So three historical figures walk into a bar...

Setting: A Paris Café.  Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson sit a table.  One chair remains, sitting in half shadow.  A man named Rick walks in, mumbling about gin joints.  He walks out again.  He is never seen again.  Benjamin and Thomas are having a big glass of red wine, giggling as Benjamin mumbles.

Ben: I’d like to order the salad.  I’m a vegetarian you know.  By not eating meat; I have money which enables me to buy more books.

Thomas Jefferson: I have to concur, I will be in no man’s debt, and by not being a man’s debt, I too have found freedom.

Ben: Why yes, money is very important to enabling the dream of freedom.

                Anne walks in.  The chair is moved into the spotlight.

Anne: I have to disagree.

Ben: Oh Annie, you’ve always got something to say, don’t you?

Anne: Well, Ben.  Tommy.  I just have to say that I doubt that money is the most important aspect of freedom.

Ben: Annie, you’re always questioning something, aren’t you?”

Anne: Well Ben.  I’d think that individual thoughts of freedom are infinitely more important.  If I am not allowed to think, am I truly free?  Money may enable this freedom, but I doubt that it is the most important aspect.

Tom: That’s rich coming from someone who had a husband who was a well off cloth merchant.  You’re not exactly living in squalor, are you babe?

Anne: Tom.  Why notice the speck in my eye and ignore the log in your own?

Ben: You silly people, religion is an important aspect of freedom also. Let’s not go into silly attacks over hypocrisy.  I’ve never been hypocritical, so I grow bored by this conversation.

Anne: Thanks for that Ben, you’re really contributing to the conversation.

Ben: That response was so heated, it fogged up my bifocals.

Thomas: Why am I a hypocrite, Miss Hutchinson?

Anne: Tommy.  A man who keeps slaves and then claims to value individual freedom above all…to be in no man’s debt, but then to be…massively in debt?  It seems like you’re a bit of a hypocrite.  That’s all.

Ben: You’d question an authority figure?  He was a former president!

Thomas: Like you’re that surprised.  Ann questioning authority and causing dissent?  It’s never happened before!”

Anne: Ben.  Stop talking.  You’ve rambled enough.  Go build a stove or something.

Ben: Can I just say, and by the way, Annie, I’m practicing temperance and humility right now, I’m going to tell you that I concur.   We cannot speak on freedoms that we do not practice, despite our intentions.  But if we are to become more realized within our freedoms, there must be a chance at religious freedom, and freedom of life.  My vision of freedom is not mine alone; rather we must look for some sort of unified vision.

Anne: There has to be an aspect of the individual, Ben.  Freedom is not a unified vision.  Just as religion is not a unified vision-

Thomas: But we can have some basic guidelines.  A man may pursue different forms of happiness; but are we not ultimately seeking a happiness? All Christians follow the bible to some degree.  But it is up to their interpretation.

Ben: Ah Tommy.  You’re so right.  Now, let us leave this restaurant and go buy books.

Anne: I’ll be off on my family vacation to New York.  I’ll be seeing you gentlemen.

Wordle

I did a wordle of my blog....that's where it counts the words that you've used to most and puts them into a pretty picture!  Yay, let's see what I'm thinking about.

This shows that it's super pretty and I think about slavery a lot.  The bigger the word is, the more it's been used.  Y'all should try this, I find it cool.

House Elves, Slavery, OMGILUVHARRYPOTTER

Well, today in class we tried to draw parallels between house elves and slaves.  It was mentioned that it was surprising that JK Rowling would put a....less than modern issue in her book?  Is that how it was worded?  Well, it was to the effect that slavery in the literal sense seemed outdated.  However, I may have misinterpreted this because I was up at the midnight premiere.  Anyway, I'd just like to say that I think slavery is very modern and is in keeping with the ideals that JK tries to put forth with her books: unconditional love, equality, questioning the norms and doing what is right. 

Even the outfits symbolize their different mindsets. Both in the rags of their masters, but with different outlooks, dark and light.  I love finding symbolism in unlikely and unintentional places!

