This started out as another little side trip from my main thing, which as nobody recalls is allegedly about The Evolution of Organizational Structure, and which itself might never make it to organized structuresville. What prompted this little randan was an invitation to a Fourth of July pool party at which we were to "celebrate the many freedoms we have in this great country". Nothing unusual about that, or the equally common reminder that on the Fourth we ought to honor our service men and women who gave us our freedom and are fighting now to preserve it. Since we already have two special days, Veterans Day and Memorial Day, to honor those who have served our country in the military, I got to wondering how the solemnity of those days seems to be overshadowing what might otherwise be an unrestrained celebration of just being a free people.
As you may recall from my chapter on Words, or other infallible sources, god terms are catch phrases that develop meanings far beyond the definitions of the words in the term. Eventually they are repeated ritualistically, primarily to block examination of complex or uncomfortable lines of thought. To question the validity of a god term is taboo, the punishment for which is generally severe: " you are going to hell", "you are a male chauvinist pig", "you are unpatriotic", etc. . Another thing about god terms is that they are almost always wrong, ranging from over simplifications to outright lies.
When and how god terms infiltrated the Fourth of July is a complicated and probably unprovable tale, but it is clear that they were not there in the beginning. For those who might have forgotten, the holiday was originally called Independence Day in order to commemorate our then thirteen colonies signing of the Declaration of Independence from the evil clutches of the Red Coats. Right away, the holiday celebration started to get a little rowdy. The celebrations started around noon and continued into the night. Canons and muskets were fired, initially thirteen times each, there were bands playing, militia marching, bountiful dinners, speeches, fireworks--- all of which were acknowledged with "loud huzzas" by the local populace, and "the face of joy and gladness was universal". The colonists also began the tradition of drinking a toast- one for each of the state gonna-be's. I was unable to determine when this tradition faded away, but one would assume that as more and more states were admitted, at some point no one would be able to stand to make the toast.
Contrary to what the Independence Day usurpers would have us believe the military actions that came to be called the Revolutionary War did not begin as an uprising by a valiant army of citizens yearning to be free. The initial shots were fired in 1775 as the legitimate government took action to disrupt terrorist tactics and seize the arms cache of small gangs of insurgents that were holed up in Concord and Lexington. [The time warped linguistic aberrancy is deliberate, of course.] The tortuous conflict of victories and defeats, shifting allegiances, international agendas, inconsistent goals, desertions and mutinous factions over the next eight years, did end with England acknowledging America's independence. But the army of the colonies did not win that victory on their own, and without the help of France (how quickly the freedom fries folks forget) and Spain, we probably would have been soundly defeated. Our freedom was not born on the battlefield.
As pre-chaos theory thought held, ostensible steady state systems all have tiny anomalies that tend to cancel each other out, permitting predictability. This predictability is essential in order for us to make sense of the world and develop environmental adaptations that permit us to survive and prosper. That sometimes a tiny anomaly begins to coalesce with other anomalies and follows a mathematical progression to chaos has been clearly demonstrated. What causes the development of a strange attractor or exactly what a strange attractor is remains beyond our understanding---- perhaps next semester. Applying chaos theory to social interactions has had mixed success, at best. Nonetheless it is clear that some seemingly infallible systems fail, some fads go on to become new standard behaviors; some movements grow strong enough to change societies; some charismatic leaders guide us into previously unimagined landscapes. Societal strange attractors may well start with, or in the vicinity of, a single person. In more recent times, in the sense that I intend the term, Rosa Parks was clearly a strange attractor. There is no shortage of strange attractor wanna-b's, Ralph Nader comes to mind, but they don't seem to start out with that intent, and often are uncomfortable, even unaware, of the role.
While there was some level of discontent and a smattering of independence talk among the colonists in the 1700's, a large segment of the population wanted to stay part of the mother country, and remained loyal to the king throughout the war. The specific complaints of oppression against the colonists were eventually listed in our Declaration of Independence [and I think it would be a good idea for all of us to read them carefully in light of today's world], but for a long time the idea of separation remained constrained and disjointed. Not to discount Paul Revere's midnight ride, or Patrick Henry's "give me liberty, or give me death", or Washington's trip across the Delaware, but they were events in the journey to freedom, not the root of it.
