Thanks for Everything!

I think it's incredible that in the U.S. we have an entire holiday, a whole day devoted to cooking, eating, and hanging out with family.  Not that we don't do that on many other days as well, but it's so great that the goal of Thanksgiving is to just slow down and enjoy a meal (or several, depending on the left-over situation).

Very rarely do I ever give thanks for everything.  Sure things like health, success, and safety are the big ones.  But I really don't thank God for everything in between, the hard stuff that helps me get to where I am. 

- To do well on a test, I need to study, and now that I'm in college I need to study big time.
- To sleep well and be healthy I need to exercise, eat good food, and manage stress. 
- To do laundry I need to find that perfect time when nobody else is doing theirs.
- To make money I need to work. 
- To really appreciate all I have I need to miss it.

Being in college has helped me to appreciate my family so much more.  While during the school year and summer I was around them all the time, now I have to schedule visits and weekend trips to see them.  Granted I only live 1/2 hour from here, so it's pretty easy.  Thanksgiving was the perfect combination of cooking up a storm, then doing very few productive things for the rest of the day.  After lunch we all had homemade pumpkin pie, listened to my brother and his girlfriend play accordion and banjo, and watched movies like "Fantastic Mr. Fox".  An awesome day.

Thanks to all of you in AmCon.  When I signed up for this class I really didn't know what I was getting myself into.  I'm so glad I've been able to meet all of you and hear your ideas.  Hoyme is such a fun place to live because of all of you.  Good luck with your finals, and with the rest of your year!

I really am thankful for everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  College has been quite an adventure, and it seems that it keeps getting better every day.

getting ready for the final

I went through my blog and answered the questions on Moodle.  This helped me put some ideas together and see some similar themes coming out of my writing.  So far I have my ideas in bullet point form just to organize my thoughts.

1.  recurring themes and connections
- personal freedom to do what one wants
- lack of restrictions and obstacles, but more than this too
- freedom and power demand responsibility
- fought for and protected
- freedom of land and space to explore and settle
- freedom of upward mobility and self-improvement

2.  good conversation
- asking questions and never being "done" with a topic, idea, or question
- studying and reading in-depth and in different ways, with different "lenses"
- hearing other people's ideas, really listening
- debate and don't just try to agree on everything, celebrate diversity

3.  famous figures
Cullen and "The American Dream"
- "American Dream": upward mobility, still ambiguous because everyone has a different interpretation, like a national motto
- good to recognize biases in writing (ex: most writers don't give much credit to Puritans' good qualities)
- "The Good Life": happiness, health, safety, financial stability or even wealth, godliness

Benjamin Franklin
- academic, loved to read, loved buying books
- humility and modesty as part of list of virtues he tried to acquire and practice
- always wanted to improve himself and progress in his life
- good connections, networking
- jack-of-all-trades: politician, writer, scientist, inventor, etc.

What about the Poor?

In Morgan's "Slavery and Freedom:  The American Paradox", the issue of poverty is brought up.  This is one of those ideas and issues that I get really interested in.  Seeing and hearing about poverty makes me wonder:

How did these people get into this state of poverty?
Is anyone or anything at fault for their condition?  Who or what?
Is it possible to understand their situation or "put yourself in their shoes"?  Or is it impossible because you don't have similar experiences to draw from?
Is it possible to really end poverty?
How do the wealthy view the poor?  Why do they see them that way?
Is it wrong to put oneself into the role of caregiver or philanthropist?
Is the idea of charity valid, or demeaning?

There are at least three views of poverty presented in this chapter.  Jefferson mistrusted government and thought he couldn't be free if he had debts to anyone.  He worked really hard to pay off his debts so he could be a "free man" in the sense that he doesn't owe anyone anything.  To be poor is to rely on others for charity, help, work, or goods (143).  John Jocke is known for his belief in the right to revolution in the protection of liberty.  This only applies to those with liberty and power, namely the wealthy.  Since the poor don't have liberties of the wealthy to begin with, they don't have the right to revolution.  Instead pf revolting, they should become a steady supply of urban work (146).  Madison wondered if it is possible to eliminate the poor or lower class at all.  Can poverty be wiped out?  How?  There always needs to be a "lower class", so how low is too low?  What should change so the poor are at least in a better situation?  It's surprising that these three men, all of whom were in the upper-middle class of upper class, have extremely different views towards the poor.

Poverty is scary, especially for those who live it every day of their lives.  It's also scary for the future of rapidly developing countries all around the world who just aren't prepared for ever-increasing population.

Jefferson was a slaveholder??

Although I may have learned in previous history classes that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder, it must have just not stuck with me.  Now in this class I'm starting to see in inconsistencies and hypocrisies embedded into the much simpler version of history that I remember most.  And it wasn't just Jefferson, but Madison and Washington too.  Most of the wealthy landowners and influential politicians had slaves.

Although I can't think of any moral justification for owning another person, slavery at that time did make economic sense.  Without slave labor, Virginia would not have been able to be so successful with tobacco.  Also, wealthy landowners didn't have the time to keep up with their own property, garden, or care for livestock.  Without slavery, the first settlements and colonies would mostly likely have crumbled fairly quickly.

