Week 11
Peace, love and war
Throughout this blog, I’ve tried to document the progression of notions of good and Evil held by early Americans. I, as I’ve said before, believe that America was founded as a Utopia, and for anyone who was read, Paradise Lost, or The Handmaid’s Tale, or countless other Utopian novels, there is no such thing as a Utopia, only dystopia.
From the beginning, when pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, had the first thanksgiving and ultimately started a war with the Native Americans, America has been doomed. I’m not a very cynical person, but I do believe that there are many ignorant people in this country who still have the wool pulled over their eyes. There are many facts that are glossed over in history books for example: 1. Native Americans were killed before and after the first Thanksgiving; 2. The first colonies indeed had slaves from very early in their development; 3. Many of the founding fathers had slaves and even had children with their women slaves, just ask Mr. Jefferson; 4. The Gettysburg Address did NOT end slavery. Honestly, I could keep going on and on, but these are some of the main ideas I have weaved throughout my blog series.
America is like a peacock. Have you ever seen a peacock up-close? They distract you with their brilliant colors, their pretty blues, greens and purples. They really don’t want you to see their ugly brown butts. Ok maybe not the best analogy. But I feel like much of what America has done in “self-preservation” has been similar to a peacocks feathers and a macho mans strut. I was going to add in something about a woman here as well, but I don’t think I can. Really, I don’t think women have come as far as we think. It is all, peacock-ness included, for show.
I said this in one of my early blogs, about not being able to “un-know” something. Just like when bad information circulates around, it can never be reabsorbed, there will always be someone who still thinks Miley Cyrus is dead, Elvis is alive, Obama is Muslim and the Gettysburg Address freed slaves. The delusions started early in our history, and really, had the Puritans learned that Native Americas were exactly the same as they were, only a different culture, maybe American would have turned out better.
But instead, we have built upon an invisible foundation. Like ice blocks, melting over time, this fantasy that we are a stable country is coming back to bite us in the butt. Whatever happened to (get ready for a Backstreet Boy quote) “What makes you different makes you beautiful” this isn’t a new idea but from the beginning America has persecuted. From Native Americans, to slavery, to Japanese, to the poor, to the rich, to the gay, straight, lesbian differences, America is not tolerant. Individually people may be, but until there is no persecution, there will always be persecution. Until there is no conflict, there will be no peace.
So how does this fit in with good and evil? I don’t think any country should be able to decide for any other country, any human decide for any other human, any religion decide for any other religion, or any culture decide for any other culture what is right, wrong, good, bad, left right, sane, insane. How can they? All, ALL of these things are social constructs. And as Poe helped us uncover, how can you follow a social construct when the society at large who construct the ideals may not be trustworthy, or sane, or good, or right. How do you break free from the social constructs that have lasted centuries, or even since the very beginning? Is it possible? Have we really doomed ourselves as a nation, by starting down this path of non-growth? I honestly think we have. America has hit the glass ceiling, or will some day. I think it is more of a box that we can’t see yet, but either way, growth and acceptance can’t really happen without eating ourselves (as a whole, not “Essex cannibalism” type).
Let’s say I wanted to rename the colors, call blue, purple; orange, green; and yellow, burgundy, to break free from the social constructs of color names in America (let’s just pretend we’re the only country for this little scenario). I would probably, well first off if this was a book or maybe even real life and I was the main character, I would die some tragic death before the last page, but first, I would probably be out casted from my family, my society, and sent to live in some loony bin because the colors are the colors. And that’s how it is. And anyone who says different is wrong. Wouldn’t you correct someone if they told you the sky was purple? And I’m not talking pretty sunset or sunrise purple, but on a nice clear day, “the sky is purple”. What would you think? Yes, I’m sure you might accept it, but for a split second you would think, “What?” and maybe question the person. If it happened to be a homeless, disheveled bum, you might chalk it up to the craziness living inside his head (the same stuff that makes him brush his hair with an electric toothbrush). But what if this was an intensely sane person, with verified and certified sanity. Would you question your beliefs? Would you question this person? What if it was a parent? A teacher? The president? What if people were taking up arms over this color debate? Would you stick to everything you’ve ever known as being true? Or would you escape to Canada where they don’t care what you call colors.
All conflict can be broken down into a crazy beginning. Wanting more land, wanting freedom, wanting to prove yourself right. How does that get anywhere? Why can’t you, Mr. Crayon and you Mr. Marker live on your own land, worship your own color choice and let the other do the same? Why isn’t this possible? Greed? Pride? Envy? There are probably some more “sins” that could fit in here. But this brings us back to the Bible! Even my own ability to classify issues stems back to a good and evil set forth by a construction that I don’t even believe in. This is how indoctrinated we are.
I do have hope for America no matter how cynical I may sound. I mean, my dad is in the Air Force has been to war three times and is still around to talk to me about it. Our house proudly displays a flag that is well cared for, and taken down as the sun sets every night. We have a wall in our house that is full of American regalia, including an antique Uncle Sam coin bank. I think if we start by accepting all people, people will start to accept back.
This course has been a fun one for me; for one thing, this is what I plan to teach in high school. PLAN being the key word. American Lit has always been a passion of mine, because it is very complex. I whittled down and glossed over lots of things in the progression of this blog but I definitely think I’ve come away from the class and my blog with new insight into how I see America. Things still bug be about America, but even after living in other countries and different states, it is still home, and I would defend it to the death. I just hope that it is for a worthy cause, and not to procure our beliefs in other people.
I enjoyed the set up of the class, as an almost-teacher, I have thought often of how I want my class to be set up. I had an English class similar to this one when I was a junior in high school, and Mrs. Sullivan’s class is how I’ve always seen my classroom. Circled desks, teacher among students, student facilitation, good juicy discussions—hey this is starting to sound like our class! I’m glad I was a part of such a great group of people and that we were so productive even on cold wintry days and days when no one felt like doing anything. I’m happy to know that this sort of class can still function and I hope I can transform it around a high school curriculum in the future.
Awesome class.
I will miss it terribly.
But this is my last winter quarter ever!
“The cadence of America lies hidden within the literary shell”
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Week 10! Emily Dickinson
So, about Emily Dickinson. I have mixed feelings about her. I think everyone reads her wrong, myself included. I know she is considered one of the greats, but I feel like that is because she is so mysterious. Most of her stuff doesn't make much sense to me, and I think that's why people like it. One day we're going to find something she wrote that's going to change our entire thinking of her. Like a big "JUST KIDDING" written at the end of one of her poems. Like when you idolize an actor, only to meet them in real life and find out how much of a jerk they are. Emily is laughing at us all trying to analyze her writings. I bet she had that kind of humor. The sadistic kind.
In reading The Cambridge Introduction to Emily Dickinson by Wendy Martin, I’ve come away with some new ideas about Emily. She was a recluse, but I definitely think this was out of choice, and self-preservation. Martin discusses Dickinson’s ability to have relationships with friends and teachers when she was younger, quoting Dickinson’s letters to her friends. “‘I keep your lock of hair as precious as gold,’ she wrote to Abiah, ‘I often look at it when I go to my little lot of treasures, and wish the owner of that glossy lock were here’” (Martin 5). Martin even calls the relationships Dickinson had “steadfast” (Martin 5). Emily seems to be one of those characters who has a bottomless emotional pit, which may seem like a bad thing, but the only true downside is not being able to connect with anyone on the same level. This could be why she became a recluse. She knew how to have friends, gossip, and be normal. But it wasn’t enough for her. The only true satisfaction she had was in her writing.
Martin mentions Emily receiving a copy of Jane Eyre when it was first published (Martin 10), written by “Currer Bell”, and not Charlotte Brontë because it was unacceptable to be a literary woman in that day and age. Martin states “Critics complained that Jane Eyre’s heroine was too self-reliant, independent, and common to be a moral model for women” (Martin 10). Yet, it seems Emily was such a person already. Instead of breaking out and doing as she wished as Charlotte Brontë did, by publishing anyway, even under a pseudonym, Emily imploded in a way, she locked herself in, and wrote and wrote and wrote and did not become very popular until after her death. I think she could have had more had she had a different personality type.
