The Great Awakening was a religious movement that occurred in the 1730s and 1740s. It began following a time of lows in religious conversions, a lack of religious fervor, and was spurred on by the challenges presented by liberal ideas to the old-religions. It was characterized by the thundering, emotion evoking homilies of Jonathan Edwards, the orator George Whitefield, and the growth of emotion in religion. The Great Awakening, occurring in the 1730s and 40s, was a time of rebirth and renewed fervor for religion in the colonies. It was ultimately successful, bringing an awakening for religion in America and began to bring about the seperation of church and state.
The Great Awakening was period of renewed vigor and fervor for religion in the colonies. Preachers like Whitefield and Edwards brought emotion into religion and a change from the "dead dogs" - though in different ways and the idea of emotion in religion became a problem. Schisms occurred with many small churches popping up and competition between American churches grew. As a result of the the new wave of fervor and emotion new waves of missionaries were sent out to both Indians and black slaves. Colleges like Dartmouth and Rutgers were established too. It also represented a monstrous movement of the masses in America, foreshadowing the Revolutionary War.
The Great Awakening also encouraged and moved America closer to the seperation of the church and state. The schisms among the churches that occurred, creating more churches and more denominations made it harder to have a church of the colony. There were so many denominations that it was difficult for the government to enforce the religion as was previously intended. Also, colonies based on a religion and for people of a certain religion were diversified. The governments of theses colonies could no longer uphold and enforce their religion, there were more people of differing denominations.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
We Are America
This picture tells a lot about America. America is an advanced country as shown in the picture with the train and the industrial center. Also like the picture we are beautiful and unique. Since the beginning, America has been special with its different and experimental views of religious toleration and our political system. The train and the industrial center also represent that we are hardworking. All of these have foundations in our modest beginnings during the times of the first settlers like the Pilgrims. America since the beginning, has comprised hard working people, has been unique/special, and has been America the Beautiful.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
AP US Mayflower Questions
1.) The Pilgrims were typified by their religion, which played a huge role in their survival and was a motivator. When the going got tough, the Pilgrim's religion justified the events as happening for a reason and as the will of God. The Pilgrim's also persevered, had courage, and were completely devoted to their faith - which was their reason for leaving Europe to head for the promise of religious freedom in the New World. Of these qualities, their religion limited them the most but they were also limited by their experiences in Europe and their European point of view. Though life in Europe taught the Pilgrims many skills, such as how to adapt to a new home, Europe also gave them a stereotypical view of the New World and its inhabitants. This view showed the New World as savage and rough, and filled with cruel, bloodthirsty Indians. These views, along with their religion caused the Pilgrims to be cautious and tentative. Their religion also restricted what the Pilgrims could do to survive. Their restriction on work on Sundays limited the progress that could be made in the settlement. When haste was needed to cure the sick, to find food, and to build shelters and protection, the Pilgrims were limited to working 6 days out of the week. Their views of the Indians as well as their single minded religious community attitude (from Leiden) limited initial contact with the natives and hindered their relations with them.
3.) The real events, the truth that is, is not as romantic. Their wold not be the same view of the beginning of America if the story about the fighting, the massacre, and the bloodletting was taught to little children everywhere. Plus, it does not fit into our politically correct society. America has led the people away from the truth to mislead them to think of it as a romantic country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America changes the truth because the truth is ugly, but it would prefer to be seen as "America the Beautiful." America does not want the past to be seen as it is, bloody and full of brutality. They want the citizens to see the Pilgrims in a good light because it is our past. Plus, you can't have a holiday for the massacring of thousands of people, it wouldn't sell. It is the same concept of the Easter holiday, it is made to sell and make everyone remember it. Their weren't bunnies and chicks and Peeps in Easter and there wasn't a nice little group of Pilgrims and Indians holding hands at a nice table with a white table cloth and turkey, ham, pumpkin pie, mashed potatoes, and bread dressing. Its highly fictionalized in order to give everyone a good feeling about it and is erased for the same reasons things like the Holocaust (though not as bad) are erased and not taught, its because it is unsightly and it is a stain on what some want to be seen as a clean history.