In Upton's "An American Icon" he describes Thomas Jefferson's life and property.  His large estate was kept up by many slaves, but he wished to deny their presence to his guests, and even more so probably to himself.  Even though he needed slaves to run his property, he's rather not see them.  This could be part of a widely held racist point of view.  It could also be a little guilt.  He fought for freedom for the settlers, but not for slaves who had little to no freedom.

Tea Party Editorial: Green Grass Grows

Here is my editorial about the Tea Party!  My dense fact is grass.  I really have no idea how or why this idea came into my head.  But I'm glad it did, because it helped me think about some of my interests and passions like the environment, politics, and psychology.  Well here goes, probably the longest blog post I've ever write in my life, or will ever write:

Freedom of Growth and Independence: Prairie, Lawns, and Astroturf

　
In the beginning there was greed, God, and glory. The Pilgrims wanted to make a decent living, escape religious oppression, or make a name for themselves. There was also grass. The freedom of natural growth and expansion is illustrated in colonization and modern lawns, but the origins of the Tea Party movement aren’t all natural.

The first settlers in America wanted the freedoms they were denied in Europe. The abundance of land let people explore and finally settle down. In “The Puritan Reading of the New England Landscape”, Belden Lane describes how they went from wandering in “placelessness” to finding places of “destined occupation”. At first, many settlers saw nature as wild and foreboding. It wasn’t until they “tamed” nature for uses like agriculture that they saw it as “…safe and placid, unlikely to hurt or disturb”. In “Common Landscape of America”, John R. Stilgoe describes this as a very romantic view.

In general, the colonists wanted their own land and little interference from government. The new land allowed them to exercise their new religious and economic freedoms. In “A History of the American People” Paul Johnson reminds us that colonial America was the least taxed country in history. This gave colonists more disposable income to better their standard of living. A man could make money, avoid paying taxes, and enjoy his earnings with his family. Colonists got upset when the British government increased taxes and interfered with their dream.

What could be more idealistic than the American Dream? Surely everyone’s individual dream is vastly different, but most include health, wealth, and happiness. In general, there is an American drive for upward mobility and financial stability. “The American Dream” by Jim Cullen discusses the idea that anyone can get ahead, make money, be self-sufficient, have a good job, and take care of one’s family. While Benjamin Franklin strove to make money so he could do good for the community, many make money for their family. This growing tendency for individualism and privacy is seen with the grass lawn.

A lawn looks very different in suburbia than on college campuses. Nearly every household has a manicured grass lawn, like a miniature golf course or farm. Owning property is important for most Americans who can pass it on to their children. Individual households with clearly defined property lines reflect how Americans have become more secluded and concerned about their personal freedoms and rights. College campuses have very different landscaping. As illustrated in William H. Pierson’s “American Neoclassicalism, The Idealistic Phase”, the University of Virginia has a large green space in the center of campus for students to gather as a community. In both environments people can enjoy the freedoms the land has to offer.

Though the Tea Party movement has natural growth, its origins are far from grass roots. One of the landscapers is Dick Armey, Conservative leader of the action group FreedomWorks. He claims that liberal groups like MoveOn employ the same techniques in getting support. However, the Tea Party’s top financial contributors are longtime party fundraisers, oil tycoons, and Wall Street financiers according to the Washington Post. They had a significant impact on the 2010 elections in getting more Republicans in office. This money helped political organizers reach out to the average Americans the party claims as its base. In reality, large donations are much easier than door-to-door fundraising and grass roots organizing. Ever since the first pilgrims arrived, there has been an urge to own land and live privately and independently. Only when those with abundant cash plant the seeds of change are others able to help the movement grow.

Grass’ roots extend deep into the soil and keep the plant grounded. Prominent members of the modern Tea Party use this image to claim that the movement is “grass roots”. Membership grows naturally and has deep roots with average, middle class American citizens. Drawing on the Boston Tea Party’s anti-tax demonstration, this movement is about reducing taxes and government’s overall power and influence. However, sometimes what looks like grass is actually Astroturf. Sometimes buying fake grass may be cheaper because it doesn’t need mowing and doesn’t grow weeds. Most homeowners prefer to feel natural grass beneath their feet.

Architecture and the Environment

The ideas brought up in David Orr's article "Architecture and Education" were really exciting for me.  It seems like our personal ideals, like protecting the environment don't always get translated into action.  Managing what we value is difficult because there are so many factors affecting what we actually decide to act on.

His decision to build a school was pretty huge.  He wanted the students that were all helping to have a feeling of locality, knowing where they are and how that affects them.  The building wasn't going to be generic or boring, because that would take away from the educational goals in mind.  Some of the goals were to make students aware of how the natural environment works and how they affect it.  The building was made taking into account many of the negative consequences of using certain materials or methods.  The designers tried to build it in a way that wouldn't directly of indirectly cause harm to other people or the global natural environment.  Orr admits that this is an extremely difficult task, since the true cost of a material or method isn't always known.  Most of us don't even know exactly what the working conditions are for the people who make the clothes we wear.  It's an impressive task to design a building with these large-scale issues in mind.

There are some really cool things happening now for sustainable architecture.  Now there is LEED, a "internationally recognized green building certification system"(http://www.usgbc.org/) that measures many different ways a building affects human and environmental health.  It was started by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and is really successful, especially with large corporations who want to show (or convince) their consumers that they care about the environment.

