During the !8th century, religious excitement went down hill from the time the Pilgrims came. Many people needed something new to excite them about religion, they needed a revival. This religious revival was known as the Great Awakening.
When Pilgrims first came over they were very bound to their religion, but as time wore on more and more people started to get less interested in going to services and listening to sermons for hours. The people wanted to be doing something fun and active like making money. As less and less showed up for service, churches had to do anything in their power to get these people to be just as excited as their ancestors were. Churches decided to loosen the "qualifications" people had to have to become a member. But as the church thought about it, they would be losing their spiritualism towards the church itself.
The Great Awakening helped people come back to church, and it started with Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was a very powerful preacher, most of his sermons were about hell and how you could be sent to damnation, but you could "save" yourself by your good works. The people listening to him were now "God-fearing" people. After Edwards George Whitefield came along. Whitefield went through the colonies telling people about how if we are helpless people we need God's divine mercy. People soon used church as a place of fun and entertainment (because there was nothing else to do).
When religion started to grow more part of society again, people for some reason started to think about the separation of church and state; even though their ancestral laws were based on religious morals. When the Great Awakening came around, religion pretty much was just about emotion, nothing else. I bet the converts started to get a little to attached to religion and did not want to share it. So, people liked the idea of church and state being separate because they did not want to share their personal religious emotions. All this shows how the Great Awakening began the idea of the separation of church and state.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Image of America
The reason why I chose this picture to describe America is when I think of Amercia I think of freedom. To me, this picture perfectly illustrates freedom by showing that you have all this open space; and you are allowed to roam it as much as you want. But I also picked this picture because it shows to me what freedom feels like in a way. It shows that freedom is relaxing and soothing.
1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?
- First off, I think the willingness of the Pilgrims helped them survive. The attitude they had from the beginning of the journey was that they wanted to start a new life and they were going to conquer anything that stood in their way. The belief in their god to help them through the hard times was a major part because if they did not have their god’s support they did not think they would be able to succeed.
3. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?
- I think people today make the first thanksgiving happy and peaceful because they want to make it seem like our encounter with the natives was peaceful and they also wanted to cover up the fact that when Pilgrims first arrived to the Americas, it was not a cake walk. They did not just have all these plants, foods, and even a strong alliance with the natives. My total thought is that people try to cover up the truth because they do not want to show how bad the hardships were for our ancestors; and how they did not hop off the ship and in a week, a town was built. It took many years to build a town. Life was not easy at all.
4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?
- I think the tradition of coexistence with the natives ended because the pilgrims became selfish and wanted everything to themselves. The pilgrims thought that they were superior to the Natives, even though the Natives taught them everything they needed to know about the land and the weather. The pilgrims knew they had a more powerful arsenal, so they thought that they could just wipe out the Natives. Once again the pilgrims thought that every piece of land, every plant, and every hunted game belonged to them.
5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?
- Squanto was the only person who could translate the two languages. Squanto was fluent in English and the native language. But he was not the most trustworthy person either; a reason why Massasiot did not trust Squanto a whole lot. Squanto influenced history because he made it possible that the treaty between the natives and the pilgrims be reached. Squanto and few other natives taught the pilgrims how to crop the new land, and also how to survive in the new world. He also influenced agreements for the natives and the pilgrims. Squanto was considered a traitor to his native people, but a hero to the pilgrims.
6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?
- The children received this reputation because they did not go through the same hardships and struggles as their parents did. They accepted this reputation because of their Puritan beliefs. The children were always being told what they were not. No, I do not believe they deserved this reputation because they had no way of going through the same hardships as their parents. Their parents went through those hardships because they loved their children. And no I do not think this was a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
8. Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
- Most of the similarities about the Natives that I found in the book, I also find in pop culture today. Whenever we here Native Americans we either think fighting, vicious people, or we think about how they can be peaceful and civilized. The tribes talked about in the book are both vicious and peaceful. The Mohawks were more of the fighting, violent tribe, and the smaller tribes were the more enlightened tribes. In the book it also talks about the culture of the natives. The book talks about how the dance and sing, and these images are reflected in today’s pop culture. I always knew that some of the tribes were accepting of our God, and others were not. The images I see in today’s pop culture is the spiritual rooted Natives, which I see in the book.
9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?
- The hero that emerged was Benjamin Church of Plymouth because he had a great military skills, and he also had a huge very confident self esteem; which ended up helping him defeat the Pokanoket Sachem.
10. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?
- Many of the tribes that were allies to King Phillip did have different views than King Phillip. Tribes demanded many things, and had many needs. Some of these needs were targeted against the English. Many of the tribes were fighting for power between each other, trying to kill the English, and also wampums.
11. During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
- The natives that took side with the English were not traitors. The English in some sense were more powerful. These natives had a reason to side with the English because they knew they could be protected. If I was a native, I would have chosen to side with the English because I knew how much more powerful they were compared to the other natives.
