All life is but a growth of the self and all writing is but the growth of the mind. Writer's reform themselves and transform their styles as life progresses, and each thought evolves a tad more than from the last. I am welcoming you to show my own growth in this short, fall quarter, by exemplifying my ideas towards writing and the strengths and areas where improvement was needed in the essays I have included in this portfolio. As my writing philosophy adapted, it has revealed both the strengths and shortcomings in my writing, allowing me to grow.
For me, in correlation to essays, this philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I simply believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to each individual's thoughts and each individual's beliefs. So, in approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format. While filling in this template, I usually just place the words that happen to come out first, believing they might be able to work the best or flow nicely in regards to my initial brainstorming.Upon the concluding a draft, it would then be revised and edited until it seemed adequately prepared to turn it in. Over this time, I felt the need to ensure perfection, or near perfection, in my essays. In this manner, I attempt to suitably prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was uncomplicated in the beginning.
One essay written in my Writing 101 course, "Racism in Bacon's Rebellion," was written using this philosophy. It was not until after I had given the paper to my teacher did I realize how poorly I had done on it. Resulting from this I began looking these over to find what had gone wrong. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the vast amount of information that had been supposed to support it, even to the point where evidence and commentary could not be separated. As I rewrote the essay, I avoided the outline that had been required in the original version. So, I began with using a slight variation of the Jane Schaeffer method. After the draft, I know the paper was presentable. The thesis hat become not only strong, but focused, and the argument accompanying it playing off of the evidence provided instead of the other way around. Such as the detail "in the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon?s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved" paired with "polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties." Yet, in general, it was still as wordy as the first document. The first of my essays was well written only after I made a change in my approach.
"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. While working with three other people, I was forced to adapt my approach to writing the paper. We brainstormed and pieced together the argument, and eventually procured the final document. Through editing and revising, I was able to elicit a stronger voice throughout the paper and an overall better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, ultimately ran out of time for the duration of these procedures, leaving the conclusion and introduction untouched, and eliciting a choppy feel from the work in both organization and much verbosity. In recent revising, it's format has changed little. The organization and transitioning flow at a much smoother pace than the original, such as "it was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent" to "Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act." In this essay, the argument maintains a steady position, but is weak against the informative wall is was supposed to be built on. Also, it is, unfortunately, as wordy as the original version, saying "It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification" instead of merely slavery being a large issue in the ratification; but, this has been due to my attempts to be poetic in my academic papers. Yet, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies yo meet the needs of my group members as well as my own.
My writing 101 final is also included in this portfolio. While writing this paper, I misunderstood the prompt and deviated from my normal approach in writing by doing only a quick brainstorm and mentally calculating the information I used in the Jane Schaeffer format. I can happily announce, though, that my voice was continuous throughout the paper and clearly pointed out my bias with select, somewhat defiant phrases, one phrase is "to the question... I have but one response." Also, I can say the transitions between paragraphs were smooth and kept the paper moving, such as from paragraphs three, "Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived" to four "As I began to apply this concept to American history..." where one idea nicely fit into another. Unfortunately, I had more than a few major shortcomings in this paper. The first of which was the thesis in regards to the argument. While it was indeed focused, the paper did not follow through on building the thesis, rather gently touching on how " using my outlook on history... [helped] me understand the present with more depth" by making general assumptions and connections from the past to present instead of specifics relating to myself. Even this paper, I noticed, held the common traits of wordiness and my traditional long sentences. Moreover, the third paragraph incorporates two different themes together but, the introductory and concluding sentences mention only a generality of the two, showing my shortcomings in its organization. In short, my final paper does not show the improvement I have exemplified throughout the quarter.
While my philosophies and approaches digressed and evolved, I have matured as a writer over this quarter. From originally defining my philosophies to writing essays, I can tell the change. My ability to attribute the strengths and shortcomings of my papers has improved as I continue to use my philosophy. As I continue to grow in my works, it will be proof that I am still alive.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Portfolio: Racism in Bacon's Rebellion
Deceit, corruption, and hatred - these have been the passions boiling beneath revolts. Not exempt from these standards would be Bacon’s Rebellion. Based heavily on discrimination and racism, this rebellion was a prime example of the influence ethnicity had on war. Encompassing a mere three ethnic groups, this rebellion was justified by First American activity in the region. Africans partook in the rebellion and the servant labor system that had been in place before them soon degraded into the racially defined hierarchy of the slave labor system. Even today, racism lives on in America, albeit on a slightly more personal scale. Interracial conflict has been perpetuated by the fear of losing dominance in society.
In the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon’s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved. The first of these was made up of three distinct First American tribes, the Susquehannocks, Doegs, and Pamunkeys. Iroquaian Susquehannocks - settled along the northern Chesapeake region, their territory stretched far east and west - were foreign to the colony, as were Doeg Natives - whom lived upstream of Chesapeake Bay’s Potomac River - but the Pamunkeys were a peaceful tribe with close ties to the settlement (1, 2). Along with the aborigines were approximately twenty Africans who were, as many historians infer, slavers (2, 3). The imported persons were useful, and prevalent, to the colonist's due to the labor-intensive cash crop - tobacco - harvested by the colonists. European settlers of the region were English. Colonists, themselves, were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying immigration debt through labor), freemen (those with their own land with no debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government) (2). Considering the aspects of warfare, Bacon's Rebellion was crafted from a minutely diverse variety of races.
Polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties. With but two other peoples to lay blame on, it became easier for one to draw conclusion and point fingers. It became that logic was outweighed by bias, and the blame soon shifted from natural causes to the other ethnic groups. Such as, instead of the settlers blaming the dry season for their wilting crops, they would probably accuse the slaves of their inability to adequately work the land. Thus, each race would become an aphorism to which all accusations of the other races would be on. There was no greater power to differentiate them as much as their culture and skin.
As with these cultures and skins, English settlers thought themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the region. Upon first encounter with the natives, their view of them was peaceable, even honorable. The red-tinted skin of the aborigines was referred to as the "sun's livery," (2) and even certain aspects, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender lover... for family... and their simply, independent way of life..."(2) were granted adoration from the colonists. Despite the European's praise, though, the First American's culture and beliefs led the colonists to believe them as lesser, to the point of the English indulging themselves in the belief of superiority. As one English man cruelly described, the natives had "little humanite but shape" being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt" (2). With these drastically "un-English" manners, the native's were christened as "savages" (2). Africans, too, were the subjects of the colonist's discrimination. Yet, it was not so much their "[un-English] ways...[that] struck the colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color" (2). Dubbed as "black", in accordance with the Africans dark skin, in the European mindset, they were the personification of all objects lesser than humanity. In the era, most definitions of black were generally worded the about this phrase, "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and, for all intents and purposes, evil (2). Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were easily ascribed as the focal point for all blame and hatred (2). Thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake and their slaves from Africa.
Each races wants to be able to attribute superiority to themselves. Throughout history, the European’s views have been the strongest and most pronounced of all these, allowing more inference and dominance in modern minds, as theirs remain the only written word of the era. Distinctions by culture have been prevalent during all of Europe’s history, exemplified by the Christians and Jews. Thus, it was not uncommon to completely disregard all admiration for a people at the barest hint of a relatively obscure culture. Clearly, this shows the misconceptions and insecurities of the English society. They believed the native’s lesser because those peoples had stronger willpower, bonds of kinship, and deeper faith in the both physical and spiritual than the Europeans. Essentially, the settlers were envious of the traits creating a race stronger than they were. They grew angry at the power the foreign culture wielded within themselves, and their jealousy turned the colonists greed into sheer hatred and loathing. Moreover, the First American’s culture was simply too foreign and complex for the Europeans to understand, and the peoples were written off as “savages” purely because of their alien nature, their threat to the colony’s society. In regards to the Africans, the Europeans saw simply a shroud of darkness, the embodiment of sin. Misguided religious beliefs, ultimately God’s word, led to discrimination against this race. Those of modern ages can simply advocate that good and evil, such well-worn paths, could not – and cannot – be so easily dubbed as “black” and “white.” Yet, those of the 1670s, and centuries after, were too religious to look past the color of individual’s skins. It was such the English’s fear of the Devil, sin, and Hell threatened society, life, and preservation. They believed the Africans were the quintessence of that which would overthrow their civilization in the new world, and needed the to subject the daemonic powers to those of goodness and light. Sensibly, then, these peoples were enslaved and under the control of whites. Sensibly, it can be known that each race saw threats of dominance from the others, and found ways to label them in ways so as to make them subservient to one’s “natural” supremacy.
As with this feeling of supremacy, colonists’ final incentive to revolt was brought by First American’s activities. In early 1670s, Susquehannock and Doeg raiding parties appeared on the Virginia frontier. Both frightened at these native's arrival and angered at the government’s minimalistic efforts of protecting settlers, Bacon rallied fellow frontiersmen against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... would provide] release for the colonists' frustrations" while Governor William Berkley feared the peaceful Pamunkeys's reaction to the violence against their kin. Moreover, the government had just recently settled into a tenuous amity with that same near-by tribe, allowing the native’s all lands on the frontier except that which had already been settled by colonists (1, 2). Twenty years prior of this demand, on another campaign for the settlement, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband and over a third of her tribesmen, and in negotiations pertaining to the aborigine's contribution of defense, Queen Pamunkey, obstinate at first, was worn down by the Englishmen's pleas, eventually giving a small number of her men to the settlement’s defense (1). Bacon, though, saw these efforts of the government as both worthless and traitorous, accusing the elite in alliance with the First Americans against the poorer classes, which lead to an attack on the peaceful Pamunkeys, despite the obvious facts that the tribe had "never at any time betraye'd of injuryed the English," nor even raised weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the natives became a target for the colonists" hate (1). Even though the trends of a revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the native's raiding parties arrived was there true basis behind their complaint.
This complaint was liable only because of the "lesser breed" of human that the natives themselves were known as. Take the Pamunkeys, friendly and peaceful even after sacrificing their kinsmen and leader to the wills of the colonist's. These settlers, true to their stature as "superior," let their perpetuating loathing and anger of all First Americans disregard the immense sacrifice granted the tribe had made for the colony. They went so far as to claim the minor numbers of aid given to the colony were insignificant when compared to the threat of the foreign native’s on the frontier, when the tribe was still slowly recovering from its losses. Anger was heightened by the presence of the raiding parties, added to the already tense atmosphere of land strains, the settlers soon equally blamed all tribes. In the mind of the English, all those of a similar, inferior ethnicity were a sort of gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning whites against one another in perverse ways. Accusations of treason by the elite’s were probably compelled by beliefs of bribery and blackmail, forcing the whites to give in, to be deluded by the aborigine’s desires. Aphorisms Europeans placed upon the First Americans resulted in the natives’ quickened destruction in wars of prejudice.
Despite discrimination placed upon African, far different from those of First Americans, a small number of them actually participated in the revolt. Their contribution “demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause” (3). In response, the elite planter class feared that, combined, the poor whites and poor black would be able to overthrow the rich in government and quickly “hastened the transition into racial slavery” (3). These factions of poor joined together against a common enemy in order to reclaim a sort of dominance in their society, actively showing that the contempt the two races had for each other could be temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. The rich wanted continued dominion over the government; and, they feared the freemen, with the added strength of Africans, would conquer them and thus needed a way to keep the blacks under total control. Though their numbers were indeed few, Africans were active contributors of the rebellion.
Their participation was a major factor leading to the reliance of racial hierarchy in the slave labor system – rather than the temporary services of indentured servants – after the rebellion. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more were imported, experiencing a drastic increase from the once small slave population present in the Chesapeake region (2, 4). Enslavement of these peoples was made vastly easier by the intense contrast of cultures and the shock of removal from their homes as individuals were abducted and imported across the world (4). Rather than working toward freedom and having political power upon attaining freedom, as would indentured servants, slaves’ lifelong labor provided many planter’s with immense wealth and the presence of slaves lessened the tensions between the freemen and elite, allowing them a feeling of white supremacy (2). Yet, this self-denoted preeminence cold not keep slave-owners from fearing a revolt, going so far as to place and enforces rules to limit their slaves’ interaction (and thus knowledge) with each other (2). African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the servant labor system and eased tension it had brought on.
