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.