Cory's Honors Blog of Awesome.

The More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same.

2008-09-01T22:42:00.000-07:00

Throughout it's history, America as a whole has undertaken many courses of action, in the name of both equality, freedom, and justice; from our very revolution which separated us from tyranny, to the abolition of the slave trade and civil rights movement, to wars fought with the outspoken purpose to uphold those standards we hold. Scout begins the book as innocent of the hardships and gritty truths of the world as any child is at that point in their lives, and through her eyes for those three years it is seen how fervently Atticus attempts to uphold those idealistic principles of equality, freedom, and justice laid down by the founding fathers; the same principles that every generation of Americans has since made a tradition of trying to prove that they can fight for them as well as their forefathers could. It is in this fashion that by the end of the novel, one is left with the overwhelming feeling that what Scout experienced, through that time was simply teaching her what every American child is supposed to learn; one can not rest until one has done everything in one's power to enhance the equality of those around them, if one is to truly be considered an American.

Every generation of Americans has followed in it's predecessors footsteps by trying to uphold their conceptual ideals, and yet at the same time, every new generation has strived to prove that it wasn't the same, and that it could make improvements to it's society. America has never been accepted the status quo. Each new generation strives to show that it is different then those before them, and that they can do things in a better way. Where Scout can never accept her Aunt Alexandra's insistance that she act more "Lady like", America as a whole begins to alter it's stance on a womans need to be stereotypicly feminine. Where Atticus refuses to let a man be condemed even though his skin color denotes society wouldn't find a problem with his wrongful incarceration, America as a whole begins to alter it's stance on the supposed inferiority of other races. America has no fear, and has the need to, in actuality, alter the status quo, whenever it see's fit.

America was established with the hope of creating a land of equality, freedom, and justice, and to attain those goals it's society was given permission to, and expected to do away with, and create anything neccesary. To be an American is to do everything in your power to help that American Dream become more of a reality. The American Dream, therefore, isn't about anything one american can achieve, but what can be achieved when every American is working towards it; and that effort, that need to help attain that Dream, is what it means to be an American. In that regard, Harper Lee has created the Quintessential American, in not a single character, but a combination of two. Atticus, and Scout represent the generation split that propels America so consistantly. Where Scout questions the need for some of what Atticus' generation have dubbed the status qou, she also learns from him the need to fight for the same conceptual ideals as he, and his forefathers have. The pair of them create a representation of everything it is to be American; strive for change, yet always keep the same end goal in mind. In short, change, but stay the same. America is one large, cohesive contradiction.

Guess and... well, I suppose you could check if it makes you feel better. (Prophets and Poetry final Essay)

2008-08-14T17:06:00.000-07:00

Whether how we are interpreting the world around us is valid or not, is a question that many more people should have been asking themselves throughout the ages. The validity of our interpretations is the very basis of everything we think we know about the world, and for it not to have been at the forefront of more peoples minds in the history of the world is a mystery that no one will ever come up with a suitable answer for. Where the question of whether or not bias and even consensus cloud the search for true validity need be called into question simultaneously if any determination is to be made. In reality, this is the one quandary that impacts every single facet of existence for every single thing that exists… or that we perceive as existing.

Interpretation; how one perceives what one is presented. A simple definition for a very complex, and multi-faceted term, it doesn’t quite convey the full complexity of the matter, but it does, however, begin to put the word into a small easily graspable conceptual framework. The act of interpreting information happens with everything one comes in contact with, a conscious mind uses it’s senses to interpret everything around itself as best as it can, as close to the truth as it can. Senses can be fooled, and any interpretation of something can quite possibly be invalid, and not the real truth of the matter. Interpretation, in reality is how someone perceives the world around them and any information presented to them, be it physical information such as what is physically going on around them, or conceptually as can be entered into ones consciousness for interpretation through mainly the use of language. Conceptual interpretation is completely and utterly different in it’s intricacies, in the place of possible failure of ones senses to retrieve data reliably, instead the fault of incorrect interpretation falls solely on he thought process’ behind the interpreting of the pure information, and also the prior interpretation of that data from whatever source it was retrieved from. With all of that in mind, interpretation is simply how one perceives what one is presented.

If there is one thing in this world that has a very high likelihood to stay the same no matter what else happens (as long as free conscious thought is still in existence, that is) it would be he existence of a differing opinion from that of the more widely accepted consensus on just about every intellectual debate that might come up. This may be caused by bias either on the side opposed to the consensus, or bias on the side of the consensus. In truth, bias is somewhat unavoidable, it being present in the interpretation part of information gathering and digesting. Bias however does not automatically mean that ones ideas hold less validity then those of one who has magically eliminated bias from themselves somehow, it just means that the biased one is less open to the chance that there perception might in fact be invalid. Consensus brings with it the false security that since it is accepted by the majority, it has a higher chance of being valid, this is mentality is not valid. Bias does not ensure lack of validity, and Consensus does not ensure validity, in short.

A valid interpretation is one that indeed is the truth to what is being presented; as opposed to an invalid interpretation which is not the truth of the matter, it is not what is actually happening, there is no clearer distinction than that. How to actually determine whether or not an interpretation is valid is merely a system of guesswork. It is literally an impossibility to prove beyond a doubt. Proof is subjective; people see what they want to see. The validity of a claim can always be called into question no matter what is used to “support” it. Overall, there is no way to truly know beyond a doubt that one is believing in something valid, or invalid; the only thing anyone can do, is discover what makes the most sense in their head, what feels right and hope beyond hope that even if you are wrong, which you very well could be, that the consequences for such a mistake are not very grave.

Guesswork and hope, the consensus would be that that claim is invalid; however, without realizing it, every single consciously thinking being uses it. Take, for instance, religions, from Christianity, to Judaism, to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Islam a word is quite often associated with such belief systems; faith. Faith being quite close to hope, and not so very far away from guesswork as most would think, gives a bit of credit to the belief that the only way of interpreting is through said guesswork and hope. Religions don’t generally rely on systems of information gathering and deductive reasoning in order to try and make people believe in them, instead, generally one is to put faith without the need for outright physical “proof” that the word of the religion is indeed valid. Usually a religion is a belief system that gives simply states that the word of a single person, or prophet, or being of any kind is more valid then that of any other means of interpretation. In essence religions of any kind are a walking reminder that there is no set way to interpret the world around us, as our very scientific, physical “evidence craving society would have us believe. No one will ever be able to truly decipher beyond a doubt what claims are truly valid, in the end interpretation is just a large system of guess and hope.

Defining Desttruction (History Week something Thematic Question Post)

2008-08-07T17:28:00.000-07:00

America was once not the land of the free and the home of the brave, it was once the land, and home of a people that have become known incorrectly as Indians, and more appropriately as Native Americans. This changed through years of conflict and gross violence. An entire way of life was almost eradicated, and greed persisted in a grand struggle. Semi-recently, general opinion has shifted into feeling as if this was an unjust course of actions, and that Native America, as a whole has been disturbingly unjustly treated, and that nothing modern America has done could make up for the pain and suffering already caused in what is being labeled, and thought of as, a large scale version of the name change from Battle, to Massacre of Wounded Knee. Language carries so much weight, that that one simple word change changes the entire mood and perception of the event. However, neither of these words truly conveys the entirety of the issue.

When Europeans whose descendants would eventually become known as Americans first started colonizing the continent of America, in places like Jamestown and Plymouth, contact with Native Americans on a regular basis was completely unavoidable. From these few first permanent settlements the tone at which all of our dealings with the people that were here before us was set. That tone was a very violent one. From our very first dealings with Native Americans, in retrospect, it is very clear to see that our two cultures would never be able to strive side by side in a heterogeneous, mutually beneficial society. Where the myth of the thanksgiving dinner becomes interesting is when you place it next to the cover up that was the “Battle” of Wounded Knee, and other smaller incidents. A pattern in our dealings with Native Americans, a very bloody, prejudice filled pattern was started in those first European settlements. At times the two cultures would attempt to cooperate, and work together, but such arrangements always fell apart eventually and more blood was shed, such as at the Jamestown Massacre. This pattern would be followed for more then a century.

One of the largest causes of conflict between “Native” Americans, and “Foreign” Americans was the ever growing scope of land which those of European descent had their eye on obtaining, and claiming for their own. “Foreign” Americans were not content with holding anything less but everything from the Atlantic, to the Pacific. “Manifest Destiny” is the greatest example of the inherent sense of privilege of those that have come to be known as Americans, which in all truthfulness should rightfully be used in reference to those that were here before them. It set the stage for the entire nation to start thinking of themselves as being entitled to an entire continent which had already been inhabited for ages before they arrived. Americans, as they are actually called, swept across every bit of land in sight, and simply claimed it as their own, without any real right to it, no matter how one is to define someone’s right to land.

With this addition of people to land that had been lived in by others for centuries, came inevitably the aforementioned pattern filled with violence and greed. Tragic events like the Massacre of Wounded Knee happened innumerable times, and the victims were of both nationalities. America was not simply handed over to those who now control it, essentially without openly declaring it, it was won through fighting a war. The setting for this war is one that had been seen many times before: People thrive in their own land, others see this and decide that they would like the others land, and then find that the only way to take it is by force. When broken down to it’s purest of forms, the gradual shifting of control of America was indeed a War. As with any such brutal contest, people lost their lives in a fight over a prize, in this case that prize happened to be the right to call their battlefield home.

When this war was over, and America had become a single nation, and the competition for their “prize” had ceased to exist, Americans slowly began to see their earlier actions for what they were, acts of greed that caused immense pain and suffering to many people. To try and make up for this, and essentially apologize for what had been done, today Native Americans are granted many immunities and privileges, the least of which not being reservations. In essence what is now America almost destroyed a way of life in what was, for the most part, a two way battle, in a fit of greed, and after the dust had settled realized that they had committed disgusting immoral acts, and tried to make up for them with care and help as much as they thought they could. Knowing that nothing could be undone, America has tried to do it’s best to make amends for what its actions caused.

Before their culture was ever even threatened, many tribes of Native Americans lived on this continent, none of them seeing the whole of Native Americans as a single group of people. With this diversity of tribes came conflict. Tribes would war amongst themselves, and people would die and suffer for the gain of various things, just like in every other civilization in the history of the world. The only difference between what had been happening between Native Americans for centuries and what happened with the descendants of Europeans is simply the scale on which things took place. Never had any one force controlled the entire landmass from sea to sea, in order for that to happen many people who had been controlling parts of it had to die, however, that same rule applies to any other conflict between nations. The war for America had very little difference to any other war in history, including those between tribes of the Native Americans we now think of as helpless victims.

The Massacre of Wounded Knee was without a doubt, a one sided massacre, as its newest name implies; however, not every bloody encounter between Euro-American, and Native American cultures was a one sided affair, in fact the majority were very two sided in their bloodthirsty killing natures. Throughout the entirety of the modern Americans take over of the country, many people of all ethnic backgrounds were killed. This, like any other war, held no group safe from the possibility of brutal death at the hands of those opposing their side. This, like any other war held nothing but gross, immoral actions made in the name of greed from both sides.

Native American culture has had a very large attempt to crush it, it’s people have been brutally killed, and it’s ways have been all but extinguished. In that respect, yes, the New Americans have mistreated those that owned the land before them horribly, and inexcusably. Yes, no matter how much they try to make up for it in the present, they couldn’t possibly begin to eliminate the suffering caused to so many people. Yes, America has treated Native American Culture completely unfairly. However, this can be said about the losers and winners of almost every war that has ever been fought. Underhanded, terrible, greedy, destructive actions are taken in every conflict between human beings that has taken place in the history of the world, and the same will continue to happen over and over again. The War for Control over America is not the exception to the list that makes things not okay, every other war contains just as much unjust action as this one, and to single out one set of people as an evil, uncaring lot for their actions and greed is to condemn every culture in the world (Which should be done). Instead of looking at injustice on a small scale, instead examine the cruelty that the human race has shown as a whole over the last few thousand years, and there you will find a group of people who have treated others unfairly: Everyone.

Injuring Justice (History Week something or other authors intent post)

2008-08-07T17:24:00.000-07:00

The Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass is one of many pieces of literature written in the mid-eighteen hundreds, it does however stick out from the multitude of other work in a few regards: It was written by a former slave, it was crafted with the hope of changing the world, and it held actual horrid experiences told from the point of view of the one that was subjected to them. In order for these things to have actually come together and become a well read piece of literature takes quite a bit of luck, along with determination from the people involved in its conception. What drove that determination is more complex then it would seem at first.

