The noun form of “Trump,” when appended to “Battle of Gettysburg,” functions as an attributive noun, modifying the phrase and, by extension, signaling a connection to or influence from the political figure Donald Trump. It indicates a perspective, interpretation, or re-examination of the historical event through the lens of contemporary political discourse and associations linked to Trump. For example, the phrase might refer to a specific interpretation of the battle’s symbolism in relation to modern political ideologies or controversies.
The significance of this association lies in the intersection of historical memory and present-day political narratives. Examining the Battle of Gettysburg in this context allows for a discussion of how historical events are selectively remembered, reinterpreted, and utilized to serve contemporary political agendas. It enables critical analysis of the ways in which the past is leveraged to shape present-day perceptions and validate specific ideological viewpoints, potentially shaping public opinion and policy debates. The re-examination prompts a valuable reflection on historical narratives and their evolving relevance.
The following sections will explore specific instances where the Battle of Gettysburg has been invoked within political discourse, particularly in association with contemporary figures and movements. The analysis will consider the potential implications of these reinterpretations, focusing on the use of historical events as rhetorical tools in modern political argumentation and the broader implications for historical understanding.
1. Political symbolism
Political symbolism, in the context of the Battle of Gettysburg and the term “Trump,” refers to the deployment of the battle’s historical significance to convey specific political messages or ideologies. This utilization involves imbuing the battle with meanings that extend beyond its historical reality, leveraging its established place in national memory to influence contemporary political discourse.
-
National Unity and Division
The Battle of Gettysburg, traditionally a symbol of national resilience and the struggle to preserve the Union, can be reinterpreted to emphasize either national unity or the deep divisions that precipitated the Civil War. In relation to “Trump,” the battle’s symbolism might be invoked to either call for national reconciliation or highlight existing societal fractures, depending on the political message being conveyed. For example, allusions to Gettysburg might accompany calls for bipartisanship or, conversely, be used to underscore perceived threats to national identity.
-
Ideological Battlegrounds
The battlefield itself can serve as a potent symbol of ideological conflict. The values and principles for which the Union fought freedom, equality, and democratic governance are often contrasted with the ideals of the Confederacy. Associating “Trump” with Gettysburg might therefore evoke discussions about contemporary ideological battles, such as debates over immigration, social justice, or the role of government. The battle becomes a stage upon which these contemporary conflicts are played out symbolically.
-
Leadership and Legacy
The leaders associated with Gettysburg, such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, provide contrasting models of leadership. The figure of Lincoln, in particular, embodies principles of moral authority and national unity. Invoking Gettysburg in connection with “Trump” may prompt comparisons between leadership styles and legacies, potentially highlighting perceived strengths or weaknesses in contemporary political leadership. This comparison can function as a form of indirect critique or endorsement, depending on the specific narrative being advanced.
-
American Identity and Values
The Battle of Gettysburg represents a pivotal moment in the construction of American identity. The sacrifices made on that battlefield are often linked to core American values such as freedom, democracy, and equality. Associating “Trump” with Gettysburg invites scrutiny of how his policies and rhetoric align with these values. This association can thus trigger debates about what it truly means to be American and whether contemporary political trends are upholding or undermining these foundational principles. The result is a re-examination of national identity through the lens of historical memory.
In conclusion, political symbolism surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg, when connected to the term “Trump,” operates as a powerful tool for shaping public perception. It allows for the framing of contemporary political issues through the lens of historical memory, influencing how individuals understand and respond to current events. The strategic deployment of these symbols can significantly impact political discourse, shaping narratives about national identity, leadership, and ideological conflict.
2. Historical revisionism
Historical revisionism, concerning the Battle of Gettysburg in association with the term “Trump,” involves the reinterpretation of the battle’s events, causes, and consequences, often to align with contemporary political agendas or ideological perspectives. This process can involve challenging established narratives, altering interpretations of key figures, and emphasizing or downplaying specific aspects of the battle’s historical context.
-
Selective Emphasis and Omission
Revisionist approaches may highlight certain aspects of the battle while omitting others, thereby skewing the overall understanding of its significance. For example, focusing solely on the tactical errors of Union generals, while minimizing the Confederate objectives of preserving slavery, alters the moral and historical weight of the conflict. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this might involve selectively emphasizing aspects of the battle that resonate with particular political viewpoints or downplaying elements that contradict them. The selective use of historical details serves to bolster specific contemporary narratives.
