Tuesday, October 2, 2007
What's meaningful to you?
This week I wanted to try on an idea by someone in my 6th period class who suggested rather than have two blogs, one dealing with the news and the other dealing with the content of our course and its significance for our lives today, that we would try both but rotate them every week. So this week I wanted to start an open-ended dialogue about the first six chapters of our text. There is so much material here, but is there something in particular that stands out as meaningful for you personally, meaningful for us collectively? What is it? Why is it meaningful to you? What does it remind you of? Why should we care? Why do you? I know this requires a different set of tools, but give it a try – we can make our second (or third or fourth) comments on anything that get’s mentioned. Tangents are welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
One idea from the book thus far, that has influenced me is the types of people who came here and what differences were caused by their principles. Because the Puritans had very liberal and more equality and tolerant based ideas, this country was formed with those principles as its structure. For example, the Quakers were very tolerant of other religions, perhaps one reason why i am able to live in the US and pray as a Jew. Also the Puritan, Pilgrims, and Quakers all believed in more equality for women and other people usually treated lower in society. These morals would be a factor in our Country's basic principle of freedom and equality.
In all, i feel like this country is different and democratic because of the more liberal sects of people who came here, and had this country just been filled with English people with the exact same English beliefs and objectives, perhaps this would be a New England and not a new Country.
The first day of class, Dr. Rockenbach asked everyone whether they were an optimist or a pessimist, and I answered ‘optimist.’ But, derived from the things that I’ve read this year, one question in particular stands out to me: is man inherently good or evil? I know this is a very broad and very philosophical question, but truly this is the foremost thought that’s crossed my mind. One thinks that Columbus’ treatment of the Indians is terrible, and when one reads about Cortez destroying the Aztec empire, one also has a tendency to think Cortez, obviously, is the bad guy. But then one has to take into consideration the fact that the Aztecs and surroundings such civilizations were slaughtering, enslaving, and brutalizing one another anyhow. Is it just in human nature to want to enslave and terrorize other races and sects? When one thinks about it, that’s really all most religious wars are based on to this day. At the time that the Indians were slaughtering one another, the Spanish had the inquisition, which was really just a more advanced form of savagery, so were they really advancing beyond what they thought of as barbarism?
I wonder if brutality is just part of human animalistic nature. Today, I like to think that our minds are more sophisticated, leading us to see the wrongs of the Nazis and the evils of slave-trade, but if slavery and genocide is so ancient, I can’t help but wonder if it comes with the package of being a human, or if it is no more than a trait that varies depending upon how one is raised.
I agree Phoebe, it always seems that at the time of the evil, it never seems as bad as in the future. Like the Holocaust we understood was bad but we now know so much more about it and how horrible it was. Just as now genocides are occurring, one example is in Darfur, and yes we realize it's bad, but we really aren't doing much about it (just as we didn't do so much during the Holocaust). I feel like when we look back into the past, we will realize, wow we were really evil, then we will just think that we aren't really now; however, once again the cycle continues and we see those acts late as being evil.
As far as the Are we inherintly evil question goes, i feel that's more of a religious and opinionated question that im sort of undecided on. As we had talked about in my hebrew school. Is it the puppet-relationship where everything happens and is controlled by God (if oyu believe in God, or is it the wind-up clock, where God created the earth and let humans be humans or is it original sins. All ideas i can see correctness in however i am not completely for.
When reflecting back upon the unit, what affected me most was the immigration to the 13 colonies. It laid the foundation for what our country is today and it makes me wonder what if Columbus made it to the Indies instead of landing at the Americas. What would our country have become? Would England still have been the leading power in the Americas in the time of the colonies?
I am truly interested in the story of how the Americas were established because it is part of our history. Without the slaves, the conquest, and desire for economic prosperity America would not have become the country that it is today. But, that does not mean that the cruelty towards the Indians and the slaves was just. If the colonies did not enslave people to plow the fields, grow the crops, etc., could we have found another way to develop the colonies? All of the cruelty that slaves were treated with we look back at with a critical eye. But without slave labor, our country would not have progressed so rapidly. In retrospect, would we have done things differently and not used slaves as means of labor? Would we not have been able to progress at all without slave labor? Were we capable at that time in our history of structuring fair labor to serve our needs?