12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?
- No, neither side can because if they are both torturing prisoners, then one side can not say they have more moral superiority over the other if they are both doing it. If only one was torturing prisoners, then the other could claim moral superiority. So no, neither the English nor the Native Americans can claim moral superiority.
15. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?
- I do agree with the reviewer, because he made this novel as factual as he could make it. He did not take any sides. All he did was teach us the relationship between the Natives and the Pilgrims. I think the moral of this novel was to teach and show us how we can prosper and advance our minds further than the Pilgrims did. This novel also taught me to be civilized, never act like viciously or violently.
- First off, I think the willingness of the Pilgrims helped them survive. The attitude they had from the beginning of the journey was that they wanted to start a new life and they were going to conquer anything that stood in their way. The belief in their god to help them through the hard times was a major part because if they did not have their god’s support they did not think they would be able to succeed.
3. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?
- I think people today make the first thanksgiving happy and peaceful because they want to make it seem like our encounter with the natives was peaceful and they also wanted to cover up the fact that when Pilgrims first arrived to the Americas, it was not a cake walk. They did not just have all these plants, foods, and even a strong alliance with the natives. My total thought is that people try to cover up the truth because they do not want to show how bad the hardships were for our ancestors; and how they did not hop off the ship and in a week, a town was built. It took many years to build a town. Life was not easy at all.
4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?
- I think the tradition of coexistence with the natives ended because the pilgrims became selfish and wanted everything to themselves. The pilgrims thought that they were superior to the Natives, even though the Natives taught them everything they needed to know about the land and the weather. The pilgrims knew they had a more powerful arsenal, so they thought that they could just wipe out the Natives. Once again the pilgrims thought that every piece of land, every plant, and every hunted game belonged to them.
5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?
- Squanto was the only person who could translate the two languages. Squanto was fluent in English and the native language. But he was not the most trustworthy person either; a reason why Massasiot did not trust Squanto a whole lot. Squanto influenced history because he made it possible that the treaty between the natives and the pilgrims be reached. Squanto and few other natives taught the pilgrims how to crop the new land, and also how to survive in the new world. He also influenced agreements for the natives and the pilgrims. Squanto was considered a traitor to his native people, but a hero to the pilgrims.
6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?
- The children received this reputation because they did not go through the same hardships and struggles as their parents did. They accepted this reputation because of their Puritan beliefs. The children were always being told what they were not. No, I do not believe they deserved this reputation because they had no way of going through the same hardships as their parents. Their parents went through those hardships because they loved their children. And no I do not think this was a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
8. Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
- Most of the similarities about the Natives that I found in the book, I also find in pop culture today. Whenever we here Native Americans we either think fighting, vicious people, or we think about how they can be peaceful and civilized. The tribes talked about in the book are both vicious and peaceful. The Mohawks were more of the fighting, violent tribe, and the smaller tribes were the more enlightened tribes. In the book it also talks about the culture of the natives. The book talks about how the dance and sing, and these images are reflected in today’s pop culture. I always knew that some of the tribes were accepting of our God, and others were not. The images I see in today’s pop culture is the spiritual rooted Natives, which I see in the book.
9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?
- The hero that emerged was Benjamin Church of Plymouth because he had a great military skills, and he also had a huge very confident self esteem; which ended up helping him defeat the Pokanoket Sachem.
10. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?
- Many of the tribes that were allies to King Phillip did have different views than King Phillip. Tribes demanded many things, and had many needs. Some of these needs were targeted against the English. Many of the tribes were fighting for power between each other, trying to kill the English, and also wampums.
11. During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
- The natives that took side with the English were not traitors. The English in some sense were more powerful. These natives had a reason to side with the English because they knew they could be protected. If I was a native, I would have chosen to side with the English because I knew how much more powerful they were compared to the other natives.
12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?
- No, neither side can because if they are both torturing prisoners, then one side can not say they have more moral superiority over the other if they are both doing it. If only one was torturing prisoners, then the other could claim moral superiority. So no, neither the English nor the Native Americans can claim moral superiority.
15. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?
- I do agree with the reviewer, because he made this novel as factual as he could make it. He did not take any sides. All he did was teach us the relationship between the Natives and the Pilgrims. I think the moral of this novel was to teach and show us how we can prosper and advance our minds further than the Pilgrims did. This novel also taught me to be civilized, never act like viciously or violently.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Final Reflection-Newspaper
A. What did you learn from this assignment?
- I learned organization from this assignment and also how to make a newspaper.
B. What challenges did you face during the research and writing process?
- I faced many challenges by not be able to find information on some of my topics and during the writing process I had trouble with everything aligning up in my newspaper.
