Thursday, October 30, 2008
Stamp Act Synthesis
These documents are the beginning discussions of freedom and independence. The colonists have been given rights to govern themselves for so long, almost being ignored (governmentally) by England. They would grow accustomed to that way of life, being spoiled by English protection, the English asking little of them in return. When the stamp act was inducted, this challenged their entire former system of government. A country taxing them from afar, to pay for things they would never see? Colonists, with their newfound unity and patriotic spirit, would find this move insulting. Taxation without representation reinforced their “lower class citizen” status. They argued that they were just as much English citizens as anyone living in there at the time, and that taxing them without consultation brought them equal to any lower class minority. Were they to be “tamed like slaves?” This is when the ideals of independence first took wing in the colonies. Sending out an act of resolves to the Crown was a huge step in American history, because this was them fighting back against what they thought was unjust. The significance of this event was not the repeal of the stamp act; but a change in the attitudes, a change of heart, and a shift in power. For the first time in the colonies history, they were strong and confident enough to defy those who inflicted those injustices.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Essay Semi Final
How do you tell the difference between heroes and villains? Some would say the difference is actions, others say about perspectives. Since history is an art of interpretation, it gives us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led the poor and underprivileged to revolt against their malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero... I believe he wasn’t a hero at all.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people”, as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi elucidates in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s crimes also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Bibliography
“Bacons Rebellion: The declaration (1676) by Nathanial Bacon” (online) available at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800
“Nathanial Bacon Declaration, 1676” Reading the American past, pg 55
Puglisi, Michael “Whether they be friends or foes: The roles and reactions of tributary native groups caught in colonial conflicts” Marian College, pg 77
Zinn, Howard and Steffoff, Rebecca. A Young People’s History of the United States. Pg 35-51.
fvfv
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people”, as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi elucidates in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s crimes also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Bibliography
“Bacons Rebellion: The declaration (1676) by Nathanial Bacon” (online) available at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800
“Nathanial Bacon Declaration, 1676” Reading the American past, pg 55
Puglisi, Michael “Whether they be friends or foes: The roles and reactions of tributary native groups caught in colonial conflicts” Marian College, pg 77
Zinn, Howard and Steffoff, Rebecca. A Young People’s History of the United States. Pg 35-51.
fvfv
Essay #1 Reflection
I thought this essay was very successful in almost every way. The entire thing came together very easily for me. There were a few aspects that I did not find particularly helpful, but I wouldn’t call them negatives. The peer review was pretty dry, I cant glean much from someone saying, “Yours is really good! But you should make it more organized”. Also, the outline was an interesting part of this assignment for me, at first I resisted it, but towards the middle of the assignment, I found that it was essential to my organization of the essay. The amount of time was perfect, there wasn’t too much where I got lulled into a false sense of security, but I did not feel rushed. I found myself with lots of writing to play around with and change. I worked in it a little everyday, and before I knew it, I had a full essay done by the middle of the second week, so I had that much time to edit and re read. I also enjoyed making a thesis, this was my first time with that, and I liked the fact we could choose what we wrote about, so we couldn’t complain about our topic. And I liked the control of being able to choose, personally, I found my topic interesting and easy to write about. I also liked the mount of resources we had. It was a little overwhelming at times, but the amount of sources was a factor in being successful, I have never had an essay where I had that much information at hand before.
This essay has not affected my writing philosophy in any way, I still believe in it. The qualities I sketched out in my philosophy are goals, and I hope I lived up to those standards I set for myself.
This essay has not affected my writing philosophy in any way, I still believe in it. The qualities I sketched out in my philosophy are goals, and I hope I lived up to those standards I set for myself.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Essay Update
How do you tell the difference between heroes and villains? Some would say the difference is actions, others say about perspectives. Since history is an art of interpretation, it gives us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led the poor and underprivileged to revolt against their malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero... I believe he wasn’t a hero at all.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed,“Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi stated in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s faults also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed,“Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi stated in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s faults also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Essay update
History can give us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. They were being taxed into poverty; and then neglected by the same government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that there wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: a Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute “civil disobedience”. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources seem to imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. Why would they launch an attack on these villages? And once they say that
The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
I think his lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. They were being taxed into poverty; and then neglected by the same government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that there wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: a Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute “civil disobedience”. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources seem to imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. Why would they launch an attack on these villages? And once they say that
The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
I think his lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Equiano Account Response
The way he writes about his account seems disconnected, like it wasn’t exceedingly painful for him to recall and relate his story. I think that’s is because that he would want his story told, because the story is not just his. He shares it with every slave that was on that boat with him, and the boat that left before theirs, and the one that left after. The pictures were also a wonderful resource; it makes me wonder who the artist was, if he was really there. I think he might have been because they look very realistic, sharing the misery of these ships. The authors writing concurs with the images, and paints a picture of one of the greatest tragedies that mankind has ever inflicted on other men. The Englishmen’s treatment of other men was truly inconceivable, but luckily the author survived to tell us this, his, story.
Liberty of the Press Text Analysis
Who is writing?
- The author was not specified on the actual document, but if we take the intro to be true, I would guess the author would be John Peter Zenger, who was an editor of the New York Weekly Journal.
