Evaluation of Service learning Fall 2012

1) I participated in the Dodge- ball Fundraiser. I was a vinegar fetcher and game-player.

2) Pros: Service Learning gives us the unique ability to make history as opposed to watch it/learn it, it can also help us give us an new outlook on the world around us, and it gets us out of a morning class (let’s be honest). Cons: It takes away teaching time, that is about it…

3) I am and have been a member of the Order of the Arrow, so service projects and helping the community is not at all new to me. However, I have always taken community service sort of for granted, what I mean by that is that I always thought that everyone did it. In other words this project made me see that every community needs something like the Order of the Arrow, a group that facilitates service projects and other such things. But as far as “poverty, hunger, sickness, generosity, raising awareness, compassion, or fair housing” I really did not learn much. Humanity as a whole is a caring race as long as it is aware of its needy.

4) NGO’s operate as well as they are managed, the orphanage’s employees may be in need of so retraining or a nap whereas the FTK crew is pretty lively and helpful. Personally I do not think that forced donations (taxes) are a good way to help the community as a whole so I prefer my helpful organizations to be NGO’s to GO’s.

5) I think the public is interested in society’s problems, but not so interested that they want to hear about it all the time. The people at the orphanage were right on par (as far as my experience goes) with those that are constantly working in that field. In other words, they are less generous then portrayed by mass media.

6) I know what my ability is (at this point) to contribute to “the greater good.” I know there are things that a group can do that an individual cannot. The only real drawbacks to working in a group can be poor communication or people in the group not being interested in the same things as the rest of the group. I think if we had done a bit of teambuilding beforehand it might have helped a little. However, as a whole the event went very well.

7) I firmly believe that the class’ actions at St. Pjs improved the quality of life for the orphans that participated in the actives and thereby helped them get through life at least for that day. I also believe that such actions are necessary to keep the whole world at least mildly sane.

8) I think that all world issues can be addressed as a grassroots level, the coordination of such efforts is of course important but it is possible. National and global solutions always need to be thought about but it is though work in the field that experience that lends itself to such solutions is gained. In other words, us as a class would have a very hard time coming up with a global “solution” to orphans. However, if every class at every collage did help the orphans for a day then the problem would defiantly be significantly helped.

This blog was written in response to these questions: "Evaluation Questions:

1. What project did you participate in? What was your role?

2. What were the pros and cons of a service learning project?

3. What did you learn about and of the following: poverty, hunger, sickness, generosity, raising awareness, compassion, or fair housing

4. What did you learn about NGOs (non-governmental organizations)? How well do they seem to operate?

5. What do you think is the general level of public interest in poverty, hunger, sickness, raising awareness, or fair housing? Were people who volunteered for the organization more generous or less generous than you imagined?

6. What did you learn about your own ability to contribute to a greater good? Do you think there are things that you can achieve as a group that you could not as an individual? Is there power in working as a collective on a project of this type? Are there drawbacks? How could the class have improved?

7. What is the overall value of a collective volunteer action such as the St. Pjs Fun Day?

8. Can world issues be addressed, as we have done, at the local level? Alternatively, would our efforts be better directed at working toward national or even global solutions? Explain."

Summary and analysis of "A Regionalized America, Ch. 13."

A Regionalized America, 1830 – 1860; (succession started in the early 1860's(point of reference))

This Chapter is split into two major sections. The first (Pg.201- 208) is about The North, it is a very brief overview of Northern Society during the era. The second (pg. 208-215) claims to be about the southern cultures but is really about the authors view on slavery and class distinction (which is all he talks about, other than the fact that “Gone with the Wind was not an accurate description of the culture). I would also like to point out that the author does not have a section for the west as a separate group in chapter, despite the fact that in the introduction the author does mention that westerners did think of themselves as a separate group.

The North was heavily influence by 3 major things, they were its defining factors. 1) Increased industrialization (AKA “The Market Revolution”) 2) Massive immigration (massive not used lightly) and finally, 3) Increasing urbanization. Increased industrialization did three major things, it decreased Northern “need” for slaves, it lead to urbanization, and it helped concentrate assets in the hands of an “elite” class. Massive immigration, whoa I think that is never given enough credit for changing the North. Immigration on this scale in a nearly free market society made the economy boom, while at the same time both decreasing the number of menial jobs available (what would have been low class jobs) and increasing the local value of held assets (land, factories, ect.). Because of the asset consuming nature in immigration, immigrates needed jobs (badly) and would work for less and do more than established residents, this caused residents to both look down on immigrants (because they would work for so little pay, and resent immigrants (because they would get jobs). Asset concentration leads to urbanization, which of course lead to an increase in asset concentration. Asset concentration can also lead to racial and ethnic discrimination and did so in this case. Because the increase in population increased the value of assets (such as land), prior residents were atomically in a higher socioeconomic bracket then immigrants (assets concentrated in long standing residents). As such immigrants as a group were looked down upon (I think this has to do with the fact that “you” do not want (from an evolutionary standpoint) to marry “down” in an economic sense and as such people “below” you become less desirable). Increasing urbanization leads to increasing ability for education. Education leads to rights movements and in many cases leisure time. This was true in the North, the number woman in the workforce increased (but was still dismally low), the service and entertainment industry gained a better foothold than it had before, and abolitionist movement’s haven was in the north.

In the south, the population distribution was much more rural. A majority of white southerners were subsistence farmers. A very small percentage of the population owned plantations, but they were very rich. Nat Turner was not a very educated man but he did have just enough information to know that freedom was something to be desired, not just for you but for your brethren too. This of course made him dangerous, he came under the impression that if all the whites in the region were killed then he and his people would go free. So instead of advocating a peaceful resolution to slavery he advocated mass murder. His views we very tempting to a great many oppressed people in the south and as such he was able to form a small army and kill about 60 whites in the region. However much as in the case of 9/11, this violent form of protest lead to major setback to equality and justice (to say the least).

Schultz goes on the describe different type of slavery organization systems, slavery “justifications”, and the effective practice of a form of Jihad by slaves. I feel as if I should further describe the Jihad comment. Jihad does not mean what many think it means, it is not “holy fight by Muslims to defend Islam” or “a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam”. Jihad is the internal and external defense of one’s beliefs and the maintenance of one’s self-identity. In this case the slave were exercising there own control over themselves to decrease productivity wherever they were working. They would break tools, work slowly, play dumb, run away, fake sickness, steal things, ect. This did two things, 1) it show that they were not “true” slaves (they owned their own minds)(this helped maintain sanity) 2) it made slavery less profitable (this could have eventually lead to the end of slavery without a war).

An essay I wrote: "The Devil’s Advocate: Border Patrol Angels and Demons"

When Luis A. Urrea wrote The Devil’s Highway, he wrote backwards in a stack of notebooks. The fact that this book is a work of investigative journalism, with some educated guesses thrown in, and that it was not written front to back needs to be kept in mind during an analysis of Mr. Urrea’s writings about the Border Patrol. Before Mr. Urrea wrote The Devil’s Highway, he was of the opinion that the Border Patrol was made up of a bunch of jackbooted thugs; this however changed. During Mr. Urrea’s Meet & Greet at UTSA, he explained, much as he did at the University of Washington, that during his research, there was a moment in the desert that he realized, with a little help, that the US Border Patrol are made up of people: fallible, emotional, genuine (UWTV 2009). The human nature of Border Patrol is what makes them so easy to demonize or idolize, and it is this idea that is reflected in the book.