LEED has also been successful in schools, following the same types of methods that Orr and his team did.  For example, my high school is LEED certified, but I'm not sure at which level.  Here is my school's website if you want to know more about the design process:
http://district196.org/ses/

Declaration as a Story

In Stephen E. Lucas's article "Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence" it talks about the specific stylistic choices that make the Declaration so effective.  One of the most effective things Jefferson did was use very intentional subjects and pronouns.  Americans are labelled as "one people", which makes them seem unified and harmonious.  On the other hand, the British are "another" people, almost like an afterthought.  This makes the reader immediately connect with the Americans and feel opposed in some way to the British.  Simplifying these two different groups into these two names makes it seem like a story, where the "one people" are the protagonists and the "other" people are the antagonists.  Stephen says a common interpretation of the Declaration is that of a "...patiently suffering people courageously defend[ing] their liberty against a cruel and vicious tyrant".

The introduction starts out broad and general, giving the setting to this story.  Then the grievances are like a story's plot, the major problems introduced to the protagonist.  The last paragraphs are the Americans taking charge of their destiny and playing an active role in their future by declaring independence.  Then it ends strongly with a huge sense of finality, that the Founding Fathers' decision is final and the right thing to do.

In his book "Style", Williams gives advice about writing very actively.  The Declaration follows his advice very well.  He says to first start off with a noun, a person, place, thing, or idea that the reader is familiar with.  Then use an action verb, preferably in the present tense.  Put the more confusing or complicated part of the sentence at the end.  Even though the Declaration has some lengthy and complex sentences, it is very clear sounding and pretty easy to understand.

Interpreting the Declaration of Independence

Reading Davidson and Lytle's article "Declaring Independence" really helped me start to understand the document.  Since it is a pretty short document and to-the-point, I was tempted at first to just gloss over it.  There really is a lot in there, and many ways to look at it.

These authors suggest reading the document, or any document really, several times in order to understand it in different ways.  First, they suggest a first run-through.  This is when you get an overall idea of what the document is about.  Look for surface content, or the basic facts in the document.  Also note the structure, how it's laid out and broken up into separate paragraphs.

After studying what is said, consider what is not said.  What details are not included?  Why is there only one author and not several?  What grievances might the colonists have against the British king that aren't mentioned in the declaration?  Does that make their argument stronger or weaker?  Are there any grievances that the King would have against the colonies that would weaken their argument?

Next it's helpful to look at the context of when the declaration was written and how it works for a particular social situation.  Are more than one audience addressed?  At some points it seems like the colonists themselves are the audience, and at other times Britain and other countries.  Did the authors and contributors exaggerate certain points to strengthen their argument?  It that moral or right?  Why have other peoples used the declaration as a blueprint for writing their own declaration?  History repeats itself, and people continue to be oppressed, to rebel, and to declare independence.  Maybe the declaration of independence is a universal document whose basic principles can be applied to any group of people.  People have interpreted the document as both a historical work and as a source of strength.

Land vs. Tea Pt. 2

This blog post will be a follow-up to my last post, which is about the various concerns the colonists had towards the British government.  Some were upset about taxes, and some just wanted more land.  Then again some had both concerns.  Here is DeAne's comment to my post:

Karin,
Is it possible that various groups of people were willing to collaborate in a revolution although they were motivated by distinct concerns? If so, does that make for a stronger or a weaker movement?
LDL

I really appreciate feedback like this, especially a comment that makes me think.  One thing I often do that I'm trying to avoid is over-simplifying things, making them seem more black-and-white than they really are.  It can make life a lot easier if there's a good guy and a bad guy, agreed-upon definitions, and little disagreement.  But this can also make life incredibly boring.  In high school at the Minnesota Zoo, and especially now in college, I'm working on diving into the inconsistencies, differences in opinion, and different viewpoints that are all a part of studying history.

It is definitely possible, and I think probable that the groups were willing to collaborate.  Although they each had different concerns, most colonists shared common goals of getting more (or even total) independence from Britain, and taking charge of the territory.  At first this seems to make them a weaker movement, since everyone's views are a part of it and it's not a unified force with one spokesperson or one message.  People's feelings and opinions are all over the place.

But just like diversity is crucial for ecologies or even human population, diversity of thought was important in the movement towards independence.  If there's only one specific type of a certain animal living in tough conditions, chances are that the population will die off.  If there are many variations of the same kind of animal, then the population can resist more natural or anthropogenic things like disease or natural disasters.

The differences in opinion about independence from Britain fueled a healthy beginning of a new democracy.  It wasn't one founding father who's radical ideas were shot down by Britain.  Instead there was power in numbers, power gained after extensive debate and compromise.  "All or nothing" didn't work anymore as a mindset because so much was at stake.  Because many people were heard, their argument got stronger and more valid and lead to independence.

Land vs. Tea

We all know the catch-phrase of the American Revolution:  "No Taxation Without Representation!"  I remember watching School House Rock in 6th grade and hearing this phrase over and over again.  My impression then was that most of the colonists were fed up with how Britain was handling the colonies.  They shouldn't have to be taxed for things like tea if they can't even vote and participate in the government that's making these decisions.

Reading "Unruly Americans" by Woody Holten made me think differently.  Sure many colonists were miffed about taxes.  But the "Founding Fathers", those who had the most influence on the British government and society at that time, had other reasons as well for becoming an independent nation.  The British government drew the Proclamation Line, which represented the boundary that colonists couldn't pass or settle past.  This was mostly a safety and economic issue, since the Native Americans could rebel against the colonists if they came too close to their land or flat out conquered it.  Having this boundary meant that the colonists couldn't expand indefinitely or increase their wealth.