On the most basic of levels, Fredrick Douglass was writing to fulfill the wishes of his newly met abolitionist friends in the north; to create propaganda which would further the abolitionist cause, and set the nation forth on a road which would lead to the eventual demise of the human slave trade. Quite obviously the Narrative of his life was Fredrick Douglass’ attempt to help those who were still in the bondage that he had recently escaped from, but truly one of the biggest pieces that had to come together for him to write his story were people like Lloyd Garrison telling him what his writings could potentially accomplish. It was both, his own, and his supporter’s belief in what his story could do to help other people being known as property which was the reason why Douglass wrote his narrative.

Digging deeper into speculation, a case can also be made that Douglass wrote his Narrative as a sort of personal reflection on his time, and what he had gone through, in essence a sort of final vent, his final act of throwing of the chains of his oppressors. He writes directly to the reader, as if telling a story in conversation, yet through reading a sense that he was recording his experiences in order to help with putting to rest his own personal feelings towards those that had caused him to suffer, in order to maximize the amount of help he could provide to those that were still slaves by focusing on he institution as a whole, and not just being fueled by personal vendettas with specific people. A bridge was being made between these two things by him with turning his anger at his previous owners, to anger at what held all of the slave holders together; their pretense of Christianity. Douglass needed his writing to refocus his intentions, to create the most good in the future he possibly could.

Fredrick Douglass’ Narrative did exactly what the abolitionists of the North had wanted it to; it created a stir within the nation that helped strengthen the notion throughout the opinion of the general public that slavery was an injustice which human beings could never rightfully be subjected to. Douglass shed light onto the brutal details of the experiences of those in slavery which most northerners had previously been ignorant of. His Narrative created a stir simply because it opened the curtain on atrocities being committed in real life to people not very far away from its northern readers. It also called into question the lack of intellect which Africans had been pegged with as an excuse to validify the slave trade. Wit all of that came the opposition in the doubt that the previous consensus as to the intelligence level of Africans was incorrect, the stance was raised that the Narrative must have been fake, because a black man could not have possibly written such a well put together piece of literature. Ultimately however, even with those small pieces of opposition, Douglass enhanced the cause of the abolitionists and just might have been a deciding factor in the eventual emancipation of slavery in the United States.

It will never be known without a doubt how the rest of history would have been affected if Fredrick Douglass had never told his story to the masses; that is an “if, then” question, and those can only ever be mused upon, but will never be answered. It can be reasonably inferred however that Douglass and those with him in his goals for the abolition of slavery attained their goal in writing this Narrative, and helped to ease the lives of innumerable human beings in America. Douglass set out to help himself help others. Douglass’ goals were met. The world benefited from his work.

Lack of the Virtue of Industry Makes Cory's Work Extremely Late.

2008-07-27T08:38:00.000-07:00

Alright... so after many days of being switched into summer mode and not being able to make myself sit down and actually do any work whatsoever... (and the worst part, not even really having that bother me... usually I beat myself up a lot if I have something overdue... not this time at all for some reason...) I decided that a fitting virtue to dissect in its relation to my habits, and my life in general, would be Industry, simply because it is one thing that I generally lack in all facets of life. Truly, if I could achieve being Industries in regular intervals, and not just in short huge bursts when I absolutely need to, my life would end up being a lot better (not to mention my GPA!). So, here goes the experiment.

(Disclaimer: I have the most irregular of days in the summer... I really am not entirely sure when to really call it the end of one day and the beginning of another, because I go to sleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I'm not... which has me having taken my sleep during just about every part of the day, at some point, and also had me awake during every part of many days. My sleeping habits destroyed the ease of this assignment.)

Sunday: Alright, to start out with we have the day before this very assignment was due. I had planned this day out as the one in which I would complete my poetry project for an online course I am taking with Mr.Viles, and then to use whatever time I had left for either some violin practice, or maybe just some kicking back, relaxing and watching some nice films. What happened in actuality though, would be something like this: (These next few actions of mine are something I'm assuming this journal is going to be seeing a lot of) I sat down at the computer after waking up around 1 in the afternoon, and went to go through my usual checking of all my stuff half hour process before starting anything productive. This process extended to an hour. After that, I pulled up the Prophets and Poetry ning page to make sure I knew what I was doing for this project, I did, so I opened up my started version of it... and ten minutes later had finished rationalizing why I didn't need to do this yet and how I had plenty of time before the end of Monday to get all my work done. I then spent the rest of the night in that horrible World of Warcraft that has begun to destroy my life known as (yes, I'm quite ashamed, I did so well for years avoiding getting into it...). Absolutely nothing industrious about this day.

Monday: This would be the day everything was due in both Honors and Prophets and Poetry... I hadn't slept the night before, and by the time I had been able to convince myself that I needed to get some work done it was about 7pm. As I opened up a document to start writing this assignment in, I also opened up my Aim messenger to see if any neat people were up and about. They were. I ended up getting a very small outline of my response to the other part of the Benjamin Franklin assignment by the time midnight rolled in. At this point it occurred to me that I was actually late in doing something, and how very different this Monday had been to my last few with all of my mad dashing to make sure I got each and every little thing I needed to get done actually done, because I don't not do things, that's just not what I do. Then I realized that I wasn't overly caring at the moment and that I'd do it all tomorrow. At about 3 or so in the morning when everyone else had gone to sleep, I was determined to actually get something productive and good accomplished as I'd seemed not to have done in so long, so I went upstairs and grabbed my newly acquired Violin to try and do more stuff with it seeing as how I still am overly not able to make decent sounds come out of it. This lasted only a few minutes before I hopped into my bed and instead of reading anything for this week, instead popped into my DVD player 10,000 BC which my brother had made me borrow when I was off at his apartment last. Absolutely nothing industrious about this day either.

Tuesday: After waking up around 2:30 I strolled downstairs without caring about the two weeks worth of work I had yet to start, and poured myself some yummy cola. Seeing as how no one else was home yet, and there was nothing else to do, I fired up my computer and checked the update for the computer baseball league my dad, his friends and I have, and spent some time making changes to my team (don't ask, hah). Then I popped onto the Prophets and Poetry page to see if anything new and interesting was supposed to be done this week, (We'd moved onto Muhammad) and in fact there was a new video we needed to watch that I had enough motivation to hit play on. For the next two hours I was actually truly entertained, it was a really good video in fact, and that fueled a surge in posting in the discussion boards there, which I had been neglecting a little before (not so much as I'd been neglecting everything else however). I ended up doing random bits of work for Prophets and Poetry most of the day, and managed to get a ton of conceptual, intellectual thinking in before around nightfall when my friend informed me his account for that horrid World was no longer frozen, and I was to accompany him in his adventures, having felt like I semi accomplished something today, I obliged him. After a few hours of that, I headed off to the land of sleep while watching the amazing film that is Kill Bill. A step in the right direction for my industriousness.

Wednesday: This day after beating myself up about not beating myself up about the work I still hadn't done without anything at all preventing me from doing it, I learned that two other very good students (two of the best I know, actually) hadn't started theirs either. Needless to say this did nothing but make it even more okay in my mind that doing nothing and not caring wasn't actually that bad of a thing to be doing. I did however happen to do quite a bit of posting on the Prophets and Poetry forum for the second day in a row, though. I also managed to semi make plans for before I left for Massachusetts on the weekend, so that I wouldn't be stuck sitting in my house like I had been for quite some time (The last time I'd done anything at this point was Saturday), I'm not entirely sure if that qualifies as being industrious because it was plans not for something productive, but for something entertaining... but I took the act of planning as being somewhat productive in and of itself. I also managed to make myself sit down and tune my Violin, (one of the only things I can confidently say I can actually do correctly with it), which is actually a very relaxing thing to do. This day seems to indicate that I am getting out of this it's summer, so I am not going to do anything mood I've been in lately. (Quick note: watched Kill Bill volume two as I was going to sleep, and for the first time, I truly appreciated it as being not only as good as the first one, but actually a lot better... it's much more story, and character driven, and it's got classic Tarantino dialog much more often the the first. Not sure why I needed you all to know that.)

Thursday: I began making preparations for my departing to my Daddy's in Mass for the rest of the summer, until I was informed that I wasn't going to be leaving until the next weekend, instead of this coming one as had been originally planned. So after having my stuff packed, I decided my room was semi already started to be cleaned... so I might as well attempt to chip away some more at the insane level of messiness and disarray it has been in for months. I'll just say that it is now... cleaner but not clean. After that, I went for a walk out in the nice outdoors, and took some nice photos of myself, which I hadn't done in a while (It used to be almost an everyday pastime, no joking.). I came back home, had a nice discussion with a couple of good people, and then headed onto the Prophets and Poetry page for yet more forum posts. That video really did make me get into that class again, after having stopped caring about it do to a few very horrid podcasts. I also opened up that long forgotten document with the crude outline for my other Ben Franklin post, and couldn't bring myself to think of anything to do with it. I then spent the rest of the night in that World I've already told you about, then one that is the exact opposite of industriousness, it truly is very addicting... even when I sit here and I have only negative thoughts about it I kind of want to go play in it. Besides the last part of the day I would say I had the industriousness of a decent human being, which is way more then I usually have.

Friday: A complete and utter fall back into the pit of the summer mindset. I did absolutely nothing productive this entire day. I socialized, watched a film, and then joined my friend in that world till even after he went to sleep. I'm not entirely happy with my list of accomplishments.

Saturday: So, after not sleeping, I headed out with my family to look at things move slowly and loudly down the street in a big line (Otherwise known as a parade). The Egg Festival, wasn't to bad, saw some cool people I hadn't talked with since school got out, got some candy, but when I got home, I was quite tired... which is slightly unusual, because normally after I go through an allnighter I don't start getting actually tired until at least around five, but I fell asleep around one in the afternoon, and didn't wake up until dinner. After that I did some more Prophets and Poetry work, and actually finally made myself realize how little time I had to do work, because I had this weeks assignments to do as well, which included reading an entire book. So, I promised myself that I would indeed do all of my three weeks of Honors work tomorrow, because I really was to tired to effectively accomplish anything at that point. I held true to those determinations, it would seem since I am writing this currently, and it is now Sunday.

Well, I'd like to start off by saying... this week has made me look like a pathetic human being (and I mean more so then I usually am). Not only do I turn into the least productive, most lethargic thing on the planet in a week where I definitely needed to do work, but I also did so on a week that I had to tell everyone just how much of one I actually was. I seem to have, for the most part, for now atleast, have broken free of he it's summer mentality I had gotten myself into over a couple weeks of not really needing to do much. If I was to do this next week, I make a hopeful assumption that it would not shine quite such a negative light on myself, but who knows, I might be even worse next week. I really hope not. This assignment has discouraged my spirit, and damaged my overly huge ego, I just realized. I really highly doubt Benjamin Franklin would have looked at my week of industriousness and have been anything but appalled, though I wouldn't actually care about his opinion at all, so that wouldn't matter quite so much. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this anymore, so I think I'll just end it here. Have fun, all.

Ensuring Equality. (English Week Two Post)

2008-07-07T19:52:00.000-07:00

In Touching Spirit Bear, during a Healing Circle, a feather is passed around to all those who wish to speak. An intriguing idea, I know. As it turns out, Native American tribes have been using such a system for centuries, more commonly, however, the item, or "Talking Token", took the form of a Talking Stick, with a feather on the end, as well as fur, and beads. At first I wondered why Ben Mikaelsen had chosen to use jsut a feather which seems to be much less common, then I remembered that these meetings were being held in contemporary times and as such most likely didn't follow every little detail of what would have once been considered average. Also, it may just have been that the Tlingit were one of the few tribes to forgo the Stick part of the Talking Token.

It was a system used in order to create an environment where everyone's opinions and thoughts were equal, and could be just as easily heard. Using a Talking Token ensures that not only the most passionate, forceful, or just plain loud people could be heard, but also the coolheaded, meek, and quite, could voice their thoughts on whatever matter a meeting was discussing. In addition, being the only one allowed to speak was supposed to give the speaker and added sense of duty, and honor with which to carry on to his speech making it truthful, and meant with good intentions. It is quite amusing when thinking about the intention behind the talking token, and how everyone using it is supposed to be honorable and honest... and then seeing some of the ways it was abused in the book. Cole did point this out at one point actually, but only after he had only done so himself.