To sum up, I don’t think she was crazy, even if I can’t understand her. I think that’s the point. She was just as sane as anyone was; she was just ahead of her time. She could have been famous before her death, but chose the easy path. The path, which made her happy, even if she didn’t seem overly happy. I think to say she was crazy is to agree with everyone she was fighting in her own time. She was regarded as odd then, and if you agree she is still now, then what was her point in hiding away? It’s all in perspective. And Emily Dickinson had a lot of perspective.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Martin, Wendy. The Cambridge Introduction to Emily Dickinson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.
In reading The Cambridge Introduction to Emily Dickinson by Wendy Martin, I’ve come away with some new ideas about Emily. She was a recluse, but I definitely think this was out of choice, and self-preservation. Martin discusses Dickinson’s ability to have relationships with friends and teachers when she was younger, quoting Dickinson’s letters to her friends. “‘I keep your lock of hair as precious as gold,’ she wrote to Abiah, ‘I often look at it when I go to my little lot of treasures, and wish the owner of that glossy lock were here’” (Martin 5). Martin even calls the relationships Dickinson had “steadfast” (Martin 5). Emily seems to be one of those characters who has a bottomless emotional pit, which may seem like a bad thing, but the only true downside is not being able to connect with anyone on the same level. This could be why she became a recluse. She knew how to have friends, gossip, and be normal. But it wasn’t enough for her. The only true satisfaction she had was in her writing.
Martin mentions Emily receiving a copy of Jane Eyre when it was first published (Martin 10), written by “Currer Bell”, and not Charlotte Brontë because it was unacceptable to be a literary woman in that day and age. Martin states “Critics complained that Jane Eyre’s heroine was too self-reliant, independent, and common to be a moral model for women” (Martin 10). Yet, it seems Emily was such a person already. Instead of breaking out and doing as she wished as Charlotte Brontë did, by publishing anyway, even under a pseudonym, Emily imploded in a way, she locked herself in, and wrote and wrote and wrote and did not become very popular until after her death. I think she could have had more had she had a different personality type.
To sum up, I don’t think she was crazy, even if I can’t understand her. I think that’s the point. She was just as sane as anyone was; she was just ahead of her time. She could have been famous before her death, but chose the easy path. The path, which made her happy, even if she didn’t seem overly happy. I think to say she was crazy is to agree with everyone she was fighting in her own time. She was regarded as odd then, and if you agree she is still now, then what was her point in hiding away? It’s all in perspective. And Emily Dickinson had a lot of perspective.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Martin, Wendy. The Cambridge Introduction to Emily Dickinson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Week 9: Mr. E. A. Poe
Mr. Poe.
I’d like to start you out with a poem to put you in the same head-space that I’m in while writing this.
I wrote this poem to explain the human feature of insanity as a phenomenon that can happen to anyone. It isn’t a select group of people who go insane, everyone’s susceptible. I feel that Poe, while this wasn’t always the focus of his stories, was trying to say something similar. Poe tried to humanize the insane in order to counter the idea of self-reliance. How do you follow someone, or even yourself, if everyone is potentially insane? What do you trust? Do you trust your superiors? Peers? Self?
The sheer ordinariness of his stories with the overlay of unmistakable darkness and supernatural happenings make Poe’s writings that much more frightening. He doesn’t place his stories in distant planets or fantastical settings, he situates each right next to you. Not really, but it feels as if it could be, the “simple landscape features of the domain […] the bleak walls […] the vacant eye like windows” of the House of Usher could exist and it wouldn’t be completely out of the ordinary. He says this blatantly at the beginning of The Black Cat through the unnamed narrator’s introduction who states that his “immediate purpose is to place before the world, plainly, succinctly, and without consequences, a series of mere household events.” Poe plants the seeds of doubt, which as they fester become more and more similar with insanity. Too concerned with whom to trust and whether you did the right thing. This preoccupation takes over and becomes the obsessive intrusive thoughts that torment people and so many of Poe’s characters.
Obsession is why I disagree with the notion that pondering your own insanity proves your sanity. This came up in class, and I have heard it before. But what if someone was so preoccupied with their own sanity that they retreat from others and indeed become insane. How do you prove you’re sane? If you say you are, but have proved otherwise, it is just more proof that you are, and if you do say that you are, then they might believe you, but then you’re just confessing as the witches in Salem did just to get it over with, make the inquisition stop.
I’m not really sure where this was supposed to be going. I feel that as a nation we have many skeletons from our past that haunt us. The guilt and shame that come with the things we’ve done to get to where we are can erode our foundation just as it did the House of Usher. People go insane when they can’t let go of things from the past, they obsess about something that is unattainable, such as perfection, and they can’t cope. Everything we’ve read this quarter has fed into this view of insanity as a nation; from the witches to the Native Americans to the Conquistadors to the Cannibalism of the Essex crew. Poe started to reveal everything that had been swept under the rug and had rotted. That rot becomes insanity. And everyone is susceptible.
I’d like to start you out with a poem to put you in the same head-space that I’m in while writing this.
Light bulbs
The moment a person cracks
is visible, if you look close enough
Sometimes it’s an intense flash of light
that emits from the body,
as when a light bulb filament bursts
A surge and a pop
gone, without warning
The insanity lives in this surge
The obsession over the clarity
of thought takes over
Other times it’s a slow lurking grasp,
like ivy spreading over a wall
slowly taking control
of everything in its reach
In both cases the world around goes dark
and the mind illuminates itself
Insanity is a thing of beauty
A recession into one’s self
The brain is so twisted around
a thought or idea, that it becomes un-
hinged
by social constructs
A coping mechanism, mechanism
to make sense of things
We all have light bulbs
and rarely do we know
how to change them
when they
pop
I wrote this poem to explain the human feature of insanity as a phenomenon that can happen to anyone. It isn’t a select group of people who go insane, everyone’s susceptible. I feel that Poe, while this wasn’t always the focus of his stories, was trying to say something similar. Poe tried to humanize the insane in order to counter the idea of self-reliance. How do you follow someone, or even yourself, if everyone is potentially insane? What do you trust? Do you trust your superiors? Peers? Self?
The sheer ordinariness of his stories with the overlay of unmistakable darkness and supernatural happenings make Poe’s writings that much more frightening. He doesn’t place his stories in distant planets or fantastical settings, he situates each right next to you. Not really, but it feels as if it could be, the “simple landscape features of the domain […] the bleak walls […] the vacant eye like windows” of the House of Usher could exist and it wouldn’t be completely out of the ordinary. He says this blatantly at the beginning of The Black Cat through the unnamed narrator’s introduction who states that his “immediate purpose is to place before the world, plainly, succinctly, and without consequences, a series of mere household events.” Poe plants the seeds of doubt, which as they fester become more and more similar with insanity. Too concerned with whom to trust and whether you did the right thing. This preoccupation takes over and becomes the obsessive intrusive thoughts that torment people and so many of Poe’s characters.
Obsession is why I disagree with the notion that pondering your own insanity proves your sanity. This came up in class, and I have heard it before. But what if someone was so preoccupied with their own sanity that they retreat from others and indeed become insane. How do you prove you’re sane? If you say you are, but have proved otherwise, it is just more proof that you are, and if you do say that you are, then they might believe you, but then you’re just confessing as the witches in Salem did just to get it over with, make the inquisition stop.
I’m not really sure where this was supposed to be going. I feel that as a nation we have many skeletons from our past that haunt us. The guilt and shame that come with the things we’ve done to get to where we are can erode our foundation just as it did the House of Usher. People go insane when they can’t let go of things from the past, they obsess about something that is unattainable, such as perfection, and they can’t cope. Everything we’ve read this quarter has fed into this view of insanity as a nation; from the witches to the Native Americans to the Conquistadors to the Cannibalism of the Essex crew. Poe started to reveal everything that had been swept under the rug and had rotted. That rot becomes insanity. And everyone is susceptible.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Week 8: In the Heart of the Sea
In the Heart of the Sea
Conquering lesser things seems to be a running theme throughout everything we've read so far. From the Devil trying to conquer humans to settlers trying to conquer the Native Americans, to the Conquistadors living up to their names in Mexico. Jacobs' slave narrative about whites conquering blacks and vice versa, and now with In the Heart of the Sea, man is trying to conquer nature. In most cases, so far, one side has been rewarded or avenged and the other side has been punished in some way, (that is if there was a good side and a bad side), In the Heart of the Sea is no different.
