The Most Cop Out Blog I've Ever Written - Apologies

OH MY JESUS HARRY POTTER TONIGT

Slavery

As I started on the reading for today, I was really upset.  Slavery has always been a topic that I really don't like to adress; I know that it happened, I know that it was awful, and I really don't need to revisit the cruelty of the human race ever again.  I was not wrong.  reading again the condition in which the Africans suffered, I wondered how one human being could do such a thing to another.  What would prompt someone, upon seeing someone who looks different than them, to think, "oh hey.  I'll make them a slave and treat them like they aren't a living creature."  HOW COULD SOMEONE DO THAT? Why would they ever think that was okay?  I don't understand.  Zinn started talking about how racism evolved and how it had to do with circumstances.  YThis would mean it evolved because of slavery.  Not before.  So why did slavery start?  i know that money was a big deal, but was it really so important that human decency and morals were sacrificed?  People disgust me.

Helpful or Hurtful?

With the recent election in this country, people have been buzzing with talk of their political ideals. One topic that has sparked a large amount of conversation is the emergence of the Tea Party. Valuing low taxes, small government, and the original Constitution, other parties are left scrambling to make up their minds about this group of would-be fundamentalists. Some think they’re just radical Republicans. Others think that the Tea party is an entirely new party. What many can agree upon, though, is that no matter how this group is viewed, they don’t bode well for the Republicans.

A huge way that the Tea Party hurts the Republicans is drawing away votes from the conservative party. In the primaries for this election, there were several Republican candidates who were beaten out by their Tea Party rival. Christine O’Donnell, for instance, won in Delaware, much to the surprise and dismay of those in the Republican Party. With votes from conservatives going to two different sources, this gives the Democrats a much more favorable chance at the win.

Some Americans are under the impression that the Republican Party can harness the energy and excitement the Tea Party is creating with the people to boost their campaign; they took the House, didn’t they? Wasn’t that the goal? To this I say yes. That was the goal. However, this didn’t actually have anything to do with the Tea Party, or with Republicans either for that matter. The shift toward conservative voting was simply anti-Democrat.

In the history of the United States, protest votes have happened again and again. The populous uses these opportunities to send a message: after September 11, the conservative shift showed that Americans wanted to unite and fight back. In 1998, the democratic vote said, “Keep Bill Clinton’s personal life out of this.” Now, the people of America are simple wondering where their jobs are. They think the democratic government has failed them. Thus, they vote Republican; Americans voted against Democrats and against Congress. The gain of the House has almost nothing to do with the Tea Party at all.

If you don’t believe in the idea of the protest vote, then there’s another reason the idea of the Tea Party being an asset to the Republican Party is absurd. This is clear because a recent CBS/New York Times Poll puts only 19% of those polled as having a favorable view of the Tea Party, not necessarily even supporting them, and 63% of those polled were outright against the fundamentalists. Another poll from the same source shows that most people (60%) think that the economy or jobs are the main problem in this country. Only 3% said the deficit was the central issue, agreeing with the Tea Party. The idea that the Republicans could harness the Tea Party energy to rally the troupes and Take the House is therefore absurd; Tea Partyers really don’t have that much support for the Republicans to piggy back off of.

As it turns out, the slightly extreme views of the Tea Party have, in fact, scared voters away! Very much like this cartoon depicts, independents and undecided voters not taking part in the anti-Congress movement take a look at those views and say, “Well, I think I’ll vote Democrat this time around.” Because many associate the Tea Party with Republicans, their views become the conservative norm. In other words, all Republicans start to seem scary. Additionally, when the Tea Party doesn’t carefully choose its candidates, they loose more votes still. After Christine O’Donnell claimed to have scientific proof that God created the Earth in six 24-hour period and revealed her lack of knowledge of the Constitution (the document she’s supposed to be referring back to) publically, support dwindled considerably. Congratulations, Tea Party.

The Tea Party is damaging the rest of the country’s conservatives, this much is clear. Not only do they not have enough national support to be an asset of any kind to Republicans, but their extreme views and poor candidate choices have deterred those who were previously undecided. And, to make matters worse, Tea party candidates took seats from the Republican Party in the primaries, hindering their chances at taking majorities in general. Sadly for hopeful Republicans, the truth is, the Tea Party is only harmful.

Thomas Jefferson

'Thomas Jefferson, like Leonardo Dia Vinci, was a Jack-of-all-Trades, and master of them all."-William H. Pierson, Jr. in American Buildings and Their Architects

I will be the fist to admit the Thomas Jefferson was an extraordinary man.  He did a lot of really awesome things, such as writing the Declaration of Independence, and building a neat Academic Village in Virginia. Plus, he was just incredibly intelligent and such.  With all of this n mind, there is still no possible way I would ever in the history of life compare him to Leonardo da Vinci.  Da Vinci was, in every aspect, a genius.  For his time, his thinking was so incredibly progressive, that he was shinned as crazy at some point in his life.  Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer.  I know he was many other things as well, and we value the art he made (the Declaration of Independence) as much as we value da Vinci's, but we must remember that these men were years apart, and the entire world looks at da Vinci as a genius!  Ad much of a patriot as I am, there's still no way the two compare.  Sorry Jefferson.