Wealthy colonists suggested getting free grants from the British government to buy and then sell or rent new land, and thus make more money.  In the Declaration of Independence there is only one mention of taxation and three statements about acquiring more land.  Whie common people didn't want the burden of taxes, the wealthy had other motives for rebellion.

Tea and Social Class

In Britain in the 1700's and after, tea was a kind of equalizer among the different social classes.  In the 1730's Britain started trading directly with China, and the price of tea went down because of it.  This meant that even those in the lower class could afford tea.  Some historians argue that few of the people in the lower class actually had tea, but tea became a commodity that some of the poor really enjoyed having, and were willing to budget for purchasing tea and sugar.  Since people of all classes drank tea, they could also offer it to anyone else without offending them or feeling out of place.  The ceremony involved with preparing and drinking tea forced the drinker to slow down and relax for awhile.  Both the rich and the poor enjoyed their time drinking tea with their family because everyone was together and tea was mild enough for children to have.  Today that important time of togetherness may be weekday dinners.  Our lives are so busy that we need a tradition, a set time to relax and enjoy the company of our family and friends.  The working class enjoyed tea breaks with friends because it was something to look forward to, a time to complain about work and mingle.  Tea breaks resemble today's coffee breaks in the corporate world.

As much as tea was an equalizer, it also magnified differences in class and rank.  The kind of porcelain ware you had determined how much money you had and what you were able to afford.  Some teas were more expensive than others, and extra ingredients like milk, sugar, and honey had their expense.  There were certain ways to pour and hold your cup of tea, down to the last detail of how you hold your finger out while taking a sip (Macfarlane 86).  Since having tea and its accessories would show status, many people started buying them to show off their status and give a certain impression.  This is just like how today people buy clothes, cars, and food that reflect how well off they are and what they value.

dense facts are frustrating

In class today we dove into the idea of a dense fact.  We've been "dense facting" during the whole semester with things like tea, Pocahontas, and Rockwell's Four Freedoms.  In class we started expanding the idea of a dense fact to people, places, things, or ideas.  This includes both the concrete and the abstract.  We started questioning whether things like climate change or fear could be a dense fact.  We spent less time talking about what the Tea Party is all about, which was disappointing.  I don't think our conversation was even that helpful in figuring out what to write about for our editorial, since it seems like practically anything can be a dense fact.  It shouldn't matter if something is a dense fact or not; if it's interesting, then let's talk about it!  Limiting our analysis to certain images or objects can also limit our thinking, since we're trying to figure our what the dense fact represents or stands for.  Since readings have been most helpful to me in this class so far, I'm going to stick to them and the content they provide, rather than just my opinions about the Tea Party.

Franklin's Faith

What Benjamin Franklin went through with his faith is something that many people experience:  a want of personal spirituality and faith, without the rites and doctrines telling one how to live life the right way.  Franklin says that he never doubted, "...the existence of the Deity...that the most acceptable service to God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter" (62).  There were times when he went to church and publicly displayed his faith, and times when he didn't.  Then again, religion and spirituality are two very different things, as I see it.  Spirituality seems to be a very personal experience with something outside or larger than oneself, like God, whereas religion is the outward appearance and manifestation of this relationship and one's beliefs.

Although I'm not a Deist, I can relate to Franklin because I've felt some of the same things about religion.  As much as I know what I believe, it's still hard to be told what the one right way is, especially when many people or groups think their way is right.  It makes me uncomfortable when religion is used as both a sword and a shield, as justification and defense for doing something that's otherwise seen as wrong.  People sometimes use God to protect themselves from dispute or critique.  I believe in God, but sometimes in a slightly different way than how official religions groups or politicians do.

Benjamin Franklin and Humility

In his autobiography, Franklin explains his personal virtues, a set of beliefs that can be turned into action.  One he mentions often is humility.  While he has always tried to be humble in his writing, never using words such as "certainly" or "undoubtedly", he still struggled with his pride as a great writer.  His friends had great respect for him and his ideas, but reminded him of how sure he was of himself, and how that put them off.  In his list of virtues to practice, Franklin's last is humility and he suggests to "...imitate Jesus and Socrates" (Franklin 65).  It's interesting that he mentions these two people because as a Christian and a scientist, they were very important in his life.  However much he tried to be a humble man, he still struggled, as we all do.  He argues that he can try to control his pride, but it will surface from time to time and, "...even if [he] could conceive that [he] had completely overcome it, [he] should probably be proud of [his] humility" (Franklin 72).  Humility ties into his goal of self-improvement.  This means finding one's flaws and weaknesses, trying to improve upon them, and always accepting advice and help to become a better version of yourself.  Even though people can't reach true perfection, however one defines it, it is worth it to try because one becomes a better person who can make the world better too.

Buying Locally

Today in class we talked about Paul Revere and what his portrait says about him and the culture and people of his time.  He was probably a middle upper class gentleman because he had a respectable trade, yet did not have a lot of decorative or ornate clothing or furniture to show his status.  Someone mentioned that the portrait makes him look like an average citizen, a familiar face.  People would see this painting and think, "Hey, he looks like my local silversmith".  Then we talked about the value of buying a product locally or from overseas, and if it is worth it to buy local or not.