4.) The tradition of peaceful coexistence between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans that was previously held for 50 years collapsed in the 1670's. It began to fall apart as the second generation of Pilgrims came to power. They saw the Indians as a roadblock in their path to prosperity and profitability because of the land they owned. This second generation viewed the Indians with indifference and lost their parent's respect towards them because they no longer relied on them for survival. They lost touch with their history, they no longer noticed the notable par the Indians played in their parent's survival during that first winter in the New World. As the Pilgrims expanded, they began to depend on the Indians' aid less, and, this growth caused a need for land to live on and farm (which the Indians just happened to own.) The Pilgrims also sought to obtain the Indians' land because of the potential held by the Mount Hope Bay to grow into a huge trade port such as Boston. To get the land, the Pilgrims traded the Indians supplies they needed and purchased it for unfair prices. The Indians rightfully saw this as being taken advantage of and responded accordingly. The Pilgrims and Indians could have lived together in a shared and combined community that included the Bay and the colony and shared the prosperity brought by the trade in the Bay (but they didn't really trust each other.) Or, in a more realistic though unfair view, the Pilgrims could have payed the Indians a just amount for the land and set aside another reservation for them.
5.) One of Squanto's biggest assets was his ability to speak English. It allowed him to act as a mediator and middleman between the Pilgrims and the Indians. A weakness of his was a common one. When he gained power, he was corrupted by it and went for even more. He used his powers as the interpreter to try to play the Pokanokets and the Pilgrims off on one another in order to overthrow Massasoit as the supreme sachem. Squanto played such a huge role in history because of the part he played in the survival and well being of the Pilgrims. He taught the Pilgrims the basics needed to survive the winter. Squanto taught them the Indian method for planting the corn and pointed out the presence of herring in the water. He also convinced Massasoit to befriend the Pilgrims instead of attacking them. These two events could have changed the course of American history. Without his aid, the Pilgrims would have died of starvation that winter and then would have been killed by Massasoit' warriors. Without Squanto, Plymouth would not have become one of the first successful settlements in the area and settlement may not have occurred so quickly in the New England area. He also was an interpreter between both parties and played a huge role in healthy Pilgrim-Indian relations of the time.
6.) The second generation received the reputation of being "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because of their lack of religious fervor and devotion shown by the "Old Comers." Instead of focusing on the future (the afterlife) the second generation preferred to focus on the now. This included things like land and they showed no concern for the ways of their parents. I think the name was earned but was a little harsh. I think they should have honored their parents' ways and it is surprising that the apple fell so far from the tree. The name was pretty much accepted and along with it, a change of ways was accepted. Not only was the religion altered, their ways and traditions were altered. They became more greedy, which came along with their lack of religion, and this greed caused them to encroach on their goodwill with the Indians. The reputation was a self fulling prophecy, with it the second generation shunned the Old Comer's ways and with it their religion, views, and values.
8.) Hollywood often portrays the Indians in a bad light. It shows them as brutal, savage, and cruel. This, in some sense is true, but does not show the whole story. Though some Indians fit this description, not all did. Indians varied as much as the Europeans did. Hollywood made a stereotype of all Indians and made them all cruel and bloodthirsty. Hollywood also portrays Pilgrims and other settlers as nice, religious innocent people who were the victims. The Mayflower helped explain both of these views. It explained that though some Indians were cruel, not all were and it came as a reaction to the actions of the Pilgrims. It also explained that the Pilgrims did not fir the Hollywood bill. They fought, scalped, and maimed too. Atrocities occurred on both sides and were brought responses to the actions of the other side. Hollywood does show that some Indians did scalp people, and they were spiritual. Hollywood often shows the Indians dancing around a fire, beating drums, and dancing. This did happen. There is also some truth to the Hollywood view of the Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims and the Indians did meet for a peaceful meal. It did not however include ham, pie, or bread dressing. It instead consisted of striped bass, deer, corn, and other native foods (including turkey.)
