Daar zit je dan. De zon is weg, de regen terug. Stervenskoud onder de dekens want de kachel opendraaien is te duur. Het is weer herfst. Het begin van de melancholische maanden van het jaar. Wat heb ik die gemist. Mijn zomer was veel te zonnig en blij. Ik heb geen een keer gehuild. Vreselijk. Ik hou van pijn en van lijden. Dat klinkt misschien erg masochistisch, maar zo is het misschien ook wel. Als ik terugkijk op tijden die vol zaten van verdriet word ik spontaan blij en moet ik glimlachen. Als ik in bed lig te janken moet ik ineens ook lachen. Het is een gevoel van absurditeit. Van hoe onbelangrijk alles is, maar hoe we er toch zo in mee leven. Het is niet een angstig gevoel, maar vreemd genoeg juist een gevoel van comfort. Alsof niks je iets aan kan doen. Het maakt namelijk toch allemaal niet uit. Als je nooit lacht terwijl je huilt, raad ik het je zeker aan. Het is een heerlijke acceptatie van het leven: een acceptatie van het huilen, van de herfst regen, van de verdomde kou en de absurditeit ervan. Het is gelijk ook een afkeer, van het afschuwelijke idee van onze westerse samenleving, van het onuitputtelijke streven naar een leven vol blijdschap, plezier en vrede. Dit klinkt als een zeer redelijk en respectabel streven. In werkelijkheid is dit een streven naar matigheid en een realisatie ervan: fastfood, 9 tot 5 kantoorbaantjes, het massale hoger-onderwijs. We zijn allemaal gaan streven naar het grootste totale goed. We zijn daarmee vreemdgegaan op het leven met utilitarisme. We hebben de kwaliteit verlaten voor de kwantiteit. We zijn vergeten dat voor goed, kwaad nodig is. Voor vrede oorlog. Voor leven dood. We hebben ons toegewijd aan de een en ons onverschillig gelaten tot de ander. Laten we dus allemaal wat masochistischer zijn. Geniet van het verdriet van de herfst. Huil hard onder de dekens en lach nog harder. 

“Zonder haat is er geen liefde” en “voor vrede heb je oorlog nodig”. Het idee dat je voor het positieve het negatieve nodig hebt. Welbekende clichés waar ook ik het helemaal mee eens ben. Maar alhoewel veel mensen (waaronder ik) het eens zijn met dit soort stellingen, lijken we er verder niet veel meer mee te doen. Wijsheid die we maar laten liggen op de zolder om stof te verzamelen dus.  

Ik vind dit zonde. Ik vind dat we wat moeten doen met deze inactieve wijsheid. Dat we deze cliché tegenstellingen ook in de praktijk toelaten. Dat we niet zo gierig zijn naar de aarde met onze wijsheid. Dat we niet zo typisch Nederlands zijn.  

Om dit te doen, denk ik dat we allereerst moeten beginnen met een mate van bewustwording, van dit soort tegenstellingen van goed en kwaad. Dat we de noodzaak voor beide van deze kanten kunnen zien. En daarna, dat we deze beide kanten van dezelfde munt ook accepteren. Dat we niet bang worden van de één en daardoor alleen focussen op de ander.   

Neem bijvoorbeeld onze huidige cultuur hier in het Westen en onze obsessies met succes. Onze overtuigingen en gevoelens dat we van de middelbare school moeten slagen met alleen maar 8’en; dat we onze master halen (op zijn minst); dat we een vaste baan vinden; een vrouw en kinderen krijgen; dat we sporten; een gezond dieet hebben; mediteren, en ik kan zo wel doorgaan. Dit laten we gelijk allemaal prachtig zien op internet, om te tonen hoe geweldig het allemaal altijd gaat. En we zijn niet de enige. Ook de anderen in onze omgeving doen hetzelfde, waardoor het idee alleen maar versterkt wordt. 

Dus dan moet je zelf ook de schijn voortzetten. Terwijl je gelooft dat jij gewoon degene bent die gek is, als het juist niet goed gaat. Dat jij de buitenstaander bent. Dat jouw negatieve emoties of onsuccesvolle gebeurtenissen totaal abnormaal zijn. Ook al zijn ze juist normaal. 