With this practice now in place, dominance was clear. The wealth imposed their supremacy by way of their wealth. Their riches were able to purchase people who would serve them until decided otherwise, treating Africans as less than human and more in the manner of objects, possessions that did not deserve the same treatment as white men. In this smothering of African’s culture through forcing them into colonial society, it practically assured the white’s supremacy in the colony over all other races. Yet, the insecurities of whether or not their white dominance over the settlement would be tenuous were obvious in the several restrictions the slave-owners put on their purchased humans. They broke contact between slave families and friends, assuring no information, no matter its insignificance, to permeate their relations and unity, keeping them oscillated from the truth. Race now defined dominance in the Chesapeake colony, no longer wealth or position.
As now, though attempted to be lessened, racism still assures dominance and strife in the American society today. The most prominent example of this would be the government. True, on every level a multitude of ethnic groups participate, but think of the executive position. Never, in all the time of the United States, was there a president who was not a white man. It must be, thus, that as a nation the people assume that other races cannot run the country as well as white men. Perhaps they believe what those of colonial days though – that only a certain race had a sense well enough to run the government and people. Thus, the belief is born from the roots of Europe and has been a unifying factor in the dominant race of America – the whites. Even now, as it was then, numerous whites fear their weakening grasp on the federal government will finally come to and end. New challenges face this generation and racial hierarchy must be disputed amongst them.
Yet, even if that system was defeated on the federal level, it will not be able to permeate domestic beliefs of dominance. Take the “sting” operation at Todd Beamer High School in 2007, focused solely on drugs on campus. Undercover police focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the whites whom clearly committed crimes including drugs on campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned, viewed the drug world with bias instead of logic. Rather than looking beyond their preconceptions, the officers clung to them and them as a guide. They plainly showed the view of many whites, believing countless of those in their race would be exempt from doing drugs. In a sense, they viewed whites as above the influence and those of every other ethnic group lesser enough to be susceptible and idiotic enough to perform the duties in a federally funded establishment. Thus, domestic views of racial hierarchy would be nigh unbreakable.
The horror of being inferior and lesser to another race drives the discriminatory conflict between ethnicities. Bacon’s Rebellion remains a prime example of this, though it encompassed only First Americans, Africans, and Englishmen. European’s in the region of the revolt thought themselves better than the other races, and went so far as to declare the First Americans as the cause of their riot. Africans participation in the revolt garnered the elite’s fear of losing dominance in society and caused the imposition of a racially hierarchal slave labor system to replace the servant labor system. In even modern times, people still claim white superiority both politically and domestically. After all these generations, humanity should have been able to overcome this fear.
Puglisi, Micheal J.
1:
"Whether They Be Friends or Foes: the Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." International Social Science Review 70 (1995): 76-87. Academic Search Complete. Highline, Federal Way. 24 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Bacon's Rebellion and race.
The site itself is credible due to the course of its use as a scholarly search engine that provides a multitude of links and results that are, conclusively, legitimate. The author, Michael J. Puglisi, is associate dean at Marian College and has written a few books, one of which was focused on the Virginia frontier. His point is to show how little diversity was accepted in the colonial period and prejudice was strong against African Americans and Native Americans. The article itself speaks of the Native American tribe that lived in peace with the colonists and the foreign tribes that raided the Virginia frontier, which then resulted in the abuse of the friendly tribes by Nathaniel Bacon and the forced coercion of the same tribe to aid the colonial government to rid the colonists of the raiding parties.
2:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general backgrounds of the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University,the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion, during, and after.
3:
"Bacon's Rebellion." PBS. 24 Oct. 2007
Pbs.org is the site of the public broadcasting system and has valid links to their current works and their further concentrated links (such as for teachers and children). Found in the teacher's section of the site, the article is a short, concise summary of Bacon's rebellion and reveals certain aspects that most other articles fail to mention.
4:
Zinn, Howard. "Drawing the Color Line." Drawing the Color Line. 24 Oct. 2007.
Historyisaweapon.org is a credible sight due to the various links to documents that are historical, written by contemporary authors, and can allow for motivation of the peoples to action. The author, Howard Zinn, has written many controversial philosophical books and is an anti-war activist. In itself, the article gives history and in-depth fact of the slavery of African Americans, giving information regarding the causes for the truckle of Africans to Europeans and select conditions throughout hundreds of years that was the African slavery.
In the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon’s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved. The first of these was made up of three distinct First American tribes, the Susquehannocks, Doegs, and Pamunkeys. Iroquaian Susquehannocks - settled along the northern Chesapeake region, their territory stretched far east and west - were foreign to the colony, as were Doeg Natives - whom lived upstream of Chesapeake Bay’s Potomac River - but the Pamunkeys were a peaceful tribe with close ties to the settlement (1, 2). Along with the aborigines were approximately twenty Africans who were, as many historians infer, slavers (2, 3). The imported persons were useful, and prevalent, to the colonist's due to the labor-intensive cash crop - tobacco - harvested by the colonists. European settlers of the region were English. Colonists, themselves, were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying immigration debt through labor), freemen (those with their own land with no debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government) (2). Considering the aspects of warfare, Bacon's Rebellion was crafted from a minutely diverse variety of races.
Polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties. With but two other peoples to lay blame on, it became easier for one to draw conclusion and point fingers. It became that logic was outweighed by bias, and the blame soon shifted from natural causes to the other ethnic groups. Such as, instead of the settlers blaming the dry season for their wilting crops, they would probably accuse the slaves of their inability to adequately work the land. Thus, each race would become an aphorism to which all accusations of the other races would be on. There was no greater power to differentiate them as much as their culture and skin.
As with these cultures and skins, English settlers thought themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the region. Upon first encounter with the natives, their view of them was peaceable, even honorable. The red-tinted skin of the aborigines was referred to as the "sun's livery," (2) and even certain aspects, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender lover... for family... and their simply, independent way of life..."(2) were granted adoration from the colonists. Despite the European's praise, though, the First American's culture and beliefs led the colonists to believe them as lesser, to the point of the English indulging themselves in the belief of superiority. As one English man cruelly described, the natives had "little humanite but shape" being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt" (2). With these drastically "un-English" manners, the native's were christened as "savages" (2). Africans, too, were the subjects of the colonist's discrimination. Yet, it was not so much their "[un-English] ways...[that] struck the colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color" (2). Dubbed as "black", in accordance with the Africans dark skin, in the European mindset, they were the personification of all objects lesser than humanity. In the era, most definitions of black were generally worded the about this phrase, "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and, for all intents and purposes, evil (2). Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were easily ascribed as the focal point for all blame and hatred (2). Thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake and their slaves from Africa.
Each races wants to be able to attribute superiority to themselves. Throughout history, the European’s views have been the strongest and most pronounced of all these, allowing more inference and dominance in modern minds, as theirs remain the only written word of the era. Distinctions by culture have been prevalent during all of Europe’s history, exemplified by the Christians and Jews. Thus, it was not uncommon to completely disregard all admiration for a people at the barest hint of a relatively obscure culture. Clearly, this shows the misconceptions and insecurities of the English society. They believed the native’s lesser because those peoples had stronger willpower, bonds of kinship, and deeper faith in the both physical and spiritual than the Europeans. Essentially, the settlers were envious of the traits creating a race stronger than they were. They grew angry at the power the foreign culture wielded within themselves, and their jealousy turned the colonists greed into sheer hatred and loathing. Moreover, the First American’s culture was simply too foreign and complex for the Europeans to understand, and the peoples were written off as “savages” purely because of their alien nature, their threat to the colony’s society. In regards to the Africans, the Europeans saw simply a shroud of darkness, the embodiment of sin. Misguided religious beliefs, ultimately God’s word, led to discrimination against this race. Those of modern ages can simply advocate that good and evil, such well-worn paths, could not – and cannot – be so easily dubbed as “black” and “white.” Yet, those of the 1670s, and centuries after, were too religious to look past the color of individual’s skins. It was such the English’s fear of the Devil, sin, and Hell threatened society, life, and preservation. They believed the Africans were the quintessence of that which would overthrow their civilization in the new world, and needed the to subject the daemonic powers to those of goodness and light. Sensibly, then, these peoples were enslaved and under the control of whites. Sensibly, it can be known that each race saw threats of dominance from the others, and found ways to label them in ways so as to make them subservient to one’s “natural” supremacy.
As with this feeling of supremacy, colonists’ final incentive to revolt was brought by First American’s activities. In early 1670s, Susquehannock and Doeg raiding parties appeared on the Virginia frontier. Both frightened at these native's arrival and angered at the government’s minimalistic efforts of protecting settlers, Bacon rallied fellow frontiersmen against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... would provide] release for the colonists' frustrations" while Governor William Berkley feared the peaceful Pamunkeys's reaction to the violence against their kin. Moreover, the government had just recently settled into a tenuous amity with that same near-by tribe, allowing the native’s all lands on the frontier except that which had already been settled by colonists (1, 2). Twenty years prior of this demand, on another campaign for the settlement, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband and over a third of her tribesmen, and in negotiations pertaining to the aborigine's contribution of defense, Queen Pamunkey, obstinate at first, was worn down by the Englishmen's pleas, eventually giving a small number of her men to the settlement’s defense (1). Bacon, though, saw these efforts of the government as both worthless and traitorous, accusing the elite in alliance with the First Americans against the poorer classes, which lead to an attack on the peaceful Pamunkeys, despite the obvious facts that the tribe had "never at any time betraye'd of injuryed the English," nor even raised weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the natives became a target for the colonists" hate (1). Even though the trends of a revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the native's raiding parties arrived was there true basis behind their complaint.
This complaint was liable only because of the "lesser breed" of human that the natives themselves were known as. Take the Pamunkeys, friendly and peaceful even after sacrificing their kinsmen and leader to the wills of the colonist's. These settlers, true to their stature as "superior," let their perpetuating loathing and anger of all First Americans disregard the immense sacrifice granted the tribe had made for the colony. They went so far as to claim the minor numbers of aid given to the colony were insignificant when compared to the threat of the foreign native’s on the frontier, when the tribe was still slowly recovering from its losses. Anger was heightened by the presence of the raiding parties, added to the already tense atmosphere of land strains, the settlers soon equally blamed all tribes. In the mind of the English, all those of a similar, inferior ethnicity were a sort of gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning whites against one another in perverse ways. Accusations of treason by the elite’s were probably compelled by beliefs of bribery and blackmail, forcing the whites to give in, to be deluded by the aborigine’s desires. Aphorisms Europeans placed upon the First Americans resulted in the natives’ quickened destruction in wars of prejudice.
Despite discrimination placed upon African, far different from those of First Americans, a small number of them actually participated in the revolt. Their contribution “demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause” (3). In response, the elite planter class feared that, combined, the poor whites and poor black would be able to overthrow the rich in government and quickly “hastened the transition into racial slavery” (3). These factions of poor joined together against a common enemy in order to reclaim a sort of dominance in their society, actively showing that the contempt the two races had for each other could be temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. The rich wanted continued dominion over the government; and, they feared the freemen, with the added strength of Africans, would conquer them and thus needed a way to keep the blacks under total control. Though their numbers were indeed few, Africans were active contributors of the rebellion.
