Propaganda in the Declaration of Independance

The Declaration of Independence is a document that is extremely important to the history of The United States of America. It is the document that was written to declare our freedom, or independence, from England. The colonists from England who came to the United States were annoyed with all the taxes and laws from the king that they were forced to follow. They thought that it was outrageous that they were being forced to follow these laws when they lived so far away from England and they were basically their own established country. This is when they decided to write the Declaration of Independence. Five people came up with the Declaration of Independence, but Thomas Jefferson was the one that was chosen to write it all out. Although the Declaration of Independence poses a very strong argument against England, there are some problems with it's argument. The Declaration of Independence uses a lot of propaganda. One type of propaganda that the Declaration of Independence contains is name calling. Name calling is used when the author is trying to avoid supporting their opinion with actual facts. In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson uses a lot of name calling against the King of England. "The history of the present Kind of Great Britian is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." (Jefferson 122). In this passage, Jefferson is accusing the king of repeatedly making mistakes and messing up and not being a good leader. He uses the word "usurpation" meaning that he does not think that the king deserves or is qualified to be the king. By using this kind of propaganda, Jefferson kind of puts holes in his argument. Jefferson uses this name calling technique many times throughout the Declaration of Independence. He continuously tries to make the king look bad. "He had abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation" (Jefferson 124). Here, Jefferson is accusing the king of doing a lot of very bad things to the people of America. He says that the king is destroying their lives and ruining their homes and towns and now he is waging a war with them. He wants to convince the people of his country to go against the king and be independent of Britain. He uses the technique of name calling to make the people think that the king is bad. This technique may help him a bit, but it could also be a bad strategy for Jefferson because it could make his argument faulty.

Bibliography

Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 120-124. Print.

Dspsweb@cuesta.edu. "Recognizing Propaganda--Guide to Critical Thinking--Academic Support." Print.

Speech to the Second Virginia Convention Reflection

In Speech to The Second Virginia Convention, the writing style is very different than the writing styles of those stories that we have been reading in this class. The writings that we have been reading have all been Puritan style writings. In Speech to The Second Virginia Convention, the writing style is different. The Puritan writings that we have been used to reading have been focused on God and religion. They have been more about staying true to your religion inside and also outside of the church. The writings that we have been reading have shown the characters or authors blaming everything, good or bad, on God. Everything that happens to them in their life, they think has to do with God. They show their religious beliefs all through their writing and they show how they relate everything to God. Speech to The Second Virginia, However, is different. It is less focused on religion and more focused on the logical side of things. Instead of automatically blaming everything on God or their religion, they think about it more and come up with a more logical approach. This style of writing is called rationalism. Rationalism is defined in the Merrium Webster dictionary as "A theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions. It means that they use reason to solve a problem or when thinking about things in general. One passage from Speech to The Second Virginia that I believe to be a very good example of rationalism is, "The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field; Why do we stand here idle?" (Henry 118). This passage shows Henry's rational way of thinking because you can tell that he has thought it through a lot and that he is using logical thinking to come to the conclusion that they should go to war as soon as they can because it will benefit them in the end. This passage is basically saying that Henry knows that their enemies are going to begin a war with them and if they do not do something, they will be caught by surprise so it will be more beneficial to them if they started the war and caught their enemies by surprise. This is a rational way of thinking because Henry uses logic in saying that it will help them to start a war rather than to wait for their enemies to start a war against them.
He knows that either way, the enemies are going to try to start a war with them and he thinks that it would be a better idea to be prepared instead of just waiting around for it to happen. There are many examples of rational thinking in Speech To The Second Virginia Convention, which is what makes me believe that this story is a very good example of the rational writing style of that time.

Bibliography

Henry, Patrick. "Speech to the Second Virginia Convention." Glencoe Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2009. 114-119. Print.

What is today's American Dream?

I think that Today's American Dream is to have a lot of money without a lot of work. Obviously, the American Dream is a lot different for different people, but in general, a lot of people want money. To some people money is more important than it is for others, but everyone wants money. The American Dream could mean different things for different people, like some people might want money, while others might want family or power. My version of the American Dream is to have a family, a job that I enjoy doing, and just being a happy person in general. I think that the American dream differs for many people. Some people might want to work hard and make a lot of money while others just want to get rich quick. I think that the overall concept of the American Dream is to have success. Success is defined by dictionary.com as the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. I think that this could mean a lot of different things. Success is a very general term and a lot of people have different successes. A persons definition of success is dependent on their age, and where they are at in life. Being in high school, my definition of success for me would be to get good grades in school and still having time for my friends, family and my job. It is very hard for me to balance all of these things successfully, but I try. My parents definition for success is much different than mine, because they are not in school and they have different priorities than I do. Their definition for success might be having a good family, spouse and a job. Being successful for them would be being able to supply my sisters and I with a roof over our heads, food to eat, clothes to wear and other nessecities. Successful for them would be having a stable job and being happy. I think that the American Dream depends on the person and it is different for everyone, but mostly the american dream is to be successful.

The Crucible, Act Four

In this blog, I will be comparing the two literatures, Sinners In the Angry Hands of God and The Crucible.

Both of these two writings contain a lot of religion in them. This was of course very popular in Puritan-style writings. One thing that Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God and The Crucible have in common is that they both center around religion. They both display an angry God. In both of these writings, God is punishing his people. In Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God, it talks about how God is very angry (Hence the title) and he wants to punish his people. God is upset because his people are not being loyal to him anymore and they keep sinning. They have settled down recently and are feeling more independent and like they do not need him. They are beginning to do their own thing and God is not happy. Basically, the sermon is saying that if the people do not step up and be better Christians, they are all going to Hell.

In Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God, the people are starting to leave God in a way. They are not being very good Christians. They only go to God when they are having bad times and the narrator says that this is not okay. The people feel that when things are good as they have been, they do not need God and they kind of forget about him. The same thing happens in The Crucible. The characters begin to focus more on unholy things that they should not be focusing on. People are lying and blaming others and killing innocent people. People are being accused of witchcraft and some may even be doing witchcraft which is like devil stuff. So God is probably not too happy about that either.

One obvious similarity between Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God and The Crucible is that Sinners In the Hands Of an Angry God is written as an actual sermon. It was written to scare people in to prying more and going to church more and just acting more like Christians inside and outside of the church. The preacher tells (more like screams at) the people that they need to be better Christians so that they can go to Heaven. The Crucible, on the other hand, was written as a story. It was written for the purpose of entertainment.

Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God has a very different tone than The Crucible. It has a very harsh tone. It is harsh because the narrator is not trying to sugar coat any of his message. He is telling the people what he believes to be true and he is telling it in the most direct, way possible. Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God shows off the stricter side of religion. It is saying that you must live as a Christian in every aspect of your life. It is saying that if you do not be careful about what you say or do outside of church, that God will not hesitate to punish you and you could spend an eternity in Hell. This sermon was meant to scare people in to being better Christians and I think that it probably worked. If I had an angry preacher screaming this sermon at me, I think that I would be extremely cautious of how I lived my life after that. The tone of The Crucible is a lot calmer than Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God. It is telling a story and not trying to make people do anything or change anything about their life.
Bibliography

Edwards, Jonathan. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 1992. Print.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.