For me, the environmental consequences of buying most products from overseas is enough to want to buy locally.  This is especially important for food because so much energy is used and wastede in food production, preservation, and transportation.  Also, we get much of our energy from the Middle East, so if we produced more sustainable energy in the U.S. we would not only be a more independant and safer country, but one that provides more jobs to people too.

Usually I know I just buy something based on the price.  If one product is similar to another but is cheaper, I'll buy it.  But since you often "get what you pay for", the quality may not be the best and the conditions under which it was made may be lesser than the product that cost more.

So. Much. Stuff.

Even though I really tried to minimize how much stuff I brought to school, I'm still overwhelmed at what I brought.  Granted most of it is necessary, like clothes, bedding, and toiletries, a lot of it isn't really needed.  I've got my Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter collection dvds, lots of scarves and jewelry, letters and pictures from home, as well as plenty of munchies.  This says a lot about me, that I like to watch movies with friends, express myself with clothes, spend time with my family, and of course eat delicious snacks. 

Life would be much different if we lived in colonial times.  I would only have what I absolutely need.  I wouldn't have to think about what to wear or what kind of entertainment to choose, because there just wouldn't be too many options.  That is one reason why I like camping and being surrounded by nature.  You only have what you need, nothing else.  You're just doing what you have to do to be safe and comfortable enough to enjoy the outdoors.  Now coming back from break I see all the stuff in my room and I wonder "How did I get it all in here??  Thank goodness for Hoyme's amazing shelving space."  Whenever I de-clutter or take things home I don't need or use, I feel rejuvenated because all it does is take up space.  Living more simply can give great peace of mind.

Pocahontas: Traitor or Savior??

While reading the poems for this past week, I came across a quote from Charles Larson in his book "American Indian Fiction".  It was included as part of Paula Allen's poem "Pocahontas to Her English Husband, John Rolfe".  Here is part of this quote:

"In a way then, Pocahontas was a kind of traitor to her people...remember that Pocahontas was a hostage.  Would she have been converted freely to Christianity if she had not been held in captivity?...Pocahontas was a white dream - a dream of cultural superiority"

I never thought about it like that before.  If I was taken prisoner, I probably would have done the same.  After her release she was safe, taken care of, and made as an example in England of what Indians could become.  She avoided her people and didn't see them much afterwards.  So she could be seen as a traitor, someone who left her people to accept a totally new way of life and culture, turning her back on her own.  Or she could be seen as a savior because she sacrificed her own well-being and wants to protect her people from harm.  That's a tough one, because to me there's a little bit of both.

Portrait of Pocahontas

After looking at all these representations of Pocahontas, I'm surprised that only one is said to be created as a portrait, where the artist was with her while making the piece.  All the other representations are the ones I've always imagined myself.  In these she has long flowing hair, simple earth-toned clothing, and is barefoot.  This is probably a stereotypical image of her, but that's what a lot of the paintings have her looking like.

I'm surprised that the one where she's in English dress doesn't make her look more favorable.  John Rolfe is writing to the Queen trying to convince her that Pocahontas is a noble young woman who he is going to convert to Christianity, marry, and bring back to England.  In his writing he's trying to make her look good, and I assumed that was the goal with the painting also.  In the portraits of the Queen, she looks majestic and powerful, elegant and beautiful, without expressing much emotion.  Pocahontas doesn't look like this.  She looks tired, haggard, and out-of-place.  Although it could be the lighting of the space making her eyes look tired, it seems like her whole face and posture reflect her discomfort.  She is awkwardly holding some peacock feathers and leaning forward slightly.  The artist had the ability to make her look like she belonged in England and was part of their culture, but he didn't.  Maybe he's trying to show us something, that maybe she doesn't belong there.

Exodus to America

Last night I went to the first showing of a new series on TPT called "God in America". (DeAne, thanks for setting this up, it was a lot of fun!)  It talked about how religion started to shape American history beginning with the first settlers.  One theme throughout the show is how our country is becoming very gradually more tolerant of different religions.  This point is debatable, since much of the political far right have used their Christian faith as a shield and a sword.  It protects them from having to explain or communicate their values because it's assumed that "family values" are more or less the same for any Christian household.  Being a devout follower of one faith can make one feel vindicated to dismiss all others, as is the case with the new mosque that's proposed to be built near ground zero in New York.  Anyway, it is a great show, and connects a lot to what we're learning in class.

In the show they compared the Puritans exodus from England to America to that of the Israelites from Egypt to Mount Sinai.  This reminded me of my religion class, Judaism's Bible, because we're studying the book of Exodus.  In this story, Moses convinces the Israelites that they are God's chosen people, and that they are saved.  Moses tells Pharaoh, "'We will all go, young and old: we will go with our sons and daughters, our flocks and herds; for we must observe the Lord's festival.'" (The Jewish Study Bible, 123).  It's not that the Israelites were being freed from slavery and oppression and given absolute freedom.  It's that they are shredding the contract with the one master in order to get their new contract with God, their rightful master.

The Puritans had a similar idea.  They fled England in order to serve God in the way they thought was right, including more freedom for individuals to interpret the Bible themselves instead of being told by a Pope or Priest what to believe.  However, they weren't really free.  Instead they put their lives in the hands of God and decided to follow a strict moral code and code of conduct.  In terms of religious freedom, people get the freedom to practice or not practice whichever religion they want.  Once one is a part of a religion, there's not complete personal freedom but there is the freedom of choosing which rules and which beliefs to uphold.