“This letter is a November 1733 issue of The New York Weekly Journal”
“While in jail, Zenger continued to publish the Journal.”
“…everything Zenger had written was the truth.”
Who is the audience?
- The audience was the readers of the New York Weekly Journal, since it was published there.
Who do the writer(s) represent?
- The writer might represent the New York Weekly Journal, since often newspapers print articles that share their views. He would also represent the people, because he was embodiment of their problems. They might not have been allowed to have freedom of the press, but he was the first one to be recognized as innocent.
What is being said, argued or requested?
- The author is saying that Freedom of the Press is necessary because it is constitutional, or even that it should be a part of the constitution. Even further than that, he says that freedom of the press is also a form of justice, that the truth can be known by everyone, and so that criminals “let the glaring truths… awaken his conscience… and cover him with shame”
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- It is being said very passionately. You can tell the author cares about what he says, and truly believes in it. He used strong statements, and was not wishy-washy. He didn’t say, “I think liberty of the press is of great importance” he said “Liberty of the press is of the greatest importance”
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- He posted it in a newspaper, which is usually a very reputable source. Also, I think the language that he used gave him some authority as well, I think the settlers would be more compelled to read and agree with his work because he his confident in what he is arguing.
- The author was not specified on the actual document, but if we take the intro to be true, I would guess the author would be John Peter Zenger, who was an editor of the New York Weekly Journal.
“This letter is a November 1733 issue of The New York Weekly Journal”
“While in jail, Zenger continued to publish the Journal.”
“…everything Zenger had written was the truth.”
Who is the audience?
- The audience was the readers of the New York Weekly Journal, since it was published there.
Who do the writer(s) represent?
- The writer might represent the New York Weekly Journal, since often newspapers print articles that share their views. He would also represent the people, because he was embodiment of their problems. They might not have been allowed to have freedom of the press, but he was the first one to be recognized as innocent.
What is being said, argued or requested?
- The author is saying that Freedom of the Press is necessary because it is constitutional, or even that it should be a part of the constitution. Even further than that, he says that freedom of the press is also a form of justice, that the truth can be known by everyone, and so that criminals “let the glaring truths… awaken his conscience… and cover him with shame”
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- It is being said very passionately. You can tell the author cares about what he says, and truly believes in it. He used strong statements, and was not wishy-washy. He didn’t say, “I think liberty of the press is of great importance” he said “Liberty of the press is of the greatest importance”
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- He posted it in a newspaper, which is usually a very reputable source. Also, I think the language that he used gave him some authority as well, I think the settlers would be more compelled to read and agree with his work because he his confident in what he is arguing.
Essay update
History can give us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he beleives himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. The poor farmers, the indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, the lower class saw him as hope for a brighter, freer future. And Bacon had his reasons for leading this group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. Also, the government was unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with them would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the bad of rebels he lead. As the into in _______ agreed, “Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority” And finally, they would see him as virtuous because they already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and colonists jumped at the chance to retaliate in force.
He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland settlers were in constant danger of attack.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he beleives himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. The poor farmers, the indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, the lower class saw him as hope for a brighter, freer future. And Bacon had his reasons for leading this group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. Also, the government was unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with them would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the bad of rebels he lead. As the into in _______ agreed, “Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority” And finally, they would see him as virtuous because they already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and colonists jumped at the chance to retaliate in force.
He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland settlers were in constant danger of attack.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thesis/ Outline Redo
Intro
-----A. Thesis – Nathanial Bacon was not a hero in his rebellion
-----B. Background
II. Bacon was a hero (They say)
-----A. Who was he a hero to?
1. The poor people, indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, lower class, farmers ect.
-----B. Why did they see him like that?
---------- 1. He was fighting against the same government that was neglecting them.
---------- ---------- a. Yellow handout, Bacons declaration
---------- ---------- ---------- i. “Raised great unjust taxes”
---------- ---------- ---------- ii. “By advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites”
---------- ---------- ---------- iii. “For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative… by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade”
---------2. He fought alongside them
---------- 3. Sacrificed social status and favor with Berkeley
---------- 4. United (briefly) blacks and whites
---------- ---------- a. “But Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”
---------- 5. Indians did attack and kill settlers, they were not innocent.
---------- ---------- a. Letter from his wife to her sister
-----C. Did they have any other choice?
---------- 1. No, there was no one else to look to.
---------- 2. They found a leader in one of their own people, not one who was already intricately tied in the government.
-----D. Who agrees with this position?
---------- 1. Bacon
---------- ---------- a. Bacons declaration
---------- 2. Bacons Wife
---------- ---------- a. Letter to sister
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero (They say)
-----A. Definition of martyr-
---------- 1. A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
-----B. How he was a martyr
---------- 1. In his declaration he plays the victim
---------- ---------- a. “Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men… the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell”
---------- 2. He was never in the right, nor did he not have a reason for his anger
---------- 3. Was never in any grave poverty such as the people he “represented”
-----C. Attacked innocent people
---------- 2. Ignored existing peace treaties with Indians
---------- ---------- a. That jeopardized the economy from trade
---------- ---------- b. Ruined trust with surrounding Indian villages
---------- 3. Attacked Indian villages that were peaceful
---------- ---------- a. Doeg tribes ect...
