:((((

so i just finished typing the entire great awakening post but then it turned out the internet screwed up and saved nothing... here i go typing it again... the first one was better :(

The Great Awakening

The Great Awakening was a major religious revival that occurred mostly during the 1730s and 1740s. It all began with a pastor in Northampton, Massachusetts named Jonathan Edwards. He preached with passion about the fiery depths of hell using shocking metaphors and inspiring great spiritual fervor in his fellow Puritan parishioners in his most famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". The Puritan people were amazed by this new type of emotion packed sermon. They were used to their "dead dog" pastors who tried in vain to explain the complex Calvinist doctrine to the confused, often bored by the dry language, people. Problems were already existing in the Puritan church. Not enough people were joining the church. The first problem was the complex Calvinist doctrine on predestination and other theological issues. People had begun to interpret these in their own ways and not necessarily in the way the Puritans agreed on. Second, was the fact that from the beginning the Puritan religion was exclusive. But as the so called "heresies" on the doctrine began to take hold and churches became so few they decided that spiritual conversion was no longer necessary for church membership.

Jonathan Edwards's style became popular and was sweeping through the colonies. But another pastor with his own unique sermon style emerged. George Whitefield was an amazing speaker and pastor. He was able to put enormous amounts of emotion into his sermons. He was different from Edwards in that he emphasized how great God was and how you were missing out on not being with him. Whitefield became so popular that he toured the colonies giving sermons. Soon, many other pastors across the colonies began to imitate his emotional appeals. But because it was something new and different there were people who opposed and preferred the old ways of the church, these were the "old lights". The "new lights" disagreed and said this new emotion-filled spirituality was the reason for the revitalizing American religion. But even these splits had good come out of them. Because of the new churches there were now more people attending them, it also encouraged a missionary wave as well as building of higher learning centers. The Great Awakening was significant because it was the first mass movement of the American people. They had a common, shared event that broke down boundaries and led to them as thinking of themselves as more of a single people.

The Great Awakening, although it may not seem like it, influenced the evolution of the ideal of separation of church and state. The people had become fired up about their religion. They knew from experience from the Catholic Church back in Europe that religion and politics was a nasty mess that could only lead to corruption. The people of America were focused on their religion being personal and private. They believed that if you were being forced to pay for a church or go to a church that bored you and you did not necessarily agree with then you really didn't have much of a spirituality. But if you chose to go and worship out of your own free will then your spirituality will be much more authentic and real. Real religion is not something you can make people do. They also hoped to keep religion sacred and have nothing to do with law, therefore making religion not be the business of the state. Also, they knew the government would then end up paying for the church and the people would pay through their taxes. So overall, many effects of the Great Awakening influenced the ideal of separation of church and state as well as Americans today.

America Picture

This is what I think of when I hear America. Purple mountains majesty. It's probably because I grew up with that song. Whenever it was time to respect America or be patriotic it seemed that I was singing America the Beautiful... probably because the Star Spangled Banner is a little too hard for younger children. Also, this does represent our country. It is quite majestic. We do things here that no other country does. And just like mountains the United States started small and grew into something much more impressive. We are still quite rough around the edges, and I am sure there are some dark crevices but in the end the overall picture is pretty stunning.

from:http//bojack.org

Yayy finally doneee with summer reading!

Mayflower Questions: Part 2

9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip's War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?

I think that the hero that emerge was really Benjamin Church. He was able to work with both sides while being considerably humane (well as much as you can be during a war) towards the Native Americans. He was able to think outside of the box and negotiate. He recognized the Native Americans strength in fighting with their knowledge of the land, and because he was kind and willing to compromise as well as focus on what the Indians really wanted he was able to use it to his advantage. He wasn't perfect of course. There were times in the book that really made me want to hate him. But he really emerged as a leader to his army. What I think really made him a hero was when he captured Annawon and his people in a completely bloodless manner. One of the qualities of a hero is saving lives... no matter which side they are on. I'm sure there were other heroes (Native American or women) during the war as well. I didn't really see Mary Rowlandson as a hero, more as a survivor.

10. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip's War?

The English had begun to think that since one Indian tribe had attacked, it meant that the others were thinking the same way. So the English decided that they would be one step ahead and attack an innocent tribe in fear that they would join the already hostile tribes. This left the tribe no choice but to defend themselves and fight back. An example of this would be the Narragansett's and their fort. They had no intention of attacking because they had made a treaty, but they became worried would fight them and as it turns out they were correct. The English way of doing this cause the Native Americans to become stronger and with more people in the armies and, in the end, made the war last longer.