9.) Benjamin Church is the only one on either side to even come close to becoming a hero. He had the making of a great leader, ingenuity, practicality, and brains. He was the only one with enough sense to use friendly Indians to help capture others and to fight in the war. He was also compassionate. He opposed the enslavement of local Indians and sought to assure the safety of the Indians he had known.
10.) Misconceptions concerning different tribes made the war worse than it was. The English viewed the Indians as one group and integrated this into their war plan. though they were at war with one tribe, the English attacked multiple tribes driving them into the war too. This view of one Indian nationality caused the war to be more widespread. It caused tribes that were indifferent to, or neutral to fight. One such tribe was the Naragansetts, who were neutral up to the brutal attacks they faced. The English's racial misconceptions muddied the water in the war and instead of facing one or two tribes and befriending a few others, they slated themselves up against a Pan-Indian force (at least initially.)
11.) I think that the Indians that sided with the English were being smart. The English had superior technology and had goods such as coffee and other desired items. I think that it made sense to side with the English because they were not going anywhere and from a rational standpoint it made sense to side with them. I see the Indians who sided with the English as sensible as well as opportunistic. Siding with the English was sensible because they supposedly had the plague, they had the latest guns, and they had goods. The Indians were also opportunistic because siding with the English brought trade and as a result goods like coffee, tobacco, and numerous other goods. If I had been a native I would have sided with the English because it made sense. They had better technology (which i would not want to face), the plague (I wouldn't want it set on me), and there was lot of opportunity to get desired goods from the English in return.
12.) No side in King Phillip's War could make a legitimate claim to having moral superiority. Morals had nothing to do with the war. It was brutal and full of needless blood spilling as well as needless cruelty. It went beyond war, which is fighting for protection. it involved maiming, torturing, and the keeping of body parts of one's enemies. Both sides did it and were guilty of it. Whether it was quartering or scalping, both were wrong and immoral.
15.) I did find that Philbrick did well to keep a neutral perspective throughout the book. As far as morals go i am not sure, but I am sure he would want us to learn about real history, not what is said and portrayed in Hollywood or by one's country. He may want us to learn that what took place between the Indians and the English was wrong, and that the only just war is the one fought to protect others.
3.) The real events, the truth that is, is not as romantic. Their wold not be the same view of the beginning of America if the story about the fighting, the massacre, and the bloodletting was taught to little children everywhere. Plus, it does not fit into our politically correct society. America has led the people away from the truth to mislead them to think of it as a romantic country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America changes the truth because the truth is ugly, but it would prefer to be seen as "America the Beautiful." America does not want the past to be seen as it is, bloody and full of brutality. They want the citizens to see the Pilgrims in a good light because it is our past. Plus, you can't have a holiday for the massacring of thousands of people, it wouldn't sell. It is the same concept of the Easter holiday, it is made to sell and make everyone remember it. Their weren't bunnies and chicks and Peeps in Easter and there wasn't a nice little group of Pilgrims and Indians holding hands at a nice table with a white table cloth and turkey, ham, pumpkin pie, mashed potatoes, and bread dressing. Its highly fictionalized in order to give everyone a good feeling about it and is erased for the same reasons things like the Holocaust (though not as bad) are erased and not taught, its because it is unsightly and it is a stain on what some want to be seen as a clean history.
