QUOTE:
“Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty scourge of war my speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword” (Lincoln 1636).
SUMMARY:
Lincoln seems to be saying that the Civil War was necessary to pay back God for all of the innocent lives that were so horribly destroyed by slavery.
RESPONSE:
After reading Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, I feel much better about the man Lincoln becomes. He may have started out indifferent to the issue of slavery, but by this quote in his speech, Lincoln even understands how many people were wrongly enslaved, treated horribly, and beaten. I know it took him a little time to fully change his view of slavery, but better late than never! I also love how he isn’t saying that only the South should have been punished. It seems to me that Lincoln is saying that the North was also punished for letting slavery continue for so long.
It’s so funny how reading this speech makes me SO glad that the North won the Civil War, well maybe not funny, but it makes me realize that there could have been a different outcome! If the South won, Lincoln said every state would have had to become a slave state! I’m not really sure how that would have ever worked; just because so many Africans were already living free in the North. I also think that the people in the North would have felt really horrible if they had to capture all of the free African Americans as slaves.
Maybe Lincoln didn't really mean it when he said, “It will become all one thing, or all the other” (Lincoln 1629). Because if he meant that the whole North would have had to change to slave states as well if the South won the Civil War, I really don’t think that would have worked. I think that would have been a lot harder to change, because so many people were so passionate against slavery.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Journal #31 Abraham Lincoln: Don't Believe The Hype!
QUOTE:
“Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South” (Lincoln 1629).
SUMMARY:
Lincoln is saying that if the South wins the war, then slavery will have to be accepted everywhere.
RESPONSE:
Abraham Lincoln really wasn’t on a side at the beginning of the Civil War. He didn’t care who won; North or South, he just couldn’t allow the country’s unrest to continue. Lincoln was looking out for his country, so breaking up into two separate countries would have been out of the question for him. I can see why certain abolitionists wouldn’t like Lincoln. Lincoln was determined to keep the country together but seemed so apathetic about the issue of slavery.
I think this is why I’ve always had this notion that Lincoln wasn’t really the greatest president ever, like many people think. It bothered me though, because I knew that Lincoln never really wanted to end slavery, but I didn’t know to what extent. I always felt bad, like maybe I was too cynical to think Lincoln could actually have been the greatest president. However, at least now I know that I wasn’t too far off with questioning Lincoln’s principles.
Maybe it was easy for me to believe the truth about Lincoln because so many presidents, celebrities, etc., don’t live up to their hype. I guess I could look at it on the bright side, and be glad that Lincoln at least wasn’t specifically on the Confederate side. However, I really can’t imagine what would have actually happened if the South ended up winning. Lincoln said he would have to change EVERY state to a slave state, and that would have been all bad! There’s no way that could have lasted, and I’m sure there would have been many more wars besides the Civil War in order to get rid of slavery.
“Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South” (Lincoln 1629).
SUMMARY:
Lincoln is saying that if the South wins the war, then slavery will have to be accepted everywhere.
RESPONSE:
Abraham Lincoln really wasn’t on a side at the beginning of the Civil War. He didn’t care who won; North or South, he just couldn’t allow the country’s unrest to continue. Lincoln was looking out for his country, so breaking up into two separate countries would have been out of the question for him. I can see why certain abolitionists wouldn’t like Lincoln. Lincoln was determined to keep the country together but seemed so apathetic about the issue of slavery.
I think this is why I’ve always had this notion that Lincoln wasn’t really the greatest president ever, like many people think. It bothered me though, because I knew that Lincoln never really wanted to end slavery, but I didn’t know to what extent. I always felt bad, like maybe I was too cynical to think Lincoln could actually have been the greatest president. However, at least now I know that I wasn’t too far off with questioning Lincoln’s principles.
Maybe it was easy for me to believe the truth about Lincoln because so many presidents, celebrities, etc., don’t live up to their hype. I guess I could look at it on the bright side, and be glad that Lincoln at least wasn’t specifically on the Confederate side. However, I really can’t imagine what would have actually happened if the South ended up winning. Lincoln said he would have to change EVERY state to a slave state, and that would have been all bad! There’s no way that could have lasted, and I’m sure there would have been many more wars besides the Civil War in order to get rid of slavery.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Journal #30 Harriet Jacobs: More Of The Zombie Life!!!
QUOTE:
“My condition was now a little improved. But for weeks I was tormented by hundreds of little red insects, fine as a needle’s point, that pierced through my skin, and produced an intolerable burning” (Jacobs 1823).
SUMMARY:
After finding a hiding place in the small shed attached to her grandmother’s house, Linda Brent (Jacobs) must deal with the horrible conditions of the crawl space that became her new home.
RESPONSE:
Harriet Jacobs was one tough cookie! I bet I’d do the same thing though because I’m always curling up in a little ball, which actually drives my sister crazy. I think if I was scared for my life I could stay in a small space, however, I don’t know about having red bugs crawling all over me and biting me. Maybe after hiding there for seven years, weeks of red bugs crawling on me wouldn’t seem too bad, but I think I’d have a nervous breakdown.
The other incidents that Jacobs deals with while in her hiding place are also pretty terrible, but I think it was probably more psychologically terrible, as opposed to being physically hurt or bitten. She lived seven years of her life kind of like a voyeur! Except, I don’t think Jacobs enjoyed any minute of it, and especially since she got to witness how Dr. Flint would stop at nothing to find her and punish her. Jacobs also could only watch her children growing up, instead of being able to talk to them, hold them, or just be a mother to them.
This seems like a real case of the zombie life from my earlier journal about Equiano! Even though her grandmother knew she was there and would help her out most of the time, it seems like Jacobs was alive in a coffin. Luckily from what she writes at the end of the reading, Jacobs just focused on her good memories whenever she would think about any of the absolutely horrible experiences she had.
“My condition was now a little improved. But for weeks I was tormented by hundreds of little red insects, fine as a needle’s point, that pierced through my skin, and produced an intolerable burning” (Jacobs 1823).
SUMMARY:
After finding a hiding place in the small shed attached to her grandmother’s house, Linda Brent (Jacobs) must deal with the horrible conditions of the crawl space that became her new home.
RESPONSE:
Harriet Jacobs was one tough cookie! I bet I’d do the same thing though because I’m always curling up in a little ball, which actually drives my sister crazy. I think if I was scared for my life I could stay in a small space, however, I don’t know about having red bugs crawling all over me and biting me. Maybe after hiding there for seven years, weeks of red bugs crawling on me wouldn’t seem too bad, but I think I’d have a nervous breakdown.
The other incidents that Jacobs deals with while in her hiding place are also pretty terrible, but I think it was probably more psychologically terrible, as opposed to being physically hurt or bitten. She lived seven years of her life kind of like a voyeur! Except, I don’t think Jacobs enjoyed any minute of it, and especially since she got to witness how Dr. Flint would stop at nothing to find her and punish her. Jacobs also could only watch her children growing up, instead of being able to talk to them, hold them, or just be a mother to them.
This seems like a real case of the zombie life from my earlier journal about Equiano! Even though her grandmother knew she was there and would help her out most of the time, it seems like Jacobs was alive in a coffin. Luckily from what she writes at the end of the reading, Jacobs just focused on her good memories whenever she would think about any of the absolutely horrible experiences she had.
Journal #29 Harriet Jacobs: The Lesson Is, Don't Ever Fall In Love!
QUOTE:
“Why does the slave ever love? Why allow the tendrils of the heart to twine around objects which may at any moment be wrenched away by the hand of violence” (Jacobs 1812).
SUMMARY:
When the free man Linda Brent is in love with wants to marry her, her master Dr. Flint becomes very jealous. Brent’s situation becomes utterly hopeless because Dr. Flint puts an extra close watch on her, and her lover soon moves away.
RESPONSE:
How awful it must have been for Brent. Not only is her master absolutely horrible to her, he also decides that he needs to put her in a secluded house so she can be his sex slave? Luckily that plan never actually happens. If I were Brent, I don’t even know what I would have done. I’m not sure if I would have purposely gotten pregnant with some other white man’s child, but I know that would be highly preferred to ending up with children from the bane of my existence. I probably would have rather died instead of deal with such a horrible person, so I think Brent is incredibly strong.
What a creep! I seriously think that Dr. Flint had some power issues, and even mental problems. I wonder how many creepy slaveholders actually got to have their sex slaves. I’m sure there are millions of people alive (especially in the south) today who can trace their heritage back to a slaveholder great-great-great grandfather. It makes me wonder though: if people who owned slaves really didn’t think of them as human, why would they even want to have sex with them? Maybe they were just fronting so they could have their cake and eat it too!
I really think that the people who acted like African slaves weren’t human actually knew deep down that they really were human. I guess an explanation for this could be capitalism in the south? I think greed had to have been a huge factor. Just imagine people being able to get all of the labor for their businesses for free. I’m sure many people would do anything as long as they lived comfortably and in power.
“Why does the slave ever love? Why allow the tendrils of the heart to twine around objects which may at any moment be wrenched away by the hand of violence” (Jacobs 1812).
SUMMARY:
When the free man Linda Brent is in love with wants to marry her, her master Dr. Flint becomes very jealous. Brent’s situation becomes utterly hopeless because Dr. Flint puts an extra close watch on her, and her lover soon moves away.
RESPONSE:
How awful it must have been for Brent. Not only is her master absolutely horrible to her, he also decides that he needs to put her in a secluded house so she can be his sex slave? Luckily that plan never actually happens. If I were Brent, I don’t even know what I would have done. I’m not sure if I would have purposely gotten pregnant with some other white man’s child, but I know that would be highly preferred to ending up with children from the bane of my existence. I probably would have rather died instead of deal with such a horrible person, so I think Brent is incredibly strong.
What a creep! I seriously think that Dr. Flint had some power issues, and even mental problems. I wonder how many creepy slaveholders actually got to have their sex slaves. I’m sure there are millions of people alive (especially in the south) today who can trace their heritage back to a slaveholder great-great-great grandfather. It makes me wonder though: if people who owned slaves really didn’t think of them as human, why would they even want to have sex with them? Maybe they were just fronting so they could have their cake and eat it too!
I really think that the people who acted like African slaves weren’t human actually knew deep down that they really were human. I guess an explanation for this could be capitalism in the south? I think greed had to have been a huge factor. Just imagine people being able to get all of the labor for their businesses for free. I’m sure many people would do anything as long as they lived comfortably and in power.
Journal #28 Harriet Jacobs: At Least She Had A Happy Childhood?
QUOTE:
“I was born a slave; but I never knew it till six years of happy childhood had passed away” (Jacobs 1809).
SUMMARY:
Linda Brent (pseudonym for Harriet Jacobs) was fortunate to have a somewhat normal, happy childhood. After she learned that she was a slave, she still had at least a somewhat kind mistress. However, Brent’s so-called “nice” mistress didn’t leave her slaves free after she died.
RESPONSE:
It doesn’t seem right for anyone to rationalize Brent’s whole life, saying, “at least she had a happy childhood,” since the first years of a child’s life are so important. However, Brent does seem to treasure the memories she has from when she was living a “sheltered” life. At the end of our reading she even says that her early memories make her happy. What I can’t get over though, is that her mother’s white mistress, no matter how “kind” she may have been, didn’t give Brent’s mother or any of Brent’s mother’s children freedom upon her death. In fact, it seems like it was very rare for any slaveholder to leave any of their slaves free.
The whole system for keeping slavery a completely lucrative asset for a slaveholder seems like it was devastating for any slave, and it disgusts me when I think about it. I can’t think of any reason other than greed that would cause mistresses or masters to squeeze every last bit of work they could get out of their slaves, and then also try to do the same with any children their slaves may give birth to. Then, if for some reason their slaves would think they'd be free at least when their master or mistress died, these slaves, and basically their whole family lineage, would be left as an inheritance to their family members.
I would want to smack anyone who was that greedy, but I really don’t think that would have done any good. I guess that’s probably one of the reasons why certain revolutionaries (like Emerson and Thoreau) were so against slavery, besides the fact that slavery in general is inhumane and should not exist. At least there was a civil war that ended slavery, even though that sounds pretty horrible to be glad that there was a war.