James Otis was a prominent lawyer in Boston with a reputation for exceptional eloquence and a common sense approach to matters of law. He was held in high regard by the king's men and was appointed to the office of Advocate-General for the crown. By all appearances, he was not a likely candidate for rebelhood.. England had passed a number of laws called the Navigation Acts which imposed duties on commercial goods that many felt were exorbitant and unfair. Naturally the universal laws of organizational structure went into play and an underground economy developed to evade the taxes, not unlike today. The king decided to play hardball with the colonists and instituted a policy of issuing Writs of Assistance to his revenue collectors. The writs permitted the collectors to enter any person's home or business without a warrant in search of contraband. [Sound familiar?]
This so pissed off the merchants of Boston that they filed suit against the crown. The tax collectors approached their Advocate-General to represent them, only to discover that the unwarranted invasion of privacy was the bit that broke the bytes back, and Otis had become so enraged at the King's audacity that he resigned his office and volunteered to represent the merchants, declining any fee for his services. As word of his impassioned five hour appeal before the court began to spread, the disjointed pockets of resistance began to unify. It was this single instance of outrage , this strange attractor moment, that led John Adams, who was present at the trial, to declare that on that day "the child of independence was born".
['Nother one of them pesky author to reader notes. While I posit my position and thoughts in terms of my own home made "science" of chaos theory, I do so only because it makes sense to me, not as an attempt to convince anyone else that the science is truly valid. Whether what I call a strange attractor is what you call the hand of God or Karma or whatever, is of no consequence to me. I just truly believe that our nation (our species) is in serious trouble and we need all the help we can get.]
That said, it is my omniscient professional opinion that James Otis was the strange attractor at the root of our Declaration of Independence. What is so misleading about the myopic jingoism with which we view the revolutionary period is that our freedom was the result of the war, and a gift from the brave soldiers who fought for our country. Not so. The war was the result of our having declared our independence, our freedom. England could have decided that having a recalcitrant colony on the other side of the world was not worth the trouble and offered to sell us our independence for some beads and blankets. We would then have been just as independent, just as free. James Otis was not the only voice touting independence, in fact he came rather late to the concept. But something about his speech and something about Rosa Parks decision to stay seated caught hold, grew and evolved ---- leading to one group of folks declaring their independence and another group of folks declaring their equality.
[My intent when I started this chapter, way back in July, was to examine the concept of patriotism, drawing heavily on life today juxtaposed against life in the 1700's. Putting Descartes before Dehorses again, I will leave that until next time.]
As Lorenz discovered in his weather predicting efforts, strange attractors start out as seemingly inconsequential variances, but rather than being absorbed back into the prevailing pattern, somehow stick around and evolve into a countervailing force [?] that eventually disrupts the prevailing pattern. And speaking of strange attractors, I think I see one now. This suspect attractor was conceived in London on the stage of Shepherd's Bush Empire theater. Rapping between songs, Natalie Maines told a cheering crowd "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas". The phrase itself hardly duplicates the lexicological eloquence of Otis' presentation, but it signaled just as surely of change to come, and of eloquence borne out in action and song.
There is certainly nothing unique or unseemly about any of the fifteen words in the phrase, nor is there anything about how the phrase could be interpreted that would not be innocuous in comparison to many of the things then being said about the Bush. The Dixie Chicks had not been designated by the government as ambassadors or other classification that might carry with it some responsibility to support the president's views, so there was no reason to expect anything of them that would not be expected of the average citizen. The paroxysmal deluge of foaming-at-the-mouth hatred subsequently heaped on the chickadees by our countryfied gentry was, even in the best light---- strange. [So there, we have established the first half of our hypothesis that the occasion was a strange attractor. Hell, this scientific analysis stuff ain't all that hard if you set your mind to it.]
