In Sojourner Truth’s speech “And Ain’t I a Woman?” was a very influential speech, at least it was to me, because it did she did not try to make it sound fancy or anything, she just spoke in a way that just made sense. The counter points to the common thoughts about women back then that she made were also said in a very matter of fact way and they made a lot of sense; granted, the arguments against women’s rights were not that hard to find flaws with. This speech is not just about woman’s rights in general, it is pointing out the fact that the “northern” white women fight for women’s rights but they do not see African American women as equals. This sad fact is what brings about the refrain “And ain’t I a woman” because she is rhetorically asking the audience if she is a woman or not because since she is, she should have the same rights as white women because both groups are women. She emphasizes this point by relating to the audience about all of the things that she had to endure while being a slave that white women would not dream of ever happening to themselves because they expect to be “helped into carriages and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere” (Truth 370). She makes their “problems” seem petty when she talks about how she had to endure having her children being sold into slavery in front of her eyes and how she had to work hard labor, which scared her arms (Truth 370). Apparently, during the mid-1800’s, it was considered a strong argument to say that men were better than women simply for the fact that “Christ wasn’t a woman” (Truth 370). She quickly disproved that by pointing out that Christ was the product of God and a woman, asking “Where did your Christ come from” (Truth 370).
I think that this shows a little bit of Thoreau’s philosophy because Thoreau was an abolitionist, and I am sure that since he believed in equality, I would also assume that he was for women’s rights, which are both important
subjects to Truth.
Truth, Sojourner. ""And Ain't I a Woman?"" Glencoe Literature. By Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Douglas Fisher, Beverly Ann. Chin, and Jacqueline Jones. Royster. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2009. 370. Print.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
"Swing Low Sweet Chariot," "Go Down Moses," and "Keep Your Hands on the Plow"
The three African American hymnals “Swing Low Sweet Chariot,” “Go Down Moses,” and “Keep Your Hands on the Plow” that we were required to read for this blog were sang by African American slaves while they were working in the fields. These songs were a very important part of the slave’s culture because that was basically all they had for themselves at a time where they were, for the most part, not even considered humans.
“Swing Low Sweet Chariot” is a very religious song that is about the slaves wishing that the chariot of God would “swing low” and carry them home (“Swing Low” 2). This is a very hopeful song because it talked about being free and going “home,” which would be one of the only things that I would want if I were a slave. This song also shows how the African American slaves adopted the American culture; they spoke English and they had been converted to Christians to the point where they wrote their own hymnals. “Go Down Moses” was a hymnal that related the struggle of the Israelites while they were enslaved in Egypt to how they themselves were being enslaved by the United States. This is similar to “Swing Low Sweet Chariot” because it is hopeful because they are hoping some day that someone will be their “Moses” and tell the United States government to “Let their people go” (“Go Down” 4). “Keep Your Hand on the Plow” is a hymnal turning the plow, a symbol of their enslavement and forced labor, into a symbol of religious strength.
These “field songs” show a similarity to Thoreau’s philosophy because while they are just songs, they are a sort of defiance against their “owners” because no matter what, they would not take away their voice and their spirit. I think this is similar to Thoreau’s philosophy because in works like “Civil Disobedience,” he talks of peaceful protests instead of violent revolutions. They are also similar to Emerson’s philosophy because these are Christian songs and Emerson himself was a Christian.
“Swing Low Sweet Chariot” is a very religious song that is about the slaves wishing that the chariot of God would “swing low” and carry them home (“Swing Low” 2). This is a very hopeful song because it talked about being free and going “home,” which would be one of the only things that I would want if I were a slave. This song also shows how the African American slaves adopted the American culture; they spoke English and they had been converted to Christians to the point where they wrote their own hymnals. “Go Down Moses” was a hymnal that related the struggle of the Israelites while they were enslaved in Egypt to how they themselves were being enslaved by the United States. This is similar to “Swing Low Sweet Chariot” because it is hopeful because they are hoping some day that someone will be their “Moses” and tell the United States government to “Let their people go” (“Go Down” 4). “Keep Your Hand on the Plow” is a hymnal turning the plow, a symbol of their enslavement and forced labor, into a symbol of religious strength.
These “field songs” show a similarity to Thoreau’s philosophy because while they are just songs, they are a sort of defiance against their “owners” because no matter what, they would not take away their voice and their spirit. I think this is similar to Thoreau’s philosophy because in works like “Civil Disobedience,” he talks of peaceful protests instead of violent revolutions. They are also similar to Emerson’s philosophy because these are Christian songs and Emerson himself was a Christian.
"Swing Low, Sweet Chariot." - NetHymnal. Web. 10 Feb. 2012
"Go down Moses Lyrics." SoundTrack Lyrics Web. 10 Feb. 2012.