The nature in this novel is the whale and the human nature of man in general. The personification of the whale makes the incident even more powerful. The whale attacked the whaleboat in order to punish the whale hunters. It was retribution. The whale was attacking out of compassion for other whales (91). It was a whale revolution! Fight the oppressors! And man must pay for what he’s done. Or something like that.
Punishment comes from evil doing but “evil” is a relative concept. The punishment of evil comes from whatever God or force you believe in, such as karma. The punishment from the whales was the sinking of their ship and the suffering that comes with it. The crewmembers ate each other and ultimately after living with the horrors for the rest of his life, Chase went crazy. It’s like there’s this anti-force in nature following people who do terrible things, that brings payback.
This idea reminds me of the M. Night Shyamalan movie “The Happening” with Marky Mark. Anyone seen it? In the movie people, start killing themselves for no apparent reason. Jumping off buildings and in one horrible scene, a girl sticks a metal chopstick into her own neck. No one can figure out what is going on, but in the end, Marky Mark figures it all out. The planet itself has created a toxic poison that it emits to kill people who live in too densely populated areas. The only cure was to start smaller, widely spaced new communities of say 1-2 families. The Earth revolted against its own people to protect itself, just as whale does.
This brings into the question of community vs. the individual. Which is more important? Harriet Jacobs dealt with this in her narrative as well. Is the need for independence worth more than the need for a community to work together to stay strong? In In the Heart of the Sea, the men who survive on the boat had to face this dilemma. Is it better to save yourself or save everyone? To do what’s right for you or do what’s right for everyone? What about not in a crisis? What about in a crisis? Does this change things? Does being in a life or death situation really throw all the morals and rules out of the window? Once you eat one person, (or do something immoral in other situations) where does it stop? Will it always haunt you as I believe it did Chase?
How do you choose whom to eat? Is it really a sacrifice? As the facilitation in class referred to, which is better: to die a good man or to live as a monster? The good man would be the one eaten. He didn’t really do anything wrong. Or live your entire life as a monster that did terrible things? I’m not sure. But one thing I know is that everyone must see Shutter Island if you haven’t already. :)
Conquering lesser things seems to be a running theme throughout everything we've read so far. From the Devil trying to conquer humans to settlers trying to conquer the Native Americans, to the Conquistadors living up to their names in Mexico. Jacobs' slave narrative about whites conquering blacks and vice versa, and now with In the Heart of the Sea, man is trying to conquer nature. In most cases, so far, one side has been rewarded or avenged and the other side has been punished in some way, (that is if there was a good side and a bad side), In the Heart of the Sea is no different.
The nature in this novel is the whale and the human nature of man in general. The personification of the whale makes the incident even more powerful. The whale attacked the whaleboat in order to punish the whale hunters. It was retribution. The whale was attacking out of compassion for other whales (91). It was a whale revolution! Fight the oppressors! And man must pay for what he’s done. Or something like that.
Punishment comes from evil doing but “evil” is a relative concept. The punishment of evil comes from whatever God or force you believe in, such as karma. The punishment from the whales was the sinking of their ship and the suffering that comes with it. The crewmembers ate each other and ultimately after living with the horrors for the rest of his life, Chase went crazy. It’s like there’s this anti-force in nature following people who do terrible things, that brings payback.
This idea reminds me of the M. Night Shyamalan movie “The Happening” with Marky Mark. Anyone seen it? In the movie people, start killing themselves for no apparent reason. Jumping off buildings and in one horrible scene, a girl sticks a metal chopstick into her own neck. No one can figure out what is going on, but in the end, Marky Mark figures it all out. The planet itself has created a toxic poison that it emits to kill people who live in too densely populated areas. The only cure was to start smaller, widely spaced new communities of say 1-2 families. The Earth revolted against its own people to protect itself, just as whale does.
This brings into the question of community vs. the individual. Which is more important? Harriet Jacobs dealt with this in her narrative as well. Is the need for independence worth more than the need for a community to work together to stay strong? In In the Heart of the Sea, the men who survive on the boat had to face this dilemma. Is it better to save yourself or save everyone? To do what’s right for you or do what’s right for everyone? What about not in a crisis? What about in a crisis? Does this change things? Does being in a life or death situation really throw all the morals and rules out of the window? Once you eat one person, (or do something immoral in other situations) where does it stop? Will it always haunt you as I believe it did Chase?
How do you choose whom to eat? Is it really a sacrifice? As the facilitation in class referred to, which is better: to die a good man or to live as a monster? The good man would be the one eaten. He didn’t really do anything wrong. Or live your entire life as a monster that did terrible things? I’m not sure. But one thing I know is that everyone must see Shutter Island if you haven’t already. :)
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Week 7: Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl.
Deciding what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” is one of the most difficult conundrums any human will face in life. We all are told from a young age that there will be consequences if we do not choose the “right” thing to do. But who says what is “right”? Technically everything in life is right and just in life until something, whether it is religion or morals or the law says otherwise. There is no concrete right and wrong until the majority of the population agrees on something and votes it into law. We learn, at times, from the mistakes of our predecessors. The attitudes and views of slavery in America were passed down generation to generation coming over from England, which shared the same practice along with many European countries. Slavery in British North America started around 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 enslaved Africans to the Virginia colony at Jamestown (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm). It was just the thinking of some people (and unfortunately still is of some) that African American people are nothing more than soulless creatures. Slaves were property to be bought and traded, just because of the color of their skin.
Some whites that owned slaves probably didn’t even know what they were doing was bad. Slaves weren’t human, which is no excuse, but it also may shed a little light into what they were doing. It is built into human nature to enact power over someone who is inferior (see Stanford Prison Experiment), as slaves were to their white “Masters”. However, through the slaves who could read and write we have a clear glimpse into the life of a slave from the slave’s point of view. I would relate this to reading a book of someone who had been conscious during a surgery, when his or her body was supposed to be under anesthesia. Most people think that it is an extended sleep with no pain, but what if it wasn’t. What if there was intense pain the entire time, or they were awake? This pain and injustice that many literate slaves tried to get across in their narratives.
Harriet Jacobs’ narrative “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl” is an exceptional insight into the life of a female slave. Many of the more famous slave narratives were written by men, yet Harriet herself even says, “Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women” (218). Women have more things to lose being slaves. In Harriet’s, or her literary alter ego, Linda’s case it was her children she was at risk of losing. Many in Linda’s family, including her grandmother, thought that her sole duty was to her children and family and not to her search for freedom. Yet Linda (Harriet) desperately planned her escape, leaving her children with her grandmother. Linda needed to be free; she needed to stick it to Dr. Flint and the system that she was not property. She refused to accept the constrains that were placed against her. She loved her children and knew the consequences of her escape, “I was about to risk everything on the throw of a die; and if I failed, O what would become of me and my poor children? They would be made to suffer for my fault” (240). She was away from her children for 7 years; this too was a selfless-selfishness in the pursuit of her own personal freedom. Yet her grandmother tells her to “stand by your own children, and suffer with them till death. Nobody respects a mother who forsakes her children” (234).
What is the morally “right” thing to do as a woman? Leave your children with a relative in search of personal freedom and victory? In hopes that one day you might save them too one day? Or staying with your children and suffering as much as they do? In today’s society, women face this same dilemma. While there is a push for women to be independent and work, this leaves their families to fend for themselves. Most times the children are raised by daycare workers or babysitter, or even sometimes become latchkey kids who take care of themselves every day. Just as Linda’s children were partially raised by their great-grandmother. So which is “right”? Should women choose to leave their children in order to be independent? Who’s responsible for the children? Men should be responsible also, but that’s a different story. Now I’m not talking about single mothers who have to provide for their families, just the women who do not need to work all day, but choose to anyway. Yes, women deserve to be happy to but not all children can be raised by daycare workers.
