October 10th, 2010 at 09:37pm
There may not have been a monarchy in colonial America and even post-Revolutionary America, but there was a definite social hiearchy[sp?] and not everyone was equal. Women, slaves, and freed indentured servants were at the bottom of the "equal" food chain. Also, in many American colonies, such as the New England colonies, those who did not believe in their religion weren't even allowed in. Quakers, for example, were banned from the New England colonies.
Also, I don't think you should use two people's opinions to define the American ideals. They're too expansive and broad to be summed up by two men, who were actually considered radical to many Americans in their time.
I also don't see the point of including Paine's views on religion, especially since a lot of people came to America for religious freedom [and, the only reason they were even allowed to come was so that they could make money for the king, so even the idea of America being founded on religious freedom is faulty].
If you were going to include anything from Paine, you ought to have talked about his idea of independence and a republic for a government. Those things are the foundation of the American ideal, not the "idea of intense scrutiny."
Also, Paine and Crevecoeur are not American leaders. They are readical American authors who, yes, contributed to what would make America what it is today, but not directly. The people that directly contributed were radicals directly involved in the dealings of early American government, such as the Continental Congress. People like Benjamin Franklin [who was only briefly mentioned], John Jay, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many more. Yes, it is ideal to include people like Paine and Crevecoeur when talking about the "American Man," but not to include all these other people makes the idea of the American Man incomplete.
And Paine and Crevecoeur are considered radicals, therefore they do not have the same thought process as the common colonial American man.
All this being said, most of it is my own opinion and you do not have to listen to it or respond. Its simply how I see things, similar to how this article is how you see things.
Your "side note" should not have been added. It did not pertain to the article whatsoever and you shouldn't randomly put in your opinion about an unrelated subject, because it draws attention away from your article as a whole. Also, it's irritating to the reader.