Origins [edit ]
The term dates from the mid-19th hundred in the american english context. [ 1 ] Advocates for abolition of slavery argued that the institution was contradictory to the United States Declaration of Independence ‘s statements that “ all men are created equal ” and possessed natural rights to “ life, familiarity, and the pursuit of happiness. ” Proslavery opponents countered that the Declaration was a collection of inspirational statements intended for rotation, preferably than a concrete hardening of principles for civil company. Rufus Choate, a Whig senator from Massachusetts, likely brought the terminus into general sermon in his August 1856 public letter to the Maine Whig Committee. In the letter, Choate expressed fear that antislavery Whigs, inspired by the Declaration ‘s “ aglitter and voice generalities, ” would destroy the Union. [ 2 ] The letter – and particularly Choate ‘s give voice – became the topic of a lot public argument in the northern press. however, it is unclear whether the phrase was originated by Choate or Franklin J. Dickman, a judge and legal scholar of that era. [ 3 ] Abraham Lincoln, in an April 6, 1859 letter to Henry L. Pierce, criticized political opponents of the day who slighted the foundational principles of Thomas Jefferson as “ glittering generalities ”. Lincoln asserted that Jefferson ‘s abstract ideals were not bare palaver, but the “ definitions and axioms of release club. ” [ 4 ] The terminus then came to be used for any set of ideas or principles that are appealing but nonspecific. In the 1930s, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis popularized the term as one of its “ seven propaganda devices ” .
Qualities [edit ]
A glitter generalization has two qualities : it is undefined and it has positive connotations. Words and phrases such as “ coarse estimable “, “ reform “, “ courage “, “ majority rule “, “ exemption “, “ hope “, “ patriotism “, “ force ”, are terms with which people all over the populace have brawny associations, and they may have trouble disagreeing with them. however, these words are highly outline and ambiguous, and meaningful differences exist regarding what they actually mean or should mean in the real world. George Orwell described such words at duration in his test “ Politics and the English Language “
Reading: Glittering generality – Wikipedia
The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them respective different meanings which can not be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not lone is there no agree definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is about universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it : consequently the defenders of every kind of government claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one mean. Words of this kind are much used in a consciously corruptible manner. That is, the person who uses them has his own individual definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like “ Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, ” “ The soviet weigh is the freest in the populace, ” “ The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, ” are about always made with captive to deceive. early words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are : class, totalitarian, liberal, reactionary, equality.