Dobby's plight is really poignant because he can never really break free of this stereotype. However, he tries and I think this makes him incredibly sympathetic.  He's spunky.  He still falls back into the slave mindset, but breaking your mind free of any behavior takes a great deal of time and work.  Rock on, Dobby.  I hope there are socks in heaven.
Contrast that with Kreacher, and it's even better.  He's stuck in the rut of the slave, but he's less sympathetic because he revels in the stereotypes that he was taught.  He blindly goes with what his former masters said, mudbloods are bad.  Pure bloods are good.  (Four legs good, two legs better?) However, I almost see Kreacher as more sympathetic and more telling as to what being enslaved can do to you.  Keep telling someone the same thing over and over again, and they'll believe it.  Not right away, but eventually, you start to wonder, you know.
Another interesting thing about house elves.  They're tied to houses, not to families.  What a cool parallel considering the whole economic aspect of having slaves.  Having a house elf makes you a  rich owner first, a lazy jerk second.  Tie that in again with some house elves enjoying slavery...Rock on Rowling.  I found it more relevant than a lot of things we've been talking about lately.  Life is complicated, stereotypes are more than just the mindset of the oppressors.  Relevant in any context. 

"A certain degree of misery seems inseparable from a high degree of populousness."-James Madison

 Slavery is still a sticky subject.  Whenever slavery comes up in class, you can be assured that I am wincing at the mere mention of the concept.  Even though I had nothing to do with it personally, nor did my family (we emigrated in the 1900s and 1920s) it still saddens me. I am still an American citizen, those stories are a part of my heritage, and I feel as though it is a part of my collective past. How can someone take a life like that?
Reading about Thomas Jefferson's plan to free his slaves (never carried out) it struck me that slavery isn't just  the lack of freedom.  It's a lack of education.  It's a lack of a better solution.  The more people there are, the harder it is to find jobs, the harder it is to compete.  When people are limited, they're limited by a society that lacks a better solution.

Harry Potter 7

More countdown widgets at Widgia.com

I don't care that I have two back to back tests followed by a three hour shift at work.  Thursday is going to be a good day.

Houses and Hierarchies

I found it incredibly intriguing that a house could show how one tried to gain power. A house is an indication of social standing within a society, so I'm a little peeved at myself for not drawing that connection.  Coupled in by the idea that Jefferson wrote the Declaration about "all men are equal" and all that jazz, it's odd to see a clear division of social structures within his home.  His family was hidden behind certain doors in certain rooms and the servants were not to be seen.  He was self sufficient, but still required servants for his basic needs and to serve his many relatives.  His home cloistered people off, but he wrote about being inclusive of everyone, or at least giving them those opportunities.

Don't Mess with the Classics

Reading about neoclassical architecture really makes one think about the influence that architecture (which is apparently termed as a fine art) and art has upon the human psyche.  The reading we did on Jefferson mentioned that his love of classical designs in architecture were tied to his political leanings.  He hated English architecture not only because it was tacky looking, but because it was made by the English.
To him, it symbolized a close mindedness, a final, inflexible, stodgy pretentiousness.  This seems like a bit of a stretch, that it's just a man who hates everything about the English, including their art.  But, apparently, architecture is a big deal to a lot of people.
I found this quote: "A modern, harmonic and lively architecture is the visible sign of an authentic democracy."It was written by Walter Gropius.  He was a german architect, who was born in 1883.  However, this is relevant because it serves to emphasize that architecture, art, aesthetic things, ultimately symbolize a lot more than a building or shelter.
How we make things look, the way we picture things, serves to emphasize how we want things to look, but also how we want things to be.  By making his architecture more open, more influenced by the Classical period, Jefferson was trying to spread a message of openness, and create a foundation (Bad pun, I apologize) that we can all build upon.

Medieval things are Sooo Cool!

"The modern college is not a factory where utilities and commodities are turned out whole­sale. It is rather an Alma Mater, a cherishing mother for the development of rich and inde­pendent individualities and personalities. Something of the romance and the magic of a mystic quest, something of the spirit of a crusader has a right there."-Dr. C.A. Melby

I like the wordage of this quote.  I like it a lot.  Maybe more than I've ever liked wording in any academic article that I've ever had to read.  That's quite a lot, coming from me.
It is interesting to note that this seems to come from a European perspective.  What I mean is that they reference the spirit of the crusader, which reminds of me of a knight or lord on a Crusade or mayhaps heading towards the Crusades.   But it's about the modern college (well 1927 modern).  This seems to almost be a throwback to the medieval college, the British or European college of yore. Quests make me think of King Arthur, they're not an American concept.  So even though he says that it's very modern, it comes off as kind of old fashioned/not very individualistic/not a very American concept of a college.