C. What was the most important thing you learned this semester?
- The most important thing I learned this summer was learning about how to read and understand political cartoons.
D. Loose ends: What do you wish we had spent more time on?
- I wish we would of spent more time learning more about the Holocaust.
E. Sum it up: Why is it important to study World History?
- It is important to study World History because we all need to learn about our past. Also we need to learn from our ancestors mistakes and know not to do those again.
- I learned organization from this assignment and also how to make a newspaper.
B. What challenges did you face during the research and writing process?
- I faced many challenges by not be able to find information on some of my topics and during the writing process I had trouble with everything aligning up in my newspaper.
C. What was the most important thing you learned this semester?
- The most important thing I learned this summer was learning about how to read and understand political cartoons.
D. Loose ends: What do you wish we had spent more time on?
- I wish we would of spent more time learning more about the Holocaust.
E. Sum it up: Why is it important to study World History?
- It is important to study World History because we all need to learn about our past. Also we need to learn from our ancestors mistakes and know not to do those again.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Section 4-Hitler
Hitler used many methods to take over the country. He used propaganda to convince the German society to join his Nazi party. These propaganda were telling people how awesome life will be if they elect him ruler of Germany. Hitler built up the future life, and it mad people want to live that life. They were basically brained washed into electing the Nazi party into power.
Hitler's methods were effective because he achieved the power he wanted in Germany. Also his ability to win over a crowd just by speaking. His speeches made people want more in life and they wanted the amazing life Hitler built up in their heads. It was also effective because the people were not experienced in the political world and they did not know the details of all his plans. Some of his speeches had words that people did not know the meaning, so they just agreed with it. Hitler was effective because he could brain wash people into getting what he wants.
Hitler used many methods to take over the country. He used propaganda to convince the German society to join his Nazi party. These propaganda were telling people how awesome life will be if they elect him ruler of Germany. Hitler built up the future life, and it mad people want to live that life. They were basically brained washed into electing the Nazi party into power.
Hitler's methods were effective because he achieved the power he wanted in Germany. Also his ability to win over a crowd just by speaking. His speeches made people want more in life and they wanted the amazing life Hitler built up in their heads. It was also effective because the people were not experienced in the political world and they did not know the details of all his plans. Some of his speeches had words that people did not know the meaning, so they just agreed with it. Hitler was effective because he could brain wash people into getting what he wants.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Section 3-
In Russia today, we always have to watch our back no matter where you go. You do not trust anyone. Society now is very skechy. Everyone is walking around beong nervous and no one trusts anyone. The dictator is blaring propaganda through out the whole country. It is 
all over the streets, loud speakers, radios, theaters, librarys, and factories.
all over the streets, loud speakers, radios, theaters, librarys, and factories. Many people through out the country get a free education. These people are having trouble times in society and economy, but still have time to go to school. Also according to the Marx ideas, being athiest is an official state policy. Being athiest is believing there is no god. Dictators are known for having their own religions and even their own "sacred" text.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Section 2-
Stalin's five year plan is on the way. There are many changes that I have seen in Russia. Everything in Russia is owned and ran by the government. People that own their own businesses have no rights at all. Stalin is taking full control of Russia. The government makes ALL economic decisions. But in the capitalists economy, the free market makes the decisions. And all the private businesses make their own profit and make their own decisions.
Stalin's five year plan had high goals to set. He wanted his heavy industry and transportation to prosper the most. If you worked in the factory and helped make it prosper, then you got a bonus. But if you becam
e lazy and did not work at all you were let go. Oil, coal, and steel production grew in the Soviet Union. Wages for workers and consumer products started to become scarce.
e lazy and did not work at all you were let go. Oil, coal, and steel production grew in the Soviet Union. Wages for workers and consumer products started to become scarce.Thursday, March 4, 2010
Section 1-
Hello. I am writting from Russia. Russia is having a revolution inside the country. Everything is so caotic. The government is trying to gain control, but it is very hard to gain control over the strong willed citizens. I do not like living in Russia right now. I am scared that I will get killed or get seperated from my family.
Also, jobs are very scarce at this time. Food is also very hard to find. When look at people on the streets you can see how hungry they are and how much they are dying for food. As a factory worker jobs are becoming less. We can not find jobs, and if we get hurt then we are doomed because we have no way in buying food for our families.
Hello. I am writting from Russia. Russia is having a revolution inside the country. Everything is so caotic. The government is trying to gain control, but it is very hard to gain control over the strong willed citizens. I do not like living in Russia right now. I am scared that I will get killed or get seperated from my family.
Also, jobs are very scarce at this time. Food is also very hard to find. When look at people on the streets you can see how hungry they are and how much they are dying for food. As a factory worker jobs are becoming less. We can not find jobs, and if we get hurt then we are doomed because we have no way in buying food for our families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)