-----Based on my accrued knowledge, the American Revolution was over before the fighting began. Adams said,"The Revolution was in the minds of the people". The people changed, and so the war was just the reaction to this change. The Stamp Act was just the event that pushed the colonists over the edge. It was not the thought of being taxed, but the thought that Britain could tax them without them even having a say or a voice in being taxed. The early Americans recognized that in order for them to be free, decisions could not be made for them. They would have to make them and the repercussions of some of their actions was a war. The colonists did not want a war, nor did they think that one would come upon them. It just happened.
-----Most people outside of America did not even know what the Stamp Act was. Only America was upset with this prospect, and the unheard of reaction of violence that followed was astonishing to the British Parliament. Though the Act was repealed, it had to be one of the stupidest moves the British ever made, to make the colonists feel so shunned by them that they could tax them as if they were slaves of women. In essence, this was just a huge cultural misunderstanding. Britain did not understand that this would mean so much to the colonists and did not realize how much damage the shunning by their aristocracy was causing to the wealthy of the Americas. No matter how much the American wealthy tried to act like a true British citizen, they always missed something. It was this critical eye of the British that would push the Americans over the edge into a revolution of their minds and hearts, making a war imminent for the two countries.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thoughts on Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
This was fantastic! Henry has amazing ideas and sees the world as it is, not what he wants it to be. The statement "I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past" is another way of saying that history repeats itself. This coincides with some other reading that we have done, making it seem like more of a common, sophisticated idea because influential people believed it. Also, I love the way Henry makes his case that this is our last course of action: He says it plainly. Everyone knows the last sentence of this document, but what really stood out to me was the "but as for me," part. Henry is saying that even if he has to do it alone, he WILL do it. He WILL fight for his freedom.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thoughts on Letter from New York Committee to the Boston Committee
In this letter from one committee to another,New York shows a very deep unity and loyalty to the colony on=f Boston and the rest of their sister colonies. Showing much sympathy, the committee believes that all of the colonies should meet to talk about what to do with the emergency they have been faced with. That being the closing down of their harbor and the blocking of all incoming vessels. Again, showing an undying loyalty to the sister colonies, New York states that no matter what happens or what is decided, they will go with what is best for the freedom of the American people and the sister colonies as a whole.
Thoughts on Circular Letter of the Boston Committee
Though directed by the colonists to the other colonists, this is a very unifying letter. The writers are saying that what has happened in Boston (the shutdown of their ports) will most certainly happen to everyone else if they are not united in their cause and stand against the deliberate attack on their liberty. Multiple times, the writer speaks of the unity the colonies must have in this time, also making a sort of equality between all men. I thought that the last statement, "we are, gentlemen, Your friends and fellow countrymen", is a huge statement. This alone shows the unity the colonies had, with each other personally and nationally. This unity and nationalism is what will lead to breaks from Britain and the alliance of the Americans against them.
Declaration of American Rights Facilitator Prep
--Who is writing?
First Continental Congress
--Who is the audience?
England but also, it is a declaration to all people of what they stand for and will no let happen
--Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the American Colonists
--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
All of the resolves listed is what is being said. This basically includes the rights of the Colonists as well as not being able to be tried in England for a crime in America.
--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said in a very commanding tone. We WILL NOT stand or the things that England is trying to make us do!”
--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof that they use is the proof that, once again, it is unconstitutional for these things to happen. (they seem to use that argument a lot)
First Continental Congress
--Who is the audience?
England but also, it is a declaration to all people of what they stand for and will no let happen
--Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the American Colonists
--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
All of the resolves listed is what is being said. This basically includes the rights of the Colonists as well as not being able to be tried in England for a crime in America.
--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said in a very commanding tone. We WILL NOT stand or the things that England is trying to make us do!”
--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof that they use is the proof that, once again, it is unconstitutional for these things to happen. (they seem to use that argument a lot)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay #1 Reflection
Revised Writing Philosophy
----- In all my writing I strive to make a point, prove that point through facts and logical thinking, and state this information in such a way that it is understood. By proving my point, I will get my point across in the way that I mean to and with as much information as is needed, while keeping my voice clear amidst the thoughts of others I incorporate. This will hopefully, in turn, cause the reader to generate their own opinion on the topic I am writing about. My point is not to question the writer, but to present them with the views of multiple people, as well as my own. Just as Deemer states, I wish not be the "teacher" of the topic I am writing, but another idea based in facts among a pool of them. This will cause a sort of forum-like discussion which will then lead to alternative thought processes.
Essay Reflection
-----As I have been taught, I analyzed the writing of others, generated my own feelings and thoughts, and stated both, with the intention of informing the reader. In so doing I stayed close to my writing philosophy. A major thing that did change was my I Say. This is a new concept to me and so I have not quite thought of exactly how to state my ideas. Though very opinionated, I have not been encouraged to show my own views as much as I am now. This new way of thinking changes the way I write my thesis and more than half my paper. I have done my best to present my own vies in the paper, but I think that I need to work on this a lot. I am not talking about the critical thinking, but the actual thought process. I must change the way I approach information, making It my own, wile backing it with the views of others.
----- In all my writing I strive to make a point, prove that point through facts and logical thinking, and state this information in such a way that it is understood. By proving my point, I will get my point across in the way that I mean to and with as much information as is needed, while keeping my voice clear amidst the thoughts of others I incorporate. This will hopefully, in turn, cause the reader to generate their own opinion on the topic I am writing about. My point is not to question the writer, but to present them with the views of multiple people, as well as my own. Just as Deemer states, I wish not be the "teacher" of the topic I am writing, but another idea based in facts among a pool of them. This will cause a sort of forum-like discussion which will then lead to alternative thought processes.
Essay Reflection
-----As I have been taught, I analyzed the writing of others, generated my own feelings and thoughts, and stated both, with the intention of informing the reader. In so doing I stayed close to my writing philosophy. A major thing that did change was my I Say. This is a new concept to me and so I have not quite thought of exactly how to state my ideas. Though very opinionated, I have not been encouraged to show my own views as much as I am now. This new way of thinking changes the way I write my thesis and more than half my paper. I have done my best to present my own vies in the paper, but I think that I need to work on this a lot. I am not talking about the critical thinking, but the actual thought process. I must change the way I approach information, making It my own, wile backing it with the views of others.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Text Analysis Facilitator Prep Sheet
--Who is writing?
The Virginia House of Burgesses
--Who is the audience?
“The honourable the Knights, Citizens, and the Burgesses of Great Britain”-- the House of Commons
--Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the reasons and positions of the colonists, In other words, the writer represents the interests of the people.