---------- ---------- b. They were innocent, did not fight back even in fear they would offent the settlers.
-----D. Question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
---------- 1. He was a leader, but was he created. He was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, act as arbiter.
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts (I say)
-----A. Was anyone justified?
---------- 1. Indians
---------- ---------- a. They were attacked, stolen from, killed
---------- ---------- b. They did the same, usually in retaliation.
---------- 2. Settlers
---------- ---------- a. Took land that was given to them that was not really theirs
---------- ---------- b. Attacked innocent and unrelated Indian tribes
---------- 3. Government
---------- ---------- a. Refused to help outlying Settlers to protect Indian trade
---------- ---------- b. Bacon thought Berkeley was corrupt
-----B. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
---------- 1. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
---------- 2. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
V. References
-----A. Thesis – Nathanial Bacon was not a hero in his rebellion
-----B. Background
II. Bacon was a hero (They say)
-----A. Who was he a hero to?
1. The poor people, indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, lower class, farmers ect.
-----B. Why did they see him like that?
---------- 1. He was fighting against the same government that was neglecting them.
---------- ---------- a. Yellow handout, Bacons declaration
---------- ---------- ---------- i. “Raised great unjust taxes”
---------- ---------- ---------- ii. “By advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites”
---------- ---------- ---------- iii. “For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative… by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade”
---------2. He fought alongside them
---------- 3. Sacrificed social status and favor with Berkeley
---------- 4. United (briefly) blacks and whites
---------- ---------- a. “But Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”
---------- 5. Indians did attack and kill settlers, they were not innocent.
---------- ---------- a. Letter from his wife to her sister
-----C. Did they have any other choice?
---------- 1. No, there was no one else to look to.
---------- 2. They found a leader in one of their own people, not one who was already intricately tied in the government.
-----D. Who agrees with this position?
---------- 1. Bacon
---------- ---------- a. Bacons declaration
---------- 2. Bacons Wife
---------- ---------- a. Letter to sister
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero (They say)
-----A. Definition of martyr-
---------- 1. A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
-----B. How he was a martyr
---------- 1. In his declaration he plays the victim
---------- ---------- a. “Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men… the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell”
---------- 2. He was never in the right, nor did he not have a reason for his anger
---------- 3. Was never in any grave poverty such as the people he “represented”
-----C. Attacked innocent people
---------- 2. Ignored existing peace treaties with Indians
---------- ---------- a. That jeopardized the economy from trade
---------- ---------- b. Ruined trust with surrounding Indian villages
---------- 3. Attacked Indian villages that were peaceful
---------- ---------- a. Doeg tribes ect...
---------- ---------- b. They were innocent, did not fight back even in fear they would offent the settlers.
-----D. Question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
---------- 1. He was a leader, but was he created. He was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, act as arbiter.
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts (I say)
-----A. Was anyone justified?
---------- 1. Indians
---------- ---------- a. They were attacked, stolen from, killed
---------- ---------- b. They did the same, usually in retaliation.
---------- 2. Settlers
---------- ---------- a. Took land that was given to them that was not really theirs
---------- ---------- b. Attacked innocent and unrelated Indian tribes
---------- 3. Government
---------- ---------- a. Refused to help outlying Settlers to protect Indian trade
---------- ---------- b. Bacon thought Berkeley was corrupt
-----B. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
---------- 1. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
---------- 2. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
V. References
Monday, October 13, 2008
Thesis Statement
Nathanial Bacon was not a hero in his rebellion because his actions were misguided.
I. Intro
A. Thesis
II. Bacon was a hero
a. Who was he a hero to?
b. Why did they see him like that?
c. Did they have any other choice?
d. Who agrees with this position?
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero
a. Definition of martyr-
b. why he was a martyr
c. question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
d. answer
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts
A. Was anyone justified?
b. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
c. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
d. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
I. Intro
A. Thesis
II. Bacon was a hero
a. Who was he a hero to?
b. Why did they see him like that?
c. Did they have any other choice?
d. Who agrees with this position?
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero
a. Definition of martyr-
b. why he was a martyr
c. question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
d. answer
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts
A. Was anyone justified?
b. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
c. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
d. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
e. Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Essay Update
History can give us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland sett;ers were in constant danger of attck.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland sett;ers were in constant danger of attck.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
JSTOR Search reveiw
I did not find the JSTORE site very helpful, although it is a recourse I could see being very useful in the future. I tried many combinations of words and there was only one of any real value, which was the first one from William and Mary college. I believe it was a primary document, which was useful.
But the other things it brought up were generally unhelpful, bringing up articles about Francis Bacon and Leisler's Rebellion.
There were things I appreciated about the site though, the best being the ability to email the citation to your personal address, that was a very useful feature. (Although I tried this, and the attachments were broken)
I also liked that you could view a list of pages with the search terms, and that you could click on links to just those pages, instead of having to read through all of them trying to find what you need. It was like an instant index, witch I found really impressive, since most of the articles were in PDF format.
So even though I did not find anything really profound on the site, I will try it again, because there is so much potential to be an amazing recourse in the future.