Way to Go, Declaration of Independence

"It capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government." -Stephen E. Lucas in The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

I just wanted to point out how the writers of the Declaration of Independence must have also read William's chapter on concision.  

Analyzing the Declaration of Independence

"This essay seeks to illuminate that artistry by probing the discourse microscopically--at the level of the sentence, phrase, word, and syllable." -Stephen E. Lucas in The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence


What Lucas does to the Declaration of Independence in his essay is quite similar to how we learned in AmCon to analyze poems. He looks for allusions, figuratie language, overtones, nuances, and how each part of the text affects one another. This makes me wonder if absolutely everything that is written can be analyzed in such a way. I realize that the Declaration of Independence was written with the intent of being a beautifully crafted document, but I wonder if everything has such hidden meaning. Do all poems, for example, hide their meaning so well that one must analyze them? Or do some authors simple need to find a rhyming word, not intending for their piece to be dissected and examined. In which case, every hidden meaning one finds in the process would be a creation of theirs, a stretch of their mind to make something fit.  It's interesting how people do that.  But maybe not.  Maybe the author intended for the readers to struggle and pick the poem appart word by word, being purposefully vague to make their point more worthwhile in the finding.  I don't like those people.

The Declaration of Independence

"What at first seems a relatively simple job..." - Davidson and Lytle, The Art of Historical Detection, Pg. 1

I don't know about other people, bit I never assumed that the declaration was a easy write.  In fact, O've always marveled at how it could be done so quickly.  It's incredibly elegant, not too lengthy, and it says everything that needs to be said.  I mean, declaring independence is kind of a big deal, and they wanted to get it right.  It's amazing that they could do so in such a short period of time and without even having voted on the idea yet.  They wrote the entire thing as a proposal to Congress!  I mean, it was edited and such, but still!  That's kind of incredible.  Nice play, founding fathers.

The Rich Rebellion

"The officers and committee members of the Sons of Liberty were drawn almost entirely from the middle and upper class of colonial society." -Pauline Maier

Why? Is it simple because the people on the upper side of society had the means to organize a revolution? They had more to lose, though. Usually it's the poor or oppressed who rebel. I find it strange that those wo had a better, more comfortable life wanted to take the risk to give it up. Perhaps that's what made them more convincing. Or maybe it's simply because they were more arrogant and thought that they could do better. Either way, it's a different circumstance than more rebellions.

Understatements

"Once the imperial government had announced its intention to clamp down on its North American colonists in the crucial areas of taxation, territory, and trade, the Americans responded with a wide variety of protests." -Woody Holton, Unruly Americans in the Revolution

I simply adore this quote.  Mostly because it's the largest understatement in the history of ever.  A "wide variety of protests" somehow sounds so mild and tame.  Perhaps he could be talking about some strikes- the kind with picket signs.  Or maybe some unhappy gatherings denouncing the king.  It doesn't quite seem to do justice to the Boston Tea Party, The Boston Massacre, the several boycotts, oh, and lets not forget, the Revolutionary War.  Overall, I did enjoy the writing in this article as well as the ideas presented, I just though that perhaps the incidents may not have been exaggerated enough.  I mean, this era is kind of a large part of our history; we may as well milk it.  

On Tea

In the excerpt from Empire of Tea, there is a list of all the health benefits thought of tea at the time it was beginning to catch on.  This may be missing the point of the whole article, but that list was something that really puzzled me.  How did they know those health benefits?  There can't have been that much study on tea itself, as it was relatively new, and they hadn't the means of technology to study such health benefits over such a period of time.  Also, nothing can possibly effect that many parts of the body, and blood can't really be purified in such a way.  But, I feel like it would have been immoral to make up such things just to sell something.  Gasp!

Tea Party and Such

I must say, I am quite proud of our class: there were several relevant and interesting posts regarding the topic. I was expecting all cartoons, sad day. It's also interesting that most of the posts had something to do with a negative view of the tea party. Again, good job guys. And I must say, most were quite informative. Thus, there is plenty for the editorial!