Their participation was a major factor leading to the reliance of racial hierarchy in the slave labor system – rather than the temporary services of indentured servants – after the rebellion. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more were imported, experiencing a drastic increase from the once small slave population present in the Chesapeake region (2, 4). Enslavement of these peoples was made vastly easier by the intense contrast of cultures and the shock of removal from their homes as individuals were abducted and imported across the world (4). Rather than working toward freedom and having political power upon attaining freedom, as would indentured servants, slaves’ lifelong labor provided many planter’s with immense wealth and the presence of slaves lessened the tensions between the freemen and elite, allowing them a feeling of white supremacy (2). Yet, this self-denoted preeminence cold not keep slave-owners from fearing a revolt, going so far as to place and enforces rules to limit their slaves’ interaction (and thus knowledge) with each other (2). African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the servant labor system and eased tension it had brought on.
With this practice now in place, dominance was clear. The wealth imposed their supremacy by way of their wealth. Their riches were able to purchase people who would serve them until decided otherwise, treating Africans as less than human and more in the manner of objects, possessions that did not deserve the same treatment as white men. In this smothering of African’s culture through forcing them into colonial society, it practically assured the white’s supremacy in the colony over all other races. Yet, the insecurities of whether or not their white dominance over the settlement would be tenuous were obvious in the several restrictions the slave-owners put on their purchased humans. They broke contact between slave families and friends, assuring no information, no matter its insignificance, to permeate their relations and unity, keeping them oscillated from the truth. Race now defined dominance in the Chesapeake colony, no longer wealth or position.
As now, though attempted to be lessened, racism still assures dominance and strife in the American society today. The most prominent example of this would be the government. True, on every level a multitude of ethnic groups participate, but think of the executive position. Never, in all the time of the United States, was there a president who was not a white man. It must be, thus, that as a nation the people assume that other races cannot run the country as well as white men. Perhaps they believe what those of colonial days though – that only a certain race had a sense well enough to run the government and people. Thus, the belief is born from the roots of Europe and has been a unifying factor in the dominant race of America – the whites. Even now, as it was then, numerous whites fear their weakening grasp on the federal government will finally come to and end. New challenges face this generation and racial hierarchy must be disputed amongst them.
Yet, even if that system was defeated on the federal level, it will not be able to permeate domestic beliefs of dominance. Take the “sting” operation at Todd Beamer High School in 2007, focused solely on drugs on campus. Undercover police focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the whites whom clearly committed crimes including drugs on campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned, viewed the drug world with bias instead of logic. Rather than looking beyond their preconceptions, the officers clung to them and them as a guide. They plainly showed the view of many whites, believing countless of those in their race would be exempt from doing drugs. In a sense, they viewed whites as above the influence and those of every other ethnic group lesser enough to be susceptible and idiotic enough to perform the duties in a federally funded establishment. Thus, domestic views of racial hierarchy would be nigh unbreakable.
The horror of being inferior and lesser to another race drives the discriminatory conflict between ethnicities. Bacon’s Rebellion remains a prime example of this, though it encompassed only First Americans, Africans, and Englishmen. European’s in the region of the revolt thought themselves better than the other races, and went so far as to declare the First Americans as the cause of their riot. Africans participation in the revolt garnered the elite’s fear of losing dominance in society and caused the imposition of a racially hierarchal slave labor system to replace the servant labor system. In even modern times, people still claim white superiority both politically and domestically. After all these generations, humanity should have been able to overcome this fear.
Puglisi, Micheal J.
1:
"Whether They Be Friends or Foes: the Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." International Social Science Review 70 (1995): 76-87. Academic Search Complete. Highline, Federal Way. 24 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Bacon's Rebellion and race.
The site itself is credible due to the course of its use as a scholarly search engine that provides a multitude of links and results that are, conclusively, legitimate. The author, Michael J. Puglisi, is associate dean at Marian College and has written a few books, one of which was focused on the Virginia frontier. His point is to show how little diversity was accepted in the colonial period and prejudice was strong against African Americans and Native Americans. The article itself speaks of the Native American tribe that lived in peace with the colonists and the foreign tribes that raided the Virginia frontier, which then resulted in the abuse of the friendly tribes by Nathaniel Bacon and the forced coercion of the same tribe to aid the colonial government to rid the colonists of the raiding parties.
2:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general backgrounds of the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University,the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion, during, and after.
3:
"Bacon's Rebellion." PBS. 24 Oct. 2007
Pbs.org is the site of the public broadcasting system and has valid links to their current works and their further concentrated links (such as for teachers and children). Found in the teacher's section of the site, the article is a short, concise summary of Bacon's rebellion and reveals certain aspects that most other articles fail to mention.
4:
Zinn, Howard. "Drawing the Color Line." Drawing the Color Line. 24 Oct. 2007
Historyisaweapon.org is a credible sight due to the various links to documents that are historical, written by contemporary authors, and can allow for motivation of the peoples to action. The author, Howard Zinn, has written many controversial philosophical books and is an anti-war activist. In itself, the article gives history and in-depth fact of the slavery of African Americans, giving information regarding the causes for the truckle of Africans to Europeans and select conditions throughout hundreds of years that was the African slavery.
Portfolio: Federalists of New Hampshire
Federalists of New Hampshire
Shelby Lee
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
Despite this separation of morality, few people, whether federalist or anti-federalist, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south, where people in the north were mostly against slavery and the south for it. Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act. So, while the anti-federalists wanted nothing to do with slavery and the federalists could begrudgingly cope with it, the controversial issue - a factor in many debates over ratification - could not be solved easily (1). This satisfied most states, both north and south, for the time being. By this mutual agreement of blindness towards slavery, New Hampshire closed the gap in ratifying the constitution.
It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. Anti-federalists of New Hampshire cried, "hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (2) amassing a discontent toward the party working for the constitution’s ratification. Yet, the federalists shirked the issue, as they reverted to a safer rebuke, that the state had already decided to refrain from participating in such a "cruel and inhuman merchandise" (2) and they wanted what was best for the whole of American, not just New Hampshire. The sanctity of God's laws were still important in the era, though considerably less than the founding on New England, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws; yet, the federalists countered that they did not want to harm anyone any important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. People asked themselves questions about how they would feel if in a slave's position. These types of questions were asked to in the many debates over ratification as they come to the issue of slavery. While New Hampshire did indeed ratify the constitution, the state still struggled to cope with the problems of being united with slave-oriented societies.
Thus, imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite federalists' desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire population. There remains the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued was such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won this political battle had they called for a compact regarding the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies years before the tensions finally reached the point of explosion and it would not have been known as a civil war. Yet, with that would come true the federalists' fear of the confederacy would dissolving and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should thus have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists, on another note, knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them would leave the union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they would not be represented, that they would be smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution had freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
These distinctions between rich and poor were clearly logical for the era. When, most often, the lower classes do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people. Yet, oft there have been many exceptions of such rules that have been made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
1:
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007.
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Portfolio: Writing 101 Final
"Why [consider history]?” Michel Focault declares “simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that [...] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means [...] the history of the present." This man’s theory has been simply and my own ideas remain similar to his, as shown through my experiences in my history class through this quarter. Using my outlook on history, I was able to understand the present with more depth.
Focault’s theory, in its most basal form, says that he believes history to be important. Yet, in "terms of the present" it cannot be. Focault suggests that a history merely explained in modern language has no meaning to the present. If simply restated without drawing connections between the here and now to there and then and how it correlates, then history would be pointless to examine. When presented in this manner, history did not contribute to the making of modern times, so it will relate to no one and none will learn from it. Yet, history will forever be significant as a "history of the present." Focault presents, here, that when describing history it needs to be explained in a manner of how time actually came to the present. It needs to be shown in a way that helps people understand how the past defines the now, the present, and how it influences us in the actions to be chosen and to be paths taken. Basically, Focault believes that history can only be important when drawing connections to the present, showing the influence it has on decisions and not as simply a moment of time separate from the present restated again and again.
This view of Focault’s differs little from my own. In history 121, I began the course with a droll outlook, thinking it would be just another course in early American history, of a time that did not truly contribute to the present. Yet, as the class went on, I realized how closely tied and elaborate each event truly was. One moment of time precipitated a larger, greater event, a small difference that grew as the years went by until it ripped and tore at the nation, such as the divide over slavery growing from simply having a smaller number of slaves in the north than in the south to a devastating battle over emancipation and states’ liberties in the Civil War. Each of these events could not be removed in the shaping of the nation, and I soon realized how much of this country was founded upon these events. So now, as I look at the question Focault poses - “why [consider history]?” – I have but one response. This response is that history should be examined because history defines the self. I have heard that “you can’t know where you’re going until you know from where you came,” because history is merely a recording of actions, a list of responses acted out amongst several events. Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived.
As I began to apply this concept to American history, I began to see the themes prevalent now that had begun before even the birth of the United States – such as the aversion of controversial issues. It allowed me to see the ties strewn betwixt the past and present, weaving together similarities so they could be adequately viewed. Take how anti-federalists (of the constitution) wanted all classes to be favored in federal governments, while the federalists skillfully countered the opinion with the idea of the elite being the only ones with education and wisdom enough to lead the people, which was mostly true. Today, as one can see, public education has been free for generations and people can continue onto the higher education offered to individuals from every region on earth; yet, still the elite rule and the issue of class has been rarely brought up. If it happens to be, the leaders either give heartfelt speeches about ultimately worthless hope or merely change the subject. In this manner then, I can correlate the country’s past issues with its’ present ones. Had my answer to Focault’s question been any different, though, I am afraid I would have learned history in an entirely different manner. Instead of actively looking to connect the past and present, I would have had a negative outlook on history and been completely close-minded about it. When reading John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, I would have shrugged off his radical ideals of rising against the government when it does not meet the wills of the commonwealth – as the Americans applied to Britain and its Parliament – as another speculation of an era long gone, instead of a liberty the current generation has against the growing tyrannical powers President Bush has imposed onto the United States. Thus, had I never thought in a way similar to Focault, I would have been unable to explore the intricacies of the past and present.
Had I thought of history in any other way, I would never have been able to understand how the present came to be. Focault believes that history should only be explored when it actively shows the correlation between the now and then, instead of being viewed as a time completely separate from the modern era. I myself believe the past to be what was lived, the present what is being lived, and the future to be defined from that which was lived. By answering the question Focault imposed, the influence it had on my learning through class and how that experience would have changed had I not believed what I had, I was able to adequately explore this idea. As I show, history is more than just a time that has gone by.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Letter of Introduction (writ 101Portfoio) RD
All life is but a growth of the self and all writing is but the growth of the mind. Writer's reform themselves and transform their styles as life progresses, and each thought becomes a little different from the less. I am welcoming you to show my own growth in this short, fall quarter, by exemplifying my ideas towards writing and the strengths and weakness in the essays I have included in this portfolio. As my writing philosophy adapted, it has revealed both the strengths and weaknesses in my writing, allowing me to grow.
For me, in correlation to essays, my philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I firmly believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to everyone's thoughts and everyone's beliefs. In approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format and loosely based, personalized derivations of it. While filling in the template, I usually just place whatever I feel would work best or flow nicely when regarding to my initial brainstorming for the prose. Upon the completion of a draft, I would then revise and edit the paper until I felt it completely prepared to turn it in. Over this time, I felt the need to ensure perfection, or near perfection, in my essays. In this manner, I attempt to adequately prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was simplistic in the beginning.
One essay written in my Writing 101 course, "Racism in Bacon's Rebellion," was written using this philosophy. It was not until after I had given the paper to my teacher did I realize how poorly I had done. I began looking it over and finding out what exactly had happened to result in the pitiable work I had written. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the sheer number of information that had been used in it. Returning my attention to the outline we had been required to do for the essay, I noticed the overpowering length of information against the minute and bare argument and unfocused thesis. So, I began to re-write the paper after I had established this, reverting back to my writing philosophy in order to write a presentable piece. Yet, I still need to work on my general wordiness throughout the paper. The first of my essays was well written only after I noticed the drastic change in my philosophy.
"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. In working with three other people, I was forced to adapt my approach to writing the paper. We brainstormed and pieced together the argument, and eventually procured the final document. Through permission to edit and revise by my group members, I was able to create a stronger voice - perchance even and overpowering one - and create a better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, we ultimately ran out of time for the duration of these procedures, leaving the conclusion and introduction untouched, and eliciting a choppy feel from the work in both organization and much verbosity. After re-writing it, I can only report that now it works, if still - sadly - rather wordy. Thus, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies to meet those of my group members.
While my philosophies and approaches reverted and evolved, I have grown as a writer over this quarter. From originally defining my philosophies to writing essays, I can tell the change. My ability to attribute the strengths and shortcomings of my papers has improved as I continued to use my philosophy. I will always, though, continue to stick strongly to my beliefs.
For me, in correlation to essays, my philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I firmly believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to everyone's thoughts and everyone's beliefs. In approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format and loosely based, personalized derivations of it. While filling in the template, I usually just place whatever I feel would work best or flow nicely when regarding to my initial brainstorming for the prose. Upon the completion of a draft, I would then revise and edit the paper until I felt it completely prepared to turn it in. Over this time, I felt the need to ensure perfection, or near perfection, in my essays. In this manner, I attempt to adequately prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was simplistic in the beginning.
One essay written in my Writing 101 course, "Racism in Bacon's Rebellion," was written using this philosophy. It was not until after I had given the paper to my teacher did I realize how poorly I had done. I began looking it over and finding out what exactly had happened to result in the pitiable work I had written. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the sheer number of information that had been used in it. Returning my attention to the outline we had been required to do for the essay, I noticed the overpowering length of information against the minute and bare argument and unfocused thesis. So, I began to re-write the paper after I had established this, reverting back to my writing philosophy in order to write a presentable piece. Yet, I still need to work on my general wordiness throughout the paper. The first of my essays was well written only after I noticed the drastic change in my philosophy.
"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. In working with three other people, I was forced to adapt my approach to writing the paper. We brainstormed and pieced together the argument, and eventually procured the final document. Through permission to edit and revise by my group members, I was able to create a stronger voice - perchance even and overpowering one - and create a better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, we ultimately ran out of time for the duration of these procedures, leaving the conclusion and introduction untouched, and eliciting a choppy feel from the work in both organization and much verbosity. After re-writing it, I can only report that now it works, if still - sadly - rather wordy. Thus, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies to meet those of my group members.
While my philosophies and approaches reverted and evolved, I have grown as a writer over this quarter. From originally defining my philosophies to writing essays, I can tell the change. My ability to attribute the strengths and shortcomings of my papers has improved as I continued to use my philosophy. I will always, though, continue to stick strongly to my beliefs.
Monday, December 3, 2007
AoD#11: Avoided Negotiation
Art of Democracy
The other day I was watching Jimmy Netron the animated series. I recalled the key points that would, as Mary said, “shut the conversation down,” and noticed in the conflict on the screen, there was at least four of these items enacted. As thus, it left no room for a conversation and not even negotiation.
It all started over a lawn tool that Hue, one of the contenders, said he had borrowed from Mr. Wheezer, the next-door neighbor. The neighbor jokingly replied that he had given it back, but, twisting the man’s meaning of “it being in you’re garage” Hue said he would check the other man’s garage. And soon, they argued. Pulling a red herring in the middle of their less than creative conflict, Hue said that Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic sculptures were random, as he picked one up, and was rebuked by a sharp jab to his obsession with ducks (and duck sculptures). Soon, Sir Quack’s A Lot ( the sculpture Mr. Wheezer had picked up) was in pieces, being accidentally dropped by Mr. Wheezer when Hue shoved him, and Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic cat was destroyed soon after. The duo stalked off to their respective homes, declaring that their sons could never see each other again, and not even accomplishing the objective Hue had wanted.
If Hue had merely listened to Mr. Wheezer and checked his own garage first before using his suspicion to go into another’s private property, none of this would have happened. The argument would have been avoided and a peaceful solution attained. Thus, this example shows how key it is to attempt negotiation and avoid conflict over petty differences.
The other day I was watching Jimmy Netron the animated series. I recalled the key points that would, as Mary said, “shut the conversation down,” and noticed in the conflict on the screen, there was at least four of these items enacted. As thus, it left no room for a conversation and not even negotiation.
It all started over a lawn tool that Hue, one of the contenders, said he had borrowed from Mr. Wheezer, the next-door neighbor. The neighbor jokingly replied that he had given it back, but, twisting the man’s meaning of “it being in you’re garage” Hue said he would check the other man’s garage. And soon, they argued. Pulling a red herring in the middle of their less than creative conflict, Hue said that Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic sculptures were random, as he picked one up, and was rebuked by a sharp jab to his obsession with ducks (and duck sculptures). Soon, Sir Quack’s A Lot ( the sculpture Mr. Wheezer had picked up) was in pieces, being accidentally dropped by Mr. Wheezer when Hue shoved him, and Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic cat was destroyed soon after. The duo stalked off to their respective homes, declaring that their sons could never see each other again, and not even accomplishing the objective Hue had wanted.
If Hue had merely listened to Mr. Wheezer and checked his own garage first before using his suspicion to go into another’s private property, none of this would have happened. The argument would have been avoided and a peaceful solution attained. Thus, this example shows how key it is to attempt negotiation and avoid conflict over petty differences.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Essay 3 Reflection
1: Group Interaction
Our contact was, at first, limited to only the classroom. But, as the Thanksgiving weekend came around, we changed our tactic to e-mails. And, during that weekend, the only person to respond to me was Paul. We exchanged ideas and decided the plan for the whole of our essay's draft and waited for Josh and Johan to respond. In that time, we completed each of our segments and turned to the remaining two members of our group face-to-face and assigned them the task of completing the third argument and intro/conclusion. During the following two nights they participated in communications via e-mail.
2: Use of Contract
Our contract, as far as I know, was followed through at all points. We all researched avidly for information on the essay and we all completed our jobs, and completed all tasks required. It states that everyone must do his/her own work, but we never stated that e-mailing over the break was a must-have portion that would be required. Moreover, it also says, "If a person in the group does not keep up on their work, their work will be divided between the other members in the group and the person who does not do their work will loose points from their grade." After unable to find a valid third argument, we were able to split up one of the arguments I had written, Josh and Johan allowing me to write it.
3: Use of Wiki
Every site which I came to (and found a use in) was posted on the wiki, some of which have annotations and others don't. I noticed, though, that I was the only one posting anything for a rather extended period of time, and I suppose Paul was the only other person do so so either (right before we turned the essay in). I suppose this can be contributed to the fact that Josh and Johan were limited to only the introduction and conclusion and weren't sure whether or not to include things for the debate on the wiki.
4: Individual Progress
I thought, in comparison with the last essay, that I did much better in the group. Being as that I better know the people I was working with and knew they had a history of getting everything done on time helped greatly. After several attempted drafts, I eventually re-wrote everything completely even Paul's section of the paper (with his consent) and took more time in doing so. Eventually though, due to the time crunch in the final days when I met back up with Johan and Josh, I was unable to adequately sort out little details and eventually put only a small amount of effort into the essay, just wanting it done. So, I still need to buckle down even more and ensure that I can get in contact with my group members.
Our contact was, at first, limited to only the classroom. But, as the Thanksgiving weekend came around, we changed our tactic to e-mails. And, during that weekend, the only person to respond to me was Paul. We exchanged ideas and decided the plan for the whole of our essay's draft and waited for Josh and Johan to respond. In that time, we completed each of our segments and turned to the remaining two members of our group face-to-face and assigned them the task of completing the third argument and intro/conclusion. During the following two nights they participated in communications via e-mail.
2: Use of Contract
Our contract, as far as I know, was followed through at all points. We all researched avidly for information on the essay and we all completed our jobs, and completed all tasks required. It states that everyone must do his/her own work, but we never stated that e-mailing over the break was a must-have portion that would be required. Moreover, it also says, "If a person in the group does not keep up on their work, their work will be divided between the other members in the group and the person who does not do their work will loose points from their grade." After unable to find a valid third argument, we were able to split up one of the arguments I had written, Josh and Johan allowing me to write it.
3: Use of Wiki
Every site which I came to (and found a use in) was posted on the wiki, some of which have annotations and others don't. I noticed, though, that I was the only one posting anything for a rather extended period of time, and I suppose Paul was the only other person do so so either (right before we turned the essay in). I suppose this can be contributed to the fact that Josh and Johan were limited to only the introduction and conclusion and weren't sure whether or not to include things for the debate on the wiki.
4: Individual Progress
I thought, in comparison with the last essay, that I did much better in the group. Being as that I better know the people I was working with and knew they had a history of getting everything done on time helped greatly. After several attempted drafts, I eventually re-wrote everything completely even Paul's section of the paper (with his consent) and took more time in doing so. Eventually though, due to the time crunch in the final days when I met back up with Johan and Josh, I was unable to adequately sort out little details and eventually put only a small amount of effort into the essay, just wanting it done. So, I still need to buckle down even more and ensure that I can get in contact with my group members.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Federalists of New Hampshire (Essay 3)
The Federalists of New Hampshire
Shelby Lee
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
“With great power, comes great responsibility.” The Federalists in the state of New Hampshire had the power of both wisdom and money two things that gave them standings over the Anti-federalists. All this influence though did give them a huge responsibility and pressure to make wise decisions. Being the ninth state to ratify the Constitution the Federalists of New Hampshire had the most power but also the most responsibility when making the decision to ratify. The Federalists of New Hampshire had more of a perspective on matters and moral values that trumped that of those of the Anti-federalists. The Federalists realized and knew what was better for the people of New Hampshire while the Anti-federalists just knew what was good for them. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. One thing most of the Anti-federalists and Federalists kind of agreed on is the issue of slavery. One thing that separated the Federalists and Anti-federalists was the rich and poor classes of New Hampshire; they each had different views on what was good for the people. The morals of the Federalists are another key factor that really separated them from the Anti-federalists whose morals were a little more self-centered.
Few people, Federalists or Anti-federalists, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south. Generally, people in the south were for slavery while, generally, people in the north were against it. As more states began to ratify, the Federalists became desperate to have a ninth state to ratify. For this reason, they were willing to do almost anything. Unfortunately, Slavery, being the controversial issue that it was, was not something that could be solved easily. It was decided that the issue of slavery and the slave trade would be put off for another twenty years (2.) This was enough to satisfy most of the states, north and south for the time being. It was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent. Because of this, New Hampshire got one step closer to ratifying the constitution.
Slavery's very ethics has been an issue for many a century. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. United, New Hampshire declared, "Hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (1). While the colony did not consider it an obligation to go to other countries or states to abolish slavery itself, they decided - wholeheartedly - to refrain from participating in such”cruel and inhuman merchandise." (1) The sanctity of God's laws was important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. 'What would it feel like to be stolen from all that is known and cherished? To be separated from loved ones and sold - like an object - to a man who will own another's soul until death?' These were questions that were asked often during debates over slavery and ratification. And, unfortunately, the issue was resolved neither easily, nor quickly, for it continued many years after New Hampshire ratified the constitution.
(Paul) I would agree with the anti-federalists side. Although both sides were against it, the anti-federalists were more so. Slavery was a horrible and inhuman act that needed to be finished with. Anti-federalists wanted to end slavery as quickly as possible. The federalists, though having similar thoughts, weren’t in quite as much of a hurry as the anti-federalists. What I don’t agree with is the fact that they just let it go for twenty years. All that is was more misery for the slaves. All in all though, the anti-federalists did try and that counts for something. The results may not have been immediate but they did come. Slavery should have been a larger issue, but such a complex issue would have much more difficult to solve right away.
(Shelby) Imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite the federalist’s desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire peoples. There is the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won had they called for a compact for the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies long before it truly began, and it would not be known as a Civil War. Yet, with that would come to be the federalist's fear that the confederacy would dissolve and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all-together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them leaves the Union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they could not even be represented, that they were being smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
(Paul) The poor, because they are poor, have little knowledge of governmental affairs. This means that they can not effectively run a government. Only those who have such knowledge can do this. Therefore it would be the planter elite who could run the government, although, if given the opportunity, the poor might be able to learn giving them the chance to help run the government. The poor cannot run it by nature because they have no such knowledge unlike the planter elite. If given the opportunity to learn they could be able to run it just as well as the elite.