But the other things it brought up were generally unhelpful, bringing up articles about Francis Bacon and Leisler's Rebellion.
There were things I appreciated about the site though, the best being the ability to email the citation to your personal address, that was a very useful feature. (Although I tried this, and the attachments were broken)
I also liked that you could view a list of pages with the search terms, and that you could click on links to just those pages, instead of having to read through all of them trying to find what you need. It was like an instant index, witch I found really impressive, since most of the articles were in PDF format.
So even though I did not find anything really profound on the site, I will try it again, because there is so much potential to be an amazing recourse in the future.
Response to John Winthrop Quotes
Quote 1
- This quote is saying that the political body is the same as the spiritual or Christian body. The metaphor is effective because it is one the settlers have heard before, to describe the Church. So when he applies it to politics or a government, they can easily translate. It also is stating that unless they work together as one, they will not be able to survive or flourish. The body only works when all the parts work together, so it would give a sense of "collective individuality", that their actions will in some way affect other people.
Quote 2
- This quote is saying that there was one a good England, and that should be resurrected. "What they have ought to have done" means they used hindsight, they looked into the past, saw what they did not like or what needed to be changed, and take these matters into their own hands to create a new, better England, with roots in what it used to be. They were simply creating a new country, nearly like the one from where they came, except they had the chance to make it exactly as they wanted it.
Quote 3
- The quote is saying that the mission they have, to make a new more pure colony, was directly a mission from god. That is was their duty on earth to make a new state in where God could be glorified in the way that they thought most true to Christianity. They would see the land that they would take over as a gift from God, and that he would expect them to use it accordingly, not to ruin it becoming corrupt like the Old England.
Quote 4
- This quote means that they would make a settlement, a religion, a colony so pure that it would be looked upon as the ideal for all the other colonies in America. The word would spread how they and they alone are doing the will of God, and others would strive to be like them.
- This quote is saying that the political body is the same as the spiritual or Christian body. The metaphor is effective because it is one the settlers have heard before, to describe the Church. So when he applies it to politics or a government, they can easily translate. It also is stating that unless they work together as one, they will not be able to survive or flourish. The body only works when all the parts work together, so it would give a sense of "collective individuality", that their actions will in some way affect other people.
Quote 2
- This quote is saying that there was one a good England, and that should be resurrected. "What they have ought to have done" means they used hindsight, they looked into the past, saw what they did not like or what needed to be changed, and take these matters into their own hands to create a new, better England, with roots in what it used to be. They were simply creating a new country, nearly like the one from where they came, except they had the chance to make it exactly as they wanted it.
Quote 3
- The quote is saying that the mission they have, to make a new more pure colony, was directly a mission from god. That is was their duty on earth to make a new state in where God could be glorified in the way that they thought most true to Christianity. They would see the land that they would take over as a gift from God, and that he would expect them to use it accordingly, not to ruin it becoming corrupt like the Old England.
Quote 4
- This quote means that they would make a settlement, a religion, a colony so pure that it would be looked upon as the ideal for all the other colonies in America. The word would spread how they and they alone are doing the will of God, and others would strive to be like them.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Coll 101 Assignment, Part 4
4. Write a personal evaluation of the college fair experience.
The college fair was a complete success for me, but only because I was prepared in advance. If I had just shown up there, the experience would have been completely chaotic and nearly worthless. The fact I came prepared with what was important to me, the questions I wanted to ask, was invaluable.
The information I received that was the most important was probably when I asked the rep from NWCA how I could impress the admissions officers most with my portfolio or application. He told me that my portfolio was extremely important, that showing examples that you could grow and had talent was consequential. “But even more that that”, he said “you can impress us by showing a desire to learn, a desire to attend, a passion for your art.” That’s something you won’t get offline.
I don’t think I have any unanswered questions that I didn’t ask at the fair. Now my question is will my credits be transferred? But that will be part of the next step, which is starting communication with these colleges now. I should start thinking about my portfolio, and how it will affect me in the admissions process.
The fair was a great experience for me, I had fun, and I learned more in a few hours that I could have online. I met people, I shook the hands that might hold my admissions essay, I got numbers for the people Ill be talking to throughout the next three years, with all luck.
The college fair was a complete success for me, but only because I was prepared in advance. If I had just shown up there, the experience would have been completely chaotic and nearly worthless. The fact I came prepared with what was important to me, the questions I wanted to ask, was invaluable.
The information I received that was the most important was probably when I asked the rep from NWCA how I could impress the admissions officers most with my portfolio or application. He told me that my portfolio was extremely important, that showing examples that you could grow and had talent was consequential. “But even more that that”, he said “you can impress us by showing a desire to learn, a desire to attend, a passion for your art.” That’s something you won’t get offline.
I don’t think I have any unanswered questions that I didn’t ask at the fair. Now my question is will my credits be transferred? But that will be part of the next step, which is starting communication with these colleges now. I should start thinking about my portfolio, and how it will affect me in the admissions process.
The fair was a great experience for me, I had fun, and I learned more in a few hours that I could have online. I met people, I shook the hands that might hold my admissions essay, I got numbers for the people Ill be talking to throughout the next three years, with all luck.