Ik denk daarom dat we veel meer ruimte moeten creëren voor deze emoties en belevenissen. Dat als je het echt wilt, je zonder schaamte op Instagram kan posten over je seizoensdepressie. Of als je extra open bent, zou je net zo goed je burn-out van je 9-5 baan zou moeten kunnen delen met je kennissen. We zouden dit soort gevallen moeten accepteren. Accepteren dat er tijden kunnen zijn zonder succes. En dus verder ook accepteren dat er tijden kunnen zijn van verdriet. Dat we na de dood van een familielid niet blij doorgaan met onze dagelijkse levens. Maar stilstaan. Stilstaan en rouwen en huilen. Wegdoen met die afschuw en schaamte van het lijden. 

We moeten het dus ook niet altijd proberen weg te helpen; Niet bij elke hoofdpijn een paracetamoltablet innemen. Niet de tranen wegvegen. Gewoon laten. Het lijden laten meanderen op de manieren waarop lijden meandert. Het je naar onbekende plaatsen laten brengen van jezelf en je daarna naar nieuwe hoogten leiden. 

Zo zouden we al veel minder gierig zijn met onze wijsheid. Maar kunnen we niet nog guller zijn? Een stap verder nemen? We proberen namelijk zo vaak succes, geluk en vrede na te streven en weg te blijven van mislukking, verdriet en onrust. Maar als dit allemaal verschillende kanten van dezelfde munt zijn, wat houdt ons dan tegen om af en toe die munt om te draaien? Waarom zouden we alleen streven naar geluk en niet ook naar verdriet? 

Zelf ga ik af en toe naar het kanaal tussen Middelburg en Vlissingen. Er zijn daar een paar bankjes waar het knaal een bocht maakt, waar ik dan ga zitten. Ik ga daar zitten om gewoon te zitten. Ik zet mijn telefoon uit of laat hem thuis. Ik breng geen eten mee en ook niets om mee te schrijven. En ik zit daar gewoon. Ik zit daar om mezelf te vervelen. Ik kijk naar het water dat uit de sluizen komt van de Singel; ik kijk naar de meeuwen op de palen; ik kijk naar de nieuwe bomen aan de overkant; ik luister naar de bladeren boven me en probeer ze te onderscheiden van de auto’s; ik kijk naar de voorbijgaande fietsers. En dan ga ik me vervelen. Lijden. En langzamerhand voel ik alles om mij heen; de koude wind uit Vlissingen die langs mijn nek komt; de bladeren die mijn oren inmiddels verdoven; de krijsende meeuwen. 

Het is fantastisch vreselijk. Ik raad het iedereen aan. Ga naar die bankjes en ga daar zitten; staar een uur lang naar een muur terwijl je op een kruk zit; sta dertig minuten stil op de stoep in een onbekende woonwijk. Probeer het en laat de afkeer om het te doen juist de motivatie zijn. Laten we zo allemaal wat meer lijden. Wat meer openheid geven. Wat meer acceptatie tonen. En wat meer masochisme in onze levens brengen. 

It was a late Wednesday afternoon, I think. Nevertheless, it was still scorching hot. There laid a heavy smog above the entire city. It apparently hadn’t rained in weeks and the wind was dead silent. Down in the streets, there was an orchestra made up of street vendors, honking cars, beggars and businessmen on their way back home, arguing over the latest politics with each other. I sat in the shadow on the balcony of a room. I had rented it for the week, not knowing what I wanted to do here. I couldn’t pay for much, and I’ve always been bad at haggling, so I had to settle with a room in a seemingly crumbling flat, around the outskirts of the city. I sat outside because the AC wouldn’t work, and when it did, it would only heat up. I didn’t seem like the only one with the problem. Across from me was another building; almost everybody sat on their balconies. Or, well, nobody was actually sitting down. A lot were arguing, some with their neighbors, others just with themselves. I felt it too. I wanted to find things or memories about which I could be angry. I tried continuing with my book, but I kept rereading the same few lines. I drank a sip from my lukewarm water and immediately spit it out again. It annoyed me, and I threw the bottle down onto the streets; not looking whether it hit someone. I tried to find more reasons to get annoyed or angry, yet I couldn’t. I was actually rather satisfied with everything so far. It felt odd; I felt anger yet nothing to be truly angry about. I just stared out to the other building looking at what the other people were doing. The sun was going down and now both buildings were fully laid under a shadow. 