4.) The tradition of peaceful coexistence between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans that was previously held for 50 years collapsed in the 1670's. It began to fall apart as the second generation of Pilgrims came to power. They saw the Indians as a roadblock in their path to prosperity and profitability because of the land they owned. This second generation viewed the Indians with indifference and lost their parent's respect towards them because they no longer relied on them for survival. They lost touch with their history, they no longer noticed the notable par the Indians played in their parent's survival during that first winter in the New World. As the Pilgrims expanded, they began to depend on the Indians' aid less, and, this growth caused a need for land to live on and farm (which the Indians just happened to own.) The Pilgrims also sought to obtain the Indians' land because of the potential held by the Mount Hope Bay to grow into a huge trade port such as Boston. To get the land, the Pilgrims traded the Indians supplies they needed and purchased it for unfair prices. The Indians rightfully saw this as being taken advantage of and responded accordingly. The Pilgrims and Indians could have lived together in a shared and combined community that included the Bay and the colony and shared the prosperity brought by the trade in the Bay (but they didn't really trust each other.) Or, in a more realistic though unfair view, the Pilgrims could have payed the Indians a just amount for the land and set aside another reservation for them.
5.) One of Squanto's biggest assets was his ability to speak English. It allowed him to act as a mediator and middleman between the Pilgrims and the Indians. A weakness of his was a common one. When he gained power, he was corrupted by it and went for even more. He used his powers as the interpreter to try to play the Pokanokets and the Pilgrims off on one another in order to overthrow Massasoit as the supreme sachem. Squanto played such a huge role in history because of the part he played in the survival and well being of the Pilgrims. He taught the Pilgrims the basics needed to survive the winter. Squanto taught them the Indian method for planting the corn and pointed out the presence of herring in the water. He also convinced Massasoit to befriend the Pilgrims instead of attacking them. These two events could have changed the course of American history. Without his aid, the Pilgrims would have died of starvation that winter and then would have been killed by Massasoit' warriors. Without Squanto, Plymouth would not have become one of the first successful settlements in the area and settlement may not have occurred so quickly in the New England area. He also was an interpreter between both parties and played a huge role in healthy Pilgrim-Indian relations of the time.
6.) The second generation received the reputation of being "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because of their lack of religious fervor and devotion shown by the "Old Comers." Instead of focusing on the future (the afterlife) the second generation preferred to focus on the now. This included things like land and they showed no concern for the ways of their parents. I think the name was earned but was a little harsh. I think they should have honored their parents' ways and it is surprising that the apple fell so far from the tree. The name was pretty much accepted and along with it, a change of ways was accepted. Not only was the religion altered, their ways and traditions were altered. They became more greedy, which came along with their lack of religion, and this greed caused them to encroach on their goodwill with the Indians. The reputation was a self fulling prophecy, with it the second generation shunned the Old Comer's ways and with it their religion, views, and values.
8.) Hollywood often portrays the Indians in a bad light. It shows them as brutal, savage, and cruel. This, in some sense is true, but does not show the whole story. Though some Indians fit this description, not all did. Indians varied as much as the Europeans did. Hollywood made a stereotype of all Indians and made them all cruel and bloodthirsty. Hollywood also portrays Pilgrims and other settlers as nice, religious innocent people who were the victims. The Mayflower helped explain both of these views. It explained that though some Indians were cruel, not all were and it came as a reaction to the actions of the Pilgrims. It also explained that the Pilgrims did not fir the Hollywood bill. They fought, scalped, and maimed too. Atrocities occurred on both sides and were brought responses to the actions of the other side. Hollywood does show that some Indians did scalp people, and they were spiritual. Hollywood often shows the Indians dancing around a fire, beating drums, and dancing. This did happen. There is also some truth to the Hollywood view of the Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims and the Indians did meet for a peaceful meal. It did not however include ham, pie, or bread dressing. It instead consisted of striped bass, deer, corn, and other native foods (including turkey.)
9.) Benjamin Church is the only one on either side to even come close to becoming a hero. He had the making of a great leader, ingenuity, practicality, and brains. He was the only one with enough sense to use friendly Indians to help capture others and to fight in the war. He was also compassionate. He opposed the enslavement of local Indians and sought to assure the safety of the Indians he had known.