(Shelby)Such distinctions between rich and poor are clearly logical. When, most often, the poor and bedraggled do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people, exceptions of such rules might be made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand responsibility, and how to govern themselves, whereas those who struggle in life cannot so much as even rule over themselves capably (4). Thus, those who have weak morals should not be entitled to govern even a portion of the confederacy while the elite can virtuously rule them into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they can't even support themselves, and thus cannot have views enough to responsibly earn even a portion of the government under control. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while they complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). Barely able to sustain themselves and quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork, the farmers of New Hampshire don't have strong enough of a righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
(Paul) I do not agree that only the wealthy should have the most power. Greed comes to those who have power, but if those in power already are wealthy, then problems are just going to increase. Morals of the common man do a better job than that of just rich men. If just wealthy men are in control, then the poor and weak will still get stomped on. If everyone has some of the power then there is less chance of greed and one person having supreme control. The wealthy usually take advantage of what they can. If everyone is in on a piece of the pie, then there is less likely to be such problems.
(Shelby) It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy, a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment which governs them. It would thus be a despotic, corrupt union which would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
The majority of New Hampshire decided that they would hold tight to their moral values and ratify the constitution. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. They knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals that would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not just as a state. The wealth that most of the elites that would later become part of the government allowed them to better finance and help the union they had helped to create. It has also been said that with wealth comes great responsibility which helped the Federalists who were mainly elites to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than a small body, as the Anti-federalists wanted. They also realized how vital it was to postpone something’s you value to help the majority like the abolishment of slavery. All of these key factors and decisions allowed New Hampshire to become the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and help make the United States we know today.
(Josh) After doing research I feel that I most agree with the Federalist point of view. The Anti-federalists argue that only a small republic of people can provide what they need to be happy and satisfied. I do think the Federalists had it right though that the educated people of the society should be the ones to make the decisions. I feel that the educated people would have a better sense of what was moral and right for the people of the state and nation. They may be richer and use that as a bias sometimes but the reason they are wealthy was because of the decisions they have made in their life. This is why I feel that the Federalists point of view is the right one.
(Johan) I share qualities and beliefs of both a federalist and an anti-federalist and so I stand somewhere in-between. I agree that a government was needed and that the constitution was a great idea that needed to be enacted. I also agree that the government needed to be run by competent, responsible, and trustworthy people who made decisions for a whole and not just a small group. On the other hand, I agree that a slow, cautious approach to signing the ratification to the U.S. Constitution was necessary. This was necessary in assuring that every point outlined in the constitution was fair and gave equal rights to all states and peoples and did not favor some over others. I strongly feel that slavery should have been abolished much sooner than it was. If I had to pick one side to stand by I would say that I lean more towards the anti-federalist side, although I still share federalist opinions.
Sources:
1:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/fed/mbio.html
2:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s9.html
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture: "The American Promise a History of the United States" pages 268-269 "Shay's Rebellion"
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government I can infer several different conclusions of the subject.
Monday, November 26, 2007
AoD#10: Conflict from lack of Diversity
Art of Democracy
Shortly before Thanksgiving, my brother finally broke the vestiges of a family bond.
My father had lost patience with my brother, who's current sole purpose in life is to hang out with friends and stay in our house. He doesn't have a job, nor does he go to school. The car he has been given was to be used solely for the purpose of work and school, and it broke down under the weight of my brother's full-load of friends. Upon hearing this reason, my father argued to my brother about how little he does around the house or even in life, of course he did this subtley and his words fell on deaf ears. My brother, irritated and annoyed, ignored what my dad said and retorted with "why are you getting mad," as if he had ignored the problems growing in our family. Eventually, my father consented to allow my brother my mother's car for only the night.
They had another argument when my brother returned home, but I was unable to find out the conclusion to their debate.
It is unfortunate that we only have these two views with which to span from, bringing our diversity to a rather meager sum and spouting many conflicts as thus.
Shortly before Thanksgiving, my brother finally broke the vestiges of a family bond.
My father had lost patience with my brother, who's current sole purpose in life is to hang out with friends and stay in our house. He doesn't have a job, nor does he go to school. The car he has been given was to be used solely for the purpose of work and school, and it broke down under the weight of my brother's full-load of friends. Upon hearing this reason, my father argued to my brother about how little he does around the house or even in life, of course he did this subtley and his words fell on deaf ears. My brother, irritated and annoyed, ignored what my dad said and retorted with "why are you getting mad," as if he had ignored the problems growing in our family. Eventually, my father consented to allow my brother my mother's car for only the night.
They had another argument when my brother returned home, but I was unable to find out the conclusion to their debate.
It is unfortunate that we only have these two views with which to span from, bringing our diversity to a rather meager sum and spouting many conflicts as thus.
AoD #9: Conflicts on 11-20 and their capital
My grandfather was ill and needed emergency care, and my grandmother, who needs someone to care for her - though she's stubborn to admit - is now residing alone until my grandfather returns to her home. My parents offered to fly down to Arizona if she needed help, but she abstained, saying that my grandfather would not only be angry but she would be too. She assured us that all would be fine, but my father tried to insist that she needed to have someone to care for her.
My brother's car broke down and my father finally cornered him. My father, angered, told my brother that his car was only for school and work - of which he had the opportunity to do both but has instead chosen to stay with friends. My brother looked around the room, as if he wasn't listening and gave short rebukes; he refused to understand that the give/take relationship between family had become malformed to the point that my brother took all that he wanted while we had to give up more and more of what we wanted. Then, he left in my mother's car, even after she had refused to give it to him.
In the end, this showed that, through the community of our family, we didn't quite use the talents of anyone - my grandmas ability to entice my brother into doing work, or my dad's ability to go to Arizona. In essence, though we had a small social capital to gain from, there was still much that could have been done to use the talents we had before us.
My brother's car broke down and my father finally cornered him. My father, angered, told my brother that his car was only for school and work - of which he had the opportunity to do both but has instead chosen to stay with friends. My brother looked around the room, as if he wasn't listening and gave short rebukes; he refused to understand that the give/take relationship between family had become malformed to the point that my brother took all that he wanted while we had to give up more and more of what we wanted. Then, he left in my mother's car, even after she had refused to give it to him.
In the end, this showed that, through the community of our family, we didn't quite use the talents of anyone - my grandmas ability to entice my brother into doing work, or my dad's ability to go to Arizona. In essence, though we had a small social capital to gain from, there was still much that could have been done to use the talents we had before us.
Monday, November 19, 2007
AoD#8: Evaluation of Our Security
Art of Democracy
A long while ago, my family and I assessed our security after a break in.
I was home alone when the door was broken in etc., etc. and, needless to say, was quite frightened with the whole ordeal. I recounted the events for the officer and my family and we soon went about examining our now broken, but still relatively function, door. We found that our security was not as tight as we had believed: our deadbolt had been null against the invaders. Moreover, since we expanded out house, we have found no need to reinstall the alarm system. Until recently, we went without it.
Now, after much public discussion and debate, we have installed an alarm system, removed ourselves from the newpapers' delivery listing (for the newspaper had most likely signified our house as vacant after my brother drove off), and are still in debate about purchasing a gun.
We are still in discussion over the effects of the paranoia from this and other, recent events that have kept us awake long into the night.
A long while ago, my family and I assessed our security after a break in.
I was home alone when the door was broken in etc., etc. and, needless to say, was quite frightened with the whole ordeal. I recounted the events for the officer and my family and we soon went about examining our now broken, but still relatively function, door. We found that our security was not as tight as we had believed: our deadbolt had been null against the invaders. Moreover, since we expanded out house, we have found no need to reinstall the alarm system. Until recently, we went without it.
Now, after much public discussion and debate, we have installed an alarm system, removed ourselves from the newpapers' delivery listing (for the newspaper had most likely signified our house as vacant after my brother drove off), and are still in debate about purchasing a gun.
We are still in discussion over the effects of the paranoia from this and other, recent events that have kept us awake long into the night.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Reflection on Essay 2
I must admit, I haven't made any progress from the first essay of this quarter to the second essay. The format was too different for me to actually grasp and edit and apply my normal philosophies it gives. Unfortunately, all I did was "vomit," if you will, the body of the argument and I was unable to, either discretely or conspicuously, state my thesis. Perhaps I did, but I can't tell from the format. In this sense, I can't actually evaluate myself, because I can't evaluate the format - due to it's completely foreign nature - and thus cannot adequately give a grade to myself.
As partners, Sergey and I never really worked to edit. We wrote once and left it at that. I'm not sure if we both just wanted to avoid conflict or didn't quite understand how exactly we were to go about dissecting and recreating the essay in the form we choose. Originally, we were going to go about letters, a simple way, and were guided to do blogs, and, at that point, I believe we lost either interest or comprehension and didn't want to ruin the statements and rebuttals by changing the original posts and the like. We both did minimalistic effort, it seemed, on the essay, despite its importance. And I know we could have done much more than have our rough draft our final draft.
Sergey's work ethic was strong and we were able to have sections to reply to and replies posted within a day. Sadly, Sergey's language is much different than the language I put into the essay, and our different views never met on the issue and we left it at the minimum and went from there.
We avoided conflict, as a duo. We worked well together because we stuck to the most basic ideas and went from there. Our conversations were short, but we didn't complicate matters more than they needed to be. I'm afraid though, in our confusion, that we didn't quite get across what we wanted for each post and we didn't affirm the best way we could portray the essay. Instead, we took the teacher's suggestion, thinking it would work out well and with none too much extra time involved. Unfortunately, such thinking backfired and it might prove a failing grade for us.
AoD#7: Mediation
My father, last week, played mediator between his mother and brother, as well as my own mother.
My rich uncle is finally going to be married, and the ceremony will be held on a yacht. He was concerned that neither me or my brother would want anything to do with him (being that we haven't seen him in well over a year, which is rather uncommon for us), and essentially voiced his concerns, saying that the food might not exactly be what we normally eat, there might not be enough room on the boat, and that it was an adult event (he didn't mean to sound condescending, he just wasn't sure if we wanted to come at all) but he also wasn't sure if we'd come to the reception afterwards. After hanging up, my father reiterated my uncle's views, but my mother drew conclusions that neither me or my brother could come and went on to speak with her mother in-law about this news. In turn, my grandmother verbally attacked and accused my uncle over the issue.
Eventually, despite the continuing anger, my uncle apologized completely and said that if "you want to come, then I want you to come." He blamed my father for his poor speaking skills on the whole event. All it had taken was my father calmly pointing out the facts to my mother: weddings were stressful, and on top of selling porches to the upper class, my uncle was dealing with his fiance and her child - even more so when he isn't the dominant one in the relationship, a new thing for him.
Even then, my mother simmered with anger, but my father's position, neutral despite his brother's relation and my part in the discussion. We eventually agreed that the reception was good enough for my brother and I, because we felt no special need to be there. Despite my mother's interpretation that we were being shunned from our uncle, we merely understood that, piled with all this stress, his words didn't quite come out as they should have.
My rich uncle is finally going to be married, and the ceremony will be held on a yacht. He was concerned that neither me or my brother would want anything to do with him (being that we haven't seen him in well over a year, which is rather uncommon for us), and essentially voiced his concerns, saying that the food might not exactly be what we normally eat, there might not be enough room on the boat, and that it was an adult event (he didn't mean to sound condescending, he just wasn't sure if we wanted to come at all) but he also wasn't sure if we'd come to the reception afterwards. After hanging up, my father reiterated my uncle's views, but my mother drew conclusions that neither me or my brother could come and went on to speak with her mother in-law about this news. In turn, my grandmother verbally attacked and accused my uncle over the issue.