“I was born a slave; but I never knew it till six years of happy childhood had passed away” (Jacobs 1809).
SUMMARY:
Linda Brent (pseudonym for Harriet Jacobs) was fortunate to have a somewhat normal, happy childhood. After she learned that she was a slave, she still had at least a somewhat kind mistress. However, Brent’s so-called “nice” mistress didn’t leave her slaves free after she died.
RESPONSE:
It doesn’t seem right for anyone to rationalize Brent’s whole life, saying, “at least she had a happy childhood,” since the first years of a child’s life are so important. However, Brent does seem to treasure the memories she has from when she was living a “sheltered” life. At the end of our reading she even says that her early memories make her happy. What I can’t get over though, is that her mother’s white mistress, no matter how “kind” she may have been, didn’t give Brent’s mother or any of Brent’s mother’s children freedom upon her death. In fact, it seems like it was very rare for any slaveholder to leave any of their slaves free.
The whole system for keeping slavery a completely lucrative asset for a slaveholder seems like it was devastating for any slave, and it disgusts me when I think about it. I can’t think of any reason other than greed that would cause mistresses or masters to squeeze every last bit of work they could get out of their slaves, and then also try to do the same with any children their slaves may give birth to. Then, if for some reason their slaves would think they'd be free at least when their master or mistress died, these slaves, and basically their whole family lineage, would be left as an inheritance to their family members.
I would want to smack anyone who was that greedy, but I really don’t think that would have done any good. I guess that’s probably one of the reasons why certain revolutionaries (like Emerson and Thoreau) were so against slavery, besides the fact that slavery in general is inhumane and should not exist. At least there was a civil war that ended slavery, even though that sounds pretty horrible to be glad that there was a war.
Journal #27 Frederick Douglass: Those Kinky Slave Masters!
QUOTE:
“Women -white women, I mean- are IDOLS at the south, not WIVES, for the slave women are preferred in many instances; and if these idols but nod, or lift a finger, woe to the poor victim” (Douglass 2139).
SUMMARY:
Slaveholding men would rape their women slaves, preferring to have sex with their slaves than with their own wives. Many would have children with their slaves, which would result in those children either being sold or treated even worse than regular slaves.
RESPONSE:
If having to work in the fields while being treated like cattle, or getting whipped and beaten to a bloody pulp sounds horrible, imagine the life of the indoor slave woman. Most people would think that an indoor slave woman would at least have the easier life, but if she is spending most of her time indoors being raped, I bet a lot more people would think of her situation as being worse. I can’t imagine how psychologically, if not just physically, damaging that was for those women. What a horrible nightmare for any woman to have a person she despises subject her to such a violation, but then also to find out that she is going to have his child.
Not only did these women have their master’s children, they would most likely have to be separated from any of these “mixed” children. I bet the wives of these men did not like seeing illegitimate children running around with features matching their own husbands’ features. I guess if these people didn’t think of their slaves as “people,” then maybe the men didn’t consider having sex with their slaves as being unfaithful? Even if that were the case, then it would be like the wives finding out that their husbands were having sex with their horses! I think that what really made things worse for those wives though, was having to see the children that resulted from it.
So “boo hoo,” it wasn’t something the wives of slave masters should have to deal with, however, it’s the same old story with jealous wives and girlfriends. The other woman gets the full extent of her wrath, and the man is never to blame. I’m not saying that women who knowingly help a man cheat are completely innocent, but I am saying that most likely the slave women were.
“Women -white women, I mean- are IDOLS at the south, not WIVES, for the slave women are preferred in many instances; and if these idols but nod, or lift a finger, woe to the poor victim” (Douglass 2139).
SUMMARY:
Slaveholding men would rape their women slaves, preferring to have sex with their slaves than with their own wives. Many would have children with their slaves, which would result in those children either being sold or treated even worse than regular slaves.
RESPONSE:
If having to work in the fields while being treated like cattle, or getting whipped and beaten to a bloody pulp sounds horrible, imagine the life of the indoor slave woman. Most people would think that an indoor slave woman would at least have the easier life, but if she is spending most of her time indoors being raped, I bet a lot more people would think of her situation as being worse. I can’t imagine how psychologically, if not just physically, damaging that was for those women. What a horrible nightmare for any woman to have a person she despises subject her to such a violation, but then also to find out that she is going to have his child.
Not only did these women have their master’s children, they would most likely have to be separated from any of these “mixed” children. I bet the wives of these men did not like seeing illegitimate children running around with features matching their own husbands’ features. I guess if these people didn’t think of their slaves as “people,” then maybe the men didn’t consider having sex with their slaves as being unfaithful? Even if that were the case, then it would be like the wives finding out that their husbands were having sex with their horses! I think that what really made things worse for those wives though, was having to see the children that resulted from it.
So “boo hoo,” it wasn’t something the wives of slave masters should have to deal with, however, it’s the same old story with jealous wives and girlfriends. The other woman gets the full extent of her wrath, and the man is never to blame. I’m not saying that women who knowingly help a man cheat are completely innocent, but I am saying that most likely the slave women were.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Journal #26 Frederick Douglass: Knowledge Is Key!
QUOTE:
“Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read” (Douglass 2086).
SUMMARY:
Mrs. Auld teaches Frederick the ABC’s and how to spell little words, but her husband finds out and forbids her to teach him anything else. However, it was too late. Frederick already knew he must learn to read and write, and that knowledge was the path to freedom.
RESPONSE:
Mrs. Auld sure opened up a “can-o-worms” by starting Douglass on his quest for freedom. It makes sense why Mr. Auld would be so scared to have any of his slaves learn anything too, because look what happened? There’s no way slavery could have lasted as long as it did if all of the slaves had the chance to learn even just basic knowledge. It makes me think of the Jim Carrey movie, The Truman Show, in a way. Once Jim Carrey’s character finds out that there is a whole real world outside of his little fake “T.V. show” world, nobody can stop him from escaping the show.
It’s pretty awesome how Douglass is basically saying that knowledge will set him free, because I think it can be applied to so many other situations. There are probably so many people who can have a better life if they just go back to school and learn. However, I bet that there are also many powerful people who don’t want the majority of people in the country to have a good education, and especially if they rely on cheap labor. Just like how politicians rely on apathy, business owners want the most desperate people who aren’t qualified for better jobs, and are willing to work for minimum wage.
There are the highly rare instances when education can in fact work against somebody. I have a friend who graduated from Stanford, but she can’t find a job now because everyone assumes that she’ll want too much money for her salary. That’s probably just as rare as the high-school dropout becoming a millionaire though! I still agree with Douglass, that knowledge is the path to freedom.
“Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read” (Douglass 2086).
SUMMARY:
Mrs. Auld teaches Frederick the ABC’s and how to spell little words, but her husband finds out and forbids her to teach him anything else. However, it was too late. Frederick already knew he must learn to read and write, and that knowledge was the path to freedom.
RESPONSE:
Mrs. Auld sure opened up a “can-o-worms” by starting Douglass on his quest for freedom. It makes sense why Mr. Auld would be so scared to have any of his slaves learn anything too, because look what happened? There’s no way slavery could have lasted as long as it did if all of the slaves had the chance to learn even just basic knowledge. It makes me think of the Jim Carrey movie, The Truman Show, in a way. Once Jim Carrey’s character finds out that there is a whole real world outside of his little fake “T.V. show” world, nobody can stop him from escaping the show.
It’s pretty awesome how Douglass is basically saying that knowledge will set him free, because I think it can be applied to so many other situations. There are probably so many people who can have a better life if they just go back to school and learn. However, I bet that there are also many powerful people who don’t want the majority of people in the country to have a good education, and especially if they rely on cheap labor. Just like how politicians rely on apathy, business owners want the most desperate people who aren’t qualified for better jobs, and are willing to work for minimum wage.
There are the highly rare instances when education can in fact work against somebody. I have a friend who graduated from Stanford, but she can’t find a job now because everyone assumes that she’ll want too much money for her salary. That’s probably just as rare as the high-school dropout becoming a millionaire though! I still agree with Douglass, that knowledge is the path to freedom.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Journal #25 Edgar Allan Poe: The Fall of the House of Usher...The MOVIE!!
QUOTE:
“I started, and, for a moment, paused; for it appeared to me…there came, indistinctly, to my ears, what might have been, in its exact similarity of character, the echo…which Sir Launcelot had so particularly described” (Poe 1563).
SUMMARY:
The narrator is reading a book to Usher, but his mind might be playing tricks on him. He thinks that he is actually hearing the story happen somewhere in the mansion.
RESPONSE:
This part of The Fall of the House of Usher seems the most like a spooky ghost story to me. I know that when I’m at my house alone at night, I always hear random crashes out in my backyard, or creaks in the walls. If the narrator of Poe’s story is in a creepy old mansion that has dead bodies buried in its walls, then I can’t even imagine what it must be like to spend the night there!
I’m also taking English 46a, which is Old/Middle English, so I’ve been reading about Arthurian Tales. Finally I actually feel like I have a chance of, at least, having some sort of knowledge about one of the books the narrator is talking about! All I know is that each of the books Poe has written about in this story sound way out of my league. (And remember, I was reading this out loud to my parents. I know I was murdering the titles of the books.)
Back to my movie idea, however, I think this part of the story could actually be really creepy. Some spooky animation graphics could make the narrator’s fears come alive on screen, and could really be frightening for the viewers too! Maybe I’m just too much of a movie lover. However, I’ve really enjoyed almost all of our reading so far, and I’m glad that literature can create my own movie inside my own crazy head.
“I started, and, for a moment, paused; for it appeared to me…there came, indistinctly, to my ears, what might have been, in its exact similarity of character, the echo…which Sir Launcelot had so particularly described” (Poe 1563).
SUMMARY:
The narrator is reading a book to Usher, but his mind might be playing tricks on him. He thinks that he is actually hearing the story happen somewhere in the mansion.
RESPONSE:
This part of The Fall of the House of Usher seems the most like a spooky ghost story to me. I know that when I’m at my house alone at night, I always hear random crashes out in my backyard, or creaks in the walls. If the narrator of Poe’s story is in a creepy old mansion that has dead bodies buried in its walls, then I can’t even imagine what it must be like to spend the night there!
I’m also taking English 46a, which is Old/Middle English, so I’ve been reading about Arthurian Tales. Finally I actually feel like I have a chance of, at least, having some sort of knowledge about one of the books the narrator is talking about! All I know is that each of the books Poe has written about in this story sound way out of my league. (And remember, I was reading this out loud to my parents. I know I was murdering the titles of the books.)
Back to my movie idea, however, I think this part of the story could actually be really creepy. Some spooky animation graphics could make the narrator’s fears come alive on screen, and could really be frightening for the viewers too! Maybe I’m just too much of a movie lover. However, I’ve really enjoyed almost all of our reading so far, and I’m glad that literature can create my own movie inside my own crazy head.
Journal #24 Edgar Allan Poe: It's Alive! The House Is Alive! MWAHAHA!
QUOTE:
“While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened – there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind – the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight…and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the ”House of Usher” (Poe 1565).
SUMMARY:
This is when the House of Usher literally falls. It’s almost as if the house was alive, and then dies by completely disappearing into the earth.
RESPONSE:
This ending of the story becomes so frantic; I can imagine it happening like the countdown until a bomb will explode in many action movies. It almost seems like the house was alive though, I mean, what happened?! Madeline of Usher comes back and everything crumbles. Madeline also kills her brother by falling on him! He experiences so much terror from her not being dead after all, that he dies as she dies too. I would say that something seems amiss, if The Fall of the House of Usher weren’t supposed to be a fictional story meant to frighten its readers.
I said in my other journal that I’d like to see the movie, maybe, because I think it would be very dramatic and suspenseful to see everything happening at once. However, maybe I would just like to see a movie come out like next year, with all of the amazing special effects cinematographers can put in their movies. I’m not saying, however, that Poe’s story needs to rely on special effects. I just think that his explicit descriptions of everything from the atmosphere around it to the house itself, to the frightening and sickly seeming Roderick Usher, probably need some C.G.I. graphics to do them justice.