-
Reinterpretation of Motivations
Revisionism can involve reinterpreting the motivations of the individuals and groups involved in the battle. For instance, portraying Confederate soldiers as defenders of states’ rights, rather than as proponents of slavery, offers a fundamentally different understanding of their actions. Associating “Trump” with Gettysburg may involve similar reinterpretations, linking the battle to contemporary debates about federal power, individual liberty, and social justice. The goal is to recast historical actors and events to fit current ideological frameworks.
-
Challenge to Established Narratives
Historical revisionism often entails challenging established narratives and questioning conventional wisdom surrounding the battle. This might involve disputing the accepted casualty figures, questioning the strategic importance of Gettysburg, or re-evaluating the leadership of key figures. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this challenge can extend to questioning the traditional understanding of American identity, national unity, and the legacy of the Civil War. The re-evaluation aims to destabilize existing interpretations and create space for alternative perspectives.
-
Politicization of Historical Memory
A key aspect of revisionism is the politicization of historical memory, wherein the battle’s legacy is strategically employed to advance specific political goals. This might involve using Gettysburg as a symbol of national division or, conversely, as a call for national reconciliation, depending on the desired political outcome. Associating “Trump” with Gettysburg frequently involves this type of politicization, as the battle becomes a battleground for competing interpretations of American history and identity. The historical memory of Gettysburg is thus transformed into a tool for shaping contemporary political discourse.
In conclusion, historical revisionism concerning the Battle of Gettysburg, especially when connected to the term “Trump,” operates as a deliberate re-shaping of historical understanding. This process involves selective emphasis, reinterpretation of motivations, challenges to established narratives, and the politicization of historical memory. The result is a manipulation of the past to serve present-day political agendas, potentially distorting the historical record and influencing public perception of both the battle and its broader significance.
3. Ideological Framing
Ideological framing, in the context of the Battle of Gettysburg and its association with “Trump,” refers to the practice of interpreting the battle and its legacy through the lens of specific political ideologies. This process involves selecting and emphasizing certain aspects of the battle while downplaying or ignoring others, thereby shaping public perception and aligning historical understanding with predetermined ideological viewpoints. This framing can significantly influence how the battle is understood and utilized in contemporary political discourse.
-
Nationalism and Patriotism
The Battle of Gettysburg is often framed within narratives of nationalism and patriotism, emphasizing the sacrifices made to preserve the Union and uphold American ideals. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this framing can be utilized to promote a particular vision of American identity, often linked to notions of national unity, strength, and exceptionalism. For instance, invoking Gettysburg may accompany calls for stricter immigration policies or a more assertive foreign policy, framed as necessary to protect national interests. This framework positions certain policies as continuations of historical struggles for national survival and greatness.
-
States’ Rights and Federal Power
The Civil War, and by extension the Battle of Gettysburg, can be framed as a conflict between states’ rights and federal power. This interpretation often involves emphasizing the autonomy of individual states and questioning the legitimacy of federal intervention. When connected to “Trump,” this framing can be used to advocate for deregulation, decentralization of power, or resistance to federal mandates. For example, arguments against federal environmental regulations might invoke principles of states’ rights, drawing a parallel to the historical conflict over federal authority. This ideological framing leverages historical debates to support contemporary political positions.
-
Social Justice and Equality
Another ideological frame focuses on the Civil War as a struggle for social justice and equality, particularly concerning the abolition of slavery and the advancement of civil rights. In relation to “Trump,” this framing can be used to critique policies or rhetoric perceived as discriminatory or unjust. Invoking Gettysburg in this context may highlight the ongoing struggle for racial equality and challenge historical narratives that downplay the significance of slavery. For example, debates over Confederate monuments often employ this framing, arguing that their presence perpetuates symbols of oppression and undermines the pursuit of social justice.