--What is being said, argued and-or requested?
What is being said is that the House of Commons is that the stamp costs that Parliament would like to raise is not going to happen, and that the people’s interests should not be inferred by their silence over the matter. “Our word is the word of the people as a hole, even though they are not saying it.”
--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said with decent firmness and in a respectful manner.
--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
“It is essential to British liberty that laws imposing taxes on the people ought not to be made without the consent of representatives chosen by themselves.” The proof being given is that without the say of the people, the Parliament should not be able to impose taxes on them. This is a very legitimate argument. Also, they say that their way of voting was recognized by the King and confirmed by his Majesty.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Color Coded Final with Final Tweaks
-----According to Dictionary.com, a hero is "A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities," while rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” Although there may be everyday heroes like firemen, policemen, or good role models, it is much more common to have heroes among leaders, soldiers, and “freedom fighters” in a time of war, such as a rebellion. In a rebellion, a leader, soldier, or “freedom fighter” must distinguish himself to his government and/or the people of his country. It is also imperative that the people or person he or she is recognized by believes that they have their best interests in mind. In the case of Nathaniel Bacon Jr., having the recognition and respect of the majority of the population meant being a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley (the governor) and the rich plantation owners (the government).
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Clarifying a shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild presentation when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he infers the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a Robin Hood figure. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. The moral justification of the colonists made them see Bacon as a hero and Berkeley as a villain.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,
"he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that this was not actually the will of the people, but Bacon using them for his own agenda, therefore having an agenda.
----- On this agenda is to kill or handicap the leadership of Berkeley in order to take over the leadership of the colony. The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the named Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true. Bacon changed his reasons many times, using the colonists as a scapegoat for his actions.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading for the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his followers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition. This is something that happens all the time throughout history and life. Knowing it may come up is the best weapon we can have against it.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. Learning from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation is the lesson. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit the government and the American people. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Clarifying a shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild presentation when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he infers the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a Robin Hood figure. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. The moral justification of the colonists made them see Bacon as a hero and Berkeley as a villain.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,
"he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that this was not actually the will of the people, but Bacon using them for his own agenda, therefore having an agenda.
----- On this agenda is to kill or handicap the leadership of Berkeley in order to take over the leadership of the colony. The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the named Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true. Bacon changed his reasons many times, using the colonists as a scapegoat for his actions.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading for the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his followers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition. This is something that happens all the time throughout history and life. Knowing it may come up is the best weapon we can have against it.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. Learning from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation is the lesson. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit the government and the American people. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Bacon's Rebellion Final Draft
-----According to Dictionary.com, a hero is "A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities," while rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” Although there may be everyday heroes like firemen, policemen, or good role models, it is much more common to have heroes among leaders, soldiers, and “freedom fighters” in a time of war, such as a rebellion. In a rebellion, a leader, soldier, or “freedom fighter” must distinguish himself to his government and/or the people of his country. It is also imperative that the people or person he or she is recognized by believes that they have their best interests in mind. In the case of Nathaniel Bacon Jr., having the recognition and respect of the majority of the population meant being a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley (the governor) and the rich plantation owners (the government).
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Clarifying a shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild presentation when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he infers the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. The moral justification of the colonists made them see Bacon as a hero and Berkeley as a villain.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did.
----- On this agenda is to kill or handicap the leadership of Berkeley in order to take over the leadership of the colony. The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true. Bacon changed his reasons many times, using the colonists as a scapegoat for his actions.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his followers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition. This is something that happens all the time throughout history and life. Knowing it may come up is the best weapon we can have against it.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. Learning from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation is the lesson. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit the government and the American people. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Clarifying a shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild presentation when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he infers the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. The moral justification of the colonists made them see Bacon as a hero and Berkeley as a villain.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did.
----- On this agenda is to kill or handicap the leadership of Berkeley in order to take over the leadership of the colony. The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true. Bacon changed his reasons many times, using the colonists as a scapegoat for his actions.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his followers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition. This is something that happens all the time throughout history and life. Knowing it may come up is the best weapon we can have against it.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. Learning from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation is the lesson. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit the government and the American people. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sorry
Sorry its a little late, but i thought you might want a more exact version than one i was going to change like 10 minutes later.
Final Rough Draft
-----According to Dictionary.com, a hero is "A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities," while rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” Although there may be everyday heroes like firemen, policemen, or good role models, it is much more common to have heroes among leaders, soldiers, and “freedom fighters” in a time of war, such as a rebellion. In a rebellion, a leader, soldier, or “freedom fighter” must distinguish himself to his government and/or the people of his country. It is also imperative that the people or person he or she is recognized by believes that they have their best interests in mind. In the case of Nathaniel Bacon Jr., having the recognition and respect of the majority of the population meant being a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley (the governor) and the rich plantation owners (the government).
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, the esteemed president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild quote when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he states the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" (Ingram being the person who took over after Bacon’s death) is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. This moral justification made it very easy to sway toward a very violent reaction to the actions of the Indians and the government.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did.
-----The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia. Unfortunately, his followers could not protect him from the illness he contracted later.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his folowers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. We can learn from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit us. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, the esteemed president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild quote when it comes to the dissension between the Indians and the colonists, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he states the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" (Ingram being the person who took over after Bacon’s death) is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. This moral justification made it very easy to sway toward a very violent reaction to the actions of the Indians and the government.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though in conflict neither side will agree on who is the hero and who is the villain, there is always a pair for each side in conflict to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley himself admits that the common poor/free men wanted him dead so that they could take Jamestown for themselves. Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did.
-----The death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand. Bacon was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people with these new ways. The view that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters, though. Thinking of Bacon as a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, they did not see that they were doing the same thing. The bias of the rich and powerful was so great that they believed “[Nathaniel Bacon was] of a most impervious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, […]” (Document 18). Since they only wanted the best for themselves, the rich did not see how much the majority of the population needed a hero and savior, as stated earlier. “No course was taken to secure them [the Indians], til Mr. Bacon went out against them” (Document 14). This is a testimony given by Mrs. William Bird to the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate what happened in Jamestown. Though the polarity of these two accounts is evident, both are true.
