I’m breaking up a huge post into several shorter segments (for the information of regular readers here, yes, this is the beginning of the “monster post” I wrote about earlier) because I know the ADD culture we have which is only exacerbated by the nature of weblogs does not lend itself to a long, coherent argument that may not be book length but is more than enough for one of the pamphlets that were published in the months leading up to the American Revolution. The titles will likely be provocative, as I hope the text will be, provocative in the way of provoking thought, not promoting yet more mindless name-calling which is apparently the objective of far too many posts I have seen recently from more than one blogger, those whom I otherwise respect.

Speaking of provocative post titles, the one above refers to the legend of the signature of John Hancock, who supposedly signed the Declaration of Independence in the center large and clear so that King George III could read it without his spectacles, in prominent defiance of the actions of the British government in the months and years leading up to the American Revolution. It is unclear if this legend has any basis in reality, given that there is evidence that Hancock always signed his name in such an extravagant way, but the very fact that the legend still persists after more than two and a third centuries reveals much of what we like to think of ourselves and our history of rebellion against what we perceived at the time as tyranny, what we are still taught as a justified rebellion in our history lessons to elementary school students.

To put it in plain language, we like to think of ourselves as loudly and even obnoxiously defiant in the face of overwhelming power, which is what Britain had in the mid to late 18th century, with the courage to sign our names in a large, unmistakable fashion on a document that declares the crimes of that overwhelming power, despite the fact that the power was indeed the legitimate government of the colonies that would soon be in rebellion.

We like to think of ourselves as the heirs of John Hancock, standing up in defiance to the face of tyranny in the name of principle.

Yet the acquiescence of the American public to the erosion of those very principles of freedom from government control and surveillance of personal lives in the years since September 11, 2001 taken in the name of “homeland security” shows the self-deception inherent in our belief that we live up to the legacy of the legend of the large signature written as a defiant stand taken in the name of the principle of freedom and fundamental human rights that were termed “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence.

Rights that are now termed as “insignificant” and “optional” when there are apparent threats to the “homeland” from groups whose goal is solely to create terror are involved.

As I have written before, we were in far more peril of cessation of our very existence when we had the threat of nuclear annihilation from the USSR hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles, but somehow, the threat of a terrorist attack that would kill far, far fewer than an attack from our former nemesis has prompted a fearful reaction that apparently goes beyond even that generated by the demagogue McCarthy during the darkest days of the Cold War, when guilt by mere accusation was sufficient to ruin lives.

Whatever happened to the heirs of John Hancock, those boldly defiant in the face of overwhelming power, when confronted by those whose only power is that we give them through submitting to the terror they wish to strike in our hearts?

What have we become as a nation, as a culture?

What do we stand for, and what are we willing to die for?

Once I believed the answers to these questions were so obvious that they did not need to even be asked, but now it has been proven otherwise. Consider the use of the phrase “homeland security” which is more appropriate to the European concept of land being more important than principles rather than our truly American heritage of principles being primary.

Think about the events of the last four years, not in terms of partisan politics and party advantage, but in terms of what we were all taught in our elementary schools about the American Revolution and the principles which motivated the rebellion, for that is indeed what it was, a rebellion against a legitimate government.

One man’s freedom-fighter is another man’s terrorist.

Think about the tactics used by the rebels in the American Revolution, those who chose to hide behind trees and snipe at troops rather than line up to be shot at as the honorable tactics of the day dictated.

Think about the tactics being used by the sole superpower in the world today in a fight against groups using terror-generating methods, tactics of torture, extra-legal prisons and “extraordinary renditions” to prisons that were used by our former Cold War enemies.

THINK…

Do not merely jerk your knee. There is far more to the world both today and two centuries ago than the simplistic interpretations imply.

Yes, the United States is engaged in a war, but this war is a war of definition, whereby our acts define what kind of nation we are, what kind of a people we are, and what principles we stand for. This is a war where we define who we are and what we stand for.

Think about our acts to date in this war, and think about how these acts will be judged in the cold, hard light of history, not the ephemeral flash of partisan advantage.

How are we defining ourselves, and can we be proud of our self-definition?

Are we truly the heirs of John Hancock?

Technorati Tags: commentary, conservative politics, left wing politics, left-wing politics, liberal politics, right wing politics, right-wing politics