-
Economic Populism and Elitism
The Battle of Gettysburg can also be framed within the context of economic populism and elitism, viewing the Civil War as a conflict between the interests of ordinary citizens and those of a wealthy elite. This interpretation often involves highlighting the economic disparities between the North and the South, as well as the role of economic factors in driving the conflict. When associated with “Trump,” this framing can be used to critique globalization, free trade agreements, or economic policies perceived as favoring the wealthy at the expense of working-class Americans. Invoking Gettysburg in this context may emphasize the need for economic nationalism and policies that protect domestic industries.
In summary, the ideological framing of the Battle of Gettysburg, particularly when linked to “Trump,” serves as a potent tool for shaping public discourse and advancing specific political agendas. By selectively emphasizing certain aspects of the battle and interpreting its legacy through pre-determined ideological lenses, political actors can influence how individuals understand the past and its relevance to contemporary issues. This framing can have significant implications for debates over national identity, social justice, economic policy, and the role of government.
4. Narrative manipulation
Narrative manipulation, concerning the Battle of Gettysburg in the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” signifies the strategic alteration or distortion of historical accounts to serve contemporary political objectives. This process involves selectively emphasizing, downplaying, or fabricating elements of the battle’s history to create a specific narrative that aligns with a particular agenda.
-
Selective Emphasis on Heroism or Villainy
One form of narrative manipulation involves emphasizing specific acts of heroism or villainy, often to paint a particular group or individual in a favorable or unfavorable light. For example, focusing solely on the bravery of Confederate soldiers while omitting the underlying cause of slavery creates a distorted image of the Confederacy. In relation to “battle of gettysburg trump,” this might involve selectively highlighting certain aspects of the battle that resonate with contemporary political viewpoints, such as emphasizing the importance of states’ rights or downplaying the role of slavery. The manipulation shapes perceptions by framing historical actors as either heroes or villains, serving specific ideological ends.
-
Creation of False Equivalencies
Narrative manipulation can involve creating false equivalencies between historical events and contemporary issues. This might involve drawing parallels between the Civil War and current political divisions, suggesting that the same underlying causes are at play. For instance, equating contemporary debates over immigration with the historical conflict over slavery presents a misleading and simplistic understanding of both issues. When connected to “battle of gettysburg trump,” such equivalencies can be used to justify or condemn certain political positions, framing them as either consistent with or opposed to the lessons of history. These false parallels distort historical understanding to bolster current arguments.
-
Downplaying or Denying Controversial Aspects
Manipulation may also involve downplaying or denying controversial aspects of the battle’s history, such as the role of slavery in causing the conflict or the atrocities committed during the war. This can take the form of minimizing the significance of these elements or outright denying their existence. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this denial or minimization can be used to sanitize the past and present a more palatable narrative that aligns with specific political agendas. For example, downplaying the role of slavery allows for a more favorable portrayal of the Confederacy, which can then be used to justify certain contemporary political positions. This suppression of controversial details distorts historical accuracy for political gain.
-
Fabrication of Historical Details
In some cases, narrative manipulation can involve the outright fabrication of historical details to support a particular narrative. This might involve inventing quotes, creating false accounts of events, or misrepresenting historical sources. While less common, such fabrications can have a significant impact on public understanding of the battle and its legacy. When linked to “battle of gettysburg trump,” these fabrications can be used to create a distorted version of history that aligns with specific political viewpoints. The creation of false historical details undermines factual accuracy and promotes misinformation to achieve political objectives.
In conclusion, narrative manipulation concerning the Battle of Gettysburg, especially in association with the term “Trump,” constitutes a strategic distortion of historical accounts to serve present-day political purposes. Through selective emphasis, false equivalencies, downplaying controversial aspects, and, in some cases, fabrication of historical details, the past is reshaped to align with specific agendas. This manipulation can significantly influence public perception, distort historical understanding, and undermine informed political discourse.
5. Contemporary resonance
Contemporary resonance, in the context of the “battle of gettysburg trump” association, refers to the ongoing relevance and perceived applicability of the historical event to present-day political and social issues. The Battle of Gettysburg, a pivotal moment in American history, gains traction within modern discourse due to its symbolic weight related to national division, ideological conflict, and questions of leadership. The “trump” modifier signals that this resonance is amplified and channeled through the lens of contemporary political debates surrounding Donald Trump, his policies, and his impact on American society. The cause is a search for historical analogies to understand current events; the effect is the Battle of Gettysburg becomes a battleground for modern political arguments.