Apparently the tradition has morphed through the years (as they all do) and been integrated into various places, used in any number of places with no specific requirements to use it. (I do think I remember using a beaney bag for some sort of version of this when I was younger...)

Works Cited: (Or, more appropriately, Work Cited:)

Locust, Carol. "The Talking Stick." Acacia Artisans. 7 July 2008 <http://www.acaciart.com/stories/archive6.html>.

Hidden Revelations. (History Week Two Authors Intent)

2008-07-07T15:23:00.000-07:00

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, like all Authors, had an agenda when sitting down to write A Midwifes Tale. After scoring through entry after entry in Martha's diary which was entered in daily for 27 years, Ulrich extracted many revelations which challenge contemporary points of view on daily life, and society in general during early years of America as it's own nation. Upon coming to these realizations, and learning of the enormous level of misinformation that has been handed to people today about the time period of early America, Ulrich wrote A Midwifes tale, infusing it with all of her discoveries into the nature of life in the late 18th, early 19th century America.

The roll of Midwives in society today is all but extinguished. The most shallow, and obvious purpose in Ulrich's writing was to shed light into a way of life that survived for centuries, but is easily forgotten today. A Midwife's Tale is, as it title blatantly states, a look into the life of a Midwife; it is meant to show the trials and joys that many women found in their lives after being called to fulfill their roll as a healer and a life giver. Ulrich, through Martha, is establishing a piece of historical society; a piece that until now had gone unrecognized for their struggles and achievements. Martha's many long nights spent without hardly any sleep tending to women, ensuring that a new life would enter the world, are an extraordinary tale of human ability, and giving that needed to be given it's due credit. Ulrich understood this.

Martha's Diary is one of the only written records to show the true roll of women in a society that has been assumed to be completely dominated by men. The uniqueness of these documents in itself warrants investigation into. Ulrich realized the possibilities such a record held in distinguishing whether or not the notion that women in early America truly were subservient to their male counterparts was correct or not. What she found, and shared through A Midwife's Tale is that the balance of power between the genders in early America was much less one sided then previously thought. Martha controlled an entire half of her families economic transactions and contributed to it's stability throughout her time recording her life, and Ulrich knew that this was a revelation that the world needed to come to.

When thinking of Revolutionary times in America, the time directly following gaining our independence from Britain is not included. Through investigation of Martha's diary Ulrich realized that at it's core, this was an inaccurate analysis of the time period. Ulrich goes into detail about the struggles America was going through in establishing itself as stable nation. The core concept that America was founded on (namely the right of every man to not be ruled by tyranny) caused uprisings and violence by manual laborers against pen pushing landowners; meanwhile the religious diversity of America was just starting to develop, and as all such processes happen, the beginning was very rough; and even the medical practices of the nation were undergoing a transformation into a scientifically organized system. Ulrich used A Midwife's Tale as a conduit to giving a better understanding of a time period containing a society that was most certainly undergoing revolutionary change.

With all of his insights into the society of early American society, from the lives and rolls of Midwives, to combating the notion of the female roll in society, to the vast sweeping changes the society as a whole was undergoing, there is one core concept that he pushes across. The introduction quotes various statements by others who had gone through Martha's diary James North saying it was "brief and with some exceptions not of general interest.", Charles Nash saw it as "trivial and unimportant... being but a repetition of what was widely recited many times.", and even a feminist history of Midwifery describing it as "Like many diaries of farm women, it is filled with trivia about domestic chores and pastimes.". Including these quotes, and then continuing on to delve into and explore the true depth of information and insights that can be found in Martha's entries is almost a direct challenge to the idea that even an average regular monotonous life is meaningless in the grand scale of the world. Ulrich strives to prove that the everyday human existence no matter how uneventful and unimportant truly is a meaningful piece of history that can unlock an entire universe of information if given the attention it requires. In essence, Ulrich was stating with A Midwifes Tale the old adage that you can't judge a book by it's cover... or for that matter, a diary by it's repetitiveness.

The Loss of a way of Life. (History Week Two Thematic Question)

2008-07-07T13:24:00.000-07:00

Midwife; a title associated with the "ridiculous" notion of women giving birth in their own homes, a title associated with medical practices done with the hope of success, a title associated with the distant past. Martha Ballard held this title in the late 18th century; she held it and did not associate it with anything else then her everyday life, the life of one of the last true to hold that title. In her lifetime, the associations which have been mentioned were already beginning to form, without her knowledge. Martha Ballard was a midwife; that much is known. Martha Ballard was one of the last true Midwives; that much can be easily concluded. Martha Ballard played an integral part in the survival of her entire community by following a path that would not be possible for many to follow after her; that is the truly meaningful statement.

Midwifes throughout time had held a place of very important role in any given community. They were not only the one's to deliver the children of every pregnant woman in their community, they were also the main source of health care for many societies. The place of a midwife in a community had been vastly unchanged throughout the years when Martha Ballard began her diary. She was, for all intents and purposes, a midwife in the traditional sense of the word. She would be woken at all hours of the night to trod off to perform her duties just as innumerable women had done before her. She would be given a higher standing in society then all most any women could attain in, and before, Martha's time. Martha Ballard was one of the last true midwives.

The main duty associated with Midwifery was, of course, the delivery of children. A Midwife would be tasked with making sure each and every child being brought into this world, did so with as much ease as the process allows. When a Woman went into Labor (and sometimes when she only thought she went into labor) a Midwife was sent for, and then said Midwife would arrive and sit with the woman for as long as it took (sometimes hours). After the baby was delivered the Midwife would make sure that everyone was doing fine, and once that had been established, and then be on her way back home. Every once and a while the midwife would check in on the new mother and her child to again, make sure that every one was in good health.

Making sure everyone was in good health leads to the other major role of a midwife; which was that of healing those that were not in such good health. A midwife provided health care for her community in the form of traditional, and herbal remedies. A Midwife in Martha's time would employ methods of healing which had been used and improved for hundreds of years. She would grow most of the herbs needed in her remedies herself, and administer them herself. Without any need for a formal degree in order to practice, a Midwife could tend to her sick neighbors.

Around the time Martha was writing her diary things were starting to change in the realm of medical practices. She only saw small pieces of it, and couldn't have possibly known what the end result of these small pieces would end up meaning for her profession, or the entire world. There were stirrings in her time that were the beginnings of the very different world of health care that we now know. These stirrings would eventually mean the end of even the possibility of others wanting to follow in Martha's footsteps. Without being aware of it, Martha was a dieing breed.

More often as the Diary goes on Doctors are called to childbirths as opposed to, or as well as Martha. This was one of many signs of the incoming age where doctors would be, practically, the only source of medical care of any kind. The move into the realm of childbirth which was always before considered strictly that of Women, was a major step to the insurance that every form of medical treatment was to be an institutionalized, highly organized, structured event. It was a first step in the abolition of any one's right to provide medical care to people without going through recognized training, and being certified by national standards. This meant, in effect, the end of the entire tradition of the Midwife.

Along with this overturn of medical care to only officially trained men, came the change from traditional handed down remedies, to more "scientific" methods of health care. During Martha's time this was still in it's experimental stage, doctor's were still trying to lay the groundwork for this new system of medicine. This meant a parting from herbal remedies, and plunge into more tools, surgeries, and eventually antibiotics. It was a shifting of focus to discovering why something worked, before assuming it would. This shift in medical practices meant a further investigation into how each and every part of the human body functioned, and how to repair them based on deductive reasoning, and logic.

Midwife; a title Martha Ballard held high, a title that had started losing it's significance by her death, and a title that is hardly ever used in modern society. No longer can someone follow in Martha's footsteps due to the more structured, scientific approach to health care. No longer could a woman be called at all hours of the night to perform deliveries in peoples homes. The time Martha Ballard lived was a last hurrah by those that called themselves Midwives. Martha Ballard was one of the last true holders of that title. She performed deliveries, and tended to the sick, even with the encroaching male doctors on the horizon, waiting for her to falter in order to take control of the entire field. Martha Ballard was, for all intents and purposes, one of the last true Midwives.

Hidden Collaborators. (History Week One Thematic Question)

2008-06-30T20:50:00.000-07:00

Throughout history the genders have had different defined roles in every society. Males and Females have been given roles in society that they, from birth, are expected to fulfill to help ensure the continuation of their way of life. This was no different in late 18th, early 19th century colonial America. What those roles were... that is where most people today are completely misinformed. The role of women has been completely downplayed, and only through obscure research into the diary of a certain midwife in Maine could this misperception be realized for what it is; false.

Today, women, During the late 18th, early 19th century are perceived as being subservient to the men, and unimportant in all parts of life except for childbearing and housework. This perception comes from the fact that the information that is known about historic societies comes almost solely from the written records of their time. In almost all writing from early colonial American life, Women are barely mentioned, and when they are identified with reference to the dominant man in their lives, be it their Father or husband. Men were the one's who did all the important work in every town; they controlled the entire economy, political decisions, not to mention the women around them. This perception, however, is incorrect to it's very core.

At the very roots of this misconception is the fact that women were for the most part uneducated. Women were never given the opportunities to learn which allowed the men to seem in the control of the world. While young men were off learning in colleges and universities, the female population was expected to be at home, learning what they could about daily tasks from their families, and searching for a spouse with which to continue this cycle with. While the fully grown men were out talking politics and creating written records of their transactions, their wives were at home tending to the children, or doing other general housework. This lack of education, most crucially the inabilities to write, is the reason that today they are seen as nothing more then what was just described.

The ability to write: to record happenings, business transactions, or legal rulings; this was the crucial skill which women lacked. The lack of writing ability was the most decisive nail in the coffin of the possibility for females to be seen as meaningful contributors in early Colonial American history. Men were able to leave a record of their role in society for posterity to study, and draw conclusions from; and of course every writer infuses their personal bias into their work. Women were not provided with the ability they needed in order to, essentially, give their side of the story. Given that one skill the entire modern view of their role in society would have been completely altered from the subservient one which is now falsely understood to be the truth of the matter.

Where this conclusion can be drawn from, where it is possible to destroy the credibility of a commonly held belief such as this, is in the writing of a women who by chance did receive an education. Through Martha Ballard's Diary, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich has deciphered that women were not solely unimportant child-bearers; they were, in actuality, a crucial piece in the puzzle that was everyday life in colonial America. Martha Ballard was a women who was highly connected with the community around her, and played a vital role in both the well being of the entire surrounding community, and even in the economic stability of her own household. In fact, the female side of society was quite possibly every ounce as import and and commendable as that of the oft touted Male side.

When the women weren't being educated in the same manner which the men were, they were learning the ins and outs of many household skills from various neighbors and creating connections which they would need to utilize throughout the rest of their lives. The Men had their own large interweaving network with which they identified with each other on both a personal and business manner. With the revelations from Martha Ballard's Diary, it can be known that the Women too had almost an exact copy of this, held in a different manner. Where the men met at town meetings, discussing political decisions, the women were together working on various projects that needed just as much as the decisions which the men were discussing. The women had a social network interconnecting all of them, just as much as the men.

Furthermore, while the women were going about their business in through their social network they held their own independent, important economy. At first glance one would assume that the entire economic stability of an early colonial American family; however, the women actually synthesized the skills they learned while not in school, such as weaving, gardening, and cooking, with the social network they created in their community to create an economically focused thriving web. They sold and bought all the household items which they created with each other, adding to the economic situation of their family to a large degree. They sold items to gain currency to add to that of their husband, and bought items necessary to the survival of their families. The female contribution to the families economy was much more then minuscule than one would assume.

Overall, history is not as it seems. Through lack of education, very few women were able to let the future know that they did indeed have an impact on the world they lived in. Women were not under the absolute control of their husbands, and they did not depend solely on their husbands for their livelihood. A household, or community, in early 19th, late 18th century was a contribution of both genders. Without the contributions of either one, the entire institution would not be able to function. Without the contributions of women, which are usually not acknowledged, the entire society would have been doomed to failure.

