Good in America

     On Wednesday, Matt started talking about Franklin's attempt to explain, in his autobiography, how to construct a society that promotes "doing good."  As he was talking about virtue-ethics and different ways of looking at the idea of good in society, it reminded me of something I read for my religion class by Plato. In a conversation between Euthyphro questions Socrates about a universal good.  He asks if the gods love things that are good because of their nature of goodness or if they are good because the gods love them.  In other words, is there a universal good that everyone recognizes and lives by or have we created an idea of what is good as a society?  I wonder this especially about the United States today.  I feel like a lot of the time, Americans decide what is good as a society.  We make an idea of what is good that fits our culture and the way we live.  This has been seen through the different decades.  Earlier in our culture, like we saw as we discussed the Four Freedoms, smoking was looked at as glamorous and the thing to do.  It was considered, I think, "good" throughout a lot of the 1900's.  Now, our culture has changed to an overall view of smoking as "bad."  Now we throw aside the social aspects of smoking and value more the consequences smoking has on health and on the environment.  I feel like Americans look at things and decide for themselves if it is good or not.  As a country, I don't feel like we look up to one universal code of good in order to choose what we believe is good or bad.  We oftentimes make that for ourselves.  It's definitely something that could go either way, and it's not easy to see how this decision is made when you're looking at a whole country.  I think it's something interesting to think about, though, especially in a culture like ours which so emphasizes the influence celebrities and public figures and media have on the people of this country.  

More on Ben Franklin

     I thought I'd say a little bit more about Ben Franklin after discussing him a little bit on Monday in sections.  A lot of people in class didn't seem to like his autobiography at all because of his tone of arrogance and pride.  I agree that there definitely is some arrogance in the ways he talks about things and tells of all his accomplishments.  However, I didn't notice too much of this until Part 2, when he talks about trying to be morally perfect, his position as postmaster general, etc.  I think one of the strangest things, like Athena mentioned in her blog, is how he talks about the death of his four year old son due to smallpox for about 3 sentences and immediately afterwards, goes on about his Junto club.  Maybe he doesn't dwell on his son's death for long because it is so painful to him and he doesn't want to emphasize this in his autobiography, but I felt that he unintentionally makes the reader feel like this was a minor event in his life compared to these other large, lofty accomplishments that he goes on to talk about.  I do think that he is a great embodiment of the American Dream, though, in how he constantly is pursuing learning, inventing new things, looking for ways to make Philadelphia better, and striving to better himself as a person.  Instead of waiting for things to happen and make life easier, he finds solutions on his own, and his actions end up benefiting a lot of people.  I like how he isn't hesitant to do things and go places.  He's willing to experience as much as possible in life.  One part of the American Dream he doesn't seem as concerned with is the materialistic part.  He seems like he values knowledge and learning more than having fancy things.  However, he was writing an autobiography, not a journal.  As a whole, though, I thought Benjamin Franklin's writing was interesting for the most part, even if he was arrogant.  His autobiography gives a really good sense of what life was like around the time of the Revolution.    

Benjamin Franklin

      There wasn't one particular quote or passage that Franklin wrote in his autobiography that I've read so far (I'm not through all 72 pages for tomorrow yet) that really stuck out to me, but as soon as I started reading it, I realized how much he emphasizes his education as well as his father's, uncles', and brothers'.  He seems to put a lot of value on education rather than on the material things in his family's lives.  On his parents' grave marker, he put "Without an estate or any gainful employment, By Constant labor and industry, with God's blessing, They maintained a large family comfortably."  His family was obviously not wealthy or overrun with possessions, but through hard work and an education of at least one skill, they were able to live comfortably.  He mentions his brothers' different apprenticeships as well as his own and how he was able to improve his writing tremendously through reading a lot and working under his brother in the print shop.  He makes a strong impression that education was very important in the America he lived in at the time.  I think that we still place a huge emphasis on the importance of education in the US today.  We are constantly trying to find better ways to improve test scores, keep kids in school, etc.  In the community and family I was brought up in, it was assumed that I would go to a four year college right after high school.  Everyone is always telling you to "stay in school so you can get a good job and live happily ever after."  In almost all cases, education is necessary in the United States in order to live comfortably, as Franklin described.  We may not have to sign forms as indentured apprentices to someone, but we are placed in an education system for twelve or thirteen years where we're held accountable to be there and do the work.  Americans place education as a very high priority, and I would like to find out more about how other countries' education systems work or what happens if they don't really have one.  I think that in our generation, it is more and more assumed that you have graduated from at least high school and a lot of the time, college as well.  It seems like it will get harder and harder to get a job and "live comfortably" without a decent education like Ben Franklin and many of his peers received.      