11. During King Philip's War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken and why?

At first I was amazed, but it does make sense. The Native Americans had been fighting against each other for years before the English came, so it really wasn't much of anything new. I don't really think of them as treacherous or opportunistic. I think they figured it would be good to keep the English as allies. Maybe they never really believed they would ever be able to completely wipe them off of America and it would be in their best interest to get along. If I was a native I think I would have gone with the Native Americans in the beginning, because I think the English were wrong. But towards the end I would have wanted peace and been in Benjamin Church's group for the English.

12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip's War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?

There is no way either side in King Philip's War could make a claim to moral superiority. Both succeeded in killing so many innocent lives. The English had no faith in the Native Americans as a people, even the ones that were living with them (the Praying Indians) they confined them on islands. The Native Americans scalped people women and children and many people survived that only to die of blood loss. I suppose I was more angry with the English, especially how, in the end, they executed Annawon, and their unfair trials. The English were conniving and the Native Americans were brutal. I was disgusted with both of them.

15. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick "avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides." Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?

I don't think Philbrick exactly avoided the moral issues, and I wouldn't exactly say he didn't take a side. I think he leaned a little towards the Native Americans, as I did. But he didn't blatantly pick a side on purpose, he was only trying to record events. I think there are a few moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn. I took away the power of diplomacy is something that ought to be used rather than violence. I think he also was intending to wipe away any misconceptions about the Native Americans, and in that I think he succeeded.

Mayflower Questions: Part 1

1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?

The Pilgrims were very religious. They believed the were part of the elect and whatever happened to them happened for a reason. They were able to accept the bad, for example all the deaths, and keep going. Although, this trait could also be considered a downfall because their religion did have this sense of exclusivity and they did have the "Strangers" in their camp, so they were unable to accept them (like during Christmas) which could have led to fighting within Plymouth itself. Also, their time in Leiden was helpful for their survival skills plus they knew how to hunt. But because they were so focused on survival, the Pilgrims didn't think when they stole the Native Americans corn and realize that it could lead to trouble later on. The Pilgrims knew how to be diplomatic. They were able to establish an agreement with Massasoit.

3. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims - from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving - have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?

I think it's because it is what people like to hear. They want to believe the people who are considered the founders of America fit our ideals today. People think they were religiously tolerant and became best friends with the Native Americans, leaving their differences behind. But also, the real thing isn't quite as magical. The hokey mythology version is softened, it leaves out the violence and the death. I didn't even know there was such thing as King Philip's War. And then there is the fact that the story really has been told multiple times. Mostly just passed down and taught to young kids. This is the first time I have actually read something about the Pilgrims. All I remember of them from elementary school is making funny hats and being in a play about them around Thanksgiving.

4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?

The tradition began to collapse when the original leaders began to die. The new generation of Pilgrims didn't have to work for their survival and no longer had to depend on the Native Americans. They started to believe they didn't really need them anymore. There was also the pressure of land. I think that was one of the big downfalls. The English want more and more land, and land was the thing the Native Americans possesed that the English wanted most so slowly but surely the were pushed into a tinier and tinier spaces. Then the rumors were pretty bad, too. If only both groups had handled their problems with less force and more diplomatic motions, then maybe the ordinary people wouldn't have become so angry with one another. I think both Josiah Winslow and Philip should have treated each other with more respect.

5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one weakness make such a difference?

Squanto was very important to the Pilgrims. Without him Massasoit might have been less likely to make peace, we don't know, although he did do it by lying about the plague being in barrels. He must have been very likeable because he became Bradford's right hand man, to the point where he stood up for him against Massasoit which could have been a disaster. By knowing both the Pilgrim's and the Indian's languages he was able to use that to his advantages. I think the one weakness that made such a difference was his weakness for power. He was almost able to pull off a conspiracy that would have wiped out the Pilgrims and made him the most powerful sachem. He could have joined together powerful tribes and perhaps changed the history of the United States.

6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as "the degenerate plant of a strange vine," unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?

The children of the Pilgrims were largely influenced by all the newcomers to the colony. They started to become quite promiscuous an greedy. I think that they knew that this was happening and accepted it largely in part because they didn't care. They probably thought they were getting along just fine the way they were. Who cares if they weren't as good as their parents. I think this reputation was deserved. You can especially see their ungratefulness in the way that they deal with the Indians. I think that the denunciations of the second generation were a self-fulfilling prophecy. They were probably told this from the start before they started to even act that way, because they never had to really fight for their survival. So in a way they were spoiled rotten and because they were told they always would be they saw no reason to change their ways.

