State of the Union

I cut some (lots) of text out because the post was so long. I think I hit the bulk of American Exceptionalism, though.

Remarks by the President in State of Union Address

United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.

9:12 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. (Applause.) And as we mark this occasion, we’re also mindful of the empty chair in this chamber, and we pray for the health of our colleague -- and our friend -– Gabby Giffords. (Applause.)

It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation.

But there’s a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passion and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater -– something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation. (Applause.)

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. (Applause.)

…..

So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. (Applause.) No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

And now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. (Applause.) We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. (Applause.) And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We’re the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It is how we make our living. (Applause.)

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs -- from manufacturing to retail -- that have come from these breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

…..

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000-foot hole into the ground, working three- or four-hour -- three or four days at a time without any sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. (Applause.) But because he didn’t want all of the attention, Brandon wasn’t there when the miners emerged. He’d already gone back home, back to work on his next project.

And later, one of his employees said of the rescue, “We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things.” (Applause.)

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That’s how we win the future.

We’re a nation that says, “I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company.” “I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree.” “I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try.” “I’m not sure how we’ll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we’ll get there. I know we will.”

We do big things. (Applause.)

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it’s because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Much thanks to this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address for the text.

Colonial Women, and their Colonial Activities

Hello peoples! If you wish to get the most out of this blog post, you may want to skim my sources a bit. Most of them say things you already know, because it was the usual as far as women go: be modest, take care of the home, be a good wife (or a Goodwife). Republican motherhood is new, and might throw you for a loop, but don't worry! It's a simple concept which I will explain.

Women were often burdened down with clothing, as we shall soon see. I would ask for no comments about the first picture, but seeing as we are all hooligans, I’m not going to demand it.

This is a pretty awesome website indeed. Look through the pictures in this link, they're great. Roll over the articles of clothing to hear about them.

http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/activities/dressup/1770_woman.html

My oh my! People didn’t make those clothes did they? What about WalMart?

Everybody helped make clothing, even boys and men.

http://www.ssdsbergen.org/Colonial/clothing.htm

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thewilkesteam.com/files/photos/colonial6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thewilkesteam.com/2007/10/&usg=__1UugIGOaQhpjWY3sZtGXA_gvkio=&h=500&w=375&sz=40&hl=en&start=18&sig2=KUoQCVPnywpioWo-vh2y7g&zoom=1&tbnid=6uR-h_jKc84eZM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=124&ei=zCGjTLH0IIL-8AaA8uXGCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcolonial%2Bwomen%2Bsewing%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:10,400&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=133&vpy=228&dur=141&hovh=259&hovw=194&tx=111&ty=94&oei=pSGjTMWbEcL-8AbrwKTOCQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:18&biw=1024&bih=653

What a sweet little colonial couple we have here! Look at that beautiful young lady! I bet she'll make a good wife. Hmm? a Goodwife, you say? Why, of course! In fact, that’s what we’ll call her, because that is the most important thing about her.

http://www.helium.com/items/361484-Colonial-Early-American

http://www.shireattire.com/Wedding.html

As usual, women had a great deal of “homework” to do.

http://www.helium.com/items/361484-Colonial-Early-American

http://www.history.org/experience/womens03.cfm

A “republican mother”? Why, I have never heard of such! Educating women to educate their children as little models of virtue, eh? Sounds like a good way to increase women’s rights without anybody really realizing it.

Alright, here we go. Republican motherhood arose as an ideal after the new nation was formed. Women were given education, at least to some degree, because they were the ones who would be educating the next generation of "virtuous citizens" in the new American Republic. Women had to be educated so that they could educate their sons to be good voters.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/12d.asp

http://www.homeschoolportal.com/ecards/homeschool.shtml

A quilting bee! What a blast! We’ll all have lots of fun at this incredibly important colonial social gathering.

People really came together for this, men and women alike. They were often followed by square dances and other activities of general merriment, so people had fun while they got things done. And yes, that is a fantastic rhyme.

http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/mkehoe/weekly%20assignments%20history_116.htm

http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/colonialwoman.htm

Hominy yummm…

This is what was for dinner for most of the people in the colonies. Richer folk in the more English areas had English food to eat, and they had either cooks or slaves to make it for them. The majority of people lived day to day and ate things like this, cooked together with salted pork and such by the lady of the home.

http://www.blindpigandtheacorn.com/blind_pig_the_acorn/2009/11/hominy.html

http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/trades/tradefood.cfm

A Major Effect of the Great Awakening

Explain what the Great Awakening was and explain how it, as an intensely religious movement, contributed to the development of the separation of Church and State in America.