Deciding what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” is one of the most difficult conundrums any human will face in life. We all are told from a young age that there will be consequences if we do not choose the “right” thing to do. But who says what is “right”? Technically everything in life is right and just in life until something, whether it is religion or morals or the law says otherwise. There is no concrete right and wrong until the majority of the population agrees on something and votes it into law. We learn, at times, from the mistakes of our predecessors. The attitudes and views of slavery in America were passed down generation to generation coming over from England, which shared the same practice along with many European countries. Slavery in British North America started around 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 enslaved Africans to the Virginia colony at Jamestown (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm). It was just the thinking of some people (and unfortunately still is of some) that African American people are nothing more than soulless creatures. Slaves were property to be bought and traded, just because of the color of their skin.
Some whites that owned slaves probably didn’t even know what they were doing was bad. Slaves weren’t human, which is no excuse, but it also may shed a little light into what they were doing. It is built into human nature to enact power over someone who is inferior (see Stanford Prison Experiment), as slaves were to their white “Masters”. However, through the slaves who could read and write we have a clear glimpse into the life of a slave from the slave’s point of view. I would relate this to reading a book of someone who had been conscious during a surgery, when his or her body was supposed to be under anesthesia. Most people think that it is an extended sleep with no pain, but what if it wasn’t. What if there was intense pain the entire time, or they were awake? This pain and injustice that many literate slaves tried to get across in their narratives.
Harriet Jacobs’ narrative “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl” is an exceptional insight into the life of a female slave. Many of the more famous slave narratives were written by men, yet Harriet herself even says, “Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women” (218). Women have more things to lose being slaves. In Harriet’s, or her literary alter ego, Linda’s case it was her children she was at risk of losing. Many in Linda’s family, including her grandmother, thought that her sole duty was to her children and family and not to her search for freedom. Yet Linda (Harriet) desperately planned her escape, leaving her children with her grandmother. Linda needed to be free; she needed to stick it to Dr. Flint and the system that she was not property. She refused to accept the constrains that were placed against her. She loved her children and knew the consequences of her escape, “I was about to risk everything on the throw of a die; and if I failed, O what would become of me and my poor children? They would be made to suffer for my fault” (240). She was away from her children for 7 years; this too was a selfless-selfishness in the pursuit of her own personal freedom. Yet her grandmother tells her to “stand by your own children, and suffer with them till death. Nobody respects a mother who forsakes her children” (234).
What is the morally “right” thing to do as a woman? Leave your children with a relative in search of personal freedom and victory? In hopes that one day you might save them too one day? Or staying with your children and suffering as much as they do? In today’s society, women face this same dilemma. While there is a push for women to be independent and work, this leaves their families to fend for themselves. Most times the children are raised by daycare workers or babysitter, or even sometimes become latchkey kids who take care of themselves every day. Just as Linda’s children were partially raised by their great-grandmother. So which is “right”? Should women choose to leave their children in order to be independent? Who’s responsible for the children? Men should be responsible also, but that’s a different story. Now I’m not talking about single mothers who have to provide for their families, just the women who do not need to work all day, but choose to anyway. Yes, women deserve to be happy to but not all children can be raised by daycare workers.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Week 6: Emerson
Brief History of the United States according to collectivism and individualism
(I use the word collectivism because I couldn’t think of another –ism that could fit as the antonym of individualism, if you can think of something better please tell me!)
I find the shift into individualism interesting. As a country, America has always been trying to define itself because the split from England left us high and dry without an identity. The first colonists were puritans who wanted to break free, yes, but once they got to the New World, they all followed each other. They did what they were told to do by their patriarchal society and bible. They were sheep, who were spooked by the wolf (devil) into moving in set paths. When one individual did step out, he or she was quickly hammered back down into place, or in this case, accused and tried as a witch. This is what individuality brought. They didn’t want to be different or unique. They wanted to be the same because it was safe. They were new to this whole “creating your own country” game. And once the split between England and America happened with the Revolutionary War, the people had this new sense of patriotism. Patriotism can easily become a show off sport. Now that it was every man for themselves, they could revel in this newfound freedom and independence. Yet I feel they over did it just a bit.
They still wanted to be the “United States of America” as a collective, yet what did that mean? They had just gained independence from England now to pledge allegiance to a new leader. Yes, they set up a democracy, “By the people, for the people” (I know this came later, Gettysburg Address 1863) to help eliminate the fear of just a new monarch, but pledging to anything is still a pledge.
I believe this conflict (Independence and being a United States) set early America on an unfortunate course. A very confusing one at that. Why would early Americans want to follow rules and regulations set forth by a newly formed government so soon after separating themselves from an oppressive monarch? They just fought for independence!
(Enter Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” Stage Left)
Emerson brings ideas such as “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members” SOCIETY itself is against the man, singular. He also says, “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” Emerson attacks the manhood (dignity) of those reading and says, “Hey if you’re a real man you’ll stand up for what you believe in” Imitation is suicide! Fight injustice. Search for truth. Fight the “Man” that hides behind the façade of society, but really is a machine that chews up people and spits them out. You must be yourself! Independence all the way! As Emerson might think.
To which the United States government in its infancy probably didn’t look too kindly on. Ideas are power. Whoever has the ideas has the upper hand, especially if they contradict the status quo. Yet Emerson was a philosopher, the farmer. He planted the seeds. The ideas took root and grew into stalks, which lead to Thoreau. The activist. The pollinator.
He took Emerson’s ideas and said YES! And ran with them. Yes, Independence is key, but you must let the opposition know you are standing against them. Quit paying your taxes. Make them deal with you on your terms! “Be the counter friction to stop the machine.” Thoreau wanted change. He didn’t want the government to continue down the road it was going. Too much power always leads to corruption. It’s the human condition. Just a taste throws everything out of proportion. Yet bloodlust didn’t drive Thoreau. The search for truth and justice were his main goals. The ethics behind the movement. It wasn’t obstinence for obstinence’s sake. It was obstinence against an untruth. What was right? Moral? Ethical? Who decides this? The government? NO! Government is bad. The people? Well what do they know? Who decides?
Thus drove America speeding into a civil rift that could not be mended easily. War is never easy.
(Much of this is written out of personal experience, dealing with war and the rift between the individual and the collective. My father, a democrat, went into a war he did not believe in three times under a republican president, because it was his duty as a member of the military. His own personal beliefs were not applicable. While I’m not one to generalize into political parties, (both in moderation are ok in my eyes), my father, no matter how he felt about Mr. Bush was not at liberty to say anything against him because in doing so, the other side would win. Any rift in patriotism and respect for the seat of the president of the United States creates a horrible precedent that the American people do not believe in their own government, which leaves us vulnerable to other countries. I’m sorry for this rant, but it bugs me when people bash Obama and wish he would fail, no matter what side you are on, he is president. Therefore, sometimes I do think that the whole should be more important than the individual, but not consistently.)
(I use the word collectivism because I couldn’t think of another –ism that could fit as the antonym of individualism, if you can think of something better please tell me!)
I find the shift into individualism interesting. As a country, America has always been trying to define itself because the split from England left us high and dry without an identity. The first colonists were puritans who wanted to break free, yes, but once they got to the New World, they all followed each other. They did what they were told to do by their patriarchal society and bible. They were sheep, who were spooked by the wolf (devil) into moving in set paths. When one individual did step out, he or she was quickly hammered back down into place, or in this case, accused and tried as a witch. This is what individuality brought. They didn’t want to be different or unique. They wanted to be the same because it was safe. They were new to this whole “creating your own country” game. And once the split between England and America happened with the Revolutionary War, the people had this new sense of patriotism. Patriotism can easily become a show off sport. Now that it was every man for themselves, they could revel in this newfound freedom and independence. Yet I feel they over did it just a bit.
They still wanted to be the “United States of America” as a collective, yet what did that mean? They had just gained independence from England now to pledge allegiance to a new leader. Yes, they set up a democracy, “By the people, for the people” (I know this came later, Gettysburg Address 1863) to help eliminate the fear of just a new monarch, but pledging to anything is still a pledge.