Coll 101 Assignment, Part 3
3. After attending a seminar at the college fair, describe its content and evaluate the information received.
The workshop I attended was “How to Write a Better College Essay.” I found the information very useful. She had been a dean of admissions, and she has read literally thousands of essays. The speaker told us the importance of a few main items, the first one being something as simple as follow the directions. Her next points stressed the importance of personal voice in your essay. She said be real, be yourself, use whatever talents you have. One of the best pieces of advice she gave me was to play to your strengths. If you are good at creative writing, then write it like a story. I didn’t know you could do that, I thought it had to follow the traditional essay format, that’s something I will be using when I write my own college entrance essays. She said there have been many cases where she could see talent, but the student’s refusal to brag about their own qualities in their essay may have cost them admission. She was entertaining, and what I learned in that seminar I will be able to use in other essays as well, so that was 30 minutes of my time very well spent.
The workshop I attended was “How to Write a Better College Essay.” I found the information very useful. She had been a dean of admissions, and she has read literally thousands of essays. The speaker told us the importance of a few main items, the first one being something as simple as follow the directions. Her next points stressed the importance of personal voice in your essay. She said be real, be yourself, use whatever talents you have. One of the best pieces of advice she gave me was to play to your strengths. If you are good at creative writing, then write it like a story. I didn’t know you could do that, I thought it had to follow the traditional essay format, that’s something I will be using when I write my own college entrance essays. She said there have been many cases where she could see talent, but the student’s refusal to brag about their own qualities in their essay may have cost them admission. She was entertaining, and what I learned in that seminar I will be able to use in other essays as well, so that was 30 minutes of my time very well spent.
Coll 101 Assignment, Part 2
2. Select a college major; describe three colleges with quality degree programs in that major.
My most desired major is a fine arts degree in photography. At the college fair I saw 4-5 prospective colleges with quality degrees in that field.
One of them was California College of the arts. CCA did not impress me much in person, the tuition is very expensive, and the first year you do not get to choose the classes you take. Their brochure was much more informative and inviting. I was impressed, however, with the representative of CCA. She was knowledgeable in my degree program, and her advice even helped me that day during the college fair. She addressed the high tuition costs and told me that a lot of it could be waived they had more scholarship opportunities than most. Considering the price of tuition, and the face that I would need to move out of state upon acceptance, I would probably not apply to this college. But if it was in state, I would be interested I attending.
The second college I explored was Alberta College of Art and Design. I was also favorably impressed by the rep there, she was friendly and knowledgeable. I did not discover anything too profound about this college, I think the only thing that really sets it apart in my eyes would be its location, I wouldn’t have considered a college that was out of country before the fair. I would like to attend this college, but I think the transition would be one of the hardest; I do not want to be that far away from my family and friends. I don’t see the educational experience being that terribly different than anything I had already seen; they are a small college, with relatively low student to teacher ratios, low tuition and an urban campus.
The last and final college I explored for their photography degree was Northwest College of the Arts. I was by far the most impressed with this college. They have almost obscenely small class sizes and teacher-student ratios. They are a private college, and I would appreciate the challenge of getting accepted there. I love the low tuition and the spacious natural campus. They have modern, state of the art facilities as they have recently moved due to expansion. They I could double major in both my fields of choice, and actually graduate faster than if I was enrolled in another dual major program. If they accepted my transfer credit, I may save a truly incredible about of money and time in college, the experience would be completely different here than any other college.
My most desired major is a fine arts degree in photography. At the college fair I saw 4-5 prospective colleges with quality degrees in that field.
One of them was California College of the arts. CCA did not impress me much in person, the tuition is very expensive, and the first year you do not get to choose the classes you take. Their brochure was much more informative and inviting. I was impressed, however, with the representative of CCA. She was knowledgeable in my degree program, and her advice even helped me that day during the college fair. She addressed the high tuition costs and told me that a lot of it could be waived they had more scholarship opportunities than most. Considering the price of tuition, and the face that I would need to move out of state upon acceptance, I would probably not apply to this college. But if it was in state, I would be interested I attending.
The second college I explored was Alberta College of Art and Design. I was also favorably impressed by the rep there, she was friendly and knowledgeable. I did not discover anything too profound about this college, I think the only thing that really sets it apart in my eyes would be its location, I wouldn’t have considered a college that was out of country before the fair. I would like to attend this college, but I think the transition would be one of the hardest; I do not want to be that far away from my family and friends. I don’t see the educational experience being that terribly different than anything I had already seen; they are a small college, with relatively low student to teacher ratios, low tuition and an urban campus.
The last and final college I explored for their photography degree was Northwest College of the Arts. I was by far the most impressed with this college. They have almost obscenely small class sizes and teacher-student ratios. They are a private college, and I would appreciate the challenge of getting accepted there. I love the low tuition and the spacious natural campus. They have modern, state of the art facilities as they have recently moved due to expansion. They I could double major in both my fields of choice, and actually graduate faster than if I was enrolled in another dual major program. If they accepted my transfer credit, I may save a truly incredible about of money and time in college, the experience would be completely different here than any other college.
