History

One of our questions to answer as we prepared to do today's reading asked us to guess how our history books would portray the events we were going to read about. I hadn't really thought about Paul Johnson's point of view on history, but after reading the question and thinking about it I've come to this: Johnson portrays the history of America in a worldly way. He explains what was going on in certain parts of the world that directly related to what was happening in the colonies and the founding of our country. For example, on page 71 he explains that America was being colonized right at the time of "smoldering dispute between the king and parliament". Because of this dispute, Johnson explains, the history of America took the course it did. Throughout the rest of his book Johnson explains events in worldly context. He describes the different groups of people, where they were from and why they decided to come to America. He differs from Takaki because he doesn't focus on them but certainly takes them into account.

African Homes

As we study the homes of plantation owners verses the homes of the slaves, we are quick to label them as "poor", "minimal" and in general "not good". What we fail to realize is that these are the same words we would use to describe the homes of the average American of the time. We only thing the homes of the slaves to be unacceptable when we compare them to those of their owners. We discussed this very idea in class, but what we didn't point out (which I think may be a bit more significant) was that the homes of the slaves were not all that much different from what they experienced at in Africa.



"the use of consistently smaller room unit matches up with what is known of the usual spatial patterns for proxemic codes of West and Central Africa" pg 225 from "Afro-American Housing in Virginia's Landscape of Slavery"

We think they're living situation to be detestable, but really, it was just what they were used to. I think this is a good example of how our own experiences, standards and expectations can give a skewed perspective on history. It's really hard, but we need to learn to step back and think about the context and to approach facts from the right point of view.

As I read "Architecture and Education" I couldn't help but to think about The Fountainhead. The climax of the story occurs when Howard Roark blows up the brilliant building he designed because the people building it were taking the beautiful structure he created and turning it ugly. The beauty of the building was in what it would accomplish for society. It was perfectly designed for impoverished people who could not afford housing else where. The people in charge of it's construction decided thy physical beauty was not good enough and decided to "improve" upon it. Reading "Architecture and Education" was like jumping into the mind of Howard Roark and understanding how he created his buildings. So many people think beauty is physical when they need to understand beauty is a concept.

Orr stars with this quote:
The worst thing we can do to our children is convince them that ugliness is normal.

If we don't teach the next generations what is wrong, nothing will change. If we don't show them how a building can be ugly (no matter how many flowers are planted around it)then how will they learn to make it beautiful?

I think our society is starting to move from ugliness to beauty. More and more we see and hear about fair trade, environmentally friendly and sustainable methods. Many of these ideas are new and just starting to get under way and they will take a long time to bloom. Habits are hard to break, but I think we are on our way to breaking these habits by teaching the next generations what is ugly and how to make it beautiful .

More college campuses!

Something Very Great and Very New
Pg. 152
"But what Jefferson wanted was indeed 'something very great and very new': a university that would be wholly secular and utterly independent of any religious institution. An outpost of the Enlightenment, this university would be 'so broad, so liberal, and modern' he told Joseph Priestly".

It's understandable why Jefferson would call his unaffiliated college "new" and "liberal". This was a time where religion still had a very strong hold on the way society ran as a whole. To have a highly regarded institution (higher education was a BIG deal) that wasn't lining up with what they considered to be the highest institution of all (God) must have been completely absurd, I find it interesting that Jefferson, from what is presented in this article, was able to gain a lot of support of the idea. The fact that his earlier attempt failed makes me wonder if it's secularism had anything to do with how people's opinion of the school was formed.Even today it's somewhat unusual to find a college (with the exception of public schools) that doesn't have a religious affiliation. For the most part, they do.

As Jefferson was sketching and planning his campus and college I wonder if he thought about the concepts described in "Campus: An American Planning Tradition". Did he think about the kinds of characteristics St. Olaf embraces? And lastly, I couldn't help to wonder, why didn't we read this when we were talking about landscapes?

Johnson
Pg. 154
"It also wanted to give the future citizens of America a classic statement of what their country was about, so that their children and their children's children could study it and learn it by heart."

