“An Asylum for Mankind (May 1775 – July 1776)” presents the period leading up to the Declaration of Independence as uncertain, contested, and shaped by fear, violence, and competing interests. How does this portrayal of 1775–1776 compare to the versions of the Revolution implied by Jill Lepore and Newt Gingrich? Which elements of the documentary align more closely with Lepore’s view of the past as contingent and unstable, and which elements—if any—support Gingrich’s emphasis on moral clarity and national purpose?
Author: admin (Page 2 of 13)
According to Gingrich, where does the United States come from, what holds it together over time, and what gives it moral authority? What role does the Declaration of Independence play in his argument?
Both Jill Lepore and Newt Gingrich argue that the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence matters deeply — but they imagine that importance very differently. How does each author define what is at stake in the Semiquincentennial? What do they believe the commemoration should do for the nation, and what kinds of historical complexity does each author foreground or sideline in making that case?
Lepore suggests that the meaning of 1776 is not fixed but is continually reinterpreted, staged, and fought over. How does “Revolutionary Whiplash” illustrate the relationship between historical commemoration and present-day political power? In your answer, consider at least one example from the essay where the past is being mobilized to serve contemporary aims.
<map name="image-map">
<area target="_blank" alt="Why origin stories?" title="Why origin stories?" href="https://usoriginstories.middcreate.net/schedule/why-origin-stories/" coords="96,126,222,251,228,127,160,53,167,46,237,74,258,306,227,361,173,408,138,382,100,398,50,410,47,365,83,360,136,320,79,220" shape="poly">Paul D. Miller’s description of a “cultural or nationalist” view of American identity emphasizes the role of Anglo-Protestant traditions. How does this perspective challenge or reinforce the idea of America as a “nation of immigrants”? What are the implications of this view for contemporary discussions of diversity and inclusion?
Ross Douthat and Paul D. Miller highlight a tension between universal and particularist definitions of American identity. Which of these narratives do you find more compelling in explaining the nation’s history, and why? Are these perspectives mutually exclusive, or can they coexist?
Jill Lepore argues that American origin stories are dynamic and shaped by political imagination and contestation. In what ways do you see this dynamism reflected in contemporary debates about citizenship and democracy? Can you think of a recent example where a particular version of an American origin story was used to address a political or cultural issue?
What do this week’s (and this semester’s) readings reveal about the power of origin stories to foster collective identity? Must such origin stories erase or displace the experiences of others? Can you think of any origin stories that we have studied that do not contain fictive elements or partial truths?
Why are the Odanak and Wôlinak Abenaki First Nations expressing dissatisfaction with Vermont’s state recognition of the Elnu, Koasek, Nulhegan, and St. Francis-Sokoki Abenaki tribes? In a recent article from the Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont Abenaki leaders defended their claims to identity. Chief Don Stevens of the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk in the Abenaki Nation stated, “”Part of this whole controversial or place-based issue is because people outside our place are coming to our home and telling us how we belong or how we don’t belong.” After reviewing the article, do you find the arguments presented by the Vermont Abenaki leaders convincing? Why or why not?