Mr. Franklin

It's true that Benjamin Franklin used to my very favorite of all historical figures: he invented the public library for god's sake.  How can someone not be awesome after that?  Therefore, it came as a surprise to me upon reading his autobiography/actually memoir, that he was actually quite arrogant.  Painfully so, in fact.  I do believe my least favorite quality that someone can posses is arrogance.  He almost seemed to think it a girt to the readers that they got the pleasure of experiencing his vanity.  Needless to say, I was incredibly upset for the remainder of the book.  I'm not going to lie, it kinda ruined the view I had of him as this infallible wondrous awesomely fantastic person who did all these really cool things while still being a human.  And the rose colored glasses died.  I realized he was an arrogant prick who was MUCH too interested in the weather.  I didn't really want to read about that.  At all.  And I understand that he may not have edited the writing, and those parts may have out, but still.  It was near the end of the book that I realized something else that made me feel a bit better: I feel like if I'd invented the fire station, I'd be arrogant too.  Therefore, I forgive you, Sir Benjamin Franklin, for having an awful personality because, as you said in your book, you deserve to be vain.  Never fear, my favorite stuffed animal will continue to bear your name.

Benjamin Franklin

JESUS CHRIST. If I did as many things in my like as Benjamin Franklin did in his, I do believe I would EXPLODE! Truth.

More Freedom!

Cullen made a great point about freedom meaning different things to different people or groups of people.  This makes me think about a posting I did earlier concerning the Puritan idea of freedom and how it differs from the idea of freedom today.  I had previously thought that the concept had just evolved over the years, but now I feel like we're just a different group of people than the Puritans and that's why we think of freedom differently.  We currently don't have to worry about the freedom of religion, whereas they did every day of their lives back in england.  Maybe how one views freedom is entirely circumstantial.

Stuff In My Dorm Room

Desks, dressers, window seats, pillows, sheet sets, mattresses, mattress pads, beds, blankets, lamps, ipods, phone, laptop, ihome, phone charger, ipod charger, harddrive, two boxes, 2 ipod cases, fan, textbooks, my books, backpack, lapdesk, pencils, pens, markers, colored pencils, envelopes, filing carbinet, coloring book, folders, noteboos, laptop case, water bottles, 5 wash clothes, 4 towels, laundry hamper, clothes, shoes, 2 jackets, hats, scarves, mittens, belts, posters pictures, picture frames, planner, binders, pins, key chains, keys, lanyards, pins, tool box, tools, command hooks, mirror, hair dryer, hair straightener, hair diffuser, face wach, tooth paste, tooth brush, contacts, contact case, contact solution, glasses, glasses case, glasses cleaner, glasses cloth, makeup, makeup case, nail polish, que tips, tweezers, hair clips, braceltes, hair binders, shampoo, conditioner, salt, cups, bowls, plates, silverwear, coffe maker, coffee, coffee filters, brita filter, food, allergy shot serum, refrigerator, medication, sunglasses, stamps, snuggie, hydrogen peroxide, neosporn, airborne, excedrine, pill container, vitamins, drawings, vaccume, scissors, lanters lights, Kleenex, Christmas lights, hair yde, inhaler, hygene products, mouthwash, deodorant, extension cords, power stripes, washer detergent, dryer sheets, sish soap, shower caddy, razors, bathrobe, purses, wallets, gift cards, money, containers for organization, printer, printer paper, printer ink, headphones, stuffed anials, pillow cases, white board, callender, dry erase markers, bags, suitcases, lotion, umbrella, garbage can, recycling can, floss, chapstick, ring, earings, hand mirror, standing lamp, tuperwear, closet, hangers, guitar, guitar case, curtains, windows, window openers, hair cream/spray, nail polish remover, computer charger, carpet, homework, tape, cardes, three whole punch, stapler, calculator, white out, bubbles, cord binders, pencil puoch, change purse, magnets, letters, flashcards, flashcard case, flashcard organizers, stickers, temporary tattoos, bobble heads, lenticular posters, id card, bus schedule, class schedules, notes, dvds, flashdrives, futon, chairs, I pad, perfume, cds, radios, super glue, duct tape, table, smoke detector, in case of emergency sign, address book, laptop lock, room phone, hedgeball, pamphlets, monopoly money, monopoly pieces, toothbrush charger, remote, parking ticket, fish, fish food, frog food, frogs.  

Pocahontas Poem

"...and in my arms you slept, a foolish child,
and under my protecting gaze you placed,
chattering nonsense about a God

you had not wit to name. " -Paula Gunn Allen

I think I liked this poem the best because it shows the world from Pocahontas' point of view.  It shows her frustration.  Here she loves this guy, but he has no ideas about her people.  She saves him again and again, spends her life protecting him.  She feels trapped by it but can't help it at the same time.  And she's frustrated.  Who wouldn't be?  She's living his life to continue protecting him but he just keeps trying to change her and tell her things that don't make sense.  Here she's thinking they didn't even name their god, how stupid.  He is foolish, but believes her to be the unknowing one.  I really can't imagine living like that.  Especially because at the end of the poem, she feels as though her life was wasted; she lived only so that he could benefit.  How sad.

