Contemporary Novel

I read Selected Poems by Edna St. Vincent Millay for my contemporary novel. Edna St. Vincent Millay was born in Rockland, Maine and went to college at Vassar. She wrote many poems through out her life and was highly acclaimed for them. Through her poems you can tell that Millay lived her own aspects of the American dream.
Millay liked to experience the world around her fully and she would strive for anything; in her poem Renascence she said:

“The sky I thought is not so grand;

I ‘most could touch it with my hand!

And reaching up my hand to try, 

I screamed to feel it touch the sky.”

Millay always looked for her own way of life. In her poem The Singing-Woman from the Wood’s Edge she explains how her parents differed in ideas and from then on she always made her own choices.

“And yanked both ways by my mother and my father,

With a ‘Which would you better?’ and a ‘Which would you rather?’

With him for a sire and her for a dam,

What should I be but just what I am?”

Edna Millay was a feminist and believed fully in perusing what she wanted, and she became the first woman poet to win a Pulitzer Prize. She always did as she pleased or what she thought was best. Portrait by a Neighbor shows her independence and her insistence to do only what she wanted.

“Before she has her floor swept

Or her dishes done,

Any day you’ll find her

A-sunning in the sun!

It’s long after midnight

Her key’s in the lock,

And you never see her chimney smoke

Till past ten o’clock!”

Edna St. Vincent Millay lived maybe not how most people would find decent, especially in the 1920’s; but she lived with her own ideas, beliefs, wonders and passions. Part of the American dream is to be able to live unoppressed in your customs and beliefs, which Edna Millay did and expressed in her poetry.



Source:
Selected Poems of Edna St. Vincent Millay. New York, NY: Gramercy Books, 2006.

Frederick Douglass: Thematic Question

How do you think Douglass' autobiography helped to promote an end to the evil institution of slavery in the United States?

Frederick Douglass’ autobiography caused quite a stir among Americans when it was published in 1845. Many people in the North did not know what slavery was like, and even more had never heard about it first hand from some one who had lived in it. Frederick’s autobiography detailed his life from as much as he knew about his early years and parentage through his struggles as a slave and all the injustice he had seen up to his escape and freedom.

Most people who read the autobiography were shocked and appalled at the events of cruelty and mistreatment of the slaves. Children were taken from their mothers at birth in what Frederick could only explain as “to hinder development of the child’s affection toward its mother, and to blunt and destroy the natural affection of the mother for the child.” Slaves were often brutally beaten to the point of their faces or bodies becoming disfigured. Frederick wrote of a female slave he had met who was “So much…kicked and cut to pieces that she was oftener called “pecked” than by her name.” Slaves were beaten and underfed in most cases but worse than that to Frederick was that they were not educated, and would be in a vast amount of trouble if found trying to educate themselves. Frederick realized at a young age that slaves were kept in ignorance to keep them as slaves.

The complete exposure of the cruelties in the narrative written by an eye witness who had experienced some of the horrors himself was extremely jarring to those who read it. The words that Frederick wrote coaxed anti slavery feelings into a blaze. His autobiography was support for abolitionists who were already campaigning for the end of slavery, but it also won supporters to the cause who otherwise would not have know much about slavery.

When Frederick reached his freedom in the North he dedicated the rest of his life to help in promoting the end of slavery and advocating equality for all races as well as women. He delivered many speeches but eventually there was suspicion as to if he ever really was a slave; that maybe it was just a clever act to win supporters. By writing his autobiography, Frederick was able to put down that idea and continue speaking and writing believed.

The autobiography was popular and translated into many languages and was read in America and many other countries besides. The autobiography won the anti slavery movement supporters through out Europe and America. The wide spread popularity of Frederick’s life story brought him much popularity especially with European women. The European women bought Frederick’s freedom and were able to get him a printing press as well for him to further promote the end of slavery.

Frederick Douglass’ autobiography helped to promote the end of slavery in the United States by providing many people who did not have a good understanding of what was going on in the world of slavery much needed reliable insight. It proved that Frederick was who he claimed to be and that he had a right to speak out against all the awful things he saw. It also gave Frederick the popularity that allowed him to continue writing, publishing, speaking, and convincing people of the wrongs of slavery for the rest of his life.


Source:
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York, NY: Penguin Group, 1997.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Author's Intent

Dee Brown was a librarian and then became a professor of library science. He died at the age of ninety-four but in his life time wrote many books that have to do with frontier life and Native Americans. His most famous and best selling book was Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which tells the Indian’s side of the Americans settling the west.

Brown was not an Indian himself or of Native American decent, but he grew up in an area where there were many Native Americans. He would hear their stories of their past and ancestors and he realized that the history usually learned and the way the media portrayed the Indians was not the same as the stories he heard. He did research and wrote Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee to expose much of the treatment of the Indians that wasn’t widely known and to show how the Indians felt about what was happening to them at that time.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee details how many Europeans worked to settle the land in the west and most in an unpeaceful manner towards the Indians. Many bloody battles were had and reservations set up. Many Indians who tried to act peaceably with the Europeans were misused. When peace treaties were made they were usually broken, or made with unreasonable demands on the Indians. At the Battle of Wounded Knee, which is considered one of the last major European Indian battles, the Indians gave up their arms in hope of avoiding major conflict, the English cruelly massacred men women and children. In the book Dee Brown quotes Louise Weasel Bear who said “We tried to run but they shot us like we were a buffalo.”

When Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was published in 1970 many people were unaware of much of the cruelty that the Indians had suffered and little was known about their culture as well. The contents of the book shocked many people as they learned the little spoken of truths. People were able to see and better understand the Indian motives and culture, and with both stories, the European’s and the Native American’s, were better able to understand the whole picture of the settling of the west.