The importance of contemporary resonance lies in its ability to shape public opinion and influence political action. When the Battle of Gettysburg is framed as relevant to contemporary issues, it allows political actors to invoke historical narratives to support their positions. For instance, invocations of national unity or division during the Civil War can be used to advocate for or against specific policies concerning immigration, trade, or social justice. The contemporary resonance, therefore, functions as a persuasive tool, lending historical weight to current debates. Examples can include invoking Gettysburg to discuss political polarization, leadership in times of crisis, or the balance between federal and state power.
Understanding this resonance is practically significant because it reveals how historical events are selectively interpreted and utilized within modern political discourse. It highlights the ways in which historical memory is mobilized to legitimize or challenge existing power structures. Challenges include the risk of historical distortion or oversimplification, where complex historical events are reduced to simplistic analogies for contemporary issues. Ultimately, the “battle of gettysburg trump” connection underscores the ongoing interplay between history and politics, where the past serves as a contested space for shaping the present and influencing the future.
6. Public perception
Public perception, when considered in relation to “battle of gettysburg trump,” denotes the collective understanding and interpretation of the Battle of Gettysburg as influenced by contemporary political discourse and, specifically, associations with Donald Trump. This perception is not a monolithic entity but rather a spectrum of viewpoints shaped by individual beliefs, media narratives, and political affiliations. A key aspect of this interplay is the cause-and-effect relationship: the invocation of the Battle of Gettysburg within political rhetoric (often linked to Trump) causes a shift in public understanding, either reinforcing existing beliefs or challenging them. The perceived relevance of this historical event is amplified or diminished based on its association with contemporary political figures and issues. For instance, depending on the news source or political leaning, the Battle of Gettysburg might be presented as a symbol of national unity threatened by division, or as a reflection of ongoing struggles against perceived injustice, with Trump either cast as a defender or a destroyer of these principles.
The importance of public perception within the “battle of gettysburg trump” context lies in its power to shape political attitudes and behaviors. A populace that perceives the Battle of Gettysburg as a potent symbol of contemporary political struggles is more likely to engage in related political activities, such as protests, activism, or electoral participation. A real-life example includes the debates surrounding Confederate monuments. When the Battle of Gettysburg is framed as directly relevant to these debates, public sentiment towards those monuments becomes more charged and politically significant. Another example includes interpretations of Lincoln’s legacy; associating Trump with Lincoln (either positively or negatively) can significantly impact public opinion of both figures, potentially influencing voting behavior and shaping historical narratives.
The understanding of public perception’s role in the “battle of gettysburg trump” nexus carries practical significance for historians, political analysts, and policymakers alike. Historians can gain insight into how historical memory is constructed and manipulated within contemporary political contexts. Political analysts can better understand how historical narratives are used to mobilize public opinion and influence political outcomes. Policymakers can anticipate and respond to public reactions to policies or rhetoric that invoke historical events. Challenges within this understanding include accounting for the diverse range of perspectives within public opinion, and discerning the extent to which associations with contemporary figures like Trump genuinely influence interpretations of historical events.Furthermore, the long-term effects on historical understanding resulting from this association remains an open question.
7. Rhetorical weaponization
Rhetorical weaponization, in the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” refers to the strategic deployment of language and historical narratives surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg to advance specific political agendas or to attack opposing viewpoints. This involves framing the battle and its significance in a manner designed to elicit emotional responses, reinforce ideological positions, and delegitimize alternative perspectives. The association with “Trump” often amplifies this weaponization, given the highly polarized political climate surrounding the figure and his rhetoric.
-
Evoking Patriotism and Nationalism
The Battle of Gettysburg, a symbol of national unity and sacrifice, can be rhetorically weaponized to evoke strong patriotic and nationalist sentiments. This involves framing contemporary issues, such as immigration or foreign policy, as directly related to the values for which Union soldiers fought. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this may entail presenting certain policies as necessary to “preserve the nation” or “defend American values,” thereby leveraging the emotional resonance of Gettysburg to garner support. For instance, calls for stricter border control can be framed as a continuation of the struggle to protect national sovereignty, drawing a parallel to the Civil War. The implication is that opposing such policies is tantamount to betraying the sacrifices made at Gettysburg.