I’m so appreciating you three for starting us off and I’m excited to hear from you all. I want to comment first on things that you have inspired me to ponder. The first idea I think about comes from Nick as he mentions the issue of Puritan equality and often times I immediately go to the Puritans didn’t create equality – but when I step back and really think about the Puritans I have to put two hats on. They were incredibly bigoted towards other denominations (who wasn’t at that time –save for the Quakers perhaps?) but they also did believe that women actually had souls that could be saved. Thanks Quakers! They did also believe that all were equal in the eyes of God, despite the obvious social inequality existing within their communities: everyone had a job to do and therefore everyone was worthy (at least that’s if you were saved). Thanks Nick for reminding me of this.
The question of human nature that Phoebe brings up is a powerful question. I think it’s so hard to look at history and not be pessimistic, but I want to say we also have to think about what kind of history we have been learning. I’m not sure why we have to study every major war, every major tragic event – it can begin to feel like that’s all there is. It almost feels like the evening news at times. The study of history is so much larger than the tragedies. I think it is an interesting idea to think about taking one year of our lives to study the most monumental peaceful triumphs of world history. I do wonder how we’d look at “history” – past and present if we had more balance.
Alison – thanks so much for taking on such an important conversation. Could the US have developed without the labor of slaves? Some historians now argue that slavery, despite making us a stronger nation, actually hindered our growth. If you think about the advantages of capitalism – it feels clear that the most innovate technologies developed in the northeast. I think in many ways slavery did retard our growth as a nation and further led to one of the most devastating wars we have ever faced – over 600,000 killed – more than both world wars combined. Powerful to think about. Thanks.
Since there's so much material in the first chapters, i want to focus on one thing. This is actually in chapter 7, but it jumped out at wearing a yellow raincoat screaming "look at me!!!!!" so i had to blog about it.
At yhe bottom of page 110, joseph conlin writes, " The sequence of events that led from 1763 to the War of Independence is not a story of American righteousness versus British villiany; it is merely history."
The author was clearly on crack when he wrote that! (Sorry if thats slighly inappropiate)
you cant say that the causes of a war are just facts. I dont think anything in history are just facts. The most interesting parts of history for me are probing deeper than simply memorizing; its applying those facts to how they related to humans back then, ad how the rrelate to us now! What is the pointof learning history if u just memorize? That wont help us to prevennt history from repeating itself. It wont help us make parallels to the science of lthe human mind and the events going on in our world today.
Nick - Ha! Who'd have thought we'd end up agreeing right off the bat this time? Dr. Rockenbach brings up a good point in that it is hard to look at history without being pessimisitic because so many tragic and terrible events are dwelt on, but it's not as though we necessarily learn more from studying tragedies than we do from studying sucesses. After all, for the sake of shaping the future, one should bear in mind what did work as well as what didn't. You bring up a really interesting point about the original colonists, too. When one visits the east coast, one can see how places like NY is still a flourishing city. The diversitiy of people who started the country have influenced the country's present without a doubt.
Angela - I read that sentence in the book too, thinking 'what?' Of course nothing is purely factual; we're human beings! If robots or computers decide of their own accord to start making war on each other, maybe then we can say it is just 'factual,' but I don't see that happening any time soon. That's the problem with a lot of history courses and texts, they dehumanize the subject and therefore alienate their pupils from it. How are we supposed to relate to anything that is 'merely history'? 'Merely history' has nothing to do with anything! It's also extremely ironic to think that the man who created this book devoted solely to history would use 'merely' to describe the subject. What does he mean, 'merely'? This is our nation's past we're talking about!
Angela -- I am so glad you mentioned this today in class and on here as well. I truly read that and thought....what is he saying? what historian thinks things are "merely" history? it just doesn't make sense. no wonder people don't like to study this subject. here are the answers....don't bother thinking about it. wow!
Because Phoebe's question is so philosophical, I choose to bring religion into this discussion.
Is man evil intently good or evil?
