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