"Keep Your Hands On The Plow." GospelSongLyrics.org Web. 10 Feb. 2012.
"Calvary Crossing a Ford"
The short poem “Calvary Crossing a Ford” by Walt Whitman is basically talking about exactly what the title implies; it is about a contingency of soldiers crossing a shallow river, or ford. These particular soldiers are Civil War soldiers, which was going on when this poem was published.
The first two lines of the poem describe the line of soldiers that are waiting to cross the ford. He describes the line as “serpentine” and that they “wind betwixt green islands” (Whitman 1, 2). This descriptive style that involves nature is very similar to the writings of the authors in the Romanticism time period, especially the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau because they both tended to write most of their stories about nature. He is also very descriptive in the general sense because he uses so much detail about the colors and the soldiers in the scene. He mentions color when he talks about the “green islands,” the “flash” their guns produce in the sunlight, the “silvery river,” the “brown-faced men,” and of the group’s ”Scarlet, and blue, and snowy white” guidons. This style of very descriptive writing is very similar to the writing style of the romanticism time period.
While this writing shows similarities to Emerson and Thoreau’s writings, there are also some things that could be seen as being different to their writings. Just like Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, Whitman is writing this about Civil War soldiers and it seems to me that he is writing about them in a favorable light. As I said in my blog about the Gettysburg Address, this is different than the writings of Thoreau because he did not like the idea of soldiers because they were basically the government’s “robots” and not all of them really wanted what they were fighting for, they were just going along with everyone else. On the other hand, since they are Union soldiers, which you can tell because they describe their guidon as red white and blue, it would be similar to Thoreau and Emerson because they were against slavery, which the Union forces were fighting to end.
Huff, Randall. "'Cavalry Crossing a Ford'." The Facts On File Companion to American Poetry, vol. 1. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007.Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass. Philadelphia: David McKay, [c1900]; Bartleby.com, 1999.
The first two lines of the poem describe the line of soldiers that are waiting to cross the ford. He describes the line as “serpentine” and that they “wind betwixt green islands” (Whitman 1, 2). This descriptive style that involves nature is very similar to the writings of the authors in the Romanticism time period, especially the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau because they both tended to write most of their stories about nature. He is also very descriptive in the general sense because he uses so much detail about the colors and the soldiers in the scene. He mentions color when he talks about the “green islands,” the “flash” their guns produce in the sunlight, the “silvery river,” the “brown-faced men,” and of the group’s ”Scarlet, and blue, and snowy white” guidons. This style of very descriptive writing is very similar to the writing style of the romanticism time period.
While this writing shows similarities to Emerson and Thoreau’s writings, there are also some things that could be seen as being different to their writings. Just like Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, Whitman is writing this about Civil War soldiers and it seems to me that he is writing about them in a favorable light. As I said in my blog about the Gettysburg Address, this is different than the writings of Thoreau because he did not like the idea of soldiers because they were basically the government’s “robots” and not all of them really wanted what they were fighting for, they were just going along with everyone else. On the other hand, since they are Union soldiers, which you can tell because they describe their guidon as red white and blue, it would be similar to Thoreau and Emerson because they were against slavery, which the Union forces were fighting to end.
Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass. Philadelphia: David McKay, [c1900]; Bartleby.com, 1999.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
"The Gettysburg Address"
I can not think of any case in which an American citizen, both born and naturalized, which has never heard anything to do with or about the Gettysburg Address President Abraham Lincoln gave on November 19, 1867. In elementary school, we had to memorize this address and now that I go back and read it after all of this time, I realize why we had to; it is a very powerful albeit important historical speech in a time of great turmoil in the dark period in American history.
Abraham Lincoln is arguably one of the most memorable and important presidents in American history, even though I might be biased because we live in the “Land of Lincoln” but biased or not, he was president during a very influential time. The actions he took would decide the course of this country forever. Just imagine what would America would be like if he would have been on the side of the South instead of the North.
This speech showed a little bit of philosophy similar to Thoreau’s, but most of the time, it was quite different. The only thing that seemed similar would be that Lincoln was most definitely against, slavery, as was Thoreau. That is where I think that the similarities end. Thoreau believed in peaceful protest and change, and Lincoln was using war to resolve the problem. I would like to point out thought that Lincoln did not really have much of a choice; either let the nation be torn apart on the petty subject of slavery, or fight to keep the Union alive. Another difference that Lincoln and Thoreau is the fact that Lincoln holds the soldiers that died at Gettysburg in high honor; they died in service of their country and for the struggle of keeping it together. On this point, I would argue that Thoreau would think that most of them did not all want that, they were only fighting because their government was making them.