This is so broad that it actually blew my mind when i thought about it.
As a Catholic, I believe that we are born with original sin, but God has given us free will--the freedom to choose. [a bit like america: we have the freedom to choose]
I feel like this question cannot be answered, no matter how much thought is given to it. I honestly don't know. I'd like to think that our nature is good, taking th eoptimistic view of things. But as Phoebe said, looking back on our history, we find so many stains that just cannot be removed (no matter how much clorox bleach is applied).
Some people might object to my bringing up religion into this discussion, or criticize me and say that a belief [a "blind faith" or whatever you might say] cannot really help. But the truth is that religion is a huge part of our history, and the world today.
The puritans and the pilgrims and the quakers and the catholics came because of thier relgion
[and now i've gone off on such a tangent i cant even remember what i was trying to say]. Adam and Eve started off well, before they sinned before God. It was then that he made everyone born wirh original sin. However, he provides us with resources to become the good human beings he wants us to be.
Which is similar to our country: we started off shaky. We listened to the snake because of our carnal desires by using slavery to increase our profit. We recognized the horribleness of slavery and fought against and emerged as a better country. And now we are a [still relatively] young country. We may commit a few sins, but we're trying to fix them.
SO maybe I brought alot of religious allusions into this question, but I ultimately reach this counter-question:
Phoebe, maybe the question isn't "Is man inherently good or evil?".
Maybe we are inherently evel. Maybe we're good. But with all the resources that God provides, the question is, "What does man CHOOSE: good or evil?"
and to show how much of a geek i am, i quote albus dumbledore "It is our choices, Harry, that define who we are and what we become"
[isnt dumbledore just so wise??]
LOL
ironic: i was just listenting to music when i posted and the lyrics are "its your decision, choose it well: its my way or the highway to hell......decisions...[something, something, something]
Angela, A. I think that while brining religion into our blog will cause a lot of disagreement, I feel that you are correct that it is an important topic considering how much in influenced the foundation of our country. B. In my opinion, some people don't so much choose good or evil as have it thrust upon them. Many people live in circumstances where they have no choice but the commit "evil" acts, where as others have the luxury of being able to better the world due to their upbringing.
Phoebe, I would have to agree that humans are naturally brutal. The reason that humans survived prior to the dawn of civilizations was no different than that of any other animal. We did what we had to do to survive, and while we have come a long way since then, you still see barbarism all over the world every day.
slight tangent: if you look at literature, a recurring theme seems to be man's descent into savagery and barbaric acts
ie, Lord of the Flies
slight tangent: if you look at literature, a recurring theme seems to be man's descent into savagery and barbaric acts
ie, Lord of the Flies
Phoebe, As to your question is man inherently good or evil obviously there is no answer which everyone will agree with. It is the experiences and events that occur within an individual's lifetime that cause a person to act the way they do. Everyone possesses at least some good or some evil otherwise they would not have the ability to do the greatest good or acts of cruelty. Everyone can look upon evil in a different way. One may think that war is caused by people who are evil, but another could look at it as a way for a country's advancement/benefit.
I think in my oppinion something that pops out is a constant struggle, which is weird ot ever think that the US being as powerful as it is now was ever so undeveloped. It funny how we relied (or were forced to rely) so much on England and such but now we have become superior to everyone. But the "american spirit" seemed to be alive in the colonist from the start even though sometimes stronger than others
Juan
In regard to Pheobe's question I completely agree with what Allison said. I think that ones character is 100% based on how you have lived your life and what events occur in that period of time. IN my opinion everyone is a as John Locke said a "tabula rosa" and whatever occurs in your life just slowly chisels into ur character. I think for example in many cases of the school shootings it is caused by an individuals anger rising over him and causing him to commit evil acts.