Dee Brown wrote his book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee to express the little known standpoint of the Indians during the early years of America. From it a depiction of Native American history and culture was finally seen by many people who had never heard it, and since then Native Americans are better understood.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: Thematic Question 2

What does the victor owe the defeated after a conflict?

The accounts of history are more often written by the victors than the defeated; and many times the defeated has no voice at all. The motives, plans, and excuses of the triumphant are the ones most told and because of this the winning side is often seen as the side that deserved the victory.

The Europeans that came into the new world of America came for different reasons. Some wanted religious or political freedom, some money, some adventure, and others any opportunity they could find. Once they came they began setting up their settlements, towns and trading posts. The Europeans wanted the American land because they saw how untainted it was and how much potential it had.

The settlers brought their culture and ideas with them to America to set up along with their homes. They established their churches, stores and schools to make the land into a livable and acceptable society. All of the Europeans had their ideas of how people should behave and the world should be run and were going to do what it took to make the new land what they believed it should be.

Most of the Europeans believed that the Indians were in the way. The Indians were a hindrance to what many of the Europeans were trying to do in America. The Indians did not dress or behave the way the Europeans did and they were on the land that the Europeans wanted. The Europeans were trying to progress and many found the Indians were backwards and needed to be civilized or taken care of in another way. When changing the Indians did not work some found it not only necessary but justifiable to move or destroy them by violence.

The Indians lived on the European’s new land; but it wasn’t new to them. The Indians had lived there for centuries before. They knew and loved the land that their ancestors had lived on before them and were buried in. It was sacred to many of them. The Indians watched as the Europeans came on to their land and set up their lives. The Europeans spoke, dressed and behaved different than the Indians did. The Indians saw the Europeans pushing in to their lands, and often without kindness.

Some Indians tried to welcome the white people, and some did the opposite, but in the end it didn’t matter; the white people began trying to change the Indians. Some Indians changed willingly, but others did not understand or want the European ways. The Indians saw themselves as being oppressed as the Europeans tried to press their ways upon them.

The Indians wanted to live their lives in their culture, but were met with aggression from the Europeans who found them unruly and in the way. The Indians who wanted to live their lives as they had before the white people arrived, and the Indians who refused to leave the land of their fathers found themselves in the midst of violence, reservations, terror, massacres, and eventually, a form of defeat. The Europeans succeeded in wiping out or pushing aside the Indians that lived on the land first.

The victorious party owes the defeated it’s story. When the Europeans killed or moved the last of the Indians and began telling the stories and writing the histories of America; how and why the Indians were displaced, the Indians should have been able to speak as well. The victorious owes the defeated the ability to tell the world and the people to come their motives, feelings, and reasons for fighting the battles they lost.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Thematic Question #1

Why does the story of “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” begin in 1492?

In 1492 Columbus set out on a sea journey, on a route that he believed would lead him to the East Indies. He traveled under the financial aid of Spain, hoping that his way would make a better trade route. When Columbus landed on the 12th of October, he was convinced that he had landed in India. In fact, he was standing on a whole different continent that most of his world had no idea existed.

Believing he was in India, Columbus called the people native to the land he was now on “Indios” or Indians; thinking that they were people of India. Even after the realization that the land was not India, the name had already been used many times and stayed. This was the first misunderstanding of many that separated many of the new settlers from the Native Americans.

Columbus sailed back to Europe and told of the land he had found and the people he had found there. The Spanish began to send explorers and missionaries to this new land; and some Spaniards went on their own in search of gold or mysterious fountains. This was the beginning of the rush of Europeans that streamed into the Americas.

English and French were quick to follow, spreading into the land already occupied by the Indians. With Spanish, English and French men all coming into the Indian territories, confusion, hostility, misunderstanding and change for both parties was certain. The English however, seemed to have the most conflict and lasting changes with the Indians; or so it would read from a history book.

The culture of the Indians was drastically different from the culture of the English; and neither group understood the other. Wamditanka an Indian of the Santee Sioux said “The whites were always trying to make the Indians give up their life and live like the white men…If the Indians had tried to make the whites live like them, the whites would have resisted, and it was the same with many Indians.” When the English came and saw the ways in which the Indians lived, they did try to change them, in many different ways; but almost all ended up in violence.

Some Indians complied with the white English people’s requests; others started out seeking good will with the white men, but became fed up with their forceful and often cheating ways, and some never tried at all. Red Cloud said: “If white men come into my land again, I will punish them again.” In almost all cases the confrontations or submissions ended in Indians being pushed out of their land, or bloody fights.

The fights and battles between the English and the Indians only escalated and became bloodier their treatment of each other only worsened. The Indians adopted the European weapons when they could but not their culture and the Europeans would not let the Indians be in their culture and continued to try and move change or kill them.

When Columbus landed in America by mistake he could hardly have known that he was going to start the first wave of countless Europeans that would come to the land; but it was the beginning. Europeans came with their ideas and wants and found the Indians to either need changing or to be moved out of their way, and when this wasn’t as easy as they wished it to be, loss and bloodshed followed, escalating up to the point of the massacre at Wounded Knee.

Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass was a slave in the 1800’s. He hardly knew his mother before she died due to the separation between parents that usually occurred for all slaves. He was never sure who his father was, though it was whispered that it was his own master. If it was his master who parented him, it did not help him against the cruelties of slavery; and wasn’t expected to, as very few of the mulatto slaves were helped in any way by their white parents. As Frederick said, “slave holders have ordained, and by law established, that the children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers”. Frederick did follow his mother into slavery, and met much harsh treatment and saw many things starting at an early age. Frederick wrote the events of his life to show people the cruelties, injustices, and unchristian ways of slavery.