We kind of discussed this in class on Monday. We had reached the conclusion that those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence didn't realize that what they were writing would be studied for generations and generations to come and therefore did not keep notes or records on the process. Johnson clearly rebuts this. I have to say I completely agree with Johnson. The founding fathers knew quiet well exactly what they were doing and what it meant for the country. This was not some friendly letter they were sending to the king. They were basically saying "take that! HA! We tried, but you didn't listen so we're going to form our own country." Even if the revolution had failed it would still be something that would be studied for generations to come. It would have been a significant piece of history about the attempt made by the colonies to overthrow the super power of the world. The founding fathers also knew that if this declaration and revolution succeeded, this would be dubbed as the start of a new nation. No matter how you look at it, the founding fathers were brilliant people who knew exactly what they were doing and what it could mean for the world for generations and generations to come.

I never realized how much finger pointing there was during the revolution. Cullen's paraphrase of their arguments not only made me laugh but made me realize what each side was claiming. In general, chapter two of Cullen's book helped me realize how ambiguous the revolution was. I feel like nobody was really on the same page. They all had different goals and objectives and interpreted the Declaration in different ways. In a way I'm starting to get the feeling Americans were starting to throw hissy fits. They got so used to being very separated from the rest of the English government that when they were being ruled or controlled they didn't like it. Of course, they were  right in the sense that they should have representation in England. Their "hissy fits" kind of reminds me of my old job. When I first started we had one supervisor who didn't do much supervising. She trusted me and the two other pages to do what needed to be done when it needed to and that we wouldn't abuse her trust. We could do our jobs they way we wanted, take our breaks when we wanted and pretty much do as we pleased. Then she left and we got a new supervisor. He started changing things and would direct us and tell us what to do when and we had to check in with him before and after we took our breaks. At first we were really upset because he was doing what normal managers and supervisors do; we were just used to our old boss and her lack of actual supervision. We really had no reason to be upset; he was just doing his job.

Again?

The fact that The Boston Tea Party wasn't called the The Boston Tea Party until much later relates, in a sense, to Pocahontas (I can't believe I'm writing about her again, I was hoping we were done with her). Things were twisted and we're really not sure what is true and what is not. Obviously we know the Boston Tea Party did actually happen, who did it and why, but what we don't know is where the name came from. Just like Pocahontas, the origins are a little if-y. Now that we have 2 examples of uncertainty in well known historical events/people, it makes me wonder what other parts of history we have had drilled into our brains that may actually have sketchy information supporting it.

Tea

As I was talking to my boyfriend yesterday, I told him about these two articles on tea. "That sounds really boring" he said. I quickly defended tea by exclaiming that tea completely transformed the world. In his disbelief at my seeming over exaggerated statement he said to me "It's just tea, how could it do that?" Honestly, that's a very good question. It's a hot drink that, in my mind, is way inferior to coffee. I was amazed at how the history and the politics behind tea really did transform a nation. It created industry, social rituals and had an affect on the whole temperance of a nation. To me, this is just another example of what you can learn from history from seemingly unconventional sources. Just like when we read the articles on inventory and goods of colonial time, I learned how much can be drawn from something that I never would have given a second thought.

Ben Frankling part 2

I don't know what else to say about Mr. Benjamin Franklin. As I stated earlier, he may have been a bit pretentious but certainly was smart. He achieved so much in his lifetime. It makes me wonder how the early days of the United States would have turned out if he hadn't been involved.

I was very amused when he said if they had used his plan for the colonies there wouldn't have been any taxes and the entire revolution could have been avoided.

Lately I've been thinking about how history is taught. We learn about people like Benjamin Franklin when we're little, but it's so sugarcoated. We never hear about their personalities, their beliefs and anything controversy. We're lead to believe these historical characters are saints. It's almost shocking when someone hears the truth about these idolized historical characters. I guess there is only so much one can tell a little kid and only so much they can understand. I just think we find out the truth too late.

