The Whole Thing

Men write history. Men are history. Every significant event that has been recorded by western culture in the last 10,000 years has been documented and retold by men. Even the authors of the pieces we read in class have a 2:1 ratio of men to women. That's why, if I had to sum up this class in one word, it would be patriarchy. There are a few themes that prevalent in most of the pieces we studied, but check this out:

On Witchcraft: Women, mostly, are being accused of giving there allegiance to Satan and are being hanged in public. By men.

Women's Indian Captivity Narratives: The men of colonial England are raping the land of the natives, and the male natives are fighting back by taking the colonial natives into their society.

Conquest of New Spain: Men travel to a new land across the sea because they have run out of useful land to rape. Then they flex their muscles and destroy an entire civilization.

The Coquette: A woman must force herself to choose between two men, while the men choose whomever they want as often as they want. Then the woman dies alone and abandoned.

Self-reliance: There is not really much going on woman-wise, but this is still a piece that looks to shy away from the patriarchal ideals in place. And it's good.

Civil Disobedience: But this one's better-- because it outright rejects the ideals rather than nudging them away.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave-girl: This is initially read as a slave narrative, but is really about being a woman in the slavery system. The important word in the title is "girl" not "slave." “Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women” (218).

In the Heart of the Sea: A bunch of smelly dudes board a ship to go murder a giant sea creature. 'Nuff said.

Edgar Allan Poe: He's a guy and lots of his stories are about dying women.

Dickinson: This girl was the voice of the counterculture with regard to patriarchy.

So it's obvious that the first part of American history was completely dominated by men and their ideals, but now we're better off. Just kidding. It's still there. Look at everything that is still sexist after the women's rights movements: Cheerleading, Laundry commercials, marriage, television, my grandpa, etc.

And all of the things that are still pillars of a male society: Professional sports, cars, porn, beer, advertising, Chuck Norris, and television.

Certainly we have taken a few steps, but there is still work to be done. It is nice to know that things are getting progressively better and not progressively worse, though. In this class we have gone from hanging witches and destroying civilizations to writing love poems, so something should be said for that.

emily dickinson (for real)

My apologies for the previous post. That was a list of all the things Emily Dickinson loves about marriage. But really, I hit the return key instead of the tab key. Woops.
Anyway, Emily Dickinson was a crazy. But only because she was so intelligent. Historical figures who have ideas that seem to apply perfectly to modern times have an overwhelming tendency to be overlooked in their own. After watching the wild documentary on Tuesday, I kind of thought about what Dickinson must have been like. After meditating on it randomly for about a week, this is what I have come up with:
In order to write poetry that is as truly revealing as Dickinson's, one must truly know himself/herself. In order to truly know oneself, you should spend as much time with yourself as possible. And clearly this is what Dickinson did. Now the question becomes that of the chicken or the egg: Did Emily isolate herself in order to know herself and her poetry. or did her obsession with poetry drive her to an extreme state of introversion? I am only educated on Miss Dickinson's condition to the extent of what I have learned in class, but this seems like a situation in which a vicious cycle could be at work. What I imagine (which is not necessarily true, but probably plausible -- as I am right often) is that Emily grew up with an introvert personality, which led her to express herself more through poetry than through conversation. And as she found more comfort in expressing her feelings, she became more invested in her work, which drove her further down the path of isolation as others were simultaneously drifting away from her.
And let's be honest, Emily was still living in a very patriarchal society. It's not like she could say, I'm tired of home, I'm going to go be an accountant. That stuff doesn't fly then. Either she marries someone and has his kids and tends the home, or she stays unmarried and tends the home. That would be enough to drive anyone mad. But again, I don't think she's mad, just a little introverted.

emily dickinson

e. a. poe

Poe is kind of a one-trick pony. I had a huge man-crush for Poe in the eight grade, but I haven't read much of him since then. Turns out, he wrote the same story a hundred times.
What is the definition of insanity? Well, I heard once that it is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I don't know if he was expecting something different, but Edgar certainly repeated himself quite a bit.
It's the classic gothic love story over and over again. Boy meets girl. Boy falls for girl. Boy murders girl. Boy blames girl. Give him some credit, though. He did change it up a bit. In the "Tell-tale Heart" boy murders another boy, and boy murders a few animals in "The Black Cat" too.
And while we're on the subject of "The Black Cat," I should tie in a personal story. When I was a bit younger my family got a new kitten.

No, not like that one. She was completely black and had green eyes. As we argued over the name for a few days a white spot began to fill in on her chest. Oddly enough, it somewhat resembled a gallows. Since we could not find a suitable name within the short story, we ended up calling her Poe. Two months later she began to kill birds outside. Her first was a raven.
Anyway, Edgar has a certain fascination with the dead that I find interesting. I am not a regular opium abuser, but I know that Poe was. And I know that these kinds of people in literary history (opium addicts) often have wild opium-induced visions of some kind. Thus, I think that Poe is being taught incorrectly in classrooms. Think what kind of an effect a Dare Officer could have on children if (s)he used these short stories as propaganda: Listen kids, I know that drugs seem like something cool and rebellious to do, but if you do them then you will dismember an old man and bury his remains in the floorboards underneath you. Then when the cops show up, you will be so whacked out that you will confess your crime and then go to jail.

In the Heart of the Sea

I would like to take this opportunity to rescind my response to Jesse and Brandi's exercise. I had initially said that I would rather be the killer than the killed in a situation similar to the one that the men of the Essex had experienced. However, I had not yet eaten when the question was posed and so I feel that my judgment was clouded. Taking the philosophical approach that Blaise Pascal did with regard to his belief in God's existence, I came up with this:

If I am the killed, I am going to die. Whether or not the rest of my shipmates are saved is unimportant because I am dead.

If I am the killer, I am going to eat my fellow shipmate, prolong the misery of my suffering for a few a days and then either join the ranks of the dead or be rescued and go back home so everyone can whisper about what I have done while I struggle to recuperate.

After thinking about it in the context of the sufferers of the Essex, I would much rather be put out of my misery. Then I can know that I perhaps saved someone's life and ended my suffering at the same time. Even if eating someone saved my life, there would still be an overwhelming burden on me for the rest of my life; not to mention the awful struggles to regain my health.

And many people seem to think that this narrative is a departure from what we have been reading in class; that we have been tackling patriarchal and societal issues. But you must admit that there is nothing more patriarchal than a ship full of dudes. For me, the novel splits up into two very compelling reads. First, there is the introduction before the men go out to sea, which explains in detail the way of life that the Nantucketers had. Then there is the awful tragedy of running out of food and eating your buddies. Again, if this is not a social issue, then I don't know what is. Maybe it could fall under biological science, but the definition of sociology is the study of a society. And the crew of the Essex was a small society. Which ate each other. Study that.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl

This period of American history is by far the most embarrassing story that could be told of any nation. The institution of slavery left an impact on our culture that it will never completely recover from, and it is this institution that makes me cringe when some derelict flag-waver proclaims that he is "proud to be American."
That being said, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is a text that brings to light many of the issues of American identity in the 19th century-- the first of which is the treatment of African slaves. These people were not treated as people, but rather as property. As Harriet Jacobs puts it, "These god-breathing machines are no more, in the sight of their masters, than the cotton they plant or the horses they tend" (135). And the citizens of this country turned a blind eye to the awful injustices done to this people, just as they did to many before. After the country was founded on the near genocide of a continent's worth of human beings, it then went to the lengths of importing a whole new race to subjugate. And the landowners worked everything to their advantage. Jacobs speaks of gross irony after gross irony when referring to her masters. Dr. Flint treats her horribly, but when asked for her freedom, he responds by saying, "Linda does not belong to me. She is my daughter's property, and I have no legal right to sell her" (167). Then on page 215, she alludes to Reverend Nemiah Adams' A Southside View of Slavery and his claims that abolitionists are overexaggerating the wrongdoings of slave owners. And further still, the overwhelming majority of people truly believed that African slaves were rightfully objectified. They used Bible passages to justify themselves. Even one of the most influential figures in American history, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" that "...their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection." He was truly ignorant to the fact that the Africans brought over in slave ships were actually intellectually endowed reasoning human beings. This poses an even scarier ethical question: How can someone differentiate between the concepts of good and evil in a fundamentally corrupt social setting? The poetic tragedy in Jacobs' narrative is that the slaves that were considered mere property and nothing more had a much clearer sense of right and wrong than their masters, who attended church regularly and viewed themselves as disciples of God. Dr. Flint even blatantly affirms his religion as primarily a social status when Linda Brent identified that he had given "no indication that [he] 'renounce[d] the devil and all his works.'" He responded by saying, "It was proper for me to do so. I am getting in years, and my position in society requires it... You would do well to join the church too, Linda" (216).
Also, I just wanted to note that the subject of American slavery was featured in tonight's episode of The Simpsons. There really wasn't any thread of the story that had much to do specifically with Incidents, but it is still intriguing that for two posts in a row, I can include a reference to a cartoon.

*Source: Jefferson, Thomas. "Notes on the State of Virginia"

Emerson vs. Thoreau

First of all, who caught Family Guy tonight? Leave it to a cartoon to lampoon the masses for being uneducated enough to mistake Henry David Thoreau for Rodney Dangerfield. Loved it. And it made me feel smart.