-----Written by Bacon, the following letter expresses the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s Rebellion had of losing their lives and their land. “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Accusing the governor of the terrible things that had happened recently, the people betray a sort of panic and fear they had of the Indian threat. This may have sprouted from the constant paranoia that all colonists shared of the Indians joining together in the struggle against them. Since there is an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were likely reacting out of fear without thought of later consequences and not out of a want to overthrow the government. Bacon’s loss of a friend in one of the Indian raids most likely caused him to share this fear of destruction by the Natives, creating a reason for him to enter into the rebellion. Racing to support the rebellion, Bacon did not think of what the long term consequences this decision could have. He only wanted the security of his own militia. Unfortunately, his followers could not protect him from the illness he contracted later.
-----As time went on, the original sense of panic that Bacon felt wore off, leaving him with the love of the “mob” and the scorn of the government. Beginning to see the true reasons for the rebellion, Bacon grew into the leader that the colonists had always thought he was. These reasons are later recorded by Bacon himself, where he states his followers’ arguments with the government and the reasons. Known as “Bacon’s Declaration”, the document focuses on the betrayal by the governor and his assembly and the threats of the Natives around them. As Bacon continued to lead the rebellion, his motives changed from finding security to fighting for the common good of the people.
-----Growing rather power hungry later in his “reign”, Bacon became the thing he was fighting against. Replacing his rather recent idea of leading the people, Bacon began to lead for his own benefit. This caused him to see his soldiers as a reflection of his leadership qualities. “Binding their actions to reflect on himself, he not only betake himself to a strict Discipline over his men but also to more moderate courses himself […]”. He considered the men his force and his position as one of power, which actually deceived himself into thinking he was a better leader than he was. Whether he was ready or not, this denotes a time in the rebellion when the priorities of the leader change from the good of the people to the good of himself.
-----As Bacon controlled his folowers for his own gain, he began to attack the one place that would give him the power he strove for. He would take the governor’s place and rule the colony. Based on the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear, grew into the role of leader against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny, and was then corrupted be the very thing he as fighting. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he lost that initial feeling of panic and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government to better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government. When his wants and the wants of the people clash, his won out. This was also an effect of the façade that Bacon kept up as the Face of the People. He chose to deceive the mob into thinking of him as a savior while trying to appease his own ambition.
-----Knowledge is the key lesson that can be taken away from this often overlooked event. We can learn from the reasons, reactions, and thoughts of the colonists what to or not to do in a very similar situation. The Afghanistan Conflict is one recent event where the knowledge gained from Bacon’s rebellion can really benefit us. The parallels of the two events include that our community was under constant threat of attack from terrorists (Indians) and that it was a cause of great sadness within the community, as well as a rallying factor. Whether the rallying was out of the anger, revenge, fear, or desperation for change that the people felt, the thoughts and ideas that came from the attack(s) were the same. From this knowledge of Bacon’s Rebellion, the current government chose that it was best for them and American people as a whole to take a completely different direction in retaliation to the attack(s). For current America, this was to declare war and redirect the anger of the American people towards the terrorists and away from internal strife and blame that could have come up. Again, this choice is completely different from that of Berkeley, who chose that it was in the best interest of the rich and the trade company to avoid war with the Indians. He did not take into account what was best for those he governed. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the government would have had the backing of the population and the outcome would have been much different.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bacon's rebellion rough draft
-----According to Dictionary.com, a hero is "A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities," while rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.” Although there may be everyday heroes like firemen, policemen, or good role models, it is much more common to have heroes among leaders, soldiers, and “freedom fighters” in a time of war, such as a rebellion. In a rebellion, a leader, soldier, or “freedom fighter” must distinguish himself to his government and/or the people of his country. It is also imperative that the people or person he or she is recognized by believes that they have their best interests in mind. In the case of Nathaniel Bacon Jr., having the recognition and respect of the majority of the population meant being a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley (the governor) and the rich plantation owners (the government).
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, the esteemed president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild quote, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he states the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" (Ingram being the person who took over after Bacon’s death) is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. This moral justification made it very easy to sway toward a very violent reaction to the actions of the Indians and the government.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though both sides may not agree who is the villain or who is the hero, there always is a pair for each side to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley clearly states himself that the common poor/free men wanted Berkeley dead so that they could take over Jamestown. I believe that the death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand.
-----Bacon was a young man, fresh from England and ready to start a new life, and what better way to start a new life than to become governor of a colony? Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did! He was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people. My idea that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters I just mentioned, though. The great majority of this group believes that Bacon was a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, but were they doing anything different? “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Though written by Bacon, I think that in this letter the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s rebellion had of losing their life is betrayed in the writing of the letter to all colonists. There is a sort of underlying panicked tone lying right underneath the anger that the document is portraying. If there was an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were most likely reacting out of fear and not out of a want to overtake the government. Whether Bacon shared this constant sense of panic I am not sure, but if he did it was most likely in his best interest to lead the rebellion the best he could for the people so as to be protected by them against all physical hurts. Too bad that didn’t include disease or sickness.
-----Even if what he did was for his benefit or for the benefit of the people, he was still a traitor to his government and the rich plantation owners who ran it, no matter how much he cared for the people. This is not whether the government is corrupt or not, because you are still a traitor to a corrupt government if you begin a rebellion, but rather why he chose to take the one path that would surely turn him away from the government. Once again, it may have been out of this fear for his life that he shared with so many other colonists and the fear of abandonment that they all felt from the government that spurred their rebellion. It also may have been Bacon controlling them for his own gain, in which case he would take the governor’s place and rule the colony, but I believe that it was both of these. Based o the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, my educated guess is that Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear and then grew into the role of leader and against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he grew out of that and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government t better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government.
-----Bacon’s rebellion still has relevance to us today, but more in the way of knowledge than anything else. We can learn from the colonist’s reactions, motives, reasoning what not to do to anger the people or how to keep the consent or love of the people and not incite the hatred or misdirected anger of them. This knowledge can probably be related to the Afghanistan conflict and Iraq war. Although there was no rebellion or uprising of the American people, that is the whole point. The government chose that it was best for the government and America as a whole to declare war and to use the anger of the people to fuel it. This is unlike Berkeley and the government of Jamestown who chose that it was in their best interest, not the best interest of the people, not to enter into a war with the Indians, so letting their people die. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the conflict itself would have been different, but the outcome would have been the same as it is today, a new respect for the government from the people and a submitted population. Though the outcome would have been different than that of the Iraq war, where the government spurned the disrespect of much of the population by staying in war, the outcome would have been much similar to that of the Afghanistan conflict.