 

The Great Awakening was a religious revival of enormous scale that occurred in the mid-18^th century. This was the first "mass movement" of the American people, and a number of important ministers rose to prominence during this time period, including Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Both of these men attempted to sway their audiences into the fervent religious mentality of the previous generation, although Edwards was a well educated man with reasoned, thoughtful, vivid and at times, even frightening views of Calvinism, while Whitefield was simply an excellent orator who could move even Benjamin Franklin to tears. The Great Awakening did more than produce profuse amounts of prosperous and skilled preachers, however. In fact, this intensely religious movement actually contributed to the separation of Church and State in America. This happened for a number of reasons, most significant of which is that, because of the Great Awakening's emotional nature, religion became something more individual that people did not want the government to interfere with. In addition, the controversial nature of the Great Awakening caused a myriad of break offs and new sects to be formed; more than the government could reasonably control.

    Many Great Awakening preachers relied on vivid details and striking emotional appeals. This resulted in a shifting view of religion. Rather than adopt the fervor of their parents, many younger Americans chose to express their beliefs differently: at George Whitefield's revivals, sinners rolled around on the ground and proclaimed their conversion in many emotionally fueled religious ceremonies. Much of the previous generation had seen the Church as a group of only the "elect", God's chosen people. Religion was dry and methodical: you were either saved or you weren't. The new ideas that the Great Awakening brought forth suggested that a man might be able to save himself, and that it was beneficial for sinners to repent, while "old-time religion" might have accepted what they saw as "sinners" as already damned. The Great Awakening imbued American religion with a sense of hope and individuality. People came to believe that conversion was an internal experience unique to each person, and the government, they reasoned, had no place meddling in the singular religious experience that belonged to each person. Thus the Great Awakening, which was inherently religious, changed the popular view of religion so that people felt the government had no place in religion, contributing to the eventual separation of the Church and the State in America.

America: The Picture(s)

To describe America, it's necessary to capture the American spirit. I chose two pictures that, I believe, do this. The first is on top. America is vast. It's huge, seemingly unconquerable. The picture above is deep, and looking out on it, there really is a sense of "purple mountain's majesty." The landscape could go on forever, and man could have never known what lies behind it. (Kindly ignore what I interpret to be a city behind the scenic trees. Where in America is there not a city marring the perfect landscape? We've gone too far with what picture 2 exemplifies, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

The second picture, below, is an illustration of the American Ideal. The landscape looks infinite, but we, the American people, can conquer it for ourselves. America is all about carving out a good life for yourself and your children, working hard and overcoming difficulty. It's easy to forget that in air conditioned buildings, with microwave popcorn and instantaneous information and communication. America is about (or I wish it was about?) taking what you need, and leaving what you've found for the next generation, or group of pioneers of whatever variety, to take, carving out their lives with the sweat of their hands just as you did.

(props to Maria for the multiple pictures idea. ;))

Mayflower Questions: 1

1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?

The Pilgrims survived their first few years in what would become America because of their firm resolve to stick together. They were united as one community of believers, persecuted and now free. Among them, there was a sense of brotherly love. Despite that, their brotherly love did not extend to the "Strangers" that came over with them, nor the Indians that they encountered upon landing. Their lack of ability to extend their hand to accept the help of other types of people limited them to their own skills and way of life. They could have taken up at least some Indian ways: it probably would have made life a lot easier, but they were restrained by their belief that the Indians were savages, and that the Strangers were not among the elect.

Mayflower Questions: 3

3. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?

According to the probably-also-mythologized doctrine of the Founding Fathers, America is a country founded on brotherly love and equality of peoples. The Founding Fathers idealized the Pilgrims; as the first English "founders" of America it was only fitting that they be models of the spirit of fraternity overtook later early American leaders. At the time, people probably subscribed to this story because it was happy and high-spirited; people often accept things as true just because they want to believe them. Over the years, however, the fictional but inspiring story became so indoctrinated that people slowly began to actually believe it. Eventually, even, it was almost the only story that was told. Americans haven't really "forsaken" anything, most people just don't know any better.

Mayflower Questions: 4

4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?

