Thomas Jefferson Misquote
05.01.06Thomas Jefferson: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
I’m really sick and tired of seeing people falsley attributing a quote that Thomas Jefferson has never said. Thats the great thing about the internet. Nobody needs facts anymore. All you gotta do is find some forum, where some clown spoke out his @$$, and people take it as fact.
Read the urban legend scoop on it too.
And I always see this quote places. Places that appear legite, or well-thought-out.
The first feller to bring it to my attention, was George, in a comment he left awhile back. He pretty much said what urban legend says, but he paraphrased it nicely.
Sorry dude, but Jefferson never said that. It was first said by moonbat historian Howard Zinn in 2002, in an interview that appeared in the progressive rag “TomPaine”.
Howard Zinn: “While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act”
TomPaine is of course named after the revolutionary nut who fled the US, denounced George Washington, got charged with Treason in England, fled to France where he became a French citizen and member of their National Convention, before they tossed him in jail. James Monroe bailed him out, so he fled back to America, where he was ostracized and died in poverty.
So I’m posting this in hopes that anyone else who googles the quote, might learn the truth.
You’ve shown by taking this canard down, and responsibly citing your sources, that the “innernets” works just fine and dandy. Of course a falsehood can be proliferated at breakneck speed, but the same holds for the truth that corrects it, and therefore for the righteous embarrassment inflicted on whoever misspoke. If we were pondering about whether we should go in a reverse direction — from a rapidly communicating society to one in which information travels much slower — no one could possibly assert such a change would make the information any more true. It would therefore be ludicrous to propose, now that information is travelling faster, that we’re being exposed to more falsehood.
What I see happening is that each individual is much more responsible for the verity of whatever tidbit he or she chooses to pass on. A generation ago, it was commonplace to say “I heard on the grapevine…” and the speaker was regarded as having done everything he could do, to verify what might actually have no truth whatsoever. How could anyone blame him, then? Today, when something flies into someone’s inbox, over your signature, you’re regarded with a healthy amount of derision and skepticism — and that’s before your chestnut is exposed as being false. Once the legend is debunked, you’re chastised even more. The taboo against spreading rumors like this, is actually increasing. We’re growing up.
By the way, that’s a great quote by Tom Paine. It exposes the definition of “patriotism” as purely a matter of opinion, since it’s a purely subjective exercise to say a given position comports with “the principles for which your country is supposed to stand”. Given that, it’s a 100% legitimate position for the liberals to insist America should be blamed for every little empty belly and stubbed toe all the world over, and that by blaming their own country, they’re being “patriots.” It also legitimizes the position of their antagonists, that such blame-America-first liberals fall within the definition of that notorious word, “unpatriotic.” Those who say this, are simply saying the blame-America-first liberals are articulating principles incompatible with those for which the country is supposed to stand.
Of course anyone may disagree with that, but how could they call it an illegitimate viewpoint? Without inspecting the reasoning one uses to infer what this country is “supposed” to be doing, you can’t.
# May 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 amNice job at copying and pasting someone else’s work on here.
# May 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 amCare to explain yourself, Genocide?
# May 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 amAnd to Morgan, that is quite the articulate addition to the conversation. And I would just like to say… awesome use of the language, dude.
I’m aware of how much misinformation is sown and harvested. It’s just that particular quote, being misattributed to that particual historical figure that burns me, over the other misinfo. The reason being, because folks think because they can throw Jefferson’s name out there, and the double-edged word ‘dissent’, that they are true patriots, and their rhetoric is with America’s best interest at heart. So as long as they are shielded by Jeffersons name, you cannot question their intent, or wether or not it is truely good for our great country.
# May 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmWell you know, there’s ANOTHER way you can take this sucker down without getting into an argument about who said what. You can attack the logical weakness of what’s being said.
If dissent is the highest form of patriotism, wouldn’t it be even higher to dissent against the dissent? Jefferson would have to be quite a jerk to insist people should dissent against the country, and simultaneously criticize people who dissented against his dissention. (In fact, he did both those things, and some of his contemporaries did regard him as a bit of a jerk…but the principle stands.) What about dissent against dissent against dissent?
You see where I’m going with this; sooner or later, any faction of people assembled for a cause, have to stop dissenting and start getting something done. If they don’t, then what’s being described is no longer “patriotism,” but more like, pure chaos. I think everyone would have to agree the American Revolution was something more than just that.
Thank you for your kind words.
# May 3rd, 2006 at 8:12 pmThats actually a very good point. One that I overlooked.
# May 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm