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.