Ben Franklin

He was quite proud of himself, wasn't he?
You have to admit he was a great learner. There was nothing he wasn't able to teach himself. It just goes to show you that the underdogs are usually the ones who come out on top. I'm amazed at how much we have today that was started by him, talk about a legacy.
The entire time I was reading about him I kept thinking about a quote from Thomas Jefferson. "I cannot live without books". Benjamin Franklin definitely embodies that. Where would he have been if he didn't have books? Certainly not in our history books.

Things Material

When I realized what this article was going to be about I started dreading it. I thought "how exciting can furniture be? Or the differences in diets?

I was very surprised at how interesting it was. I never thought about trying to analyze a group of people (or anything for that matter) based on where their furniture came from. I was amazed at the conclusions and the information that can be drawn from seemingly odd sources. Things that seem so normal and mundane to us can actually tell stories in ways we never would have dreamed of. I never thought that in order to understand history you needed to look at such sources. I always thought information came from written word and documentation. It makes me wonder what people are going to conclude about us in 300 years based on our material things.

Possessions

According to Sarah Green, it seems as if when a person died the government took over. It was the government who tallied the possessions and made sure everything went to where it was supposed to go and that everything was taken care of. Although I have been fortunate enough to never have lost a loved one or a family member or had to go through the process of sorting out the possessions of someone who has passed on, it seems to me that this is now a family responsibility. Unless they person had legal obligations, the government stays out of the process.

Going through one's belongings is a strange ordeal. I understood this for the first time this summer has I prepared to move onto campus. I had to go through and pack everything I owned. I needed to pack not only what I was bringing to school, but everything. I had to clear out my room so my little brother could move in. Going through my old stuff brought back a lot of memories and emotions. It also made me wonder why I had so much junk when I was little. I think going through all my stuff this summer really helped prepare me for this new chapter in my life. Selecting what to pack away and what to donate was a form of closure. I packed away one part of my life and got ready to move on to the next. Only a few things made the cut and were allowed to come with me into a new part of my life.


Lofted bed with sheets, 2 pillows, a comfert, 2 blankets, small pillow and stuffed monkey

Storage drawer with food, 2 plates, 2 forks, 2 knives, 2 spoons, 2 coffee mugs, a cup, paper towels, coffee thermos, straws, twisty ties, ihome and zip lock bags

Folding chair with foot stool

Shower caddy with shampoo, conditioner, soap, wash sponge, flip flops and face soap

Desk with novels, textbooks, paper, pencils, pens, crayons, colored pencils erasers, paper clips, tape, glue, white out, post its, thumbtacks, 4 pictures in frames, a lamp, an alarm clock, a jewelry box, a flashlight, silver fortune cookie, journals, notebooks, a bag of milky ways, stationary, a calculator, wallet, folders, computer mouse, laptop, and index cards

Closet with a dresser full of clothes, a laundry hamper, box with 4 pairs of shoes, hangers, hanging coats and sweaters, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, disinfectant wipes, dish soap, sponge, dusting wipes, glass cleaner, box of medicine, box of make up, hair dryer, hair straightener, extra set of sheets, an extra bath towels, rain boots, snow boots, luggage, box of food, air mattress, an extra purse, travel bags, sewing kit, keepsake box, perfume, hair products, make up, brush, comb, deodorant, lotion and a mirror.

Never Ending Journey

From all the reading we've done and all the discussions we've had about Pocahontas one thing is clear: we don't really know what is fact and what is fiction. We don't really know what she looked like, how old she was, what she did or how many times she was married. I feel as though every source we look at we find some new piece of sketchy information. For example, in today's reading we heard for the first time that she might have saved John Smith TWICE. It kind of makes me wonder why so many people are so fascinated by someone we neither know now about nor will ever know very about. It's not like she was some hugely important figure. It's not like she was the first president of the United States or wrote the Declaration of Independence. No. She was a teenage girl caught up with an English sailor, was captured and converted to Christianity so she could move to England and die.