I believe this conflict (Independence and being a United States) set early America on an unfortunate course. A very confusing one at that. Why would early Americans want to follow rules and regulations set forth by a newly formed government so soon after separating themselves from an oppressive monarch? They just fought for independence!
(Enter Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” Stage Left)
Emerson brings ideas such as “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members” SOCIETY itself is against the man, singular. He also says, “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” Emerson attacks the manhood (dignity) of those reading and says, “Hey if you’re a real man you’ll stand up for what you believe in” Imitation is suicide! Fight injustice. Search for truth. Fight the “Man” that hides behind the façade of society, but really is a machine that chews up people and spits them out. You must be yourself! Independence all the way! As Emerson might think.
To which the United States government in its infancy probably didn’t look too kindly on. Ideas are power. Whoever has the ideas has the upper hand, especially if they contradict the status quo. Yet Emerson was a philosopher, the farmer. He planted the seeds. The ideas took root and grew into stalks, which lead to Thoreau. The activist. The pollinator.
He took Emerson’s ideas and said YES! And ran with them. Yes, Independence is key, but you must let the opposition know you are standing against them. Quit paying your taxes. Make them deal with you on your terms! “Be the counter friction to stop the machine.” Thoreau wanted change. He didn’t want the government to continue down the road it was going. Too much power always leads to corruption. It’s the human condition. Just a taste throws everything out of proportion. Yet bloodlust didn’t drive Thoreau. The search for truth and justice were his main goals. The ethics behind the movement. It wasn’t obstinence for obstinence’s sake. It was obstinence against an untruth. What was right? Moral? Ethical? Who decides this? The government? NO! Government is bad. The people? Well what do they know? Who decides?
Thus drove America speeding into a civil rift that could not be mended easily. War is never easy.
(Much of this is written out of personal experience, dealing with war and the rift between the individual and the collective. My father, a democrat, went into a war he did not believe in three times under a republican president, because it was his duty as a member of the military. His own personal beliefs were not applicable. While I’m not one to generalize into political parties, (both in moderation are ok in my eyes), my father, no matter how he felt about Mr. Bush was not at liberty to say anything against him because in doing so, the other side would win. Any rift in patriotism and respect for the seat of the president of the United States creates a horrible precedent that the American people do not believe in their own government, which leaves us vulnerable to other countries. I’m sorry for this rant, but it bugs me when people bash Obama and wish he would fail, no matter what side you are on, he is president. Therefore, sometimes I do think that the whole should be more important than the individual, but not consistently.)
Friday, February 5, 2010
Week 5: The Coquette
The Coquette
I find that really anything can be broken down into good and evil. Granted most things aren't as black and white, but everything in essence is either good or bad. Or even, one thing is not as bad as something else. Everything can be placed on a spectrum of good and evil. This spectrum stems from human nature. Almost everyone has a conscience, logical thought process, that helps determine actions and such. In The Coquette Eliza (and her allegorical counter-part, America) must weigh the decision of whether to follow the path of good (safety, easiness, Boyer, English rule) or evil (war, hardship, Sanford, Liberty). The choice Eliza makes again matches her allegorical mate, America—she chooses liberty with Sanford. Does this mean that Liberty is evil? No, not in the slightest. But no one said conquest was easy. One must steal the mind and charge into the face of certain death. The Coquette is a cautionary tale in a way—almost a “be careful what you wish for” type, written after the action had already happened. Are we going down a path that will lead to our destruction? What happened to our allegorical America? She died, alone, and impregnated by liberty.
When reading The Coquette, I couldn’t help but think of a combination of Chopin’s The Awakening and James’ Daisy Miller. In both, the female characters liberate themselves from normal constrains of social life, just as Eliza tries to liberate herself. In The Awakening, Edna finds that she can never really be happy now that she is awake, and ends up finding the only happiness she can in death. Daisy Miller also meets a tragic end after she professes her independence. These are just two examples but there are many female literary figures that portray the independent woman meeting her demise. It seems almost inevitable that Eliza should meet her own tragedy after her own freedom. The female literary figure is flawed in a way that the male counterpart is not. She has to overcome so many obstacles, social, emotional, and so forth that are not always written for the men.
It’s doesn’t make much sense to me, to have a woman author writing about such a horrible situation with a tragic lead character. Yet many times this happens. Hannah Foster presented the situation as Elizabeth Whitman (the real Eliza Wharton), in a tragic sense. She is not a heroine in my eyes. Even if she tried to break out and do her own thing. I know she says “…leave me to exercise my own free will” (Foster 29), but she wants freedom, that’s it. I get it. But she goes on to say on a later page, “I am young, gay, volatile. A melancholy event has lately extricated me from those shackles, which parental authority had imposed on my mind. Let me have this opportunity, unbiased by opinion, to gratify my natural disposition in a participation of those pleasures which youth and innocence afford” (Foster 13).
I find that really anything can be broken down into good and evil. Granted most things aren't as black and white, but everything in essence is either good or bad. Or even, one thing is not as bad as something else. Everything can be placed on a spectrum of good and evil. This spectrum stems from human nature. Almost everyone has a conscience, logical thought process, that helps determine actions and such. In The Coquette Eliza (and her allegorical counter-part, America) must weigh the decision of whether to follow the path of good (safety, easiness, Boyer, English rule) or evil (war, hardship, Sanford, Liberty). The choice Eliza makes again matches her allegorical mate, America—she chooses liberty with Sanford. Does this mean that Liberty is evil? No, not in the slightest. But no one said conquest was easy. One must steal the mind and charge into the face of certain death. The Coquette is a cautionary tale in a way—almost a “be careful what you wish for” type, written after the action had already happened. Are we going down a path that will lead to our destruction? What happened to our allegorical America? She died, alone, and impregnated by liberty.
When reading The Coquette, I couldn’t help but think of a combination of Chopin’s The Awakening and James’ Daisy Miller. In both, the female characters liberate themselves from normal constrains of social life, just as Eliza tries to liberate herself. In The Awakening, Edna finds that she can never really be happy now that she is awake, and ends up finding the only happiness she can in death. Daisy Miller also meets a tragic end after she professes her independence. These are just two examples but there are many female literary figures that portray the independent woman meeting her demise. It seems almost inevitable that Eliza should meet her own tragedy after her own freedom. The female literary figure is flawed in a way that the male counterpart is not. She has to overcome so many obstacles, social, emotional, and so forth that are not always written for the men.
It’s doesn’t make much sense to me, to have a woman author writing about such a horrible situation with a tragic lead character. Yet many times this happens. Hannah Foster presented the situation as Elizabeth Whitman (the real Eliza Wharton), in a tragic sense. She is not a heroine in my eyes. Even if she tried to break out and do her own thing. I know she says “…leave me to exercise my own free will” (Foster 29), but she wants freedom, that’s it. I get it. But she goes on to say on a later page, “I am young, gay, volatile. A melancholy event has lately extricated me from those shackles, which parental authority had imposed on my mind. Let me have this opportunity, unbiased by opinion, to gratify my natural disposition in a participation of those pleasures which youth and innocence afford” (Foster 13).
Friday, January 29, 2010
Week 4: Conquistadors or Something
Conquistadors or something
This week we looked at the male social structure and expectations of the male in society both currently and back when America was still a budding nation. I find social structures in general to be quite interesting. It goes back to the whole, nature vs. nurture debate. Are we born with the preconceived notions of what a woman is or what makes a man? Is it built into us, as humans, to think that the man should be dominant and the breadwinner, play with trucks, get dirty, and flaunt testosterone? Likewise, are we born to think that women should be meek, innocent, submissive, homemaker, baby-factories? Or is it all a product of our upbringing?