When Frederick was sent to Baltimore, he found he was living with a mistress much less experienced in the ways of slavery, and from her he learned his letters. This was a crucial point in his life. Besides getting the foundations of his learning, this brief teaching from his mistress showed him the biggest reason why the white people were able to enslave his race. Education leads to freedom; or at the very least a greater hunger for it. The more he read, the more he began to fully realize the horrors of slavery and how completely unreasonable, and inexcusable it was and resolved not to stay in slavery forever and to escape when the best chance came; or die trying. Frederick learned the arguments against slavery and placed them beside his own experiences to see the truth. He wrote about this to show the world what they didn’t want to see.

Where ever Frederick was he saw cruel treatment of slaves. Countless horrific episodes or comments are scattered through out the pages of his life. He wrote about the first terrifying scene he saw that, “he made her get upon the stool, and tied her hands to the hook…her arms were stretched up at their full length, so that she stood on the ends of her toes…he commenced to lay on the heavy cowskin and soon the warm red blood came dripping to the floor.” Beatings were not the only offences that slaves endured, lack of food, separation from families and friends, and verbal abuse were also very common. Frederick watched this happen to those around him and felt the pains himself. He wrote all these things so people could really see what was happening and could not deny the cruelty without a stone heart. He wrote so the tortures his fellow slaves endured wouldn’t slip by without any notice at all.

Often, through out the writings of his life, Frederick spoke out on how unchristian the ways of slavery are. He was appalled by the cruelty of his Methodist masters who professed that they had great faith and were very religious, sometimes even twisting scripture to justify themselves. Frederick went as far as to say that “Were I again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that of enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me.” He could not accept the things that these slave holders would do as anything but far from Christian. After reading pieces from the book The Columbian Orator, such as a narrative between slave and master and speeches on Catholic emancipation, he knew it wasn’t Christian; and wrote to prove it.

Frederick Douglass knew first hand the inhumanity of slavery, and just escaping himself was not enough for him. Thousands of other slaves were still suffering, and their children looked to the same fate. Many people in the North did not know the full extent of the horrors of slavery. He wrote the truth of slavery. He wrote all the events in his life so that they would be exposed undeniably, and the world, after seeing would be held accountable to change its ways.

Virtue

I chose to practice the virtue of Resolution, because I don't feel like I make that many, and often when I do I don't follow completely through with them. Franklin defines the virtue of resolution with two short simple sentences: "Resolve to preform what you ought. Preform without fail what you resolve." I hope I do well with this because it seems like something I already should be doing.

Sunday:
Today I made a pretty simple resolve, but it wasn't the easiest to keep however. I resolved to not get frustrated with my siblings on the long ride to and from church. It is about an hour and a half ride one way, and I have six younger siblings, so it can get a little crazy and I often get stressed out, but today I think I did pretty well. They kicked my seat, got loud, and put (accidentally) a dirty shoe on my book, but I took a few deep breaths and just read some of Ashley's Autobiography.

Monday:
Today I resolved to make my bed all week. I kind of slack off in that area and my mom doesn't like it too much. So I made my bed, but otherwise I didn't do anything special. Not the best day.

Tuesday:
I made my bed! I'm finding this more difficult than I thought at first because I don't know what to resolve. I don't want to just make something up, but I'm getting a little desperate!

Wednesday:
Franklin said "Resolve to preform what you ought." So if I just resolve to do every chore and help out when I should, does that count? Anyway, that's what I did for today.

Thursday:
So today was another failure to think of something good to resolve to do, but I do all the regular things I'm supposed to do today; including making my bed, and making the bed for Ashley to sleep in with new clean sheets and all that. =]

Friday:
Today I did all the usual things again, but I did resolve something else! I've been meaning to start running again and get back in shape, and so, I figured now was a good time to start. So, I did. =]

Saturday:
Today was bad. I didn't go running because I got some bad news and didn't really feel like doing much of anything, and didn't. Kind of a bad way to end the week, but the circumstances weren't so great, however, virtues are virtues and should probably be practiced at all times. Most people don't usually like excuses. I plan to continue my running resolution though tomorrow.

Evaluation:
I think besides my last day I did pretty well. It was hard trying to think of something to resolve every day, but eventually I decided to think of everyday as one big resolution to do my best at "preforming what I ought". That might seem pretty simple but it isn't always as simple as it seems. And besides my last day, I did try every day to follow through.

History: Author's Intent for A Midwife's Tale

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich is a professor at Harvard University and also a historian of women and early American history. Along with A Midwife’s Tale she has written other books including Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History and Good Wives and The Age of Homespun. A Midwife’s Tale was likely her most recognized and won the Pulitzer Prize for history and was the source for a documentary. Ulrich had three main reasons for writing her book A Midwife’s Tale; for Martha, for women, and for herself.


Martha Ballard was an incredible hard working woman even by eighteenth and nineteenth century standards. Martha took care of her neighbors through sickness and troubles while maintaining her own home and watching over her family. She delivered over eight hundred and fourteen babies, carefully documenting each along with her daily activities. The fact that Martha kept such a diary that documented so much was amazing; but few other people seemed to feel this way. Ulrich realized the unique and remarkableness of the diary and of Martha herself and wanted to give them some justice. Many people found Martha Ballard’s diary to be dull or to have too many topics that related to sexual behavior, so not much was done with it. Ulrich wanted to change that, and so wrote her book; not as a substitution for Martha’s diary, but to shed some light on the importance of the diary and on Martha’s unique and laborious life.