On an unrelated tangent, I like that this was written by a history/economics major.  I guess it proves that English majors aren't the only people who can write.  (That doesn't mean I'm going to switch majors, but it's something to think about, definitely).

Howard Zinn is an angry guy

I found this online and it amused me greatly.  It feels like Zinn maintains a focus upon the Europeans being totally lame and whatnot.  It's interesting to note that every history, no matter what it claims to be, is ultimately biased in some manner, or people can think that is biased.  Perceptions are important.  This can color our whole viewing of the American Revolution, or American history.  Is history really written by the winners, or do we only listen to the winners?

Takaki and the Declaration

Once again, Ronald Takaki barely mentions something that I find to be an important topic in American History and the development of an American Identity...There were five pages that referenced the declaration of Independence, and these were all in passing.
When the Declaration is mentioned, it is almost always in this form "Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence...(rant about how everyone hated him).  Okay...not really (Three out of five times, it talks about how hypocritical it was of Jefferson to keep slaves), but it's usually referenced when referring to an issue of race, whether it be slavery or the Japanese Internment Camps during WW2.
I'm just confused to his motivations because these are important things he's skipping over.  It's interesting to me that he would skip over such important things when they do influence Americans and how they view themselves. Is this to emphasize how the Declaration only really seems to help white, aristocratic, male members of society?  Or is he just glossing over it because someone reading his book would have their own perceptions of it?  I can get his devaluing of Ben Franklin (my god, yes I can) and I could kind of justify the lack of Boston Tea Party...but I just don't understand.

"The persistent use of "he" and "them," "us" and "our," "we" and "they" personalizes the British-American conflict and transfigures it from a complex struggle of multifarious origins and diverse motives to a simple moral drama in which a patiently suffering people courageously defend their liberty against a cruel and vicious tyrant. It also reduces the psychic distance between the reader and the text and coaxes the reader into seeing the dispute with Great Britain through the eyes of the revolutionaries"- The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence, Stephen E. Lucas

Yes.  Finally, someone understands what I've been saying for years.  Pronouns matter.  I really enjoyed this insight because it emphasizes a propaganda (yes...I think this is propaganda) that tends to lead everyone on.  By using words like "we" and "us" there is a feeling of camaraderie that is created.  It really does lead people into feeling like they're a part of a cause.

We've got to use our brains when reading things like this (See what I did there?)  Otherwise, we can be very easily misled.  Oh, the irony is delicious.

Sort of an apology?

Jefferson probably didn't use Hutcheson's equation to run his life, or to write the Declaration of Independence, but the idea makes me smile.  The fact that this equation exists and was held by a person in the movement that Jefferson was an ardent follower of...well, it really makes me think.  I can't really generalize a person's viewpoint based on a couple of people.

So...I guess that I'm just trying to say that I get that the Tea Party does not consist of bunch of racists.  Can I think that some of them are?  Yes.  But to generalize in that manner makes me look just as stupid as I think they are.  Extremists are in every movement.

Anyway, back to the equation.  I found it interesting that one would attempt to apply to this concepts that we see as theoretical and abstract.  It's a really good example of the rationalist viewpoint, the enlightened viewpoint.  But I don't think it works because, in the same reading, it talks about how we're much more likely to remember the abstract points of the Declaration of Independence as opposed to the concrete grievances.

So...wrapping up, this equation, while having it's heart (well, mind) in the right place, ultimately doesn't work because it tries to explain concepts that aren't concrete, and that's the point.  We wrap ourselves around an idea because we can put our own spin on it.  Making an idea concrete, could make it lose its power.

Unfair treatment vs. Idiocy

Actually, no, your signs aren't racist.  What's racist is that two thirds of the signs I saw when I googled "Tea Party Movement" were racist.  The Press isn't calling you racist; you're doing racist things.  Not all tea partiers, but enough to make people take note.  Plus, according to the latest gallop poll, 82% of tea partiers support the new immigration law in Arizona and are anti same sex marriage.  Surprisingly, holding those sentiments tend to make you look bigoted/racist.  Shocking, I know.