-
Creating Divisive “Us vs. Them” Narratives
The Battle of Gettysburg, fought amidst profound national division, can be rhetorically weaponized to create or exacerbate “us vs. them” narratives. This involves portraying contemporary political opponents as analogous to the Confederacy, thus delegitimizing their views and positioning them as enemies of the nation. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this might entail labeling political opponents as “traitors” or “enemies of the people,” echoing the rhetoric used during the Civil War. Examples include framing disagreements over policy as attacks on American values or portraying dissent as a form of disloyalty. The implication is that opposing viewpoints are not merely different but are fundamentally un-American and therefore unacceptable.
-
Employing Selective Historical Memory
The strategic use of historical memory, emphasizing certain aspects of the Battle of Gettysburg while downplaying or ignoring others, constitutes another form of rhetorical weaponization. This involves constructing a selective narrative that supports a particular political agenda. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this might entail emphasizing the importance of states’ rights while minimizing the role of slavery in causing the Civil War, or vice versa. By selectively highlighting or omitting details, a distorted version of history is created to justify contemporary political positions. This distortion can mislead the public and undermine accurate historical understanding. An example includes focusing solely on tactical military aspects of the battle to avoid discussing the morality of the war.
-
Appealing to Emotion over Reason
Rhetorical weaponization often prioritizes emotional appeals over reasoned argumentation. This involves invoking the Battle of Gettysburg in a manner designed to elicit strong emotional responses, such as anger, fear, or patriotism, rather than engaging in rational debate. In the context of “battle of gettysburg trump,” this may entail using charged language, such as “sacred ground” or “lost cause,” to bypass critical thinking and manipulate public sentiment. For example, framing a political issue as a threat to the “memory” of Gettysburg can evoke a strong emotional reaction, swaying opinions without requiring logical justification. Such appeals can hinder productive dialogue and promote division.
In conclusion, the rhetorical weaponization surrounding “battle of gettysburg trump” demonstrates how historical events can be strategically deployed to advance political agendas. This weaponization involves evoking patriotism, creating divisive narratives, employing selective historical memory, and appealing to emotion over reason. Understanding these tactics is crucial for critically evaluating political discourse and resisting manipulation.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common inquiries surrounding the intersection of the Battle of Gettysburg and references to Donald Trump in contemporary discourse. These answers aim to provide clarity and context to a potentially complex and sensitive topic.
Question 1: What does it signify when the Battle of Gettysburg is associated with the term “Trump?”
The association generally signifies a deliberate attempt to frame contemporary political issues, figures, or policies within the historical context of the American Civil War. Specifically, it often implies a comparison or contrast with the themes of national division, leadership during crisis, and the enduring legacy of American values. The “Trump” addition often signals a partisan perspective or an attempt to leverage the emotional weight of Gettysburg for political gain.
Question 2: Is there evidence of organized campaigns to link the Battle of Gettysburg with Donald Trump’s political activities?
Direct evidence of centrally organized campaigns specifically designed to intertwine the Battle of Gettysburg with Donald Trump’s political actions is difficult to definitively ascertain. However, analyses of media coverage, social media trends, and political rhetoric reveal consistent patterns of associating the two, often stemming from various individual actors, interest groups, and media outlets with diverse motivations. Such associations emerge organically as historical events are repurposed for contemporary commentary.
Question 3: What are the potential risks of associating a historical event like the Battle of Gettysburg with contemporary political figures?
One primary risk is the oversimplification or distortion of historical complexities to fit a particular political narrative. This can lead to a flawed understanding of both the historical event and the contemporary issue being discussed. Furthermore, it risks exploiting the emotional resonance of a profoundly significant event to manipulate public opinion and polarize political discourse, minimizing nuanced discussion.
Question 4: How can one critically evaluate claims that draw parallels between the Battle of Gettysburg and contemporary political events?
Critical evaluation requires careful consideration of the historical context of Gettysburg, including the specific causes, events, and consequences. Claims should be examined for factual accuracy, logical consistency, and potential biases. It is essential to assess whether the parallels drawn are legitimate or based on superficial similarities. Seeking diverse perspectives from reputable historical sources is crucial.