As for the house being alive, something about the grounds around the structure, as well as the large and seemingly impressive edifice itself, almost make me imagine a living house. Maybe in a movie with cool graphics, the house could even be constantly changing throughout the story! (Now I’m getting carried away!)
“While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened – there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind – the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight…and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the ”House of Usher” (Poe 1565).
SUMMARY:
This is when the House of Usher literally falls. It’s almost as if the house was alive, and then dies by completely disappearing into the earth.
RESPONSE:
This ending of the story becomes so frantic; I can imagine it happening like the countdown until a bomb will explode in many action movies. It almost seems like the house was alive though, I mean, what happened?! Madeline of Usher comes back and everything crumbles. Madeline also kills her brother by falling on him! He experiences so much terror from her not being dead after all, that he dies as she dies too. I would say that something seems amiss, if The Fall of the House of Usher weren’t supposed to be a fictional story meant to frighten its readers.
I said in my other journal that I’d like to see the movie, maybe, because I think it would be very dramatic and suspenseful to see everything happening at once. However, maybe I would just like to see a movie come out like next year, with all of the amazing special effects cinematographers can put in their movies. I’m not saying, however, that Poe’s story needs to rely on special effects. I just think that his explicit descriptions of everything from the atmosphere around it to the house itself, to the frightening and sickly seeming Roderick Usher, probably need some C.G.I. graphics to do them justice.
As for the house being alive, something about the grounds around the structure, as well as the large and seemingly impressive edifice itself, almost make me imagine a living house. Maybe in a movie with cool graphics, the house could even be constantly changing throughout the story! (Now I’m getting carried away!)
Journal #23 Edgar Allan Poe: Just Spit It Out Already!
QUOTE:
“The writer spoke of acute bodily illness – of a pitiable mental idiosyncrasy which oppressed him – and of an earnest desire to see me” (Poe 1554).
SUMMARY:
Usher writes to the narrator of The Fall of the House of Usher about his peculiarity, which he feels requires him a friend to help cheer him up.
RESPONSE:
What a wonderful beginning for a ghost story! It seems like the setup for every scary/horror story or film, and those are always fun to read. However, it took me three different attempts at reading The Fall of the House of Usher to actually finish the darn thing! I had to finally use two different carpools with my mom and a reading during a dinner with my mom and dad to get through Poe’s story; and this was reading it out loud to them. My mom even said that many of the long-winded and almost tedious sentences were leaving her gasping for air. Maybe Poe’s story was meant to be especially scary for the claustrophobic? We did notice however, that after the “song” Usher sings, the story starts to move more quickly and a little more easily.
Now that I’ve actually read the full story, I do like it. Some of it is a little wordy, but I can appreciate the atmosphere Poe is creating with his words. It’s actually a creepy story, and I can even picture everything happening as like a little movie playing in my head. I even think my dad was saying something about a movie of this story being made with Vincent Price? Now I want to see that movie, even though I doubt it will be as good as the book! I guess now that I’ve gotten through the whole thing, to answer the question on the quiz about who dies in the story; I would say that Usher dies, his sister Madeline dies, and the house dies as well! (But I like my answer too, the dragon dies!)
“The writer spoke of acute bodily illness – of a pitiable mental idiosyncrasy which oppressed him – and of an earnest desire to see me” (Poe 1554).
SUMMARY:
Usher writes to the narrator of The Fall of the House of Usher about his peculiarity, which he feels requires him a friend to help cheer him up.
RESPONSE:
What a wonderful beginning for a ghost story! It seems like the setup for every scary/horror story or film, and those are always fun to read. However, it took me three different attempts at reading The Fall of the House of Usher to actually finish the darn thing! I had to finally use two different carpools with my mom and a reading during a dinner with my mom and dad to get through Poe’s story; and this was reading it out loud to them. My mom even said that many of the long-winded and almost tedious sentences were leaving her gasping for air. Maybe Poe’s story was meant to be especially scary for the claustrophobic? We did notice however, that after the “song” Usher sings, the story starts to move more quickly and a little more easily.
Now that I’ve actually read the full story, I do like it. Some of it is a little wordy, but I can appreciate the atmosphere Poe is creating with his words. It’s actually a creepy story, and I can even picture everything happening as like a little movie playing in my head. I even think my dad was saying something about a movie of this story being made with Vincent Price? Now I want to see that movie, even though I doubt it will be as good as the book! I guess now that I’ve gotten through the whole thing, to answer the question on the quiz about who dies in the story; I would say that Usher dies, his sister Madeline dies, and the house dies as well! (But I like my answer too, the dragon dies!)
Journal #22 Nathaniel Hawthorne: Mr. Hooper? What A Jerk!
QUOTE:
“When the friend shows his inmost heart to his friend; the lover to his best-beloved; when man does not vainly shrink from the eye of his Creator, loathsomely treasuring up the secret of his sin; then deem me a monster, for the symbol beneath which I have lived, and die! I look around me, and lo! On every visage a black veil!” (Hawthorne 1320).
SUMMARY:
On Mr. Hooper’s deathbed, he finally speaks about the mystery behind his veil. After he dies, the people bury him in the veil, having never removed it from his face even after he dies.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Hooper is finally revealing his reasoning for wearing the veil, and it seems like he is laying a guilt trip on everyone around him. It’s almost like he gets a great idea for a big lesson he wants to teach, but realizes that the only way it will work is if the main point of the lecture is given on his deathbed. This makes me think Mr. Hooper is narcissistic; so self-absorbed that he will even sacrifice his relationship with Elizabeth to satisfy his need to be forever known for teaching the ultimate lesson.
I wonder if it was really worth it for him to lose Elizabeth though, and all so he could prove his point that everyone is really wearing a metaphorical black veil while he wears the literal one. What a jerk! I don’t think it’s worth it in the end because I bet those people continue to act the same as if Mr. Hooper never even existed. Elizabeth most likely finds herself a regular guy to marry her, and lives happily ever after. Maybe or maybe not, but it’s not like Mr. Hooper will ever really get to see the outcome of his so-called supreme lesson, or idea, or experiment.
I think at the end of reading The Minister’s Black Veil I was actually hoping that Mr. Hooper was covering up some sort of horrible eye injury, or that the name of a woman he kills ends up tattooed across his face! I probably would have even felt bad for the guy, and would have taken his side in the whole situation.
“When the friend shows his inmost heart to his friend; the lover to his best-beloved; when man does not vainly shrink from the eye of his Creator, loathsomely treasuring up the secret of his sin; then deem me a monster, for the symbol beneath which I have lived, and die! I look around me, and lo! On every visage a black veil!” (Hawthorne 1320).
SUMMARY:
On Mr. Hooper’s deathbed, he finally speaks about the mystery behind his veil. After he dies, the people bury him in the veil, having never removed it from his face even after he dies.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Hooper is finally revealing his reasoning for wearing the veil, and it seems like he is laying a guilt trip on everyone around him. It’s almost like he gets a great idea for a big lesson he wants to teach, but realizes that the only way it will work is if the main point of the lecture is given on his deathbed. This makes me think Mr. Hooper is narcissistic; so self-absorbed that he will even sacrifice his relationship with Elizabeth to satisfy his need to be forever known for teaching the ultimate lesson.
I wonder if it was really worth it for him to lose Elizabeth though, and all so he could prove his point that everyone is really wearing a metaphorical black veil while he wears the literal one. What a jerk! I don’t think it’s worth it in the end because I bet those people continue to act the same as if Mr. Hooper never even existed. Elizabeth most likely finds herself a regular guy to marry her, and lives happily ever after. Maybe or maybe not, but it’s not like Mr. Hooper will ever really get to see the outcome of his so-called supreme lesson, or idea, or experiment.
I think at the end of reading The Minister’s Black Veil I was actually hoping that Mr. Hooper was covering up some sort of horrible eye injury, or that the name of a woman he kills ends up tattooed across his face! I probably would have even felt bad for the guy, and would have taken his side in the whole situation.
Journal #21 Nathaniel Hawthorne: Hooper Is Weird, But Great For Business
QUOTE:
“Dying sinners cried aloud for Mr. Hooper, and would not yield their breath till he appeared; though ever, as he stooped to whisper consolation, they shuddered…Strangers came long distances to attend service at his church” (Hawthorne 1318).
SUMMARY:
Once the rumors about Mr. Hooper spread, everyone who has sinned wants to speak with him because they think that he will understand them. Mr. Hooper becomes a celebrity, and his services become packed.
RESPONSE:
In class we discussed different possibilities for why Mr. Hooper wears the veil, and I think that it could definitely be a power issue for him. After he starts wearing the veil, he suddenly has the power to give his sermons to a crowded room of parishioners. It reminds me of Princess Diana being called the “Peoples’ Princess,” except Mr. Hooper is the “Peoples’ Minister,” not a princess. Once he has this new “mystique” with the veil, I think Mr. Hooper gets a taste of real fame, even if it is “negative” fame. But like the saying, “no publicity is bad publicity,” anything that is negative (like children being afraid of him, or people shuddering at his veil), still contributes to this fame and intrigue about Mr. Hooper.
So what if the people who seem to love him and think that he is the only one who can “save” them are all sinners? According to Jonathan Edwards, everyone is a sinner anyway! And we all remember what happened to him. I think Mr. Hooper is actually securing his job. Although the people in the village are completely disturbed and preoccupied with the veil, there are other people from miles around who are drawn to Mr. Hooper. So he’s a tourist attraction! The village has to be prospering from all the business these tourists are bringing. Mr. Hooper is a capitalist society’s dream, and all of the people in the village can perhaps live the “American dream” now because I’m assuming that they are having a huge economic boom!
“Dying sinners cried aloud for Mr. Hooper, and would not yield their breath till he appeared; though ever, as he stooped to whisper consolation, they shuddered…Strangers came long distances to attend service at his church” (Hawthorne 1318).
SUMMARY:
Once the rumors about Mr. Hooper spread, everyone who has sinned wants to speak with him because they think that he will understand them. Mr. Hooper becomes a celebrity, and his services become packed.
RESPONSE:
In class we discussed different possibilities for why Mr. Hooper wears the veil, and I think that it could definitely be a power issue for him. After he starts wearing the veil, he suddenly has the power to give his sermons to a crowded room of parishioners. It reminds me of Princess Diana being called the “Peoples’ Princess,” except Mr. Hooper is the “Peoples’ Minister,” not a princess. Once he has this new “mystique” with the veil, I think Mr. Hooper gets a taste of real fame, even if it is “negative” fame. But like the saying, “no publicity is bad publicity,” anything that is negative (like children being afraid of him, or people shuddering at his veil), still contributes to this fame and intrigue about Mr. Hooper.
So what if the people who seem to love him and think that he is the only one who can “save” them are all sinners? According to Jonathan Edwards, everyone is a sinner anyway! And we all remember what happened to him. I think Mr. Hooper is actually securing his job. Although the people in the village are completely disturbed and preoccupied with the veil, there are other people from miles around who are drawn to Mr. Hooper. So he’s a tourist attraction! The village has to be prospering from all the business these tourists are bringing. Mr. Hooper is a capitalist society’s dream, and all of the people in the village can perhaps live the “American dream” now because I’m assuming that they are having a huge economic boom!
Friday, November 9, 2007
Journal #20 Henry David Thoreau: Start The Revolution Without Me!
QUOTE:
“The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, - for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, - is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed” (Thoreau 1872).
SUMMARY:
Another issue Thoreau has with government is that he never consented to those who are governing him. Even if he admits that the people in power can do a better job than him, he still doesn’t think they have the right to govern.
RESPONSE:
Since Thoreau’s point in this quote is that he never gave the “powers that be” permission to govern him, I want to say that I never gave the United States government permission to govern me! However, do I really want the responsibility the government has? I think that what Thoreau is asking for (as far as everyone governing themselves) would only lead to chaos. All I know is that I don’t trust a lot of people, so the only way I ever feel safe, is knowing that everyone else must follow the same set of rules or codes to live by that I do; if they don’t want to suffer the consequences.