Urrea talks about the origins of the Border Patrol in the beginning of The Devil’s highway; he says on page 8 “White Europeans conceived of … El Norte mania[,]… the first illegal immigrants…were Chinese [; fear caused the]… force known as the Mounted Chinese Exclusionary Police [to take]…to the dusty wasteland”(Urrea 2004). In other words, the Border Patrol was formed out of a non-native people’s fear of immigration. What does that make the Border Patrol? Urrea is implying that they are nothing but the imperfect tools of a hypocritical society. He goes on to further describe the contradictory impression that their imperfection has made on immigrants on pages 14-15, “They’d walked into hell trying to escape the Border Patrol, and now they were praying to get caught”(Urrea 2004). Despite the fact that apparently when Border Patrol agents encounter immigrants they “Sometimes,… [they] beat them down with …[their] baton, and sometimes everybody just laughed and drank… [their] water”(Urrea 2004). This apparent contradiction exemplifies the fact that the Border Patrol is group of people, and as such, they have all sorts in their ranks: demon, angel and everything in-between. At Mr. Urrea’s Meet & Greet at UTSA, he mentioned that he once asked an agent about how they deal with the bad eggs in the force, the agent said, “They better hope the public finds out about them before we do.” To put it another way, the force has internal justice for any immigrate beaters that might be in their midst. Death hardens people, makes their humanity more difficult to recognize. Border Patrol agents encounter death at almost every turn desensitizing them to a phenomenon that much of humanity tries their best to avoid. The agents seeming lack of emotional response to death often alienates them from more emotionally effected members of society. Sometimes even their coping mechanisms alienate them from society. One method that agents use to help cope with the amount of death they see is similar to that of an emergency room surgeon: jargon. They generally refer to the sick or dying as already dead. This concept is seen and explored on page 16 where Agent F says, “We’ve got five bodies on Vidrios Drag”, as if the people he found were already dead. This dehumanizing terminology can cause many people to assume that the Border Patrol agents are emotionless, cold, and unfazed by death. But this is not the case as Mr. Urrea found out on the Devil’s Highway when Kenny Smith let Mr. Urrea know that the tough guy exterior is just that, an exterior (UWTV 2009).

Emotions lie inside almost every human out there, including Border Patrol agents; it is easy to forget that especially if they refer to you or someone you know as a “body,” “tonk,” or “wet”(Urrea 2004). People generally dehumanize the dehumanizer, they say that the emotionally unaffected are, or cannot be, normal people. This stigma helps continue the stories that Border Patrol Officers are just as likely to kill you and rape your daughter as to save you and give you water. Not to say that Border Patrol agents are given a bad rap for no reason. There have been cases of “disproportionate use of force” by agents in the Border Patrol in the past (2012). Where after getting pelted by rocks an agent “shot and killed a 15-year-old…boy across the Rio Grande”(2012). Cases such as this litter news articles dating back to the formation of the Border Patrol, but in most cases, especially these days, the agent responsible for the crime is found and prosecuted. Rarely will you hear about the lives that Border Patrol agents save because that is just part of their job, not news. As such, it is easy to get a disproportionate view of the Border Patrol.

Before I read The Devil’s Highway I never really thought about the Border Patrol as a group of people just doing a job. In fact, I really did not think about them much at all. In reading The Devil’s Highway I was moved by the portrayal of agents, and gained a greater perspective on the border controversy as a whole. Now, I have a much greater empathy for both the agents and the immigrants in this political conflict. Much like the agents on page 54 in the book I have gained a slightly greater distrust for my own government’s motivations and a simmering hatred for those who lead their prey into the desert.  

Works Cited

(2012). US border agents 'killed Mexican'. Belfast Telegraph Online.

Urrea, L. A. (2004). The Devil's Highway. New York, Little, Brown and Company.

UWTV (2009). Devil's Highway: An Evening with Author Luis Urrea, YouTube.

Blog VII: my thoughts on the Summary of (total titles to long)

What do I think about these documents’ stances on women’s rights? I am not completely sure, as I did not live in the time period… but I tend to agree with their message if not their particulars. For instance I agree that women should be treated equally to men, but I do not believe that men tend to be any more tyrannical then women. I do however believe that men tend to have more chances to be tyrannical on average. How does this topic relate to today? Women’s rights are very much an issue today, both with equal pay and with gender discrimination, here and abroad. The only thing I have to say that might be considered not fair is that I do not think that women should be (legally required to be) given any extra time off (maternity leave) if they are being paid the same as men… I truly believe if equal treatment. I think that child birth is an very important part of anyone’s life and should be well thought out and planned in advance…. However, I also think I am male and as such have no real right to make any decisions that have to do with others childbirth. I do not think that women should be denied rights based on PMS… In fact there are some interesting studies that have come out that suggest mood swings related to PMS are not much more then societal constructs (Links: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/pms-moodiness-may-be-a-myth-study-1.1000582 ; http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-pms-ess.html ; etc Google it) as such PMS cannot be used as a excuse to not vote for a women… But then again it cannot be used as an excuse to act like a tyrant ether. Speaking of tyrants… lets name some female ones (just to justify my claim that women are just a likely as men to be tyrannical): Cleopatra; Countess Elizabeth Bathory; Queen Ranavalona I the Cruel; Elena Ceauşescu; Queen Mary of England; Empress Catherine II; etc. Yeah… % wise… I think that more female leaders have be tyrants then men… But then again less women have had a chance so those that have clawed their way to the top may just have be more likely to be tyrants (Just because they had to fight that much harder to be in charge). Well that’s all for now, hope to see you next time… Till then, stay alive (after then too). Goodbye all.