Question 5: Does associating the Battle of Gettysburg with “Trump” necessarily indicate a partisan agenda?
While the association frequently carries partisan undertones, it is not inherently partisan. It can also be used to critically examine both historical and contemporary issues from various perspectives. However, given the highly polarized political climate surrounding Donald Trump, any invocation of Gettysburg in connection with his name warrants careful scrutiny for potential bias or attempts at manipulation.
Question 6: What are the long-term implications of repeatedly linking historical events with contemporary political figures like Trump?
The sustained linking of historical events with contemporary political figures has the potential to reshape public understanding of both. It risks politicizing history, transforming historical narratives into tools for advancing partisan agendas. Over time, this can erode public trust in historical institutions and distort collective memory, making it increasingly difficult to foster a shared understanding of the past.
The association of the Battle of Gettysburg with contemporary figures, particularly in the context of polarizing political figures, can have significant effects on public perception and historical understanding. Therefore critical engagement is necessary.
The subsequent sections will delve into specific instances where this association has manifested and its impact on historical interpretation.
Navigating the “Battle of Gettysburg Trump” Discourse
This section offers guidance on critically analyzing discussions surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg when it is explicitly or implicitly connected to Donald Trump, ensuring a more informed and nuanced understanding.
Tip 1: Contextualize Historical Parallels:
Avoid accepting superficial comparisons at face value. Rigorously examine the historical context of the Battle of Gettysburg and the specific contemporary issue being linked to it. Consider the dissimilarities as carefully as the perceived similarities.
Tip 2: Identify Motives and Agendas:
Assess the motives of those drawing the connection. Are they seeking to illuminate a complex issue, or are they primarily aiming to advance a specific political agenda through emotional manipulation or historical revisionism? Analyze the intended audience and desired outcome.
Tip 3: Scrutinize Selective Narratives:
Be wary of narratives that selectively emphasize certain aspects of the Battle of Gettysburg while downplaying or omitting others. Seek diverse perspectives and examine primary and secondary sources to gain a comprehensive understanding.
Tip 4: Evaluate Rhetorical Techniques:
Pay attention to the rhetorical techniques employed. Are appeals being made to emotion over reason? Is charged language used to bypass critical thinking? Are opponents being demonized through historical analogies? Identify such tactics to assess the objectivity of the presented information.
Tip 5: Cross-Reference Information:
Do not rely solely on single sources. Cross-reference information with multiple reputable historical accounts and analyses. Consider the credibility and potential biases of each source. Verify claims made with supporting evidence.
Tip 6: Acknowledge the Complexity of History:
Recognize that historical events are multifaceted and resist simple interpretations. Avoid reducing complex historical realities to simplistic analogies for contemporary political debates. History demands nuanced understanding, not convenient simplification.
Tip 7: Be Aware of Emotional Manipulation:
The Battle of Gettysburg evokes strong emotions due to its significance in American history. Be mindful of how these emotions are being leveraged. Recognize when appeals to patriotism or fear are used to sway opinions without reasoned justification.
Understanding these tips enables a discerning approach to the “Battle of Gettysburg Trump” discourse, fostering informed engagement and mitigating the risks of manipulation or historical distortion.
By adhering to these principles, it is possible to navigate the complexities surrounding this association, promoting a more accurate and thoughtful comprehension of both history and contemporary politics, setting the stage for a more complete analysis.
Conclusion
This exploration has dissected the “battle of gettysburg trump” phenomenon, revealing its multifaceted nature within contemporary political discourse. The analysis has addressed its function as an attributive noun, signifying a perspective or interpretation influenced by associations with Donald Trump. The examination extended to key aspects such as political symbolism, historical revisionism, ideological framing, narrative manipulation, contemporary resonance, public perception, and rhetorical weaponization. These elements illustrate how the Battle of Gettysburg, a pivotal event in American history, is repurposed and reinterpreted to serve present-day political agendas.
Understanding the dynamics of this association is crucial for fostering informed civic engagement. The strategic deployment of historical narratives demands critical scrutiny to guard against manipulation and distortion. Continued vigilance and thoughtful analysis are necessary to ensure that historical memory serves as a foundation for reasoned discourse rather than a tool for political division. The intersection of history and politics requires constant examination to preserve the integrity of both domains.