Juan
I find it very interesting to learn about where we came from. I have been asked many times where I descended from. I am pretty much some percentage of everything. During these six chapters in the book we learned what kinds of people came to the americas and the way they influenced peoples lives back then which eventually affected us today. One of the most interesting parts that the book covered was about the native americans. It is hard to believe that a civilization was able to survive, even thrive with out the technology that the european nations had. The other part of this particular aspect of the chapter that i find interesting is their ability to really know the land. I have a backyard and a front yard with one tree that is all the land i need and the only land i know. There abililty to hunt buffalo and animals for food with somehting that is just made out of wood is what surprises me most. Sometimes really stupid deer show up in my yard and i always wonder how they got there and how in the world native americans had the intelligence to catch them.
But on another section of the chapters we studied we learned about the Aztecs and Mayans
when i first began reading about them i wondered why we were learning about them, they didn't relate to us today at all, until i learned they were one of the most advanced groups in their time. The ability to create a calendar and establish time according to the sun, i couldn't imgaine life wiht out that. Overall these six chapters were very interesting
TO respond to ALlison's point about whether or not the AMericas would be where it is today if Columbus had landed in the Indies instead of here. I do belive we would be a completely different society, most likely we would be speaking a different language instead of english. But what i really wonder is if colubus hadn't have discovered the Americas would someelse have, or would all the european nations continued to try and reach the indies?
I think that what comes out at me about these first chapters of the book is the emergence of the "american" identity from the highly varied heritage of both the indians that were there to begin with and the various colonists that arrived soon after. The conflict between the collectivist, moralist puritans and the individualist Virginians would have been direct and possibly violent, were it not for the extreme amount of space between them. Because they were so spread out,their radical ideas were able to mix far more slowly (and safely) than if they had been European states. The dialectic between the two allowed for the greatest american tradition (but one that is slowly being eroded...), diversity.
In response to angela's comment about the writer's self-created "objectivity". I think that this author, simply by the extreme arrogance and laziness that he is showing by presenting himself as objective, is denying us full half the story, or more, simply because either he honestly believes that his view is THE view of history, which I actually rather hope isn't true, or he just doesn't want to do the extra research of learning about the other side, or in this case making a moral analysis, even though doing so would make his textbook far more effective. On the other hand, I think that at least in this case, the his avoidance can be mitigated somewhat by the fact that moral analysis would likely tread on some toes, a political action that would have negative effects both on him and the readers. The way he qualified the sentence could be interpreted to mean that he simply didn't want to tread on any toes. His text, however, closed off all discussion of moral value, and in that way i hope he was mistaken, not trying to do so.
that was ben... sorry
I feel like this year for the first time in any of my history classes I finally can connect to the history we are learning. Instead of just learning facts, I have realized hardships, struggles and triumphs of people in history. Even though there have been many interesting things that have a captured my attention so far, the most I have been affected was by Amistad. When we watched that clip, I grew sick to my stomach. I still can not understand that people could to something like that to other human beings. I think its sad that money has forced people to do things such as this and all slavery in general. This slavery topic is one that has affected me the most this year and i cant wait to learn about it more in depth
-Brandon Wilton
I agree with what Juan said about the stuggle of power in the United States. I think it is really interesting that the "most powerful country in the world" used to be an extension of Great Britain. I think it shows that we have to watch out for all of the smaller nations that we do not see as a threat. Any nation have the ability to become a power so we need to take everyone seriuosly.
I have noticed that many of the people posting have focused on the negative things that have occurred because of discovery of America and its subsiquent founding, but I feel like if we all take a step back, we will realize that the positives greatly outweigh the negatives. America has led to so many people finding better lives, and has been on the forefront of political and social liberties for many years. I feel that as a whole we are giving America an unfair judgement.
Alex,
I agree that although many evils and deaths occured, the founding of the Us and it's principles of peace have most likely led to less deaths n the future (like now).
However, just to play devil's advocate for a minute, how d we know that if the British hadn't come to the Americas and create colonies who tyrannically ruled over the Indians, that the Indians wouldn't have evolved into a great powerful, yet peace-promoting country. We don't know that, so we cant necessarily say for sure that good has come of the evil.