Only one column of apartments, all the way on the left side of the other building was spared. My eyes were pulled to one of the balconies at the top. A girl was lying in a chair. She had a gentle smile on her face as far as I could see. Her eyes were closed, and her head was swaying slightly from side to side, up and down. It was hard to hear, but I think she was listening to Vivaldi’s Spring. She took a small sip from a glass of water. She seemed just as satisfied with life as I was, more so. She wasn't even bothered by the heat and the noise. 

She stood up and it looked as if she said something, yet she just looked out into the sun. She turned away from the balcony again, with her eyes closed. Then she leaned back.

I turned away and walked downstairs. “केवल आपात्कालीन स्थिति के लिए” a sign said on the elevator. There were a lot of stairs, but I took my time. After all, she wasn’t going anywhere. I got into the chaotic street and tried crossing five or so times, but each time a car or moped nearly hit me. Eventually, I managed to get across. Nobody seemed to notice her, and neither would I if I were simply walking on the street on a warm and busy day. You couldn’t see her face, because she was lying on her stomach. I turned her over and you still couldn’t. An ambulance and a police car arrived without sirens. 

A week later, late in the evening, when some paperwork had been signed, I was standing in a crematorium. I had no idea why I was even there. I don’t think I really cared for her; I hadn’t even read her name on the papers. I did read that I was right about her listening to Vivaldi’s Spring. It’s one of my favorites, together with Moonlight Sonata, specifically the third symphony. No one else had shown up. There was only a man from the crematorium, citing lines from a book. I didn't understand a thing he said. He was done rather quickly. And immediately after citing his last line, he pushed a button on the furnace and left through a backdoor. A moment later I heard a slight buzzing noise coming from the machine. I stayed there, sitting in a chair in the corner of the room, for about two hours. When the buzzing noise stopped, I supposed that that was it. I walked out, the same way the other man had done. I saw him smoking on the opposite side of the street, while also on his phone. I asked for a cigarette from him. He didn’t seem to understand what I said, but he understood what I wanted. He gave me one and I left.

"Yes, yes, come now. Give me the paper."  

"Alright sir, my apologies. Why in such a rush though?"  

"Don’t call me sir, Simon."  

"Alright Mikhael, but why the rush?"  

"For god's sake, leave it!"  

He's a nice enough guy, but I can't stand his weather talk. Especially in the mornings, but he's the only guy that still sells the morning paper with the actual hard puzzles. It was already 9.07 am and Francis would leave in 31 minutes, so I had to be quick. I ran over to the other side of the street, where Pablo was sleeping on the air vents. I gave him a push with my feet, and he looked at me with his frowning red eyes.   

"Paper?", I said.  

He stayed down and moved his arm very precisely to a cardboard box and he pulled out a paper. It was from the fifth of March 1991. Then he closed his bloodshot eyes again. The paper was moldy, but the puzzles were left blank. Only one of the sudoku's had some pencil markings on it, without any actual numbers filled in. I rushed over to the park. I saw Francis, sitting together with Fiza, playing the Alekhine. My usual chair at the middle of the fountain was taken, so I sat on the left side. So far it had already been a horrible day. I wanted to kill myself, but I was too weak as usual. I thought of jumping into the fountain and somehow drowning in the 20 centimeters of water, and I thought of jumping in front of one of those stupid motorized bikes that scammed you for all your money. I'm not so sure if that would kill me either, but if it did, it would have the extra benefit of traumatizing them for life and hopefully causing them to stop riding those god-forsaken bikes. They're even worse than the green scooters. They're easy enough to throw into the river. I tried finishing the pencil-marked sudoku, but I was interrupted. Some imbecilic American tourists wanted me to take a photo of them by the fountain.   

"Fuck off. And take my paper with you if you don’t mind", I told them.  

I just gave up my sudoku, and the rest of that day.   

We live in a world which is as small as our own home. We have furniture from Sweden, clothes from India, oranges from Spain, dishwashers from Germany and our best friends from the about 191 other countries in the world. This brings with it not just the material products which these countries are known for, but also their differences in things like culture, compared to our own country. These bring with it side-effects, like assumptions about those other countries and cultures. 

Assumptions are, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, “Things that you accept as true without question or proof.” People often deem these assumptions as bad, and not just these, but much more. Yet they are not inherently bad, they can often times even be extremely useful, which is why we should not immediately personally condemn people for having them. 