Adult, Schmudult. (English Week one post)

2008-06-30T07:26:00.000-07:00

What motivated Cole to take Garvey's offer of circle justice, happened to be the impending gloom that was being tried as an adult; something used only in the most extreme of cases. Most children under the age of 18 in the United States are tried for criminal offenses differently then people older then 18, usually with less severe sentencing for similar crimes. However, in cases which meet certain criteria (differs from place to place) a minor can be tried as an adult in the regular criminal justice system. In order for this to happen the crime either has to fall under the provisions of statutory exclusion for his state, or be given a Judicial Waiver by their judge. Usually, this would require the crime being that of a violent or aggressive nature, and possibly the child having a history of similar activities. In general, the Juvenile criminal system is focused on rehabilitation as opposed to straight out punishment as the Adult court is. Being tried as an adult essentially means that the government has given up trying to help you, and has decided that society will only ever be safe with you locked away from it. Ben Mikaelsen clearly understood the system, infusing Cole's circumstances with almost every feature of the system concerning minors being tried as adults. Cole was at this point quite clearly a danger to society who had already been through the Juvenile system many times, without any change in his behavior, thus he was finally about to be given the full punishment for beating Peter Driscal. It's quite understandable why he would jump at the chance of again avoiding the reality of a real, unrestrained punishment. Avoiding this, and choosing circle justice is his final shot at being helped, rather than truly punished for his actions.

Works Cited:

Protass, Harlan J. "When Do Kids Get Tried as Adults?" Slate. 14 Aug. 2007. 29 June 2008 <http://www.slate.com/id/2172226/>.

"Juvenile Justice." PBS Frontline. 30 June 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/states.html>.

Revolution Propaganda Uncovered!

2008-05-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

Everyone!

They've recently uncovered a speech given promoting the American Revolution that borders on Propaganda!

Check it out here: Revolution Propaganda

A Disquieting Endeavour Indeed.

2008-04-14T21:23:00.000-07:00

Palmyra, April 14. 2008

Dear Arnold Shorey,

A very Disquieting endeavour the journey through your contemporary School ended up being; I had hardly happened through the door before I was struck by a level of disagreeable Flagrant Noise emanating about the building that I was wholly taken aback to the point of a Ghastly fear. Before I transgress on a Rant which would leave you with very little Idea of how to respond to, I shall convey upon you my own disposition on the intricacies of social interaction among Civilized peoples.

I, in my Youth, pledged to attempt to, in every instance, speak truth, as well as to speak ill of no man whatever, not even if it be in a matter of truth; that I should instead, in such a Circumstance, speak praise of all such a mans' good deeds mentioning not his faults. These actions are seemingly utterly lacking throughout the entirety of the establishment of Nokomis. In their place are the churlish Abyss gossip. Utterances of irreverence are quite bearable when handled through skillful conversation; yet the largest fault of those children about the halls were not handled in such a manner, not in the least. It seems, to speak candidly, that the level of Linguistic command which the youth of the world now are in possession of lacks the knowledge of the fundamentals of how to put such a thing as language into Practical everyday use; otherwise known as holding Conversations. I observed time and again countless people speaking overly much about themselves, while at the same time appearing to be trying to be disagreeable and wanting of a dispute.

Does this not strike your esteemed self as Unacceptably horrid?

Do you not feel as if you have failed in your efforts to educate these people on how to live out a successful civil life?

You need not worry overly much about how much of the fault rests upon your inadequacies as an instructor, for I have determined the root of these Destructive deficiencies in society. The Blame can be traced back to the lack of effort, and indeed the very need for effort afforded to the world through the advancements made upon my works of harnessing Electricity since my first Death. The epitome of these findings lies in a method of communications labeled "text Messaging", I gather that the general level of Accepted coherency is quite profoundly atrocious that even the most literate person stoops to the depths of blather when confronted with such a means of communication. It is therefor' more of my fault then yours that so much lunacy is seen throughout this days youth; had I not Accomplished my great Deeds, many would doubtlessly still today have been of a higher motivation, civility, and education level. Fear not, for the Blame lies not with yourself, but with the greater part of society; they having been unprepared to effectively Embrace my Astounding discoveries. I fear that not but me ever truly would have been, in truth. My Sincerest Apologies to the world for not having realized these consequences at an earlier date.

B Franklin

Cory's Unexcusably Late, Ridiculously Horrid Essay of Doom.

2008-04-01T17:27:00.000-07:00

The following is an essay using Cliffnotes, 2000 Census Report, and Dating the Iroquois Confederacy to support the claim that Contact between native Americans and Europeans between the founding of Jamestown (1607) and the outbreak of the American revolution (1776) constituted a continuous cultural revolution for native people.

Today, most Native Americans are mingled and almost completely indiscernible from the descendants of those who once were considered a threat to an entire way of life. They made good on that threat. Once thriving with many Indian nations going about their business and interacting with each other as they chose, within three hundred years the continent of North America was an extension of the European world in every aspect of culture. This rapid and drastic change occurred not because of internal natural progression, but because of outside forces forcing Native Americans to change, adapt, and conform, or be utterly annihilated.

From the time Europeans started showing up on the shores of North America, to the breakout of the American Revolution the economy of the surrounding tribes was controlled and altered by the will of the Europeans. Before the settlement of Jamestown was established in 1607 the nearby Powhatan people had a culture hinging it's hopes of survival on the growing of maize and other crops along with hunting enough game to eat, what surplus goods they had they exchanged with others in symbolic trading rituals to gain power. With the colonization of Jamestown, which was established with the thought of plundering the riches of the New World for export back to England, the goods of the Powhatan's were needed to feed the colonists while they spent their time searching for gold. Once the colonists finally realized they were going to need to become self sustainable, their interactions with the Powhatan's became another source of extra income, rather then one of required for living. This was the first step towards a complete and utter dependence by Native Americans on trading furs with Europeans for European industrialized goods which they could not create on their own. With all of this hunting merely to sell the unending demand for furs, also contributed to decreased game amounts causing an inability to live off the land and support large amounts of people like Native Americans had always been doing before the arrival of the Europeans settlers. All the way up through the outbreak of the American revolution, the Native American economy was based completely around bartering with furs to the Europeans, all being traced back to that original search for profit in this "New World".

Native American Nations had at one point for hundreds of years been separated, but once the Europeans arrived on their shores, and they started to realize just how powerful a force they were dealing with, some Nations realized that in order to be more then a nuisance to the Europeans, they could no longer be separated into so many split up communities. To the Europeans one Indian was just like another, he was an Indian, that was his group, any sub category was of far less importance; however, to Native Americans, the individual nation that one belonged to was of far more importance then what the Europeans saw it as. This started to change once European presence started to become seen as something that wasn't just going to go away if Native Americans continued to do as they had been doing for so long. With this realization tribes started to band together, many, such as the Tuscaroras in 1700 joined the already established Iroquois league in what can be seen as an attempt to combine all the power of the many once scattered tribes into one that could possibly, hopefully stand against the domination of the European settlers slowly taking over the entire continent. It's overall effect however, was to group together Native Americans in their own minds as well as the Europeans. It was no longer the Powhatan's, and the Mohawk against the French and the English; it was the Indians against the Europeans.

Over the whole of America, so many different native American religions had flourished and been practiced for hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived; more importantly, before the European diseases which Native Americans had no resistance to arrived. With the arrival of these diseases came one of the largest drops of a population of people that has ever occurred in recorded history. Native Americans were succumbing to these new diseases and dieing at such disturbingly huge rates that it is quite astonishing that they were able to regain their footing at all after the first waves of death ran rampant through their nations. At the same time these plagues such as small pox were ravaging the local population, European missionaries were arriving to try and sway some of the Indians over to Christianity. The missionaries telling the Native Americans about the graces of God were, along with their compatriots from Europe, not be afflicted at all by the utter destruction that the Indians themselves were; this did not go unnoticed by the Native Americans. As such, many Native Americans began to convert to Christianity in the hopes that the missionaries were correct in their teachings, and that they would be saved from the horrifying deaths befalling their brethren at the hand of cold, disgusting plague by this new omnipotent God. Thus, out of fear of death, a piece of Native American culture, in their various religions was severely close to being lost.

It may have been noticed that this entire paper has been in the past tense, that was quite misleading. It may have been noticed that this entire paper has been talking about pieces of the Native American Culture that either morphed, or had been completely destroyed, that was quite misleading. With European contact, and colonization in the Americas came a dramatic continuous cultural revolution for the Natives of the area. With that contact and interactions came a huge shift in power over the continents of North and South America. Yet, these things do not mean that Native American culture is completely obliterated and gone. According to the 2000 U.S Census report their are 2,475,956 American Indian, and Alaska Natives living in the United states; not a large percentage of the total population, but a large number for a race most see as either extinct or only running casinos. With events as recent as the memorial ride to Wounded Knee in 1990, it is impossible to call Native American Culture as completely gone. The original way of life for human beings on this continent isn't gone, it has been attacked, and thought to be destroyed, but it hasn't succumbed, it simply shrunk, and, more importantly, adapted. Native American culture doesn't have to be used in the past tense.

A Wonderful Painting of loveliness.

2008-03-26T07:10:00.000-07:00

All Roads Lead not to Rome, but to Death.

2008-03-04T22:45:00.000-08:00

The following paper uses information gathered from James Wilson's The Earth Shall Weep, the article Jamestown: Legacy of the Massacre of 1622 on bookrags.com (1), the article King Philip's war on pilgrimhall.org (2), along with personal knowledge from class discussions to prove that although Jamestown and Plymouth ended up with the same results, they achieved these goals for completely different reasons, in completely different ways.

Both Jamestown and Plymouth were quite similar and comparable in their effect on the Native Americans that they interacted with; yet the actions that caused these effects, and, even more drastically the, motivation which led to these actions is where the differences between these two become overly apparent. From each of the very reasons for making the arduous voyage to America in the first place, to the way they went about getting what they needed from the Native Americans near them, to the bloodshed that ensued, both of the colonies essentially accomplished relatively the same things. The difference between the two lies in why they accomplished this.

Jamestown was founded as an English charter for colonization, so that the King wouldn't miss out on the "riches" of the new world that the French, Dutch, and particularly the Spanish were already gloating about. It was a place of economic benefits first and foremost, and as such the people settling there, were there for the profit they envisioned was involved. Plymouth was founded by Puritans from England disliking the social atmosphere in both England and the Netherlands. They simply wanted a place which they can call there own, and establish their own culture, without being influenced in any way by those of others.

Jamestown planned to be dependent on the Indians for the first year of settlement, but after that time were supposed to have set up a system where they could be self sufficient; due to greed, and a little laziness, this didn't happen. The people of Jamestown remained almost completely dependent on the Powhatan's near them to provide them with food. The colonists spent their time and effort either growing lucrative crops such as tobacco, or searching for gold. This sort of pressure to feed not only themselves, but also the colonists of Jamestown, did not sit very well with the Powhatan's, but, at least for a while, they were persuaded to comply through intimidation, and a moderate amount of actual force. The Puritans on the other hand, after starting off using the same methods of forcefully securing the food of their own Native American neighbors, the Wampanoag's, learned the hard way during their first winter that they were going to need to learn how to sustain themselves. The quickest way of obtaining this knowledge was to go to those who had been unwillingly feeding them so far. The Puritans and the Wampanoag's decided on terms which named them as allies and mutual benefactors, unfortunately for the Wampanaoag's the Puritans were still intent on not being equal.

The colonists of Jamestown hated it when they silently realized that they were dependent on the Powhatan's. To them, they are English; they are supposed to be far superior to these mere savage natives; and yet here they were hinging their own survival on the resourcefulness of those self same "savages". This predicament led to an overwhelming psychological contradiction for the colonists in Jamestown: on the one hand they needed to establish their superiority, and on the other they couldn't let themselves get carried away and destroy the Powhatan's or else they would soon follow them to oblivion, and they knew it. However, this knowledge wasn't enough to keep the English from oppressing, and demanding more and more from the Powhatan's as time went by, and eventually the Powhatan's simply refused to submit any longer; thus came the carefully orchestrated Powhatan uprising. With the massacre of 347 settlers the Powhatan's "meant to send a powerful warning that the English needed to recognize Powhatan superiority, behave appropriately, and restrict their settlements to the original Jamestown area." (1). This warning was the exact thing the people of Jamestown had been battling with in their minds, and served as an infuriating cause for retribution, justification to let loose the frustration they had been trying to hold at bay all along. "Open warfare lasted ten years" (1)

The Puritans demonstrated with their very coming to America, leaving even the Netherlands where they were religiously accepted, that they were very intent on keeping their own traditions and culture unaffected by outside influences in the least. When faced with having to have at least civil relations with the Wampanoag's the Puritans began to panic as to the affects this association would have on their ideas on how life needed to be led; they worried if they became to friendly with the Wampanoag's that they would start merging cultures, which was the very thing they had come across the Atlantic to avoid doing. It was this fear of assimilation that was the real reason why friction was created and escalated between the Puritans and the Wampanoag's to the point of all out war in King Philip's war. It was that unwillingness to accept the ideas and ways of others that caused the decimation of almost all of the Native Americans in New England. It was that close mindedness that caused the destruction of another entire way of living. Ironically, the Wamponoag's were forced to do just what the Puritans had been so adamant about avoiding, "As the traditional base of existence changed due to the Colonists’ victory, the Wampanoag and other local Native communities had to adapt certain aspects of their culture in order to survive." (2).