8. Compare Philbrick's portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seems to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?

Native Americans in movies are usually old. They live out in the wild and always seem very mysterious or spiritual. Sometimes the are very violent and they scalp people. In Mayflower they are living in the wilderness. They are represented as normal people, who have a different culture than Europeans. But they are smart and their culture is very rich and interesting. I think that in movies they can maybe even thought of as uncivilized because they are so different. I guess some people may not even really realize that they are a person just like they are. It is true, as I have learned from this book, that the Indians were violent in war. They scalped people and burned their houses, but that was normal in Indian culture. Unlike Europeans though they didn't attack women and children, and they tried not to wipe out an entire people with one battle. Personally, I think Indians really aren't that misrepresented anymore. I think there has been struggles on the Native Americans side so that they wouldn't be because of the harsh treatment they have endured from the past.

Song 15 "We Didn't Start the Fire"

"We Didn't Start the Fire" was written by Billy Joel in 1989.

This song is a list of things that happened in the second half of the 20th century. The song was trying to say how crazy the world was before Joel's generation (baby boomers). They didn't start the craziness.

The song is more of a story in the way that it just lists the things. You have to look them up if you want to know what they are talking about. Joel did live when everything was happening and the people who were listening to the song knew exactly what he was talking about. In that way it did offer a more current perspective. The language is really just a string of words, but it is quite catchy.

I slightly liked this song. Well, mostly I liked the chorus. The rest of the song is hard to sing along to so I didn't really enjoy that much. It is interesting to look up some of the events Joel mentions and find out what they are about.

This song can help you learn about the 20th century... if you take the time to look them up. You aren't going to learn anything other than a list of words by just listening to the song. It also shows that people then thought that things were getting pretty chaotic. It was an active century and so many things happened.

Song 14 "The Hands That Built America"

"The Hands That Built America" was written by U2 in 2002.

It's about the immigrants from all over the world coming to America who started with nothing and ended up building the country. The verses each point out a different important time in America's history (the last one is describing 9/11).

This song is definitely a story about America and what happened to get where we are now. It's very proud and uplifting. The language is very figurative, and there is a lot of imagery. For example, in the first verse.

This is a very patriotic song. I like how it points out the importance of the immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants, and I'm sure most people's are, too. Other than that, I didn't really like the song. It was a little too slow for me. I still think it was a good song, though.

This song helps remember the importance of the immigrants and the events like 9/11. It also shows that people are proud of our country.

Song 13 "The Times They Are A-Changin"

"The Times They Are A-Changin" was written by Bob Dylan in 1964.

The song is about, well, the times changing. Part of it was the Civil Rights Movement and also the new generation and their different ways. Dylan was saying to accept the change. Everyone should the senators and congress men and the mothers and fathers.

This song offers a current perspective on the time period. He is experiencing the changes, too, it's not just a story about them. This song sound like a people pleasing kind of song. In fact, in a quote, Bob Dylan said he was writing what the people wanted to hear. Maybe the ordinary people weren't feeling like their voices were being heard.

I thought this song was really good. I like the harmonica actually. I have been singing it all day. This song feels to be able to apply to today more than any other song for me. It certainly feels like the times are changing at the moment.

This song shows that the 1960s really seem to be a time of change. The Civil Rights Movement and even the hippies are part of this song.

Song 12 "Youngstown"

"Youngstown" was written by Bruce Springsteen in 1995.

This song is about a steel worker from Youngstown, Ohio. He is talking about how the factory used to be huge and employ many people, but then the steel industry in America began to dwindle. This caused the steelworker to lose his job and, ultimately, the city's decline.

This song is more of a story of the past, although the song is written in first person. The lyrics and the tune of the song almost reminds me of a factory in the way it is very rhythmic. It also is pretty sad. When he says "my sweet Jenny" he is actually talking about the blast furnace, which I thought was pretty interesting.

When I first heard this song, I had no clue of what it was about. I don't really like it that much, but that's my opinion. The song is really depressing. The last verse is what gets me the most. The whole song sounds hopeless. The city was on it's way to becoming an urban ghost town.

This song is really about the decline of the steel industry and unemployment for people. I never really thought of how devastating that was. The 1950s and early 1960s were when the city was at its peak, but foreign competition soon wiped the city out. Practically every person was out of a job. I'm sure there were plenty of other cities in the same situation.