Maybe in Thoreau’s time, the benefits of having a government weren’t easy to see. Anyone who is living sort of cut off from society, let’s say, living in a cabin at Walden Pond, wouldn’t feel like he or she is part of the society the government is holding together anyway. I don’t know if this is what Thoreau thought, or if he really didn’t like the government because of the unfortunate slavery situation, but I think his lifestyle definitely wasn’t helping the government look necessary to him.
It’s so silly, but it’s really easy for me to get worked up, even wanting to join a revolution against the present government from reading Thoreau. However, sometimes I feel pretty dumb and wonder if a lot of it is my brain injury. I used to be so relaxed and “chill,” but now I get so uptight and frustrated at every little thing. I know reading this type of author is good for me though, because I can take the time to really think about why these authors are writing what they write, and realize that the world is really a different place now.
“The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, - for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, - is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed” (Thoreau 1872).
SUMMARY:
Another issue Thoreau has with government is that he never consented to those who are governing him. Even if he admits that the people in power can do a better job than him, he still doesn’t think they have the right to govern.
RESPONSE:
Since Thoreau’s point in this quote is that he never gave the “powers that be” permission to govern him, I want to say that I never gave the United States government permission to govern me! However, do I really want the responsibility the government has? I think that what Thoreau is asking for (as far as everyone governing themselves) would only lead to chaos. All I know is that I don’t trust a lot of people, so the only way I ever feel safe, is knowing that everyone else must follow the same set of rules or codes to live by that I do; if they don’t want to suffer the consequences.
Maybe in Thoreau’s time, the benefits of having a government weren’t easy to see. Anyone who is living sort of cut off from society, let’s say, living in a cabin at Walden Pond, wouldn’t feel like he or she is part of the society the government is holding together anyway. I don’t know if this is what Thoreau thought, or if he really didn’t like the government because of the unfortunate slavery situation, but I think his lifestyle definitely wasn’t helping the government look necessary to him.
It’s so silly, but it’s really easy for me to get worked up, even wanting to join a revolution against the present government from reading Thoreau. However, sometimes I feel pretty dumb and wonder if a lot of it is my brain injury. I used to be so relaxed and “chill,” but now I get so uptight and frustrated at every little thing. I know reading this type of author is good for me though, because I can take the time to really think about why these authors are writing what they write, and realize that the world is really a different place now.
Journal #19 Henry David Thoreau: That's Not My Government!
QUOTE:
“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government,” (Thoreau 1859).
SUMMARY:
Thoreau is speaking about not wanting to be associated with a government that isn’t doing anything about the problem of slavery. He says that he will not recognize “the slave’s government” as his government.
RESPONSE:
I know in class I started speaking about how this quote relates to the Iraq war today, and was shut down before I started going off on politics in our English class. I know that it really doesn’t make sense to talk about what’s going on right now, but I was responding to someone else’s comment. I’m just going to say my main point, which I should have said in class, because I didn’t have a chance to clarify what I really was trying to point out.
Someone in class was saying how people aren’t allowed to speak out against the government now (in the same way Thoreau is). I just wanted to say that if people ever speak out against the government (the Bush Administration) and the whole war situation, they are accused of not supporting the troops in Iraq. In Thoreau’s time, I don’t think that people thought of his stance on the Mexican war in the same way at all. I think the government in Thoreau’s time was still open to changes, whereas now the United States government isn’t about to change a thing.
So what can radicals get away with now? I think that now the government has so many ways of monitoring people who have been identified as extremists, radicals have to be much more inconspicuous. If someone published a book about civil disobedience this year, I think it is quite possible that they would be flagged as a potential terrorist.
“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government,” (Thoreau 1859).
SUMMARY:
Thoreau is speaking about not wanting to be associated with a government that isn’t doing anything about the problem of slavery. He says that he will not recognize “the slave’s government” as his government.
RESPONSE:
I know in class I started speaking about how this quote relates to the Iraq war today, and was shut down before I started going off on politics in our English class. I know that it really doesn’t make sense to talk about what’s going on right now, but I was responding to someone else’s comment. I’m just going to say my main point, which I should have said in class, because I didn’t have a chance to clarify what I really was trying to point out.
Someone in class was saying how people aren’t allowed to speak out against the government now (in the same way Thoreau is). I just wanted to say that if people ever speak out against the government (the Bush Administration) and the whole war situation, they are accused of not supporting the troops in Iraq. In Thoreau’s time, I don’t think that people thought of his stance on the Mexican war in the same way at all. I think the government in Thoreau’s time was still open to changes, whereas now the United States government isn’t about to change a thing.
So what can radicals get away with now? I think that now the government has so many ways of monitoring people who have been identified as extremists, radicals have to be much more inconspicuous. If someone published a book about civil disobedience this year, I think it is quite possible that they would be flagged as a potential terrorist.
Journal #18 Henry David Thoreau: Down With Taxes!
QUOTE:
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - ‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (Thoreau 1857).
SUMMARY:
At the beginning of Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau sums up his position on government. Unhappy with the Mexican war and slavery, Thoreau explains why civil disobedience is necessary.
RESPONSE:
I can see how different political parties and people with different statuses in the social strata love Thoreau because of this statement alone. I see at least two different ways to view it, but I’m going to discuss this quote from the viewpoint of the wealthy. I think in a capitalist society, the people who are well off don’t want to see a powerful system of government that can control what they do. I also think that the issue of taxes is one of the main ways the government has some control.
When it comes to taxes, of course the people with more money don’t want to have to pay them; and I think that may be because the attitude of the wealthy is more selfish, in a way? If richer people feel like they never use the public services their tax dollars pay for (possibly excluding police and fire fighters), maybe they think that their money isn’t really helping them personally. They may not agree with their tax dollars helping anyone who is an illegal alien either. I’m not saying that all rich people think like this, but I’m sure there are many who do.
There are, of course, philanthropists who generously circulate their money back out into the world, hoping to put it to good use. However, those are usually people who feel like they should do something with their money to help less fortunate people, instead of (in a cartoon-like description) keeping their money locked up in a huge vault with cobwebs collecting dust. These are the people who may also realize that they barely pay any taxes; who feel some sort of conscience when they see the less fortunate struggling to live a somewhat happy life. However, in Thoreau’s opinion, even the people deemed “philanthropists” are only giving partially to their cause.
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - ‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (Thoreau 1857).
SUMMARY:
At the beginning of Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau sums up his position on government. Unhappy with the Mexican war and slavery, Thoreau explains why civil disobedience is necessary.
RESPONSE:
I can see how different political parties and people with different statuses in the social strata love Thoreau because of this statement alone. I see at least two different ways to view it, but I’m going to discuss this quote from the viewpoint of the wealthy. I think in a capitalist society, the people who are well off don’t want to see a powerful system of government that can control what they do. I also think that the issue of taxes is one of the main ways the government has some control.
When it comes to taxes, of course the people with more money don’t want to have to pay them; and I think that may be because the attitude of the wealthy is more selfish, in a way? If richer people feel like they never use the public services their tax dollars pay for (possibly excluding police and fire fighters), maybe they think that their money isn’t really helping them personally. They may not agree with their tax dollars helping anyone who is an illegal alien either. I’m not saying that all rich people think like this, but I’m sure there are many who do.
There are, of course, philanthropists who generously circulate their money back out into the world, hoping to put it to good use. However, those are usually people who feel like they should do something with their money to help less fortunate people, instead of (in a cartoon-like description) keeping their money locked up in a huge vault with cobwebs collecting dust. These are the people who may also realize that they barely pay any taxes; who feel some sort of conscience when they see the less fortunate struggling to live a somewhat happy life. However, in Thoreau’s opinion, even the people deemed “philanthropists” are only giving partially to their cause.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Journal #17 Ralph Waldo Emerson: Breaking It Down
QUOTE:
“There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion” (Emerson 1164).
SUMMARY:
Emerson is explaining that when men start to learn more, they realize that they need to be true to themselves. This is another point to back up his reasons for being self-reliant.
RESPONSE:
When I first read this quote, the main idea I take away from it is that men (but I tend to read it as people and not just men) need to be themselves and not worry about anyone else. Emerson breaks this down into basically a three-part thesis statement, with each part equally insightful, and each part definitely persuasive. It may seem obvious to say, “be yourself,” or, “don’t just follow the crowd,” but Emerson’s words are actually much more powerful.
Emerson writes, “envy is ignorance,” and I especially think this statement is a whole “can-o-worms” in itself. Everyone may think that certain wealthy, famous, or “beautiful” people have completely happy and lucky lives, but everyone may not know about other factors that make those lives unhappy. I think Emerson means that a person who envies someone else is a person who doesn’t know the full details, or is ignorant of certain aspects. When he writes, “imitation is suicide,” I think Emerson means that people lose themselves (or “kill” who they really are) when they try to become a copy of anyone else.
The last part of Emerson’s quote then explains how a person must accept himself (I’ll add in: or herself), “as his portion,” or her portion. In other words, Emerson is saying that the person anyone will become or already is, is unavoidable. If I tried to be someone else, I would basically be “killing” the real me, or metaphorically committing suicide. Emerson seems to be saying metaphorical suicide is technically just as serious as the real thing.
“There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion” (Emerson 1164).
SUMMARY:
Emerson is explaining that when men start to learn more, they realize that they need to be true to themselves. This is another point to back up his reasons for being self-reliant.
RESPONSE:
When I first read this quote, the main idea I take away from it is that men (but I tend to read it as people and not just men) need to be themselves and not worry about anyone else. Emerson breaks this down into basically a three-part thesis statement, with each part equally insightful, and each part definitely persuasive. It may seem obvious to say, “be yourself,” or, “don’t just follow the crowd,” but Emerson’s words are actually much more powerful.
Emerson writes, “envy is ignorance,” and I especially think this statement is a whole “can-o-worms” in itself. Everyone may think that certain wealthy, famous, or “beautiful” people have completely happy and lucky lives, but everyone may not know about other factors that make those lives unhappy. I think Emerson means that a person who envies someone else is a person who doesn’t know the full details, or is ignorant of certain aspects. When he writes, “imitation is suicide,” I think Emerson means that people lose themselves (or “kill” who they really are) when they try to become a copy of anyone else.
The last part of Emerson’s quote then explains how a person must accept himself (I’ll add in: or herself), “as his portion,” or her portion. In other words, Emerson is saying that the person anyone will become or already is, is unavoidable. If I tried to be someone else, I would basically be “killing” the real me, or metaphorically committing suicide. Emerson seems to be saying metaphorical suicide is technically just as serious as the real thing.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Journal #16 Ralph Waldo Emerson: Truly Revolutionary
QUOTE:
“Act singly, and what you have already done singly, will justify you now” (Emerson 1169).
SUMMARY:
From Self-Reliance, this quote exemplifies Emerson’s main point. He believes people need to act on what they believe is right for themselves.
RESPONSE:
Someone asked me to summarize Emerson’s Self-Reliance, so I said, “Don’t be a sheep.” I definitely agree that following the crowd and doing anything just to fit in is not the best way to live, but I’m not sure if Emerson is also justifying himself for doing whatever he wants. Taking rules, laws, heaven and hell out of the picture so he can feel better about every decision he makes, seems like the beliefs of an anarchist. But in the dictionary, a synonym for an “anarchist” is a “revolutionary.”
It seems like many of the authors we have read so far have been strongly attached to the Puritan religion, struggling with religion but still Christian, or completely Christianized after believing in pagan religions. Emerson, however, becomes “so skeptical of the validity of the Lord’s Supper that he [can] no longer administer the sacrament” (1107). In Self-Reliance Emerson seems like he is explaining how religion is not needed to be “a good person,” but people use religion as the only reason to “do what is called a good action” (Emerson 1166). I think he disagrees with people doing charitable acts as an apology to God.
I sort of discussed this in another journal, referring to how I disagree with the original sin that all people have to apologize to God for, and I think my point basically coincides with what Emerson has written. If I was alive when Emerson was alive, I think I would have loved his journals and would have been a fan of his. I’m turning into a fan now as I read about him and read his work.
“Act singly, and what you have already done singly, will justify you now” (Emerson 1169).