As a feminist, Ulrich was especially drawn to Martha Ballard’s diary. Through her diary one can see that some of the common assumptions about woman during Martha’s time might not be completely true. It is clear in the diary that women not only kept house and garden while raising children, (hard work in itself) but many also had other jobs such as midwifery, or in the area of textiles and were business women in their own way. Ulrich wanted to show the importance of women in early American communities as they don’t always get their due; she wanted to show all the work that women really did do.


As a historian Ulrich was interested in Martha Ballard’s diary on a personal level as well. By researching events in Martha’s diary Ulrich delved into many historical documents and learned a great deal of history not only about Martha, but about the community in which she lived and other historical events surrounding the diary and revelations on the ways people lived during Martha’s time.


The history of Martha and the history hidden in her diary, also the ability to explore the roles of women in Martha’s time and show their crucial place interested Ulrich. She wanted to give Martha Ballard’s under appreciated diary some of the attention it deserved, and so with these reasons combining she wrote her book A Midwife’s Tale: The life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812.

History Post 2: A midwife's Tale Thematic Question 2

What was the role of a Midwife during the late 18th and early 19th century Maine? What changes did Martha Ballard see in medical practices during her life time?

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century midwives had many duties and were often skilled in more than just delivering babies. Being a midwife at that time was hard and tiring work for skilled women. During Martha’s career and especially toward the end, male doctors became more common and pushier and began to change medical practices of the time.

Being a midwife was difficult for many reasons. There were troubles and annoyances, even dangers before they even got to the birth site. Midwives had to be prepared to be called at any hour of the day or night while they were busy or sleeping. “Snowd. I was calld at 7 hour Evening to see Mrs. Mthews who is in labor. I tarried all night. Slept none.” (1) Martha was almost always deprived of sleep, because delivering babies was not the only thing a midwife had to do. When Martha arrived home after a tiring delivery had to be prepared to finish her house hold work of baking, mending, washing and more before she could act on the thought of rest.

Braving the travel to the patient’s house was often a dangerous part of being a midwife. Crossing rivers in the night and the cold of winter, and being thrown from horses were only some of the troubles encountered by Martha Ballard and other Maine midwives.

Midwives had to be prepared to deliver babies and know what to do if the birth did not go properly on its own. Not only did they have to know how to deliver babies, but how to care for them or their mothers if they became ill. Many Midwives were not just skilled in midwifery, but also often in herbal medicines, and treatment of the sick. Martha Ballard made many hundreds of sick calls as well as the calls that came from mothers in labor. This often called for extra work at home for the midwife, such as more gardening than the average woman because of the special herbs needed and also medical attention for family members as well as those who pay for the service. “I have done my hous work and dug gardin.” (1)

Originally a midwife was much more common to be called for a delivery than a doctor. If a doctor was called it was usually only in extenuating circumstances. The midwives were very competent and the people knew it. During Martha Ballard’s time this began to change, especially toward the end of her life, doctors called for sickness and births were becoming more common.

For a time it seemed as though doctors knew their place; and that place was taking care of the more serious issues. Midwives delivered babies unless there were serious complications and then a doctor was called. For sicknesses or discomforts healers had their herbs. Doctors were sometimes consulted or even worked with without real competition or hostility, and midwives and healers were even invited to attend dissection autopsies. “I was Calld to my sons to see the Desection of the Son of Esquire Davis which was preformd very Closly.” (1)

Quietly competition came and grew as doctors became more determined to deliver the services that had long since been the woman midwife or healer’s tasks. Many midwives and healers disapproved of some of the doctor’s methods such as bleeding and always seeming to use the most drastic methods first. “They inform me that Dr Page says it must be opined, which I should think improper from present appearance.” (1) They also did not like the lack of experience of some doctors, midwives and healers had to stand by quietly as they were slowly pushed out of the way. Eventually it became unfitting for a woman to perform the duties that they had been practicing for so long.

Being a midwife in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries took skill, diligence, competence, sacrifice and the good heart of a neighbor. Being a midwife meant long days and nights of hard work, whether for their practice or what was expected of them as a woman running a house hold. Martha Ballard delivered over eight hundred and fourteen babies in her life time while also keeping up her house, taking care of her own family and tending to hundreds of sick people. Male doctors eventually took this away from the women, making midwife and healer duties not fit for women and therefore taking over their practice, but they couldn’t keep the women away from medical practices forever. Women began trying to gain their rights to attend the sick once again. Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell became the first woman in the United States to graduate from medical school, and one of her followers, Mary Hobart, who was related to Martha Ballard, was herself a pioneer in the medical world of women.

Source:
(1) A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Honors English 11 Spirit Bear 2

While on the island, Cole works very hard on his Totem Pole almost every day carving animals that have taught him something into it. I chose to research the totem pole to understand them more fully seeing as Cole’s totem pole is very important to him and seems to help him calm himself.
For Native American’s on the Pacific Northwest coast totem poles are a long running tradition. Edward Malin, author of Totem Poles of the Pacific Northwest Coast, thinks that totem poles started by the Haida people in the Queen Charlotte Islands and from there it spread to the Tsimshian and Tlingit and then down to British Columbia (Where the Spirit Bear is from) and northern Washington state. As the poles progressed through the different areas they also expanded from being used as house posts to other things like memorial markers and funerary containers to symbols that expressed clan or family wealth, position, and importance.
Some anthropologists think that Native Americans did not start making totem poles until after the Europeans arrived, however the Native American’s oral tradition says differently. Because totem poles are made from wood they decay easily and relatively quickly so there is no evidence beyond oral tradition for evidence except that the forms and designs of the poles are so distinctive and developed that it seems to support that they aren’t the tradition is not a very recent one. European wood carving tools did spur the amount of poles made though.
Totem Poles are still made today, but in order to have one you would have to be willing to spend a lot of money. The real totem poles are made from only one tree usually cedar; only one solid piece, hand carved, and carefully painted.
Cole used his totem pole to symbolize all he had learned and together he and Peter found forgiveness and balance and together completed the totem pole carving those feelings into a circle on the top.


