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.