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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