Things Material

     In Butler's chapter, "Things Material," he talks about colonial houses and how they changed over time.  He mentions various houses, such as William Hancock's, who put his initials and the date the house was finished in the brickwork, or Samuel Harrison's mansion, whose exterior he painted himself and later had it depicted as an oil on wood painting.  These men were extremely proud of the work they put into creating this place for themselves and their families.  You could physically see their touches in the houses' materials.  These homes seem like much more permanent, personal dwelling places than a lot of the houses we have today.  You don't see unique houses that convey a history and a story very often anymore.  I'm used to the hundreds of developments that are built all over the Twin Cities and even smaller cities now.  More emphasis and value is put on building them quickly and slapping them up with the most inexpensive materials, and selling them to young families asap than careful building, choosing unique materials to put into a house, or special ordering exactly what a family wants to surround them in their home.  I don't think there is as strong of a relationship or connection between families and their homes as often as there seem to have been in colonial times.  If we want a house with more rooms and space, we simply move to a different one instead of changing the space like Harrison did.   Houses are not as permanent as they seemed to have been.  Maybe this is because Americans don't spend nearly as much time at home as they used to, since so many of us are constantly on a schedule and are oftentimes not home during the day or evenings.  This tendency also points to how on the move Americans are and don't always want to settle.  People also tend to move to larger homes as their families grow, whereas colonial families would not have that option.  There are a lot of different reasons why homes are not as closely linked to families as they used to be, but those are the couple I thought of right away while reading Butler.

My Dorm Room

    So here's my list of stuff from my dorm room.  It'll be interesting to compare with other people and see how much I have versus other people.  I feel like I have the majority of what was in my room at home and am not missing that much, but I still don't have everything.  All of my stuff probably wouldn't even fit in one room of the little colonial house shown in the PBS link.  We live with a lot more stuff than they did then, but we still feel like we really need most of the stuff we have and use now.  Anyway, here's my compilation:
clothes, desk, chair, desk chair, ottoman, mirror, fridge, blankets, pillows, bedding, Macbook, cell phone, phone charger, lamp, iHome, 2 iPods, dresser, textbooks, purses, snacks, drinks, cleaning supplies, mug, bowls, silverware, plates, backpack, pictures, picture frames, perfume, memo board, waterbottle, shower  caddy, shampoo, conditioner, etc, lotion, straightener, laundry basket, laundry detergent, trash can, towels, shoes, bags, notebooks, pens, pencils, books, DVD's, rings, necklaces, hair binders, bobbypins, lanyards, keys, hand sanitizer, quilt, hand mirror, mittens, robe, coat, brush, slippers, belt, scarves...

Pocahontas Poetry

 And, if you eat
of the fruit of Disney
you will die. —Ed Ochester in Pocahontas

     So I'm not exactly sure what the author was trying to get at through this entertaining poem.  It kind of just sounds like a rant about how much he dislikes all things Disney.  It was strange, watching part of the Disney movie tonight; you realize how unrealistic everything is and how much you thought it made perfect since when you were little.  Now that I think about it though, I don't think there is another animated Disney movie that is based on actual people or events.  Maybe the author was upset that the Pocahontas movie was so misleading and strayed so far from actual events (a lot of which we don't know loads about) and was produced by one of the biggest companies in America.  I think Disney is a huge enterprise in American culture; there aren't many kids that have never seen a Disney movie.  I feel like they should have either stuck closer to actual events in the Pocahontas movie or not make a movie based on actual events.  Until this class, I didn't really know what actually happened in her life, and I really only remembered what happened in the movie.  I feel like that isn't very fair to her and her memory, and like the author seemed to say, I blame Disney (as well as myself).

Baptism of Pochahontas Painting

     This painting of Pochahontas' baptism, painted long after its actual occurrence seems to say a lot about the effect of such an event as well as the artist's thoughts. I think I remember seeing this in the Capitol Rotunda four years ago, but I definitely didn't look at it as closely as I do now that I know more about her than just the person Disney created.  One of the things I notice right away is the difference of shadows and light in the painting.  Pocahontas and the priest are in the most light, almost like God's shining down on this righteous act, almost rite of passage of the Church.  The light seems to represent the good and God's approval of what Pocahontas is choosing to do.  The few Native Americans that are in the painting are more in the dark, and not nearly as "involved or active" in what is taking place like the British are.   Two of the Native Americans are not even watching, but looking away, as if this is not something they approve of. They are not excited to see this happening as the British are.  The white that Pochahontas and the priest are wearing also seems to represent purity and holiness compared to the darker clothing of everyone else.
     I'm curious why this was chosen to be one of the paintings on the Capitol Rotunda.  I suppose it makes sense because it was part of the whole process of Pocahontas and John Rolfe's "royal" wedding, which gave England the upper hand when it came to the control of the New World.  I'm not sure that putting a moment that was vital to Pocahontas' abandoning of her own culture and heritage is something that we want to proudly display on our nation's capitol ceiling.  However, I definitely wasn't there and am not a very good judge of why this has been chosen for the Rotunda.  I'll have to look into that further.