Coll 101 Assignment, part 1
1. Provide the name and a brief description of the following colleges
A public college –
Alberta College of Art
A famous arts college, I like this college because it had the exact degree programs I want, they will accept transfer credits because they receive so many students from other countries. I love that they specialize and are most know for the two majors I want to go to most, Photography and Graphic Design. Its now one of my choice schools, tuition is relatively low, especially for an arts college, they have a job placement program and a small- medium freshman class size. They are a small college, with a low teacher to student ration, at 1:9. The only reason I could see why this would not be a choice school for me would be that it is out of the country, living there would be a challenge, I would need to get housing (I believe on campus housing is available) and a job in Canada.
A private college –
Cornish College of the Arts
This is also a renowned college is the world of art, the name of Cornish is very famous. I like that if I attend, I would have that name backing me up, rather than a smaller or more unknown college. The tuition is more expensive than my choice schools, by about 10,000 a year. But I love the small college feel and with only 800 students you know if you are accepted, you are among the best up and coming artists. They have my choice degree programs. I love their location as well, I wouldn’t have to adjust my life seriously to attend there, I would be within driving distance of my current location, and it being in Seattle would give me plenty opportunity for fun while working, studying and in my free time.
A rural college –
Northwest College of the Arts
Because of the college fair, this is now my choice school. I love the rural location; they have a large waterfront campus close to Seattle. The tuition is the lowest I have encountered. I also like the dual major program, witch would allow me to learn and apply both of my most desired degrees (fine arts and design). Also, they have an accelerated curriculum, where I would be done in 3-4 years instead of 5 like most dual major programs. I was also impressed by the representative, he was extremely helpful in answering my questions, and I will contact him in the future for further admission questions.
A traditional large university –
Art Institute of Seattle
This would be my 3rd college of choice, and once again this college has already made a name for itself in the artistic community, witch is very helpful when looking for a job as a graduate. Although the schools I have seen before were relatively small, the Art Institute is widely established all over the country, if I decided to move out of state, the name would carry with me. I like a lot of the same things about this college that I do about others, like the rest, they are hands on, trying to focus on small class sizes in which to best stimulate creative ability, a urban campus ect. They are medium tuition, about 15,000 more than Northwest College of Art.
A small alternative college –
I did not look for a alternative college, I have a very specific major, so all of the colleges I am looking at have specialized degree programs, I don’t want to be back burnered by a institution that has a photography degree as a small, relatively unnoticed program they offer. If there was a small alternative arts college, I would certainly look into it.
A public college –
Alberta College of Art
A famous arts college, I like this college because it had the exact degree programs I want, they will accept transfer credits because they receive so many students from other countries. I love that they specialize and are most know for the two majors I want to go to most, Photography and Graphic Design. Its now one of my choice schools, tuition is relatively low, especially for an arts college, they have a job placement program and a small- medium freshman class size. They are a small college, with a low teacher to student ration, at 1:9. The only reason I could see why this would not be a choice school for me would be that it is out of the country, living there would be a challenge, I would need to get housing (I believe on campus housing is available) and a job in Canada.
A private college –
Cornish College of the Arts
This is also a renowned college is the world of art, the name of Cornish is very famous. I like that if I attend, I would have that name backing me up, rather than a smaller or more unknown college. The tuition is more expensive than my choice schools, by about 10,000 a year. But I love the small college feel and with only 800 students you know if you are accepted, you are among the best up and coming artists. They have my choice degree programs. I love their location as well, I wouldn’t have to adjust my life seriously to attend there, I would be within driving distance of my current location, and it being in Seattle would give me plenty opportunity for fun while working, studying and in my free time.
A rural college –
Northwest College of the Arts
Because of the college fair, this is now my choice school. I love the rural location; they have a large waterfront campus close to Seattle. The tuition is the lowest I have encountered. I also like the dual major program, witch would allow me to learn and apply both of my most desired degrees (fine arts and design). Also, they have an accelerated curriculum, where I would be done in 3-4 years instead of 5 like most dual major programs. I was also impressed by the representative, he was extremely helpful in answering my questions, and I will contact him in the future for further admission questions.
A traditional large university –
Art Institute of Seattle
This would be my 3rd college of choice, and once again this college has already made a name for itself in the artistic community, witch is very helpful when looking for a job as a graduate. Although the schools I have seen before were relatively small, the Art Institute is widely established all over the country, if I decided to move out of state, the name would carry with me. I like a lot of the same things about this college that I do about others, like the rest, they are hands on, trying to focus on small class sizes in which to best stimulate creative ability, a urban campus ect. They are medium tuition, about 15,000 more than Northwest College of Art.
A small alternative college –
I did not look for a alternative college, I have a very specific major, so all of the colleges I am looking at have specialized degree programs, I don’t want to be back burnered by a institution that has a photography degree as a small, relatively unnoticed program they offer. If there was a small alternative arts college, I would certainly look into it.
They say 2; Bacon's rebellion
In the various articles there are concerning Bacon’s rebellion, there seem to be conflicting views of Nathanial Bacon. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged to revolt against the malign government. In his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, which in every respect he was. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to save or make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.
Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, which in every respect he was. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to save or make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
They say; Bacons Rebellion
In the articles I have read, there seem to be conflicting views of Nathanial Bacon. In primary document I have read from him, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, and a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell" He plays the long suffering martyr in his own documents.