Hawaii is not a foreign country.  It's really not.  We acquired it in 1959.  It's in my history textbook and everything.  Maybe you could try validating your facts before hurling them out uselessly in an argument?

Really.  You expect people to not take offense/take notice of you when you're so blatantly offensive?  Maybe if you had a real argument, you'd get people to listen to your viewpoints.  Please stop telling me that you're all about economic issues when this sign is clearly not emphasizing a primarily economic viewpoint.  The communist Russia symbol is clearly secondary to President Obama in his supposed tribal garb. This sign makes me sick to my stomach.  But, it's necessary to acknowledge.  This is an ugly thing, looking at signs like this is going to be ugly.

Yeah.  I refuse to believe that the press is really warping your views that much.  Here's the rest of the story: When you use arguments that rely upon the race of your opponent; you're going to come off as racist.  Just explain to me what this sign has to do with anything political besides the fact that you're angry with the president?  Just tell me why this sign helps your cause/furthers your economic viewpoint.  That's all I want.  Then I'll maybe listen to the rest of your story. Maybe then, the press (and those of us reading the "propaganda" the press puts out) will stop calling you racist.  

NaNoWriMo

Yes, Opal convinced me to do NaNoWriMo.  That's 50,000 words written in one month.  It's not horrifically time consuming, considering that I have scheduled appropriate times to be creative (the artist inside me weeps) but I've already written more creatively on the same subject than I have written in my entire life.  (5,678 words, to be precise).
A lot of my words don't work, but that's part of the fun.  I'm just being constructively mindless.  Hopefully I can stick to it without going mad.  If only I didn't have a social life.  If only facebook didn't exist.  If only my Harry Potter collection wasn't begging to be reread.  Alas, and lackaday, my only love born of my only hate!

Tea Parties

Sorry to be a tea crazy person, but reading "The Recovery of the Tea Party" by  Alfred Young, he states that "Calling the historic event a 'tea party' made it into child's play."
Words are something that I find extremely important.  They influence life and choices, they can be used as propaganda or used to be completely honest and genuine.
To call the events in Boston, a Tea Party, really emphasizes the disconnect between our ideals of the British at that time, and the ideal of the British after the event.  The Event in Boston was not called the Tea Party for many years after its occurrence.
Basically, I'm saying that it's interesting to note that as we became more established as our American culture we start to gather names for events and these names reflect the feelings we have for these events.  It's never random.
To call it a tea party, makes the event not sound unimportant, but it makes the conflict sound like it didn't matter; or was stupid to have in the first place.  It makes it sound like we knew that we were completely right, when that wasn't the case at all.

Also, it's kind of ironic that we have a new movement called "The Tea Party" when that was used to mock the opposing side.  Interesting...

Cloth vs. Tea

"The most valuable product that the colonists normally imported from the mother country was cloth, and when the Patriots extended their boycott to textiles, they created another opportunity for American women. It was up to them to spin the thread (and in some cases weave the yarn) that would replace the fabric once imported from Britain."-Unruly Americans in the Revolution

I find it incredibly fascinating that we emphasize tea as playing a big role in the revolution when, in actuality (Lord, I love that phrase), the bigger part was that the American colonies were kept in a state of economic adolescence.
However, the tea must come into play because it symbolizes the whole "Being British" thing.  It's a pointed glance at what we're rebelling against.  Simply to say that economic adolescence is just kind of making the whole revolution thing into a simplistic mess of whiny colonists.
While I do think that we emphasize tea a bit too much, it does play a large part in the revolution.  On the other hand, if we forget the other factors, the Boston Tea Party just becomes a bunch of people playing Indian and throwing an expensive hissy fit.

Yeah, I just guess, food for thought for the fabric of America's existence.  

Tea is Good :)

There was a mention in the article "Determining the Growth and Distribution of Tea Drinking in the 18th Century" by Carson that there was a limited interest among Native Americans and African Americans about drinking tea and whatnot.