Works Cited

"American Indian Totem Poles." Nativelanguages.Org. 11 July 2008 http://www.native-languages.org/totem.htm.

"Totem Poles." Crystalinks.Com. 11 July 2008 http://www.crystalinks.com/totempoles.html.

History Post One: A Midwife's Tale

Why is there so little evidence of women’s roles in the early 19th century? What revelations does Ulrich’s research bring?

In the late 18th and early 19th century Maine women had many roles and were crucial to the family. The women were the glue of the family, house keepers, business people, and neighborly companions. Much about the women’s lives beyond keeping house was not known large to do with the fact that most women did not keep written records. With the help of Martha Ballard’s diary Ulrich looks into her life and the life of the other women as well.

We learn most about history from written accounts. The parts of history that are the most hazy are the ones with no documents, literature, or any form of writing to go by. Many women in the nineteenth century did not keep writings on what they did through out the day or their transactions with neighbors; at least not that survived. Because of how little written material there is that would show what the women’s roles were, little was known and the general assumption was that they worked hard, but the work did not extend far beyond the door of their homes. Ulrich’s research, backed up by Martha’s diary shows that to be untrue, and that women played many roles in the home and community.

Martha Ballard’s diary is so unique because it chronicles the life of a woman day to day, and not only that but it shows that she, and other women in the town, had important roles in the community as well as the home. The diary and the research conducted around it by Ulrich gives important and rare insight into the life of the nineteenth century people of Maine, especially the women.

The common conception of the nineteenth century woman is on many levels true. Women worked in the garden and sewed, mended, cooked, worked the flax, spun, had and raised children. They taught their girls how to do all the work that they did, and together kept up the house. For most women though, and Martha in particular, this role of home body was not the only one.

The men were not the only ones who did business. Again, lack of record is likely the reason for the little realization of this. Another reason might be because the business often didn’t require currency, and was more of a trade system. The women would trade service for goods or goods for goods. Much of the women’s business was done with other women, but doing business with men wasn’t something that didn’t happen. The occasional trade of service or goods for money usually came from doing business with men.

Women were neighbors to the very extent of the word. They had a strong social network that exceeds what many people have now. The women came together to help when another woman was going to give birth, and often stay the night. After the baby was born women would come to help the mother until she was able to get back to her daily work. Women would go to each other’s homes and pull flax to help and to be able to take some as their own. Women would send their daughters from home to home to learn from the other women and single women would also move about the town in the same manner.

Apart from these roles some women had another attached to them that was more of a profession. Martha Ballard was not only the home maker, part time business woman and neighbor; she was also a midwife and healer. She would travel around the near by towns, helping the sick and delivering babies, being paid in money, credit or goods. All this she would do without letting her other roles as a woman slip. Having a profession the way Martha did was not a role that all women had, but it was not uncommon.

Women in nineteenth century Maine worked hard, and were not confined to one role. Because of Ulrich’s research into the contents of Martha Ballard’s diary, more light has been shed on the home maker, neighbor, business and professional roles of these women.

Touching Spirit Bear

Edwin tells Cole that “Off the coast of British Columbia, there is a special black bear called the Spirit Bear. It is pure white and has pride, dignity and honor.” I was interested to find out if the bear was more of a legend, or if it was something people could actually still see. Also, because the book is called “Touching Spirit Bear” I figured there would probably be a lot of interaction between the bear and Cole and that it would be important.
Spirit Bears are not just a legend, but in order to see one you would have to go to Princess Royal Island or Gribbell Island and areas around there to see one because that is the only area in the whole world that they exist. I thought these were two nice pictures of them: http://sudoku.com.au/Prizes/H337.jpg and http://www.kermode-terrace-bc.com/spirit_bearcub1.jpg. Because they have lived mostly secluded for so long they do not have a natural fear of humans.
The Spirit Bear is called the Kermode after a British zoologist named Francis Kermode from the British Columbia Provincial Museum who helped W. T. Hornaday in learning about the Spirit Bear.
I learned that the legend of the Spirit Bear comes from the Tsimshian people, and that for a long time they were called Moksgm’ol. When the earth was in an ice age, the Raven decided to change the world back to green plants but as a reminder of the ice and snow turned every tenth Black Bear white. The Raven also gave them special powers. One was to be able to dive deep for fish and the other to be able to lead special people to their places. I think that maybe this is what the spirit bear in this book will do for Cole; he needs the help.

Works Cited:

"Legend and History." Spiritbearyouth.Org. 25 June 2008 http://www.spiritbearyouth.org/spiritbear.php?page_id=7.

"Princess Royal Island." Britishcolumbia.Com. 25 June 2008 http://www.britishcolumbia.com/regions/towns/?townID=4014.

Leadership. The last Honors 10 History Essay

Abstract: This paper will discuss what was required of leadership to guide the colonies into a working government and how The Founding Brothers achieved this not as individuals but collectively and because of this created a unique form of government. Support comes from Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, http://www.britannica.com/, and class notes.

The American government was not established with firm rules set for what should happen and how the country should be run; instead checks and balances were set up that give the people freedoms but protect the rights of others. This precarious tug of war that keeps the country stable came about because of the unique leadership and unusual but affective collaboration of Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and Madison, that is continued today. The formation of this government required these men to use their opinions, skills, quirks and passions in a mix as the Founding Brothers.

