Independence?

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
--George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1945)

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X
--From the inscription on the Liberty Bell, originally known as "Independence Bell" or the "Old Yankee's Bell", that comes from Leviticus 25:10, "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.“


Coming soon to this country--July 4, in fact-- is Independence Day: a day to wave the flag if there ever was one.

I have been thinking about this concept of “independence.”

I notice that our Declaration of Independence speaks of nations assuming among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. It also includes, “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 statement is followed by, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

Wikitionary give this definition of independence: “The state or quality of being independent; freedom from dependence; exemption from reliance on, or control by others; self-subsistence or maintenance; direction of one's own affairs without interference.“

Wikepedia has this:

Independence is the self-government of a nation, country, or state by its residents and population, or some portion thereof, generally exercising sovereignty.
The term independence is used in contrast to subjugation, which refers to a region as a "territory" —subject to the political and military control of an external government. The word is sometimes used in a weaker sense to contrast with hegemony, the indirect control of one nation by another, more powerful nation.
Independence can be the initial status of an emerging nation (often filling a political void), but is often emancipation from some dominating power. It can be argued that independence is a negative definition: the state of not being controlled by another power through colonialism, expansionism or imperialism. Independence may be obtained by decolonization, or by separation or dissolution.
We, as individuals and as a country, are very proud of our independence. However, this passage from Wikipedia should give us second thought. Independence for ourselves and for our country, but what about others and their countries from us? Shouldn’t we, as the great nation, keep other countries under our influence? I don‘t think so.

Let’s look at what is going on at present.

We have supported, especially by our actions, including our military aid, the State of Israel and its Occupation over the Palestinians who have been denied their own rights and land. In March 2003, we invaded the sovereign state of Iraq and still have a military presence there. Following 9-11, we invaded the rather failed state of Afghanistan and are now escalating our troops there. (Not to mention that we had supported insurgents there in the eighties in resistance to the Soviets and then deserted them.) We have been sending drones over Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, killing and displacing many there and encouraging their own country to do so. (This is all not to mention our many troops stationed at military bases all over the globe.) The Shia Islamic nation of Iran has recently had an election of which the results are in doubt and the people are rising up which in turn has been followed by the clerical regime cracking down. To our credit, our president is staying out of it, but has denounced the violent crackdown. (The Iranians still remember that in in 1953 we overturned their duly elected president and put in our own man, the despotic Shah, in his place.)

I do believe that we need to support human rights and independence, but I do not believe that war is the answer. I know that to some that sounds very naïve, but I am even saddened that our own independence was gained by violent revolution. I just noticed that Howard Zinn in an article called, “A Just Cause [Does Not Equal] a Just war,” in The Progressive of July even questioned this use of violence. (The issue is not online yet, but the magazine’s Website is here.) I think of Gandhi and his use of ahimsa (nonviolence) and satyagraha (truth force) in ending British rule over his India. I also think of King and his use of those principles in helping his African-Americans obtain their civil rights in this country.

In 2006, CODEPINK posted a page online and still there that gives passages for July 4 talking points. I would like to give some of them here for reflection.

James Madison wrote in his Political Observations of April 20, 1795:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
The then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in a speech to Congress on July 4, 1821 said of the United States:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Finally, Rep. Barbara Lee in a speech to Congress on September 14, 2001 opposing the Post 9-11 Use of Force Act said:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions around the world.
This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.
September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.
I know that this use-of -force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today-let us more fully understand their consequences.
We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted.
We must not rush to judgment. For too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire.
Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslim, Southeast Asians, and any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.
Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.
As we approach Independence Day, maybe besides our own independence, we should think about the independence of others and how to get there. Maybe we should wave a pink flag for peace. Maybe we should even think seriously about implementing true energy independence--green energy and conservation.

As the biblical Apostle Paul told the Philippians, “ Think about these things.”