Many country music stations stopped playing their songs, they weren't invited to the CMT awards, etc.,etc.,etc. Some of the reaction, destroying piles of their CDs for example, displayed the emotional maturity of junior highschool miscreants. If gangs of protestors had broken into record store and stolen the disks they destroyed then conceivably they might have done some damage, but since the Dixie Chicks had already collected their share of the purchase price the whole white trashy exercise was simply stupid. But enough of the perfectly obvious---- we will revisit these folks next time.
So three years later the incident lives on, and I believe that the issues involved will continue to escalate. The Dixie Chicks didn't set out to be crusaders for individual freedom, and if offered the chance to become a strange attractor locus would probably have declined. Nor do they have some of the attributes of leaders like Martin Luther King or Gandhi. For one thing they are not mild mannered turn the other cheek pacifists, if you don't believe me, just as Earl. Oh right, you can't ask Earl--- He's dead. Unless>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Dixie Chicks did nothing heroic or virtuous to make them the leaders of the parade---- that's the point. They were just being everyday American citizens (well, except for being rich super stars) who were engaged in everyday run of the mill American citizen activities. They formed an opinion and they expressed it, nothing more. But throughout, they have acted much more in keeping with the original American patriots than have their jingoistic, loyalists mimicking critics. I see no point in my trying to build a case for them- word is that their upcoming documentary Shut Up and Sing does a great job of that.
I am not trying to deify the Dixie Chicks. Personally, I am a little pissed at them. I pre-ordered their Long Way Around album from Amazon, so Fedex delivered it on the day it was released. Then I heard that they had struck a deal with Target wherein each CD included a code word that would allow one to purchase concert tickets before they went on public sale, so I sprung for another copy to get my secret code. The nearest concert in the schedule was Greensboro, North Carolina, only a three or four hour drive away. So, using my magic decoder ring and eighty bucks I soon had a reservation for an aisle seat thirteen rows from center stage. Far out! Then they canceled the concert. Some gratitude for a loyal fan!
I am just hoping that I am seeing a real strange attractor in action. Next time we will look at some reasons the Dixie Chicks and you should be "mad as hell".
Postscript: When I first wrote this I was, rather desperately, hoping that Natalie's comment about Bush in London and the aftermath would turn into the strange attractor that would galvanize our citizens to take back our government from an administration that is running amok. Perhaps just to prove that some unnoticed element in the originating conditions can lead to totally unanticipated results the machinations of Chaos instead took us to a far more ominous place, turning our hero away from freedom's light and toward the dark side.
As you may recall from my chapter on Words, or other infallible sources, god terms are catch phrases that develop meanings far beyond the definitions of the words in the term. Eventually they are repeated ritualistically, primarily to block examination of complex or uncomfortable lines of thought. To question the validity of a god term is taboo, the punishment for which is generally severe: " you are going to hell", "you are a male chauvinist pig", "you are unpatriotic", etc. . Another thing about god terms is that they are almost always wrong, ranging from over simplifications to outright lies.
When and how god terms infiltrated the Fourth of July is a complicated and probably unprovable tale, but it is clear that they were not there in the beginning. For those who might have forgotten, the holiday was originally called Independence Day in order to commemorate our then thirteen colonies signing of the Declaration of Independence from the evil clutches of the Red Coats. Right away, the holiday celebration started to get a little rowdy. The celebrations started around noon and continued into the night. Canons and muskets were fired, initially thirteen times each, there were bands playing, militia marching, bountiful dinners, speeches, fireworks--- all of which were acknowledged with "loud huzzas" by the local populace, and "the face of joy and gladness was universal". The colonists also began the tradition of drinking a toast- one for each of the state gonna-be's. I was unable to determine when this tradition faded away, but one would assume that as more and more states were admitted, at some point no one would be able to stand to make the toast.
Contrary to what the Independence Day usurpers would have us believe the military actions that came to be called the Revolutionary War did not begin as an uprising by a valiant army of citizens yearning to be free. The initial shots were fired in 1775 as the legitimate government took action to disrupt terrorist tactics and seize the arms cache of small gangs of insurgents that were holed up in Concord and Lexington. [The time warped linguistic aberrancy is deliberate, of course.] The tortuous conflict of victories and defeats, shifting allegiances, international agendas, inconsistent goals, desertions and mutinous factions over the next eight years, did end with England acknowledging America's independence. But the army of the colonies did not win that victory on their own, and without the help of France (how quickly the freedom fries folks forget) and Spain, we probably would have been soundly defeated. Our freedom was not born on the battlefield.