Leadership is not up to it's full potential when only one person is leading. In order for something hugely important to be lead, such as the establishing of the American government, and for it to succeed there needs to be a collaboration of leaders who stop each other as much as they help. The Founding Brothers did this, using their personal talents to progress and preventing destruction to the country by checking the other's flawed ideas.

Washington possessed the qualities the people of the country needed to see in their leader. He was physically impressive, could command the room and was a person of great integrity. Washington had lead the army through the war and was regarded as hero among the people. Everyone; most of all the Brothers, realized that Washington was the only choice for the country's first president. Washington fulfilled the needs of the country at the time. He was a figure of strength that the new government needed for people to trust that there was stability in there government. When after two terms he resigned, he exemplified the true non-marnachial government that had begun to be established. However, as skilled a president as Washington was, he was not perfect and could not have had as affective a terms as he did if not for other members of the Founding Brothers. Washington had wonderful charisma, but compared to some of the Brothers he was not as masterful at the higher level politics. He often collaborated with Madison and especially Hamilton when it came to very official business and articulating his ideas; they even helped him write his famous farewell address.

Just as Washington would not have had the ability to hold office the way he did without the help of the brothers, Hamilton also was not a one man show. Hamilton on his own was skilled in the area of finances. He set up the national banking system and is considered the father of modern capitalism, and was very useful in military areas, but he too needed to be checked. His confidence in the early American army was over estimated, and when Washington set him up in charge of the armies he would have sent the country to it's doom by putting it into a war with England and France. Adams used his presidential powers to prevent this from happening. Hamilton and Adams also disagreed about where the power of the government should be. Hamilton believed that it should be a National power, while Adams leaned more to local control, leading to our systems today that incorporate both.

Madison was a convincing speaker in congress, but he also worked closely with many of the brothers quieter and more behind the scenes. He and Jefferson had a close relationship and when Jefferson was in France; he was his chief corespondent for knowledge about the affairs of the developing government, and when Jefferson came back Madison remained his confidant and someone he trusted. Madison knew how to get inside peoples heads without them hardly noticing.

Ideology belonged to Jefferson. He had the most opinionated ideals and wanted only purity for the government he was helping to mold. Unfortunately, all though these ideals were perfect for the constitution, his actions were not always prompted by the same motives and sometimes his high ideals left him short when he failed to see the bad sides of things. He had a naivety that caused him to not just see the best in things, but refusing to see the danger. When vice president to Adams he was enthralled with the French Revolution and wanted Adams as president to support it. Adams knew better and could see past the mask of ideals that blocked Jefferson's view to the mess that the French were in rightfully refusing to take any part in it and reprimanding Jefferson for his blind oppinion.

Adams was quite level headed and intelligent and played a key role in convincing the congress of war with England. He was the second president and carried the country though his time without serious issues. He often had the insight to prevent some of the other brothers from leading the country into catastrophes; namely Jefferson and Hamilton. Even with these traits he was not a favorite of the people and didn't have the personality type that many people wanted to see leading and making decisions for their county, so people like Washington and Jefferson balanced him out for the public.

The leadership needed for a newly born country required many things; more than one person could possess, but all the Founding Brothers stepped up to the challenge and in doing so created a government unlike any other. This government took from each of the Brothers their best contributions brought forth through their own individual leadership style. It needed the image of Washington, the financial savviness of Hamilton, the brains of Madison, ideals of Jefferson and Adams cool head.

Each Founding Brother possessed particular aspects in their personality that spoke leadership; but as they were all human and thus flawed; none of them could lead a new country alone. Their collective leadership qualities were needed to balance out the other brother's ideas that were doomed to failure and establish a working government. One man could not have done it alone; all the Brothers best qualities were needed to have what was required of leadership necessary to start the government of the United States of America.

Updated Version

The Chronicle April 30^th 1775

April 2^nd 1775

Dear Editor,

For some time now the Northern colonies of New England have been persistent in campaigning for war with our Mother Country, and the articles in your paper have been very supportive of the idea. I have been rather shocked and concerned by this strong one sided propaganda your paper has been publishing. Though I do believe there is ground for upset feelings, the idea of all out war is preposterous. We are still Englishmen and have our duty to the crown, and more importantly we are Christian and have our duty to God. It is true our rights have been stepped on, but despite how your writings would lead one to believe, war is not the answer and there is still time for negotiation. I feel that this side of the argument has been slighted and your readers deserve and need to hear it.

Respectfully,

A Friend

April 10^th 1775

Dear Reader,

Of late our paper has been rather one sided, but for the simple reason that we are showing what is happening now and what currently needs top be done. For some time now England has been traipsing and trampling all over our land, rights, property, and all around over stepping her authority to the point of bloodshed. I believe decisive action must be taken. This action is to declare war with England. Other methods have been tried and all have failed. The only thing left that can be done to preserve our freedoms and establish fitting government for this country, is to wean ourselves from the Mother Country who is forcing us like a child to do all she commands under the threat of punishment; refusing to let us grow into ourselves. So we must do it on our own, and the only way left is by force.

The English clearly have no respect for the colonies as they have continually show through their tyrannical actions. They have passed act after act, putting taxes on more and more items. They have forced us to use only their currency to control us and secure their own profit, while the Quartering Act has subjected us to intrusion by British soldiers; causing a ruckus and endangering our families. The English forced the Coercive Acts on us; however these Acts are better known as the intolerable Acts because that is exactly what they are to all the colonists. In Boston 5 colonists were killed because of the forceful arrogant English soldiers. Force must be met with force. All this is done to us without care by the English, no peaceful negotiation has helped, and certainly will not now.