10.) Misconceptions concerning different tribes made the war worse than it was. The English viewed the Indians as one group and integrated this into their war plan. though they were at war with one tribe, the English attacked multiple tribes driving them into the war too. This view of one Indian nationality caused the war to be more widespread. It caused tribes that were indifferent to, or neutral to fight. One such tribe was the Naragansetts, who were neutral up to the brutal attacks they faced. The English's racial misconceptions muddied the water in the war and instead of facing one or two tribes and befriending a few others, they slated themselves up against a Pan-Indian force (at least initially.)
11.) I think that the Indians that sided with the English were being smart. The English had superior technology and had goods such as coffee and other desired items. I think that it made sense to side with the English because they were not going anywhere and from a rational standpoint it made sense to side with them. I see the Indians who sided with the English as sensible as well as opportunistic. Siding with the English was sensible because they supposedly had the plague, they had the latest guns, and they had goods. The Indians were also opportunistic because siding with the English brought trade and as a result goods like coffee, tobacco, and numerous other goods. If I had been a native I would have sided with the English because it made sense. They had better technology (which i would not want to face), the plague (I wouldn't want it set on me), and there was lot of opportunity to get desired goods from the English in return.
12.) No side in King Phillip's War could make a legitimate claim to having moral superiority. Morals had nothing to do with the war. It was brutal and full of needless blood spilling as well as needless cruelty. It went beyond war, which is fighting for protection. it involved maiming, torturing, and the keeping of body parts of one's enemies. Both sides did it and were guilty of it. Whether it was quartering or scalping, both were wrong and immoral.
15.) I did find that Philbrick did well to keep a neutral perspective throughout the book. As far as morals go i am not sure, but I am sure he would want us to learn about real history, not what is said and portrayed in Hollywood or by one's country. He may want us to learn that what took place between the Indians and the English was wrong, and that the only just war is the one fought to protect others.
Friday, July 16, 2010
We Didn't Start the Fire
This song, written by Billy Joel in 1989 talks about showcase events and people from the history of America. It literally lists these important people, events, and places. The singer/songwriter offers both a current as well as a historic perspective on the events. Some of the events Billy Joel was witness to while to others he was not. I think that the song is telling about the events as a story, kind of like a scrambled not-chronologically accurate timeline (just a list really...) i think the song is alright, but it is a bit annoying. The annoying part is in the format. It is just 4 lists, chorus, 4 lists, chorus, 4 lists, chorus, 4 lists, chorus, 4 lists, and... for the finale (just in case you've forgotten the chorus...) 4 more sets of the chorus. The song allows us to learn of some notable events that occurred in the 20th century as well as a few in the 21st century.
The Hands That Built America
This song by U2 was recorded in 2002, and discusses events that have shaped the history of America. The beginning talks about emigration into America from various places. The second verse talks about the ideals of America, working hard for one's living. The third verse refers to the events on September 11th, "It's early fall, there's a cloud on the New York skyline, Innocence, dragged across a yellow line." The singer/songwriter offers both a current as well as a historic perspective on the events. He did not witness the emigration sinto America, however he did live during the time if September 11th. The song seems to be written as events happen, not as they were participated in. I think it is an alright song, and I like the way is sounds, it is a modern anthem for America. It allows to look back at how diverse America is as well as look at a few events that shaped America profoundly.
The Times They Are A-Changin'
This song was recorded in 1964 and is about social change, and talks about the Civil Rights Movement. This is the social change discussed, a new social order where all are equals. It discusses the change in the way things are, a new mainstream, a new view, and he says that if you don't change with it, you'll be left behind. The story is told in a historic perspective, and I feel that Bob Dylan actively participated in. The way the song is makes it sound like he is participating and appealing to others to join the new "way." The song itself is kind of a metaphor in that it compares the change in social order, to the flow of water and a spinning wheel, and he says they are all gaining momentum, so join before it is too late. I like the song, I can picture him sitting somewhere on a street corner playing this song to tell his message. It is almost like he is proselytizing for his cause. It allows us about how the Civil Rights Movement appealed to many people and how it gained momentum and began to snowball leading to a large following which resulted to large turnouts of people of all ethnicity and from all walks of life at demonstrations for civil change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)