As pre-chaos theory thought held, ostensible steady state systems all have tiny anomalies that tend to cancel each other out, permitting predictability. This predictability is essential in order for us to make sense of the world and develop environmental adaptations that permit us to survive and prosper. That sometimes a tiny anomaly begins to coalesce with other anomalies and follows a mathematical progression to chaos has been clearly demonstrated. What causes the development of a strange attractor or exactly what a strange attractor is remains beyond our understanding---- perhaps next semester. Applying chaos theory to social interactions has had mixed success, at best. Nonetheless it is clear that some seemingly infallible systems fail, some fads go on to become new standard behaviors; some movements grow strong enough to change societies; some charismatic leaders guide us into previously unimagined landscapes. Societal strange attractors may well start with, or in the vicinity of, a single person. In more recent times, in the sense that I intend the term, Rosa Parks was clearly a strange attractor. There is no shortage of strange attractor wanna-b's, Ralph Nader comes to mind, but they don't seem to start out with that intent, and often are uncomfortable, even unaware, of the role.
While there was some level of discontent and a smattering of independence talk among the colonists in the 1700's, a large segment of the population wanted to stay part of the mother country, and remained loyal to the king throughout the war. The specific complaints of oppression against the colonists were eventually listed in our Declaration of Independence [and I think it would be a good idea for all of us to read them carefully in light of today's world], but for a long time the idea of separation remained constrained and disjointed. Not to discount Paul Revere's midnight ride, or Patrick Henry's "give me liberty, or give me death", or Washington's trip across the Delaware, but they were events in the journey to freedom, not the root of it.
James Otis was a prominent lawyer in Boston with a reputation for exceptional eloquence and a common sense approach to matters of law. He was held in high regard by the king's men and was appointed to the office of Advocate-General for the crown. By all appearances, he was not a likely candidate for rebelhood.. England had passed a number of laws called the Navigation Acts which imposed duties on commercial goods that many felt were exorbitant and unfair. Naturally the universal laws of organizational structure went into play and an underground economy developed to evade the taxes, not unlike today. The king decided to play hardball with the colonists and instituted a policy of issuing Writs of Assistance to his revenue collectors. The writs permitted the collectors to enter any person's home or business without a warrant in search of contraband. [Sound familiar?]
This so pissed off the merchants of Boston that they filed suit against the crown. The tax collectors approached their Advocate-General to represent them, only to discover that the unwarranted invasion of privacy was the bit that broke the bytes back, and Otis had become so enraged at the King's audacity that he resigned his office and volunteered to represent the merchants, declining any fee for his services. As word of his impassioned five hour appeal before the court began to spread, the disjointed pockets of resistance began to unify. It was this single instance of outrage , this strange attractor moment, that led John Adams, who was present at the trial, to declare that on that day "the child of independence was born".
['Nother one of them pesky author to reader notes. While I posit my position and thoughts in terms of my own home made "science" of chaos theory, I do so only because it makes sense to me, not as an attempt to convince anyone else that the science is truly valid. Whether what I call a strange attractor is what you call the hand of God or Karma or whatever, is of no consequence to me. I just truly believe that our nation (our species) is in serious trouble and we need all the help we can get.]
That said, it is my omniscient professional opinion that James Otis was the strange attractor at the root of our Declaration of Independence. What is so misleading about the myopic jingoism with which we view the revolutionary period is that our freedom was the result of the war, and a gift from the brave soldiers who fought for our country. Not so. The war was the result of our having declared our independence, our freedom. England could have decided that having a recalcitrant colony on the other side of the world was not worth the trouble and offered to sell us our independence for some beads and blankets. We would then have been just as independent, just as free. James Otis was not the only voice touting independence, in fact he came rather late to the concept. But something about his speech and something about Rosa Parks decision to stay seated caught hold, grew and evolved ---- leading to one group of folks declaring their independence and another group of folks declaring their equality.