Differences Between Bible and Qur'an

It is clear to any reader that the Qur’an and the Hebrew Bible differ greatly. It’s not some huge secret; they aren’t even written in similar styles. While both narratives refer to similar material, Genesis is a much more chronological narrative, while the Qur’an is a conversation. While they are different, there are some important aspects that they share. For example, both texts agree upon the idea that God has the power to create what he wants, and he has the power to make things go his way. God has a plan. He shows this in Genesis by telling people what’s not right and having them figure it out, or just by flooding the earth and taking care of business. In the Qur’an, it’s put much more simply: “God schemes (Qur’an 10:21).” The occurrences in the account of Joseph differ greatly between the Qur’an and Genesis. These proceedings, by how they occur, show how the will of God is carried out throughout the story. Through the events that unfold in the story of Joseph, the plan of the God in the Qur’an is much more clear than the plan of the God in Genesis, simply because he consistently must put events back on track.

The events in Genesis and the Qur’an differ, if only in small ways, and show the presence of God’s plan. One of these events is how Joseph comes to be a slave. In the Qua’ranic version of his brother’s treachery, they “throw him into a hidden depth of a well (Qur’an 12:10).” There is no talk of selling Joseph as a slave, but, incidentally, he is still found and taken as a slave. When this happens, the Qur’an makes sure to mention to the reader that “God was well aware of what they did (Qur’an 12:19).” Even though the brothers didn’t intend for Joseph to be a slave, it was an important step in the chronology of the story. He had to be taken as a slave for events in the future to take place, allowing for God’s plan to continue. Had this not occurred, Joseph would not have been sent to jail and met the man whose dream he explained through whom he met the king. God had to make a slight correction to the way things were going. The Qur’an makes this clear by telling the reader he’s around. Even though it wasn’t the brothers’ intention, it had to happen. God’s interference and presence in general at this time shows that he is aware of what’s happening and what needs to happen for actions to unfold the way he wishes. In the Genesis account, there is no such variation from God’s script. Joseph’s brothers straight up “sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (Genesis 37:28).” God doesn’t even make an appearance in this section of the story in Genesis, presumably because his plan is going accordingly; there is no need for him to interfere or change what’s going on. Because of his lack of presence, it seems to the reader just as though the story is being told. It’s much more cut and dry. The God in the Qur’an is obviously present and controlling events while the God in Genesis is hidden and not mentioned, watching from afar. Because of this, it is much more evident that the God in the Qur’an has a plan; he’s making sure it goes accordingly the entire time.

The Qur’anic account of how Joseph ends up in prison is quite different than that of Genesis, but they have the same result, showing how God has these things planned out. Josephs prison sentence is again an important narrative device; without this experience, Pharaoh would never have come to know Joseph, and Joseph would never have ended up in his place of power from which he helps Egypt. This makes it important that the incarceration occurs. This isn’t a problem in Genesis when Joseph is practically dragged there by an “enraged” and betrayed husband (Genesis 39:19). Since it’s in the logical order of events and happens without obvious involvement, the Genesis God remains behind the scenes and unheard from. He needn’t say anything if what he wants to happen is already going down. This is not the case in the Qur’an. In this version of the story, Joseph is cleared of all charges. The husband, finding evidence to suggest his wife’s guilt, doesn’t blame Joseph for a thing. Here, the Qur’anic God faced a problem: Joseph needs to go to jail, but he isn’t accused of anything. How will this problem be solved? This hitch is, as it turns out, easily remedied. Again, the Qur’anic God shows up to set things right. His quick fix this time? He “protected [Joseph]” from the hoards of women who want him by imprisoning him anyway (Qur’an 12:34). Even though the events were different, they ended up having the same result. In Genesis, the flow of the story makes sense and is logically what would happen, letting God off the hook. There’s nothing for him to fix, and no reason for him to step in. However, in the Qur’an, God had some damage control to do. To make proceedings follow the path that was needed for his plan to be carried out, God had Joseph imprisoned anyway. He became involved in the story to do this, showing evidence of his plan.

Joseph had to endure a series of occurrences to end up in the place of power he achieved as part of God’s plan. The very first step in the order of these events was his brothers wanting to get rid of him in some way. Again, this isn’t really an issue in Genesis, since he goes ahead and tells his brothers all about his great dream, making himself look quite arrogant. This makes them incredibly angry and causes them to decide to teach him a lesson, starting off the chain reaction that is the rest of the story. God isn’t there. He watches from afar. Apparently, happenings unfold as planned. But, yet again, something gets a bit off track in the Qur’anic version of the story. Jacob tells Joseph not to tell his brothers the dream. So he doesn’t. So where is their motivation to relieve the world of Joseph? Problem. Solution? They want to get rid of him anyway, out of jealousy. His brothers don’t like that he’s the favorite, that “Joseph…[is] dearer to [their] father than they are (Qur’an 12:8).” The favoritism that he has been given by God since birth is the factor that causes this particular event. Quite a suave solution, if I do say so myself. The events are back to where they are supposed to be. Again, these are different cases with the same outcome, the outcome that needed to happen for God’s plan for Joseph to continue. The plan of the Qur’anic God is just much more obviously present because extraneous circumstances keep requiring his attention to protect it, while the Genesis God doesn’t need to reveal himself, making his plan less noticeable.

