Monday, March 28, 2011


   I apologize for my absence (if anyone noticed). I away pursuing a potential new "gig" and spending some time with family and friends as I was able. The break from the virtual world was not unwelcome, but I am back for the moment...

   I was thinking about the juxtaposition of John Adams to most all of his peers in Adams' realization (or hope?) that what he was involved in during the mid-late 1770's would likely be historic. At times Adams seemed obsessed with being "important" and "relevant". John Adams was absolutely important and relevant in retrospect, but he is overshadowed by "lesser" figures in our American history like Paul Revere and Patrick Henry.

   My question is this:

   Is it better to have lived in the moment, unaware, and contribute something forever remembered in that moment?


   Is it better to have lived aware of your moment in history unsure what to do with it?

   It seems to me it may be easier to be a hero for a single act, or by being an influential extremist (Revere and Henry).

   Adams, on the other hand, defended the British Soldiers of the Boston Massacre in 1770, authored the Braintree Instructions opposing the Stamp Act of 1765, handed the writing of The Declaration of Independence to Thomas Jefferson, and ultimately became the second President of The United States. While being a perpetual realist, John Adams is arguably among the more forgettable founders of the United States.

   So I ask...

   Is it better to have lived in the moment, or to have lived aware of your moment and/or what to do with it?

No comments:

Post a Comment