at the referent of the several “He” that appear throughout the Declaration. A series of accusations are made towards the “king of Great Britain”, which was, at the time, King George III. He is accused of several tyrannical actions and of having seriously damaged the Colonies and their people. The continuing and exhausting use of “He” is a way of highlighting all of the injustices done by the King and works as a way to legitimize and justify the need for independence.
All in all, I believe the Founding Fathers had goods intentions when writing the “Declaration of Independence”, having the aim to fight for the independence of the American people as a whole. However, the apparent universal language and equality of the Declaration is somewhat deceiving. If we look under the surface and analyze the social context of the time, we can see how African-Americans, Indigenous people or women did not have the same rights as, for example, white men. However, despite the many injustices that prevailed in American society, we should not disregard the importance of the “Declaration of Independence”, as its ideals influence concepts like the “American Dream” and the American way of thinking and living, up until today.
- Beatriz Bicudo Cunha
In the first chapters of “Huckleberry Finn”, he lets us know that he suffers a lot. Firstly, he suffered due to the abuse of his father, an alcoholic who does not value his son except to extort money. Second, when he is “civilized” by the widow, something that, for someone like Huck, who has always lived well without society, is a nightmare. Finally, he feels the tyranny of Miss Watson, who treats him without an ounce of compassion, and forces him to believe in God, the way she thinks is right.
In my opinion, these freedom struggles are comparable, as both Huck and the colonies suffered dissatisfaction with the way they were “governed”.
Both saw attempts to extort their money, both lived according to the “laws” of others and, as the Declaration itself says, they just want the right to be happy, however they want.
Maria Costa
The contradictions in the Declaration of Independence are obvious and, in my opinion, outrageous. While the declaration does not reference religion, the terms that are used, for example “Creator” (…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…) show the weight of Christianity to those people, therefore it is slightly ironic that the “equality” the Creator offered the Americans is not applicable to enslaved people.
The conflicts seem to surpass themselves when the text is aimed to the king of Great Britain. Although there are many sentences to analyze, I would like to focus on a specific statement: “He has …burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people.” This sentence alone represents the contradictions and the hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence. The king of Great Britain is someone who blew up homes and villages, who ruined people’s lives and devastated the American people with his tyranny and indifference, he is “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over [the] states”. These affirmations are also true when said about slavery and slave owners: slavery is based on tyranny over ethnic minorities, and it needs to destroy the lives of enslaved people in order to conquest. Recognizing the oppression perpetuated by the Great Britain should’ve been a path to recognize the oppression perpetuated by slave owners (many of which signed the said document).
The contradictions were neglected because it was not convenient to assume them. Slavery was a lucrative business in the 16th Century, just like private prisons are extremely profitable today. Acknowledging the exploitation and the abuse towards enslaved people meant that it could no longer be a business that contributed to the economy. Although the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”, it meant that only “some men” were worthy of freedom and deserved justice. All the others were only necessary to boost the economy therefore were not included in the “Independence”; freedom from the Great Britain was imperative, but the freedom of enslaved people was not, it was a threat to capital.
Maria Beatriz Oliveira
Prompt 3 - Cecília Vaz F. Marques
Huckleberry Finn and the North American colonies share similarities in their rebellious spirits, fighting against their oppressors. The third complaint of the The Declaration of Independence “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 to tyrants only.” (p. 1159) expresses the lack of American representation in the Parliament and the constant attempts of the British to restrict colonial self-rule are regarded as a form of tyranny. In this context, the accumulated and increasing debt of Early Modern Britain, specially after the Seven Years’ War, culminated in the need of imposing higher taxes upon the colonies. By comparison, Huckleberry Finn’s abusive father attempts to take advantage of his authority to force Huck to give him money only so that he could afford more whiskey; this despotism might be noticeable as they argue in chapter five “‘I hain’t got only a dollar, and I want that to –’ ‘It don’t make no difference what you want it for – you just shell it out’. [...] then he said he was going down town to get some whisky;” and also in chapter six, “He said he would show who was Huck Finn’s boss[...]” when the father proceeds to the capture and restrainment of his son in the cabin. In a way, Britain's “tyranny” could be parallel to that of an alcoholic father, taking the wealth of the American colony to sustain vicious wars. Moreover, as Americans grew in population and productivity, recalling the aforementioned complaint for “the accommodation of large districts of people”, the British seemed to have grown fearful of their development. Similarly, this narcissistic attitude may also be a trait of Huckleberry’s father upon his arrival “[...] You think you’re a good deal of a big-bug, don’t you?’ [...] You’re educated, too, they say; can read and write. You think you’re better’n your father, now, don’t you, because he can’t? I’ll take it out of you”.
02-10-2024
Cecília Vaz
1. The Declaration uses pronouns such as “we” to unite the colonies in their struggle for independence, contrasting with “he” which refers to the British king. This creates a sense of community and personalizes the struggle, reinforcing their argument.
2. The statement about Miss Watson highlights that although the Declaration speaks of equality and rights, in practice it excludes groups such as slaves and women. Because of this reason, this contradiction shows the disconnect between the proclaimed ideals and historical reality.
3. From my point of view, both Huck and the colonies are fighting for freedom, but in different contexts. Huck faces social and moral oppression, while the colonies struggle against a political regime. Both cases reflect the desire for autonomy but from different perspectives: individual for Huck and collective for the colonies.
Post by Claudia Roldán
1) The pronouns used in “the declaration of independence” are “we” and “he”.
The use of “we” is employed when the Founding Fathers declare themselves “representatives of the United States of America”, claiming to be speaking on behalf of all citizens. The Declaration of Independence mentions these “unalienable rights”: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that everyone is born with and cannot be taken away by the government, without reason. However, this “we” excludes most of the population. This “all men are created equal”, excludes women, slaves, Native Americans, and/or other minorities. Moreover, indigenous people are referred as “merciless Indian savages”. There is no consideration of humanity in them.
On the other hand, the pronoun “he” is adopted to address King George III of England, who they consider to be “a tyrant” who “is unfit to be the ruler of a FREE people”. The Declaration embodies a list of almost twenty grievances against the King and the British Parliament. This was probably in order to creater a public enemy and thus uniting the thirteen colonies.
Post a Comment