The month of July, specifically the fourth, presents a unique learning opportunity, particularly for educators with progressive viewpoints. In the past, my approach for the summer sociology course involved having the students engage with significant historical texts. These included Frederick Douglas’ profound address, ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?’ and the Paul Robeson rendition of the ‘Ballad for Americans’. A subsequent task for the learners was to extract the citizens’ obligations, as mentioned verbatim in the Declaration of Independence. Today, such an assignment might land me in hot water, possibly leading to job termination. Nonetheless, the liberating truths evident in such radical texts are of greater significance in our current times.
As the country inches closer to a precipice of what could almost be described as fascism, understanding the deeply integrated, multiracial essence of our revolutionary history becomes a powerful defense mechanism against looming autocracy. This type of knowledge, which is under threat because of the recent dismantling of programs promoting Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion, remains critical, although not independently sufficient. The prerequisite for action is underlined and it is here that the guidance provided in our foundational document becomes applicable.
Most people can recite the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence underpinning the inalienable rights imparted by the creator to all humans, encompassing Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. However, a relatively smaller section of the populace comprehends and responds to the consequential passage: the people’s right, and indeed their obligation, to modify or entirely overthrow a governing structure that obstructs these very rights. In such situations, the people ought to found a new government, underpinned by principles and organized in methods that they deem most conducive to their safety and happiness.
The 56 revolutionaries who mutually endorsed this powerful document weren’t satisfied with only stating these radical views but highlighted the immediacy of challenging and eliminating despotic rule by invoking it as a responsibility by the citizenry. As per the declaration’s noted context, following a period marked by unrelenting exploitation and unjust actions with a clear intent to impose absolute despotism, it becomes the indisputable right and duty of the people to resist such a government, proposing new safeguards for their future.
This kind of revolutionary zeal, reminiscent of the Spirit of ’76, finds its reflections in the widespread protests of 2025. Scores of individuals, in the millions, took to American streets, channeling the vision and seemingly the exact language used by our founding fathers, criticising the contemporary president’s repeated infringements.
The grievances raised concern the establishment of an unchallenged authoritarian rule over the states, backed by an exhaustive list of supposed transgressions. These include the deliberate obstruction of the judicial process, or the unchecked influence over the appointment of judges. Moreover, accusations include the creation of redundant offices and the deployment of numerous officials to bother our citizenry and deplete their resources.
Complaints extend to his maintaining of standing armies domestically during times of tranquility without obtaining the necessary sanction from our legislatures. Another claim highlights an attempt to make the military unaccountable to and dominant over the civil powers. Further, critics allege that he has denuded the nation’s safety network and cultural skeleton by drastically slashing funds intended for various key societal programs.
The amassed grievances against the President seem to draw eerie parallels with those once held against King George. The supposedly self-evident conclusion being drawn defines the President, similar to a despotic monarch, by actions that are deemed unsuitable by nature for a leader of a free populace. The overarching impression is that a leader embodying such characteristics lacks the legitimacy needed for the leadership of a free and independent people.