A general trend of results is quite evident through both the histories of Jamestown, and Plymouth as it relates to their interaction with Native Americans. The results of both being extreme hostility towards Indians, followed by killing of said Indians, however, these were brought about for almost completely different reasons. Each colony brought it's own mindset very distinct mindset with it when coming to America, and as such each made separate decisions based on completely different reasoning. The Jamestown colonists focus on profit, instead of their own well being, along with their need to be superior were the main driving forces behind their decisions and hostilities; while the Puritans unwillingness to even consider changes to their way of life were the main driving force behind their decisions and their hostilities. In the end though, though the methods and reasonings were much different, the results were the same. Death.

Just a misunderstanding, really. (A horrible, destructive misunderstanding)

2008-02-14T20:51:00.000-08:00

The following paper deals with the primary cause of conflict between Europe and Native America after first contact, and states that that primary cause was conflicting religious beliefs, leading to very different understandings of the world around them. It draws its information from 1. The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America, by James Wilson, 2. the article from Cross Currents, Mountains made Alive: Native American Relationships with Sacred Land By Emily Cousins and 3. the article Native American Culture of Giving by Heather Francis.

The primary cause of conflict between Native America and Europe was conflicting cultures caused by differences in religion. This is very easily determined by looking at the many aspects in which the two cultures had huge misunderstandings, from ideas about place, to gifts, to perception of time itself. The brunt of the conflict between European and Native American societies could have been avoided had there been lesser of a gap between how each perceived the world around them, based on their culture and religious beliefs.

The earth, and place as a whole were viewed very differently by European and Native American cultures. Land was an object to be owned, bought, and sold to Europeans; This notion was completely and utterly foreign to Native Americans, who saw the land as simply land, which belonged to no one. Also most Native American religions held certain specific places as sacred, making them unable to leave these places rightfully. "Frank Mitchell, a Navajo Blessingway singer, says that after First Man and First Woman created the four sacred mountains of Navajoland, First Woman paused and said, "I wonder by what means [the mountains] will be made to be alive!... Let some beings take standing positions within them! In matter of fact, if there be none standing within them, they are but things that lie around without purpose." (2). Unfortunately for them it just so happened that some of these places were good farming land or filled with valuable minerals... things that the Europeans were obsessed with. Being separated from the places that they held sacred, was to Native Americans the absolute worst thing that could happen to them as James Wilson touches on "It is their relationship with the land and its other inhabitants which identifies them as who they are. Their destiny is not to change it or move away from it but to maintain it according to the instructions they received 'long ago' from their Creator or culture hero." (1 pg.7). In essence the Europeans were asking (and forcing in fact) the Native Americans to do something that was completely unthinkable to them, they were made to leave the places they had always known they were not supposed to leave, because the Europeans had no real concept of place being utterly important, this is because of the lack of need to be in a certain place in most Judaeo Christian religions which were the overwhelmingly dominant religions of Europe. If the Europeans had been able to have a sense of the important role a specific place could have on a people, they would have been much more hesitant to force the Native Americans to do what they couldn't do, leading to much less conflict.

"A Gift Economy is one where status is given to individuals based on what they give to others as opposed to a commodity or exchange economy where status is given to those individuals who have the most (Pinchot 1999)." (3) The Europeans basic cultural outline is as today, one in which those who simply had the most, had the most power. Native Americans on the other hand viewed those that could give the most to others in the form of gifts as those with the most power. "..., from the Native American point of view, a form of ceremonial gift exchange which allowed them to bind the newcomers into their world of mutual obligation." (1 Pg.39) Seeing as how the Europeans had no concept of this system, they had no way of knowing that the gifts which the Native Americans were bestowing upon them in plenty were really a way of them telling the Europeans that they were had more power in the relationship between the two societies, and expected the Europeans to act accordingly. This misunderstanding led to a funneling of Native American resources into the pockets of Europeans. The Native Americans were giving everything they had to the Europeans with the thought that they were establishing that they were the more powerful, but in reality the Europeans were simply taking the things they were given. Then, when conflict hit, the Native Americans had thrown away many of their resources which could have been used to help fend off their enemies and most likely avoid the utter decimation that they received.

European mindset as to time always moving forward along a straight, linear, progressive line, caused a way of being that innovation and betterment of everyday life for the future becomes what everyone's lives are about. Where as the Native American view of time as cyclical, in that everything comes in cycles, leads to the opposite, where only focusing on the present occurs, not needing to look ahead, not needing to do anything that will make life easier or better in the future, because time is for the most part the same "Historic time is therefore less a straight line than a repeating cycle: instead of taking you a step further from your beginning, each year in some sense brings you back to it."(1 Pg.7). This complete opposite view of the world, led to difference in priorities, and overall way of living between the two cultures. The Europeans compulsion to advance falls in sharp conflict with Native American lack of such motivation. If the Europeans had simply had the same sense of time as the Native Americans, then they never would have felt the need to take the America's as their own in order to make life better for themselves in the future. Without this confliction in sense of time, there would have been no conflict between Europeans and Native Americans.

The differences between European and Native American religion, and culture, led to a complete inability to comprehend each other, and that, was the cause of conflict between them. The Europeans inability to understand or even comprehend the way the Native Americans perceived the world they lived in, from cyclical time, to the importance of physical places, to the meaning of the gifts they were receiving, were what primarily caused the conflict. It also didn't help that the Native American lack of realization that the Europeans didn't understand the meaning of everything they were doing. Conflict was more of a lack of comprehension based upon completely different views of the world then anything else.

"This, for the Indians, was how the universe worked" (1 pg.39)

The problem is, that's not how the universe worked for the Europeans.

My, Amazing, Self Generated Essay Question!

2008-02-07T20:25:00.000-08:00

How would Native American culture have changed by today had Europeans been present in the America's, but not directly interfering with their lives?

^.^

The World, a History... A Future?

2008-01-16T08:49:00.000-08:00

The following essay analyzes wether or not David S. Landes statement that the general trend of history is to "cultivate skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means" and that the lesson of the past six hundred years is to "the need to keep trying", and whether or not he is indeed correct. To support this I use Lades' own book The Wealth and Poverty of nations, along with my own understanding of western history since the end of the middle ages. People need to read and understand this in order to fully understand how we need to proceed in making progress into the future.

History as a whole follows a general trend. Things tend to be recurring tendencies. David S. Landes describes this pattern as tendencies to "cultivate skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means". Is he correct? Is Landes correct in thinking that since the end of the middle ages that those are the major recurring themes? Even more so, is the lesson he draws from this trend, "the need to keep trying", truly the best way to continue upon the path of the last six hundred or so years? In order to answer these discover the answers to these questions there is a need to take a look at each of his claims individually and see if they are supported by the major happenings of recent history, in that lies the answer to whether or not Landes is correct. Much more importantly, in that lies how we, the entire human population of Earth, need to proceed into the future as a whole.

Landes' first piece of the trend of the last six hundred years is quite hard to argue against, in that the world as a whole has in it's fairly recent history most definitely cultivated a skeptical faith. This path started with the Scientific Revolution which swung open the doors to doubt in everything. It's basic principles revolve around the need to physically prove everything before you can truly put faith in it's existence. Since the ideals and methods of the Scientific Revolution have become almost completely globally accepted, not to mention expected, the idea of basing knowledge on faith alone has become laughable to most. You can not tell someone that grass is green because some guy went around with a crayon the day before, without them being skeptical (well... assuming their IQ is above room temperature... Celsius). Skepticism in everything has slowly but surely been growing since the Scientific Revolution until it now is just completely accepted, without most people even realizing it. Score one for Landes.

The second claim made as to the general course of history has to do with a tendency to avoid dogma, this can most definitely be seen in a number of different time periods. First, the original humanists of Italy were the first to challenge the complete importance of religion in daily life, contending that the human experience was worth something, and that a persons life didn't have to only be a test as to said persons worthiness in the afterlife. This was the first crack in the authority of religion in the world coming out of the middle ages. Then came scientists like Copernicus, who held theories which didn't match up word for word with scripture. When they tried to spread their ideas, the Catholic Church naturally got nervous of the effects of this and the new found doubt that might be applied to all of what was said in scripture. Thus, the scientists were attempted to be silenced. Some, like Copernicus, were; Others, like Galileo, were not. From the Scientific Revolution forwards, religious authority has lessened and lessened. Finally, the English, during the Industrial Revolution, developed a nasty habit of only seeing everything around them as it's economic impact on themselves... We now call this mentality the cash nexus. When everyone is in that state of mind, dogma is non-existent. Nothing but cold hard cash has any authority over peoples decisions, for better or worse. Having those three things together happen and destroy peoples obedience to religious authority has led to a society where many more people avoid dogma as if it were a disease, then not. Landes is correct once more.

The Third piece of Landes claim has to do with an increasing in listening and watching well.The Scientific Revolutions principle of proving everything, required a standard of measuring proof; this standard came to be known as the scientific method. The scientific method is based entirely off of sensual observations. In order to prove something to somebody, you need to be able to make it noticeable to at least one of their five senses (possibly more, depending of course on the stubbornness of the person) that said thing actually exists. From this comes a need to listen and watch well in order to discover something someone else already hasn't. Then recently, with the Flattening of the world, our abilities to listen and watch the world have improved drastically with the use of the internet, and as our ability increases, so does our need. The closer we become to being able to compete directly with the entire world, the more people need to actually pay attention to who's doing what to avoid being trampled by the stampede of their future. If you don't learn to listen and watch well, in a flat world, you will get left behind. Simply put, it truly has become more necessary to listen and watch what's going on as history has unfolded. Wow, Landes has a commanding lead over those who doubt him.

There is no way to really justify "clarify Luther, and Erasmus were looking to achieve couldn't have even been close to what they did end up achieving. Luther couldn't have known and define ends, the better to choose means" as being a part of the trend of history the past six hundred years. People weren't clarifying the ends, they were simply reacting to their surroundings. The ultimate goal people like Galileo, that trying to reform some faults he found in the way the Church went about it's business would lead to it's split into hundreds of different sects, and eventually cause the downfall of religions role in society. Though, that's what his chosen means accomplished in the end. Recent history simply does not support the last piece of Landes' claim, leaving him with his first incorrect statement.

Tallying the scores Landes wins three to one; but does that mean that his analysis of the general trend of history is indeed accurate? Has the course of recent history generally followed the pattern cultivating a skeptical faith, avoiding dogma, listening and watching well, trying to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means? The answer is... yes. Undoubtedly so (as is appropriate considering how unconvincing faith is for people). He hits the pattern correctly on three of the most major, recurring themes in history since the middle ages, and even though one of his claims appears unjustified, that does not disrupt the overall legitimacy, and supportability of his claim. Landes accurately identified the pattern in past events... but what of his applying this to the future? That is the real question.

Landes didn't end at analyzing the past, he applied a lesson to be learned from that trend. We need to keep trying. Is this the big thing that need be learned from our past? Does humanity as a whole have to always be looking forward and trying to progress to the best of its ability in order to actually progress? The answer to that is... No. The flaw in this lesson is the same one behind the one piece of Landes' trend that he misinterpreted. The people that have been pushing history to today have not been able to truly see the large scale effects of what they were accomplishing in the end. Of course, most people didn't just blindly make such huge effects on the world, they were trying to accomplish a goal, but the end they sought can never truly see the scope of all the results splintering off from that. You can not create a revolution. The real revolutionary changes are the ones that will never be thought of as really happening, except from the view of a historian. So how does this apply to the future? It's simple, you can try all you want, but you are never going to truly affect the world exactly how you want to. The general trend of history is a natural occurrence, and will one way or another continue to happen whether we are "trying" to make it or not. Simply, history has a habit of writing itself much better then anyone ever could.