Eventually, despite the continuing anger, my uncle apologized completely and said that if "you want to come, then I want you to come." He blamed my father for his poor speaking skills on the whole event. All it had taken was my father calmly pointing out the facts to my mother: weddings were stressful, and on top of selling porches to the upper class, my uncle was dealing with his fiance and her child - even more so when he isn't the dominant one in the relationship, a new thing for him.
Even then, my mother simmered with anger, but my father's position, neutral despite his brother's relation and my part in the discussion. We eventually agreed that the reception was good enough for my brother and I, because we felt no special need to be there. Despite my mother's interpretation that we were being shunned from our uncle, we merely understood that, piled with all this stress, his words didn't quite come out as they should have.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Second Essay Link
"A Conversation between loyalist Thomas Gray and Patriot Edmund Jackson" by Shelby Lee and Sergey
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
AoD#6: Family Look on Voting
Art of Democracy
On Monday, my mother, father, and myself gathered around the voter's pamphlet to help my father fill out his absentee ballet. We jibed, and tore apart the facts and commentaries, continuously flaring into disagreement.
But, the most memorable of them was our old friend Chris Brown, running for the utility/water manager. He was up against a man with twenty years of experience and a PhD in marine biology, while Chris himself was a manager of a construction company. Of course, it would be assumed that we would automatically choose the one with a PhD, merely because our water bills have been so low in recent years, ranging from twenty to forty dollars for two months. But, my father rebuttled with the fact that he knows why Chris was running, to stop expansion in our neighborhood, so that he wouldn't pass sewer lines and the like so that the mass development going on in our once heavily wooded neighborhoods could be stopped. At the point, I reluctantly agreed, though my bias against Chris Brown (due to his less than caring relationship with his daughter, whom now lives in Wisconsin with her mom) still told me I should vote for the other man. My father voted for him despite my grumbled complaints, but I saw what he meant in the end.
And, after continuing such a process with the passion relating to insurance measures and levies, my family and I filled out the ballot in a mere three hours, using our political imagination to shape our choices.
On Monday, my mother, father, and myself gathered around the voter's pamphlet to help my father fill out his absentee ballet. We jibed, and tore apart the facts and commentaries, continuously flaring into disagreement.
But, the most memorable of them was our old friend Chris Brown, running for the utility/water manager. He was up against a man with twenty years of experience and a PhD in marine biology, while Chris himself was a manager of a construction company. Of course, it would be assumed that we would automatically choose the one with a PhD, merely because our water bills have been so low in recent years, ranging from twenty to forty dollars for two months. But, my father rebuttled with the fact that he knows why Chris was running, to stop expansion in our neighborhood, so that he wouldn't pass sewer lines and the like so that the mass development going on in our once heavily wooded neighborhoods could be stopped. At the point, I reluctantly agreed, though my bias against Chris Brown (due to his less than caring relationship with his daughter, whom now lives in Wisconsin with her mom) still told me I should vote for the other man. My father voted for him despite my grumbled complaints, but I saw what he meant in the end.
And, after continuing such a process with the passion relating to insurance measures and levies, my family and I filled out the ballot in a mere three hours, using our political imagination to shape our choices.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Group Progress
We have begun the whole process, beginning with the first of our posts and annotations of one of our articles.
AoD#5: Halloween's Mediation
Art of Democracy
The other day, my family gathered for a scene of creative conflict. It was over the issue of my brother and his rentals via the DVR.
The conversations weren't altogether that beautiful, with my brother roughly discouraging all forms of ideas we put on him - mostly working to pay for the things he does - as we poked and prodded him to get moving with his life. Partway through the discussion, we were interupted because he simply walked away, leaving no conclusion to our negotiation.
So, although we prompted for negotiations in the form of creative conflict, we reached no solution that my brother would accept.
We eventually brought in a young women, Umeko who had no biases beyond her own experiences, talked my brother into changing, if only for a little while.
The other day, my family gathered for a scene of creative conflict. It was over the issue of my brother and his rentals via the DVR.
The conversations weren't altogether that beautiful, with my brother roughly discouraging all forms of ideas we put on him - mostly working to pay for the things he does - as we poked and prodded him to get moving with his life. Partway through the discussion, we were interupted because he simply walked away, leaving no conclusion to our negotiation.
So, although we prompted for negotiations in the form of creative conflict, we reached no solution that my brother would accept.
We eventually brought in a young women, Umeko who had no biases beyond her own experiences, talked my brother into changing, if only for a little while.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Patriot/Loyalist Essay Plan
Plan:
- write down strengths and weakness of being either patriot or loyalist
- Create basal ideas "chunks" of individual letter on which to write around
- Revise original drafts until fit accordingly with conversation and rhythm:
Characters:
- close relationship: co-workers
- both New England merchants - conflict felt greatly (as in trade, economics, etc.)
Format: Blog/Comment
Each focus on one thing per blog; i.e. Stamp Act posted in the patriot blog, comment by loyalist of the Stamp Act; but, no repetitions of the events/focal points in the loyalist blog.
- write down strengths and weakness of being either patriot or loyalist
- Create basal ideas "chunks" of individual letter on which to write around
- Revise original drafts until fit accordingly with conversation and rhythm:
Characters:
- close relationship: co-workers
- both New England merchants - conflict felt greatly (as in trade, economics, etc.)
Format: Blog/Comment
Each focus on one thing per blog; i.e. Stamp Act posted in the patriot blog, comment by loyalist of the Stamp Act; but, no repetitions of the events/focal points in the loyalist blog.
Friday, October 26, 2007
AoD #4: Halfway of Active Listening
Art of Democracy
The other day, I was listening to my parents and brother argue. It was over my sensitivity to the paint fumes, and resulting fourth day of sleeping in the front room, I had, at one point, left to the back of the house and thus heard them speak of me when not in my presence. My brother was angry that he couldn't watch television past nine o'clock due to my sleeping habits and wanted me out so he could happily watch the large screen. But, my father rebuked him, saying that he was "the lowest one on the totem pole," because he had no job, no diploma, and did nothing around the house and thus had no say of the household's members.
Thinking to myself, I realized how true my father was. Yet, I began to think of how much I myself did around the house. Little to naught, I concluded and began thinking of how to contribute my skills around the house (which is falling apart) and relieve some stress of my parent's own.
I just say and waited until the argument fizzled out and ended in a doorslam, not wanting to explore the remaining anger there.
The other day, I was listening to my parents and brother argue. It was over my sensitivity to the paint fumes, and resulting fourth day of sleeping in the front room, I had, at one point, left to the back of the house and thus heard them speak of me when not in my presence. My brother was angry that he couldn't watch television past nine o'clock due to my sleeping habits and wanted me out so he could happily watch the large screen. But, my father rebuked him, saying that he was "the lowest one on the totem pole," because he had no job, no diploma, and did nothing around the house and thus had no say of the household's members.
Thinking to myself, I realized how true my father was. Yet, I began to think of how much I myself did around the house. Little to naught, I concluded and began thinking of how to contribute my skills around the house (which is falling apart) and relieve some stress of my parent's own.
I just say and waited until the argument fizzled out and ended in a doorslam, not wanting to explore the remaining anger there.
Midterm Practice
Prompt:
“Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent . . . . And generally all actions which men do [sic] in Common-wealths, for fear [sic] of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit […]. Liberty and Necessity are Consistent [. . .]. [B]ecause they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of man’s [sic] will, and every desire, and inclination proceeds [sic] from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual [sic] chain [sic], (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes,) they proceed from necessity.”
- Thomas Hobbes
Everyone lives in fear. Hobbes believes that natural liberty results in such a fear, and was thus omitted via the ways of commonwealth. Yet, he was mistaken in such a thought for those who joined the commonwealth did not always practice the sacrifice of their freedoms for safety they receive. Though law is to diminish terror, it can never destroy fear.
Hobbes has made governance a clear matter of unity throughout his Leviathan. But this direct quotation of his text state that, in simplest of terms that liberty of men is war (which is, in his terms, every man against every man) for no man can govern himself appropriately for the good of mankind without a peaceful covenant (society) to guide him. And this war is made up of his needs, as thus it "proceed[s] from necessity", or, in a sense, all their liberties (and thus their lives) stem from their necessities and absolute need for their procuration. Each man must, himself, acquire enough to continue his survival, and that soon takes precedence over that of his fellow's survival, stealing whatever he may need from said fellow (even so much as their life) via liberties acquired through the natural state of man. Adversely, those from whom the necessities are acquired live in a state of fear, wondering, as they continue to survive- weather struggling or doing such easily - if they will wake up the next morn. Hobbe's continues, though, that in commonwealths it becomes the fear of the law that pushes man to find more peaceful relations and omit the liberties he would have otherwise used to attain these necessities. Thus, it is not so much that "Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent..." and "Liberty and Necessity are Consistent...", rather that fear and necessity are bound together and thus consistent to the ties brought on by man's liberty (both individual and that of the commonwealth).
And though these liberties were to be omitted in conjoining with the commonwealth, there are still those whom strive to keep them. Bound to the commonwealth they have become and seek haven amongst it, but they dissent from what they must give in return in order to create a true commonwealth, a power of all united in one. These people are known as criminals, using their natural liberties - which have been willingly relinquished in the creation of the commonwealth - to meet their own necessities and selfish gains. In the sense of the consistencies between liberty, needs, and fear Hobbes was correct; yet, in belief that the only fear in the omition of their liberty would be to the law was erroneous. For, those who have their necessities must arm themselves with what the commonwealth will allow to protect themselves from these dissenters, in both the manner of bodily injury and economic loss. These peoples (and those who have little of their needs met) must live in fear of what will soon happen to them by ways of these criminals, who, as would brutes, will murder and steal to gain what they wish. When omitted, these liberties cause no fear, but dissenters of the commonwealth practice them still, scorching away the peace which was once commonwealth.
As thus, the fears derived by natural liberty were never vanquished. Necessity is met by ways of force via the powers of freedom in man. Laws are a testament to find peaceful ways to meet such needs within the covenants of security that bind the commonwealth, with the dread of disobeying such laws omitting certain peoples liberties in relation of that. But, laws do not stop all, and there are still those whom practice their natural born freedoms as they dissent the commonwealths of security to which they are bound. Man has thus not surrendered himself to the higher power of religion, justice, or even society. To each his own, the unwritten law of humanity, for it defines each and every action.
“Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent . . . . And generally all actions which men do [sic] in Common-wealths, for fear [sic] of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit […]. Liberty and Necessity are Consistent [. . .]. [B]ecause they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of man’s [sic] will, and every desire, and inclination proceeds [sic] from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual [sic] chain [sic], (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes,) they proceed from necessity.”
- Thomas Hobbes
Everyone lives in fear. Hobbes believes that natural liberty results in such a fear, and was thus omitted via the ways of commonwealth. Yet, he was mistaken in such a thought for those who joined the commonwealth did not always practice the sacrifice of their freedoms for safety they receive. Though law is to diminish terror, it can never destroy fear.
Hobbes has made governance a clear matter of unity throughout his Leviathan. But this direct quotation of his text state that, in simplest of terms that liberty of men is war (which is, in his terms, every man against every man) for no man can govern himself appropriately for the good of mankind without a peaceful covenant (society) to guide him. And this war is made up of his needs, as thus it "proceed[s] from necessity", or, in a sense, all their liberties (and thus their lives) stem from their necessities and absolute need for their procuration. Each man must, himself, acquire enough to continue his survival, and that soon takes precedence over that of his fellow's survival, stealing whatever he may need from said fellow (even so much as their life) via liberties acquired through the natural state of man. Adversely, those from whom the necessities are acquired live in a state of fear, wondering, as they continue to survive- weather struggling or doing such easily - if they will wake up the next morn. Hobbe's continues, though, that in commonwealths it becomes the fear of the law that pushes man to find more peaceful relations and omit the liberties he would have otherwise used to attain these necessities. Thus, it is not so much that "Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent..." and "Liberty and Necessity are Consistent...", rather that fear and necessity are bound together and thus consistent to the ties brought on by man's liberty (both individual and that of the commonwealth).
