Does anyone happen to know what the phrase “together we rise and united we fall” means? I mean, the first part makes perfect sense, but why would we fall if we are united? You’ve probably heard the saying “United we stand, divided we fall” which also makes perfect sense.
Yes, I know I should probably ask Amy MacDonald, but I have a feeling she won’t answer, so I’ll ask you, my dear friends of the English language…
I’ve never heard of this phrase.
The strange second part was the name of a US TV sitcom from last year that was mercifully cancelled after 8 episodes.
Does this help?
https://www.letras.mus.br/amy-macdonald/the-rise-e-fall/
What is the other saying? Something like, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The poem is basically about a rise to power, but discarding all your friends after to reach your goals.
Well, I still can’t say why “united we fall” should imply that unity is maintained through corruption. To me, the term “united” has primarily a positive connotation. When referring to corruption, a phrase like “we are chained together by corruption” is much more appropriate than “united.” I mean, after all, it is the United States of America, isn’t it? So, what is the connection between ‘being united’ and ‘falling’? Maybe the only person who can answer the question is Amy?
For some reason poets and lyricists don’t like explaining the meaning. They like to keep people guessing and come up with their own interpretations.
I interpreted this as referring to humanity collectively. Like this is a human trait. I suspect the word united was picked simply because it was a play on the original saying. I don’t think it’s meant to be literally united.
I had exactly the same idea, because then the sentence makes perfect sense. No matter what we do, everything ends up affecting everyone in one way or another, since we all belong to the same race and live on the same planet.
Torsten, I have this interpretation: There is difference between ‘together’ and ‘united’. While the former may mean the latter, the latter doesn’t necessarily mean the former. There need not be unity in being united. Viewed from this perspective, it may be that we are likely to be more successful when we are together than when we are united!
Well, I think the founders of the United States of America intended the word “United” to mean “together” in the sense of “one great nation.” After all, the United States is probably still the most powerful country in the world, although there are a variety of processes that affect the “power” of states, and power is never absolute or permanent.
Not really. Most people would not consider the EU to be a nation. The original US was less of a nation than the EU. Without going into a lot of the history, you can see some of it in the wording.
They often used the wording, these united states ( as opposed to The United States ). There is a clear distinction between the two.
“League of friendship and intercourse” and “Perpetual friendship” were also used in the founding documents.
Interestingly, Canada ( known as the Province of Quebec at that time ) was included in that League of friendship, and potentially could have been part of the US if they chose to do so. The provisions were there and it would have been automatic if they chose to join.
The original US didn’t have have a central government as we think of government. They didn’t have a president, or any central leader for that matter. They had a convention of delegates to discuss common issues. They had a president to preside over that convention, but there was no leader of the states collectively.
The states were united in a cause to break from England. Otherwise they were almost entirely autonomous. What a lot of people don’t realize is that they still are.