That One Little Place

2008-01-13T23:09:00.000-08:00

Where Stuff Is

I. Introduction

A. The Outdoor Resort is the one thing that sets Palmyra apart from all those around it.

II. Economic Effect

A. Money coming in to Palmyra

1. Rounds of golf annually

2. Tourists

B. Employment

1. Expansion

2. Summer Jobs for Highschoolers

III. Intangible

A. Pride

1. Differentiates it from others around

2. Pride

IV. Conclusion

A. The Outdoor Resort is the one thing that sets Palmyra apart from all those around it.

B. Economic/Intangible effects

Cory Knowles

Ms.Lind/Mr.Viles

Honors English/History 10

1/14/08

That One Little Place

school, a wood mill, and some snowmobile trails, not much to set it apart from hundreds of other towns… except one thing; the aptly named Palmyra Outdoor Resort. Since 1952 when Richard Cayer first opened the original 9-hole golf course, Palmyra has never been the same on both an economical, and an intangible level. The Outdoor Resort is the one thing that sets Palmyra apart from all those around it.

In 1952, all of the world, all of Palmyra, and all of it’s golf course were a completely different place then they are today, the whole establishment has undergone many changes; the most notable of course would be its expansion, in 1998, from simply a 9 hole golf course, to a an 18-hole golf course/driving range/95 lot campground/winter ski park/Outdoor Resort (Relaxinmaine.com). A full round of golf alone will cost someone $28, and about 9,000 rounds are played annually bringing in about $252,000 from the golf course alone, not to mention the extra additions, every year to Palmyra (RelaxinMaine.com). This expansion covered all its bases on soil erosion control, surface-water runoff, and solid-waste disposal, and as such it did not harm or severely impact the environment at all. What it did impact though, is the overall attractiveness and appeal of Palmyra as a place for people from at least the surrounding towns and such to come to. Besides the Golf Course, Palmyra really doesn’t have anything to draw potential consumers to it. With a golf course, and even (hugely) more so, now with an “Outdoor Resort” Palmyra now has a legitimate reason for people to come to it above other local areas, bringing with them their hard earned money, which they promptly then place in the hands of a Palmyra resident golf course attendant. The Palmyra Outdoor resort has brought quite a bit of money to the local economy, and it doesn’t stop at cash coughed up by people directly to the resort itself; no, as people are traveling to get to it, they must also stop at one of the few other small businesses proudly located in Palmyra. Had Richard Cayer never decided on Palmyra for his project, we would have been a much poorer community.

When the golf course first opened in 1952, it required a much smaller staff, to maintain, and run it, since then, especially with the expansion into becoming the Palmyra Outdoor Resort it now creates jobs for many people, most of who live nearby. A large number of jobs are created in maintaining the golf course alone; many of which are taken by local high school students on their summer vacations, such as Ben Taylor, who worked as an attendant keeping the green in good shape this past summer (Ben). Add to the jobs created during the golf courses open summer season, to those needed to run the campground, and also the ski park during the winter, and you have one of the largest job opportunities for many miles around. The resort has produced a marked effect on the employment opportunities close to home for many a Palmyra resident.

Also gained with the golf course is something that differentiates Palmyra from so many other small towns in the area. The golf course gives Palmyra something that no one else around has anything like. It, in a sense, gives Palmyra a symbol of something that puts it above and ahead of other local communities, at least in one respect. Nokomis Regional High is able to have a golf team, which is able to practice at a nearby real golf course to help them… because Palmyra has just such a thing (Ben). Without the golf course and outdoor resort, Palmyra would be just another unnoticeable little town in central Maine. With it, people have a reason to note Palmyra more than most other local towns. Ask anyone around, and besides Wal-Mart the golf course is the first thing that will come to his or her mind as important about Palmyra. If there is one immeasurable gain from the creation of these facilities it is pride, which is a rare commodity around here. The outdoor resort gives Palmyra something to have some pride.

All that being said, the thing that really needs to be realized is that this could quite easily have been about thousands of other small rural towns with hardly anything noteworthy floating around them. The thing that really needs to be realized is the effect one single place can have on an entire community of people. One thing can bolster and improve the lives of many people. Most small towns have one of those kinds of places. In Palmyra, it happens to be the Outdoor Resort. The development of it affected Palmyra on both an economic, and intangible pride levels. First, and most obviously, it brings in much money from outside of Palmyra. Second, it gives that money to the people of Palmyra who find employment there. Finally, it gives the people of Palmyra something that they can be proud no other town has in the general area. If Richard Cayer (and now Brian Cayer who is currently the general manager and spearheaded the 1998 expansion) had not decided to place his efforts in Palmyra, today the small town community would be profoundly less prosperous. It is most definitely that one place, that one thing that gives Palmyra something to set it apart, and in some ways ahead of all those places surrounding it.

Works Consulted

“Civil Design”. Acheron: Engineering, Environmental & Geologic Consultants. 12/5/07 [http://www.acheronengineering.com/civil_design1.htm].

“USGolfers”. 12/5/07 [http://www.usgolfers.com/FullCourse.asp?CourseID=12949].

“Golfme.com”. The Golf Maine Association. 12/6/07 [http://www.golfme.com/courses/palmyra.htm].

Works Cited

“Palmyra Outdoor Resort”. The Palmyra Outdoor Resort. 12/4/07 [ http://www.relaxinmaine.com/ ]

Taylor, Ben. Personal Interview. 1/13/08

The Crap Nexus, a History.

2007-12-23T21:22:00.000-08:00

This paper focuses primarily on the causes, and effects of the Industrial Revolution, and how they are primarily mental. To support such a claim I have refered to the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, along with the following sites: lewrockwell.com, industrialrevolution.sea, Wikipedia.org, and Webster.com. I write this to inform you of the effects of a revolution on a persons outlook on the world, and how very disgustingly drastic these changes can be.

Any drastic change, has to be accepted in the minds of those it is changing, and those same people will effectively be forced to perceive their world differently once all is said and done. The Industrial revolution was no different, being fueled by the mental state of the people of England in the eighteenth century, and essentially caused the destruction of value placed in anything other then it's economic impact. It was a regularity of change, and drive to innovate that caused the industrial revolution, that self same revolution that gave way to the age of the cash nexus. It heralded in an obsession with currency. It effectively changed the way people see everything around them. Revolutions are completely in the mind.

The general mind set during the eighteenth century was one which had already been shaken from it's traditional roots by the Enlightenment, and scientific revolution. It was one in which change was becoming a regularity. "the Golden Age (utopia) actually lay ahead; and that people were now better off, smarter, more capable than before." (pg. 201, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations) With that mind set, comes a feeling of superiority, which people would stop at nothing to be able to keep adding to. With this people were now competing to come up with the next big scientific breakthrough. It was this state of mind that was the cause for every scientific breakthrough from the steam engine, to mechanized clocks, to the foot treadle would not ever have come into existence had England not been in the mental state it had been in.

What of the common people? Those without the mind power to be a part in the rush of new scientific advancements spewing forth? In general, England had become a society which was wavering, having for many people lost a meaning, and purpose to life when religion began to not be regarded as so absolute, credited to the Enlightenment. Then comes the Scientific revolution which has people basing everything on observations, and trying to create the next scientific development; but an average English peasant doesn't have the education (even though education was most definitely on the rise) needed to make these astoundingly clever discoveries. So what is an English peasant to do in such a time? The obvious answer would be to continue doing what the poor had been tasked with doing since the beginning of society, that is, to farm, but not as many farmers were needed to feed the populace as had been in the past, leaving many thousands of people willing to accept change looking for employment. For a while they found that in their very own cottages, but once they were expected to travel to an actual factory with machines to increase productivity, they didn't resist. It was the state of mind that the situation which the poor were placed in that provided the workers needed to fuel the industrial revolution.

From the bowels of the industrial revolution sprang a way of looking at the world that is not only despicable, but quite disgusting actually.The Cash Nexus is simply looking at other people only as to there economic impact on yourself. This mind set brought on by the constant competition of the industrial revolution, causes a loss of value in everything from items, to the people around you, to your very future. With the cash nexus comes a plethora of problems which are not perceived as problems by the general public under the spell of the aforementioned cash nexus. It is an outright obsession with money. It is greed hidden behind a technical name. Most people would agree that greed is an unpleasant quality, and yet we live in a world where almost everyone's world revolves around money, that is quite a strange predicament. Not only does this imply that money is actually worth more then the things that can be obtained with it, it carves out a class system that is even more cruel and unwarranted then those of nobility which were so hated. The increasing gap between the rich and poor nations ever since the nineteenth century is proof. Royalty is no longer decided by lineage, you are now worth as much as your bank account. Paris Hilton is now essentially a modern princess, she is better then you, she's royalty; if that statement isn't enough to shake someones trust in the useless cash nexus, then we are all doomed to lives of meaningless statistics. The industrial revolution led the way for people to no longer become individuals, but rather, a source of income. Because of the industrial revolution, you are simply a statistic to everyone else, a much different way of thinking then had previously existed.

The Industrial Revolution has caused many advancements in science, and technology; but it was in fact because of the mind set of people in England at the time that led to the ability for such a revolution to occur. These scientific and technical advances have changed the way we conduct our daily lives; but even more so how we perceive our world, and surroundings. It is true that because of the Industrial revolution that we now have all the nice products that everyone loves so much, and the medicines that everyone trusts so much in; but at what price does all of that come? Is it worth it? Do the physical goods, which are undeniably entertaining, and useful, do they outweigh the value in things of old? Are we essentially selling our souls for nice flashing mass produced toys? That is my question for you, answer it cautiously.

Rough Drafts are fun

2007-12-18T18:35:00.000-08:00

Palmyra Maine is by all accounts a small town. Its largest claim to fame would probably be its Wal-Mart (which can barely even be considered to actually be in Palmyra). Other than that, Palmyra has many acres of woodland, a couple convenient general stores, a quaint little elementary school, a wood mill, and some snowmobile trails, not much to set it apart from hundreds of other towns… except one thing; the aptly named Palmyra Outdoor Resort. Since 1956 when Richard Cayer first opened the original 9-hole golf course, Palmyra has never been the same on both an economical, and an intangible level.

Back in the days when the Golf course was first designed and constructed, a round of golf would cost you about _____, and the course would have about _______ rounds played annually, brining in an estimated $______ to Palmyra. Since 1956, the whole establishment has undergone many changes; the most notable of course would be its expansion, in 1998, from simply a 9 hole golf course, to a an 18-hole golf course/driving range/95 lot campground/winter ski park/Outdoor Resort. Now, a full round of golf alone will cost someone $28, and about 9,000 rounds are played annually brining in about $252,000 from the golf course alone, not to mention the extra additions, every year to Palmyra. This expansion covered all its bases on soil erosion control, surface-water runoff, and solid-waste disposal, and as such it did not harm or severely impact the environment at all. What it did impact though, is the overall attractiveness, and appeal of Palmyra as a place for people from at least the surrounding towns and such to come to. Besides the Golf Course, Palmyra really doesn’t have anything to draw potential consumers to it. With a golf course, and even (hugely) more so, now with an “Outdoor Resort” Palmyra now has a legitimate reason for people to come to it above other local areas, bringing with them their hard earned money, which they promptly then place in the hands of a Palmyra resident golf course attendant. The Palmyra Outdoor resort has brought quite a bit of money to the local economy, and it doesn’t stop at cash coughed up by people directly to the resort itself; no, as people are traveling to get to it, they must also stop at one of the few other small businesses proudly located in Palmyra. Had Richard Cayer never decieded on Palmyra for his project, we would have been a much poorer community.

When the golf course first opened in 1956, it had a staff of _______, to maintain, and run it. Since then, especially with the expansion into becoming the Palmyra Outdoor Resort it now creates jobs for _______ people, most of who live nearby. A large number of jobs are created in maintaining the golf course alone; many of which are taken by local high school students on their summer vacations, such as Ben Taylor, who worked as a _________ keeping the green in good shape this past summer. Add to the jobs created during the golf courses open summer season, to those needed to run the campground, and also the ski park during the winter, and you have one of the largest job opportunities for many miles around. The general pay an employee, ranges from ______ to _______ and anywhere in between. The resort has produced a marked affect on the employment opportunities close to home for many a Palmyra resident.