Lost

I find it amazing that anyone can figure out what the true story of Pocahontas was. There are so many different stories and variations it's almost over whelming. How can we believe the "real" story of Pocahontas when the story was around before she even was. Maybe her story is made to fit the other stories. Maybe what we believe she did and what happened to her really didn't but it was made to look like it did. There are so many different opinions of her it's hard to sift through it all and put together a story. It's like a giant game of telephone only we'll never know the truth.

Will the real John Smith please stand up?

Of course, as I started reading the John Smith 1608 assignment, I expected it to be just like the Disney movie I watched dozens and dozens of times as a little girl. Of course, as I largely expected, it wasn't very much like the animated semi-musical movie. Or should I say, the animated semi-musical movie isn't very much like the actual story. To be quite honest, everything I knew (prior to this reading) about Pocahontas and John Smith came from Disney. I never knew that John Smith and his men traveled far and wide to trade, meet with Native Americans and (largely out of necesity) trade goods and supplies.

A side note, I did, in fact, know that John Smith's men almost starved to death. Disney does include that in the movie.

I was surprised the most by the little violence between the settlers and the Native Americans. Of course there was some fighting, but John Smith didn't seem to encounter too much of it and was able to keep a fair amount of peace with the Native Americans.

Carnivals

Although I was very confused at first (I'm not sure why, I just was) about the extensive descriptions and discussion on carnivals in "Playing Indians", I found myself thinking back to my AP English class junior year. My teacher, Mr. Bardin (a very frightening person whom you hate to love but do in the end), went on a rant one day (which happened quite often) about how only in America and England do people make fun of everything and everything, especially themselves. It was interesting to read about these carnivals and how they developed and be able to relate them back to that day in Bardin's class. It was interesting to see how the carnivals of the time of early New England and of modern days compare and contrast. In general, they have the same activities and ideas but the purpose and the attitudes towards them have changed dramatically. It makes me wonder how carnivals (if they even still exist) will be like in another 200 years.

Dull

I was so excited to read "Learning for the Pueblos" after I read the other article because I was so interested by the first one. "Learning from the Pueblos" was really dry in comparison. I felt like the message could have been presented in a lot less words and pictures. It would have saved a lot of StOPrint money. It also presents another sad story of western civilization destroying so much beauty and culture because it's not they way the think it should be. Most of the time they were wrong and destroyed a really good thing and forced their inefficient and destructive ways upon people who didn't need these new ways.

Part Time Indians and Privacy

I've never really known much about Native Americans or southwest United States. As I was reading  this article I was very surprised by a lot of things and made a lot of connections to other things I've read and learned about.

I've always known that the settlers of the United States and later the United States government hasn't always been willing to work and co-exist with the Native Americans. Right from the start they've been seen as "savages" who need to be civilized and converted to Christianity. When ever I think about the oppression and intolerance to the Native Americans, I always think of early settlement days and the 1800s when we started moving west. I never realized the oppression went on well in the the 20th century. As Swentzell explained in the article, the United States government tired to change the ways of the Native Americans up to the 1920s. To me this is modern times. The article specifically lists 1928 (82 years ago) as the end of trying to assimilate Native Americans and I think abut my grandparents. Today my grandparents are 86 and 82 and it shocks me to think this oppression is something that happened in their lifetime. It makes it feel so much closer to me to think my grandparents witnessed this.

As I got a little further into the article I realized that about 2 years ago I read a book called The Absolutley True Diary of a Part Time Indian by Sherman Alexie (published in 2007) and talked a lot about the school systems on the reservations. It talked about the differences in the Native American way of life at home and the life at school and outside the reservation. If I remember correctly, the stories in Alexie's novel took place in the 70s, and if that's true, it still amazes me how life is being forced to change for some people.