As for my second order of business, I like both of these guys (Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson) because they are anarchists and anarchists are cool. But Ralph is the kind of gentle inward-looking anarchist that struggles with demons, whereas Henry David is the more militant kind of guy that doesn't pay his taxes and calls for the resignation of every office in government.
We spent a lot of time covering Ralph last week in class, which is good. But I enjoyed Henry David's writing a lot more. What H. D. did in "Resistance to Civil Government" was take the transcendentalist musings of "Self-Reliance" and turn them into an attack on organized government. Ralph was calling for a look inward in 1841 and advocating for the self in order for humanity to progress. Eight years later, H. D. repackaged transcendentalism in the same way that Norman Vincent Peale repackaged Buddhism. I like the way H. D. contrasts the self with the idea of government. Benjamin Tucker, another famous 19th century anarchist wrote that" if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." That is what we have witnessed, and it is undoubtedly what Ralph and Henry David were witnessing in the lead up to the Civil War. I have had college professors tell me two different things about the civil war: "It was clearly a war fought around, about, and against slavery" and "If anyone tells you the American Civil War was fought over slavery, they're full of shit." Honestly, those are both direct quotes. But what appears to be happening in these works is that power is being taken away from the individual and given to the states, and then that power is being taken from the states and given to the federal government. Maybe there's a tie-in to rights of slave-ownership in there somewhere but I'd rather not get in to that until I'm done with Linda Brent.
That being said here are my favorite extracts from each essay:

"But prayer as a means to effect a private end, is theft and meanness." (Ralph) -- This reminds me of my stepmother praying in church for her '96 Chevy Blazer to get out of the shop early. She actually said that out loud.

"That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." (Henry David) -- He cuts right to the chase, doesn't he? That's what I love about "Resistance." It kind of has a messianic feel to it.

"... a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience" (Henry David) -- I like this only in its sarcasm. An entire economy has been built on this precept, and it appears to be crumbling before us.

"The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet..." (Ralph) -- This whole rant was entertaining as far as essays go. It is funny how much emphasis was and is put on the concept of "Progress" while we as a civilization are losing some of our most important adaptations.

"Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence." (Henry David) -- A great motto to live by.


And one more quote because J. T. can't get any love for Vonnegut:

"We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane." (Kilgore Trout 1907-1981) -- So it goes.

After discussing the world of wrestling on Tuesday I got into my car and turned on the radio. On the sportstalk station, the NFL was being discussed. With the approach of the upcoming Super Bowl, they were asking callers to comment on what makes pro football such a popular sport. After listening to them for the entire twenty minute car ride home, I noticed many similarities between it and professional wrestling. The NFL, like the WWF, is a bunch of huge testosterone globs beating the crap out of each other while women with small frames and large breasts stand on the sidelines and hope that their man brings back a victory.
When I got home I had a few minutes to kill before going to work so I popped in a Futurama DVD, and purely by chance played the one (if anyone is familiar) where Bender decided to become a professional wrestler. I am not in any way a fan of wrestling, so I don't really know much about how it works, but the cartoon lampoon made many of the same points that the documentary in class did. Bender started as an unstoppable king who couldn't lose a bout, but when his ratings began to slide, he was transformed into "The Gender Bender" who everyone immediately hated because of the pink tutu and overall gayness of the character.
But getting back on topic, Diaz' narrative was an accessible form of entertainment for the Europeans. His conquest narrative was not much different than the NFL or an episode of Futurama. It is propaganda meant to be consumed and it creates an image in the minds of laypeople. The argument is that either these things are what people want to consume and so it is only natural that things of this nature are produced, or things are produced to directly influence people in a specific way. But looking at history and noting that it has always been dominated and documented by males, it seems to be a vicious cycle. From the time of the first writings or even before, when oral creation stories were passed around, the stories have had a male-dominated theme. Even though the original stories were intended for male audiences they spread throughout the culture forcing everyone to "think like a man" until we come to today where most images have a chauvinistic tone.

Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish. -- Albert Einstein

First of all, sorry to everyone who attended class on Thursday. I did not. However I did read pages 1-52 of the captivity narrative. But more importantly, I read pages 216-235 of the conquest of new Spain. There are some clear similarities between Spanish expansion and British colonialism, but I think the neatest part is that these, along with the French expansion of northern America, are still seen today. I don't know if analogies work to the third degree, but if I may:
U. S. : England :: Mexico : Spain :: Canada : France.
I don't know a lot about French expansion, but taking a brief look at Diaz' work I see a lot of similarity to British colonialism. The Spanish sailed over to a relatively unknown area and were welcomed with gifts and open arms. I haven't gotten to the part where the natives are either wiped out or forced to live by the rules and speak the language of these newcomers, but I'm positive it happens or else the cooks at work would not be telling me to "chinga tu madre." It is also interesting that, aside from the fact that Aztecs see the newcomers as religious figures, the natives treat both the Spanish in Mexico and the British in Wampanoa(?) in relatively humane fashion. Again, I am only pages into the text, but I assume from previous history classes and spoiler alerts that each conquest ends in the near obliteration of an indigenous people. This says a lot about the two cultures (European and Pre-American American) at the time of European expansion. All of the western world (Europe) was involved in a great race to claim as much land as possible as quickly as possible while the American Indians were content to merely feud amongst the tribes they know of. The main difference is that the Europeans knew that Native Americans existed, but the natives knew nothing of Europe. Or rather, the natives never dared to venture outside of the boundaries of land. There is also an extreme overtone of religious righteousness in this text as well as the captivity narrative. Diaz makes it clear that he is very proud of the Spanish conquest when he says on page 216, "What men in all the world have known such daring?" And to go further, 2 pages later he iterates that Cortez speaks of how "we are all brothers" to Montezuma. Again, I don't know the exact result of this conquest but I have heard a few spoilers, and I don't think the Spanish ultimately treat the Aztecs as brothers.