[My intent when I started this chapter, way back in July, was to examine the concept of patriotism, drawing heavily on life today juxtaposed against life in the 1700's. Putting Descartes before Dehorses again, I will leave that until next time.]
As Lorenz discovered in his weather predicting efforts, strange attractors start out as seemingly inconsequential variances, but rather than being absorbed back into the prevailing pattern, somehow stick around and evolve into a countervailing force [?] that eventually disrupts the prevailing pattern. And speaking of strange attractors, I think I see one now. This suspect attractor was conceived in London on the stage of Shepherd's Bush Empire theater. Rapping between songs, Natalie Maines told a cheering crowd "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas". The phrase itself hardly duplicates the lexicological eloquence of Otis' presentation, but it signaled just as surely of change to come, and of eloquence borne out in action and song.
There is certainly nothing unique or unseemly about any of the fifteen words in the phrase, nor is there anything about how the phrase could be interpreted that would not be innocuous in comparison to many of the things then being said about the Bush. The Dixie Chicks had not been designated by the government as ambassadors or other classification that might carry with it some responsibility to support the president's views, so there was no reason to expect anything of them that would not be expected of the average citizen. The paroxysmal deluge of foaming-at-the-mouth hatred subsequently heaped on the chickadees by our countryfied gentry was, even in the best light---- strange. [So there, we have established the first half of our hypothesis that the occasion was a strange attractor. Hell, this scientific analysis stuff ain't all that hard if you set your mind to it.]
Many country music stations stopped playing their songs, they weren't invited to the CMT awards, etc.,etc.,etc. Some of the reaction, destroying piles of their CDs for example, displayed the emotional maturity of junior highschool miscreants. If gangs of protestors had broken into record store and stolen the disks they destroyed then conceivably they might have done some damage, but since the Dixie Chicks had already collected their share of the purchase price the whole white trashy exercise was simply stupid. But enough of the perfectly obvious---- we will revisit these folks next time.
So three years later the incident lives on, and I believe that the issues involved will continue to escalate. The Dixie Chicks didn't set out to be crusaders for individual freedom, and if offered the chance to become a strange attractor locus would probably have declined. Nor do they have some of the attributes of leaders like Martin Luther King or Gandhi. For one thing they are not mild mannered turn the other cheek pacifists, if you don't believe me, just as Earl. Oh right, you can't ask Earl--- He's dead. Unless>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Dixie Chicks did nothing heroic or virtuous to make them the leaders of the parade---- that's the point. They were just being everyday American citizens (well, except for being rich super stars) who were engaged in everyday run of the mill American citizen activities. They formed an opinion and they expressed it, nothing more. But throughout, they have acted much more in keeping with the original American patriots than have their jingoistic, loyalists mimicking critics. I see no point in my trying to build a case for them- word is that their upcoming documentary Shut Up and Sing does a great job of that.
I am not trying to deify the Dixie Chicks. Personally, I am a little pissed at them. I pre-ordered their Long Way Around album from Amazon, so Fedex delivered it on the day it was released. Then I heard that they had struck a deal with Target wherein each CD included a code word that would allow one to purchase concert tickets before they went on public sale, so I sprung for another copy to get my secret code. The nearest concert in the schedule was Greensboro, North Carolina, only a three or four hour drive away. So, using my magic decoder ring and eighty bucks I soon had a reservation for an aisle seat thirteen rows from center stage. Far out! Then they canceled the concert. Some gratitude for a loyal fan!
I am just hoping that I am seeing a real strange attractor in action. Next time we will look at some reasons the Dixie Chicks and you should be "mad as hell".
Postscript: When I first wrote this I was, rather desperately, hoping that Natalie's comment about Bush in London and the aftermath would turn into the strange attractor that would galvanize our citizens to take back our government from an administration that is running amok. Perhaps just to prove that some unnoticed element in the originating conditions can lead to totally unanticipated results the machinations of Chaos instead took us to a far more ominous place, turning our hero away from freedom's light and toward the dark side.
Declaration of Independence'a la Dixie Chicks
Back to Dixie Chicks Table of Contents