Take for example children gossiping about a girl’s clothes. They might tell each other that that girl is simply weird, without actually knowing that she lives in a poor home. The people gossiping will then tell it to others who will also believe it. Or, on a country-wide level, where the politicians on tv only always talk about how great their own country is compared to others. The population watching them on tv will start thinking in the same way, without actually ever hearing good evidence for it. These things influence what people think, without them knowing it. There the milieu is at fault by socially conditioning people to take up beliefs and assumptions. 

The world in which we are born is unfathomably complex. In our modern day democratic society we do not just have to make decisions about our town, not just about our country, but even in the case of the EU, about practically an entire continent. All these things contain layers upon layers made up of ideas, norms, religions, laws, economics, philosophies, ad infinitum. To have a fully nuanced view of all these things and more, is humanly impossible. It is then no surprise that we, and society as a whole, make assumptions to turn the world into something more manageable to comprehend. These assumptions do not just concern subjects like race, but they go down to the simplest level. When we see someone walking on the street with a police officer, whilst it could be a bank robber. It is highly unlikely though, which is why we make the assumption that that person is a police officer. But, this shows that assumptions are not bad of themselves, they can even be very useful for practicality’s sake. 

We should not personally blame people, and even society, for having assumptions. That is because the people themselves are often not even aware of the assumptions they have, because they have been given to them by society as a whole. Even still, we cannot really blame the society either. The world in which we live is so unexplainably complex, that to have a perfectly nuanced view of that is humanly impossible. It is part of what it means to be human, to not be able to know everything. To compensate for this we make assumptions that give us a superficial view of the world, but a view at least. This does not mean that we should not strife to correct assumptions. Rather, we should see that they are not inherently negative and we should take argument with the assumption instead of the person holding it.  

He is always there, creeping into every thought and every action. Yet, I know not who he is. It is a stupid question: “who is death?” Yet, I keep asking it, like so many other questions. It is all too human to want to explain them all. Though I know the absurdity of these questions, and of trying to come to answers, I do not stop. Who is death? Death is shy. Death is cowardly. He never dares to show his face. He only dares to whisper. He whispers through the everlasting infliction of suffering onto every human being on earth. In that way, death is always sitting besides us. Sometimes pulling at our arm and screaming in our ear, and other times just gently caressing our shoulder. Even when we think he is not with us, he is. In our most intensive paroxysms of life, he is still there. He is more than there. 

He is the prerequisite for life. Without death, we could never begin to live. We could never fear an end. Without an end, something is of no good. Could you really love, if you knew that you would never not love? Could you really swim in the sea, if you knew that you would never not swim? Could you really enjoy the cold sea, if you could not yearn to go back? Without an end, joy is no good. And, without an end, suffering is no good. Without death, life is no good. But I still don’t know who he is. He is beside me, but he is also not. I can never touch him. I could try, but that is risky. Would I be faced with darkness or with light? The religious say the light. Although it does not seem more than a guess with hope. Others say the darkness. Which seems like a cruel trick, but a realistic one. Whether they are correct or not, I will not try to assert, how much I would like to do so anyway. Rather, I will take the darkness, so that I might seize the day. And, if the religious are in the right, I shall seize that day too.

“God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him.” The famous words of a dead man. Sadly for him, by writing “God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him” he did the opposite of what he wanted. He should have changed the second part of the sentence. Because by killing God, he revived God. God was dead, God did not remain dead, and we have revived him. Before (and for some still) God gave virtue directly. Through Jesus and the Bible they were thought the most important principles and from those they would lead their lives. Through them they gained the courage to live. Then the Enlightenment changed people’s views on God, and many saw existential flaws in God’s existence. Then the dead man with his famous words called for the death of God. He did so because he believed that because of our development in thought, we would no longer be able to co-exist with the idea of God. The dead man called for the creation of values by ourselves, not by God. So we tried and we are trying still. But we still haven’t let go of God, no. Rather, we have often times done the opposite. Entire lives have been given to God, exactly by men like the dead man. They have laughed at God, ridiculed him, pointed out all of his clear flaws. They have been made angry by him. Prompted to action. They have been given meaning by God. And thereby they have given him new life. By destroying God, they have created a new God. An anti-God. A God that opposes God, but that still gives meaning. Rather than directly, God now gives meaning indirectly. The bible is no longer a book of virtue, but rather a book of vice.  