A taste for irony has kept more hearts from breaking than a sense of humor, for it takes irony to appreciate the joke which is on oneself. - Jessamyn West

I have read the first 16 pages of the Women's Indian Captivity Narratives. Wow. Over the years I have come to convince myself that the conquest of America happened like this: White guys come to America, slaughter the Indians and give them casinos, and then invent the internet. But I've never stopped to consider for more than a brief second the savage nature of retaliation against colonial expansion. The account Mary Rowlandson gives of the ambush by the Indians on Lancaster is quite gruesome. In particular, a description on page 16: "There was one who was chopp'd into the Head with a Hatchet, and stripp'd naked, and yet was crawling up and down." That is an image I wouldn't even expect from Tarantino.












The above picture's purpose is threefold. First, I wanted to fiddle with image upload so I know how to do it when I really need it. Secondly it contrasts sharply with Rowlandson's image of brutality, adding an element of irony to my post and no doubt increasing my overall grade. Third, kittens are cute. But all kittens aside, this time in American history (the beginning of it) is very troubling*. So far in my limited study of early American literature and lifestyle I have encountered a severely sexist, patriarchal society in which 185 accusations of witchcraft (including 19 executions) were issued amongst a brutal, ongoing war between savages and puritanical elitists. I hope there's a happy ending. Or at least one with kittens.


*Apparently the kitten picture offers a fourth, initially unintended purpose: to set up a grossly undignified pun.

Cotton Mather

Cotton Mather's views "on witchcraft" seem to be much different from those of anybody from our time. Oddly enough though, it seems as though he was in the majority in 17th century New England. Every point he makes centers around the Devil, making it hard to take seriously in 21st century context. His rants about the Devil and witchcraft, and witch-meetings, and bewitching, remind me more of lampoons like the Churchlady and my stepmother than a righteous warrior at the forefront of the battle of good and evil. I guess for this class I will have to just somehow get into the mindset that the early American people had. To make an awful analogy, I suppose it would be like being sent by the US Church to colonize Mars in the name of God, and then realizing that people's bodies are quickly and unexpectedly being taken over by small Martians that resemble boll weevils. If we have any hope of maintaining our God-ordained place in the universe then we must kill all the rodents at any cost to preserve the dominance of our side in the ongoing fight between God and weevil. But to get a little more serious, Mather and his fellow New Englanders are absolutely committed to this idea that they are the righteous in this battle. Mather, in the devil's voice, says on page 17 , "What need I meddle with one whom I am sure to have, and hold at the Last-day as my own forever?" Mather thinks he is so righteous that the devil is coming straight for him and others like him (aka Puritans). To be fair, though, I would too. These people are representatives of the greatest empire in human history and they are heading forth in manifest destiny through a savage land that is so far untouched by God's people. If Satan's gonna worry about converting the majority of people to his side, he damn well better get these guys. If you get the hard ones, all the stragglers will follow suit. On page 17, Mather backs it up: "If the holy God should any where permit the devils to hook two or three wicked scholars into witchcraft... the Toyls of Hell shall be perhaps inextricably cast over them..." I know this isn't a philosophy class, but isn't it interesting to suppose that this is all 100% true and everything said in the witch trials was fact and not exaggeration or misrepresentation? Suzanne's comment especially struck me in class when she quoted someone I don't recall who said, (paraphrase) the most dangerous thing the devil can do is convince everyone he does not exist. This quote is very intriguing and inspiring in a metaphorical and poetic sense, but if we are living in the neo-Christian paradigm where scripture is taken quite literally, then we are all boned. One other thing I would like to bring up is Mather's comment on page 25. He speaks of a Raven crying from the top of a tree, "Read the Third of Collosians and the Fifteenth!" I tried to look up Collossians 3 and fifteen, but the book has only four chapters. Do I have a faulty Bible, or am I misinterpreting Mather?

*Source: The Oxford Study Bible. Edited by Jack Suggs, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.