The other articles I have read aren't so willing to paint him as hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, witch in every respect he was. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. The people had multiple r4easons for their unrest, their poverty, the growing distinctions between class, the lack of a middle class, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension that was building. As the Puglesi article stated, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." They forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents I have read imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes. All sources agree thought that Berkley's interesting protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them was not a product of compassion for them. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to save or make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.
The other articles I have read aren't so willing to paint him as hero. The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader, witch in every respect he was. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. The people had multiple r4easons for their unrest, their poverty, the growing distinctions between class, the lack of a middle class, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension that was building. As the Puglesi article stated, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." They forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents I have read imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes. All sources agree thought that Berkley's interesting protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them was not a product of compassion for them. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to save or make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Text Analysis of Mayflower Compact
Who is writing?
- "We, whose names are underwritten" Subjects of King James, settlers at New Plymouth
Who is the audience?
- The audience would be both King James and the English government, also the signers, because this was a social contract put into action for their own cause.
Who do the writers represent?
- The writers are pilgrims that voyaged on the Mayflower to the New World. They also represented a small body of people, joining together to "combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation"
What is being said, argued or requested?
- They are requesting permission, or rather making a claim to make and control their own government for their own good. They’re also seeking political and religious freedom in the New World.
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- They are still respectful, and are not rebelling. They give proper consideration and respect to their King and God, and claim these freedoms in King James' name.
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- The compact was made in the democratic fashion, with a majority signing. They also knew there would be none to oppose them or rule them in the new world if they made their own settlement.
- "We, whose names are underwritten" Subjects of King James, settlers at New Plymouth
Who is the audience?
- The audience would be both King James and the English government, also the signers, because this was a social contract put into action for their own cause.
Who do the writers represent?
- The writers are pilgrims that voyaged on the Mayflower to the New World. They also represented a small body of people, joining together to "combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation"
What is being said, argued or requested?
- They are requesting permission, or rather making a claim to make and control their own government for their own good. They’re also seeking political and religious freedom in the New World.
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- They are still respectful, and are not rebelling. They give proper consideration and respect to their King and God, and claim these freedoms in King James' name.
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- The compact was made in the democratic fashion, with a majority signing. They also knew there would be none to oppose them or rule them in the new world if they made their own settlement.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
First final of Group Wiki
Bacon’s Rebellion
Background info
Nathaniel Bacon was born in the 1640s (the exact date is unknown) in England. In 1673 he left for the Virginia colony, eventually arriving in Jamestown. Bacon saw Governor William Berkeley’s lackluster treatment of his people after several of them were killed by Native Americans, and accused Berkeley of corruption. He led a group of settlers in battles against the Indian tribes in 1676 that ended bloodily for both parties involved. His actions and those of his supporters were considered “rebellious” by the governor of Virginia, Sir William Berkeley. Before his death in 1676, Bacon issued a declaration that Sir Berkeley was unfit to govern, and his belief in the superiority of the Englishmen. The uprising ended with his death of dysentery that same year, and the arrival of the British fleet.
Causes
Nathaniel Bacon was loyal to the King of England, but his loyalty to the Virginia Company was almost non-existent. His lead in the Rebellion that killed many Indians was caused by his belief that the government favored the Indian’s interests over the Virginians. He wanted access to military trained men and weapons, so that he could attack the Susquehannock Indians. The governor was making good profit by trading with the Indians, he didn’t want to disturb that peace. Also the colonists were being financially oppressed with the tobacco sales down, and their land being ruled by most Indians. So Bacon pushed for what he thought was right for his people and for the future settlers in Virginia.
Bacon also believed Berkeley,”raised great unjust taxes”. It was also believed that Berkeley held favorites, and used his political power to help friends into high positions in society.
The Rebellion
The rebellion was a conflict between European settlers and Indians over the land of Virginia, starting in 1676. There was some dispute beforehand about who had real ownership of the land before the rebellion started. It started because Nathaniel Bacon and Governor William Berkeley had a dispute over the Indian Policy. Bacon conducted an expedition against the Susquehannock Indians, killing the chiefs that Berkeley had previously persuaded to negotiate peaceful terms with. Berkeley tried to propose the construction of several defenses along the frontier, but was shot down by the colonists as they thought it was another way to raise already high taxes. Berkeley thought since Bacon was rebelling against him and the Indian policy, it would start a large war. Bacon decided to bring his forces together to bring down Berkeley, and for awhile Bacon ruled all of Virginia. Unfortunately for Bacon he died as did the rebellion, ending the entire dispute between Berkeley and himself.
Effects
One of the negative side effects of Bacons Rebellion was decreased trust and trade with the local Indians. After Bacon ignored the peace treaties that the settlers had with them, they were much less inclined to trust the settlers. This affected the beaver and pelt trades.
Also, the fighting and blood shed encouraged people to abandon or desert their tobacco plantations, which declined production and decreased income for the Colony.
There was a loss of life on both sides, with over 83 settlers and 30 natives dying in the conflicts. The conflict also foreshadowed the upcoming troubles with the Natives, and exemplified the attitudes that would end up taking many more lives in the future.