The Pocahontas Perplex

"Always called a Princess (or Chieftain's Daughter), she, like Pocahontas, has to violate the wishes and customs of her own 'barbarous' people to make good the rescue, saving the man out of love and often out of 'Christian sympathy.'  Nearly all the 'good' Princess figures are converts, and they cannot bear to see their fellow Christians slain by 'savages.'" -Rayna Green in The Pocahontas Perplex (pp. 19-20)

     This statement goes right along with something John Smith says in his letter to Queen Anne in 1616.  He writes, "and at last rejecting her barbarous condition, she was married to an English Gentleman, with whom at this present she is in England; the first Christian ever of that Nation, the very first Virginian ever spoke English, or had a child in marriage by an Englishman: a matter surely, if my meaning be truly considered and well understood, worthy a Princess understanding."  It sounds like he's glorifying, in a way, this unprecedented act that Pocahontas has done.  He is cheering the fact that she is "rejecting" her own people and culture and adopting the English way of life.  He seems to be indirectly trying to convince others to join her and come on over to the other side.  I wonder how she felt when all this happened.  I doubt she had this great feeling of accomplishment because she just abandoned and condoned everything she has known.  Green is showing how Indians are only seen as "good" if they follow this example of Pocahontas, condone their culture, and do things as the European Christians do.  They're only doing the "right" thing if they save and protect the Englishman.  Again, this shows the automatic response of the English to look down on the Native Americans and be extremely geocentric.  

First Hand Accounts of Virginia, 1575-1705

"free from all care of heapinge opp Riches for their posterite, content with their state, and livinge frendlye together of those thinges which god of his bountye hath given unto them, yet without givinge hym any thankes according to his desarte.  So savage is this people, and deprived of the true knowledge of god. For they have none other then is mentionned before in this worke." Ihon White in "First Hand Accounts of Virginia, 1575-1705"

     This passage from one of the first accounts concerning Virginia speaks to the attitude of the Europeans and their judgment of the Native Americans right off the bat.  The author has observed these people and their culture and has just written about his ideas about them, but he immediately points out a major flaw that instantly gives the audience, which is more Europeans, a negative image of these people.  He seems to pity the Native Americans when he describes them as "deprived," but it doesn't even seem to occur to him that they are content with the lives they have.  They have a whole culture and community that they enjoy and have known their whole lives, yet White reduces it to nothing since they aren't giving credit to God for it.  It seems prejudiced that he depicts and talks about their "religious men," but says that they "have none other than is mention before."  He ignores their religious beliefs and customs because those beliefs and customs are not centered around the "one, true God," according to European standards.  I feel like even this early in the process of starting this new country, already present is the feeling of prejudice and ignorance toward Native Americans which continued on through hundreds of years and ended up causing far worse things to happen than a one-sided statement in a historic account.

The Phrygian Cap

     In response to one of the slides in the Images of Liberty Powerpoint, this red felt hat, also called the Phrygian Cap, that is often seen in early American art and coins signifies freedom or liberty, or the pursuit of liberty.  It was also used during the French Revolution and ancient Rome.  In the United States, during this time where Americans were really trying to find their own identity that was neither British or Native American, it was put on top of a pole.  This was used to signal the people of a town or the Sons of Liberty to meet and discuss issues with British rule and interference.  It represented the American's resentment of England.  If people were dancing around it, it could have been part of this "carnival" side of American identity that people started to adopt, and this celebration of liberty and the pursuit of freedom that colonists were embarking on.  This makes me wonder if there are other things that we put mentally or emotionally at the center of our lives that represents the goal we are trying to achieve today.  Is there something we focus on and celebrate around that unites us as a country?  I think some things like a white picket fence, a Ford truck, country music, football and baseball games, and many other things are things that we, as Americans, rally around, and bring us together.  Even if it's as simple as cheering together for our favorite baseball team to win a game (especially as the Postseason starts tomorrow for MN!), we still are experiencing that unity and celebration of a common goal.  In a country where individuality is often emphasized, the things that bring us together mean that much more, and looking at these things today helps me better understand the use of the phrygian cap and what it meant to the early colonials.