The Editor

April 16^th 1775

Dear Editor,

In your response to my previous letter, I found it strange that you continually referenced those you regarded your enemy as "the English". Do you forget that we are all still Englishmen? As Englishmen we have our duty to the King George and the government of England. England is our country, and we can try to have a say in our government, but in the end we are English and are under England. Would you really have us all separate ourselves from our heritage and fight brother to brother?

Making war with Our Country is far from the will of God and no one who calls himself a Christian should be able to have a clean conscience if he agrees with the idea of this war. Killing is against God's law, and the only violence scripture warrants is God commanded, and by scripture we are bound to authority; the authority of God, of our parents of our King and of our Government. Perfection won't be reached until the after life, so if we must work and suffer for our rights then we will. When the Chosen People were held in captivity they did not rise up with weapons against their captors, but in time God saved them.

There are always alternatives to war. There are always more peaceable ways to find a solution to a conflict, and we can find a compromise to spare us war.

Respectfully,

A Friend

April 22^nd 1775

Dear Reader,

By this time it is too late to keep trying for peaceful solutions. In a perfect world we would all like to solve our problems without the troubles of violence; but as you have already said, perfection can not be reached in this world, and therefore war must at times be had.

In essence, the war has already begun. While our fellow colonists stood guard protecting their own ammunition that the British were attempting to take by force in the town square of Lexington, a shot was fired and war began. Eighteen of our country men died shedding blood for the cause, and in Concord a battle has already been fought where our men found the strength to push the British troops back. My dear Reader, it is no longer a question of whether we should make war or not for war has found us, and from Concord we can see that our cause has a chance of winning while we fight for our homes, rights, children and freedom.

The Editor

My Son William,

We have had little Correspondence over the past revolutionary Years, as you had chosen the opposite side of your Father despite my urgings. Those Years are over, are you now to accept your Father, as you once did, before this Rift broke out between us? You were proud to have me before due to my accomplishments in writing, inventions, and science, maybe now you will again because again I have found Success in our Revolution.

Tho' we were both on opposing Sides of the Cause, and I clearly knew your views did not follow mine Own, I never called you Torrie. I had wish'd tho' and hoped that you would realize the Virtue and good Purpose before it triumphed and join in the Cause. Also that in not joining, it was because you did not realize the true goodness of the Cause and all it would bring. As you are my Son I will give you the Benefit rather than Doubt.

We, I say we meaning Myself and my fellow Patriots, have won this war for Liberty and Independence, and I honestly and sincerely Hope and Desire that you will come to realize the immense Goodness and Possibilities that have come from the process of this Revolution and will come from the New Leadership. I have worked for This, and as your Father hope that you indulge in it and learn to appreciate It. Hereafter, I wish that you would, as you are now living in it without choice, will come to feel as though a Part of this which your own Father has worked to achieve.

I remain even now your humble Father,

B. Franklin

Change Over Time the Continual Revolution...

Abstract: This paper will show how between the time of Jamestown to the beginning of the American Revolution, the Native Americans were in a constant state of cultural revolution, specifically pressured on their self suficientness, identity, and politics. Support from http://www.pilgrimhall.org/, http://www.historypoint.org/, and specific support comes from "The Earth Shall Weep" by James Willson.

Contact between Native Americans and Europeans between the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1776, constituted a continuous revolution for the Native Americans. The Native Americans changed from a self sufficient people, dependant only on themselves, to needing European supplies. The Native American identity was altered completely from personal and independent to collective, and their politics, originally used to show status, changed to survival.

Before the Europeans arrived in America, the Indians were self sufficient and did not live in hardly any way like the Europeans. The Indians lacked many of the technological advances of the Europeans. While the Europeans were making advancements and heading toward industrialization, the Indians were living off the land through hunting, gathering of food, some through small means of farming. They had self made clothing, weapons, simpler tools and many religions all differing greatly from Christianity. To the Europeans the Indian way of life was backward; however the Indians lack of progress did not hinder them from getting along in their part of the world. When the Europeans arrived in The New World they brought with them technology that was totally new and different to the Native Americans. Not only did they bring things like guns, larger scale farming methods, and other tools, but they also set up trading posts. The trading posts helped introduce European good farther than just close range to the colonies, because traders would often swap their European goods for furs to send back across the ocean. Some Indians did not involve themselves with the goods and many did. In some circumstances, such as when violence brakes out between the two sides and one has muskets while the other only bows, Indians could hardly do without the European technology. The longer the Europeans were in America and the more the Indians interacted and traded with them, the more dependent the Indians became on the European goods. Some Europeans used this to their advantage. James Willson says:

"Metal tools and weapons did not simply alter the lives of the tribe who acquired them: They also affected enemies and neighbors, who suddenly found themselves at an enormous disadvantage and were forced to seek their own sources of European goods in order to feed and defend their people."

Willson also quotes a Hudson Bay worker in his book The Earth Shall Weep as saying:

"I have made it my study to examine the nature and character of Indians and however repugnant it may be to our feelings, I am convinced they must be ruled with a rod of Iron to bring and keep them in a proper state of subordination, and the most certain way to effect this is by letting them feel their dependence upon us... In the woods and northern barren grounds this measure ought to be pursued rigidly next year if they do not improve, and no credit, not so much as a load of ammunition, given them until they exhibit an inclination to renew their habits of industry. In the plains, however, this system will not do, as they can live independent of us, and by withholding ammunition, tobacco and spirits, the Staple articles of Trade, for one year, they will recover the use of their Bows and spears, and lose sight of their smoking and drinking habits; it will therefore be necessary to bring those Tribes round by mild and cautious measure..."

More and more Indians slowly became dependant on European goods. Not only did the dependence cause them to need the Europeans, but it also caused them to behave more like the Europeans in some ways because of the use of the European tools and goods.