Background info
Nathaniel Bacon was born in the 1640s (the exact date is unknown) in England. In 1673 he left for the Virginia colony, eventually arriving in Jamestown. Bacon saw Governor William Berkeley’s lackluster treatment of his people after several of them were killed by Native Americans, and accused Berkeley of corruption. He led a group of settlers in battles against the Indian tribes in 1676 that ended bloodily for both parties involved. His actions and those of his supporters were considered “rebellious” by the governor of Virginia, Sir William Berkeley. Before his death in 1676, Bacon issued a declaration that Sir Berkeley was unfit to govern, and his belief in the superiority of the Englishmen. The uprising ended with his death of dysentery that same year, and the arrival of the British fleet.
Causes
Nathaniel Bacon was loyal to the King of England, but his loyalty to the Virginia Company was almost non-existent. His lead in the Rebellion that killed many Indians was caused by his belief that the government favored the Indian’s interests over the Virginians. He wanted access to military trained men and weapons, so that he could attack the Susquehannock Indians. The governor was making good profit by trading with the Indians, he didn’t want to disturb that peace. Also the colonists were being financially oppressed with the tobacco sales down, and their land being ruled by most Indians. So Bacon pushed for what he thought was right for his people and for the future settlers in Virginia.
Bacon also believed Berkeley,”raised great unjust taxes”. It was also believed that Berkeley held favorites, and used his political power to help friends into high positions in society.
The Rebellion
The rebellion was a conflict between European settlers and Indians over the land of Virginia, starting in 1676. There was some dispute beforehand about who had real ownership of the land before the rebellion started. It started because Nathaniel Bacon and Governor William Berkeley had a dispute over the Indian Policy. Bacon conducted an expedition against the Susquehannock Indians, killing the chiefs that Berkeley had previously persuaded to negotiate peaceful terms with. Berkeley tried to propose the construction of several defenses along the frontier, but was shot down by the colonists as they thought it was another way to raise already high taxes. Berkeley thought since Bacon was rebelling against him and the Indian policy, it would start a large war. Bacon decided to bring his forces together to bring down Berkeley, and for awhile Bacon ruled all of Virginia. Unfortunately for Bacon he died as did the rebellion, ending the entire dispute between Berkeley and himself.
Effects
One of the negative side effects of Bacons Rebellion was decreased trust and trade with the local Indians. After Bacon ignored the peace treaties that the settlers had with them, they were much less inclined to trust the settlers. This affected the beaver and pelt trades.
Also, the fighting and blood shed encouraged people to abandon or desert their tobacco plantations, which declined production and decreased income for the Colony.
There was a loss of life on both sides, with over 83 settlers and 30 natives dying in the conflicts. The conflict also foreshadowed the upcoming troubles with the Natives, and exemplified the attitudes that would end up taking many more lives in the future.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Intrepretation of "Political economy' of the body" quotes
I think the first quote means that in a slave situation, the owner has complete control over the body and its "abilities". So that when a slave is willing (or forced)to do the work, the body becomes more of a resource, simply a source of work, similar to a machine. The "body" as the quote says, is not seen as human, therefore ill treatment can be justefied. The value of human life was diminished into something mechanical, merely a source of labor. I think the quote is saying that people in power could use slaves as tools, as simple machines and nothing more.
I think the second quote is saying that a slave would only be useful is he actully did the work assigned to him. If he rebelled, there would be no use for him/her. He would need to be controlled; if he wasent, he might slack off, the amount of labor would decrease, the slave owner might lose money. The slave owner that was in complete control of his slaves was probably getting the most labor out of them, making them the most useful.
I think the third quote is saying that the slave or servant situation is the embodiment of everything the king is not.
But I dont know what that means; if its in a positive or negitive sense.
If the writer thought that the king was lazy and self serving, then it would be positive, he would beleive the servants would be hardworking and generous. But if the author thought the King was richeous and a role model, he would consiter the slaves malicious and underhanded.
I think the second quote is saying that a slave would only be useful is he actully did the work assigned to him. If he rebelled, there would be no use for him/her. He would need to be controlled; if he wasent, he might slack off, the amount of labor would decrease, the slave owner might lose money. The slave owner that was in complete control of his slaves was probably getting the most labor out of them, making them the most useful.
I think the third quote is saying that the slave or servant situation is the embodiment of everything the king is not.
But I dont know what that means; if its in a positive or negitive sense.
If the writer thought that the king was lazy and self serving, then it would be positive, he would beleive the servants would be hardworking and generous. But if the author thought the King was richeous and a role model, he would consiter the slaves malicious and underhanded.
Summarising the need for Tobbaco in 16th Century.
Despite King James' loathing of smoking tobacco, the people of 17th century England found it the height of fashion. He described it as "A custom loathsome to the eye, hatefull to the nose, harmfull to the brain..", but they saw it as elegant, fashionable, even healthy. The supply of tobacco from the Virginia colony was plentiful, which brought the price down and the demand up. Then once it was cheap and easily bought, everyone was able to enjoy it. Not to mention that fact that the doctors thought it was healthy, and encouraged everyone to partake in it, calling it a "wonder drug". I also think the fact that the drug was from the new world greatly increased its psycological appeal to the English. Since they themselves could not go to the new world, they could at least sample one of the products of the land they might not ever see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