Is it because we see how other people act, from the time that we are born? A subconscious observation that babies notice without anyone else noticing. An observation of things that are so far on the down low that we don’t even notice how they might affect children? In the movie we watched on Tuesday, this argument came up as we watched men and the social structure that is produced from watching wrestling. Whether they know it or not, people who participate in professional wrestling and who watch it are buying into the stereotype that men must be macho and defend their honor, that it’s ok to beat each other up, as well as women. They learn that women are objects to be commanded by the men, and that women deserve everything they get if they upset their male counterpart. Even by watching, even by knowing that it’s fake, they still buy into it. Because someone had to think of it, someone had to put that idea out there and have people play it in order to make it come alive. The transfer of an idea.
This male social structure is all over our society, and to just single out wrestling is unfair. Wrestling is only one component that plays into what develops the idea of the “man.” Think about it. How many Disney movies have a female “damsel in distress” and a macho, sword wielding prince charming character? Even though he may be a knight in shining armor, someone who is going to take care of the princess in the end, why is the princess going to need him? Why must he be macho, and defeat the evil character? Because the woman is weak, the man must protect her. It’s the same old gender archetypes.
This brings me to my main point. Macho men, in Disney, in history, in literature, ALWAYS have to fight for what they want, deserve, and need. If the man isn’t getting what he wants, deserves or needs, then he is going to start a war to attain such. That’s just the way it is. Where does this desire to kill for what’s yours come from? This idea only brings war when two cultures clash. As long as there are two sides to a situation, there cannot be peace, but to have everyone on the same side is boring.
Cortez and his people sought to keep control of the current Mexican people and gain more land. And why? Because as Bernal Diaz states, “I believe that we performed them not of our own volition but by the guidance of God” (p 250). The conquistador attitude that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and take whatever they want is fits with the male social structure of that time as well as current times as well.
I know there are always exceptions. I am generalized a great deal here. But I feel that most men feel a need to be a provider, and their pride and ego are hurt when they cannot do such. At least in my experience, this is the case. Some men have no issue with a woman breaking down social structures and being the “wearer of the pants.”
So where do these male and female roles come from? Are we as humans born with natural tendencies towards one side or the other? Or is it based on how we were raised? Nature vs. Nurture. Which side would be “better” if we use “better” as a relative term. On the spectrum of good and evil, is it evil to embrace the dominant side of a male, or a female for that matter? Does that make someone evil?
This week we looked at the male social structure and expectations of the male in society both currently and back when America was still a budding nation. I find social structures in general to be quite interesting. It goes back to the whole, nature vs. nurture debate. Are we born with the preconceived notions of what a woman is or what makes a man? Is it built into us, as humans, to think that the man should be dominant and the breadwinner, play with trucks, get dirty, and flaunt testosterone? Likewise, are we born to think that women should be meek, innocent, submissive, homemaker, baby-factories? Or is it all a product of our upbringing?
Is it because we see how other people act, from the time that we are born? A subconscious observation that babies notice without anyone else noticing. An observation of things that are so far on the down low that we don’t even notice how they might affect children? In the movie we watched on Tuesday, this argument came up as we watched men and the social structure that is produced from watching wrestling. Whether they know it or not, people who participate in professional wrestling and who watch it are buying into the stereotype that men must be macho and defend their honor, that it’s ok to beat each other up, as well as women. They learn that women are objects to be commanded by the men, and that women deserve everything they get if they upset their male counterpart. Even by watching, even by knowing that it’s fake, they still buy into it. Because someone had to think of it, someone had to put that idea out there and have people play it in order to make it come alive. The transfer of an idea.
This male social structure is all over our society, and to just single out wrestling is unfair. Wrestling is only one component that plays into what develops the idea of the “man.” Think about it. How many Disney movies have a female “damsel in distress” and a macho, sword wielding prince charming character? Even though he may be a knight in shining armor, someone who is going to take care of the princess in the end, why is the princess going to need him? Why must he be macho, and defeat the evil character? Because the woman is weak, the man must protect her. It’s the same old gender archetypes.
This brings me to my main point. Macho men, in Disney, in history, in literature, ALWAYS have to fight for what they want, deserve, and need. If the man isn’t getting what he wants, deserves or needs, then he is going to start a war to attain such. That’s just the way it is. Where does this desire to kill for what’s yours come from? This idea only brings war when two cultures clash. As long as there are two sides to a situation, there cannot be peace, but to have everyone on the same side is boring.
Cortez and his people sought to keep control of the current Mexican people and gain more land. And why? Because as Bernal Diaz states, “I believe that we performed them not of our own volition but by the guidance of God” (p 250). The conquistador attitude that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and take whatever they want is fits with the male social structure of that time as well as current times as well.
I know there are always exceptions. I am generalized a great deal here. But I feel that most men feel a need to be a provider, and their pride and ego are hurt when they cannot do such. At least in my experience, this is the case. Some men have no issue with a woman breaking down social structures and being the “wearer of the pants.”
So where do these male and female roles come from? Are we as humans born with natural tendencies towards one side or the other? Or is it based on how we were raised? Nature vs. Nurture. Which side would be “better” if we use “better” as a relative term. On the spectrum of good and evil, is it evil to embrace the dominant side of a male, or a female for that matter? Does that make someone evil?
Week 3: Women's Indian Captivity Narratives
Week 3: Women's Indian Captivity Narratives
So, if you haven't already figured it out, my trend throughout this blog is aimed at Good, Evil, and peace.
Please don’t take offense to anything I write in my blogs. I have a bunch of issues with structured religions. I tend to lash out. Take everything with a grain of salt if you tend to be offended.
The Slave Narrative of Mary Rowlenson really irritated me. Her feelings of superiority to her captors because she felt “God was on her side” seemed like the epitome of the issues that still underlie most of the socio-cultural issues in our nation. In my honest opinion, Puritans (and Christians, for that matter) in general feel compelled to “purify” other cultures that have their own religions. Who says other religions are wrong? Why can’t it all be right? Just because something is different does not mean that it is wrong or evil. Apparently, not much was learned from the witch trials.
From the Native American’s perspectives, the puritans were the invaders, the corrupters of their land, which they worshiped among other things. Yet, the self-righteous puritans thought so little of the Native people, that they underestimated their beliefs and values. Whenever I study early American history, I get frustrated. We idealized the first thanksgiving and the first relationships with the Native Americans, yet we don’t really understand what the puritans caused. They destroyed the land and started what we are only starting to realize is bad for the planet in the past few years. Yes, I understand America paid restitution to the Native Americans and gave them some land back, but it’s more of a nice gesture than anything else.
Christianity is one of the only religions that feels the need to save other people instead of accepting. This built-in prejudice is what founded America. Because of this, we can never have equality unless we reevaluate our entire national foundation. The Native American people had their own culture before the first people landed in the new world from Europe. But because the puritans did not understand their culture, or try to, and understand how they were affecting the Native Americans, the Native Americans had no choice but to use brutality to defend what they thought was right. Not that violence was the right choice, but people can only take so much oppression. It’s human nature.
Reading this story brought up some of the feelings that I went though when I first read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it!) When I read that book, I felt like someone had slapped me with the truth. To me, Christian missionaries are always portrayed as the good guys. They went into poor villages, helped build schools, and gave clean water and other things. Achebe completely flips this scenario on its end. His story is from the point of view of the tribal people the missionaries came to visit. He describes the horror that the missionaries brought if the people refused to convert to Christianity. Either you converted or they burnt your village, in so many words. Now I’m sure this isn’t how it is now, but at one time, Christians believed that if other people weren’t with them, then they were against them. This pitted Christians against everyone else, just as the puritans pitted themselves against the Native Americans.
To the puritans the Native Americans were played into their own views of religion and what “God’s plan” was. The Native Americans were supposed to do what they did because God wanted them to help strengthen the religion of the puritans. I have great issue with this line of thinking. To try to fit everything into a sort of mould because it suits your own version of life. This is the same as common day stereotypes and social structures. (See Week 4)
Do you think I’m reaching here? I don’t know if my criticism of structured intolerant religions has blinded me. I know I may be attacking Christianity, and it may be all religion in general, I’m not sure. Just working with what I have. What do you think is the natural course of events if religion that has the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality?
To add to this idea, I want to shift back to religion, again I apologize.