-----Also, the media played as much of a role then as it does now. Though their media was word of mouth and our is the news, they were presented with horror stories like those of the thought-to-be colonist while we are presented with them by the news, who hopes to keep the American people stirred up about the problems we face in this war. It was partly because of what they heard that the colonists joined the rebellion and chose to fight against their “beloved governor”. An example of a use of the media for the support of the war we are currently involved in is a PSA done by Muhammad Ali where,” ‘Ali will hopefully be able to convey the idea that Muslims in America lead a free life, practice their religion in a form in which they choose to practice it,’ Mr. Valenti said. The second point: ‘It's not a war against Islam. It's a war against murderers who kill innocent people.’ (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0D61631F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&scp=6&sq=entering+afghanistan&st=nyt)” Here, the media uses a known American icon to further their cause, while the colonists were doing almost the same thing, except using Bacon as their known icon, who also happened to be the leader.
-----Though a traitor to his king and country, Bacon saw himself as a liberator, winning the support of the people and defending their land. Though he may have had an agenda in wanting to lead the rebellion, everyone always has something that they wish to get out of a situation. For Bacon this may have been a better position in the colony, while for the colonists it was more freedom, and for the American people in the time of the Afghanistan Conflict, it was retaliation for our lost loved ones. Throughout all these difficulties it seems as if the government is trying to please themselves of the people. This is how it should be, a government serving the people in order to benefit the lives of the American people as a whole, but are we ready to give something up so that someone else can have what we have? Although there is much to learn from Bacon’s rebellion, I believe that there is a long way to go before the ideals that Nathaniel Bacon and the “Freedom Fighter” colonists wanted for America are completely fulfilled.
-----The idea that Bacon and his men were causing nothing but trouble for the colonists and the government is nothing new. Michael J. Puglisi, the esteemed president of Virginia Intremont College, is one with such an interpretation of the event. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes [...]" (83). Though this is a very mild quote, it is safe to assume that there were much larger prejudices than this lets on. Bacon was a person who would have this sort of extreme prejudice, because an Indian raid on one of his plantations had killed his plantation overseer and close friend. This actually happened to be the event that propelled him into the war.
-----Although Puglisi makes a very strong and plausible argument, there are others such as Robert Beverly, who takes his interpretation to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; [...]" (Document #1). This statement implies that all Bacon wanted to do was take the Governor’s power for himself without inciting complete anarchy within the colony so he could govern later. Farther into the excerpt Beverly explains this when he states the four base reasons he believes the rebellion began; “First, the extremely low Price of Tobacco, and the ill usage of the Planters in the Exchange of Goods for it…Secondly, the Splintering [of] the Colony into [numerous] Proprietaries…Thirdly, the heavy restraint and Burdens laid upon their Trade by Act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, the Disturbance given by the Indians….” In so arguing, he reasons that Bacon (as the General by Consent of the People, or the ideas which they stand for) was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who could manipulate the anger and frustration of the poor and recently freed to serve his own will, making him even more dangerous to the delicate society they held.
-----Though Puglisi and Beverly make many very logical points, there is another popular interpretation that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero", or a sort of Robin Hood. "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" (Ingram being the person who took over after Bacon’s death) is a perfect example of this view, though the author is unknown. It is obvious through the amount of detail presented that the writer clearly was a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5), but the fact that we do not know the status or standing of the author makes him less credible than a stated author. In “The History of Bacon and Ingram’s Rebellion”, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (Document #5). This morally justifies the Indian’s slaughter to the poorer colonists, who made up the majority of the population and Bacon’s army. This moral justification made it very easy to sway toward a very violent reaction to the actions of the Indians and the government.
-----In every conflict where there is a hero, there also must be a villain. Though both sides may not agree who is the villain or who is the hero, there always is a pair for each side to adore (hero) or hate (villain). To the common poor farmer, the hero was Bacon while the villain was Berkeley, the generic oppressive dictator only out for his own gain and the gain of those close to him. In a letter to his friend and ally Henry Coventry he confides,” he [Bacon] came downe to James Towne with about three-score men thinking to surprise me and the Councel… [S]ome other loyal gentlemen had sent me fourty men of quality to assist me in any exigent” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915651?seq=6). Here Berkeley clearly states himself that the common poor/free men wanted Berkeley dead so that they could take over Jamestown. I believe that the death of William Berkeley would have been more of a symbolic way of showing to everyone watching that the old ways had failed, and there was a new way to react to the problems at hand.
-----Bacon was a young man, fresh from England and ready to start a new life, and what better way to start a new life than to become governor of a colony? Multiple Berkeley supporters exaggerate that Bacon had his own agenda; of course he did! He was trying to become the governor and gain the backing of the people and for the reason to improve the lifestyle of the people. My idea that Bacon was trying to improve the lifestyle of the people is not shared with the Berkeley supporters I just mentioned, though. The great majority of this group believes that Bacon was a greedy man out to gain a hefty profit from the backs of the people, but were they doing anything different? “Of these the aforesaid Articles Wee accuse Sr. Wm: Berkeley as guiltie of Each and Everie of the same. As one who hath Traiterouslie attempted, violated and Injured his Maties: Interest here, by the loss of a greate Part of his Maties: Colonie” (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1035). Though written by Bacon, I think that in this letter the fear the poor colonists of Bacon’s rebellion had of losing their life is betrayed in the writing of the letter to all colonists. There is a sort of underlying panicked tone lying right underneath the anger that the document is portraying. If there was an underlying panicked tone then the colonists were most likely reacting out of fear and not out of a want to overtake the government. Whether Bacon shared this constant sense of panic I am not sure, but if he did it was most likely in his best interest to lead the rebellion the best he could for the people so as to be protected by them against all physical hurts. Too bad that didn’t include disease or sickness.
-----Even if what he did was for his benefit or for the benefit of the people, he was still a traitor to his government and the rich plantation owners who ran it, no matter how much he cared for the people. This is not whether the government is corrupt or not, because you are still a traitor to a corrupt government if you begin a rebellion, but rather why he chose to take the one path that would surely turn him away from the government. Once again, it may have been out of this fear for his life that he shared with so many other colonists and the fear of abandonment that they all felt from the government that spurred their rebellion. It also may have been Bacon controlling them for his own gain, in which case he would take the governor’s place and rule the colony, but I believe that it was both of these. Based o the facts and opinions I have read from Puglisi, Zinn and Steffof, and Beverly, my educated guess is that Bacon initially started the rebellion out of fear and then grew into the role of leader and against what they saw as the government’s reign of tyranny. At the beginning, Bacon may have been reacting out of fear, but once he grew out of that and understood what it was he was doing and the implications of it, he weighed the odds and found it would be better for himself and those he loved to try and refine the government t better fit the common good. In short, he allied himself with the majority of the population because he saw that as safer and more beneficial, although riskier, than allying himself with the government.