  This was interesting to me because it really seems to emphasize that tea really served as an indicator of class and social standing.  It never crossed my mind that Native Americans or African Americans in this time period even had a remote interest.  It makes perfect sense, but since I'm in this European mindset of tea being a European thing; it surprised me that these other cultures within the U.S. desired to become a part of the European culture.  

Yes.

Sarcasm

"This whole Transaction [General Braddock's loss] gave us Americans the first Suspicion that our exalted Ideas of the Prowess of British Regulars had not been well founded."-The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

You snarky little devil you! You wrote this years after the American Revolution as a sort of critique that we didn't leave British sooner, didn't you?

I'm okay with the sarcasm.  I really am.  It's interesting to see how Franklin plays with the ideas of a glorious foundation that the American Colonies were built upon.  Especially, considering how this was written in the 1780s (for the part I'm referring, 1788) and we had just recently agreed upon a constitution and whatnot.  Although this letters look like they were intended to be private, I doubt that this is the case.
However, they do come off as less disagreeable, and it is interesting to see how sarcasm (an underrated virtue) can really help to establish your point better than coming out and directly saying it.

An Acrostic for Ben

Brilliance is something that you possess.
Even if you're rude about it.
Not that your contributions weren't great.
Just that you feel the need to mention it.
Although, I do really like the bifocal.
Most of your inventions are useful.
I guess my main problem is that you're a hypocrite.
No one likes a hypocrite.

Frankly, I read of your list of virtues.
Resolution, you do have that one.
And I suppose that you were pretty industrious.
Not forgetting, of course, that you seem pretty tranquil.
Keeping these in mind, however
Let's just say that you seem to lack the others.
I've covered the chastity one...and you can guess my feelings on your humility.
Now, I'm sorry.  But you feel overrated.

Dear Ben Franklin,
I really don't like how smug you are.  Fine, you have a lot of accomplishments.  Fine, you have some good things to say.
But honestly, you keep trying to be offhand about your achievements, making you just sound plain smirky and smug and smarmy.  The last one probably isn't true, but I was going for some alliteration.

On page 92, you keep talking about how your stove heats a house and saves fuel.  This is dandy.  It is swell, I am happy for you.
But to be so offhand about that invention, going as far as to say "I should have mentioned this before..."  makes it sound like you're trying to brag without directly saying "I'm proud of this."
You know how I know you're doing this?  Because then you spend the rest of page 92 (which is just one of many offending pages buddy!) talking about how great everyone else thought your invention was.

Ben, you did do a lot for society.  I'm not denying that.  But why do you seek validation from us?  Why can't you just be proud of yourself without fishing for compliments?

I don't know if we can have a good relationship if it's full of one-sided adoration.  I don't want to lose you Ben, but we can't go on like this.

Love,
Beth
P.S. I'm pretty sure that you have syphilis.  That's really gross.  Have you told the wife that you so blatantly cheated on?  Also, this is incredibly amusing since one of your virtues is chastity.  :)

I have too much stuff.

My room is filled with argyle socks and Harry Potter books.  Is that so wrong?
The asterisk denotes if something is pink.

20 or so shirts
Argyle socks*
Argyle kneesocks*
Other socks
7 body towels*
8 washcloths*
2 bottles of shampoo and conditioner
1 shower caddy*
1 body wash (soy milk and almond!)
7 pairs of jeans
4 pairs mesh shorts*
9 pairs of flip flops*
1 pair of running shoes
2 pairs of dress sandals
2 pairs of high heels
1 shoe rack*
1 shelf
1 white drawer tower
desk
laptop*
notebooks
report protectors
1 robe*
2 dresses
headbands*
handmade bowl
necklaces
earrings
tape
notecards
posters
tacks
paperclips
clips
wands
candle
paper
1 wedding dress
wallet
highlighter*
coloring book
I.D.
keys
purse
backpack
water
chocolate
kleenex
cough drops
band aids
mascara *
eyeshadow
chapstick
aspirin
bowls
forks
pictures
picture frames*
white board
cups
laundry bag
detergent
dryer sheets
post-its
crayons
books (seven Harry Potter, and about ten other novels)
dvds
textbooks
buddha statue
stuffed dragon
stuffed bear
light up talleria
3 pillows*
2 sets of sheets*
2 cloth bins*
blue blanket
desk lamp*
floor cushion
bed lamp*
cell phone
cell phone charger
hair curler
water kettle
ramen
bin*
Dr. Pepper
water bottles
pretzels
cheez-its
fruit snacks*
triscuits
oatmeal
flavor packets*
carpet.