Even though the Enlightenment thinker John Locke lived in Europe, through globalization, his political philosophy still managed to get across to the Thirteen British Colonies by developing seafaring technologies and an Atlantic book trade. In the colonies, it became settled in the political atmosphere. This caused these ideas of equality, liberty, and property to directly influence the American Revolution, and become clearly visible in texts like the Declaration of Independence. This shows the immense power that globalization holds, not just over physical objects, but also over the thoughts and actions of people.  

More than two hundred years ago, the iPhone and the plane did not yet exist. Still, ideas and people managed to traverse the globe and influence areas far away from their homes. This was done through trade, travel, war, and many other ways. This process, where different parts of the world become increasingly connected, is often called globalization. One such example of globalization was the accidental discovery of the Americas for Europeans in 1492, after which large parts of the Americas were colonized (Steger, 2020). More than two hundred years later, in 1776, the American Revolution took place. The Thirteen British Colonies in North America revolted against Great Britain (van den Brand, 2020). 

One of the main influences behind this revolution was one person, namely, John Locke. He was one of the most influential philosophers of the Enlightenment, a period during the 17th and 18th centuries, when people were responding and going against previously held dogmatic beliefs, like those of the Catholic Church. These thinkers like Locke, and others like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Hume, Descartes, and Kant, tried instead to use logic to get to their beliefs (van den Brand, 2020). 

Locke hereby contributed hugely to the development of political philosophy, amongst other fields. Nowadays, he is regarded as “the father of liberalism” and his political writings have had a long-lasting influence, including on the American Revolution. which can most clearly be seen in his ideas that come back in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. Ironically enough, and in another example of globalization, Locke did not come from the colonies, nor did he live there. He was born in and lived in England, an ocean away, on a separate continent (McDaniel, 2009).  

The objective of this essay is then to understand how it was possible that Locke’s ideas were able to have such a strong impact so far away from him. To do so, globalization will be used as a lens through which to view these events. The main question that follows is then: How did globalization enable John Locke’s political philosophy to influence the American Revolution? To answer this, three smaller subquestions will be posed, namely:  How was Locke’s philosophy able to get to the colonies?, How did Locke’s philosophy become incorporated into the political atmosphere in the colonies?, and How did Locke’s philosophy come into form in the revolution? 

Prior to the 18th century, the Age of Discovery had taken place. This was a time, between the 1400s and the 1600s, when European nations were taking to the seas, in search of new wealth and knowledge. This went hand in hand with developments in technological fields like navigation and shipbuilding. These two aspects mainly facilitated this early stage of globalization and allowed the Americas to be discovered. In the centuries after this, globalization developed further (Briney, 2020; Voorhies, 2002). 

After the Age of Discovery, countries yearned for more and colonized larger land areas (van den Brand, 2020). The population of the colonies grew from a few thousand around 1620 to more than two million around 1770 (Rodriguez, 2007). After this process of colonization, countries started a process of imperialism during the 18th century. Countries wanted more than direct influence over their colonies. They also wanted influence over the ideologies of these regions. The British had strong feelings of superiority and felt an obligation to bring their morals and knowledge, to the ‘uncivilized’ regions and peoples of the world (van den Brand, 2020). 

This went hand in hand with further developments in shipbuilding and navigation, which built upon the progress from previous centuries and significantly decreased shipping times (Tipping, 1998). Around 1500, it took two months to cross the Atlantic, while around 1700 it took half that time (Ulvlog, 2015). 

Many of the ships going to the colonies had books with them, which formed a flourishing book trade between the colonies and Britain leading up to the revolution. These books held within them the new ideas forming in Europe during the Enlightenment, including those of John Locke. Readers in the colonies were able to get updates from Europe almost simultaneously (Lundberg & May, 1976). The British government did censor certain books that it deemed unfit for readers, like those that went against the government (Amory, 2007). This could have included those of Locke, as he was a controversial thinker at that time, and he was even forced to flee to the Netherlands to escape political persecution (Mack, 2020). Yet, many of these censored books, which could have included those of Locke, still managed to get to the colonies through an underground book trade (Amory, 2007). And aside from the imperialist motives, there were also religious reasons for the flourishing book trade, as a large part of the population of the colonies was protestant. This meant that there was an understanding of printing, reading, and writing because of the focus on it religiously, which gave reason to import books (Amory, 2007; Mark, 2021). 

