Douglas Merchant

This break I was fortunate enough to see The Merchant of Venice on Broadway. Being a philistine of sorts (or maybe just lazy) I didn’t actually read the play before seeing it. So correct me if you feel my assumptions on the play are inaccurate. However, while reading the biography of Fredrik Douglass I couldn’t help but notice similarities between the treatment of Shylock, and the other Jews, and slaves in America. The role that both tradition and religion played in the persecution of Shylock and slaves is strikingly similar. In both cases the source of the persecution is cultural—it has become a tradition of sorts to maltreat the Jews and the blacks.

In Douglass the white aristocracy is born into the southern tradition of owning slaves. In Merchant the Christians discriminate against the Jewish community after being raised in a sanctimonious society. In both cases the source of the discrimination is a cultural institution under a veil of religious justification.

“I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes,--a justifier of the most appalling barbarity—a sanctifier of the most hateful crimes,--and a dark shelter under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find their strongest protection.”

Slavery as a Foundation of America?

A question we seem to ask often today is how slavery could have been tolerated in American society. It seems like such a contradiction to ‘American’ and ‘Christian’ ideals. I feel slavery was justified in the mind of wealthy colonists through the profit it produced. This speaks to the corruptibility of man, and how morals get lost in the foundation industry. After which this loss of morality can be used, naively, as a source of cultural identity
In select cases however, the use of slavery might have been out of the need to found a new nation. In some sense it was in the interest of America as a nation to own slaves, as the use of slave labor became entwined with colonial economics. Jefferson for example, used slave labor to gain economic and intellectual status. Status that proved invaluable to Jefferson’s role as a founding father.
They question I’d like to ask instead is: Would the colonies have had the strength to form themselves into a nation without the use of slave labor. And if not, at what level is it acceptable to allow enslavement in the aid of a ‘just’ cause?

To Blog?

It’s been kind of difficult for me to blog consistently. I often find that I’ll start writing a blog then never finalize it. I’ll get it 90% of the way there; then become uncertain with the idea was trying to convey and never post it. I’m pretty slow writer and I think I would prefer to make one class response post a week, covering the whole week, and have the rest be about current events and cool stuff from the interweb. In fact I think that’s what I’ll do.

So here is a video on why you should always remain silent when dealing with the police (providing you are in a dire situation). I think law would be very interesting, but at the same time very frustrating to study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

North Korea is Best Korea

Check out this very interesting documentary on traveling to North Korea. Earlier we were talking about positive vs. negative freedom. North Korea seems an obvious example of negative freedom. But it is interesting to think that its citizens have no understanding our terms of what freedom is. Does that in some sense give them a sort of freedom, freedom through ignorance? I think at least to some degree it does. Even if North Korean citizens don't have their basic needs met they find a perverted freedom in devotion to their leader. (that last sentence is almost a cynical commentary on religion)

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3#

Snow is Wonderfull

You might not have realized this, but snow happens to be the greatest thing ever. Calvin and Hobbes is up there too.

I think as a cartoon Calvin and Hobbes says a lot about american culture. It is part of our ever growing media, and is an example of american society's value of humor. What makes Calvin and Hobbes so special is that it uses humor to often provoke thought on American culture. I feel that the use of snow as a symbol of opportunity and possibility shows how natural landscape can shape the values of an individual or even a country. The eagerness C&H show to create something new reminds me of Jefferson's dream to create an new culture out of the "undeveloped" American territory. 

Washington Drove a Challenger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o&feature=player_embedded

All it needs is a Jesus bumper sticker and i'll be a tea partier's wet dream. But on a slightly more serious note it is interesting to see how often cars, the founding fathers, and the american west are romanticized (but never before in the same video). And it is hilariously ironic that he is driving a black charger. A nation founded on "freedom" by wealthy old men and built by the manpower of african american slaves. Oh yeah, and we have cowboys.

Tea and Time

I love the picture on this page in juxtaposition to the content of the article and the reality of the tea party. The image is a manifestation of the mythos we have about colonial Americans, a brashness that we have now come to feel as “American.” In reality the tea party was not a boisterous moment of political upheaval, but a swift and silent act of vandalism. An act perhaps less in the name of dissent, but committed out of simple frustration with the commonwealth. What I love about this image the most is the stars and stripes; already in use four years before its creation. Oh those time traveling colonials.

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/account-Joshua-Wyeth.html

Stuff

I was actually a little surprised by what I found I had. In my mind I always visualize the possessions that are most important to me as my only possessions. If I were asked randomly on the street what I owned I would immediately list possessions such as my skis and gear, as well as my laptop and other toys. I might even mention some of my bigger “toys” that I left at home. In reality there are a lot of necessities to comfortable modern life that make up almost half of my junk in my room. Laundry detergent and silverware for example are objects that I rarely think of although frequently use (no I don’t rank my social class by the number of dinner guests I can host in my dorm room.) Another thing that surprised my was that I had forgotten about my meds, Excedrin and Sudafed. I take both regularly to prevent effort migraines. They are an absolutely crucial part of my life. However I hadn’t even considered listing them until after class today. I guess people really define themselves on a group of possessions vital to their image. I base my self on ski gear and colonists defined themselves relative to their fork supply.