Early Christians, like those of the colonies of Mary Rowlenson, thought they were all that and a bag of chips. That’s why many of the puritans left England in the first place, religious freedoms. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Yet throughout history, we can definitely see that these people did not believe in any religious freedom of their own. It was as with Achebe’s book, “Join us or Die”. In the book Utopias in America by Jyotsna Sreenivasan in the section called “Persecution”, the details of all religious persecution are laid out. “The Ephrata Cloister, which lived communally in Pennsylvania from 1732 to 1786, believed in keeping Saturday as their Sabbath. They were arrested and fined for working on Sundays. In addition, male settlers, angry because their wives and daughters were attracted to the community, beat the Ephrata leader several times” (Sreenivasan 56). I know this isn’t exactly the same time as Rowlenson, but it’s what they became. The evolution of the colonies has lead from not accepting the Indians to not accepting each other, on the same merits that our nation was colonized.
I really like the idea of Utopia and I completely believe that America is one, and has many sub-utopias inside.
Sreenivasan, Jyotsna. Utopias in American History. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print.
So, if you haven't already figured it out, my trend throughout this blog is aimed at Good, Evil, and peace.
Please don’t take offense to anything I write in my blogs. I have a bunch of issues with structured religions. I tend to lash out. Take everything with a grain of salt if you tend to be offended.
The Slave Narrative of Mary Rowlenson really irritated me. Her feelings of superiority to her captors because she felt “God was on her side” seemed like the epitome of the issues that still underlie most of the socio-cultural issues in our nation. In my honest opinion, Puritans (and Christians, for that matter) in general feel compelled to “purify” other cultures that have their own religions. Who says other religions are wrong? Why can’t it all be right? Just because something is different does not mean that it is wrong or evil. Apparently, not much was learned from the witch trials.
From the Native American’s perspectives, the puritans were the invaders, the corrupters of their land, which they worshiped among other things. Yet, the self-righteous puritans thought so little of the Native people, that they underestimated their beliefs and values. Whenever I study early American history, I get frustrated. We idealized the first thanksgiving and the first relationships with the Native Americans, yet we don’t really understand what the puritans caused. They destroyed the land and started what we are only starting to realize is bad for the planet in the past few years. Yes, I understand America paid restitution to the Native Americans and gave them some land back, but it’s more of a nice gesture than anything else.
Christianity is one of the only religions that feels the need to save other people instead of accepting. This built-in prejudice is what founded America. Because of this, we can never have equality unless we reevaluate our entire national foundation. The Native American people had their own culture before the first people landed in the new world from Europe. But because the puritans did not understand their culture, or try to, and understand how they were affecting the Native Americans, the Native Americans had no choice but to use brutality to defend what they thought was right. Not that violence was the right choice, but people can only take so much oppression. It’s human nature.
Reading this story brought up some of the feelings that I went though when I first read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it!) When I read that book, I felt like someone had slapped me with the truth. To me, Christian missionaries are always portrayed as the good guys. They went into poor villages, helped build schools, and gave clean water and other things. Achebe completely flips this scenario on its end. His story is from the point of view of the tribal people the missionaries came to visit. He describes the horror that the missionaries brought if the people refused to convert to Christianity. Either you converted or they burnt your village, in so many words. Now I’m sure this isn’t how it is now, but at one time, Christians believed that if other people weren’t with them, then they were against them. This pitted Christians against everyone else, just as the puritans pitted themselves against the Native Americans.
To the puritans the Native Americans were played into their own views of religion and what “God’s plan” was. The Native Americans were supposed to do what they did because God wanted them to help strengthen the religion of the puritans. I have great issue with this line of thinking. To try to fit everything into a sort of mould because it suits your own version of life. This is the same as common day stereotypes and social structures. (See Week 4)
Do you think I’m reaching here? I don’t know if my criticism of structured intolerant religions has blinded me. I know I may be attacking Christianity, and it may be all religion in general, I’m not sure. Just working with what I have. What do you think is the natural course of events if religion that has the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality?
To add to this idea, I want to shift back to religion, again I apologize.
Early Christians, like those of the colonies of Mary Rowlenson, thought they were all that and a bag of chips. That’s why many of the puritans left England in the first place, religious freedoms. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Yet throughout history, we can definitely see that these people did not believe in any religious freedom of their own. It was as with Achebe’s book, “Join us or Die”. In the book Utopias in America by Jyotsna Sreenivasan in the section called “Persecution”, the details of all religious persecution are laid out. “The Ephrata Cloister, which lived communally in Pennsylvania from 1732 to 1786, believed in keeping Saturday as their Sabbath. They were arrested and fined for working on Sundays. In addition, male settlers, angry because their wives and daughters were attracted to the community, beat the Ephrata leader several times” (Sreenivasan 56). I know this isn’t exactly the same time as Rowlenson, but it’s what they became. The evolution of the colonies has lead from not accepting the Indians to not accepting each other, on the same merits that our nation was colonized.
I really like the idea of Utopia and I completely believe that America is one, and has many sub-utopias inside.
Sreenivasan, Jyotsna. Utopias in American History. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Week 2: Young Goodman Brown/Salem Witch Trials
Young Goodman Brown/Salem Witch Trials
I really like thinking about, and arguing about, the dichotomy of good versus evil. I don’t believe there can be one without the other. And as Brandi said in her comment, it’s similar to the “can’t have women without men and vice versa” argument. And the men versus women argument stems back to the creation story in the bible. It’s all Eve’s fault, therefore all women are cursed. It seems like the same sort of original sin that plagued Nathaniel Hawthorne. Something that you are born into, cannot ever escape from, and that envelops your entire life and mind. That kind of curse could really drive someone crazy!
Nathaniel Hawthorne seemed to ponder the same questions that I brought up in my last blog. (How people who are so called "good" can kill other people because they are "bad". What does that make the good people? Why do they get to be "let off" for doing bad things? Just because they think they are doing “good”? Who says?) As the proverb goes, “the sins of the father are passed down to the son,” right? In this case, Hawthorne’s great grandfather started it by trying and witnessing each of the executions of guilty witches in Salem.
N. Hawthorne might agree that no one was really “let off” for what happened in Salem. To me, it seems he tries to work out his issues with faith in his story “Young Goodman Brown.” Throughout, Goodman Brown knows the errand he is endeavoring on, yet he lives his “Faith” at home (in this case, both his wife and his religion are his “Faith”). My favorite line came right at the beginning when he says, “‘Poor little Faith!’ though he, for his heart smote him. ‘What a wretch am I to leave her on such an errand! She talks of dreams, too’” (65). He knows he should not have left her to go into the forest! He should not leave his Faith! I’m sure it was taught to never stray from the “good” path. Temptation was rarely allowed at all, that’s why the puritans were so closed up, and they did not even allow the thought of temptation. Hawthorne completely changed that, he allowed temptation to Goodman Brown. And thus introduced doubt.
I thought of an analogy in class about doubt and the time before doubt. When you are looking at a specific object on the wall or floor, just one object, really staring at it and focusing on it and nothing else, then you (without removing your focus) slowly start to widen what you can see in your peripheral vision. And then, oh, there’s something white over there, I can see it’s outline and color while keeping my focus on the same object. Now, when you try to put all of your focus and concentration back on the first object, you can’t not see the white something on the outside of your focus. That’s doubt. Once it’s observed, it can be unobserved. (At least that’s how it happens for me! Am I crazy or does this happen to other people too?)
Anyway, Hawthorne introduced doubt into the lives (however fictitious) of his puritan characters. Goodman Brown began doubting his Faith when he saw her in the woods. Obviously Goodman Brown believes he needs his Faith to fight off the devil, he even says it, “‘With heaven above and Faith below, I will yet stand firm against the devil’ cried Goodman Brown” (70). He knows he needs faith, yet he abandoned it, and now it is tainted by what he saw and can’t un-see. (Didja follow all that?)
It seems like Hawthorne had some issues with faith and the devil and the dichotomy of the two. How closely related are they? Can you have one without the other? Is it a never-ending continuum? If you get too far in one direction, does it turn to the other polar end? If you are too Christian that you reject everything else, are you just as bad as the devil? I dunno. I’m still trying to work this all out.