Blog VII: Summary of

Correspondence between Abigail and John Adams (1776)

Mrs. Adams opens up the dialogue on women’s rights almost quietly. She never once directly tells him to do his best to give women equal right. The entire letter does point to that, do not get me wrong. But, for the most part she does take a relatively submissive stance on the issue. Her most direct being “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” She does go on to say that, men are “Naturally Tyrannical” and should give up their pretense of superiority over women and instead embrace equality. John Adams’ reply: At first glance, I thought he was blowing her off, and then I realized he was not. In fact he says that women, in practice not theory, are the masters of men, “in Practice[,] you know[,] We are the subjects.” Of course, he also says that he could not help but laugh at her letter, and that she is “so saucy”. He effectively says that the nation is already in turmoil and that it was not time for a full-blown women’s rights movement.

In all I felt that Mrs. And Mr. Adams missed each other, this was conveyed in their light (but partially hidden) banter. And that they both agreed that women did deserve rights just as men did.
“On the Equality of the Sexes” (1790) By Judith Murray

To sum it up, Ms. Murray is upset that women are not treated equally. She lightly suggests that men are not only not superior to women but might in fact be inferior. She says the only reason why men know more about science then women on average is because of the way they are educated (something I wholeheartedly agree with).

Blog VIb: my thoughts on The Great Awakening: Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Chapter 12 - Chapter 15)

These chapters really summarized many of the reasons for both my dislike for Evangelical Christianity and my admiration. Evangelical Christianity generally has no respect for other cultures and religions. This is shown in the fact that they want to convert all who are different then they. They automatically assume that their belief system is completely correct and everyone else’s is useless gibber gabber. However they do make one assumption I admire them for, they assume that everyone can go to hell. Now this might sound strange but it is that assumption that lead to later rights movements. You see that assumption means that everyone has a soul and is equal in eyes of God. This means that if there are any God given (or natural) rights then everyone has them. I firmly believe in the value truly equal rights so I guess I should admire the basic philosophy of Evangelical Christians. Now I kind of want to rant… so the part in ** is the rant skip it if you so wish. **Ok so Evangelical Christians know next to nothing about the original formation of their own religion… Way back in Rome. If the know the story then good for you if you don’t then here are a few links: (http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/Web_Constantine.pdf) (http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) … as you can see the bible, or rather the new Testament was not exactly written by God or even by the direct followers of Jesus. But it is Evangelical’s assumption that if you do not believe in the New Testament and the Trinity you are going to hell (a really bad place if you listen to Dante), that motivates them to convert others (and to devalue those who refuse to convert). In other word they believe that everyone’s souls are equal…. But then the go on to say that their view of the higher power and the afterlife is the only one that is correct and what’s more is that their view if so correct that if you question it then you are most likely going to hell. I really think that this rant is poorly worded and not very thought out… but it is a rant so I guess that is ok. This rant is also not done... but I did run out of steam so I guess it is good enough for now.** Have a good day :)

Blog VIb: Summary of The Great Awakening: Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Chapter 12 - Chapter 15)