-----Bacon’s rebellion still has relevance to us today, but more in the way of knowledge than anything else. We can learn from the colonist’s reactions, motives, reasoning what not to do to anger the people or how to keep the consent or love of the people and not incite the hatred or misdirected anger of them. This knowledge can probably be related to the Afghanistan conflict and Iraq war. Although there was no rebellion or uprising of the American people, that is the whole point. The government chose that it was best for the government and America as a whole to declare war and to use the anger of the people to fuel it. This is unlike Berkeley and the government of Jamestown who chose that it was in their best interest, not the best interest of the people, not to enter into a war with the Indians, so letting their people die. If Berkeley had declared war on the Indians, the conflict itself would have been different, but the outcome would have been the same as it is today, a new respect for the government from the people and a submitted population. Though the outcome would have been different than that of the Iraq war, where the government spurned the disrespect of much of the population by staying in war, the outcome would have been much similar to that of the Afghanistan conflict.
-----Also, the media played as much of a role then as it does now. Though their media was word of mouth and our is the news, they were presented with horror stories like those of the thought-to-be colonist while we are presented with them by the news, who hopes to keep the American people stirred up about the problems we face in this war. It was partly because of what they heard that the colonists joined the rebellion and chose to fight against their “beloved governor”. An example of a use of the media for the support of the war we are currently involved in is a PSA done by Muhammad Ali where,” ‘Ali will hopefully be able to convey the idea that Muslims in America lead a free life, practice their religion in a form in which they choose to practice it,’ Mr. Valenti said. The second point: ‘It's not a war against Islam. It's a war against murderers who kill innocent people.’ (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0D61631F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&scp=6&sq=entering+afghanistan&st=nyt)” Here, the media uses a known American icon to further their cause, while the colonists were doing almost the same thing, except using Bacon as their known icon, who also happened to be the leader.
-----Though a traitor to his king and country, Bacon saw himself as a liberator, winning the support of the people and defending their land. Though he may have had an agenda in wanting to lead the rebellion, everyone always has something that they wish to get out of a situation. For Bacon this may have been a better position in the colony, while for the colonists it was more freedom, and for the American people in the time of the Afghanistan Conflict, it was retaliation for our lost loved ones. Throughout all these difficulties it seems as if the government is trying to please themselves of the people. This is how it should be, a government serving the people in order to benefit the lives of the American people as a whole, but are we ready to give something up so that someone else can have what we have? Although there is much to learn from Bacon’s rebellion, I believe that there is a long way to go before the ideals that Nathaniel Bacon and the “Freedom Fighter” colonists wanted for America are completely fulfilled.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Equiano Accounts
• Very learned, seems to have had a good education.
• The English were alien to the Africans, just as the English had.
• The English seemed so hostile to them
• They just wanted to die, instead of becoming a slave.
• Saw the whites as savage and cruel
• It was dangerous to stay under deck because of the stench, as well as because of how many were stuffed under there.
• The English were alien to the Africans, just as the English had.
• The English seemed so hostile to them
• They just wanted to die, instead of becoming a slave.
• Saw the whites as savage and cruel
• It was dangerous to stay under deck because of the stench, as well as because of how many were stuffed under there.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Outline
Thesis Nathaniel Bacon Jr was a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley and the rich plantation owners.
I. In the intro paragraph I will pose the question of whether Bacon is a hero or a traitor to his country, backing this with sources posing both sides of the argument and the extremities of both ideas.
a.I will include multiple Puglisi quotes, fighting Zinn and Steffof, then showing the extremist side of this with one or more resons from the 47 documents.
b. I will again quote Zinn and Steffof, except this with a few more comparisons with Puglisi. I will also again make a few extremist quotes from the 47 documents.
II. In the first body "section" I will offer my opinion on Puglisi and his view, showing his relative to mine and why mine is a more compatible and less biased opinion.
a. I will make quotes from Puglisi restating his view and comparing it with mine. I will then make an argument on how mine differs and why mine may seem more logical, as well as more emotionally appealing.
b. I will then argue how Puglisi is unfair to Bacon and his rebellion relative to the people.
c. As I do all this I will be tying in the more extremist views against Bacon and their unsolidarity.
III. In the second section of the body I will basically do the same thing as the first, just supporting my idea of Bacon as a traitor to the rich with quotes from Zinn and Steffof and again documents from the 47 documents.
IV. In the third section I will more explain both extreme views of the event, including the traitorous view and the herioc view
a. First I will show the flaws of the view of Bacon as an all american hero and the good things about this view, which there were some.
b. Secondly I will do the same thing as I just did with the view of Bacon as a troublesome outlaw that was only out for anarchy.
c. Thirdly, I will sum up the pros and the cons of both sides with quotes and documented evidences.
V. Lastly, I will restate all of the facts represented and the severity of and need of each, while arguing that some ideas and views were flawed, making my argument and agreement and disagreement argument.I will wrap up with maybe a quote from Berkeley and Bacon.
I. In the intro paragraph I will pose the question of whether Bacon is a hero or a traitor to his country, backing this with sources posing both sides of the argument and the extremities of both ideas.
a.I will include multiple Puglisi quotes, fighting Zinn and Steffof, then showing the extremist side of this with one or more resons from the 47 documents.
b. I will again quote Zinn and Steffof, except this with a few more comparisons with Puglisi. I will also again make a few extremist quotes from the 47 documents.
II. In the first body "section" I will offer my opinion on Puglisi and his view, showing his relative to mine and why mine is a more compatible and less biased opinion.
a. I will make quotes from Puglisi restating his view and comparing it with mine. I will then make an argument on how mine differs and why mine may seem more logical, as well as more emotionally appealing.
b. I will then argue how Puglisi is unfair to Bacon and his rebellion relative to the people.
c. As I do all this I will be tying in the more extremist views against Bacon and their unsolidarity.
III. In the second section of the body I will basically do the same thing as the first, just supporting my idea of Bacon as a traitor to the rich with quotes from Zinn and Steffof and again documents from the 47 documents.
IV. In the third section I will more explain both extreme views of the event, including the traitorous view and the herioc view
a. First I will show the flaws of the view of Bacon as an all american hero and the good things about this view, which there were some.
b. Secondly I will do the same thing as I just did with the view of Bacon as a troublesome outlaw that was only out for anarchy.
c. Thirdly, I will sum up the pros and the cons of both sides with quotes and documented evidences.
V. Lastly, I will restate all of the facts represented and the severity of and need of each, while arguing that some ideas and views were flawed, making my argument and agreement and disagreement argument.I will wrap up with maybe a quote from Berkeley and Bacon.