(I found this picture btw. No credit to me)
Maybe I’m wrong about Hawthorne, maybe he truly believed they were witches and thus cursed his family as they hung?
I really like thinking about, and arguing about, the dichotomy of good versus evil. I don’t believe there can be one without the other. And as Brandi said in her comment, it’s similar to the “can’t have women without men and vice versa” argument. And the men versus women argument stems back to the creation story in the bible. It’s all Eve’s fault, therefore all women are cursed. It seems like the same sort of original sin that plagued Nathaniel Hawthorne. Something that you are born into, cannot ever escape from, and that envelops your entire life and mind. That kind of curse could really drive someone crazy!
Nathaniel Hawthorne seemed to ponder the same questions that I brought up in my last blog. (How people who are so called "good" can kill other people because they are "bad". What does that make the good people? Why do they get to be "let off" for doing bad things? Just because they think they are doing “good”? Who says?) As the proverb goes, “the sins of the father are passed down to the son,” right? In this case, Hawthorne’s great grandfather started it by trying and witnessing each of the executions of guilty witches in Salem.
N. Hawthorne might agree that no one was really “let off” for what happened in Salem. To me, it seems he tries to work out his issues with faith in his story “Young Goodman Brown.” Throughout, Goodman Brown knows the errand he is endeavoring on, yet he lives his “Faith” at home (in this case, both his wife and his religion are his “Faith”). My favorite line came right at the beginning when he says, “‘Poor little Faith!’ though he, for his heart smote him. ‘What a wretch am I to leave her on such an errand! She talks of dreams, too’” (65). He knows he should not have left her to go into the forest! He should not leave his Faith! I’m sure it was taught to never stray from the “good” path. Temptation was rarely allowed at all, that’s why the puritans were so closed up, and they did not even allow the thought of temptation. Hawthorne completely changed that, he allowed temptation to Goodman Brown. And thus introduced doubt.
I thought of an analogy in class about doubt and the time before doubt. When you are looking at a specific object on the wall or floor, just one object, really staring at it and focusing on it and nothing else, then you (without removing your focus) slowly start to widen what you can see in your peripheral vision. And then, oh, there’s something white over there, I can see it’s outline and color while keeping my focus on the same object. Now, when you try to put all of your focus and concentration back on the first object, you can’t not see the white something on the outside of your focus. That’s doubt. Once it’s observed, it can be unobserved. (At least that’s how it happens for me! Am I crazy or does this happen to other people too?)
Anyway, Hawthorne introduced doubt into the lives (however fictitious) of his puritan characters. Goodman Brown began doubting his Faith when he saw her in the woods. Obviously Goodman Brown believes he needs his Faith to fight off the devil, he even says it, “‘With heaven above and Faith below, I will yet stand firm against the devil’ cried Goodman Brown” (70). He knows he needs faith, yet he abandoned it, and now it is tainted by what he saw and can’t un-see. (Didja follow all that?)
It seems like Hawthorne had some issues with faith and the devil and the dichotomy of the two. How closely related are they? Can you have one without the other? Is it a never-ending continuum? If you get too far in one direction, does it turn to the other polar end? If you are too Christian that you reject everything else, are you just as bad as the devil? I dunno. I’m still trying to work this all out.
(I found this picture btw. No credit to me)
Maybe I’m wrong about Hawthorne, maybe he truly believed they were witches and thus cursed his family as they hung?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Week 1: On Witchcraft
Cotton Mather’s On Witchcraft
I really did not understand too much of Mather’s language. His references and long-winded sentences made it difficult to follow closely. But what I did understand from it, I’ve written about here.
I’ve always been interested in the Salem witch trials. There is just something about the fact that these people could not defend themselves against something that was so far beyond anyone’s own power. They were only fighting themselves, to a point. To the people of New England in the 1620s it was beyond horrible to think that the devil could be walking among them, trying to convert them to his dark and evil ways. What fueled all of the hysteria was fear; fear that their way of life is under attack. The people of Salem were, as Cotton Mather said, “People of God” (14), good people. This was why they believed the devil chose to attack them. Just like any other war, this was a war against the devil. But how do you fight the devil? Pray, pray, pray, hang people, pray. You know, the usual way of fighting. Except this was a holy war. God chose them to fight this.
What gets me is how people who are so called "good" can kill other people because they are "bad". What does that make the good people? Why do they get to be "let off" for doing bad things? Just because they think they are doing “good”? Who says?
History repeats itself many times over. Thus why Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” in the 1950s. We cry: “Witch, Witch, she’s a witch!”; “Communist, Communist, he’s a communist!”; “Muslim, Muslim, he’s a Muslim!” Can’t really learn, can we?
In high school, I lived in Massachusetts for two years. Salem is kind of a non-thing to New Englanders. Just a sort of, “oh yeah it’s there”. Maybe you take a field trip in 8th grade. And go at Halloween for some fun horror shows, but not much else. To someone who had just moved there and heard of it all her life, well, then it’s a bit different. Salem, the town, is very touristy. Full of museums and gift stores where you can buy witch’s hats and all types of pentagrams. All of course for $50 and your first born. No one has forgotten though. The area is still eerily sacred. Along with all of the costumed reenactments and wax figures, you can still tell something happened there.
There was a shift here in Salem, after the trials any everything were finished, where people started to see past fear and started using intelligence to see understanding and tolerance. Yet, even today, fear still sends people to the same conclusion: burn the witch. Will it ever stop? As long as there are two sides to anything, there will be conflict. One side will be good, one side will be bad. Where they fall on the spectrum of good and evil is another story. Fear of losing what one has will always cause conflict as well. Preemptive strikes and there goes another war. I don’t think we can have good without bad, because there always has to be the anti. Unless everything is the same, then we will have conflict. Can there ever be peace? I’m not sure yet.
I really did not understand too much of Mather’s language. His references and long-winded sentences made it difficult to follow closely. But what I did understand from it, I’ve written about here.
I’ve always been interested in the Salem witch trials. There is just something about the fact that these people could not defend themselves against something that was so far beyond anyone’s own power. They were only fighting themselves, to a point. To the people of New England in the 1620s it was beyond horrible to think that the devil could be walking among them, trying to convert them to his dark and evil ways. What fueled all of the hysteria was fear; fear that their way of life is under attack. The people of Salem were, as Cotton Mather said, “People of God” (14), good people. This was why they believed the devil chose to attack them. Just like any other war, this was a war against the devil. But how do you fight the devil? Pray, pray, pray, hang people, pray. You know, the usual way of fighting. Except this was a holy war. God chose them to fight this.
What gets me is how people who are so called "good" can kill other people because they are "bad". What does that make the good people? Why do they get to be "let off" for doing bad things? Just because they think they are doing “good”? Who says?
History repeats itself many times over. Thus why Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” in the 1950s. We cry: “Witch, Witch, she’s a witch!”; “Communist, Communist, he’s a communist!”; “Muslim, Muslim, he’s a Muslim!” Can’t really learn, can we?
In high school, I lived in Massachusetts for two years. Salem is kind of a non-thing to New Englanders. Just a sort of, “oh yeah it’s there”. Maybe you take a field trip in 8th grade. And go at Halloween for some fun horror shows, but not much else. To someone who had just moved there and heard of it all her life, well, then it’s a bit different. Salem, the town, is very touristy. Full of museums and gift stores where you can buy witch’s hats and all types of pentagrams. All of course for $50 and your first born. No one has forgotten though. The area is still eerily sacred. Along with all of the costumed reenactments and wax figures, you can still tell something happened there.
There was a shift here in Salem, after the trials any everything were finished, where people started to see past fear and started using intelligence to see understanding and tolerance. Yet, even today, fear still sends people to the same conclusion: burn the witch. Will it ever stop? As long as there are two sides to anything, there will be conflict. One side will be good, one side will be bad. Where they fall on the spectrum of good and evil is another story. Fear of losing what one has will always cause conflict as well. Preemptive strikes and there goes another war. I don’t think we can have good without bad, because there always has to be the anti. Unless everything is the same, then we will have conflict. Can there ever be peace? I’m not sure yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