I guess the grand conclusion one could draw from this is that I, like most Americans, have trouble differentiating from necessity and want.

I'd also like it noted that my favorite color is green.

Happy Columbus Day!

No, the title is totally irrelevant to the blog posting.  This is just my 5th favorite holiday.
In the Pocahontas Perplex by Rayna Green, she mentions the idea that by stereotyping the natives we're actually raising questions about our own identity.  This intrigued me because no one thinks about stereotyping leading to a deeper assertion of ones own identity.
It's interesting to note how by stereotyping we seem to rip humanity from the figures that we're attempting to humanize.

Love in the Time of Heathens

 "But shal it please God thus to dispose of me (which I earnestly desire to fulfill my ends before sette down) I will heartely accept of it as a godly taxe appointed me, and I will never cease, (God assisting me) untill I have accomplished, and brought to perfection so holy a worke, in which I will daily pray God to blesse me, to mine, and her eternall happines."

John Rolfe is a great man, great tobacco farmer, and just a great guy.  I mean this.  In the reading "Letter of John Rolfe 1614" he really just honestly seems like he wants to do good and be good.  He loves Pocahontas but her beliefs conflict with his.  Thus, he hopes that he can love her without being smited.  So he tries to change her beliefs into his own.  Now, while this shows the usual European mindset of cultural arrogance/hubris it makes his intentions a bit more okay.  It really was for love, despite the cost.  Nothing wrong with that.  Well, there is a lot wrong with that, but it helps to humanize the European mindset.
 No, I'm not pleased that Pocahontas did eventually give up her culture for his wishes; but at least he didn't hold her at gunpoint and scream "REPENT!" Does that really make it better?  Probably not, but I'll just say that it keeps him from being a monster.

Grilled Cheesus

Glee talked about religion tonight...
Here's what upsets me:
Too many people confuse God with an entity that involves itself in daily life.  They say that God is cruel for allowing atrocities to happen.  Kurt says "I feel like God is Santa Claus for adults...and if he does exist, he is cruel."
My problem, in a nutshell:
Why does God have to be involved directly in human life?
There's this school of thought called Deism, and everyone seems afraid to address it.  People assert that if they can't directly contact God, he must not exist.  Or, if he does exist, he's cruel because he doesn't answer every single prayer or stop horrible things from happening.
Why are we not allowed to have a middle ground here?  Maybe there is a God, maybe there's not.  Is there a definitive case for and against him?  Absolutely.  However, I should be free to think that he doesn't concern himself with my daily life but still believe in his existence.  Yes, I can feel faith, but is it so wrong to think that it's selfish to expect God to be a genie?
Great episode, the songs were good and everything.  I loved the message for acceptance of religious beliefs (Being a universalist means that I have a tendency to do that).  However, I do wish that they had addressed (deeply) the alternate viewpoints besides faith and not having faith.  It's not a black and white thing.

The Campus

I am a college student.  The thought seems incredibly odd because this is not how I pictured my college experience. Rather, this was my idealized daydream of a college; I had pictured it being much harder to learn to love it here:

 “The romantic notion of a college in nature, removed from the corrupting forces of the city, became an American ideal.."

Turner says that in his Campus article, and it really seems to stick here.  I see a lot of what a college looks like in the movies; it's an ideal that doesn't really exist, a place detached from "the real world".  There is a surreal aspect, a dreamy atmosphere, leaves float gently to the ground, time seems to slow for gorgeous fall days, the clouds go by, music rings out everywhere. 

This ideal seems idyll (and puns are punny).  By detaching and creating this college sanctuary, only now have I really connected with anything.  I didn't like where I grew up, but I didn't mind it either.  This is the only time that I feel a real loyalty towards a place.  In this miniature city, it seems like I've found somewhere to miss when I leave it.  Not just for the people nor the food, but the atmosphere...it's a romantic notion that I can't describe, an abstract concept that I've attached too.  Just like many American values, it's different for everyone, but that doesn't meant that it doesn't evoke something.