In comparing the two texts, Genesis and the Qur’an, side by side, many differences can be discerned, especially in the account of Joseph. These differences include the way in which Joseph became a slave, the reason for his incarceration, and why his brothers decided to dispose of him. Although these differences are interesting in themselves, what’s more important is what they show the reader about God and his plan for the world, or, in this case, Joseph specifically. Both texts agree that he has a plan, and yet this is much more evident in the Qur’an. This is shown through the differences in the stories. The Genesis God is absent from these events; his plan is probably going off without a hitch. Because the readers don’t hear from him, his plot remains hidden and the readers continue to be unaware of his goals. However, the God in the Qur’an shows up every time something goes the slightest bit amiss to put things back to how they should be. He has a plan, and he can’t let little upsets like Joseph’s innocence stop it from working. Even though both Gods are schemers, it’s much more obvious in the Qur’an that a plan is being carried out because it always needs fixing.

Perception

The portrayal of Pocahontas varies greatly is each picture.  Sometimes she looks Native American, sometimes she looks Native American with European customs, and sometimes she looks downright white. I thought this had a lot to do with the reading that described the Indian Princess: She an idea that people have in their heads but don't know actually.  This becomes clear when we see that none of the representations of Pocahontas look remotely similar; i have a hard time believing it's because she looked different every day.  It's just an interesting thing that even people who were specific, actually people can be romanticized and perceived differently by different people.

Differences

I don't think I quite understand why Native American Women were portrayed in such different ways.  I don't get why one is so good and one is represented so badly.  I man, i do, but not actually.  Plus, I feel like their are portrayals of Native American women that have children that are portrayed well.  But I do understand stereotypes.  And that's what the Europeans did to the Native Americans, and I feel like they are still stereotyped today.  What a sad day.

Motives

Something I noticed in both the Genesis and Qur'anic account of Joseph is that not only are some of the events inconsistent with one another, but the reasons behind some of the events differ as well. I thought this was interesting because if the motives are different, then the stories end up teaching different lessons.

For example:

In the Qur'an, Joseph simple goes to prison because they thought "after seeing the sings of his innocence, that they should imprison him for a while." (12:35)

Basically, he's just SO innocent that incarceration is needed. This, I feel, shows what we talked about in class today: no matter what people want to do, God's will shall always win out.

In Genesis, however, Joseph goes to prison because his master thinks he tried to get with his wife. That's legitimate: he is assumed guilty of a crime and thus must suffer jail time for it. This account also teaches the more legal lesson of no adultery and such.

I just thought that it's interesting that both accounts are similar but teach different things just by the way events are presented.

Comparison Between the united States and Scientology. Kinda.

"They found that by creating  nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire." -Howard Zinn, A people's History of America, Pg. 59

This is so incredibly true.  It almost begs the question, was all the rebellion really for freedom, or did the founding father's just really want a lot of stuff for themselves?  This was a completely genius plan: it easily all could have been a rouse.  This reminds me of how the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, is quoted saying, "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."  Even though it may have all been a ruse, it still worked out in the end.  And by that, I mean the United States, not Scientology.

Fair?

Religion again guys!! Some food for thought:

"Mention in the scripture Abraham; he was a saint, a prophet.

He said to his father, "O my father, why do you worship what can neither hear, nor see, nor help you in any way?

"O my father, I have received certain knowledge that you did not receive. Follow me, and I will guide you in a straight path.

"O my father, do not worship the devil. The devil has rebelled against the Most Gracious.

"O my father, I fear lest you incur retribution from the Most Gracious, then become an ally of the devil."

He said, "Have you forsaken my gods, O Abraham? Unless you stop, I will stone you. Leave me alone."

He said, "Peace be upon you. I will implore my Lord to forgive you; He has been Most Kind to me.

"I will abandon you and the gods you worship beside GOD. I will worship only my Lord. By imploring my Lord alone, I cannot go wrong."

Qur'an 19:41-48

Abraham tells his father not to worship false gods and to worship his God, but Abraham's father is upset that his son denounces his gods. Abrahams says he will pray so that his God doesn't punish his father for not believing in him after Abraham has told him to.

Is it fair that Abraham's father would be punished for believing in different deities?

Fair:
1. The Qur'an assumes that Abraham's God is true
2. The Qur'an assumes that Abraham has a valid and believable argument for the existence of God
3. Therefore his father has just outright rejected God in the face of truth and reason

Unfair:
1. It seemed to me that Abraham didn't have a valid argument besides an oh hey you should believe me kind of thing
2. Abraham's father could be just as sure that his gods exist, and he wouldn't want to denounce them and risk their punishment
3. It seems unfair that God would give humans free will only to punish them for not choosing him, especially if he's omniscient and knew they would choose other deities if given the choice.