The best connection I made with this article was the topic of privacy. In Pueblo villages privacy is not what we think of it in our lifestyle. There was no true privacy in Pueblo villages. All space was shared and served several different purposes. This made me think of my transition into college and dorm life. You never really have a moment to yourself and suddenly all of your space is shared. At home I was used to my own room (kind of in it's own corner of the house), my own bathroom and spend most of my time by myself. I would be the only one up in the mornings as I got ready for school, spend most of my evenings shut up in my silent room doing homework, and stayed  up later than everyone else in my house. Even at work I was alone as I shelved books in a silent library. I came to St. Olaf and suddenly had to share a room (much smaller than my bedroom at home), a bathroom with 19 other girls and understand that there is no where I can go where it would be quiet and free of other people. I've gotten used to it now and embrace the community I'm part of and love that I'm always around people who are just like me. Coincidentally, my roommate went home this past weekend and it's so weird not having her here and I'm so excited for her to come back today. I miss having someone to talk to all the time and I miss having her around (especially since I went on the ghost tour on Friday night I'm terrified to stay in my room by myself).

I was very surprise that I was able to make so many connections to this text when I really don't know much about the people discussed or the areas described.

Finally!

As I was reading the Puritan Readins of the New England Landscape, I came across this quote at the top of page 134

"God [to the Puritans] is not to be understood but to be adorned"

For some reason it was this quote that finally made everything about Anne Hutchinson click. I understood that the people of her society disproved of her "connection with God" but I could never understand why. I didn't realize that the Puritans look at God as a mystical being that is not to be understood but simply admired. I know it's not unusual for different religions to look at God as an all powerful being, more mighty than human understand can come to grasp, but I didn't realize the Puritans didn't even think people should not try to understand God. They just felt he should be accepted as is.

It's such a simple quotation bit it was definitely an "ah ha!" moment for me.

Communities

I enjoyed the readings for 9/29's class. I thought it was interesting to hear about the way in which Manitou Heights was chosen for St. Olaf College and they way in which American colleges and universities developed. For some reason I was surprised when I read in "The American Campus as an 'Academical Village'" that the "architect's job not only designs the individual buildings but the creation of a whole community."

The strong community here at St. Olaf is one of the main reasons why I'm here. I wanted the warm and welcoming atmosphere and a place I would be happy to live day by day in. I never really thought about how this community was put together. Did the architect's over St. Olaf's history think about this when they designed the campus? Is that the reason we have so much land (I've heard at least 300 acres) but all out buildings are close enough that I can get from Hoyme all the way to Old Main in 7 minutes? Big universities, as well as small colleges, are built over a long period of time. Have people been thinking about the community they build from day one of construction? Why weren't English universities built with this in mind?

Speaking

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was enthralled by the Anne Hutchinson reading. Although I was fascinated by her life and her bravery, it was this quote on page 490 that I found most interesting:

"Perhaps she believed that what she said was true"

It's so simple but it's so surprising how many people don't say what they believe in or believe in what they say. Even people are afraid to be out spoken for reasons we can all easily brainstorm, I still find it unfortunate. I feel as though if we don't speak what we believe we can never be who we want to be. It shields the world from seeing who we really are. In a way it's restricting our freedom. T.T. Williams would say this is holding back our democracy. We can't have democracy unless we say what we believe. 

Many people don't speak what they believe because they think others won't listen. As we discussed freedom's in class last week someone pointed out that we all have the freedom to speech and with that comes with the freedom to listen to others. As I read in Richard Lederer's essay "English is a Crazy Language" during my senior year in high school, we all need to "take a step back and listen to the sounds that escape from the hole's in people's faces." Maybe if we did that more people would be like Anne Hutchinson and believe what they say is true.

Anne Hutchinson

So far this has been my favorite reading. I've found all the of the articles and readings about the Puritans interesting (mostly because I loved reading Nathanial Hawthrone's The Scarlett Letter) but I found reading about Anne Hutchinson to be fascinating. I might have been enthralled because I have never known much about her or taken the time to find look into her life and history. As I read this article, I couldn't help but to wonder why they made such a big deal out of her and her teachings. Westerkamp makes it very, very clear that Anne was not the first person to put forth these ideas, teachings and movements. She wasn't even the first women to bring up these ideas. So why condemn and punish her? Why was Anne Hutchinson outcast from her home, community and family? Was it because her voice simply the loudest?