Thoeau, Henry David. "Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Abraham Lincoln is arguably one of the most memorable and important presidents in American history, even though I might be biased because we live in the “Land of Lincoln” but biased or not, he was president during a very influential time. The actions he took would decide the course of this country forever. Just imagine what would America would be like if he would have been on the side of the South instead of the North.
This speech showed a little bit of philosophy similar to Thoreau’s, but most of the time, it was quite different. The only thing that seemed similar would be that Lincoln was most definitely against, slavery, as was Thoreau. That is where I think that the similarities end. Thoreau believed in peaceful protest and change, and Lincoln was using war to resolve the problem. I would like to point out thought that Lincoln did not really have much of a choice; either let the nation be torn apart on the petty subject of slavery, or fight to keep the Union alive. Another difference that Lincoln and Thoreau is the fact that Lincoln holds the soldiers that died at Gettysburg in high honor; they died in service of their country and for the struggle of keeping it together. On this point, I would argue that Thoreau would think that most of them did not all want that, they were only fighting because their government was making them.
Thoeau, Henry David. "Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Lincoln, Abraham. "The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln." NetINS Showcase. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
"The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"
Right when I start to read this, it strikes me that when Douglass starts the main part of his speech, after confessing to the audience about how nervous he is, he starts to talk about what the speech is really about; the Fourth of July. The most revealing part about the beginning of the speech is that he says “It is the birth day of your National Independence, and of your political freedom” (Douglass 4). The fact that he replaces the word “our” with “your” is a very obvious and strong reminder of how separated the country was at that time, especially between whites and blacks. This separation of himself from the government very much reminds me of Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience because Thoreau said “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also” (Thoreau 7). Thoreau was very much in opposition to the institution of slavery in this time of American history and was jailed once because he refused to pay his taxes because he did not see the government as his own government. Later, he says “I am glad, fellow citizens, that your nation is so young” which shows that he sees the people he is addressing, mostly people who do not support slavery, as fellow citizens, but then immediately contrasts that with the fact that he still does not see the nation as his, but theirs (Douglass 4). He goes on to explain why he is glad that America is still young; it’s still impressionable, still able to be shifted in the right direction, comparing it to nature saying “Great streams are not easily turned channels, worn deep in the course of ages” (Douglass 4). This connection to nature is a very easy connection to make to Thoreau because he, like many other Transcendentalists, loved to write about nature. Douglass then goes on to compare his feelings about government to how the fathers of the audience felt, that the government (British) was unjust in its laws and it was unneeded. By making it personal, I think that Douglass brought the point “home” more efficiently.
Douglass, Frederick. "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro by Frederick Douglass."History Is A Weapon. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Thoeau, Henry David. "Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Douglass, Frederick. "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro by Frederick Douglass."History Is A Weapon. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Thoeau, Henry David. "Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Reflection:"Civil Disobedience"
To even start to analyze the reasons why this writing is a transcendentalist writing, one would have to have a base understanding of exactly what transcendentalism actually is. Transcendentalism is a writing style of American literature that broke off of the romanticism movement. The writers in this sub-group were the ones who believed that while the physical world provides one with good experiences and an understanding of some things, the inner studies of a man’s intuition provides more important discoveries. Many of the ideas that the transcendentalists had came from the German thinker Immanuel Kant who said “what we know is not generated by experience but is inherent in us and transcends matter” (Barney 2). These thinkers were the ones that believed that true knowledge only comes from within and with a communion with nature.
From the beginning of this long essay, it is obvious where Thoreau stands on the issue of big government; using the quote “The government that governs best is the one that governs least” (Thoreau 1). Thoreau goes on to talk about how he thinks that the United States government is very inefficient and that just gets in the way of progress. Even thought he thinks that the government is not very good in its current state, that people “must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have,“ meaning that people have to have the knowledge that there is some kind of government, whether it is successful or not (Thoreau 2). He then goes on to argue that the government did not “keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate,” asserting his idea his idea that people are more important than the government that he reasons can be controlled by a single man, and therefore it is not trustworthy. One very indicative to transcendentalist writing is the quote “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward” which exemplifies the transcendentalist idea of self-reliance. Another quote that shows Thoreau’s preference of self reliance is when he asks “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator” (Thoreau 4). This quote also shows the idea that mental and moral reasoning is more important to making decisions than conventional reasoning is.
In the next section, Thoreau argues that people are petitioning the State government to break away from the Union, when they themselves can break their ties with the State government; reasoning that “ they stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union” (Thoreau 14). This is not just something that Thoreau is preaching, he practices it. The main reason that he wrote this essay was because he was jailed after not paying his poll tax in protest of the Mexican-American War and slavery (Wayne 1). He said that he could not call a government his if it is also a slaves government (Thoreau 7).