Before the 1670s, there were much less Englishmen in America, and the demand for land in New England was low, and the supply was high. As time went on, though, more and more English people began migrating to New England, and the demand became high and the supply rather low. Loathe to move further from the established colonies, the English began to purchase the Indian's native homelands from them. The Indians were in need of money, (and they were at a disadvantage anyway, because they had no English money whatsoever) so they sold them the land. However, the children of the first Indians to sell land soon ran into a problem: the English were very nearly cheating them out of their land, and soon, they would have nowhere to live. Each side became angry at the other, and the conflict of King Philip's War began.

The conflict could actually have been easily avoided if each side -but particularly the English- had simply respected the boundaries of the other. If the Pilgrims hadn't been so selfish, they would have realized that they were exploiting the Indian's ignorance of the English concept of landholding, and stopped when they had what they needed, rather than what they wanted, and King Philip's War could possibly have been diverted.

Mayflower Questions: 5

5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?

Squanto was an Indian who had been to England, and spoke English. He used this ability, which was nearly unique among Indians at the time, to begin a plot to become a supreme sachem of the area. He made sure that the Pilgrims were happy with him, and then turned around and told the Indians that the Pilgrims could release a "plague" upon the Indians at will, and they must look to him for protection, so he could keep the Pilgrims happy, and the Indians safe from the plague. He hoped to deceive the English into attacking the Indians, so that he could take over the tribes in the midst of the confusion.

Squanto utilized his ability to speak English and the language of the Indians to the fullest extent. In a daring power grab, he exploited the trust of both the Pilgrims and the Indians, attempting to take command of Massasoit's tribes. Despite the fact that Squanto had tried to start a war between his people and the Pilgrims, William Bradford fiercely defended Squanto from the rage of Massasoit after his plot was discovered. For some amount of time afterwards, Massasoit did not trust the Pilgrims, because by keeping Squanto safe, they had violated their treaty with him.

Squanto's cunning nature allowed him to incite a plot that potentially could have caused a permanent rift between the Indians and the Pilgrims years before King Philip's War would begin. Luckily, Edward Winslow managed to heal the rift between the Pilgrims and the Pokanokets before it became immoveable. However, it seems to me that he was unable to face consequences. It's probably ridiculous to think that anyone would do this, but I get the feeling that it would have been proper for Squanto to hand himself over to Massasoit after his coup failed. Rather than do that, he stayed with the Pilgrims under their protection. This caused a "bitterness" as Philbrick says, to enter between the Pilgrims and the Indians.

Even though Squanto was only one man, he made such a difference in the Pilgrim-Indian relations of the new world because he was one of the only ones in the early stages of English settlement who could speak both English and the language of the Indians. He was the go-between for both races, and because of that, any trouble he incited affected both peoples intimately. His attempted takeover sparked the first great dissention between the Pilgrims and the Pokanokets, and even though the wound was healed quickly, it may have planted the seed of the later conflict known as King Philip's War.

Mayflower Questions: 6

6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as "the degenerate plant of a strange vine," unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?

The children of the Pilgrims were told they were "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because their parents clung to unorthodox religious beliefs, but the second generation did not hold those beliefs so dear, which was all that made the Pilgrims noble in the eyes of some. They accepted this reputation because they knew it was deserved: they had fallen away from their parents' religious beliefs, and not only that, but they also began to basically cheat the Indians out of their land. They had become degenerate, in a sense, and their degenerate nature caused this comparison to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The second generation of Pilgrims did not become "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because they were told they were so; they already were. The minister who spoke this line was not saying it to insult the children of the Pilgrims, but to point out something that was true.

Mayflower Questions: 8

8. Compare Philbrick's portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?

One aspect of Native Americans Philbrick points out that is often lost to popular culture is something that I can hardly put words to, but it would best be described as their method of conducting themselves. To an outsider, it could almost seem conniving. For example, the Indians would abandon their sachem if he proved to be weak or not fulfill the wishes of his people, much unlike the English notion of loyalty. Squanto's attempted coup against Massasoit, and similar attempts by others, are also examples of the Indian's different method of politics. Squanto slyly turned everyone against each other without ever lifting a finger and this seemed to be a common method of gaining power in the Indian world. Also, the Indians of the Northeast did not live in teepees; rather, they made their dwellings, called wigwams, out of trees.

As with many ridiculous things, popular culture has shreds of truth in it. For example, the Indians did actually paint their faces and participate in war dances, and they also relied on the predictions of shamans, or "powwows" to make decisions. Another aspect of Indian culture highlighted in movies and books is the scalping of war victims, which also actually occurred.