For the last two points especially, I'm inclined to think that it's incredibly unfair for Abraham's father to be punished, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on the topic.

Jack-o-Lanters

"For almost all Americans the meaning of [Jack-o-Lanters] is lost..." -John R. Stilgoe


This quote, and I guess the whole reading in general, makes me wonder how many customs or habits we have these days that are left over from the traditions of earlier cultures.  When thinking about that, it begs the question, what else in our lives have hidden meanings?  Why were these traditions forgotten?  If they were made to be forgotten by the existence of a new culture, why do the traditions still occur, meaningless or otherwise?  How did new meanings, like with the Jack-o-Lantern get assigned?  It also makes me think about the other customs we have in the present.  What will still be carried out in the future?  What traditions will survive?  Will their meanings be forgotten as well, becoming as meaningless and habitual as the Jack-o-Lantern?

Anne Hutchinson and the American Idea of Freedom

Growing up in America, it’s not uncommon to hear phrases such as “Stand up for what you believe in!” or “Speak your mind!” In fact, sayings such as these have permeated our lives from the day we were born. We have rights. We have freedoms. Our country has been working since it’s beginning to make its entire population equal, a fact we Americans pride ourselves on. But what about before freedoms were an inalienable right for all citizens of this land? Anne Hutchinson lived in a time when people were no allowed to challenge their governments. Yet, she did. She wanted change. She had an idea. She stood up for her beliefs. She was repressed. Anne Hutchinson and her story are an example of why freedom is important in America today.

Anne Hutchinson was a Puritan. She studied scripture, prayed, and went to church. She was just like everyone else. Where Anne had come from, it was a normal practice for those who studied the Bible to gather together outside of the congregation to discuss it more in depth amongst peers. Since this was a practice she was used to, she started to hold such gatherings in her home. Men and women of all classes came to her meetings for the discussion.

Unfortunately, the governor at the time, John Winthrop, felt that his authority was being challenged by Anne. He was in charge, and he didn’t like that she was sharing her ideas with other members of the church because her ideas may not have been exactly like his. So, he did what any authority figure does when those who oppose him have few rights: he put Anne on trial. He attacked her again and again about her beliefs and her teachings. She was apparently guilty of what she didn’t have the right to think. But, despite the odds against her, Anne persevered. In the true American spirit, she stuck to her ideals and to herself. With the government itself attempting to bring her down, Anne Hutchinson held her ground, holding steadfast to what she thought to be true. And she lost. She was cast out, made to leave her home and her people behind.

If the freedoms in place today had been a part of the system then, Anne Hutchinson would never have gone to trial in the first place. She would have had the right to believe things opposing the views of the government, and a right to share those ideas with whomever she chose. Its situations such as Anne’s that the founding fathers wrote the constitution in the first place. It’s because of people such as Anne Hutchinson experiencing a lack of rights that we have them today. It’s because of people who were repressed in the past that we don’t have to be. It’s because everyone has a right to think different things and share their ideas that freedom is so hugely important in America today.

God Made an Oopsie

In Religion 121 E, we were given the assignment of Interpreting Gen. 11, The Tower of Babel.  My first reaction was God was just insane, but that, I was told, would not earn me a passing grade.   Needless to say, I changed my interpretation.

Did God give the humans too much power?

It seems to me that God made a mistake in giving the humans all "one language" because it gave them too much power.  In doing so, he gave them the ability to work together (Gen. 11:1).  They had decided to build a tower with "its top in the heavens," which is God's domain (Gen. 11:4).  It would have been possible for them to be where God lives because of how they cooperated so well.  This is evident also when God says, "nothing that they purpose to do will now be impossible for them (Gen. 11:6)."  This implies that humans could do anything they want, anything at all.  They could have the same amount of power as God., who can also do whatever he pleases.  Nothing would be impossible for either party.  Seeing this, god realizes his mistake, and is quick to remedy it.  He "confuse[d] their language[s]" so that they could no longer share his power.  God accidentally made humans too much like himself.

An alternative way of answering the question could be that God was just upset that people were getting along so well, not because of how much they were accomplishing,  but because he could have felt just a tad bit left out.  Or he could have just been having an off day.  Although these are things that could cause humans to be upset, I think the idea that God realized he had given humans too much power is a more plausible explanation.  It accounts for the idea that God doesn't get upset for no reason, and it logically explains why he was mad that his creations were doing so well, which the other explanations fail to do.