SUMMARY:
From Self-Reliance, this quote exemplifies Emerson’s main point. He believes people need to act on what they believe is right for themselves.
RESPONSE:
Someone asked me to summarize Emerson’s Self-Reliance, so I said, “Don’t be a sheep.” I definitely agree that following the crowd and doing anything just to fit in is not the best way to live, but I’m not sure if Emerson is also justifying himself for doing whatever he wants. Taking rules, laws, heaven and hell out of the picture so he can feel better about every decision he makes, seems like the beliefs of an anarchist. But in the dictionary, a synonym for an “anarchist” is a “revolutionary.”
It seems like many of the authors we have read so far have been strongly attached to the Puritan religion, struggling with religion but still Christian, or completely Christianized after believing in pagan religions. Emerson, however, becomes “so skeptical of the validity of the Lord’s Supper that he [can] no longer administer the sacrament” (1107). In Self-Reliance Emerson seems like he is explaining how religion is not needed to be “a good person,” but people use religion as the only reason to “do what is called a good action” (Emerson 1166). I think he disagrees with people doing charitable acts as an apology to God.
I sort of discussed this in another journal, referring to how I disagree with the original sin that all people have to apologize to God for, and I think my point basically coincides with what Emerson has written. If I was alive when Emerson was alive, I think I would have loved his journals and would have been a fan of his. I’m turning into a fan now as I read about him and read his work.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Journal #15 Columbus/De Vaca:
QUESTION:
What was the role of slavery in the works of Columbus and De Vaca?
RESPONSE:
Although slavery is nothing new at the time, Columbus assumes that he has claimed all of the natives in the West Indies as slaves for his country just by arriving on the islands. However, De Vaca recognizes the Native Americans as people with a different way of life, but generous people undeserving of being turned into slaves. Both Columbus and De Vaca travel to America, come into contact with the natives, and in a way witness first hand what a certain aspect of being a slave might be like. They both have completely different views of the native Indians, but both Columbus and De Vaca leave under arrest.
While Columbus views the natives as being assets that he can claim for his country, he ends up “thrown into a ship, laden with fetters, stripped to the skin, very ill-treated, and without being tried or condemned” (Columbus 34). Columbus ends up being treated like an expendable asset, much like slaves are treated. It could be seen as ironic, or in Columbus’s eyes, seen as a great injustice considering what is rightfully his.
De Vaca, on the other hand, who tries to let the Native Americans remain free, ends up being taken under arrest by the Christians. It seems that the “powers that be” decide whom they want to be free, and who shall be slaves or at least who will have their lives ruined in a way.
What was the role of slavery in the works of Columbus and De Vaca?
RESPONSE:
Although slavery is nothing new at the time, Columbus assumes that he has claimed all of the natives in the West Indies as slaves for his country just by arriving on the islands. However, De Vaca recognizes the Native Americans as people with a different way of life, but generous people undeserving of being turned into slaves. Both Columbus and De Vaca travel to America, come into contact with the natives, and in a way witness first hand what a certain aspect of being a slave might be like. They both have completely different views of the native Indians, but both Columbus and De Vaca leave under arrest.
While Columbus views the natives as being assets that he can claim for his country, he ends up “thrown into a ship, laden with fetters, stripped to the skin, very ill-treated, and without being tried or condemned” (Columbus 34). Columbus ends up being treated like an expendable asset, much like slaves are treated. It could be seen as ironic, or in Columbus’s eyes, seen as a great injustice considering what is rightfully his.
De Vaca, on the other hand, who tries to let the Native Americans remain free, ends up being taken under arrest by the Christians. It seems that the “powers that be” decide whom they want to be free, and who shall be slaves or at least who will have their lives ruined in a way.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Journal #14 Tabitha Tenney: Dorcasina Is A DORK!
QUOTE:
“Poor Dorcasina, overcome by surprise and terror, jumped out of the window at the backside of the summer-house, and fainted upon the turf” (Tenney 908).
SUMMARY:
Dorcasina thinks that Scipio is O’Connor, so when O’Connor startles Scipio and is roughly handled, Dorcasina becomes mortified and knocks herself out.
RESPONSE:
After reading Tenney’s “Female Quixotism” I started to wonder if this could possibly be the origin of calling someone a “dork,” at least in the sense of acting as silly as Dorcasina, and not as a “whale’s penis” like most dictionaries also display for the definition of a dork. I guess I am thinking this particular story could in fact be the origin, since the name “Dorcasina” is unusual. However, because of this, I also don’t even necessarily doubt that the word already existed.
Tenney also uses “Philander” as a name, which I’m pretty sure is on purpose, since in class I asked if philander was already a word when “Female Quixotism” was written. If Tenney chose basically silly names to describe her characters, then I think maybe “dork” already existed. Now the question is why didn’t Tenney name her character “Dorkasina?” Maybe Dorkasina with a “k” just didn’t look right? Or maybe when the kids in the 50’s started calling each other a “dorc,” somebody misspelled it. Whatever is really behind the name Dorcasina, the way Dorcasina acts definitely classifies her as a dork, at least by today’s standards.
Now speaking of being a dork, I actually don’t like Dorcasina’s character, so I think she gives being a dork a bad name. I personally classify Dorcasina as being completely oblivious to how undesirable or “uncool” she is, which I guess can be pretty dorky, but in possibly the worst way.
“Poor Dorcasina, overcome by surprise and terror, jumped out of the window at the backside of the summer-house, and fainted upon the turf” (Tenney 908).
SUMMARY:
Dorcasina thinks that Scipio is O’Connor, so when O’Connor startles Scipio and is roughly handled, Dorcasina becomes mortified and knocks herself out.
RESPONSE:
After reading Tenney’s “Female Quixotism” I started to wonder if this could possibly be the origin of calling someone a “dork,” at least in the sense of acting as silly as Dorcasina, and not as a “whale’s penis” like most dictionaries also display for the definition of a dork. I guess I am thinking this particular story could in fact be the origin, since the name “Dorcasina” is unusual. However, because of this, I also don’t even necessarily doubt that the word already existed.
Tenney also uses “Philander” as a name, which I’m pretty sure is on purpose, since in class I asked if philander was already a word when “Female Quixotism” was written. If Tenney chose basically silly names to describe her characters, then I think maybe “dork” already existed. Now the question is why didn’t Tenney name her character “Dorkasina?” Maybe Dorkasina with a “k” just didn’t look right? Or maybe when the kids in the 50’s started calling each other a “dorc,” somebody misspelled it. Whatever is really behind the name Dorcasina, the way Dorcasina acts definitely classifies her as a dork, at least by today’s standards.
Now speaking of being a dork, I actually don’t like Dorcasina’s character, so I think she gives being a dork a bad name. I personally classify Dorcasina as being completely oblivious to how undesirable or “uncool” she is, which I guess can be pretty dorky, but in possibly the worst way.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Journal #13 Tabitha Tenney: How Does She Want Dorcasina to Come Across??!!
QUOTE:
“Hush Betty; you are in a passion and know not what you say: I am extremely sorry that you were so rudely treated; but it is unjust to impute it to Philander. I dare say the youth is well nigh distracted at his disappointment” (Tenney 927).
SUMMARY:
Dorcasina is completely unaware of the joke that has been played on her, and Betty gets to suffer for it. However, this could possibly be an example of how foolish a girl obsessed with potential love can be.
RESPONSE:
Dorcasina can be looked at in many different ways: she could be a strong female who does what she wants and even disobeys her father, she could be naïve and trusting of the men who just want to use her, or she could be seen as a completely self-centered girl who deserves to have what happens to Betty happen to her. I tend to think of her as the last possibility, especially since she is smug enough to assume Philander is head over heels in love with her. Dorcasina also seems to speak to Betty as if she knows everything, and Betty is too inexperienced to understand what it’s like to deal with multiple men trying to woo her.
Betty may be inexperienced, and she does seem to let her imagination get the best of her, but I think she’s on to something when she says the other female could not possibly be a woman. Dorcasina, on the other hand, is positive that Philander must be a very desirable man (since he is in love with her), so therefore he had to have chosen her over a woman who’s already his supposed lover. Part of me wants Dorcasina to be completely humiliated so she can be brought down from her ridiculously high horse, and the other part of me still wants her to be humiliated, but maybe to make her stop putting Betty through so much unnecessary drama.
I’m not sure if Betty is an African slave, or just a white handmaiden, but this type of situation makes me detest how spoiled people can put their “help” through so much; and this when they don’t even deserve it. Betty has to look out for Dorcasina, because I guess it’s part of her job, but I really hope that Dorcasina gets what she deserves without causing any more trouble for Betty in the rest of the story!
“Hush Betty; you are in a passion and know not what you say: I am extremely sorry that you were so rudely treated; but it is unjust to impute it to Philander. I dare say the youth is well nigh distracted at his disappointment” (Tenney 927).
SUMMARY:
Dorcasina is completely unaware of the joke that has been played on her, and Betty gets to suffer for it. However, this could possibly be an example of how foolish a girl obsessed with potential love can be.
RESPONSE:
Dorcasina can be looked at in many different ways: she could be a strong female who does what she wants and even disobeys her father, she could be naïve and trusting of the men who just want to use her, or she could be seen as a completely self-centered girl who deserves to have what happens to Betty happen to her. I tend to think of her as the last possibility, especially since she is smug enough to assume Philander is head over heels in love with her. Dorcasina also seems to speak to Betty as if she knows everything, and Betty is too inexperienced to understand what it’s like to deal with multiple men trying to woo her.
Betty may be inexperienced, and she does seem to let her imagination get the best of her, but I think she’s on to something when she says the other female could not possibly be a woman. Dorcasina, on the other hand, is positive that Philander must be a very desirable man (since he is in love with her), so therefore he had to have chosen her over a woman who’s already his supposed lover. Part of me wants Dorcasina to be completely humiliated so she can be brought down from her ridiculously high horse, and the other part of me still wants her to be humiliated, but maybe to make her stop putting Betty through so much unnecessary drama.
I’m not sure if Betty is an African slave, or just a white handmaiden, but this type of situation makes me detest how spoiled people can put their “help” through so much; and this when they don’t even deserve it. Betty has to look out for Dorcasina, because I guess it’s part of her job, but I really hope that Dorcasina gets what she deserves without causing any more trouble for Betty in the rest of the story!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Journal #12 Olaudah Equiano: Freedom Over The Zombie Life
QUOTE:
“This speech seemed to confound him, he began to recoil, and my heart that instant sunk within me. ‘What,’ said he, ‘give you your freedom? Why, where did you get the money’…and said he would not have made me the promise he did if he had thought I should have got the money so soon” (Equiano 707).
SUMMARY:
Equiano’s master tries to take back his promise since he didn’t expect Equiano to get the money to buy his freedom. Luckily Equiano’s friend helps oblige his master into letting Equiano buy his freedom.
RESPONSE:
When I pointed out this passage in class, I said that Equiano was quite lucky to have made friends with the captain. The captain basically makes Equiano’s master feel obligated to accept the money from Equiano in exchange for his freedom. However, the question of whether Equiano was, in fact, better off free came up in class. Were newly freed slaves actually living happier lives? Or did they find life much harder without even the minimal sustenance they would at least receive as slaves?
I think that even living a “harder” life as a free man or woman would still be greatly preferred to living in a state of servitude by basically every African. I guess I see this in a kind of unusual way, because in class I related this matter to all of the “zombie” movies I have recently seen: i.e. Resident Evil I, II, III or 28 Days Later. The characters in these movies would much rather die and stay dead, than end up one of the “undead” forever. I think that being “free” is an ambition equivalent to not being a mindless zombie, and is something that most of the Africans will even die for.
Although in Equiano’s life he writes about certain masters that seem to be at least “nice,” he’s still a slave, and still has to work for nothing. He still knows that he has no choice, and that he has to do whatever his master asks. As a slave, Equiano or any human, is a zombie with no choice in what they do if they want to survive. The slaves must work until it kills them, and the zombies must feed on human flesh/brains until a protagonist kills them. Maybe it's a stretch, but this comparison makes sense in my brain!