Also gained with the golf course, is something that differentiates Palmyra from so many other small towns in the area. The golf course gives Palmyra something that no one else around has anything like. It, in a sense, gives Palmyra a symbol of something that puts it above and ahead of other local communities, at least in one respect. Nokomis Regional High is able to have a golf team which is able to practice at a near by real golf course to help them… because Palmyra has just such a thing. Without the golf course and outdoor resort, Palmyra would be just another unnoticeable little town in central Maine. With it, people have a reason to note Palmyra more then most other local towns. Ask anyone around, and besides Wal-Mart the golf course is the first thing that will come to his or her mind as important about Palmyra. If there is one immeasurable gain from the creation of these facilities it is pride, which is a rare commodity around here. The outdoor resort gives Palmyra something to have some pride.

The development of the Palmyra Golf Course, and Outdoor Resort effected Palmyra on both an economic, and intangible pride levels. First, and most obviously, it brings in much money from outside of Palmyra. Second, it gives that money to the people of Palmyra who find employment there. Finally, it gives the people of Palmyra something that they can be proud no other town has in the general area. If Richard Cayer (and now Brain Cayer who is currently the general manager and spearheaded the 1998 expansion) had not decided to place his efforts in Palmyra, today the small town community would be profoundly less prosperous.

The not so simple truth.

2007-11-19T00:29:00.000-08:00

Throughout history religion and science have seemed to clash regularly; this is simply a product of a difference in belief of how to find truth. One side would say that truth can be found simply by making observations with your senses, the other that a trust in something greater then yourself will show you the truth. This debate has changed topics often throughout history: from what the center of the universe is, to how to educate people, to how life actually started, to even the definition of life, but at the core has stayed to the same basic dispute. Many intelligent people have pondered the question of how to actually find truth, and yet the argument still rages, and always will.
During the time periods (approx. 1600-1800) now known as the scientific revolution and the enlightenment two forces (Science, and Religion) started to clash on a number of subjects not the least prominent of which would be the debate between Geocentricism and Heliocentricism brought on by Copernicus, and later supported by Galileo and his telescope. Copernicus claimed that the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth as had been highly accepted and undisputed up to that point. This theory of a Geocentric universe was rejected by the Catholic Church due to traditional literal interpretation of certain passages from the bible. Galileo however came to the forefront of this subject wielding his telescope and his observations of movements of celestial bodies that would seem to indicate that Copernicus was indeed correct. This "proof", however, was not enough to convince the Catholic church of the time, due to their unwavering dedication and faith in the bible. This conflict was caused solely by a difference in discerning truth.

Another dispute between religion and science during the scientific revolution was spurred by Diderot and his Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is in essence a compendium of all knowledge. It contained definitions and explanations of basically everything, based on sensual observations and logic based investigations. The biased, negative opinion of religion held by Diderot and his collaborators laced the encyclopedia as is seen in full effect here "Religion serves as a pretext for this unjust tyranny which has the effect of making a man incapable of bearing with a way of thinking that differs from his own.". Needless to say this angered the church. Diderot's goal to create a complete work of all knowledge based on sensual observations began conflicting with Catholicism when, and only when it started becoming directly slander the church.

Today, disputes between religion and science still rage. The most heated is probably that of the creation of life. The two sides being Creationism and Darwinian Evolution. Creationism theory is simply that God created the Earth, animals, and people in a period of seven days. Evolution theory states that animals (including humans) have developed through a process called natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which a species will adapt to survive in it's environment, through random mutations in an singular specimen that has offspring with other average animals of it's own species, and after many, many generations the mutation that the original had has now spread enough to be the norm. Again, the scientific theory urges a need for physical observable evidence, whereas the religious view requires trust.

A second example of a modern dispute between religion and science would be whether or not to conduct embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are thought to hold nearly limitless repairs for every kind of human tissue. The scientific way of looking at this issue is to interpret the four or five day old ball of cells can not live on it's own, and as such is not truly a living being; thus it is morally acceptable to destroy it for the purpose of creating cures for an already living functioning human being. The religious side would say that it is a living human life, whether or not it has developed yet or not doesn't matter, it simply is human life, and cannot therefore be killed, even in an effort to prevent (postpone) the deaths of other living humans.

The disputes between religion and science throughout time have stemmed of the same base disagreement; and that is how to discern what is true. Traditionally a scientific point of view would have one placing one's belief in what is real solely in one's own power: in what one can see, feel, smell, taste, or hear; in essence, sensual observations. Galileo, and Darwin were most definitely proponents of sensual observations being the root of truth. On the other hand, a religious perspective has usually placed ones basis of reality in the hands of something greater then oneself; in essence, faith. The times, and the debates may have changed the exterior, but the root cause of them remain essentially the same.

What has changed (an extremely large amount, actually) is the general public's exposure, and socially expected norms. Where now, in general the public is hugely focused and dependant upon physical evidence, and sensual observations to prove something, before the enlightenment it would have been considered unnecessary to search any farther for a reason why something happened then God's will. We now live in a society that is hugely dominated by the scientific point of view, whereas during and before the scientific revolution and enlightenment society was largely on the religious side of the argument. This drastic shift can be attributed in it's entirety to the fact that for the most part people look back at the scientific revolution and enlightenment as a good change. If we were looking back at them as a bad set of events, I can almost guarantee that we would still be a highly religious society. Instead we live in a world where religion is discreetly looked down upon; and that hugely differentiates the debates between science and religion of now, and the past.

The large question still lingers; what is the correct way to find truth? Is science right; does someone find truth through their own bodies, or is religion correct in saying that the only real way to truth is to accept that something much greater then you will show you what is real? This is a question no human being will ever be able to fully, undebatabley be able to answer. Science advocates that truth is found through sensual observation, but how do you know that what you are sensing is what is real? A color blind person see's the world differently then everyone else. What if how all humans can interpret the world isn't actually how the world is? What if a humans senses, which science puts so much faith in, are telling your brain lies? On the other side of this is religion (which at least completely admits that it is based on faith), leaving an easily found feeling of never truly knowing for sure whether what you are supposed to accept as real, even though a human mind couldn't ever truly comprehend, is actually the truth. In order to not slip into that doubt, you must have one single quality. That quality is faith. There can only be one actual truth, but whatever way you lean towards, scientific, or religious, you need faith: be it in either your senses truly perceiving things correctly, or in a being your consciousness can't actually grasp. There is no way of ever truly knowing, all you can do is believe, all you can do is have faith.

Intertwined History

2007-10-25T16:56:00.000-07:00

The three largest aspects of a society: Art, Politics, and Science, are all interconnected. This is evident through Isabella of Castile, Leonardo da Vinci and the invention of the Compass. Without any of these pieces of history, the others would not have had such a prominent effect on the world. From Columbus's journey, to Isabella's possible decency had her art not been filled with humanistic ideas, the world would have been a much different place if not for these three things working together.

Isabella of Castile, the woman behind the Spanish inquisition. After quickly gobbling up her chance at the throne of Castile ,Isabella and her husband Ferdinand controlled both Castile and Aragon, unifying Spain. The first thing they do with this unified Spain is to cause the torture and deaths of thousands of people. The historical facts do not shine so kindly on the character of Isabella, yet still she had a huge impact on history.

Compass , an instrument able to find directions, usually utilizing the earths magnetic pull to do so. The earliest compasses were of Chinese invention, and consisted of a lodestone sitting in a pool of water with a needle, causing the needle to point south. It is still debated whether Europe invented it's compass separately or whether they received the idea from China. Whatever the means of origin, the compass that began popping up in Europe around 1300 was much different. The European compass did not require water, and also pointed North rather then south. The effect the compass had on sea travel is quite hard to call anything but immense.
Leonardo da Vinci is arguably one of the most diversely, extremely talented men in all of history. An engineer, scientist, inventor, sculptor, mathematician, and most notably a painter; Leonardo accomplished more in his lifetime then ten average geniuses do. He is the creator of such masterpieces as the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. He is the inventor of hydraulic pumps, and machines of flight far ahead of his time. He is unarguably one of the most influential people in all of history. He is Leonardo.

Isabella had a fondness for the arts, and as such had a large collection of paintings from relatively unknown Spanish artists. During the time she was amassing this collection, the world of painting was being radically redefined by the great Renaissance artists of Italy, not the least prominent of which happens to be Leonardo. When the entire art form was being shifted so hugely with men like Leonardo at the helm, it doesn't matter that you don't have his exact work, or how far away you are from him, all paintings in the known world were radically different then they had been a century earlier. More realism, and emphasis on the human experience influenced by a humanistic way of thinking creeped into the brush of every aspiring painter of the age. Including those in Spain providing Isabella with her with whatever her cruel heart desired. These paintings filled with humanistic ideas were a driving force in Isabella's compulsion to "cleanse" her religion. These ideas brought by Leonardo indirectly caused the torture and deaths of hundreds.

1492 is the year in which Christopher Columbus finally convinced Isabella to fund his voyage across the ocean to the Indies, after his third try to do so. Without her backing the Americas would not have been found, so quickly at the very least, and possibly not ever, considering the general consensus that the world was flat, and that they would fall of the edge of said flat world if they were to attempt what Columbus attempted. Compasses had become a simply indispensable tool necessary for sea travel by the time either Columbus or Isabella were up and about. Without a way to guide him to his planned destination Columbus may never have reached his completely surprising actual destination.

Isabella of Castile, Leonardo da Vinci, and the invention of the compass, these three were all influential on history, yet seemingly completely individually accomplishing that, be it from persecuting an entire nation, changing art forever, or creating easier navigation. Yet without one of these aspects of history the others would not have had such a profound effect, namely on the discovery of the Americas by Spain. If Columbus hadn't gotten his finances from Isabelle, or ended up going in a completely wrong direction because he lacked reliable navigation technology, how would the history of at least the entire western world have differed? How would the political happenings of Europe have differed, if no one had been occupied trying to grab there piece of "the new world"? If religions other then Catholosism hadn't been discouraged and persecuted so extremely by Isabella (inspired by Leonardo's humanistic ideals), how much would that have changed the development of Europe over the last few centuries? There is no way to truly know the utterly radical differences that would have occurred had these three forces not worked together without realizing they were doing so. This is just one example of how every aspect of the world affects the others, and together they form something we call history.

Lucrative Persuasion

2007-10-14T19:55:00.000-07:00

It has nothing to do with science, the world goes round because of money. Economics really is the behind the scenes force driving in each and every new revolution that happens to come along. You can get anything done with enough money. You can create an army to destroy your opponents with enough money. The gathering of money from the masses causes general unrest. As well as the lack of money makes people do things they would never do otherwise. Economics are the most influential thing in the world, and the Medici knew it.

"Democracy depends on consensus, consensus on persuasion. And what is more persuasive than money?" Medici Money Page 88. That statement is entirely amazingly true. With enough money you can get just about anything you want done. This is because people are willing to take any risk for cold hard currency. Cosimo fully realized this and utilized it often, along with his other favorite tactics which is taking advantage of the fact that if you are funding someones endeavors (or their livelihood in general) are very hesitant to the point of outright against speaking against you, and your own endeavors. It is relatively simple to see how this can be used in correlation with spurring on a revolution. One simply has to place a few coins in the pockets of those opposed to this new radical change, and on the hugely strange chance that that is not enough to persuade the individual or organization to stop hindering your efforts, just hire someone to help you discreetly. With enough money your revolution will come about.

"Even when it most resembles a sport, even when it is most futile, war is always cruelly expensive. And where war is never conclusive, a constant supply of money becomes absolutely essential." Medici Money page 72. For the Revolution of Humanism would not have spread so easily and far, had Italy not been in a constant state of war within itself. The fact that this dissension among the various city states existed, meant that the Church did not have full control over everything, and with that came a chance for the ideals of Humanism, which seemingly challenged the traditional thinking of the Church to spread and flourish without being widely recognized until it was to large to stop. This level of chaos does not come cheaply, and requires a very healthy economy before the start, if it is to sustain for long enough for a true revolution to take place. Also in other Revolutions which developed in the form of wars, namely the French Revolution, and the American Revolutionary war, vast armies fought, and without proper food, equipment both of which do not come cheap. Without enough money, your revolution will fall apart.

