Would a Libya happen in America?

For most of 2011, Libya was in a state of civil war with the people against their oppressive dictator Moammar Gaddhaffi. Eventually the people won and Gaddhaffi was captured and killed without trial. During the semester we read 4 sources written by Thomas Jefferson, Crevecouer, Emmerson, and Thoreau. This source specifically relates to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson reasons that it is ok for the people to overthrow their government if it is corrupt. Jefferson would say that happened in Libya could happen in the US, but it would not be the exact same.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson states:

"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 the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter 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 effect their Safety and Happiness"

What happened in Libya was supported and opposed by Jefferson for several reasons. First of all, Gaddafi died after being captured, without a fair trial. Jefferson, in my opinion, would have wanted to see Gaddafi brought to trial instead of being tortured and killed. However, Jefferson would have been in favor of the ousting of Gaddafi. Gaddafi violated the natural rights of man and deserved a trial in order to be punished. Ultimately Jefferson would have been in favor of removing Gaddafi from power, but not for how it was done.

Is what happened in Libya possible in the United States? I think to a certain extent no. While it is possible for the government to be overthrown, it is also possible for the people to express their discontent and have laws changed before it even gets to the level of governmental abuse as seen in Libya. These checkpoints were established in order to prevent something like the Libyan Civil War from happening and are written in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution. Because of how our government works, a democracy with checks and balances that ensures the people rights are protected, and the principles our nation was founded on, I do not think a civil war like in Libya could take place again.

Source:http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-casbah/gaddafi-dead-video-initial-capture-exclusive

Transcendentalism was a movement in 19th century America that stated man and society were inherently good and that man should be self-reliant. There are other ideas to Transcendentalism, such as being natural and finding your own connection to the universe. These thoughts can be seen in the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "American Scholar" and David Henry Thoreau's "Walden" with their many mentions of nature and of progress. There are key differences between both works, however, and that is on what they view and define the American Experience as. Both Emerson and Thoreau define the American Experience as a time of progress, but they each view it in different ways.

One of the key elements of transcendentalism is the idea of progressing forward. However, their views on progress contrast each other. Thoreau wants to go back to a "natural state", which can be seen in his book "Walden". Walden tells of Thoreau's time in a cabin he built and stayed in for two years near Walden Pond. The main message of Walden is that of the utopia of one is the "American Experience". This idea states that man is happiest when he is self-reliant. American Scholar contrasts this, by saying that it is through science and progress mankind can better itself, thus providing the "American Experience". These ideas both differ from Crevecour's idea of the "American Experience" in several ways. First, both Emerson and Thoreau believe that the political parties harmed Americans more than it helped them. They believe that political parties corrupt and harm individuals, and the only escape is to create ties to nature or to progress through bettering the individual through knowledge. Crevecouer assumed that the individual would be pure, and that democracy would be incorruptible.

Overall I agree more with Emerson's idea of progress through self improvement. Throughout history we can see that with education and self improvement, society itself improves. Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are two examples of the idea of "individual potential". Albert Einstein, regarded as the smartest man to have ever lived, taught himself calculus at the age of 12. He later went on to be a world renowned physicist and developed the Theory of Relativity. Thomas Edison, inventor of the lightbulb, grew up teaching himself as well. Without his invention of the lightbulb, many inventions of today would not be possible, and life would be unimaginable. I prefer the idea of self-improvement and potential rather than reverting back to a simpler state because of all the potential boons the future holds. If we went back to a simpler time, we would lose all the potential improvements for our society.

Walt Whitman vs Crevecoeur

Both Walt Whitman and Crevecoeur were important writers of literature. However, when comparing Walt Whitman's America with Crevecoeur's What Is an American? there are noticeable similarities as well as key differences.

Similarly, both authors use America as their subject matter. This can be seen while reading both works as well as looking at the title. Both authors also say that America is a land of equality. Whitman says this "Centre of equal daughters, equal sons," and Crevocoeur says this "The rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe". However, Crevocoeur goes further, saying that "...we are all tillers of the earth, from Nova Scotia to West Florida. We are a people of cultivators, scattered over an immense territory, communicating with each other by means of good roads and navigable rivers..." This takes the idea of equality in America even further by saying that the people of the United States are united through their work as farmers and people of the land. Overall, Whitman and Crevocoeur both are similar in their writings of the use of America and equality.

While both authors have similar subject matter, each work has differences. One of which is the type of work. Crevecoeur wrote a book "Letters from an American Farmer", where this excerpt was taken, in 1782. In 1782, the United States of America was a new nation, which would explain how Crevecoeur writes in his work. Whitman wrote America in the mid 19th century. This time period difference would have a vast effect on the work. Whitman would have seen the Civil War and the US almost split. Because of this, Whitman uses the phrase "Chair'd in the adamant of Time". This phrase means that he wants to see the United States stand together and survive the test of time. Crevecoeur has no such message in his writing, instead only talking about the founding of America "I wish I could be acquainted with the feelings and thoughts which must agitate the heart and present themselves to the mind of an enlightened Englishman, when he first lands on this continent. He must greatly rejoice that he lived at a time to see this fair country discovered and settled;" Crevecoeur talks about how he wishes to know how the first settlers of the United States felt, and how they must feel now that the territory has been settled and become a new nation. Cevecoeur also talks about how hard work will allow someone to survive and thrive in the world.

What does it mean to be American?

What does it mean to be an American? Depending on who you ask, you will get different results. For example, if you were to ask a history teacher, it would mean to be from the United States and if you asked an economist, it would mean someone who became successful. However I think it means to be free. One of the core values that America was founded on was the idea of natural rights. This idea was first proposed by the philosopher John Locke, who said that mankind has certain, undeniable rights to life, liberty and property and it was the governments job to protect these rights. This key root is one of the main causes for the founding of the United States. Thomas Jefferson proves this when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, saying "...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 the consent of the governed".

When we use the word freedom, most people use it in the sense of "I will do anything I want to because this is a free country" and they are wrong. The dictionary definition of freedom is "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Just because you have the ability to do anything you want does not mean that you should. For example, I could walk down the street and punch a random person in the face. However they have the freedom to punch me back as well. The best illustration of freedom would be the saying "my right to throw punches ends at your face". In a free country I have the ability to do anything, as long as it doesn't affect you. That is what it truly means to be American. Being American means you can work as hard as you want, say what you want, and be what you want and no one can stop you, which is the true essence of freedom. It's a shame that other countries don't allow that, because it brings along progress. If we couldn't say what we wanted to, then how could we criticize and improve on ideas and inventions? If we couldn't be who we wanted, how would our culture evolve and establish ourselves as Americans?