If taken in relation to earlier Genesis accounts, the idea that God made a mistake becomes even more plausible still.  He's made mistakes before, like when his creations were wicked before the flood in Gen. 6:5.    Previous passages have sow that maybe God doesn't exactly know what's going to happen, such as when he was surprised Cain murdered Abel in Gen. 4:10, and that he could have accidentally given humans too much power and been surprised by the outcome.  And, earlier text also gives examples about how he's not afraid to fix his mistakes, such as with the flood in Gen. 7:6, making the confusion of languages as a solution to that problem more likely as well.

Truth

"Mrs. Hutchinson's behavior ... can be explained largely in terms of menopausal symptoms."
-Emery Battis

To be completely fair, most things can be explained in such a way.

Anne Hutchinson: Just Another Silenced Activist?

Upon reading the article by Marilyn Westerkamp, I was slightly upset.  I'm not necessarily sure what I expected other than sixteen pages of required academic reading (not quite my definition of exciting), but it was not what I got out of the experience.

"...her theology could be judged consistent with English Puritanism... (Westerkamp)"
So what was the problem?  She had followers who supported her, she has theological ideas that matched those of the clergy in charge, and she expressed herself intelligently.  So why was she a threat?  Why was Winthrop so upset with her?  Every society needs to be challenged, to be criticized, otherwise there is no growth.  If new ideas are not presented, the evolution if a community virtually comes to a standstill.  I do believe this is what happened to the Puritan way of life at this time.  With the defeat of Anne Hutchinson,John Winthrop basically showed everyone that thinking outside the box is a bad thing: those who have their own ideas and excommunicated, and killed by natives as an act of God.  Clearly.  He single-handedly slowed the reformation and forward motion of his way of life.  But them again, maybe that was the idea.

This event totally challenges the American idea of free speech, showing once again how the Puritans were extremely different in their political ideals.  If this sort of incident were to occur today, pretty sure many people would be incredibly upset, and also, I'd like to have more trust in our legal system than that, not gonna lie.

The Puritan Idea of Freedom

True freedom "is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority"

-John Winthrop

When I stumbled across this quote in Jim Cullen's The American Dream, I was confused.  Isn't our idea of freedom today to not have to be subjected to authority?  I feel as though the Puritans, although they thought they were free, really weren't free at all by today's standards.  They believed that freedom was defined by giving themselves completely to God, but, with that idea, they lost any other freedom they may have had by giving into the idea that their destiny was preordained. If nothing you do is going to change the outcome of a situation and never could have done so, then you are not free.  You are a game piece with an already decided list of movements.  You have no actual choice.


The Puritans seemed to also be shackled by fear and judgement.   They lived in a constant fear that they might not be going to heaven.  Besides providing a constant state of anxiety, which cannot be healthy, they were forced by their fear to act a certain way, do certain things.  Simply because they were afraid of their destiny, they acted as though they knew what it was.  Their fear gave them no choice.  Therefore, the Puritans had no free will at all.  Even if one wasn't afraid of one's destiny and felt as though they could act how they wished, judgement from their peers would put a stop to that.  In essence, because of their beliefe in a preordained future, and also their fear of it, the Puritans had no free will as it is thought of in today's world.

There Are No Races

"There are no races, there are only clines." -Frank Livingstone

Race: "An arbitrary classification of modern humans based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skincolor, facial form, or eye shape (dictionary.com)."

This, I suppose, would be my non-AmCon related post for the week.  So it turns out, one of my majors is Sociology/Anthropology, so I'm a bit passionate about some of the things involved with those fields, specifically Cultural Anthropology.  One of the things that is a common misconception about mankind is the idea of races.  Even anti-racism campaigns use the idea of them, even if it's with good intensions.  However, Anthropology as a field refuses to use the term.  Why? Because heres the thing: races don't exist.

A cline is a single trait that is mapped out over the entire species, showing trends in variation.  For example, eye color is a cline.  So is hair type.  Skin color. Height.  Facial shape.  Any single genetic trait.  These traits are mapped to show how the traits differ in people around the world.  Two clinal maps could be compared to see if perhaps there are any overlap in trends, to see if any groups of people share the same clinal distribution.  For the idea of race to exist, all clines would have to align a certain way, showing that certain groups of people all share the same clines and are therefore biologically blueprinted.  But they don't.  No such overlap has ever been discovered.  Basically, "clinal analysis tests the biological concept of race and finds nothing in nature to match it (Schultz and Lavenda, 95)."