European Attitudes Toward Native Americans

Europeans, especially those who immigrated to North America and became settlers, have very mixed views and attitudes towards the Native Americans already living there.  On the one hand, they see them as kind, generous, and good-spirited.  They gave the settlers corn and bread when they didn't have enough food for the winter, and they also showed settlers how to farm the land in order to make the most of it.  John Smith tried really hard to have peaceful relations with the Natives, both to have safety and security, and help when they most needed it.

Because Native Americans dressed, looked, acted, and sounded different from Europeans, they saw them as savage.  By living off of the land, one acts out of survival, just like animals behave.  Europeans didn't have to live like this, so they saw the people as savage and sometimes war-like.  Sometimes war is needed to keep a territory or to fight for resources.  Europeans are just so different in culture that they see Natives as "Others", people that are not like them at all.

Still, John Smith asks that Europeans and settlers "show mercy to them" (Smith, n. p.), especially because of all the help they've given them.  It seems like Smith pities the Indians because they need God's help in merely surviving, while the settlers are more sophisticated and had the honor of having a much more noble goal.

Captain John Smith

While reading some background information about the colonies and the colonists' realationships with the Native Americans, I was surprised about what I learned about John Smith.  In my history book, Johnson talks about how John Smith did all these things to help the colonists survive their first year, and "He got no thanks for his effort" (25).

At first he was a mercenary, hired to work as a soldier against the Turks.  He was then hired to be part of the Jamestown colony.  After being elected president of their council, he got down to work to organize everyone and lead them to success.  He used "...military discipline on the remaining men, negotiated with the Indians for sufficient food to get the colony through the winter, and in fact kept the mortality rate down to 5%" (Johnson 25).  Two months after his contract changed, he had to go back to England, and later he worked in Cape Cod writing about his discoveries.

If it hadn't been for Captain John Smith, then Jamestown Colony may not have made it through its first winter.  They were lucky to have him, even if he was a strict leader.

Puritans and Pueblos: not Good Guys and Bad Guys

Even since I was little, I've had this idea that right and wrong should be distinct, black and white, easy to identify.  There are the good guys and the bad guys.  Well obviously that's not how the world works, since most things, ideas, or people aren't totally good or totally bad.  In the past I've fallen into the trap of thinking "Ok, the Puritans weren't all that great.  They misused natural resources and exploited Indians.  They're the bad guys.  Then there's the poor Pueblos, just trying to survive and plan out for their future."  Things aren't black and white.  I'm glad I've been able to read about the virtuous aspects of the Puritans and the shortcomings of the Pueblos.  It's given me more appreciation for both.  After all, these were just people, who can make both huge mistakes and great choices.

The Puritans' idealism is something to be admired.  They were willing to cross an ocean in order to start constructing a new life.  Wanting to be a "city on a hill" that the people below would look up to, they lived according to their faith.  Some had a romantic view of this new life and how great it would be.  In class we talked about the strawberries and roses, how these things made the Puritans so joyful to be in a new home.

The Pueblos had an immense respect for the land, but also had to use it to survive.  In the article "Learning from the Pueblos", Tony Anella says, "an increase in food-producing capability lead to an increase in the population and consequently the need for more food as the Anasazi struggled and eventually failed to maintain a balance and equilibrium with the land.  The very act of cultivating corn is a human intervention in the landscape" (32).  Even if we are a part of nature, we still rely on it and at some points misuse its resources.

Aldo Leopold and his "Green Acres"

In one of the articles we read, called "Landscape of the Sacred", I read a quote by the famous conservationist and nature writer Aldo Leopold that made me think of how freedom can be concrete and abstract at the same time.  He said, "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" (Belden 219).  It seems like he's referencing the freedoms provided to us by our government.  So what good are they if you don't have any space to use them?  This made me think of how I associate open spaces with freedom, the freedom of the open range, to explore and see new things.  Having certain freedoms is great, but having room to just sit and think, away from city life is really crucial.  You may be free in terms of personal freedoms, but still not feel free because you're confined in a society's way of doing things.

Reading about landscape made me think of the tv show Green Acres.  It's one of those TV Land shows that's always on during the summer, just like The Brady Bunch.  The husband is a farmer who really loves the outdoors.  He's free when he's outside taking care of his livestock and crops.  His wife is a city woman who loves to be free to shop, socialize, and enjoy the glamorous life.  They are both free, but in different ways.  Eventually she had to settle to living on the farm instead of Manhattan.  Here are the lyrics for the theme song:

Green acres is the place to be
Farm living is the life for me
Land spreading out,
so far and wide
Keep Manhattan,
just give me that countryside.

New York
is where I'd rather stay
I get allergic smelling hay
I just adore a penthouse view
Darling, I love you,
but give me Park Avenue.

The chores
The stores
Fresh air
Times Square
You are my wife.
Goodbye city life.

source: http://www.maggiore.net/greenacres/gatheme.asp

Why are we "here"?

I really enjoyed Gregory Coniff's piece called "Landscape is a Point of View".  He says nature is the "...shaper of the soul".  The natural world really is a way to see the world, it gives you your unique point of view and how you see things.  In my high school (affiliated with the oh-so-awesome Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley, MN) we talked about the natural world pretty much every day.  We studied how it physically works, how humans have changed and adapted to it, and how humans use it to fulfill both basic needs and unnecessary desires.