Because of the presence of Protestantism, education in the colonies also developed. Literacy rates improved, many new colleges were created, and their curricula changed to include more mathematics, science, history, and politics. This would have given the students and professors access to works from the Enlightenment, including those from Locke, and would have helped with settling in Locke's ideas in the political atmosphere (Robson, 1985). 

What also helped was the very well-connected system of (news)paper communication. Papers took over stories from other papers from neighboring towns, leading to an extremely wide spread of information, reaching hundreds of kilometers across the colonies. These papers, but also many pamphlets, allowed the spread of revolutionary ideas (Parkinson, 2015). And although the Patriots, supporting the revolution, did not form the majority of the population (Calhoon, 2008), it could be argued, as Claude Lévi-Strauss (1961) does, that writing holds power over speech, and because the Patriots made use of a lot of writing, that they were able to gain more influence because of that (Amory, 2007).  

Many of the authors of these writings ended up becoming central figures in the revolution, many of them founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson (Middlekauff, 2005; Kramnick, 2019). Jefferson himself very often referred to Locke in his writings (Jefferson, 1825) and can also be cited as having said "Bacon, Locke, and Newton are the greatest three people who ever lived, without exception.” (Setton, 2015, para. 5). James Otis, the Patriot who came up with the then and now famous phrase "No taxation without representation,” also referred to Locke in his writings (Engler & Scheiding, 2005) and many other Patriots quoted Locke during protests (McDaniel, 2009), hence Joseph Loconte says, "There was no philosopher who was quoted more often than John Locke by the American revolutionaries” (Allen, 2021, para. 3). These references to Locke were often about his belief in equality. This is to be seen in the phrase “No taxation without representation,” as it makes clear that the Americans, because they pay taxes, just like the British, should also be equally represented in the government of the United Kingdom. Other references are to Locke’s beliefs that people have inalienable rights, like the right to liberty and to property. That is because these ideas went against the actions of the British that increased taxes, and so took away from the property of the Americans and from their liberty (McDaniel, 2009).  

Even most Loyalists, people that wanted to remain under British rule, accepted Locke's theories (Cincotta, 1994). This included William Franklin (the son of Benjamin Franklin), seen as the leader of the Loyalists (Roos, 2021).

When the revolution took place between 1776-1783, John Locke's influence was most clearly seen in the writings that were produced during that time. Many tracts and pamphlets were used during the war, just like before it, which contained references to Locke (Engler & Scheiding, 2005). These writings helped to unify the Patriots under a common cause/idea (American Antiquarian Society, n.d.).  

Locke's influence is seen best in Thomas Jefferson's writings like in his Notes on the state of Virginia, Summary View of the Rights of British America (Kessler, 1983; Keough, 2008), and most importantly in the Declaration of Independence. The declaration was written in 1776 by Jefferson and then handed to Congress which edited and officially declared the revolution. 

Locke's influence on the declaration comes mainly from: A Letter Concerning Toleration and Second Treatise of Government. In these he states that all people have the right to life, liberty, and property (Goforth, 2019). This comes back in the declaration in the form of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (US, 1776, para. 2) and like Locke, it mentions that these rights are inalienable and belong to everyone. Locke also holds that everyone is equal, that there should be a division of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of government, and that the citizens of a state should be allowed to rebel against their government if it does not function for their benefit. All these beliefs come back in the declaration (US, 1776; Stern, 1966; Goforth, 2019). 

John Locke was a central figure of the Enlightenment in Europe, yet his influence did not stop there. His ideas managed to cross the Atlantic Ocean and settle in the Thirteen British Colonies in North America. This was able to happen through ever-developing seafaring technologies, as well as through a flourishing book trade. After that, his ideas spread through the colonies through an intricate (news)paper communication system and were supported by growing educational institutions. Locke’s ideas on equality, liberty, and property, then managed to grab a hold of the people, especially those in politics, as the colonies were becoming increasingly strained with taxes from their British ruler. Eventually, the Revolution broke out and the colonies issued their Declaration of Independence. In this piece of writing, as well as in many others, Locke’s political influences were also clear.  