“This speech seemed to confound him, he began to recoil, and my heart that instant sunk within me. ‘What,’ said he, ‘give you your freedom? Why, where did you get the money’…and said he would not have made me the promise he did if he had thought I should have got the money so soon” (Equiano 707).
SUMMARY:
Equiano’s master tries to take back his promise since he didn’t expect Equiano to get the money to buy his freedom. Luckily Equiano’s friend helps oblige his master into letting Equiano buy his freedom.
RESPONSE:
When I pointed out this passage in class, I said that Equiano was quite lucky to have made friends with the captain. The captain basically makes Equiano’s master feel obligated to accept the money from Equiano in exchange for his freedom. However, the question of whether Equiano was, in fact, better off free came up in class. Were newly freed slaves actually living happier lives? Or did they find life much harder without even the minimal sustenance they would at least receive as slaves?
I think that even living a “harder” life as a free man or woman would still be greatly preferred to living in a state of servitude by basically every African. I guess I see this in a kind of unusual way, because in class I related this matter to all of the “zombie” movies I have recently seen: i.e. Resident Evil I, II, III or 28 Days Later. The characters in these movies would much rather die and stay dead, than end up one of the “undead” forever. I think that being “free” is an ambition equivalent to not being a mindless zombie, and is something that most of the Africans will even die for.
Although in Equiano’s life he writes about certain masters that seem to be at least “nice,” he’s still a slave, and still has to work for nothing. He still knows that he has no choice, and that he has to do whatever his master asks. As a slave, Equiano or any human, is a zombie with no choice in what they do if they want to survive. The slaves must work until it kills them, and the zombies must feed on human flesh/brains until a protagonist kills them. Maybe it's a stretch, but this comparison makes sense in my brain!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Journal #11 Olaudah Equiano: A Horrific Experience
QUOTE:
“The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome, that it was dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to stay on the deck for the fresh air; but now that the whole ship’s cargo were confined together, it became absolutely pestilential” (Equiano 684).
SUMMARY:
The conditions of the slave ships are absolutely horrible for the African slaves (the “cargo”), who now must all be crammed under deck. The “whites” are also especially cruel to the suffering dejected slaves.
RESPONSE:
Of course this quote can be easily discussed regarding the behavior of “the whites” and how cruel they are to the people they have enslaved, but I would like to discuss it based more on the perseverance of Equiano, or any enslaved person for that matter. The slaves weren’t even really sure what was happening, or how it was happening, but they had to survive the harsh conditions during the voyage through The Middle Passage (although unfortunately many did not survive). Just from reading about the Pilgrims, or other groups of people trying to cross the Atlantic, makes the experience the Africans had seem much worse considering it was not their choice to go in the first place, and they were purposely treated poorly.
Even if Equiano was never in Africa, as some may believe, there is no doubt that the horrible slave ships existed, and that many Africans were just “expendable cargo” in the eyes of their captors. However, I don’t really have any reason to think that none of these things happened to Equiano, so I pretty much believe his story. I can’t even imagine the horror Equiano, or any of the Africans, experienced with “[t]he shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying,” and especially the “intolerably loathsome” (Equiano 684) stench inside the hold.
If I had to think of one of the most terrible ways to die, I think falling into a vat or tub of shit would be up there in the top ten! I don’t think I could even handle having to deal with anything like that being only a few feet away from me. Anyone who survived these horrors had to have been extremely tough, and it’s pretty much appalling that after surviving the ordeal, the Africans got to conclude their dreadful experience with a life of servitude.
“The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome, that it was dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to stay on the deck for the fresh air; but now that the whole ship’s cargo were confined together, it became absolutely pestilential” (Equiano 684).
SUMMARY:
The conditions of the slave ships are absolutely horrible for the African slaves (the “cargo”), who now must all be crammed under deck. The “whites” are also especially cruel to the suffering dejected slaves.
RESPONSE:
Of course this quote can be easily discussed regarding the behavior of “the whites” and how cruel they are to the people they have enslaved, but I would like to discuss it based more on the perseverance of Equiano, or any enslaved person for that matter. The slaves weren’t even really sure what was happening, or how it was happening, but they had to survive the harsh conditions during the voyage through The Middle Passage (although unfortunately many did not survive). Just from reading about the Pilgrims, or other groups of people trying to cross the Atlantic, makes the experience the Africans had seem much worse considering it was not their choice to go in the first place, and they were purposely treated poorly.
Even if Equiano was never in Africa, as some may believe, there is no doubt that the horrible slave ships existed, and that many Africans were just “expendable cargo” in the eyes of their captors. However, I don’t really have any reason to think that none of these things happened to Equiano, so I pretty much believe his story. I can’t even imagine the horror Equiano, or any of the Africans, experienced with “[t]he shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying,” and especially the “intolerably loathsome” (Equiano 684) stench inside the hold.
If I had to think of one of the most terrible ways to die, I think falling into a vat or tub of shit would be up there in the top ten! I don’t think I could even handle having to deal with anything like that being only a few feet away from me. Anyone who survived these horrors had to have been extremely tough, and it’s pretty much appalling that after surviving the ordeal, the Africans got to conclude their dreadful experience with a life of servitude.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Journal #10 Phillis Wheatley: So Ambiguous, Is She Like A Female Thomas Paine??
QUOTE:
“Improve your privileges while they stay, / Ye pupils, and each hour redeem, that bears / Or good or bad report of you to Heav’n…An Ethiop tells you ‘tis your greatest foe; / Its transient sweetness turns to endless pain” (Wheatley 756).
SUMMARY:
Wheatley writes this letter to the students of “Harvard,” basically warning them not to sin. There seems to be a little testimony as well as a short “Sunday school” lesson.
RESPONSE:
At the beginning of Wheatley’s letter, she seems to be explaining how she has heavenly guidance to help her write now that she has been “saved” from her native “land of errors” (Wheatley 756); and saved as in converted to Christianity. Her next paragraph is like reading a sermon, which could also be Wheatley’s way to display her knowledge (proving that she knows what she’s talking about). However, the last paragraph seems more like a prediction or warning about what the future may bring if the students continue to commit sins.
Is Wheatley’s warning really sincere? Or is she just letting the students at Cambridge of New England know that they won’t be so privileged forever, and this especially now that an “Ethiop tells [them] ‘tis [their] greatest foe” (Wheatley 756). It seems to me that Wheatley could be addressing the students sarcastically, or trying to throw what she believes the future will bring in their faces; that the tables will turn. Maybe Wheatley is using her own testimony (of being converted and educated after leaving Africa) to foreshadow that it is possible for Africans to become just as “privileged” as these students.
Whatever she meant, Wheatley is most likely proving that she is just as educated as the students, and that anyone could possibly give them a run for their money. So therefore, they should be good Christians (and not sin) if they want to keep their privileges. Wheatley sure had some confidence! I wonder what would have happened if all Africans were given the same education as her. I don’t think the fate of African Americans in history could have been anything like it was, or still is.
“Improve your privileges while they stay, / Ye pupils, and each hour redeem, that bears / Or good or bad report of you to Heav’n…An Ethiop tells you ‘tis your greatest foe; / Its transient sweetness turns to endless pain” (Wheatley 756).
SUMMARY:
Wheatley writes this letter to the students of “Harvard,” basically warning them not to sin. There seems to be a little testimony as well as a short “Sunday school” lesson.
RESPONSE:
At the beginning of Wheatley’s letter, she seems to be explaining how she has heavenly guidance to help her write now that she has been “saved” from her native “land of errors” (Wheatley 756); and saved as in converted to Christianity. Her next paragraph is like reading a sermon, which could also be Wheatley’s way to display her knowledge (proving that she knows what she’s talking about). However, the last paragraph seems more like a prediction or warning about what the future may bring if the students continue to commit sins.
Is Wheatley’s warning really sincere? Or is she just letting the students at Cambridge of New England know that they won’t be so privileged forever, and this especially now that an “Ethiop tells [them] ‘tis [their] greatest foe” (Wheatley 756). It seems to me that Wheatley could be addressing the students sarcastically, or trying to throw what she believes the future will bring in their faces; that the tables will turn. Maybe Wheatley is using her own testimony (of being converted and educated after leaving Africa) to foreshadow that it is possible for Africans to become just as “privileged” as these students.
Whatever she meant, Wheatley is most likely proving that she is just as educated as the students, and that anyone could possibly give them a run for their money. So therefore, they should be good Christians (and not sin) if they want to keep their privileges. Wheatley sure had some confidence! I wonder what would have happened if all Africans were given the same education as her. I don’t think the fate of African Americans in history could have been anything like it was, or still is.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Journal #9 Thomas Paine: On Every Side!
QUOTE:
“Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, ‘Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this’ …then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land” (Paine 635).
SUMMARY:
From Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” this quote is part of one of the supporting arguments for America separating from Great Britain. However, Paine can be seen as being on both sides of the revolution.
RESPONSE:
This passage stands out the most to me as being one of the main arguments, if not the main argument, Paine has against England and America staying connected. He basically will not stay “friends” with a country that he claims ruins lives and is filled with dishonorable murderers. It seems like this is what Paine is talking about; however, after hearing about how all types of political parties and governments will quote Paine to compliment their own views, I can see how “selective quoting” will make “Common Sense” seem in favor of just about any view.
The quote above is quite clear with what Paine means. He is saying that a “husband, father, friend, or lover” (635) should not be able to reconcile with Great Britain. However he asks, “bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature…if you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity” (635). Not even using the full quote, but sort of cutting and pasting, makes Paine’s words sound like he is saying people who can’t bring the doctrine of reconciliation will only bring ruin. This is probably a stretch, but I don’t doubt that it has been twisted and used for opposing sides and opinions.
By the end of the paragraph, Paine also adds in that anyone who hasn’t experienced the violations of Britain is in no place to judge what he is explaining. It seems to me that anyone from an opposing side or point of view must have (or have had) a lot of nerve to twist Paine’s words. But if Paine really did want to remain so indistinguishable to opposing sides, then me claiming that one side has a lot of nerve is exactly what he wanted as a result.
“Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, ‘Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this’ …then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land” (Paine 635).
SUMMARY:
From Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” this quote is part of one of the supporting arguments for America separating from Great Britain. However, Paine can be seen as being on both sides of the revolution.
RESPONSE:
This passage stands out the most to me as being one of the main arguments, if not the main argument, Paine has against England and America staying connected. He basically will not stay “friends” with a country that he claims ruins lives and is filled with dishonorable murderers. It seems like this is what Paine is talking about; however, after hearing about how all types of political parties and governments will quote Paine to compliment their own views, I can see how “selective quoting” will make “Common Sense” seem in favor of just about any view.
The quote above is quite clear with what Paine means. He is saying that a “husband, father, friend, or lover” (635) should not be able to reconcile with Great Britain. However he asks, “bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature…if you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity” (635). Not even using the full quote, but sort of cutting and pasting, makes Paine’s words sound like he is saying people who can’t bring the doctrine of reconciliation will only bring ruin. This is probably a stretch, but I don’t doubt that it has been twisted and used for opposing sides and opinions.
By the end of the paragraph, Paine also adds in that anyone who hasn’t experienced the violations of Britain is in no place to judge what he is explaining. It seems to me that anyone from an opposing side or point of view must have (or have had) a lot of nerve to twist Paine’s words. But if Paine really did want to remain so indistinguishable to opposing sides, then me claiming that one side has a lot of nerve is exactly what he wanted as a result.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Journal #8 Jonathan Edwards: Mad With Power, Or Just Bad Timing?
QUOTE:
“Therefore, let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come” (Edwards 436).
SUMMARY:
Toward the end of his sermon, Edwards changes his tone from completely negative and depressing, to having some hope. He explains that people do have the chance to be “born again” and to experience God’s mercy.
RESPONSE:
By this point in Edwards’ sermon, were people too distracted with peeing their pants to notice his glimmer of hope? I’m kidding, but it is hard to catch anything positive in his twelve-page speech (and those pages being in the tiny computer font of The Norton Anthology, so we’re talking at least thirty pages) of “fire and brimstone.” Even if he did in fact give this speech in the most calm and monotone voice, nobody wants to hear about how they are doomed for eternity.