The Catholics and "Blago"

As I started reading the first chapter of The American Dream by Jim Cullen, I came across a passage that, if I had not been paying close enough attention, I would have thought had come from a recent news article from back home. 

Found on page 19, Cullen is explaining that "one of the most important reasons for the Protestant Reformation in the first place: the Roman Catholic practice of selling indulgences whereby the rich could buy forgiveness of their sins. What made this so repellent was not so much what might bother someone today- a kind of class inequality that suggested salvation went to the highest bidder".

To me, that compared to former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, trying to sell Obama's vacant senate seat to the highest bidder. 

From this comparison I can completely understand how many people felt about the Roman Catholics "selling forgiveness". It's shocking, unbelievable and morally questionable.

Instead of preaching that through faith in a loving God everyone can be saved the Roman Catholics were advertising eternal life to the wealthiest members of society. Does that really convey the message of God's love and mercy?

And instead of going through the proper procedures and regulations for replacing the senate seat "Blago" tried to sell it. How can that be considered democratic in the least?

A Wife Explains Why She Likes Country

Quote: "I'm fixin' to wear boots to the dance/ and make my hair bigger, because no smarty-pants, just easy rhymes,/ perfect love, because I'm lost deep within myself and the sad songs call me out,/ because even you with your superior aesthetic cried/ when Tammy Wynette died,"

From "A Wife Explains Why She Likes Country"
Found in the last 1/3 of the poem


I decided to use this quote for today's blog post because, quite frankly, it really confused me. As I was reading the poem I understood that the author, Barbara Ras, was describing the country,a rural lifestyle and the scenery, activities and ideals that come with it. What I didn't understand was who Tammy Wynette was. Was she a real person? If so what did she do? Who was she? Maybe she was a myth or urban legend? If that was the case, what did she represent. I knew the line and the meaning of the poem as a whole would make more sense and have more meaning to it if I understood this allusion.

I immediately looked up Tammy Wynette and found out she was one of the most influential female country singers who not only had a successful career during the 1970s (and really up until her death in 1998), but also paved the way for other country female artists.

After reading this (and much more) about Tammy Wynette, I understood the meaning of the poem much more. Barbara Ras was trying to depict why she is so influenced by the country and why it means so much to her. To make a reference to one of the most influential female country starts packs a lot of punch.

Witnessing a lifetime

When I first clicked on the link that directed us to the essays by T.T Williams my stomach dropped. What I initially though was going to be a fairly quick assignment looked was going to take all night to complete. Much to my surprise, as I started on the essay "Commencement" I found myself thoroughly enjoying not only the writing style of Williams, but the message as well. I was intrigued by the idea of democracy being a constant battle and something we always need to be fussing about.
Although I was facinated by the ideas and themes Williams presented, what struck me most was one of the first parts of the first essay. Williams was describing her meeting with a few members of the graduating class of the University of Utah and how she heard "mature voices, steady minds speaking from a generation that had witnessed the beginning of two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, while students at the university." Immeditatly my thoughts went to a subject I often find myself pondering:  my generation might only be 18 years old but we've seen an awful lot and I wonder what else we're going to see in our lifetimes.

Like the graduating class of Utah I can remember the start of both of those wars.

I can remember 9/11and what my 9 year old mind made of the censored information my parents gave me. Reflecting back, I now find it hard to remember what the pre 9/11 world was like.

I can remember the natural disasters; the hurricanes, the earth quakes, the tsunamis and the over whelming responses from people all over the world looking to give a helping hand in the end.

I can remember the economic turmoil, the first African-American president and all the corruption our (well, at least in Illinois, after all, we do have quite the track record when it comes to governors) society has seen.


Of course these are things I'm always going to remember, but when I sit in retrospect for a while, my thoughts eventually turn to the future.

What else will my generation (and the 2003 graduating class of Utah) see in the years to come?

T.T Williams may have only scarcely brushed on the subject of retrospect but it definitely stuck with me and definitely got me thinking about the past and imagining what could come in the future.