A Rewritten Poem

A Student Explains Why She Dislikes St. Olaf 
Originally by Barbara Ras
Rewritten by Megan Danielson and Shelby Miner

Because leaves on the ground are orange and red, colors
anyone can dislike, even against the green
of the grass, where they say winter is coming, oh no snow,
because on a small campus there is nowhere to hide,
it's Boe Chapel, the Caff,
the hubbub in the bathroom when all the showers are full,
because I don’t have time for breakfast in the morning,
because there's something about the sound of a creepy organ in the church at night and the dream of a bed we won’t fall out of
that reminds me this is education, because of the simple pleasure
of having a microwave is not allowed, because sometimes meat tastes better than the vegan option,
because of hauling books to class
is as good as it gets when it’s raining and snowing and you have to walk
all the way to Old Main,
because one can actually only be so environmentally friendly
when you must empty your own recycling bin always,
because you can study forever and it actually might kill you,
because towns, cities, we’d just like a real one
because the school is right next to the Malt-O-Meal factory
and it smells like oatmeal which is incredibly unfortunate without
the time for breakfast, as we mentioned earlier, just a lot of homework,
an inconvenient blog, because I'm lost deep within the library
and can’t find my way out,
because even when my academic advisor cried
“I don’t know what you should take!”
because these people
come from the hill.

On Human Cruelty

How can one possibly justify the harming of another human without provocation? It is often a topic of debate among my friends whether humans are born naturally good/evil, or if they are just taught how to behave throughout their life. Usually, the consensus that is reached is the latter. However, the more I learn about the history of mankind, the more I’m beginning to disagree with such a conclusion.

Throughout the centuries, there has been endless bloodshed and cruelty carried out by all manners of people. Like most people, I’m no fan of war. In fact, I may advocate against it in most circumstances. However, I do believe that disputes need to be settled, and that a wronged party reserves the right to justice, if the reason for it is great enough. I’m a huge fan of self-defense, for instance. But, as I am beginning to understand more fully, most conflicts are not double sided. In fact, most harmful acts have no justifiable reason whatsoever.

Greed is indeed the worst part of mankind. It is for that reason, and that alone that most atrocious acts occur. Greed for money, power, information, land, or what have you, it all stems back to the same thing, no matter the justification behind it. Examples of such things include Columbus with the slaughter of an entire population during his quest for riches and recognition, the Puritan killing of the native people so they could have more land, or Cortez’s destruction of the Aztecs simple for money, slavery. All of these instances took place without any wrongdoing by the victimized party. The examples don’t stop there. Human history is wrought with such behavior. Even in more modern times, awful things still occur because of greed. It keeps happening. Children have been taught these histories, yet things still occur. So, is it fair that I’ve been starting to think that maybe humans are not born completely innocent after all? Or that perhaps they are born easily corrupted. Whatever the case, greed has run rampant among mankind. It always has, and I’m inclined to say it always will, but you never know.

Poems and Such

So.  It turns out that I really enjoyed A Wife Explains Why She Likes Country. It had a ton of really awesome imagery and some interesting comparisons.  However, some lines really struck me as though they should have rhymed with something, which is a bit odd. For instance, "because sometimes whiskey tastes better than wine"feels like it could be the right rhythm and such for rhyming to occur (Barbara Ras).  But I guess not.  Anyway, I just overly enjoyed how it all seemed to accurately describe something to the point of easily being able to see the pictures.  To me, that's a mark of a good writer.  Plus, I enjoy when people write about something like they love it because it makes the writing seem more passionate in general.

Being Concise

Political Freedom

Even a single voice can be heard if it’s projected loud enough.  It can rise above all other voices to express its own ideas and opinions; it just needs help to do so.  Americans have always valued political freedom.  Nearly everyone has an opinion on the subject of politics, and it all comes down to being heard over everyone else.  One could use a megaphone, for example.  In the days of standing on street corners to be heard, a megaphone would make people stop and listen.  It would make the speaker the loudest and most authoritative.  Political rallies or protests used them to speak to hundreds of people at a time, leading them with ideals of change and involvement.  Megaphones not only represent these events but also the idea of being loud in itself, the idea of being the one that people turn to look at, the one they have no choice but to hear.  They represent the freedom to shout what you believe as loud as possible.  They represent sharing individual ideas.  They represent political freedom.

Original Sentence: Americans have always valued their liberty when it comes to sharing their beliefs on their government, and, in today’s world especially, political freedom is one of the most noticeable aspects of life in the United States.  

Look how much better I got at life after reading the book on concision.  No big deal.  

Ground Truthing

"What I know is this: when one hungers for light it is only because one’s knowledge of the dark is so deep."

-Terry Tempest Williams

Besides thinking that this is just a wonderfully beautiful statement, I can't help but connect it to freedom, with our whole theme in AmCon and such.  I feel like, especially in countries where freedom is a rare concept, that it is almost appreciated more because those who have suffered without it recognize the gift it truly is.  I know that it may be a tad unpatriotic, but I believe quite a few Americans take freedom for granted.  With the recent talk of the Tea Party for example, they are all upset because they think the government is limiting our freedom.  And that may be the case, however, I don't think they really understand what's it's like to be without freedom.  They think they know what they're fighting for, but those rights, although incredibly important, are nothing compared to the people in other parts of the world who have almost no rights at all, the one's who have experienced "the dark," if you will.  One can not fully appreciate something they've always had.