Of course, it was really just too little too late. If Edwards made the main focus of his speech the possibility for eternal happiness, I bet he would have kept his position in the church much longer. People love hearing about how easy happiness can be attained. Why else would there be “get-rich-quick schemes” and “minute weight-loss plans” sold every second of the day? If this were the script for “The Jonathan Edwards Infomercial,” the phones would be silent.
It seems, however, that many people look past the later sermons like the way most people look at other people who “fell off” with their fame or power. I mean like many of our U.S. presidents, Michael Jackson, or even Britney Spears. Well, maybe not Britney because that’s still going on, and maybe not George W. Bush, but enough time has passed so that people can find the good in sermons given by Jonathan Edwards.
“Therefore, let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come” (Edwards 436).
SUMMARY:
Toward the end of his sermon, Edwards changes his tone from completely negative and depressing, to having some hope. He explains that people do have the chance to be “born again” and to experience God’s mercy.
RESPONSE:
By this point in Edwards’ sermon, were people too distracted with peeing their pants to notice his glimmer of hope? I’m kidding, but it is hard to catch anything positive in his twelve-page speech (and those pages being in the tiny computer font of The Norton Anthology, so we’re talking at least thirty pages) of “fire and brimstone.” Even if he did in fact give this speech in the most calm and monotone voice, nobody wants to hear about how they are doomed for eternity.
Of course, it was really just too little too late. If Edwards made the main focus of his speech the possibility for eternal happiness, I bet he would have kept his position in the church much longer. People love hearing about how easy happiness can be attained. Why else would there be “get-rich-quick schemes” and “minute weight-loss plans” sold every second of the day? If this were the script for “The Jonathan Edwards Infomercial,” the phones would be silent.
It seems, however, that many people look past the later sermons like the way most people look at other people who “fell off” with their fame or power. I mean like many of our U.S. presidents, Michael Jackson, or even Britney Spears. Well, maybe not Britney because that’s still going on, and maybe not George W. Bush, but enough time has passed so that people can find the good in sermons given by Jonathan Edwards.
Journal #7 Jonathan Edwards: Original Sin? Whatever.
QUOTE:
“Natural men’s prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment” (Edwards 428).
SUMMARY:
Edwards is basically saying that anyone who isn’t “saved” is going to hell, no matter how they live their lives. This is his most extreme type of sermon, so it is easy to say that Edwards took his position as Reverend too far after he tried to bring his congregation back to “the old days.”
RESPONSE:
My main problem with Edwards claiming that anyone who isn’t “saved,” or anyone who is “natural,” will go to hell is that it can be confused with “nature” being something bad or evil. I know now, from our class discussion, that this is referring to the “original sin” that all Christians believe people are born into, but it makes no sense to me. Since our class isn’t a theology course, I’ll try not to focus too much on how ridiculous the concept of “original sin” is to me, and focus more on his sermon failing to motivate his congregation.
First of all, Edwards breaks his sermon down with his ten points. Every point is negative and is describing most likely the greatest fears these people have. I’ve learned with teaching young children to adults (in dance classes), that trying to browbeat people into doing anything will either discourage them so horribly that they quit, or will make them angry at whoever is trying to direct them.
I do know what it’s like to have that type of rank over people, and have had my moments of “me against them” (only with my kids and teenagers though, the adults have never given me trouble), but I guess it’s different because I’m not telling them they are “bad” children or that they will go to hell. I think I’d lose my job if I did that! (I guess that happened to Edwards!)
“Natural men’s prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment” (Edwards 428).
SUMMARY:
Edwards is basically saying that anyone who isn’t “saved” is going to hell, no matter how they live their lives. This is his most extreme type of sermon, so it is easy to say that Edwards took his position as Reverend too far after he tried to bring his congregation back to “the old days.”
RESPONSE:
My main problem with Edwards claiming that anyone who isn’t “saved,” or anyone who is “natural,” will go to hell is that it can be confused with “nature” being something bad or evil. I know now, from our class discussion, that this is referring to the “original sin” that all Christians believe people are born into, but it makes no sense to me. Since our class isn’t a theology course, I’ll try not to focus too much on how ridiculous the concept of “original sin” is to me, and focus more on his sermon failing to motivate his congregation.
First of all, Edwards breaks his sermon down with his ten points. Every point is negative and is describing most likely the greatest fears these people have. I’ve learned with teaching young children to adults (in dance classes), that trying to browbeat people into doing anything will either discourage them so horribly that they quit, or will make them angry at whoever is trying to direct them.
I do know what it’s like to have that type of rank over people, and have had my moments of “me against them” (only with my kids and teenagers though, the adults have never given me trouble), but I guess it’s different because I’m not telling them they are “bad” children or that they will go to hell. I think I’d lose my job if I did that! (I guess that happened to Edwards!)
Journal #6 Anne Bradstreet: A Conflicted Mind
QUOTE:
“Many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times by atheism how I could know whether there was a God; I never saw any miracles” (Bradstreet 216).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet writes this letter that she wants to be read by her children when she is either on her deathbed or has already passed. It is many of her thoughts from her whole life written down so her children may understand her better.
RESPONSE:
I find the struggle Bradstreet goes through very interesting because I feel like I go through this same struggle often. She is troubled by her atheist thoughts because believing in God is so much easier. How else can she explain her recovery from sickness? How else can she explain anything? She also can believe that once she does perish, she will not suffer from the “Powers of Hell” since she has “committed to His charge” (Bradstreet 217). However, this “sorting out” of her conflicted thoughts may also just be for the sake of her children; so they don’t have to suffer from simultaneous clashing beliefs.
I went to church and Sunday school for my whole childhood, but as I got older and started to learn more about science, some things just didn’t make sense anymore. I moved to L.A. and made friends with some devout Christians, so I would go to church with them a lot. It was very easy and lovely to believe in everything, and to know that I could go to heaven one day. However, I was in a car accident that left me in a coma for six weeks and with a traumatic brain injury. So many people ask me if I remember anything from the coma: did I see God, could I remember them talking to me, aren’t I so thankful that a higher power saved me? But the truth is: no, no-I don’t remember anything, and it sure didn’t feel like anyone or anything was helping me- especially once I woke up. I had to learn how to walk, write, talk quickly and keep my balance all over again. It was painful and the worst experience I've ever had in my whole life; that changed my life completely.
I feel like the human body is amazing though. The brain can heal itself and grow new connections and pathways. Is that God? It’s very easy to say that it was God or Allah or Buddha, whatever. I’m very conflicted myself. There are certain things that I feel no one can REALLY know, so does that make me an atheist? I don’t know. Maybe I have more in common with Bradstreet than I would have thought.
“Many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times by atheism how I could know whether there was a God; I never saw any miracles” (Bradstreet 216).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet writes this letter that she wants to be read by her children when she is either on her deathbed or has already passed. It is many of her thoughts from her whole life written down so her children may understand her better.
RESPONSE:
I find the struggle Bradstreet goes through very interesting because I feel like I go through this same struggle often. She is troubled by her atheist thoughts because believing in God is so much easier. How else can she explain her recovery from sickness? How else can she explain anything? She also can believe that once she does perish, she will not suffer from the “Powers of Hell” since she has “committed to His charge” (Bradstreet 217). However, this “sorting out” of her conflicted thoughts may also just be for the sake of her children; so they don’t have to suffer from simultaneous clashing beliefs.
I went to church and Sunday school for my whole childhood, but as I got older and started to learn more about science, some things just didn’t make sense anymore. I moved to L.A. and made friends with some devout Christians, so I would go to church with them a lot. It was very easy and lovely to believe in everything, and to know that I could go to heaven one day. However, I was in a car accident that left me in a coma for six weeks and with a traumatic brain injury. So many people ask me if I remember anything from the coma: did I see God, could I remember them talking to me, aren’t I so thankful that a higher power saved me? But the truth is: no, no-I don’t remember anything, and it sure didn’t feel like anyone or anything was helping me- especially once I woke up. I had to learn how to walk, write, talk quickly and keep my balance all over again. It was painful and the worst experience I've ever had in my whole life; that changed my life completely.
I feel like the human body is amazing though. The brain can heal itself and grow new connections and pathways. Is that God? It’s very easy to say that it was God or Allah or Buddha, whatever. I’m very conflicted myself. There are certain things that I feel no one can REALLY know, so does that make me an atheist? I don’t know. Maybe I have more in common with Bradstreet than I would have thought.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Journal #5 Anne Bradstreet: Maybe Sorrow Brings The Best Poetry
QUOTE:
“Blest babe, why should I once bewail thy fate, / Or sigh thy days so soon were terminate, / Sith thou art in an everlasting state” (Bradstreet 210).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet has written several poems about the deaths of her grandchildren. This line seems to be her struggling with the question of why she should mourn if the child barely had a chance to live.
RESPONSE:
The feeling I originally got from this quote was that Bradstreet is expressing how her sorrow is too great to only mourn for her grandchild once. However, after the class discussion, I realized that she is most likely expressing her feelings of how it may seem pointless for her to grieve more than once for the child. Since there are at least three poems of mourning for different grandchildren, with each child being under three years old, reading these poems opens a small window on this aspect of Bradstreet’s life as a grandmother. She lost many grandchildren before they were old enough to even speak, and that may explain why she may deal with her grief as if she lost a plant or crop from nature, as she seems to explain in the second stanza.
I would expect to see a lot of “God” mentioned in this sort of poem, but Bradstreet has no mention of God until the very last line. In the first stanza Bradstreet writes about her grandchild being “ta’en away unto eternity” (line 4) and “in an everlasting state” (line 7), but she doesn’t seem to be referring to the child going to heaven, or being taken by God himself. Only at the very end does she add in God having control over “nature and fate” (line 14), which could be a last minute thought, or could be Bradstreet finding the easiest explanation for the loss of a baby.
It seems like Bradstreet also writes as a way to deal with her inner-most thoughts and emotions, which is probably why she didn't want her work published. It's like everyone reading her diary, that just happened to be amazing writing, but her private diary nonetheless.
“Blest babe, why should I once bewail thy fate, / Or sigh thy days so soon were terminate, / Sith thou art in an everlasting state” (Bradstreet 210).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet has written several poems about the deaths of her grandchildren. This line seems to be her struggling with the question of why she should mourn if the child barely had a chance to live.
RESPONSE:
The feeling I originally got from this quote was that Bradstreet is expressing how her sorrow is too great to only mourn for her grandchild once. However, after the class discussion, I realized that she is most likely expressing her feelings of how it may seem pointless for her to grieve more than once for the child. Since there are at least three poems of mourning for different grandchildren, with each child being under three years old, reading these poems opens a small window on this aspect of Bradstreet’s life as a grandmother. She lost many grandchildren before they were old enough to even speak, and that may explain why she may deal with her grief as if she lost a plant or crop from nature, as she seems to explain in the second stanza.
I would expect to see a lot of “God” mentioned in this sort of poem, but Bradstreet has no mention of God until the very last line. In the first stanza Bradstreet writes about her grandchild being “ta’en away unto eternity” (line 4) and “in an everlasting state” (line 7), but she doesn’t seem to be referring to the child going to heaven, or being taken by God himself. Only at the very end does she add in God having control over “nature and fate” (line 14), which could be a last minute thought, or could be Bradstreet finding the easiest explanation for the loss of a baby.
It seems like Bradstreet also writes as a way to deal with her inner-most thoughts and emotions, which is probably why she didn't want her work published. It's like everyone reading her diary, that just happened to be amazing writing, but her private diary nonetheless.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Journal #4 James W. Lowen: He Riles Me Up Again!
QUOTE:
“Residents of northern Europe and England rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and rarely removed all of their clothing at one time, believing it immodest. The Pilgrims smelled bad to the Indians. Squanto ‘tried, without success, to teach them to bathe’” (Lowen 79).
SUMMARY:
Diseases and illnesses such as smallpox and influenza were brought to America by the Europeans, which then wiped out the Native Americans. The Europeans considered Native Americans “savage,” and yet the natives were no threat to any of their intruders.