Then Thoreau gets into the part where the essay gets its name. He talks about how there are unjust laws that everybody recognizes are in the wrong. He states that if one believes a law to be against their morals they should “immediately transgress” the law (Thoreau 16). I particularly like the line “Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels” because it exemplifies the transcendentalist rejection of religion and the liking to thinkers whether they be rational or not, even though they prefer more philosophical ideals than rational (Thoreau 16).
"Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 2." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 30 Jan. 2012.
Barney, Brett, and Lisa Paddock, eds. "Transcendentalism."Encyclopedia of American Literature: The Age of Romanticism and Realism, 1816–1895, vol. 2, Revised Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2008.Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
From the beginning of this long essay, it is obvious where Thoreau stands on the issue of big government; using the quote “The government that governs best is the one that governs least” (Thoreau 1). Thoreau goes on to talk about how he thinks that the United States government is very inefficient and that just gets in the way of progress. Even thought he thinks that the government is not very good in its current state, that people “must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have,“ meaning that people have to have the knowledge that there is some kind of government, whether it is successful or not (Thoreau 2). He then goes on to argue that the government did not “keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate,” asserting his idea his idea that people are more important than the government that he reasons can be controlled by a single man, and therefore it is not trustworthy. One very indicative to transcendentalist writing is the quote “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward” which exemplifies the transcendentalist idea of self-reliance. Another quote that shows Thoreau’s preference of self reliance is when he asks “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator” (Thoreau 4). This quote also shows the idea that mental and moral reasoning is more important to making decisions than conventional reasoning is.
In the next section, Thoreau argues that people are petitioning the State government to break away from the Union, when they themselves can break their ties with the State government; reasoning that “ they stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union” (Thoreau 14). This is not just something that Thoreau is preaching, he practices it. The main reason that he wrote this essay was because he was jailed after not paying his poll tax in protest of the Mexican-American War and slavery (Wayne 1). He said that he could not call a government his if it is also a slaves government (Thoreau 7).
Then Thoreau gets into the part where the essay gets its name. He talks about how there are unjust laws that everybody recognizes are in the wrong. He states that if one believes a law to be against their morals they should “immediately transgress” the law (Thoreau 16). I particularly like the line “Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels” because it exemplifies the transcendentalist rejection of religion and the liking to thinkers whether they be rational or not, even though they prefer more philosophical ideals than rational (Thoreau 16).
Wayne, Tiffany K. "'Civil Disobedience'." Encyclopedia of Transcendentalism. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Barney, Brett, and Lisa Paddock, eds. "Transcendentalism."Encyclopedia of American Literature: The Age of Romanticism and Realism, 1816–1895, vol. 2, Revised Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2008.Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Daily Journal #26
Since we are able to understand the concepts of right and wrong, humans are taught that there are certain rules that they are to live by for the rest of their lives. They vary from place to place, but they are the same at their core. There are common sense ones like “Do not kill” and “do not steal” and such things as that. Then there is another “class” that involves things that keep people from doing anything that would negatively affect other people; such as rules regulating driving and trespassing laws. The purpose of laws is to improve the lives of everybody by providing a structured code that everybody lives by. This gives people the sense of security by providing them with the knowledge that there are rules out there to protect them.
Now, as to the question of when it would be acceptable to break the law, there are two possible ways to look at this. There are times when it is socially acceptable to break the law and there are times when it is morally acceptable to break the law. The laws that are commonly broken that could be classified as socially acceptable would be ones like speeding, doing drugs, underage drinking, other related things. Then there are rules that are, by some, seen as morally acceptable to break. For instance, there are many people who do not morally believe that the law against polygamy, so they do not follow it, and accept the consequences when they are caught. I do not think that there should be laws prohibiting things like that because it challenges people’s legitimate moral beliefs, and makes them choose with abiding by the law and abandoning their morals or living by what they truly believe in but getting in trouble for it. Other similar laws are ones banning gay marriage or abortions. There is always an extent to which laws should be followed; like if it’s an emergency, laws are sometimes a hindrance against the solution, and therefore should be able to be broken without consequence.
Now, as to the question of when it would be acceptable to break the law, there are two possible ways to look at this. There are times when it is socially acceptable to break the law and there are times when it is morally acceptable to break the law. The laws that are commonly broken that could be classified as socially acceptable would be ones like speeding, doing drugs, underage drinking, other related things. Then there are rules that are, by some, seen as morally acceptable to break. For instance, there are many people who do not morally believe that the law against polygamy, so they do not follow it, and accept the consequences when they are caught. I do not think that there should be laws prohibiting things like that because it challenges people’s legitimate moral beliefs, and makes them choose with abiding by the law and abandoning their morals or living by what they truly believe in but getting in trouble for it. Other similar laws are ones banning gay marriage or abortions. There is always an extent to which laws should be followed; like if it’s an emergency, laws are sometimes a hindrance against the solution, and therefore should be able to be broken without consequence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)