Love when teachers are bias..PRO Merica BS

 Here is a quick copy of paper I wrote for a BS class:


"How has the Declaration of Independence Influenced American Society?" As a starting point, I would like to preamble here a bit haha divergence in interpretation illustrates society's subjective nature. The pursuit of justice might appear to one group as an overreach or distortion of fundamental principles to another, just as some point out while others don’t. The differences between American society are not intrinsically '’good' or 'bad', but rather are reflections of differing philosophical viewpoints and experiences. At least to a certain point of view. But In essence, the Declaration of Independence has served as both a guide and a source of contention, driving societal progress while also highlighting the deep ideological divides that characterize the American experience. By examining these influences through a framework that prioritizes verifiable facts and seeks to avoid dogmatic thinking, we can better understand the complex ways in which this seminal document continues to shape the nation's ongoing discourse on freedom, equality, and governance. Having said that, to me, the Declaration of Independence often to me feels like an illusion, words that are hollow and unfulfilled, particularly when viewed from the perspective of those historically marginalized. Considering the historical reality of 1776, where African Americans were enslaved, and women and Indigenous peoples denied rights, "all men are created equal" appears especially hollow. As this article (Lindsay, Tom. “Is the Declaration of Independence Based on a Lie?” Forbes, 30 June 2016) it helps to point out “It seems unfair to ask our children to recite these words when, in practice, they were never fully realized.” Looking at the seven key concepts of the Declaration's second paragraph, it's clear that the ideals expressed were aspirational, but they've never fully lived up to their promise. Let's break down these concepts: 1. We hold these truths to be self-evident suggests that certain truths are so obvious that they need no further justification. But what are these truths? In 1776, these "self-evident" truths did not apply to everyone. For many, these truths were far from evident. 2. That all men are created equal is perhaps the most contentious statement. If all men were truly created equal, then the systemic inequality, racism, and exclusion that have marked American history would not exist. The reality is that equality was not extended to all; the concept was 2 narrowly defined to serve a particular group. 3. Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights is / states that these rights are inherent and God-given, and that they cannot be granted by any government. The idea of unalienable rights becomes problematic in light of the systematic denial of the "unalienable rights" of some since the beginning, because who gets to define what rights are truly unalienable? I don't like that it presupposes a creator. From a religious perspective, inherent rights are often seen as divinely granted and immutable. In contrast, a secular viewpoint might argue that rights are established through social contracts and legal frameworks, evolving with societal changes. This raises the question of whether rights are truly universal or subject to interpretation based on cultural and historical contexts. 4. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness aspirations that sound noble but ring hollow when one considers how many people were denied these very rights. The pursuit of happiness for some was built on the denial of liberty and life for others. 5. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men this concept implies that governments exist to protect these rights. But if a government denies rights to large segments of its population, then is it fulfilling its purpose? The founders envisioned a government that would protect liberties, yet this protection was not extended to everyone. 6. Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed highlights a democratic principle where authority is derived from the people's will. Yet, when so many were disenfranchised and excluded from "the people," how could this be a government by consent? 7. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it suggests a radical idea that the people have the power to change their government if it fails them. This is empowering in theory, but in practice, marginalized groups often lacked the means or power to exercise this right. The founders pushed for these changes because they were reacting against a specific set of grievances under British rule, such as taxation without representation and a lack of self-governance. They valued liberty, self-determination, and the protection of individual rights. However, these values were narrowly applied. The Declaration’s language was radical for its time, but its application was conservative, limited to the privileged few. In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence set forth noble ideals, but those ideals were, and often still are, inconsistently applied. To understand its influence today, we must acknowledge both its aspirational vision and its historical shortcomings. Only by facing these contradictions can we move toward a more equitable interpretation and application of its principles. 3

 Works Cited

 De Witte, Melissa . “How the Meaning of the Declaration of Independence Changed over Time.” News.stanford.edu, Arts & Humanities, 1 July 2020, news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/07/meaning- declaration-independence-changed-time. Lindsay, Tom. “Is the Declaration of Independence Based on a Lie?” Forbes, 30 June 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2016/06/30/is-the-declaration-of-independence-based-on-a- lie/. Accessed 5 Sept. 2024 