Glee!

This episode made angels cry.  No exaggeration.  There was no character development (besides showing that Rachel Berry is insane and becoming less sympathetic by the minute), the plot barely existed, the numbers were less than inspired...There's paying homage and then there's blatantly ripping off.

Glee is a show about misfits coming together and bonding over music.  Now, there is a bunch of music, but there's no real emotion behind it.  To quote an old acting adage "What's my motivation?"  We don't see anything new with the characters this week.  Rachel plays silly games to see if Finn still loves her.  This would be bad enough, but then Will Shuester, the supposed voice of reason, does the same within in his relationships.  Way to be a role model dude; I'm glad you're teaching the lesson of "I need to change myself completely to get people to love me!"

And don't even get me started on Jacob Ben Israel.  My baby sister was watching...

Menopause: The Menace

Anne Hutchinson is often portrayed as a "menopausal neurotic."

Whilst grossly misogynistic and rather silly, this made me laugh.  Mayhaps there is nothing more frightening than the hormonally imbalanced woman but...rephrase that: There is nothing more frightening than the menopausal/hormonal woman; but to conduct a serious argument on the basis that a woman's hormones made  her become a social deviant who had the potential to tear the Massachusetts Bay Colony apart?  It's stupid, but it makes someone with two X chromosomes feel absurdly powerful.

Anne Hutchinson & Neville Longbottom,

Albus Dumbledore once said "‘It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends."  Now, when I read Harry Potter for the first time, this quote did not impress a great truth upon my young mind.  Being eight years old, there were more important things to be learned.  Did Gryffindor finally win the house cup away from Slytherin or not?  Neville was just a wet blanket who went against our heroes, trying to stop them on their way to defeating the bad guy.  Sure, it was sad that he got Petrificus Totalus cast upon him, but a dark recess within young Beth's mind assumed that he deserved it for not the supporting the protagonists.  They were clearly right because it was three against one and he should have seen that.

Now, with my older (and hopefully wiser) perspective on things, I had a realization.  Neville was perhaps one of the bravest characters within the series.  It does take a great deal to stand up to our friends and companions, not knowing how they'll react.  According to Westerkamp "A deviant exhibits certain behaviors, supported by a specific belief system, that place him or her on the outside, perhaps in opposition to, that mainstream."   This was written in regard to the great dissenter Anne Hutchinson.  However, some of the parallels are simply uncanny.  Both are deviants who try to change the norm.

While reading another article about Anne Hutchinson (called The Risk of Dissent: The Story of Anne Hutchinson by Dorothy Oslin) it mentioned that her family was targeted, her fight becomes all the more real.  Before it was just some crazy lady who heard the voice of the Lord.  Everyone thought that she was wrong and that was her main quality.  But add in the humanizing factor of her family being persecuted and ridiculed along with her...that takes guts.  

The governing body turned against Anne Hutchinson, the mainstream saw her as a threat.  Her friends disassociated themselves from her.  She stood up for what she thought anyway.    She stood up for her beliefs, trying to grant a great understanding of her world; to make it a better place.  Neville Longbottom had the governing body turn against him, he was seen as a threat both great and small, his friends and family were tortured and scared.  He refused to remain silent.  He actively fought for a better life.

The long and the short of my little rant here is this: Anne Hutchinson was more courageous than I gave her credit for.  On the first reading, she comes off as an unhinged woman with no real personality trait other than being contrary.  However, on the reread, she, just like Neville Longbottom, has a great deal more depth and courage than our "main" characters.  Both go against the mainstream for their own beliefs.  Both are ridiculed and persecuted, but because they remain steadfast, we remember them as heroes.

