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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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)