Here was their word salad>>>>

  Preface: I think there are several issues here: One; did you site the sources you used - 2+1 inclusive. Is your English understandable, clear, and direct. Two, did you understand the document in context of the time. While it is natural to judge the 18th Century as we'd think today - that would darken our understanding of what these documents were, what they meant, and how they really worked. Were they followed or was this just eye-wash. Finally; what was really meant / the purpose of the document for the subsequent history of the United States. *********************************** "preamble here a bit." haha divergence ... I don't understand at all .. Persuit of Justice ? 2nd sentence makes no sense at all differences within ? between what? 2nd paragraph is very confusing Is anything ever fully realized ? Again, in context the words were revolutionary. Hollow only if you expect Disneyland for free How many in the intended audience were they far from evident. Read Mayer, Milton They thought they were Free; University of Chicago, 1955 It is a study of how Germans actually felt about the Nazis ... It make the point you're trying to make (and don't) that it a matter of POV. See it for what it is. The ideas were general so that a highly fractured group of colonies could agree ... your point about slavery is valid except New England (except Conn) outlawed slavery right away ... You seem to lack the understanding of what promises were really made ... by 1830 there were no property qualifications for voting. Is this a failure even thought it was far out in front (of universal rights) of the rest of the world? Understand Context ... More these rights actually meant something, not like the French who mouthed words but still cut nobility and priests heads off. And it was widely defined for the target audience ... What you don't like isn't the question ... Even Jefferson identified as a Christian ... You're arguing "Universal" versus what some people consider "universal." Jefferson is arguing that rights come before social contracts ... Feudalism is a social contract ... he's arguing above ... and remember it's the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God meaning he's talking about religion and covering both bases Happiness - again context and before and after judgments Consent of the governed - again "really?" This gets down to what is a person argument Marginalized groups are just that, marginalized (until the market awakens and needs them) But the overall premise is there. Right now Felons in most states are Marginalized ... (and in some states not) 2+1 and you didn't cite the Declaration. I am not sure of whether you wrote this to start an argument or you really think that way. One way or another the Earth is a fallen place. People are greedy and self-centered ... but if we as a society can alleviate some of that and provide for self-governing to a large number of people ... which continue to widen the consent is that better or should we slam or denigrate the efforts of people (man - you KNEW it was gender free even then - it's a universal term for people) because they're not perfect. In the broken sentences where whole phrases were evidently missing ... you tried to set up the idea that from one POV things are great in another not-so-much. I would guide you to books that point out the Revolutionary character of the DoI and how it moved the ball forward for human rights. Unlike European "constitutions -except the British) that say much and deliver little. Look at it this way. When I was 18 I could smoke, drink and kill Vietnamese. I had to wait till I was 21 to vote. Now at 18 you can vote, but not smoke, you can still kill people wearing camo but you can't buy a pack of cigarettes. How does any of that make sense other than Utilitarian lines to make the enactment of the 3 freedoms meaningful. We, as a community, decided that 18 year olds drinking and driving was too dangerous and pushed the age up but if you can be in the military you should be able to vote. In 1786 New Jersey allow women of property to vote but discontinued it because it was too dangerous (if women could vote why not Blacks and Catholics) ... It's a process. If you had done your first paragraph better I would be more charitable ... but you didn't.

__________________________________________

Ok, teacher...

It seems that the teacher’s feedback reveals some misunderstandings and biases that overlook the main points I was trying to make in my essay. Here’s how I see it:

1. Misunderstanding of My Analysis of Historical Context

The teacher repeatedly emphasizes that the Declaration was “revolutionary” for its time and suggests that judging it by today’s standards misses the point. However, my argument isn’t about unfairly holding an 18th-century document to 21st-century standards—it’s about recognizing that even in its own time, the Declaration didn’t apply its ideals equally. My goal was to highlight the ongoing tension between the Declaration’s aspirational language and the lived realities of marginalized groups, both then and now.

• My Point of View: I understand the importance of context, but acknowledging that the Declaration was revolutionary doesn’t mean we should ignore its limitations or the selective application of its principles. I’m arguing that the gap between the ideals of “all men are created equal” and the exclusion of entire populations is significant and worth exploring critically.

2. Romanticizing the Founders’ Intentions

The teacher seems to romanticize the Founders’ intentions, suggesting that they were doing the best they could to unite a fractured nation. While I respect that perspective, it glosses over the reality that the ideals of liberty and equality were not extended to everyone—something the Founders were well aware of. This approach minimizes the voices and experiences of those who were systematically excluded, like enslaved people, women, and Indigenous populations.

• My Point of View: Recognizing the limitations in the Founders’ vision doesn’t take away from their achievements; it allows us to have an honest discussion about who was left out and why. My intention was to balance the celebration of these revolutionary ideas with a critique of how narrowly they were applied, both historically and in ongoing societal struggles.

3. Overlooking Marginalized Perspectives

The feedback seems to dismiss the value of looking at the Declaration through the lens of those it excluded, implying that historical context should protect the document from modern critiques. This attitude overlooks the importance of including multiple perspectives in our analysis, particularly those of marginalized groups whose experiences challenge the universal claims of the Declaration.

• My Point of View: I believe it’s crucial to examine the Declaration from different angles, especially from those who were denied its promises. This isn’t about rewriting history; it’s about understanding how these foundational ideals have been contested and redefined over time. By ignoring these perspectives, we risk missing a more complete and inclusive understanding of the Declaration’s impact.

4. Dismissal of Critical Analysis as Cynicism

The teacher seems to interpret my critique as overly negative or cynical, almost as if acknowledging the flaws in the Declaration undermines its significance. But my analysis wasn’t meant to tear down the document—it was meant to highlight the contradictions that have fueled centuries of debate and struggle for a more inclusive interpretation of its ideals.

• My Point of View: Critiquing the inconsistencies within the Declaration is not the same as dismissing its importance. It’s about confronting those contradictions head-on and recognizing that this document has been both a tool for progress and a source of exclusion. My goal was to emphasize that understanding these contradictions is essential if we want to make the Declaration’s principles more meaningful and equitable for everyone.

5. Questioning My Intent and Tone

The feedback suggests that my essay comes across as argumentative rather than analytical, which I feel misinterprets my intent. My purpose wasn’t to provoke or start an argument but to explore the complex ways the Declaration’s ideals have played out in American society.

• My Point of View: I wrote this to engage with the Declaration critically, not to dismiss it outright. I wanted to highlight how its language has been used, challenged, and reinterpreted throughout history. This analysis isn’t about tearing down the past—it’s about understanding how we can better realize these ideals in the present and future.

Final Thoughts

I appreciate the feedback..... but I think it reflects a traditionalist bias that prioritizes a singular, overly positive narrative of the Declaration. My essay aims to bring a more nuanced, inclusive perspective that acknowledges both the Declaration’s revolutionary impact and its significant shortcomings. By engaging with these complexities, I hope to foster a deeper understanding of how this document continues to shape—and challenge—American ideals.