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.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
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
Monday, August 2, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