Macbook
Alarm clock
Cameras-4
Desk lamp
Ski magazines-4
Planner
Desk organizer
Ipod
Headphones- 4
Cell phone stapler
Usb drives- 2
iPod dock
ski movies- 9
movies- 1
water bottle
folding chair
camera bags- 5
video camera
printer
fan
sunglsses-2
shampoo
soap
toolbox
bowl
plate
laundry detergent
stain stick
shoes- 10 pair
longboards- 2
helmets- 2
goggles- 2
gloves- 2
shirts- 14ish
pants-4
socks/underwear
shorts-2
office supplies
Kleenex
Umbrella
Whiteboards- 2
Garbage can
Science goggles
Silverware
Mug
Plastic cups
Shovel
Extension kit
Wax kit
Skis- 2
Ski boots
Ski bag
Backpacks- 2
Psp
Bandanas-4
Electric razor
File case
Hats- 4
Kleenex
Toothbrush
Retainer
Shoulder bags -2
Laundry hamper
Lamp
Textbooks
Art portfolio
Zomig- (medication)
Excedrin Extra Strength
Sudafed
Keg

What if Natives were of a different species? How would this affect cultural assimilation/branding?

I was watching Distric-9 the other day and I had an interesting thought. How would New World relations have been different if the Native American population had evolved into another hominid, or even another species? Although this concept is far fetched, lets consider culturally they were the same as in reality. It would present a huge barrier in the American’s ability to assimilate to European culture. Perhaps it would have resulted in the complete extermination of the native population. Or perhaps some American born disease could have ravaged the European population—but I’m getting sidetracked. In colonial New England, John Rolfe probably wouldn’t have married Pocahontas. John Smith might have described her and the other natives as demons. We might have never even considered to “play Indian” and government symbols could be purely European.

Disclaimer- not high/drunk

If interested here’s a link to a pbs page about human evolution. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html

Where does America begin? What is American?

I argue America begins with the removal of the Native American’s. It is that point that colonists are able to claim the land as their own and create an American culture.  The use of Native American symbols in government represents a long seated jealousy the colonists had over the Native Americans. This jealousy is referenced several times in Zinn. Powhatan ‘asks’ “Why are you jealous of us?” in a plea to John Smith. It is as if by replacing the natives they felt they had gained some sort of connection to the land and culture before them. They had proved that they could survive in a hostile land, and that made then better than the natives. Not only were they morally superior, but that they also had the power to dominate a land that was initially threatening.

As You Reminisce Over Them

As American’s sometimes it seems like we don’t often take the take to appreciate what we have. Maybe because we have so much it’s hard to realize our own prosperity. This song helps me think about what I have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewGK6D3zPAg

I’m grateful to be part of a community that values education (and doesn’t consider college a “painful necessity”). I’m grateful for being raised by a supportive and open-minded family. I’m grateful for being a skier and a Coloradoan.  What about your life do you appreciate most? (Bonus points will be awarded if you post an “I’m thankful for list” from third grade)

Landscape Perspective

I’m very intrigued by how people of different cultures can view the same landscape in very different terms. The wilderness can be as seen as something to be feared and something to be awed by to something that should be celebrated. A College campus can be viewed as a place of positive by education by some or a breeding place of corrupt American values.

 It is interesting to note the context we place on the landscape as individuals. For example when I go backpacking in the mountains with my father I can’t help to view the forest as a playground. I imagine all the lines through the trees I could ski if they were piled high with snow. Meanwhile my father views the same trees and glades as an ecosystem, identifying the variety of plant species and listening to birdcalls. Neither perspective is “incorrect” they are just taken in vastly different context.  I feel these two views eerily mirror the differences in culture between American and Pueblo society. American’s view the potential of what a space can become and the Pueblo viewed what a space already is. Both my father and I, and the Pueblos and Americans, are trying to bring some sort order to the wilderness, but in vastly different ways. (there is also an interesting similarity in age: Father-Me, Pueblo-USA)

Swentzell— a.k.a. miss sensitivity

Landscape defines a culture by creating the environment that a society becomes familiar with.  The puritan’s centered their villages around spirituality and community, the Pueblo’s formed theirs around nature and community, and today American society builds its landscape around function and efficiency. At least this is the argument of Rina Sentzell. Her article also implies that people insert or find their familiar landscape in alien environments. As American’s we build schools and houses out of processed materials in replace of nature, while the Pueblo children seek nature in our structure. Concrete may be cold and harsh to the Pueblos, but the materials we construct our homes from still, in essence, come from nature.

Swentzel is overly sentimental about the idea of people being in tune with a land that is “honored” and left “domesticated.” She seems to ignore the reality that the Pueblo clearly dominated their environment. They built homes and planted fields—they had the foundations of an industrious society. I argue that environment creates the limitations of a society, but that the landscape is the product of humans trying to domesticate that environment. Whether through close interaction with nature, or God, or technology, humans are all trying to bring order to their surroundings. 