I am so excited that we got to talk about this idea of environment/landscape/place, because it's something that ordinary history classes often overlook.  Our physical surroundings play a huge part in our lives.

For example, one reason I chose to come to St Olaf was to live on a beautiful campus that offered lots of ways to study the natural lands.  College life would feel very different if I was on the sandy beaches of Hawaii or the mountains and valleys of Colorado.  Minnesota truly fits my personality, with the seasonal changes offering lots of beauty and ways to enjoy the outdoors.  I'm glad that St Olaf is located in a good-sized town, but is not simply plopped in the middle of an urban area.  Our community is set apart, almost like our own "City on a Hill" that the Puritans aspired to have.  I too have started calling this place "Home", because my dorm is my new norm and this is where my second family is.  I am part of this landscape.

John Winthrop

Overall, I can see why John Winthrop fought against Anne Hutchinson.  He was looking after the colony and wanted stability that took a while to form there in the new land.  In one my articles "The Case Against Anne Hutchinson", it mentions how he told his fellow immigrants that "'the care of the publique must oversway all private respects'" (Morgan 643).  If anybody could have direct relationships and communication with God, then there would be no need for a religious state.  That threatens Winthrop's position as Governor.

His actions are understandable, but the way he goes about it hurts his credibility.  Even though he is said to have had deep personal faith and religious affiliations, "...he could not recognize in Anne Hutchinson's teachings the outlines of another religious and political philosophy with its own right to exist" (Morgan 635).  Although Puritans sought out religious purification and fled from England because of their disgust at King Charles, many were open to other interpretations of faith.  Anne Hutchinson's interpretation was about having a personal relationship with God, and many Puritans accepted herr views and attended her meetings.  Winthrop did not accept her, and her gender only added to his dislike of her because she was a successful, outspoken woman who taught her own views without consent of those in higher power.  During the trial the prosecution attacks her for not being able to conseive any more children, and for showing menopausal symptoms.  Neither have anything to do with the religious issue, but were used to back up their claims.  By attacking her gender, Winthrop sank pretty low and lost some credibility as a governor who's just trying to protect his people from change.

Equality in Plymouth Plantation Society

William Bradford writes about the Plymouth Plantation, a community of people whose high hopes and faith in God began to falter as life got harder and harder in their new home.  Fall turned into winter.  Food surplus turned into food shortage.  Life became fragile and everyone had to adjust to this new home with the primary motivator being survival, not community.

Starting out, this society wanted to be equal.  The Governor "...assigned to every family member a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number" (Bradford 132).  This makes sense because then everyone gets the same amount of land, no matter what position of power they have.

Then equality for all started to do more harm than good.  Bradford explains that strong men "...had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice" (133).  Women were also subject to this kind of injustice.  They would "...be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes., they deemed it a kind of slavery" (Bradford 134).  Equality became defined not as everyone getting or giving the same amount of something, but everyone getting what they need and giving what they were able.

It became every man and woman for themselves, trying to survive.  Although community was still an important part of life, basic needs and faith in God were more prevalent.

Mixed Feelings about Puritans

I have very mixed feelings towards the Puritan people.  I both admire and dislike them.  To leave England and to travel across the Atlantic Ocean in hope of a new life is incredibly brave of any immigrant.  The Puritans' moral and spiritual values lead them to leave the Catholic Church and exercise their own freedom of giving their life to God, as they see fit.

They started out with huge hopes and idealism.  To be a "City on a Hill" (Cullen 24) is to be a beacon, a shining example of what is right and good for the rest of society.  They hoped people would look up to them and want to live by their ways.  Because they were a religious group, their community wasn't based only on making a living and becoming prosperous.  It was based on spiritual and emotional bonds between people (Cullen 22).  As a Calvinistic society, they knew that their fate had been pre-determined by God, whether they would go to Heaven or Hell after this life.  Because they didn't know the verdict, they did everything they could to live a good life, just incase it was a factor in God's decision.  This is still confusing to me about how their actions may not matter anyway but that they are willing to make a difference.

All of the purity seems to disappear as Puritans started forcing their view on others.  In the 17th century an English clergyman wrote about the them, "'We call you Puritans... not because you are purer than other men...but because you think yourselves to be purer'" (Cullen 12).  The high standards they gave themselves made them appear snobbish, strict, and unpleasant (Cullen 11).  Part of settlement involved massacring Indians for the sake of securing land.  I think of murder as the most impure thing a person could do.  From the Puritans' perspective, how could killing another one of God's children be okay?

The picture below is from the play "The Crucible" which is about the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.  The Puritans in the play are criticized for extreme views on justice.  With a lack of factual evidence for a trial, the people have to go off of what people say and believe.  It's a really interesting story, and the movie version is amazing!

kaylal.wordpress.com

"A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson

Last night's reading was tough for me.  My choice/optional book is "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson.  Johnson is a well-versed and highly intelligent writer, so his book represents him well.  Packed in with lots of anecdotes, dates, figures, and analysis, it took some time to digest it all.  After reading a shorter, more concise, and introductory chapter in Cullen, I felt prepared to dive into a more thorough text.  I hope to give an overview of what this chapter was all about, especially for those of you who read different books for your optional book.