These developments show the process of globalization, a process of increasing interconnectivity between regions and peoples around the globe, and how it finally enabled John Locke’s political philosophy to influence the American Revolution. This influence is not just something physical, but it shows the ability of globalization to also shape the minds of people and shape them so much as to lead them to action, to a revolution.  

Bibliography

Allen, V. (2021, June 10). How John Locke Influenced the Founding, and the Advice He’d Give America Today. The Daily Signal. https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/10/how-john-locke-influenced-the-founding-and-the-advice-hed-give-america-today/ 

Amory, H. (2007, April 16). A history of the book in America the colonial book in the Atlantic world. The University of North Carolina Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3202038 

American Antiquarian Society. (n.d.). The News Media and the Making of America, 1730-1865. American Antiquarian Society. https://americanantiquarian.org/earlyamericannewsmedia/exhibits/show/age-of-revolution/spreading-news-of-the-war 

Briney, A. (2020). A Brief History of the Age of Exploration. Thought Co. https://www.thoughtco.com/age-of-exploration-1435006 

Cincotta, H. (1994, January 1). An Outline of American History. United States Information Agency. https://www.amazon.com/Outline-American- HistoryHowardCincotta/dp/B000ZC4B4O  

Duckett, B. (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. Reference Reviews, 22(3), 22-23). https://doi.org/10.1108/09504120810859710 

Engler, B., & Scheiding, O. (2005). Key concepts in American cultural history: from the Colonial period to the end of the 19th century. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. https://doi.org/10.1515/ANGL.2007.172 

Goforth, B. (2019, July 4). How John Locke Influenced the Declaration of Independence. The John Locke Foundation. https://www.johnlocke.org/john-locke-and- the-declaration-of-independence/  

Greene, J., P., & Pole, J., R. (2000). A Companion to the American Revolution. Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116749.2003.00017.x 

Keough, J., C. (2006). Thomas Jefferson and John Locke: America’s Co-Founders. Elon University. https://elonuniversity.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15446coll2/id/31 

Kramnick, I. (n.d.). Lockean Liberalism and the American Revolution. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/history- by-era/road-revolution/essays/lockean-liberalism-and-american-revolution 

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1961). Tristes Tropiques. Hutchinson & Co. https://www.negrophonic.com/pdfs/triste%20tropics.pdf 

Locke, J. (1990, May 1). A letter concerning toleration. Buffalo, N.Y. :Prometheus Books. https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Concerning-Toleration-Great- Philosophy/dp/0879755989 

Lundberg, D., & May, H., F. (1976). The Enlightened Reader in America. American Quarterly, 28(2) 262-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/2712353 

Mach, E. (2020, March 12). The Essential John Locke. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/essential-john-locke 

Mark, J., J. (2021, April 12). Religion in Colonial America. World History. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1726/religion-in-colonial-america/ 

McDaniel, R., A. (2009). John Locke. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1257/john- locke#:~:text=Often%20credited%20as%20a%20founder,the%20U.S.%20Constituton%20that%20followed 

Parkinson, R., G. (2015, September 3). Print, the Press, and the American Revolution. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.9 

Robson, D., W. (1985, August 19). Educating Republicans: The College in the Era of the American Revolution, 1750–1800. Praeger. https://doi.org/10.2307/1869277 

Roos, D. (2021, October 7). 7 Famous Loyalists of the Revolutionary War Era. History. https://www.history.com/news/loyalists-revolutionary-war  

Steger, M., B. (2020). Globalization a very short introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198849452.001.0001 

Stern, K., D. (1966). John Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Cleveland State Law Review, 15(1), 186-195. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3019&context=clevstlrev 

Tipping, C. (1998, November). Technical Change and the Ship Draughtsman. The Mariner’s Mirror, 84(4), 458-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1998.10656717 

Ulvlog, J. (2015, November 27). Time to cross the Atlantic – 500 year history. Outrunchange. https://outrunchange.com/2015/11/27/time-to-cross-the- atlantic-500-year-history/ 

United States of America. (1776, July 4). The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America. United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.013.33571 

Van den Brand, I. (2020). Geschiedenis werkplaats. Noordhoff Uitgevers. https://www.noordhoff.nl/voortgezetonderwijs/geschiedenis/geschiedeniswerkplaats 

Voorhies, J. (2002). Europe and the Age of Exploration. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.