And though these liberties were to be omitted in conjoining with the commonwealth, there are still those whom strive to keep them. Bound to the commonwealth they have become and seek haven amongst it, but they dissent from what they must give in return in order to create a true commonwealth, a power of all united in one. These people are known as criminals, using their natural liberties - which have been willingly relinquished in the creation of the commonwealth - to meet their own necessities and selfish gains. In the sense of the consistencies between liberty, needs, and fear Hobbes was correct; yet, in belief that the only fear in the omition of their liberty would be to the law was erroneous. For, those who have their necessities must arm themselves with what the commonwealth will allow to protect themselves from these dissenters, in both the manner of bodily injury and economic loss. These peoples (and those who have little of their needs met) must live in fear of what will soon happen to them by ways of these criminals, who, as would brutes, will murder and steal to gain what they wish. When omitted, these liberties cause no fear, but dissenters of the commonwealth practice them still, scorching away the peace which was once commonwealth.
As thus, the fears derived by natural liberty were never vanquished. Necessity is met by ways of force via the powers of freedom in man. Laws are a testament to find peaceful ways to meet such needs within the covenants of security that bind the commonwealth, with the dread of disobeying such laws omitting certain peoples liberties in relation of that. But, laws do not stop all, and there are still those whom practice their natural born freedoms as they dissent the commonwealths of security to which they are bound. Man has thus not surrendered himself to the higher power of religion, justice, or even society. To each his own, the unwritten law of humanity, for it defines each and every action.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Racism in Bacon's Rebellion Essay Reflection
Honestly, I believe I barely passed this essay. As a piece of my writing, it's poorly written. I have plenty of excuses for the formatting of this, stress from PSATs, scholarships, illness, the habitual Jane Schaeffer method and the like; but, none of these should have hindered my performance so. During the languorous two weeks of this essay I grew bored of it and only put in partial effort as the deadline drew closer. When I should have been working on this essay I, instead, started to do all in my ability to not to the essay until the last day - a time when I, at least, felt some interest again.
My writing philosophy has been consistent, but has many flaws. These flaws I've seen before, such as my restive nature towards writing. And, for this essay, my largest mistake would be in the failure to plan and follow through on the plans I did make. These flaws usually pertain to my short stories and novels, for naught but few have been completed due to my more direct focus on the present and trifles which accompany it. Instead of my normal draft per night, this essay took a lethargic pace and had a mere two rough drafts before being finalized.
There is but one major difference betwixt college and high school writing that I've come to notice. This is that you must gather, validate, and paraphrase all of your sources. Dissimilar from high school, in which only textbooks were the source, college level writing comes from a variety of sources which one must gather. Therein comes the challenge: an argument with the basal of critical, and diverse, information. Most definitely, the lack of Jane Schaeffer protocol in writing. Albeit, the method provides a helpful outline on which to write upon, with variations of it to be used conclusively, college allows students on a free-for-all that created a further individuality in each work and a more developmental argument.
For my next essay I know, for a definite fact, one thing I will do differently. I will not adhere to the in-class schedule. Following such a regulation resulted in my boredom and my shunning of the essay until the due date. Also, I will put more commentary with each concrete detail (similar to the Jane Schaeffer method: 2 cm to 1 cd) so that I can actually present the argument instead of a bunch of bland facts strung together with the most minute ways of connecting with the overall argument. Moreover, I will be sure that my concluding sentences and topic sentences flow together nicely in a way that doesn't feel jagged and inconclusive, offering nice transitions. Peradventure I should look over old essays for a basal idea on what I should now do in regards to my writing. But, I know I definitely need to keep myself on top of things this time around.
My writing philosophy has been consistent, but has many flaws. These flaws I've seen before, such as my restive nature towards writing. And, for this essay, my largest mistake would be in the failure to plan and follow through on the plans I did make. These flaws usually pertain to my short stories and novels, for naught but few have been completed due to my more direct focus on the present and trifles which accompany it. Instead of my normal draft per night, this essay took a lethargic pace and had a mere two rough drafts before being finalized.
There is but one major difference betwixt college and high school writing that I've come to notice. This is that you must gather, validate, and paraphrase all of your sources. Dissimilar from high school, in which only textbooks were the source, college level writing comes from a variety of sources which one must gather. Therein comes the challenge: an argument with the basal of critical, and diverse, information. Most definitely, the lack of Jane Schaeffer protocol in writing. Albeit, the method provides a helpful outline on which to write upon, with variations of it to be used conclusively, college allows students on a free-for-all that created a further individuality in each work and a more developmental argument.
For my next essay I know, for a definite fact, one thing I will do differently. I will not adhere to the in-class schedule. Following such a regulation resulted in my boredom and my shunning of the essay until the due date. Also, I will put more commentary with each concrete detail (similar to the Jane Schaeffer method: 2 cm to 1 cd) so that I can actually present the argument instead of a bunch of bland facts strung together with the most minute ways of connecting with the overall argument. Moreover, I will be sure that my concluding sentences and topic sentences flow together nicely in a way that doesn't feel jagged and inconclusive, offering nice transitions. Peradventure I should look over old essays for a basal idea on what I should now do in regards to my writing. But, I know I definitely need to keep myself on top of things this time around.
Friday, October 19, 2007
AoD#3: Family's Public Judgement
Arts of Democracy
Recently we were about to redo my room: painting, furnishing, and all the like. We decided that on Friday, we would remove all my belongings from the room and purchase paint, in the morning, we would paint. But, we ran into a few problems. First, that we, as a family, needed to visit our chiropractor. Second, I had an orthodontist appointment on Friday and had yet to pick out paint.
My father, mother, and I finally discussed this. We negotiated the issue. After listening to all issues, we came to a conclusion. My mother and I would go to the orthodontist, then visit the chiropractor, and then buy paint. My father would visit sometime during the next week because we would buy paint and apply it Saturday morning, completing by the time the chiropractor closed.
Of course, sometimes it is easier to negotiate then to put the effects to use. Later, though, the effects of our outcome will be discussed in the family meeting.
Recently we were about to redo my room: painting, furnishing, and all the like. We decided that on Friday, we would remove all my belongings from the room and purchase paint, in the morning, we would paint. But, we ran into a few problems. First, that we, as a family, needed to visit our chiropractor. Second, I had an orthodontist appointment on Friday and had yet to pick out paint.
My father, mother, and I finally discussed this. We negotiated the issue. After listening to all issues, we came to a conclusion. My mother and I would go to the orthodontist, then visit the chiropractor, and then buy paint. My father would visit sometime during the next week because we would buy paint and apply it Saturday morning, completing by the time the chiropractor closed.
Of course, sometimes it is easier to negotiate then to put the effects to use. Later, though, the effects of our outcome will be discussed in the family meeting.
Racism in Bacon's Rebellion
In colonial Virginia, an uprising occurred. This uprising, Bacon's Rebellion, relied heavily upon racism. Though, encompassing few races, to which Europeans believed themselves superior, this revolt began upon Native American activity in the region. Eventually, such resulted in the Africans participation in the rebellion, and the degradation of the servant labor system as it became the racial hierarchy of the slave labor system. Moreover, these racially discriminant views of the 1670s continued in American culture to this day. United hate and discrimination thrive throughout humanity.
During the actual occurrence of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, few races inhabited the Chesapeake region. Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans made up this population. Susquehannock, Deog, and Pamunkey Native tribes were those whom played great significance in the revolt. The Iroquaian Susquehannocks were a tribe settled in the northern Chesapeake region, boundaries of their territory stretching both far north and west. 1 Deog Natives settled upstream of the Potomac River 1, which emptied into the Chesapeake Bay, and were rather foreign to the lands about the colony. 1 And as the largest remnant of the Pawhatan chiefdom, the Pamunkeys resided near the colony itself .2 Along with these aborigines were approximately twenty Africans presumed to be, by many historians, slaves. 2, 3 These slaves were prevalent because the colonists were in need for more workers to harvest the labor-intensive crops of tobacco, much as the indentured servants were. 2 European colonists in the region, at this time, were English. With a main export of tobacco, trade flourished betwixt Chesapeake Europeans and their motherland, England. Moreover, the colonists were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying debts through labor), freemen (those with their own land and free of debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government). Despite the presence of these three races, there was little diversity amongst them.
Chesapeake colonists believed themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the Chesapeake region. Upon the English's first encounter with the natives, though, they believed their red-tinted skin to be the "sun's livery." 2 Also, certain traits of the tribes were admired by colonists, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender love... for family... and their simple, independent was of life..." 2. Despite these qualities, and though their skin pigmentation gave way to praise, it was the Native American's culture that gave way to European's belief of superiority. As one Englishman described as "having little humanite but shape" by being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt." 2 Due to the drastically "un-English" manners, it was only right in the name of the colonists to describe them as "savages." 2 Such a discrimination of a foreign culture was borne by England's own belief system. Throughout the histories of Europe, one culture being more sophisticated or dominate over another had been prevalent, such as Christians above Jews. Racism towards Native Americans was not brought one by their appearance, rather their customs and cultures. Africans were also a subject of discrimination by the English. It was not so their "[un-English] ways... [that] struck colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color." 2 Dubbed then "black," in accordance the dark tint of their skin, the Africans were thought of inferior to all those of fairer skins. Some contemporary English definitions of black were "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and for all intents and purposes, evil. 2 Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" the Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were focal points for hatred and blame. 2 Misguided religious beliefs caused such discrimination. Good and evil, such well-worn paths, cannot so simply be phrased as "black" and "white." Aphorisms which humankind tends to enact result only in misconceptions. As thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake natives and slaves from Africa.
There was incentive to revolt amongst the colonists, but certain activities of Native Americans were the final driving forces to push Bacon's Rebellion into existence. On the Virginia frontier in 1670s, Susquehannock and Deog raiding parties appeared. Frightened at the their arrival and angered by the government's minimalistic efforts of protection (which included constructing forts at the heads of nearby rivers) Bacon rallied fellow frontiersman against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... [would provide] release for the colonist's frustrations." 1 Governor William Berkley was against the freemen's actions, fearing the peaceful tribe of Pamunkeys would take offense to the party as they had recently signed treaties with the tribe so that they could keep the lands which English had not settled upon. 1, 2 Eventually, under pressure of the freeman, the Virginian government commanded the Pamunkeys to aid them in the defense of the colony. 2 Twenty years prior, one must know, on another campaign for the colony's defense, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband, Tottopottomoy, and over a third of her tribesmen. 2 At negotiations pertaining to the natives contribution to the defense campaign, she was obstinate but after much debate, the queen allowed one dozen of her men to be under to English's command. 2 Chesapeake region settlers cared little for the Native Americans, and the discrimination of aborigine's culture was so great it resulted in the faith that not even the death of kindred, families, and husbands whom had helped to defend them all was pointless. Contrarily, much as the Europeans admired, the natives allowed kindness and offered more than should have, considering the circumstances placed upon them. Moreover, though, their leaders knew better than to lead their own people to death. Bacon, though, saw the efforts of the government still as worthless and began accusing the elite's of giving alliance to the natives instead of the English, turning soon onto the peaceful Pamunkeys 2. Despite the facts of the natives "never at any time btraye'd or injuryed the English," nor even raising their weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the tribe became a target for the colonists' hate 2. In the mind of the Englishmen, all those of a similar, lesser breed were sort of a gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning the whites against one another in their perverse ways. Yet, such a misconception resulted in the jealous guarding of borders, bleeding hate, and weapons poised against peaceful throats. Once more, the aphorisms Europeans placed upon the Native Americans resulted in their quickened destruction in wars of prejudice. Even though the trends of revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the Native raiding parties came there was basis behind their complaint.