Colonialism in North America was part of a bigger and broader era of expansion.  The Portuguese got into slave trade in the mid 15th century and made it even more horrific.  Spain had a harder time of it and ended up treating the Indians pretty "ruthlessly" (Johnson 6).  Colonizers brought with them disease, non-native plants and animals, and money to establish plantation-style slavery.  The French were overall more peaceful with the Indians, hoping to trade goods with them.  A man named Richard Hakluyt encouraged the Queen to establish colonies, and he was part of a group to settle in Roanoke, VA.  Later more colonies like Chesapeake Bay started up.

There are some common themes for the various colonies.  For each group there were tremendous difficulties in getting used to a new land and making the best of the opportunity.  Despite abundant natural resources, the Jamestown colony collapsed partly because they didn't grow enough food to sustain themselves and were more focused on producing tobacco.  Relations with the Indians were often confrontational, like when the Roanoke people disappeared, possibly because of an ambush.  It's thought that they could have been "...absorbed into the tribe" (Johnson 18) afterwards.  Because many settlers settled because of want of religious freedom, there was a struggle about "where does freedom end and authority begin?" (Johnson 45).  Settlers came from different backgrounds but experienced common struggles.

St. Olaf Poem

"Flying/Driving/Biking to St. Olaf"

The clothes had been boxed up, ready to ship

While my little sister stares wide-eyed

And I step into the taxi

Driving away, I see the ferry to Vashon Island

Leaving the dock, headed out into the fog

After many red lights, we arrive at the airport

Dashing to the terminal, we almost miss the flight

But make it on just in time

As my parents quickly find their seats

Their excitement engulfs the place

And we're off

After what seemed like forever, we're here

It is a crazy Tetris game of minivans

I am at camp, bunkbeds and all

The Awkward Dance lived up to its title

And it would take me a long time before

I'd ever remember what my own bed felt like

As I head out to dinner with my advisor

My mom calls "goodbye!" out of the crowd

-by Karin Lubanovic & Kate Chrisinger

"Two Kinds of Freedom"

Today's discussion in class was abstract in our attempts to define "freedom" and to distinguish it from a "right".  Freedom is a very loose term and has been applied to all kinds of media and political agendas.  In the article about positive and negative freedom, there is an example of how one can be free in one way but totally unfree in another.  It talks about a person who smokes who is trying to drive somewhere.  He/she has negative freedom because there are no "obstacles, barriers, or constraints" that prevent the person from getting to where they want to go.  He/she does not have positive freedom, as in the "presence of...control".  The nicotine in the tobacco makes the person's body feel the need for that drug.  When the smoker drives to the tobacconist, they are free in that nobody forced him/her to go there, but "unfree" because they can't control their physical need for the substance.  While these definitions are still a bit blurry to me, this example helps to clarify what constitutes a positive or negative freedom, according to the article.

Having freedom doesn't guarantee happiness, just the range or options for how to live one's life.  One's decisions and actions will determine the overall worth or value of life. 

At the end of class the idea of freedom verses a right was brought up.  Sometimes the ideas are used interchangeably, but they are very different.  One First Amendment Right is the "Freedom of Speech".  You have the right to express yourself as you wish.  You also have the freedom to choose whether or not to express yourself.  Along with that is the freedom to listen or not.  To speak one needs a listener, or the words are nothing but noise.  To decide to not listen seems to discredit the freedom of speech.

The Flaming Lips

So I'm reading about Freedom and choices and all kinds of nifty things when this song pops up on my ipod.  It's called "The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song" by the Flaming Lips:

Lyrics to The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song :
If you could blow up the world with the flick of a switch
Would you do it?
If you could make everyobody poor just so you could be rich
Would you do it?
If you could watch everybody work while you just lay on your back
Would you do it?
If you could take all the love without fiving any back
Would you do it?
And so we cannot know ourselves or what we'd really do...

With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?

If you could make your own money and then give it to everybody
Would you do it?
If you knew all the answers and could give it to the masses
Would you do it?
No no no no no no are you crazy?
It's a very dangerous thing to do exactly what you want
Because you cannot know yourself or what you'd really do

With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?

(http://www.lyricsmania.com/the_yeah_yeah_yeah_song_lyrics_flaming_lips_the.html)


Coincidence???  I think not.  "With all your power", you can do amazing things.  You can also do terrible and stupid things.  Being American is a priviledge, but also an enormous responsibility because having freedom to do and say things without intervention or obstacle can make us feel entitled.  I know I often feel I should be able to do things or have things, without thinking about the "why".  Being grateful and cautious of our freedom can help us bring out the best in ourselves.

What Freedom Means to Me

Walking across that stage last spring at the Minnesota Zoo was one of the coolest experiences of my life.  My dense fact is a high school diploma.  As an object, it is merely a piece of paper that declares that you, like so many other students, went to high school and deserve to graduate.  But in today's highly competetive job market, a high school diploma is crucial.  Going to college, travelling, working, and volunteering will help me be successful, however I decide to define that word.  I believe that the pay-off from service to other people will far out-weigh any paycheck.  When I read about people in other countries, especially girls who don't have access to education because of money or social restraints, I'm humbled.  It's a freedom that, at times, can feel like anything but freedom.  But it's the first step to getting to do what you've always dreamed of.

First Post

This is just a practice post, nothing special!