Chapter 12: The First Great Awakening’s individualist take on religion led to divisions in opinion in how a church should be run. This caused people to want to start their own church where they can worship the way they wanted to. Today that would not be a problem in the U.S. however back in the 1700’s starting a new church was viewed a radical act that would jeopardize the Christian order of society (paraphrased). In some states, laws were made to prevent such divisions however even the government could not contain the passion of the “radical itinerants” as such new churches were formed. Many separatists felt that anyone who felt the calling should become a minister, no matter their social rank, race, gender or education. This was of course regarded as extremely radical behavior by orthodox leaders, and was heavily frowned upon. In the end the radicals got their way and the protestant church was divided into many different branches within the same geographical area. It should be noted that Kidd talks about specifics in his work, however in this summery they will not be covered. Chapter 13: The radical evangelists that fueled the Awakening needed legitimacy inside the colonies and Great Britain, converting Native Americans gave that too them. The Manifest Destiny feeling inside the Christian Religion at the time called for the world to become Christian, it was the Radials progression in this field that gave them their legitimacy. This is best seen in a quote in Eleazar Wheelock: “Nothing can be more Agreable to our Christian Character tha[an to] send the Gopel to the benighted Pagans”. It was the lack of emotional outpouring in traditional Protestantism that caused their attempts at converting the Eastern Seaboard Native Americans to fail. The Radials however were all about a person’s emotional connection to God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit Chapter 14: This section mainly dealt with the development of philosophical constructs and their inevitable implications. Ideas such as the equality of all peoples’ souls exemplify such constructs. For instance this particular idea eventually lead to this reasoning: “If all souls are equal then God given rights such as liberty are also equal.” And this reasoning lead to the rights movement and conflict. But before this ideology got to that point in its development it called for the proselytisation of Africa and everywhere else that had not yet heard the word of God and thus were doomed to eternal hellfire and damnation. Inroads into the African culture were difficult for traditional Evangelicals to make however, for the Revivalists this was relatively easy. Thus, the Revivalists capitalized on their ideological advantage and converted as many Africans as they were able both in the Americans and in Africa itself. Much like in Rome this massive intake of new people from different cultures changed the Revivalist movement’s ideals helping to draw the revivalist’s movement’s leaders center stage for the Civil Rights debate. Chapter 15: This chapter deals with the specific events and debates that defined the ideological beliefs in Virginia. The most important deviation in Virginia form the rest of the colonies was that their Awakening movement started late (1740s) other than that their ideological development matched that of the colonies a whole.

Blog Vb: my thoughts on The Great Awakening: A Brief History with Document: Part 1, introduction

I feel as though the revivalist movement took advantage of group dynamics, the link between emotion and God, and peer pressure to push a religious viewpoint. I am not sure what to think about that. I mean at first glance it is amoral but the leaders of the movement felt that the majority of the population at the time was going to go the hell if the message was not spread and the ideas of the movement may have lead both to the civil rights movement and to the USA being its own country. So do the ends justify the means? After reading about James Davenport I hope to never talk in front of a crowd while having a major infection… I like to keep my pants out of the fire. I think it is somewhat ironic that many hardcore southern republicans who feel as if slavery is justified are also members of church that is the product of the Great Awakening, I wonder if they even realize. I find it worrying that a large number of people listened to and obeyed whoever had the best story about talking to God. I know someone who thinks that God talks to them; I would never want them to lead a mob… ever. I do not really agree with Mr. Kidd’s views on the connection between the American Revolution and the Great Awaking, at least I think that the 2nd full paragraph on page 24 is circumstantial evidence at best and probably does not belong in the book. My overall feel of the passage is that Kidd tried to portray an objective viewpoint and did a really good job for the most part. End personal notes

Blog Va: Summary of The Great Awakening: A Brief History with Document: Part 1, introduction

Thomas Kidd describes three keystone camps of the first Great Awakening: the “radicals” or revivalists, the moderates, and the anti-revivalists. Kidd brings to light several unsung social groups that influenced and participated in the Great Awaking including women, African Americans, and even Native Americans. He talks about the high and low points of James Davenport’s life as a religious leader. Draws the distinction between the first and second Great Awakenings (I did not know there were 2 before this reading). Kidd said the revivalist movement started in the 1720s with the call for more of the “Holy Spirit” in the protestant movement. Revivals were all about 2 things, religious fervor (Spirit) and the number of conversions. Detractors claimed that revivalists caused/had “overheated emotions” and that that would cause excess, chaos and heresy. Proponents or revivalism claimed that traditional preaching methods were “dull [and], uninspired” and thus just were not saving the people from hell. Both sides were for the most part very steadfast in their beliefs, this caused a division among the protestants of the day. Radical evangelicals believed in modern miracles and divine interventions widening the divide. This division lead to having different churches in the same geographical area, this put the government of that area in a compromising position. You see back then it was in many cases illegal to no go to and believe the doctrine of the officially indorsed church. In many cases, this conflict was resolved by running the new preacher out of the colony or town, but over time, this (and other things) lead to the legal separation of church and state. It should also be mentioned: The majority of revivalists did not really care about your race or sex, everyone was the same under the eyes of God. This idea lead to African American, and female religious leaders and possibly, many years later, the civil rights movement.