Mayflower Questions: 9

9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip's War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?

As far as these characters go, the only one to whom I could honestly assign the title of "hero" would be Benjamin Church. I'll forgive him for participating in the attack on the Narragansett's fort, (maybe the Englishmen really did believe that the Narragansetts would eventually attack) and move on. Church recognized that some Indians truly would side with the English, and desired long before his companions that those "friendly Indians" be brought into the English army. He wasn't, like many Englishmen, blinded by racial prejudice, but comprehended the different interests of the different tribes. Church also knew that English battle tactics wouldn't win a war on Indian territory, and used the Indians who eventually fought with him to learn their style of war. With the help of sympathetic Indians, it was one of Church's company that soon killed King Philip. Church was a hero because of his ability to adapt to his environment and to inspire his troops.

Mayflower Questions: 10

10. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip's War?

The English regarded the Indians as a single entity, like themselves. However, they failed to realize that each tribe had radically different agendas and motivations. For example, the Praying Indians, if they had taken sides at all, would probably have fought with the English, had the English not assumed that the Indian = Evil equation was true. Had the English understood that one tribe did not necessarily share the same interests as another, they most likely would not have had to worry about the threat of the Narragansetts, who may have remained neutral but for the English attack on their fort. Also, during the war, there were some groups of Indians, like the Sakonnets, willing to ally themselves with the English, but the English would not accept their help until much later in the war because of their racist prejudice against the Indians.

Mayflower Questions: 11

11. During King Philip's War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?

The Indians that sided with the English were not treacherous, nor were they, at least as they were portrayed in this book, particularly opportunistic i.e., they were not out to further themselves. They were, I believe, merely sensible, and for some reason throughout the story, I regarded these Indians as generally more intelligent than the others, although that is really an ill-founded assumption. They picked a side, and they picked correctly, whether they were picking it because they became angry with their sachems and left, or because they believed the English would win and needed protection. As far as which side I would have taken, I think that I would have just stayed at home. Honestly. I'd want the Indians to have their land, and certainly what sympathies I had would have been with them, but I don't think anybody should hurt the innocent, which both sides did.

Mayflower Questions: 12

12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip's War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?

Despite the difficult nature of the conflict, I think that it is possible for the Indians to claims some, slight level of moral superiority, and even this can only be claimed at certain points, shakily. Before the war began, Philip's indignation was indeed righteous, and it did seem as if it was necessary for him to go to war. The Puritans could not have remained unaware of the fact that they were truly cheating the Indians out of their own land, and so the war began with a moral blunder on the part of the English. (Indians: 1 – English: 0) After the war began, Indians slaughtered the women and children of many villages, but the English attacked the Narragansetts, who were believed to be peaceful. (Indians: 2 – English: 1) The English began to move the peaceful Praying Indians, portrayed in the book, actually, as better people than the English, to what were, in essence, concentration camps. (Indians: 3 – English: 1). At the end of the war, the English shipped off many of the Indians to work as slaves on sugar cane farms. However, we have no reason to believe that, had the Indians won, they wouldn't enslave the English- it happened to Mary Rowlandson- so I think I'll only give the Indians a half a point. I think it's safe to say that if you would have murdered a person given the chance, it's nearly as bad as having the chance and actually murdering them. So, final score on the MoralSuperiority-o-mometer: Indians: 3 ½, English: 1. Indians win!

Mayflower Questions: 15

15. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick "avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides." Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?

To a certain extent, I think that this assertion is entirely correct, and in fact, I noticed it while I was reading myself. However, I don't think that the fact that he chose to avoid to moral issues and to not "take a side" should be criticized. The book is truly a history one; it reports the facts without letting the author's own opinion impede the story of what actually happened. And then again, I believe that there was blame to be cast on both sides of the conflict, so much so that I can hardly blame Philbrick for not taking a side. The lesson that Philbrick endeavors to teach is involved with that belief of shared blame. He would like the reader to realize that America was not founded on the happy, fairytale setting of the first Thanksgiving, but on a bloody battleground with no absolute good and bad. With the exception of the attack on the Narragansett's, and the enslavement of the Indians, each side committed enough atrocities that the morality was no longer cut and dry. The Puritans, I believe, deserve more of the blame than the Indians, not only because they oppressed the Indians to spark the conflict, but also because of their conduct during and after the war, when they attacked innocent people and sent others off to be slaves.