Thesis Statement
Nathaniel Bacon Jr was a savior to the poor and recently freed colonists, but only at the price of being a traitor to William Berkeley and the rich plantation owners.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Winthrop quotes
1)
The benefit of a well coordinated body is that if the body is coordinated, then all parts of the body are pulling their own weight and working together in order to finish a single common goal. This makes for a very orderly society, especially if everyone in the society is also trying to be a saint.
The metaphor of the body makes sense to the audience because, having a very biblical background, they all know that the body is symbolic for the church, which when it works together is the perfect engine. This makes it very easy for the Puritans to understand and appreciate.
Just like the body, the union of all the parts of the colony come together to create a perfect working machine that is a commonwealth or a society that prospers together.
2)
To name the colony New England meant to base the core government and ideas off of it but to make it more current and better, kind of like a colony 2.0. They did not want to completely get rid of the old ways of thinking without adding some of their own newer methods, like the first separation of church and state.
3)
The Puritans and Winthrop viewed their expedition to the new world as almost a second Exodus, drawing many parallels, such as escaping from "Egypt" (England) where they were persecuted and mocked, and coming to the new land, led by God himself and the rules he sets out for them.
4)
Winthrop viewed their landing as an example because he had such pride and assurance that it was going to go well that he was thinking that this would be the sort of "textbook" way for people to colonize the new world, and all the people wou8ld do what they did because they did such a good job.
To be a city on a hill is another bible parallel, where Jesus is on the mount and he says that Christians are to be like lights, for how can a city on a hill hide itself? Again, because of their biblical history, it is very safe to say that his audience would have easily understood this parallel and his reason behind it.
The benefit of a well coordinated body is that if the body is coordinated, then all parts of the body are pulling their own weight and working together in order to finish a single common goal. This makes for a very orderly society, especially if everyone in the society is also trying to be a saint.
The metaphor of the body makes sense to the audience because, having a very biblical background, they all know that the body is symbolic for the church, which when it works together is the perfect engine. This makes it very easy for the Puritans to understand and appreciate.
Just like the body, the union of all the parts of the colony come together to create a perfect working machine that is a commonwealth or a society that prospers together.
2)
To name the colony New England meant to base the core government and ideas off of it but to make it more current and better, kind of like a colony 2.0. They did not want to completely get rid of the old ways of thinking without adding some of their own newer methods, like the first separation of church and state.
3)
The Puritans and Winthrop viewed their expedition to the new world as almost a second Exodus, drawing many parallels, such as escaping from "Egypt" (England) where they were persecuted and mocked, and coming to the new land, led by God himself and the rules he sets out for them.
4)
Winthrop viewed their landing as an example because he had such pride and assurance that it was going to go well that he was thinking that this would be the sort of "textbook" way for people to colonize the new world, and all the people wou8ld do what they did because they did such a good job.
To be a city on a hill is another bible parallel, where Jesus is on the mount and he says that Christians are to be like lights, for how can a city on a hill hide itself? Again, because of their biblical history, it is very safe to say that his audience would have easily understood this parallel and his reason behind it.
Database Search
Unfortunately I am not very good at finding online sources and had some real trouble with this. I was actually hoping on having someone show me how to use one tomorrow in or after class. I will have to look twice as much this weekend since I couldn't quite figure out how to use it. Tomorrow is a new day and I will learn new things.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
They Say 2: Bacon's Rebellion
According to Dictionary.com, rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler." Though short lived, Bacon's Rebellion was esteemed and criticized by scientists and researchers as a very cruel and inhumane point in American History. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes[...]" (83). Though Puglisi makes many very logical points, there is another popular point of view that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero". This view is highly recommended by the book for young adults titled "A Young People's History of the United States Volume One" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff. Throughout the texts, Zinn and Stefoff make multiple statements averting to the thought of a small militia of goodhearted farmers and middle-classmen trying to overthrow a corrupt government. An example of these aversions is the statement "Bacon's Rebellion brought together groups from the lower class... because they were angry with the way the colony was being run."
A polar opposite opinion of that of Zinn and Stefoff's is the idea that Bacon was an all-out traitor to "King and Country". Though Puglisi has a similar ideal, Robert Beverly takes it to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen;[...]" (Document #1). Later in the excerpt Beverly states the four things that he believes were the reason for the uprising, equally trying to balance the document by persuading that Bacon was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who actually thought he was acting for the good of the people, making him even more dangerous. In these reasons it is apparent that Beverly is trying to keep the blame away from the government by trying to belittle the tax and lack of land problems the colonists were going through.
Again, on the opposite side of this point is the view that the Indians had to be taken out for the good of the colonists, which is clearly demonstrated in "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion". Though the author is unknown, it is easy to tell that the writer was clearly a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5). Here, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (document #5), clearly showing a deep hatred or racism towards the indians who, according to Puglisi, were just "on one side of the impassable chasm and 'us' on the other" (76). What Puglisi means by this is that there were just no ways to make terms of peace with the indians: at least that the colonists could see. He clearly exclaims later in the same paragraph that there was a "bridge" across that "impassable chasm". The excerpt from "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" also leaves the reader rather skeptic of his facts, because in the document the author states that 60 colonist were killed in January 1676, while the investigation by the Royal Commissioners' "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" clearly reports only a mere 36 dead colonists, making one of the writers a liar.
A polar opposite opinion of that of Zinn and Stefoff's is the idea that Bacon was an all-out traitor to "King and Country". Though Puglisi has a similar ideal, Robert Beverly takes it to an almost extremist level in his excerpt from "The History and Present State of Virginia". In this excerpt, Beverly persuades that Bacon's real reason for the rebellion was "endeavored to ruin a Governor, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen;[...]" (Document #1). Later in the excerpt Beverly states the four things that he believes were the reason for the uprising, equally trying to balance the document by persuading that Bacon was not just an anarchist or terrorist, but a person who actually thought he was acting for the good of the people, making him even more dangerous. In these reasons it is apparent that Beverly is trying to keep the blame away from the government by trying to belittle the tax and lack of land problems the colonists were going through.