Blog IV part II

Really, nothing I did not know… Except I never thought about how the Americas caused so much inflation back in Europe. I mean it makes perfect sense. But I should get of the topic of Inflation I might start to rage about our current economy. I think it was nice that the book mentioned Leif Ericson, he is not mentioned enough. I thought what the Pope did was outrageous, and stupid to boot. Makes me wonder when the Church officially accepted the round earth theory. Wow, I guess I picked a boring topic this time… (Refer to my earlier post for some excitement)… I do not think that the Europeans were justified in their method of taking over; honestly, I do not know if I ever will. Sorry about my short part II hopefully my long part I helps (and maybe I will add to this post if my perspective ever changes). Off topic but worthy of adding, The Nun wars http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+Nun+wars (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Nun_Wars)

blog IV part I

Author: Kevin M. Schultz Source: Hist2 Pages: 22-28 (my summary was too long so I had to cut it short) European expansion and exploitation by sea really started with Portugal’s Prince Henry the Navigator search for a ship passable way to India (A.K.A. The Orient). Vasco da Gama demonstrated the European view that God made the rest of the world for European’s pleasure when he said, “You owe great thanks to God, for having brought you to a country holding such riches!” By the 1500s the Portuguese had already started growing sugarcane in São Tomé setting up the world’s first recorded economy dependent on using African slaves as human harvesters. European nations, being the economically aware neighbors they were at the time, saw Portugal’s growing economic gains from using a mandate from heaven as an excuse to exploit tribal peoples and thought(after some prodding from Christopher Columbus), why don't we cash in on that too? So those countries politically and financially stable enough at the time, I mean that country (i.e. Spain), decided now was the time to find some relatively easily exploitable people or maybe even a new way to the Orient. Thus, Spain sent Columbus and his crazy ideas about the earth being round to sea with three ships, and on October 12th 1492 the islands now known as the Bahamas. Columbus of course thought he had made it to some odd part of India or at least Asia. Side note: Leif Ericson and bunch of Scandinavian explorers beat him to North America by about 500 years. Columbus eager to tell the world that he was not crazy and the world was actually round grabbed some local inhabitants, saying, “They ought to be good servants”, and some other “treasures” and headed back. Word of the western passage spread fast and soon every sailor was trying to get the cash together for a voyage. The first person to call the place a “new world” was Amerigo Vespucci, and that is how the Americas got their name (I do not know about you, but I think it is somewhat anti-climatic). Anyway there were so many people tossing their explore hats the metaphorical ring that historians call this period “the ‘Age of Exploration.’” After Columbus’ trip Spain, predictably, claimed all of North America and Portugal, predictably, said “No Way!” It almost came to blows, which might have saved the Americas from conquest for a bit longer, when the all-knowing Pope Alexander VI drew a North-South line on a map and said “Portugal you get all the stuff on the right Spain the stuff on the left.” I am guessing he was still struggling with the whole “the Earth is round” concept. This furthered the European idea that god was on their side and that the indigenous people were just sort of holding the land for them. Subsequently, Spain set out to found some colonies in North America, partially for the fortunes it should amass them and partially to say they did it before Portugal. This “began one of the bloodiest chapters in the world’s history”, the Spanish apparently brought some smallpox (and other things) to the New World party. The disease sharing that took place during that period of exportation, along with some warfare, killed as much as 20% of the world’s human population at the time. However, given that one of their settlements, Hispaniola, was producing $1 million worth of gold alone every year, we can safely say that Spain really did not care about the sudden decrease in population. With the triple threat of Guns, Germs and Steel, European nations encountered very few real military challenges in the warmer America’s (southern Colorado and south). Except, that is, when they decided to duke it out with other European nations (France V. Spain for Florida). Spain’s new found wealth caused quite a bit of inflation back home, this caused poor people to get poorer. Really poor people chose to move to the Americas for a better life (causing the cycle to repeat). Anyway, time for a vocab. word: The Columbian Exchange was the swapping of biological things of all sorts from Europe to Africa the Americas in trade. This included but was not limited by: Microbes, plants, bugs, viruses, people, pets etc. which of course killed more people and made more slaves. However, it can also be blamed for coffee and chocolate, so don't hate on it too much.