One thing i found interesting was the settlement of people in America. They came here just 400 years ago and now the united states is the powerhouse. When thinking about the colonies, i also just can't believe we were able to win the revolutionary war. england at the time was the military power and we had a small, disorganized army. The american generals must have been absolute geniouses. also, to prove that the revolutionary war wasn't a fluke, they held off the british in the war of 1812 just a few decades later. To me it's just incredible how fast america rose from being englands puppet to being the world bully.
molly, i feel the same way about the native americans. Seriously, how did they survive and thrive with absolutely nothing. In today's world, some people can't function without a cell phone. they can't get anywhere without a car and some people just feel lost without their gps systems. obviously the native americans didnt have cell phones or cars or gps systems, they just had wood, occasionally some clothes and incredible minds and were able to live off the land and prosper. without any sort of high-tech telescopes, they were able to make an almost perfectly accurate calendar. To be able to track the sun day by day, and find a pattern that repeats itself every 365 days is an unbelievable achievement for a tribe with no technology
The part of the chapter that I find most interesting is the interaction between the Native Americans and the Europeans. It disgusts me that the Europeans considered themselves to be so superior to the Indians, and that they treated the local people with such hostility. Why was this the case? What I ponder about is what would have happened if the situation had been reversed, if the indians would have discovered Europe? Would they also be so hostile and attempt to conquer? Also, it is interesting to think about what our country would look like today had the Europeans not been so belligerent towards the Natives Americans. Surely more Indians would survive to this day, but the bigger question is would our country even exist?
All the minute little details that we have learned in this class so far like what blue laws are or what the first island Columbus came to are not what interest me in this class. What interests me is HOW these colonists effect my life and my society. How did we get here? Why am I the way i am and why are the people around me the way they are? Before I would just assume, but by studying our country's history this year, i can further explore how and why my society is the way it is.
When i lived in Connecticut in 2nd grade, I wondered why the architecture was so different, why were there 64 churches in my one small town and 1 jewish synagogue? I understand that now, the area in which i lived in was first inhabited by extremely zealous Puritans who established as much Christian influence as possible, thus the abundance of different churches and the representation of architecture that is somewhat similar to some British areas. It is little questions and curiosities that seem stupid and meaningless like this example that make me want to learn in this class, that give me this compulsive impulse to ask why something happened, and why things are the way they are now. The bottom line is that I feel a need to understand my surroundings, and by studying my nation’s history I can only achieve more understanding
Nick's first comment is interesting to me, because i always find myself wondering, what makes us and made us not just a group of English people in another land. Sure, with the liberal beliefs of Quakers and the like, the origins of America being a "cultural melting pot" began, but still it frustrates me because i sometimes feel that we are a "NEW ENGLAND". Our ideas of revolution sprouted from Enlightenment ideas that came from where else, Britain and France!
None of our presidents have been black, jewish, italian.. etc. Where is the representation of our cultural diversity? I think the core idea im trying to get across is that i am still trying to find that definition of American identity. What defines us as a people different and revolutionary? I know we have touched upon it so far in class but i still odnt feel like i have tackled this idea yet. its hard for me to spot and i am still looking for it, but Nick's first comment is definetely a start by saying that Quakers' liberal views contributed to a different identity to that of our European predecessors.
i found it so interesting how much the american past relates to the present history. its really cool how all the states developed differently due to the various groups of people that lived there. For example, in South Carolina, there were so many slaves brought in from Africa to maintain the plantations that today, there is an incredibly large african american population in south carolina. i never really thought about why there were so many african americans in south carolina, but after learning that enormous amounts of slaves were brought over in the colonial period, i understand why african americans would be a dominant population in south carolina.
--Nina Kim
I agree with Alex in that even though the founding of our country came with numerous atrocities, we must also remember all the good things our country brought. Learing about all the struggles the US faced in its founding makes me proud about all the progress we have made. Surely, we are far from perfect, but we have certainly come a long way from the bigoted views of the Puritans.
I also want to address the emergence of the American identity which Ben brought up. In my opinion one of the greatest attributes of our country is its diversity. It is interesting to see the amalgam of different races develop from the core of this country.
jonny, i agree with how amazing it is that such a small group of states could beat England when it was the dominant power in the world. I think that it is because of the colonies' ability to defeat England that the us could achieve becoming a super power in such a short amount of time.
--Nina
Post a Comment