RESPONSE:
The Christians take their “modesty” to such an extreme level; that is itself “dirty” when it prevents them from proper hygiene. This early “germ warfare” was not only devastating for the indigenous people; it also increased the Europeans’ chances of taking over the Native American lands effortlessly. They could literally walk into deserted Native American villages and continue their conquest of America.
We are so aware of the genocide that happened during World War II, but the disappearance of Native Americans was genocide too. This is finally being taught in schools, that I at least have experienced or heard about, but will this knowledge change anything? The government has given Native Americans some land on reservations, however, does that make up for what happened?
I have some very close Native American friends who have recently moved to a reservation in Montana. They are doing their best to bring change to the people, who are very sick according to my friends. There are these reservations, but no healthy foods easily available (without having enough time or skills to farm, for example). The people barely have any resources for any sort of changes to a healthier lifestyle. What was done has been done, and impossible to compensate Native Americans for it now, but maybe more people having this knowledge can somehow help?
“Residents of northern Europe and England rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and rarely removed all of their clothing at one time, believing it immodest. The Pilgrims smelled bad to the Indians. Squanto ‘tried, without success, to teach them to bathe’” (Lowen 79).
SUMMARY:
Diseases and illnesses such as smallpox and influenza were brought to America by the Europeans, which then wiped out the Native Americans. The Europeans considered Native Americans “savage,” and yet the natives were no threat to any of their intruders.
RESPONSE:
The Christians take their “modesty” to such an extreme level; that is itself “dirty” when it prevents them from proper hygiene. This early “germ warfare” was not only devastating for the indigenous people; it also increased the Europeans’ chances of taking over the Native American lands effortlessly. They could literally walk into deserted Native American villages and continue their conquest of America.
We are so aware of the genocide that happened during World War II, but the disappearance of Native Americans was genocide too. This is finally being taught in schools, that I at least have experienced or heard about, but will this knowledge change anything? The government has given Native Americans some land on reservations, however, does that make up for what happened?
I have some very close Native American friends who have recently moved to a reservation in Montana. They are doing their best to bring change to the people, who are very sick according to my friends. There are these reservations, but no healthy foods easily available (without having enough time or skills to farm, for example). The people barely have any resources for any sort of changes to a healthier lifestyle. What was done has been done, and impossible to compensate Native Americans for it now, but maybe more people having this knowledge can somehow help?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Journal #3 William Bradford: A Leader in Rationalization?
QUOTE:
“In these hard times and difficult beginnings they found some discontents and murmurings arise amongst some, and mutinous speeches and carriages in other; but they were soon quelled and overcome by the wisdom, patience, and just equal carriage of things by the governor and better part, which clave faithfully together in the main” (Bradford 121).
SUMMARY:
Bradford is writing about how difficult their journey was, only to find out how hard they must work to survive once they land. They had no family or friends in the new land, so they had to stick even closer together as a group.
RESPONSE:
Before I immediately assume the Pilgrims were simply greedy and detrimental to the Native Americans and the new land, I have to remind myself just how intense and extremely tough their experience was. They had “no friends to welcome them, nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies” (Bradford 115), and sadly, “in two or three months’ time half of their company died, especially in January and February” (Bradford 121). This describes just a small portion of the hardships endured by the surviving Pilgrims, however, looking at them from a slightly biased opinion, I can’t help but have a lack of sympathy for the Pilgrims.
To start out, the Pilgrims assumed all of their good luck, as far as finding Native American stockpiles of food and robbing graves, had to be gifts from God. Since I don’t think they were that naïve, it seems like their survival depended on their ability to justify their thefts. Perhaps they really truly believed God was “on their side” though; in that case, I guess they could have assumed God came down and placed that corn neatly in the ground for them to find. Then I guess I have to turn my attention on the fact the Pilgrims came to America to have freedom to practice their religion, but they condemned anyone else who practiced a different religion than them?
I think it’s just really hard for someone like me, who has grown up in a household that tries to be at least politically correct and fair, to really sympathize with the Pilgrims. Especially reading Bradford’s letters, and seeing him describe natives as “savages” when they actually seem far better off (excluding the plague) than the Pilgrims, is difficult to take.
“In these hard times and difficult beginnings they found some discontents and murmurings arise amongst some, and mutinous speeches and carriages in other; but they were soon quelled and overcome by the wisdom, patience, and just equal carriage of things by the governor and better part, which clave faithfully together in the main” (Bradford 121).
SUMMARY:
Bradford is writing about how difficult their journey was, only to find out how hard they must work to survive once they land. They had no family or friends in the new land, so they had to stick even closer together as a group.
RESPONSE:
Before I immediately assume the Pilgrims were simply greedy and detrimental to the Native Americans and the new land, I have to remind myself just how intense and extremely tough their experience was. They had “no friends to welcome them, nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies” (Bradford 115), and sadly, “in two or three months’ time half of their company died, especially in January and February” (Bradford 121). This describes just a small portion of the hardships endured by the surviving Pilgrims, however, looking at them from a slightly biased opinion, I can’t help but have a lack of sympathy for the Pilgrims.
To start out, the Pilgrims assumed all of their good luck, as far as finding Native American stockpiles of food and robbing graves, had to be gifts from God. Since I don’t think they were that naïve, it seems like their survival depended on their ability to justify their thefts. Perhaps they really truly believed God was “on their side” though; in that case, I guess they could have assumed God came down and placed that corn neatly in the ground for them to find. Then I guess I have to turn my attention on the fact the Pilgrims came to America to have freedom to practice their religion, but they condemned anyone else who practiced a different religion than them?
I think it’s just really hard for someone like me, who has grown up in a household that tries to be at least politically correct and fair, to really sympathize with the Pilgrims. Especially reading Bradford’s letters, and seeing him describe natives as “savages” when they actually seem far better off (excluding the plague) than the Pilgrims, is difficult to take.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Journal #2 - Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca: An Early Civil Rights Activist
QUOTE:
“Thus we often misjudge the motives of men; we thought we effected the Indians’ liberty, when the Christians were but poising to pounce” (De Vaca 48).
SUMMARY:
De Vaca is reflecting over what happens with the natives that he befriended. He thinks that he can send the American Indians back to their towns to rebuild the neglected lands, but realizes the Christians already had a different plan of conquest.
RESPONSE:
This quote is not only what Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca experiences when the Christians take control of the newfound lands; it is also a profound observation of human nature. De Vaca has been fighting to reinstate the freedom and liberty that the native Indians had before the Christians besieged them and wanted to enslave them; but his attempt is in vain. Every time the Christians are mentioned, they come across completely hypocritical, which is the way stereotypical Christians today come across as well. However, anyone who makes him or herself out to be “holier than thou” usually isn’t, which is what De Vaca is referring to when he writes, “we often misjudge the motives of men.”
Reading De Vaca’s eloquent wording is like reading a prose poem. The alliteration of “poising to pounce” introduced by De Vaca’s insight into these “motives of men” (another alliteration), presents literary and poetic techniques along with his true accounts. However, does De Vaca become more likable than, let’s say Columbus, because he is so articulate? He obviously is sincere enough to address this narrative to Charles V in hopes that some policies might be changed. Maybe because he seems to care more about human rights than the “Christians” do, he is more likable, or maybe De Vaca is easier to like because he suffered so much in his journey. Reading about the hunger he and his men suffered from, along with the natives, increases the compassion that at least I feel for them. Either way, I would much rather see a “De Vaca Day” instead of “Columbus Day” on the calendar.
“Thus we often misjudge the motives of men; we thought we effected the Indians’ liberty, when the Christians were but poising to pounce” (De Vaca 48).
SUMMARY:
De Vaca is reflecting over what happens with the natives that he befriended. He thinks that he can send the American Indians back to their towns to rebuild the neglected lands, but realizes the Christians already had a different plan of conquest.
RESPONSE:
This quote is not only what Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca experiences when the Christians take control of the newfound lands; it is also a profound observation of human nature. De Vaca has been fighting to reinstate the freedom and liberty that the native Indians had before the Christians besieged them and wanted to enslave them; but his attempt is in vain. Every time the Christians are mentioned, they come across completely hypocritical, which is the way stereotypical Christians today come across as well. However, anyone who makes him or herself out to be “holier than thou” usually isn’t, which is what De Vaca is referring to when he writes, “we often misjudge the motives of men.”
Reading De Vaca’s eloquent wording is like reading a prose poem. The alliteration of “poising to pounce” introduced by De Vaca’s insight into these “motives of men” (another alliteration), presents literary and poetic techniques along with his true accounts. However, does De Vaca become more likable than, let’s say Columbus, because he is so articulate? He obviously is sincere enough to address this narrative to Charles V in hopes that some policies might be changed. Maybe because he seems to care more about human rights than the “Christians” do, he is more likable, or maybe De Vaca is easier to like because he suffered so much in his journey. Reading about the hunger he and his men suffered from, along with the natives, increases the compassion that at least I feel for them. Either way, I would much rather see a “De Vaca Day” instead of “Columbus Day” on the calendar.
Journal #1 Christopher Columbus...Could He Be A Robinson Crusoe?
QUOTE:
“And there I found many islands filled with people innumerable, and of them all I have taken possession for their highnesses, by proclamation made and with the royal standard unfurled, and no opposition was offered to me” (Columbus 32).
SUMMARY:
Columbus is describing his findings on islands in the Caribbean. He is sending very optimistic news back to his supporter in Spain; however, he assumes that he has now taken the islands in his possession.
RESPONSE:
Although many quotes from Columbus’s letters remind me of reading Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, this one especially seems to express the same type of conceit Crusoe has. Not only does Columbus say that he has taken possession of the natives, he also writes, “no opposition was offered to me,” which seems to be naïve; but considering that he is writing to his supporter, anything could have actually happened. On the other hand, Columbus may have the necessary state of mind any explorer must have in order to intrude on the lives of indigenous people.
Columbus also believes that he has God on his side, which at the time, justifies basically everything the Europeans do. Robinson Crusoe, who also believes God is on his side, feels like he can take possession of anything he comes across; much like Columbus, who names each island he lands on as if it is automatically in his possession. Columbus also considers the “infinity of small hamlets and people without number” (Columbus 33) as having no importance, which seems uncouth, but is understandable for an explorer out for the most profitable find.
After reading the next letter, the tone has changed and Columbus is writing about how he feels betrayed when he loses his control over the new land. This seems slightly ironic because he feels robbed of “his” land when he was the one who basically robbed the natives of their land. However, Columbus now writes about different motives for his journey in the first place. He no longer claims that he is looking for honor or wealth, similarly to when Robinson Crusoe decides that he will only serve God, instead of himself.
“And there I found many islands filled with people innumerable, and of them all I have taken possession for their highnesses, by proclamation made and with the royal standard unfurled, and no opposition was offered to me” (Columbus 32).
SUMMARY:
Columbus is describing his findings on islands in the Caribbean. He is sending very optimistic news back to his supporter in Spain; however, he assumes that he has now taken the islands in his possession.
RESPONSE:
Although many quotes from Columbus’s letters remind me of reading Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, this one especially seems to express the same type of conceit Crusoe has. Not only does Columbus say that he has taken possession of the natives, he also writes, “no opposition was offered to me,” which seems to be naïve; but considering that he is writing to his supporter, anything could have actually happened. On the other hand, Columbus may have the necessary state of mind any explorer must have in order to intrude on the lives of indigenous people.
Columbus also believes that he has God on his side, which at the time, justifies basically everything the Europeans do. Robinson Crusoe, who also believes God is on his side, feels like he can take possession of anything he comes across; much like Columbus, who names each island he lands on as if it is automatically in his possession. Columbus also considers the “infinity of small hamlets and people without number” (Columbus 33) as having no importance, which seems uncouth, but is understandable for an explorer out for the most profitable find.
After reading the next letter, the tone has changed and Columbus is writing about how he feels betrayed when he loses his control over the new land. This seems slightly ironic because he feels robbed of “his” land when he was the one who basically robbed the natives of their land. However, Columbus now writes about different motives for his journey in the first place. He no longer claims that he is looking for honor or wealth, similarly to when Robinson Crusoe decides that he will only serve God, instead of himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