Song 11 "A Change Is Gonna Come"

"A Change Is Gonna Come" was written by Sam Cooke in 1963.

The song is about an African American who has become weary and angry about the segregation and racism that he sees in the South (and everywhere I suppose), but he knows that there is nothing he can do about it but wait and hope a change is gonna come.

This song is written by Cooke as he is experiencing the effects of racism. In fact, he and his band were traveling on the road and the accidentally checked into an all white motel and were arrested for "disturbing the peace". The song lyrics are very simple, but the song itself has a very deep impact.

I thought this song was very good. It is has a important message and there is no doubt why it has survived through the times and has even become a symbol for the Civil Rights Movement.

This song gives an African American perspective on what they were going through during the Civil Rights. But, it also shows that they weren't giving up hope that there would be a change and soon they would be treated equally.

Song 10 "Strange Fruit"

"Strange Fruit" was written by Abel Meeropol in 1936 and sang by Billie Holiday, who made it famous in 1939.

The song is describing lynched bodies hanging from trees. It's outwardly protesting the lynchings in the South.

The song seems like a first hand description of the lynching rather than someone just telling a story about it. The song is filled with vivid imagery. The description concentrates on the horrible bodies compared to the beautiful trees. It makes the overall image very graphic and realistic.

I thought this song was haunting. It was almost hard to listen to. I saw the picture that was said to have been the inspiration to the song, it is shocking. It's hard to believe that people even did such things.

The song shows how terrible the rascim really was during that period. It also points out that people were protesting to it and not everyone went along with the lynchings.

Song 9 "Do Re Mi"

"Do Re Mi" was written by Woody Guthrie in 1937.

This song is about migrants who left Texas, Okalahoma, Kansas, Georgia, and Tennessee during the Dust Bowl for California, hoping to find work and land. The singer is warning the migrants that California isn't as great as they say. There are already too many migrants there and "if you ain't got the do re mi" then you better go back home because you are just going to be worse off in California.

In this song Guthrie is writing about things as they happen with a current perspective. He even went through it himself and now is giving advice to the migrants. It is really clever how he used "do re mi" to mean dough or money. It took me awhile to figure out what it meant though.

At first I thought this song wasn't too great, but after listening to it multiple times, I have started to sing along. This song reminds me of "Paddy's Lament" because of the singer warning the others so they won't have to go through the troubles he's had. I also like Ani DiFranco's rendition of it.

This song represents the struggles of the Great Depression pretty well. It also shows how especially hard it must have been for those who lived in the Dust Bowl. It seems like America wasn't exactly the land of opportunity during this time.

Song 8 "Jesus Christ"

"Jesus Christ" was written by Woody Guthrie in 1940.

This song is about Jesus Christ and how he was persecuted by the rich during his preaching. The poor people followed him and listened to him. Jesus told the rich people to give their money to the poor people and they didn't like that so they "laid Jesus in his grave". The song also relates to today's (1940) rich people in the last stanza. It is saying that they, too, will lay Jesus in his grave because of the way they are treating the poor.

The song is written so that it is a story about Jesus, but at the same time it is serving as a reminder to the rich during that time period, so in a way it's also seems like the songwriter is writing about events as they happen.

This song is a different kind of religious song than I am used to, so I thought it was a little odd. Also, it was kind of funny the way the singer tried to fit "Judas Iscariot" into two syllables. I think my dad would enjoy this song because he likes bluegrass for some reason, I'm not really sure why, and the song sounds like the bluegrass he listens to.

This song shows that there was a deep divide between the poor and the rich. Having just gone through the Great Depression, I'm sure the people who were still poor were probably aggravated by the rich who they thought were being ostentatious.

Song 7 "Paddy's Lament"

"Paddy's Lament" is a song that is about an Irish immigrant to America during the Civil War.

The Irish man was immediately put into battle during the Civil War and disliked it quite a bit. In fact, he advises the "boys" not to come to America either. He even says "curse Americay". He came because of the Irish potatoe famine and sold all he owned (cow and pigs) to get there, hoping to make a fortune. Then after fighting in the war, he only wanted to go back to Dublin.

The song is told in a firsthand account and it seems as the songwriter wrote about the events as they happened. Also, the way the songwriter uses "me" and other Irish accent phrases in the song make it seem more authentic. Of course, it is probably like that because it was at first sung by an Irish man who sounded like that.