Few Africans participated in the rebellion. But, their contribution "demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause" 3 The elite planter class feared that, joined together against them, the poor would overthrow the rich and thusly "hastened the transition into racial slavery." 3 This showed that, despite discrimination and racism, with the birth of a common enemy, alliances could be formed and the contempt Africans and Englishmen for one another temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. Though their numbers were small, African slaves did indeed join in the rebellion.
After Bacon's rebellion, the servant labor system gave way to a slave labor system defined by racial hierarchy. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more of the abducted were imported. 2 Slaves were present in Chesapeake since 1619. 2, 4 Their slavery and forced labor was made easier by the culture shock of the decimation of their African homelands and the abduction of their persons into the slave trade. 4 Such a distinct change in custom, language, and scenery resulted in the Africans truckle manner to the Europeans for they had few, if any, other options. Unlike the indentured servants of the servant labor system, slaves could never be freed and had no political power, not to mention their life-long labor that provided many planters with wealth. 2 Moreover, tensions present before Bacon's rebellion greatly lessened. 2The fear of revolt by the Europeans was strong, though. For slaves were unable to see other slaves of even leave the premises of those who owned them. 2 Essentially, it was a forced imprisonment and denial of human rights. Then again, such a thing is slavery. Europeans, also, wanted to be better than each other. With the arrival of slave labor and Africans, the English could feel overwhelmingly superior to their slaves instead of attempting to outdo each other. African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the tensions brought on by servant labor system and fellow Europeans turning against each other.
Unfortunately, racism and discrimination survive to bleed strife on all Americans. The political system, for instance, believes that African Americans are the most likely to deal drugs and weapons. Take the "sting" operation that occurred in 2007 at Todd Beamer High School. The undercover police officers focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the majority of the European (white, also known as "Caucasian") school population that sold drugs and guns on and near the campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned themselves, viewed the drug world with bias instead of with cool level headed focus as they should have in order to acquire the multiple drug rings at the school, instead they only stopped one, and most likely only a portion of it. Moreover, George W. Bush, the current president, branded Iraq and its inhabitants as a common enemy to American, even when the terrorists from the traumatic 9-11 bombings came from Sudan. Bush's greed for their long-buried oil, like Bacon and his men's lust for the Native American's land, heightened his discrimination and allowed him to sentence the peoples to genocide by way of his own troops. Moreover, Bush's highly religious beliefs, by which his original statement for Iraq's invasion was "God told me" to do it, led to the close-minded hatred of the Iraqi Muslims' ways, much as the Chesapeake settlers to the Native Americans and Africans. Even on this day, events of social racism occur. From schools, to government, and the streets to entertainment. The censorship that public institutions place on discrimination only entices peoples to indulge in racism because such always brings reaction to one or more of the listeners, most often offense. Thriving in America racism and discrimination continue to afflict her peoples.
Loathing betwixt the kindred of humanity defined by only culture and race live on. Though in 1676 only Native Americans, Englishmen, and Africans inhabited the Chesapeake region, the Europeans held themselves above the other races and looked to them with contempt. Upon the appearance of Deog and Susquehannock raiding parties, Bacon and fellow freeman found incentive to revolt, causing the government to force cooperation of the Pamunkeys; but, resulting in Nathaniel Bacon turning his men, including Africans, against the peaceful tribe. Tensions lessened between the English after the revolt as racial discrimination, along with the slave labor system, began to replace the servant labor system. Even today, discrimination continues, ailing America and her people still. After three hundred years, Americans should have become better than Bacon.
Sources:
1 "Whether they be Friends or Foes: The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflict" by Michael J. Puglisi
2 The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann
3 "Bacon's Rebellion" posted by PBS.org
4 "Drawing the Color Line" by Howard Zenn
For urls and annotations see this site
During the actual occurrence of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, few races inhabited the Chesapeake region. Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans made up this population. Susquehannock, Deog, and Pamunkey Native tribes were those whom played great significance in the revolt. The Iroquaian Susquehannocks were a tribe settled in the northern Chesapeake region, boundaries of their territory stretching both far north and west. 1 Deog Natives settled upstream of the Potomac River 1, which emptied into the Chesapeake Bay, and were rather foreign to the lands about the colony. 1 And as the largest remnant of the Pawhatan chiefdom, the Pamunkeys resided near the colony itself .2 Along with these aborigines were approximately twenty Africans presumed to be, by many historians, slaves. 2, 3 These slaves were prevalent because the colonists were in need for more workers to harvest the labor-intensive crops of tobacco, much as the indentured servants were. 2 European colonists in the region, at this time, were English. With a main export of tobacco, trade flourished betwixt Chesapeake Europeans and their motherland, England. Moreover, the colonists were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying debts through labor), freemen (those with their own land and free of debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government). Despite the presence of these three races, there was little diversity amongst them.
Chesapeake colonists believed themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the Chesapeake region. Upon the English's first encounter with the natives, though, they believed their red-tinted skin to be the "sun's livery." 2 Also, certain traits of the tribes were admired by colonists, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender love... for family... and their simple, independent was of life..." 2. Despite these qualities, and though their skin pigmentation gave way to praise, it was the Native American's culture that gave way to European's belief of superiority. As one Englishman described as "having little humanite but shape" by being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt." 2 Due to the drastically "un-English" manners, it was only right in the name of the colonists to describe them as "savages." 2 Such a discrimination of a foreign culture was borne by England's own belief system. Throughout the histories of Europe, one culture being more sophisticated or dominate over another had been prevalent, such as Christians above Jews. Racism towards Native Americans was not brought one by their appearance, rather their customs and cultures. Africans were also a subject of discrimination by the English. It was not so their "[un-English] ways... [that] struck colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color." 2 Dubbed then "black," in accordance the dark tint of their skin, the Africans were thought of inferior to all those of fairer skins. Some contemporary English definitions of black were "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and for all intents and purposes, evil. 2 Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" the Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were focal points for hatred and blame. 2 Misguided religious beliefs caused such discrimination. Good and evil, such well-worn paths, cannot so simply be phrased as "black" and "white." Aphorisms which humankind tends to enact result only in misconceptions. As thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake natives and slaves from Africa.
There was incentive to revolt amongst the colonists, but certain activities of Native Americans were the final driving forces to push Bacon's Rebellion into existence. On the Virginia frontier in 1670s, Susquehannock and Deog raiding parties appeared. Frightened at the their arrival and angered by the government's minimalistic efforts of protection (which included constructing forts at the heads of nearby rivers) Bacon rallied fellow frontiersman against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... [would provide] release for the colonist's frustrations." 1 Governor William Berkley was against the freemen's actions, fearing the peaceful tribe of Pamunkeys would take offense to the party as they had recently signed treaties with the tribe so that they could keep the lands which English had not settled upon. 1, 2 Eventually, under pressure of the freeman, the Virginian government commanded the Pamunkeys to aid them in the defense of the colony. 2 Twenty years prior, one must know, on another campaign for the colony's defense, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband, Tottopottomoy, and over a third of her tribesmen. 2 At negotiations pertaining to the natives contribution to the defense campaign, she was obstinate but after much debate, the queen allowed one dozen of her men to be under to English's command. 2 Chesapeake region settlers cared little for the Native Americans, and the discrimination of aborigine's culture was so great it resulted in the faith that not even the death of kindred, families, and husbands whom had helped to defend them all was pointless. Contrarily, much as the Europeans admired, the natives allowed kindness and offered more than should have, considering the circumstances placed upon them. Moreover, though, their leaders knew better than to lead their own people to death. Bacon, though, saw the efforts of the government still as worthless and began accusing the elite's of giving alliance to the natives instead of the English, turning soon onto the peaceful Pamunkeys 2. Despite the facts of the natives "never at any time btraye'd or injuryed the English," nor even raising their weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the tribe became a target for the colonists' hate 2. In the mind of the Englishmen, all those of a similar, lesser breed were sort of a gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning the whites against one another in their perverse ways. Yet, such a misconception resulted in the jealous guarding of borders, bleeding hate, and weapons poised against peaceful throats. Once more, the aphorisms Europeans placed upon the Native Americans resulted in their quickened destruction in wars of prejudice. Even though the trends of revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the Native raiding parties came there was basis behind their complaint.
Few Africans participated in the rebellion. But, their contribution "demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause" 3 The elite planter class feared that, joined together against them, the poor would overthrow the rich and thusly "hastened the transition into racial slavery." 3 This showed that, despite discrimination and racism, with the birth of a common enemy, alliances could be formed and the contempt Africans and Englishmen for one another temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. Though their numbers were small, African slaves did indeed join in the rebellion.
After Bacon's rebellion, the servant labor system gave way to a slave labor system defined by racial hierarchy. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more of the abducted were imported. 2 Slaves were present in Chesapeake since 1619. 2, 4 Their slavery and forced labor was made easier by the culture shock of the decimation of their African homelands and the abduction of their persons into the slave trade. 4 Such a distinct change in custom, language, and scenery resulted in the Africans truckle manner to the Europeans for they had few, if any, other options. Unlike the indentured servants of the servant labor system, slaves could never be freed and had no political power, not to mention their life-long labor that provided many planters with wealth. 2 Moreover, tensions present before Bacon's rebellion greatly lessened. 2The fear of revolt by the Europeans was strong, though. For slaves were unable to see other slaves of even leave the premises of those who owned them. 2 Essentially, it was a forced imprisonment and denial of human rights. Then again, such a thing is slavery. Europeans, also, wanted to be better than each other. With the arrival of slave labor and Africans, the English could feel overwhelmingly superior to their slaves instead of attempting to outdo each other. African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the tensions brought on by servant labor system and fellow Europeans turning against each other.
Unfortunately, racism and discrimination survive to bleed strife on all Americans. The political system, for instance, believes that African Americans are the most likely to deal drugs and weapons. Take the "sting" operation that occurred in 2007 at Todd Beamer High School. The undercover police officers focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the majority of the European (white, also known as "Caucasian") school population that sold drugs and guns on and near the campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned themselves, viewed the drug world with bias instead of with cool level headed focus as they should have in order to acquire the multiple drug rings at the school, instead they only stopped one, and most likely only a portion of it. Moreover, George W. Bush, the current president, branded Iraq and its inhabitants as a common enemy to American, even when the terrorists from the traumatic 9-11 bombings came from Sudan. Bush's greed for their long-buried oil, like Bacon and his men's lust for the Native American's land, heightened his discrimination and allowed him to sentence the peoples to genocide by way of his own troops. Moreover, Bush's highly religious beliefs, by which his original statement for Iraq's invasion was "God told me" to do it, led to the close-minded hatred of the Iraqi Muslims' ways, much as the Chesapeake settlers to the Native Americans and Africans. Even on this day, events of social racism occur. From schools, to government, and the streets to entertainment. The censorship that public institutions place on discrimination only entices peoples to indulge in racism because such always brings reaction to one or more of the listeners, most often offense. Thriving in America racism and discrimination continue to afflict her peoples.
Loathing betwixt the kindred of humanity defined by only culture and race live on. Though in 1676 only Native Americans, Englishmen, and Africans inhabited the Chesapeake region, the Europeans held themselves above the other races and looked to them with contempt. Upon the appearance of Deog and Susquehannock raiding parties, Bacon and fellow freeman found incentive to revolt, causing the government to force cooperation of the Pamunkeys; but, resulting in Nathaniel Bacon turning his men, including Africans, against the peaceful tribe. Tensions lessened between the English after the revolt as racial discrimination, along with the slave labor system, began to replace the servant labor system. Even today, discrimination continues, ailing America and her people still. After three hundred years, Americans should have become better than Bacon.
Sources:
1 "Whether they be Friends or Foes: The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflict" by Michael J. Puglisi
2 The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann
3 "Bacon's Rebellion" posted by PBS.org
4 "Drawing the Color Line" by Howard Zenn
For urls and annotations see this site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