Blog III part II

How is the American Revolution like that of the Reformation? The idea of calling long held beliefs or customs into question, especially when some would argue they are not really broken, was defiantly a theme in both revolutions (as seen on page 4). To call out a powerful and self-indulgent leader’s doctrine of either nation or church as “inconstant and [even] uncertain” is at the very least extremely audacious if not suicidal. Yet during both periods, it became commonplace if not commonly accepted. In fact, I cannot help but wonder if the American Revolution (and possibly countless other) was not a direct result of the Lutheran’s “successful” break from perceived authority. The Americas, if nothing else, definitely took the idea of listing grievances straight out of the Reform movement’s book. To the furthest of my knowledge (little though it is) parts of the Reform movement did something not seen in very many other places, they said continue with your ways just leave us out of it. In other words they did not call for heads on pikes, as a whole anyway, they simply wanted out of being part of the “sheared . . . flock”. I will admit some of the reform movement wanted every who was part of the “laity” to join with them, and were willing to preach at them until they did maybe even say they were dammed if they didn’t. This was for the most part a peaceful revolution of thought, which may have lead to a less peaceful revolution in America. The very idea that the common man, a member of the laity, could be self-deterministic and not dammed to death and hellfire even if they were breaking from years of tradition was what really made this movement revolutionary. That same essential idea, self-determinism, is the idea that has empowered “peasants” ever since. There is another similarity in both movements, its leaders. In both cases the old reformers put on the provable breaks “In an effort to reverse the tide of reform”, because traditions that they dare not question were called into doubt. In the Reformation’s case these traditions were that of the “Trinity, The Incarnation, original sin, salvation by faith alone, the necessity of good works, infant baptism, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, . . . [and] ‘orderly creation’ of faith through external religious services”. In the case of America, it was simply the question of the necessity of external governance as opposed to internal or self-governance (a truly self-deterministic society). In both cases these questions allowed for an even bigger question, “does this group or origination need or deserve my money?”In America’s case it cause the Articles of Confederation to be thrown out and the Constitution to be written (allowing for taxation among other things). In the Reform movement it called for tithing, as opposed to buying of indulgences. Footnote: most if not all of this is opinion and is open for discussion, comment or something.

Blog III part I

The Revolution of the Pamphleteers, more commonly known as The Reformation, was the culmination of increasing communication ability and societal unrest. The Reformation was lead by many people, the most well known being Martin Luther and Zwingli, in The Revolution of the Pamphleteers by Steven Ozment the lesser known pamphleteers and their opinions are discussed and brought to light. But Mr. Ozment does more than that, he depicts the writings of the time in a relatively clear light. He describes the religious reformation in a nearly true or objective light; this is something I value in historian’s writings. He brings up several very good questions, such as whether or not an egalitarian communal government was the goal of the Reformers or if that was the political dreams of the historians studying the Reformers. The way Mr. Ozment sets the “Revolution of the pamphleteers” it draws significant parallels to the early American political reformation movement. I would like read more of his work