"As an order, they were virtually exempt from paying taxes of any kind. They collected rent from the peasant population who lived on their lands. They also collected an extraordinary amount of customary dues from the peasantry." http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture11a.html. That is speaking of course of the nobles before the French Revolution. For some reason there seems to be a pattern throughout history that those with money seem to be corrupted by it, and develop a need to gain more in whatever way possible, ethical or not. That was the case for the nobles of France in the late eighteen hundreds, and the British midway through that same century. In both cases the upper class became obsessed with an idea that they were entitled to the wealth of all those below them, and thus they taxed them cruelly, to the point where the ones being oppressed financially finally couldn't take anymore and decided drastic changes had to take place. Those drastic changes ended up being revolutions. Hording all the money you can, causes a revolution from those you have horded this money away from.

"There [China] it produces the very same product in the very same way, only with cheaper labor, lower taxes, subsidized energy, and lower health-care costs." The World Is Flat page 137. The impoverished do things no one in a decent financial situation would ever consider. It's called acts of desperation, and it is a road towards revolution. As the malnourished french peasants rose up and fought for equality a few hundred years ago. the Chinese, and Indian citizens today are doing the same thing much more quietly, with less literal bloodshed. The horrible economic state of China and India is allowing their highly skilled workforce to do the same work at a fraction of the cost that an American worker is forced to do it for, based on cost of living.Those without enough money to survive will inevitably attempt to start a revolution.

Every major change in history has been caused in a large part by economics. Every change in history rather. No matter how many ideals people try to throw in front of their causes, to make them seem just, every single one of them comes down to one thing in the end. Money. It is one of the most sickening realizations I have ever made, yet there is no denying it. I wish we lived in a world where money wasn't on the mind at all times of those that gain power, but that's just it, the people who want money, gain power as a result of gaining the money they seek. It's a vicious circle of horrible, greedy people telling us what to do, and I see know way to put an end to it. There will always be those people, like the Medici who are willing to destroy any pretense of morality to gain meaningless wealth; and these will always be the people that have the means to start a revolution. Money causes every shift in history, it really is what makes the world go round, however sickening that is.

(All information pertaining to the French Revolution courtesy of http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture11a.html
All information pertaining to the American Revolutionary war courtesy of http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/causes.html)

The Future=A Humanistic society in a Flat world?

2007-09-29T21:55:00.000-07:00

Revolution, according to webster.com a revolution is "a sudden, radical, or complete change". Humanism certainly wasn't sudden, but it was radical, that's for sure. Following in Humanism's footsteps however is another revolution that looks to be happening much more suddenly, and possibly even more radical and complete. The flattening of the world, is without a doubt, very similar in many aspects such as idealistic goals, individuality, and empowerment based on availability of knowledge, and as such there are conclusions which can be drawn about what it's end effects will be, by comparing the two.

Humanism as a concept is simply that the human experience is indeed meaningful, and is not just a test as to whether or not you are worthy of eternal bliss in Heaven. Ancient Rome and Greece embraced this way of thinking, and as such their arts, education, and overall quality of living were higher then during the middle ages. The extreme change in style of art is really one of the biggest indications to the change in thinking that Humanism entails, no longer focusing all efforts on conveying a religious theme, time and effort from a humanist artist, is spent on creating detail in the people; the people who had personal struggles, and accomplishments. In brief, Humanism is simply a mindset in which achievements of people alive, and on earth, are celebrated because their life means something.

The flattening of the world as a concept is simply that due to technological advances distance no longer matters in relation to what you can accomplish. With a flat world you can communicate, do business with, and share ideas with anyone in the world... instantly. A flat world eliminates any barrier to how far someones voice can be heard. People are no longer limited by the resources of their immediate physical community, their community from which they can draw upon is now everyone else in the world. There are no limits.

Before Humanism, everyone based everything they did in their mortal life to reach an idealistic goal of reaching heaven, and attaining eternal bliss there. With Humanism people started realizing that not everything they did had to be working towards that goal. Comparatively, in a flat world you could say that children are now pushed to compete against everyone else in order for them to grow up and be successful; this in essence is a step back to the middle ages where everyone based their entire lives trying to attain that idealistic goal of heaven. Simply put getting a good, untouchable job is the new heaven. Getting to heaven for eternal bliss is no longer thought of nearly as much, or frequently; and with the flat world we are told we need to do everything we can in our short time before we are thrown in the real world, to ensure that we will be happy for the rest of our lives.

Both Humanism, and the Flat world gave people greater availability of knowledge then had ever been possible previously: Humanism by challenging the churches habit of collecting all knowledge, as well as encouraging the search for knowledge not of a divine origin, and with the flat world simply through the accessibility through the Internet. With this greatly increased knowledge comes a great sense of empowerment, that didn't exist before. In Humanism this causes people to start to question things, to think for themselves, and to delve into the arts, everyone developed their own voice. In the flat world the empowerment comes in the form of people being able to express their thoughts, and ideas through blogs, or youtube, or many other ways, and have it be seen by an astronomical amount of people, everyone's voice has power.

Where the Flattening is looking to impact economics, being driven by technological advances, Humanism impacted the religion hugely. With Humanistic thinking, people started to question things, even (especially) the previously unquestionable, the epitome of unquestionable was the church. Humanism unintentionally caused the splitting of the Church. The Flattening however will have no affects on the religious state of the world, it does though affect the world economy drastically. Humanism also wasn't in the slightest spurred by technology, in fact it was influenced by the discovery of ancient documents, quite the opposite of scientific advances.

With the similarities between the two concepts there are a few things that can be assumed will occur as a result of the flattening of the world (which is still in progress), from what was caused by Humanism. One, like the gigantic source of power that was the Catholic church in the middle ages, America will lose it's overall prosperity. Fear not about this, because like the church America will not disappear entirely, it just simply won't be superior to basically everything on the planet; and quite possibly as the church had some questionable characters in it's midst before Humanism, so might America become a more purely good establishment after the revolution is all said and done. Two, people will again reach a new level of artistic, and creative prosperity as the great Renaissance artists created, only with the flat world it won't be from the focus on the human experience, but rather, other humans who you are competing, to get paid, with. All in all, Humanism created huge ripples in the fabric of society, and the flattening looks to mirror those ripples.

Faustian Bargain

2007-09-03T14:30:00.000-07:00

In Doctor Faustus, by Christopher Marlowe, Faustus hungers for fame and power; in order to gain said fame and power he sells his soul to the devil. As time goes on, and it grows nearer to the end of the twenty four years he had to live before being forced into an eternity in hell, Faustus tries harder and harder to back out of his deal, however his efforts remain fruitless. From this, a Faustian bargain is one in which you don't quite comprehend the full price you are paying when agreeing to it, and which after (if ever) you finally do understand the full extent of what you have done it is to late to change. At the time of signing the deal Faustus didn't either realize or take seriously the amount of suffering he would endure in hell, and once he did it was to late to back out of the deal. A Faustian bargain at first appears to be asking for something you are willing to pay, until you realize the true value of what you have already given away.

The World Is Flat: 6

2007-08-29T16:45:00.000-07:00

The world is flat... and I couldn't be happier. Not only does the prospect of what the flattening of the world has in store for the general prosperity of the entire planet, but I myself individually have chosen a path that if everything goes right will land me in the first category of untouchables along with as the book mentions "Michael Jordan, Madonna, Elton John, J. K. Rowling, your brain surgeon, and the top cancer researcher at the national institutes of Health.". There isn't much the flat world can do to affect someones attempts to become an actor, accept to give me the opportunity to have my small independent films, which I plan to make in order to be recognized, be seen by many more people for much less money, making it that much easier for me to essentially let others know of my abilities.

As far as how my friends are affected by the flattening of the world... in all honesty I consider my friends to generally have very high intelligence, and as such I believe that they will see that it is fruitless to fight against the flattening, and will embrace it, my friends will be some of the most successful people in the flat world, of that I can assure you. The world is flat, and everyone needs to embrace it, whether they like it or not.

The World Is Flat: 5

2007-08-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

The flat worlds effect on America will be to destroy it's superiority over all other nations, which we have comfortably assumed was our right to have for a few hundred years, by giving everyone, in every nation the same opportunities which we have taken for grant it. At first glance, this is a bad thing for America, and in many respects that is a completely true statement. The thing that we have to realize is, the question should not be whether the flat world is good for America, but whether or not the flat world is good for the entire world.

Yes, with embracing the flattening, Americans will no longer automatically have an advantage over everyone else, and yes the American economy will not be so rich, but what we need to do, is stop thinking of each nation as competing against each other (which isn't logical in the flat world), but as cooperating, as one global economy, which will undoubtedly gain a huge boost from the flattening of the world. If we do this and embrace the flattening, America will in the end benefit in that with the shear number of new minds which are now accessible, will come new technologies and ideas, for not only themselves, or even America, but the entire world to enjoy, which will never be possible if we do not embrace the flat world.

The World Is Flat: 4

2007-08-29T15:53:00.000-07:00

The flattening of the world may be an amazing occurance, which overall in my opinion is a good thing which need be embraced, but there are however some potential downsides to it. Some people who are unable to adapt to the new world, by educating themselves in the ways necessary to survive and thrive in it, will undoubtedly get left behind, and steadily have less ability to support themselves financially.

The flattening of the world also has the potential to cut out the human factor in doing business; without the need to actually physically interact with those that you are trying to buy from, the creativity, and vision part of products, and services cease to be apparent to the consumer, and instead it becomes a purely price based decision. With that come companies like Wal-mart, which underpay its workers in order to cut their prices by fractions of cents, so as to appeal to consumers. Finally, there is the shortsighted argument that as we slowly move towards a global community we Americans lose our superiority over other nations... but I'll discuss this particular topic more in my next post.

The World Is Flat: 3

2007-08-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

Convergence, as Friedman sees it pertaining to the flattening of the world, is simply the way in which the ten flattener's of the world came together in order to actually flatten the world. Individually each of the ten flattener's would have had a small impact on the world, but the fact that they have converged into one flattening force, means they are now able to (and have) created a world in which absolutely everyone has a level playing field. A flat world.

The World Is Flat: 2

2007-08-29T14:29:00.000-07:00

From the first written language to instant messaging people have always sought after the technology that offered the quickest and easiest way with which to communicate and interact with each other. Until recently the speed at which communication was possible slowed the farther you were physically apart from the person you were trying to reach. Due to technological developments this is no longer the case. You can now speak instantly with anyone in the world for little to no cost.

With this comes a gigantic shift in how people interact. If you want to relay a message to a friend in Australia, you no longer need to physically write your message on paper, place that paper, in an envelope, and send it through the postal service, waiting days, weeks, or even months, for that friend to receive your letter, and then wait another equally long time to receive your friends reply; you now do this instantly from anywhere you want by pulling out any number of wireless devices which can now conveniently fit in your pocket, and typing your friend this same message, and being able to receive a response within a few seconds.

Personally this creates opportunities to interact with people you never would have been able to. Internationally this creates the ability to interact with other countries without all the hassle of slow communication, in that instead of spending time to wait for replies on things such as peace treaties, and trade barriers, governments can now much more quickly resolve (or create) problems. Economically this allows a number of things, one, both large corporations and individuals have the ability to reach a global consumer base, instead of only those in their general area, greatly increasing the chance for a single entrepreneur to become successful (provided he knows how to take advantage of the flat world); and two, it allows people to be able to access the abilities of everyone in the world, such as the number of technical graduates in India, in order to create a much higher rate of productivity, in that you can have the best minds from all over the world, not just the ones in your small community. What it all comes down to really, are two things, the speed at which anyone can communicate, and the ability of a single person to be heard anywhere.

The World Is Flat: 1

2007-08-28T14:50:00.000-07:00

The world is flat. This simple statement is completely and utterly false looking at it in a literal sense, however Friedman (an amazing human being, I must say) uses it as a way of symbolizing the fact that because of technical advances it no longer matters where you are in the world, you can now communicate, do business with, and share ideas with anyone else in the world. There are no longer any barriers in how far one individuals voice can be heard. You no longer are limited by the resources of your community, or rather you still are, but your community is now the entire globe, or more appropriately the entire slab. The world is flat.