Because I am feeling militant and unrepentant this morning,

[enlightenment]

and revising my lecture for this afternoon's class -- I feel the need to share one of my favorite passages:

"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

-The Declaration of Arbroath, 6 April 1320

My emphasis because that's the bit that always gets to me . . .
Thanks for your time. Carry on!:evilgrin:

[lonestarnot]

1. Fantastic! Wish my kid was in your class!

[enlightenment]

3. Can't teach US history without discussing Arbroath --

at least I can't. So much great history. So little time. sigh.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. "Declaration of Arbroath"?

Sorry, I have no historical context in which to place this. I am guessing it has to do with one of Wales, Scotland or Ireland.

Edit: Wikipedia is my friend. :hi:

Declaration of Arbroath
The Declaration of Arbroath was a declaration of Scottish independence, and set out to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and its use of military action when unjustly attacked. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 1320-04-06. Sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots and a letter from the clergy which all presumably made similar points.

The Declaration made a number of much-debated rhetorical points: that Scotland had always been independent, indeed for longer than England; that Edward I of England had unjustly attacked Scotland and perpetrated atrocities; that Robert I of Scotland had delivered the Scottish nation from this peril; and, most controversially, that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scots people, rather than the King of Scots. In fact it stated that the nobility would choose someone else to be king if the current one did anything to threaten Scotland's independence.

While often interpreted as an early expression of 'popular sovereignty' – that kings could be chosen by the population rather than by God alone – it can also be argued to have been a means of passing the responsibility for disobeying papal commands from the king to the people. In other words, Robert I was arguing that he was forced to fight an illegal war (as far as the pope was concerned) or face being deposed.

The entry continues at the link given in the quote. Good stuff, thanks!

[enlightenment]

4. Not a bad discussion on Wikipedia. I'm always a bit

over-cautious with that source, since it's so open -- but this one looks to be a well considered handling of the topic.

I could rattle on for days on this topic, probably, and probably will rattle on for longer than my students could wish this afternoon.

Really, though, I just felt like sharing, so, you're welcome!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. I've found it to be generally reliable

While being open means that it is subject to distortion and vandalism, there are enough experts keeping an eye on any given article that such things are dealt with pretty quickly. There was an informal study (ie not scientifically rigid, more done as a class project) a year or so ago that showed the Wikipedia had fewer factual errors than, I think it was the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The Talk page behind every article, accessed by selecting the "discussion" tab, can be illuminating if you want to see how decisions are made. Particularly illustrative is the debate behind the Hezbollah article (link to page.) You can also track who changed what by selecting the "history" tab of an article.

Being a teacher, you can use the Wikipedia as an active example of how historians debate what really happened and how people coming from different viewpoints come to an agreement on how events can fairly be presented. And if you are still feeling a bit activist, you can point out the difference between the lively Wikipedia arguments and the complete opposite coming out of corporate media, both news and textbooks.

[enlightenment]

6. Thanks for the info, TechBear!

I've used it a few times in classroom, primarily to point out the differences between well-cited research and the more, um, creative variety, mostly for my survey students. I'll have to add the active debate example (which, quite honestly, I did not consider :blush: ) to my research sections!