Again, on the opposite side of this point is the view that the Indians had to be taken out for the good of the colonists, which is clearly demonstrated in "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion". Though the author is unknown, it is easy to tell that the writer was clearly a first-hand witness of "these brutish and inhumane brutes" (Document #5). Here, the thought-to-be colonist exclaims "they de-vised a hundred ways to torter and torment those poore soules [colonists] with, whose reched fate it was to fall in to there unmercyfull hands" (document #5), clearly showing a deep hatred or racism towards the indians who, according to Puglisi, were just "on one side of the impassable chasm and 'us' on the other" (76). What Puglisi means by this is that there were just no ways to make terms of peace with the indians: at least that the colonists could see. He clearly exclaims later in the same paragraph that there was a "bridge" across that "impassable chasm". The excerpt from "The History of Bacon's and Ingram's Rebellion" also leaves the reader rather skeptic of his facts, because in the document the author states that 60 colonist were killed in January 1676, while the investigation by the Royal Commissioners' "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" clearly reports only a mere 36 dead colonists, making one of the writers a liar.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
NATIONAL COLLEGE FAIR WORKSHEET/ASSIGNMENT
The purpose of this worksheet/assignment is to assist in making your day at the National College Fair as productive as possible. Your journey of exploring post-secondary educational programs and career options will be a life-long one, but it is critically important at this time. Please complete each section below. Your responses are to be submitted to Terry by Oct. 9th.
We suggest that you use the following questions as an interview guide, but certainly ask whatever questions you like:
What is the average class size for freshman classes, as well as upper division?
How would they describe the relationship between students and instructors at their college?
Does their university place a greater emphasis on research or on teaching?
What are their policies and procedures relative to financial aide, Scholarships, work-study, etc.?
What internship, cooperative-education, and foreign study opportunities are available to undergraduate students?
What major is their college best known for?
What are the transfer policies and admissions standards for their college, including college testing such as SAT and/or ACT?
How would they describe student life on their campus and in the local community?
1) To gain a broad perspective relative to the different types of colleges, campuses, and programs, provide the name and a brief description of the following: (Do not hesitate to explore colleges outside the Northwest states, do not use the same college twice, and do not simply list information available on their website.)
A public college:
University of Washington—
University of Washington has multiple internships available for undergraduate and graduate students, and close to home. architecture is only available on the Seattle campus.
A private college:
Stanford—
Though Stanford is a very prestigious school, it would be very hard to get into and would have a very good learning experience. The architecture major is new at Stanford, so I would be one of the first few years where we shape the program.
A rural college:
University of Oregon—
Going here would be a 5-year program, and focuses on a teacher-student relationship. PSEC credits would count, but I would still be considered a freshman with 5 years to go, but I might have some credits done.
A traditional large university:
Cardiff—
Cardiff is very large, with the ability to study abroad and over seas. You only need a minimum GPA of 3.0, so with my GPA it would probably be pretty easy to get in, but the separation and transition would be hard.
A small alternative college:
Evergreen—
Close to home, so again, like UW, I would be able to stay around home. I would not be able to pursue architecture though because Evergreen doesn’t have that major.
2) Select a college major that you might be interested in pursuing. (Architecture/ Structural Engineering) Find three colleges that are known to offer quality programs in that major. You may choose only one of the three colleges from within the state of Washington. Briefly describe what impressed you about each of these colleges. Then finally, describe how your overall educational experience might differ if you were to choose one college over the others. In making your comparisons, be sure to consider some the issues raised in the “suggested questions” above. (You probably should do some research on this before attending the Fair)
University of Washington- The fact that they offered multiple internships and are a more research focused school can be a good thing if I worked on multiple projects or researches. I would probably stay in Washington if I went to UW, while if I went to Oregon, Cardiff, or Arizona, I would probably travel quite a bit more.
Arizona State University- I was very impressed by the fact that students were boarding with other people of the same major, or a more traditional system. I also have knowledge that ASU has one of the best architecture colleges in the country, along with UW and Virginia Tech. If I went to ASU, I would see my grandparents and family a lot more than I do now, while I would be farther from my immediate family. I would also receive a better education here.
Virginia Tech- At Virginia Tech, architecture is their most competitive major. Here I would be far from my family, but would be able to make new friends and expand my circle of friends.
3) Attend at least one of the workshops during your time at the Fair. Briefly describe the content of the workshop and evaluate the information received.
The content of the workshop was how to write an effective admissions application and essay. Basically, the speaker said that you must keep it short, only tow or three pages, with as much information as you can tell them that they can’t find by looking you up in a database or a file Tell them about yourself, your home struggles, how you overcame them an so-on and so-forth. Also, you should make sure that your recommendation letters say different things than the say you already wrote, so make sure the writers of those keep it to certain information you want them o tell the reader about.
4) Write a personal evaluation of your experience of attending the National College Fair. Share whatever thoughts you have, but be sure to include a discussion of the following:
I believe that I derived a lot from the college fair. All of my questions were answered and now I will move on to the SATs and impressing the schools I want to attend. I must also now try and focus on grades and life experience and just have fun with it. I just need to have fun in life and know what I want to do and I will get there. I also found the body movement and the dismissiveness of the presenter very helpful on how the college may act towards me as a student.
We suggest that you use the following questions as an interview guide, but certainly ask whatever questions you like:
What is the average class size for freshman classes, as well as upper division?
How would they describe the relationship between students and instructors at their college?
Does their university place a greater emphasis on research or on teaching?
What are their policies and procedures relative to financial aide, Scholarships, work-study, etc.?
What internship, cooperative-education, and foreign study opportunities are available to undergraduate students?
What major is their college best known for?
What are the transfer policies and admissions standards for their college, including college testing such as SAT and/or ACT?
How would they describe student life on their campus and in the local community?
1) To gain a broad perspective relative to the different types of colleges, campuses, and programs, provide the name and a brief description of the following: (Do not hesitate to explore colleges outside the Northwest states, do not use the same college twice, and do not simply list information available on their website.)
A public college:
University of Washington—
University of Washington has multiple internships available for undergraduate and graduate students, and close to home. architecture is only available on the Seattle campus.
A private college:
Stanford—
Though Stanford is a very prestigious school, it would be very hard to get into and would have a very good learning experience. The architecture major is new at Stanford, so I would be one of the first few years where we shape the program.
A rural college:
University of Oregon—
Going here would be a 5-year program, and focuses on a teacher-student relationship. PSEC credits would count, but I would still be considered a freshman with 5 years to go, but I might have some credits done.
A traditional large university:
Cardiff—
Cardiff is very large, with the ability to study abroad and over seas. You only need a minimum GPA of 3.0, so with my GPA it would probably be pretty easy to get in, but the separation and transition would be hard.
A small alternative college:
Evergreen—
Close to home, so again, like UW, I would be able to stay around home. I would not be able to pursue architecture though because Evergreen doesn’t have that major.