Puritans and Whatnot

Reading about the Puritans, I have to admit that I admire their spunk.  It takes a lot of guts to move to a completely disgusting region that's infested with practically every disgusting thing this side of the Atlantic.  That takes a lot of determination, hard work, and stubbornness.  Definitely American Values.  One cannot deny their impact upon American culture throughout the years.
However, I've noticed that many of my classmates talk about how altruistic the Puritans were in coming to the good ol' Chesapeake region.  This, in my mind, creates a view that is entirely too simplistic. It's ignorant (although beautifully optimistic) to think that the Puritans had no exterior motives.  They wished to gain wealth, or have their needs met fully, just like everyone else.  However, they really saw this as a blessing from God which does make it a tad more palatable in my mind.
William Bradford said at one point: "I cannot but here take occasion not only to mentions but greatly to admire the marvelous providence of God!"  When things start looking up, God is invoked.  When people die, get injured, God is still invoked.  This makes everything the Puritans do just seem better.  Sure, they have human failings, and they could be a "tad" intolerant.  But ultimately, they were working towards a greater good, and we all have to admire that, don't we?

"The caring was a necessary myth, an eagle like   

A speck in heaven dives."-The History of America, Alicia Ostriker

The poem, "The History of America" affected me much more deeply than the other poems that we read in class.   I felt like it warned against an America that's still trying to expand and find new horizons.
Each part seemed to allude to a specific point in America's History.  With lines like: "Its language alters,no account varmint.." I found myself thinking of a colonial explorer, of Lewis and Clark or Davy Crockett.  It seemed to speak of uncharted places, a frontier that has not been found yet.  This resonated with me because of the idea of Americans looking for the next new thing, the uncharted territory.  Someone drew a comparison to the (wonderful) book Into the Wild, and I could not agree more.  It's what Alex McCandless/Supertramp was looking for, a bold new place, untainted by man, wild and free and beautiful.
However, the poem goes on to talk about that lack of new land.  Railroads get put up, "[America] Keeps moving. Behind it, a steel track. Cold, Permanent."  We start to kill off the wildlife, Native Americans die, everywhere becomes more developed.  In short, as we lose places to expand to, we lose our identity.
With the line I quoted above (which is just amazing.  The syntax makes me so jealous) we get the idea that we pretend to care about things, when really we're just seeking new places.  By having caring be a necessary myth (which reminded me of the City Upon a Hill speech from John Winthrop) we're really talking about how our whole nation seems lost without somewhere new to be.  We "absorb and project children" making them in our image, but we don't really know what that is anymore.

Freedom of speech...

Yesterday, while at lunch with some Am. Con students, Katie brought up an interesting point.
"You have the freedom of speech, but that gives someone the freedom to not listen."
Which is true, but one does not speak unless they want to be heard.  Is it inherently better to be loud and obnoxious for your cause and thus alienate potential supporters?  Is it better to be quiet and slowly gather those around you by not being an extremist?  Are we just looking for the lesser of these two evils?
Why would one use their power of free speech if they knew that they weren't going to be heard?  While Katie seemed to possess a good point, I silently disagreed.  (Does this prove or disprove my point?  Frankly, I don't know).  We have the freedom of speech, but I think that means that people have to be listening for it to have any effect.  Whether they agree or not is an entirely different matter.
So, whilst freedom of speech is very important to me, as an American, a college student, a girl who likes to write down her feelings instead of verbalizing them; I think I would rather have freedom from being ignored.
One doesn't have to like your opinions or even consider your opinions to be valid, but to move forward within a democracy, I feel that you must listen.  Protesters don't protest for the sake of making a picket line and catchy chants, protesters protest for a chance to be heard.  So yes, give me freedom of speech, but also give me an open ear to freely speak with.

Positive vs. Negative Liberty

"Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes."-Positive and Negative Liberty

Much like Terry Tempest Williams' speech in "Commencement", this quote forces one to question the idea of what freedom/liberty really means to them.  Do we question what our government does, actively seeking individual freedoms and rights, or do we simply stay complacent with their security?  Does a patriot obey, or does a patriot do what he or she believes is truly right?
Do we remain comfortable whilst talking about democracy, trying not to step on any toes, or do we drag it kicking and screaming until we've reached a common consensus?  Is one method really better than the other?
Whatever the case, one almost has to think that there is no one "right" idea of liberty.  Each individual has to decide for themselves what they're willing to fight for.  Thus, the common theme is that democracy and freedom often makes us uncomfortable, but we should feel uncomfortable.  In the words of Terry Tempest Williams: "Question. Stand. Speak. Act. Make us uncomfortable. Make us think. Make us feel. Keep us free."