Part II – Free writing, O. E. ch. 1

Olaudah’s introduction is honest, upfront and raw, yet somehow also contains at least a veil of objectivity. I love this type of writing even if the particular writing style and vocabulary takes a little while to get used too. My favorite line in chapter one is this, “I… offer here the history of neither a saint, a hero, nor a tyrant”, basically he is saying that he’s human and this helps lend to the overall feeling that this account is a humanizing account partially meant to help make colored men and women all over the world at the time gain basic human rights (life, liberty, etc). This humanizing story reminds me of this quote from Shakespeare: Shylock: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. The Merchant Of Venice Act 3, scene 1, 58–68 This play and many other of Shakespeare’s works, have more to do with Olaudah’s narrative then is able to be seen at first glance. Many of Shakespeare’s plays incorporated a high level of intellectual satire, contrasting the English’s “civilized” mindset with their actions. For instance The Merchant Of Venice, despite portraying Shylock as a Jew that fulfilled every stereotype of the time, also include the above quote who’s sentiment, that a human is a human is a human, is still the driving factor in most (if not all) rights movements. A big part of England was, and still is, its religion. Olaudah appeals to that on page 51, “the native believe that there is one Creator of all things”, the fact that some tribes incorporated mono-theistic beliefs into their religion was most likely very surprising to many reading his narrative when it first came out and most likely helped make inroads for the abolition movement in England and across the world. I just thought it needed to be mentioned that religion did play a part in both the initial dehumanization of Caribbean, African, South American, and North American peoples and also in the re-humanization (if that is a word) years later.

Part I Blog 2 – Summary of reading, O. E. ch. 1

Olaudah Equiano (aka Gustavus Vassa), in the first chapter of The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, seems to trying to express three main things: 1) The color of your skin does not define your intellectual ability 2) His tribal culture as remembers it. 3) The difficulties of life at the time in the part of Africa where he was from. In his narrative, you can tell he is trying to be as objective as a person telling his life’s story can be. The memories of his childhood are both vivid and distant, for instance he describes his father as a elder or chief because of his “styled Embrenche”, a scar of the face, also a mark of rank, yet Olaudah does not mention why is father was a man of importance in the tribe suggesting that he did not know. Olaudah’s understanding of the politics of his tribe seem childlike in that they lack depth (at least in chapter one) but seem to have a lot of width, from marriage to warfare Olaudah has something of importance to mention. He draws quite a few distinctions between his original culture and that of what the English deemed “civilized” but also draws a few similarities so called civilized cultures. Olaudah’s story is powerful and I look forward to reading the rest of the book.

On history

I would define true history as the verifiable record of the past. However I would define the subject of history as the search for the truth about how we as a race or rather as vague conglomerate of intelligent beings got where we are today. This process of finding the truth can be messy and life consuming but is usually rewarding to society as a whole. Our past is important; because our past defines us, drives us, and changes us. I personally feel that history does not that repeat but history does have recurring themes: war, hunger, germs, mass death, growth, evolution of technology, rediscovery of technology, spread of science, religion and other worldviews etc. These themes can be used to predict the growth, spread and changes of and in the humanity of the future. The authors are including opinions (or hypotheses), in their writings. However, when they subject of their writing is commonly disputed, they try to show several sides of the argument. For instance, the origins of the 9,000-year-old man (pg. 5) found in Kennewick, Washington; the writers said that some historians thought he was from Europe whilst another scientist/historian suggested that the man could be from Asia. It is often difficult to extract the truth of our past from the ground, stones, and journals left behind, as such, hypotheses based on small amounts of evidence must sometimes be formed and reformed as our understanding of the past grows. “History is an argument”, to me this statement recognize the fact that what really happened in the past is not always easily agreed on, and as such historians will disagree. I agree that history is not set in stone (so to speak), but is fluid; what we believe happened in the past is apt to change, grow, and generally develop.  This change normally happens because new evidence comes to light, or a new way to look at old evidence is developed. Do to the nature of change and the way we (as humans) tend to react to it, there will be at the edge of every change dissenters who disagree with the change (and maybe for good reason). End part II

Intro

Hello all, my name is James Patrick Smith Case. I am a collage freshman at UTSA. I value the truth over almost all else, however I realise that others do not and as such I do lie in my life in order to maintain functional relationships with those around me. Second to that I value life, life as defined by me (after all they are my values I should be able to define them)  I can be pretty nitpicky and hardheaded. If there was a non-material item I could not live without it would be intelligent interactions with other beings. In the interest of honestly I set up this blog because my US History Pre-Columbus to Civil War instructor, Ashlee Quosigk, requested that we (the class) do so.