2) Select a college major that you might be interested in pursuing. (Architecture/ Structural Engineering) Find three colleges that are known to offer quality programs in that major. You may choose only one of the three colleges from within the state of Washington. Briefly describe what impressed you about each of these colleges. Then finally, describe how your overall educational experience might differ if you were to choose one college over the others. In making your comparisons, be sure to consider some the issues raised in the “suggested questions” above. (You probably should do some research on this before attending the Fair)
University of Washington- The fact that they offered multiple internships and are a more research focused school can be a good thing if I worked on multiple projects or researches. I would probably stay in Washington if I went to UW, while if I went to Oregon, Cardiff, or Arizona, I would probably travel quite a bit more.
Arizona State University- I was very impressed by the fact that students were boarding with other people of the same major, or a more traditional system. I also have knowledge that ASU has one of the best architecture colleges in the country, along with UW and Virginia Tech. If I went to ASU, I would see my grandparents and family a lot more than I do now, while I would be farther from my immediate family. I would also receive a better education here.
Virginia Tech- At Virginia Tech, architecture is their most competitive major. Here I would be far from my family, but would be able to make new friends and expand my circle of friends.
3) Attend at least one of the workshops during your time at the Fair. Briefly describe the content of the workshop and evaluate the information received.
The content of the workshop was how to write an effective admissions application and essay. Basically, the speaker said that you must keep it short, only tow or three pages, with as much information as you can tell them that they can’t find by looking you up in a database or a file Tell them about yourself, your home struggles, how you overcame them an so-on and so-forth. Also, you should make sure that your recommendation letters say different things than the say you already wrote, so make sure the writers of those keep it to certain information you want them o tell the reader about.
4) Write a personal evaluation of your experience of attending the National College Fair. Share whatever thoughts you have, but be sure to include a discussion of the following:
I believe that I derived a lot from the college fair. All of my questions were answered and now I will move on to the SATs and impressing the schools I want to attend. I must also now try and focus on grades and life experience and just have fun with it. I just need to have fun in life and know what I want to do and I will get there. I also found the body movement and the dismissiveness of the presenter very helpful on how the college may act towards me as a student.
They Say: Bacon's Rebellion
According to Dictionary.com, rebellion is," Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler." Though short lived, Bacon's Rebellion was esteemed and criticized by scientists and researchers as a very cruel and inhumane point in American History. Casting a sort of shadow of injustice over the event, Puglisi states in his article "'Whether They Be Friends Or Foes:' The Roles And Reactions Of Tributary Native Groups Caught In Colonial Conflicts" that the colonists had "a record with a lack of regard for the integrity and the well-being of the tributary tribes[...]" (83). Though Puglisi makes many very logical points, there is another popular point of view that indicates the massacre by the colonists and Bacon's hatred of them was justified by their need to defend themselves, which coincidentally makes Bacon look like a "True American Hero". This view is highly recommended by the book for young adults titled "A Young People's History of the United States Volume One" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff. Throughout the texts, Zinn and Stefoff make multiple statements averting to the thought of a small militia of goodhearted farmers and middle-classmen trying to overthrow a corrupt government. An example of these aversions is the statement "Bacon's Rebellion brought together groups from the lower class... because they were angry with the way the colony was being run."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
'Political Economy ' of the body
Quote 1
Everything in your body is fighting with itself. Your mind is fighting for control over the body’s instincts, the heart is fighting with the mind over to save yourself or those close to you, and so-on and so-forth in a never-ending struggle. Each trains the other, and forces it to do what it wants the other to do, and invests in each other to work together better in order to operate better.
Quote 2
A person’s body is only helpful if it can work and produce more working bodies. If a body cannot produce more working bodies, then after it is dead, what was it’s worth? The time it worked and only the time it worked. Now if a body cannot work but can produce more working bodies, the only worth of that body is the worth of the other bodies and not its own life, so after it has made those bodies, then what is the worth of him to his master?
Quote 3
In the smallest corner of a death-sent man’s mind is his own sight of himself, where he considers himself a king.
Everything in your body is fighting with itself. Your mind is fighting for control over the body’s instincts, the heart is fighting with the mind over to save yourself or those close to you, and so-on and so-forth in a never-ending struggle. Each trains the other, and forces it to do what it wants the other to do, and invests in each other to work together better in order to operate better.
Quote 2
A person’s body is only helpful if it can work and produce more working bodies. If a body cannot produce more working bodies, then after it is dead, what was it’s worth? The time it worked and only the time it worked. Now if a body cannot work but can produce more working bodies, the only worth of that body is the worth of the other bodies and not its own life, so after it has made those bodies, then what is the worth of him to his master?
Quote 3
In the smallest corner of a death-sent man’s mind is his own sight of himself, where he considers himself a king.
American Tobacco Summary
King James 1 urged that English colonies in the Southeastern area (called the Chesapeake colonies) were,"wholly built upon smoke. Englishmen that moved to Chesapeake weren't there to gain religious freedom, farmland, or wives. They were there to grow tobacco. The abundance of tobacco that the colonists could grow was so high that the cost went f4rom a dollar to two and a half cents. This makes it a no brainer why so many people smoked, It was a luxury that all of sudden became affordable, just like if caviar suddenly dropped to two dollars a pound. Everyone would be all over it! This also caused the people who made smoking utensils very rich because how do you smoke without a pipe, or something to light the pipe you had to buy to hold the tobacco in order to smoke it?
Because of the calming and relaxing properties of tobacco, it was also seen as a wonder drug. Exonerated physicians praised tobacco as something that had saved thousands of lives, and had the ability to save infinite amounts of lives later. They also said that it not only saved the lives of the sickly but also the healthy. Physicians of the time thought that it was so healthy that you should not take it to gain health after sickness but also in order to not become sick in the first place. This firmly contradicted the thoughts and feelings of a few Englishmen, including King James 1, who blatantly opposed tobacco with the comment,"A custome loathssome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible...smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." Though he opposed tobacco so strongly, he lost in the end and tobacco became the largest fad in English history.
Because of the calming and relaxing properties of tobacco, it was also seen as a wonder drug. Exonerated physicians praised tobacco as something that had saved thousands of lives, and had the ability to save infinite amounts of lives later. They also said that it not only saved the lives of the sickly but also the healthy. Physicians of the time thought that it was so healthy that you should not take it to gain health after sickness but also in order to not become sick in the first place. This firmly contradicted the thoughts and feelings of a few Englishmen, including King James 1, who blatantly opposed tobacco with the comment,"A custome loathssome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible...smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." Though he opposed tobacco so strongly, he lost in the end and tobacco became the largest fad in English history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