 –I really need to work on my flow, but it's too late for a re-write

Campus

The “Campus” article from Wednesday’s (9/29ish) reading emphasizes how the American college system is a unique form of higher education. College is a driving force in American culture and defines many American's transition from youth to maturity. College is a first glimpse at the real world.  It's the first time many teenagers get their first taste of freedom: Freedom to chose, freedom to learn, and freedom to get shitfaced. College is the transition point where people begin to develop ideals and principles that can make then even more independent of their family and home (and sometimes from society altogether). It seemed fitting for the article to reflect in the author’s own decisions in how he analyzed American campus.

“These choices naturally reflect my own background and interests, as well as my interpretations of the historical forces that have shaped the collegiate design.”

            Similarly, a college campus reflects the backgrounds and interests of its student body and professors. It builds and unique experience off the choices of former classes, constantly shifting and modifying to meet the needs of the next student.  While the choice of classes offered and professors hired is in the hands of administrators, the student population still controls the culture of a school (which for some can be the most appealing aspect of a school). 

The threat spiral

In class on Monday (9/26) it was shown how our analysis of American culture thus far has resembled a spiral. Starting out as a broad view of American freedoms and ideals, and curving inward to a specific point, or “dense fact”, in this case being Anne Hutchinson. Hutchinson’s story emphasizes many of the freedom’s we take for granted today: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial.  Hutchinson’s case was also an issue of sexual equality. This is shown quite thoroughly in the article “Out of her place: Anne Hutchinson and the Dislocation of Power in New World Politics” by Cheryl C. Smith. The article argues that Hutchinson’s story emphasizes the “Puritan intolerance of women; (and) it exposes the central role of gender in both determining and threatening social status that continues to resonate in political matters today.”

The article shows that the threat Hutchison posed to puritan society can be likened to a spiral, as it focuses over time to a select group of individuals (just like our class). A spiral that begins broadly as a threat to the male dominance of puritan culture, then narrows to threaten the establishment and authority of puritan society and eventually focuses to threaten John Winthrop—the individual that symbolizes the limitations of Puritan society that Hutchinson fought against.

John Winthrop and others who were threatened by Anne’s message may have been a strong digging force in the burial of Hutchinson, but her downfall was not due only to her dissent. Puritan society (as a protestant religion) was founded on the rejection hierarchy and establishment in religion. If presented in another light, like say from a masculine voice, Hutchinson’s message would have been more widely supported. “A woman is permitted to chat or babble, but speaking in public authority is still the greatest transgression. . . A woman’s artistic output makes her monstrous to men if she does not know how to make herself small at the same time.” Sarah Palin is one such woman who has been able to (for better of worse) been able to maintain her political power while playing off the simple hockey mom image. Her overwhelming folksiness makes her appealing. Similarly, Hutchinson’s wisdom and position of trust in the community made her appealing to housewives and eventually male members of the community. However when she takes a step toward mysticism and claims a direct line to god she loses her image of being a simple member of the community. Winthrop is then able to seize this moment of public doubt in Hutchinson’s audience to ignore her argument, and simply attack the legitimacy of her sexuality. He is able to cast her “as being a woman not fit for society.” It doesn’t matter if Winthrop really was suppressing the colonists’ access to god. Bold and outspoken women “ lose their sexual appeal and, consequently a large degree of their social status” when they gain public acclaim.

 Perhaps if she had had a team of political annalists behind her she wouldn’t have been such a bold woman. Perhaps then history would celebrate the quiet and dignified defiance of Anne Hutchinson—that gosh darn midwife who changed America.

Object Paragraph, its a little sloppy

As American’s we pride ourselves as having inherent liberty; then use this self-declared right to freedom as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. We often fail to acknowledge the rest of the worlds—or our own nation’s—natural right to liberty. Then justify our subversive behavior with a phrase like “whatever, it’s a free country.” Such a phrase would fit Eric Cartman (from South Park), but it wouldn’t be in the spirit of FDR. Whose Four Freedom’s speech had the message to preserve democracy world wide, in order to preserve democracy at home. The present attitude however reflects something closer to Rockefeller’s interpretation of FDR’s four freedoms speech. We are now focused on issues of our own personal liberty; which has developed into a disregard of how our actions affect the lives and liberty of others. An object in American culture that embodies this disregard is the “made in china” label.  The made in china label is a symbol of American’s consumerism; it is a label of convenience over contribution. The demand for cheaper products and cheap labor has led to harsh and impoverished working conditions overseas and has drained our own work force. To meet the rising needs of the American consumer the earth’s natural resources have also been exploited. The living conditions of workers overseas have degraded because of the pollution from unsafe mining and manufacturing. No America wants to strip another human of their right to “freedom from want” or “freedom from fear.” Yet we do this everyday by consuming products made with that little made in china label. American’s have mistaken their freedom to consume to come with freedom from responsibility.