I think this song was very surprising. When I first heard it I was expecting it to be about how much better America was than Ireland, but it was just the opposite. It seems to emphasize the in an even greater way how terrible the Civil War actually was. It's such a harsh song against America it's quite surprising. I did enjoy the part "Well meself I lost me leg, they gave me a wooden peg". It's kind of absurd. I guess it was funny because it was unexpected.

This song shows that times were obviously very, very bad during the Civil War. This a different story than is told from most of the immigrants who came to America. The Civil War must have been devastating.

Song 6 "Hard Times Come Again No More"

"Hard Times Come Again No More" was written by Stephen C. Foster in 1854.

This song is about living during hard times. It also mentions the poor and to remember them in thier hard times which probably seem endless. It was a popular song during the Civil War, and both sides appreciated it seeing as both were experiencing some very hard times of their own. It would have made sense for them to want to sing their hard times away. The song is also very versitile, sung today about perhaps the economy or you own personal struggle.

The lyrics make it feel like the songwriter was participating in the hard times. Apparently, he was in the hard times himself. The songwriter did not include anything really specific from the times. Maybe he did so on purpose so everyone could relate to the song. No one wants hard times, they would rather they not come at all.

I thought this was a good song. It's not really a song I would listen to (it's too slow for me), but it is good representation of what people were feeling at the time ... and even feeling now.

This song allows you to learn of the suffering of the American people during the Civil War. It proves many people were experiencing these hard times and there were probably many poor people who were seen suffering as well.

Song 5 "Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier"

"Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier" is a song orginating from the American Revolution.

It is about a woman whos husband (or son I suppose) has left to be in the army. It is describing her sadness as well as the struggles she is going to have to go through without a main provider of the household. It also talks about the sacrifices she will have to be making.

I think of this song more as a story (especially in this version). In other versions it has two parts: a male and a female, which makes it seem almost like a conversation. The language is more simple, but the repetition of the line "Johnny has gone for a soldier" makes it hard to forget what the woman is struggling with.

I thought this song is very sad. There is a great possibility that the woman will never see Johnny again. It also is very catchy, I find myself humming it sometimes. It's easy to see how it still happens to be around because of the tune and the story in the song.

This song shows that even though it must have hurt the wives and mothers of the time the men thought it was their duty to go and join the army for their country. The women left behind must have had to make many sacrifices for them to be gone. I never really thought too much about the women left behind. It offers a new perspective of the Revolutionary War or any war for that matter.

Song 4 "Brave Wolfe"

"Brave Wolfe" (Instrumental Version)
Mark O'Connor and Wynton Marsalis (recorded in 1997: trumpet and violin)

"Brave Wolfe" is a folk song ballad (so I am not exactly sure when it was written) describing the battle in 1759 where the British defeated the French in Quebec. Different lyrics emphasize different things. Some focus on the fact that General Wolfe died leaving his sweetheart behind, others focus on his military expertise and his good treatment of his men.

The story is told in this particular version through the tempo and the feeling of the music, as well as changes in key. It starts out slow and proud, and it sounds almost mysterious or sad. You can tell it's honoring the dead general. Then the tempo changes and the notes are shorter. It seems to be representing the military battle and the victory that came afterward. It is being told as a story like after the actual event happened.


I thought this song to be proud but melancholy. It's so sad, but at the same time you can tell how much the general was appreciated. I can imagine people going around singing it in taverns and the towns.

This song allowed me to learn that the British, through this battle portrayed, were able to secure Canada for themselves. Also, that like anywhere else America honored it's heroes and they weren't easily forgotten. They were starting to have their own experiences away from England, because this version of the song was sung mostly in America while the one in Britain was a different version.

APUSH Music: Songs 1-3

1. Virgen Madre De Dios
2. Apache Indian Drums (Sedona)
3. Shaman's Call (From Earth Spirit)

What do you think the recording artists hoped to accomplish with these songs? What parts of American history do they highlight? To what extent do you see these voices and the experiences they represent as part of the American story?

I think the recording artists were hoping to preserve the culture and the music from the Native Americans. Also I think they were intending to promote more awarness of the Native American music. These selections show how sophisticated the music is. It's definietly not a bunch of people just banging on drums.

They highlight the so called beginning, really when Native Americans were alone without the Europeans. They prove that they were doing just fine without them, and they were no less adavanced.

The voices of these people are a huge part of the American story. They are the original Americans. They are were the first people here. America started off as their country. Even today you can see thier influence in the names of lakes and states. Although, there are some people today with the misconception that America began with the Europeans. Now, as time has progressed and people have found out more and more about these Indian civilizations, it's hard to even try to believe in that misconception.