The Europeans saw the different Native American tribes as all being simply Indians. The Native Americans originally however, identified themselves very differently. The Native Americans did not view all their tribes as being one big group as the Europeans did; but this perception changed over time. Before the Europeans were inhabiting America, the various Indian tribes were distinctly separate and independent. That is not to say that there was no contact or interaction at all between tribes, but that they were different from each other and they were certainly not dependant on each other in anyway. Their cultures were similar but each tribe was distinctly its own separate independent people. As the Europeans began to stifle Indian culture and drop understanding and fairness Indians fight back. The Powhatans rose against the English people of Jamestown because of their unfairness; but the English quickly put them down. Eventually the Indians realized that in order to stand a chance against the Europeans the tribes would have to join together. When the Puritans in Massachusetts had become too cruel and forceful toward the surrounding Indians, many Indian tribes joined together and fought against the English in the first Pan-Indian War; King Philips War; bringing them together. Slowly, though the Native Americans still had separate tribes, they began to think of themselves as together and all Indians.

When the Europeans first settled in America the Indians wanted to show them that they were still the dominant power, and to do this they used a custom of their culture. The Indians brought gifts to the Europeans to show that they were powerful. The Europeans did not understand the intent of the gifts at all. many Europeans thought that the Indians gave them gifts not for any serious reason but because they were not as intelligent. Wilson explains, "Their 'generosity' was not naivete, as many Europeans thought, but neither was it cynical opportunism." When the Indians realized that the Europeans were taking advantage of the gifts and not seeing them as a sign of the Indians power, politics began to go down hill. As the European treatment of the Native Americans worsened, the Indians rose up against it with violence. The Indians were either quickly beaten back or hasty treaties were made up. Carl Clausewitz said "War is a continuation of politics by other means," and this was true for the Indians. When the treaties fell through, and the treatment was clearly not going to improve, the Indians banned together and made war on the Europeans. This had a affect on the Europeans be did little to change the way they regarded the Indians. Eventually the Indians realized that they could not stop the Europeans from coming or send them back, and that things were not going to get better for them or go back to the way that it was before the Europeans came. So, the Indians changed their tactics of survival again. As the French and English fought each other, the Indians took sides to their best overall advantage; fighting along side Europeans.

Though European contact caused constant revolution for the Native American culture, in making the Indians dependant on the European goods, changing their identity, and their waring politics, some things in the native American culture could not be changed. native Americans have always had a strong attachment to certain places connected to their religion, and even now Native American peoples who are moved from their places do not hold up well, and often have problems with alcoholism, drugs, or depression. Some make pilgrimages to their sacred places like the journey the descendants of Wounded Knee made. Many Native Americans still use their old organic forms of medicines, while others preform traditional dances, and almost all carry on the Native American oral traditions. Even though European culture revolutionized the Native American culture it could not wipe it out.

Francesco Hayez

The Kiss

Edmund Blair Leighton

Stitching the Standard

Jamestown and Massechusetts

Abstract: This paper, using the book The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, will show the differences between the Massachusetts colony and the Jamestown settlement and that the reason for this was due to the totally different reasons for the colonies existance.

The English colony of Jamestown and the English Puritan colony of the pilgrims in Massachusetts, did not have the same outcomes with their interactions with the Native Americans. Both peoples came from the same country, lived in close proximity to the Indians, and had to interact with them. When looking at trade, the colonists motives for being in America, religious motivation, and the Powhatan Uprising and King Philips War, it can be seen that the reason for the difference was the in the completely unlike reasons for the settlemets existances.

Jamestown was established for trade. The people's main intent was to have exports for England. James Wilson said in his book The Earth Shall Weep"...The settlers concentrated on producing tobacco for export to England and continued to rely on their ability to wheedle or bully food out of the Native Americans or...take it by force," showing how the settlers of Jamestown were not as interested in learning how to have a stable colony; they were making money and being supported by the Indians. The Puritans in Massachusetts, however, did not live in a colony built on trade. They did trade with the Indians; but they were interested in stabilizing their colony and becoming self dependant. They wanted to live their seperatist religion and keep their culture with only those who were just like them, because that was their reason for being in America.

Jamestown was established to make profit and the people who were there came to make money; it was for business, whether good or not. The people of Jamestown wanted to continue trade with the Indians, but also wanted to take their food for themselves. To do this the Jamestown settlers kept the Indians in check; not through complete violence, but certainly by fear. James Wilson expresses this saying, "...Some settlers did make a heroic effort to live peacefully and deal equitably with the Indians...Smith believed this was dangerous sentimentality." In contrast, the Massachusetts colony wasn't founded with the main intention being profit through trade with the Indians. The settlers of Jamestown planned on interaction with the Native Americans, Wilson says "The Virginia Company had anticipated that Native supplies would be needed for the first year. It instructed the colonists to [not offend the Indians]," it was a large point of their being in America. The Puritans came to Massachusetts for a very different reason. The Puritans came to America with people of their own nationality (because they did not like to lose their English culture) to escape the oppression in England of their separatist religion. Indian interaction wasn't a priority, and was not even in the plan. If they had known how much they would have to interect with the Native Americans they might not have come. They left England because their religion differend from the people in England. They left the Neatherlands because of the cultural difference, and the Indians had both these differences and to the extreme.

The people in the Massachusetts colony had strong religious ties to their Puritan faith. The fact that they were Puritans and so religious, affected the ways in which they dealt with and interacted with the Indians surrounding them. Having already left England and the Netherlands because of religious and cultural differences, it is clear that the Puritans were very serious about how they were to be living and how they believed the rest of the world should as well. The Puritans did not want any Indian way of living to rub off on them; but they were set on changing the Indians. They pressed their culture and religion on the Native Americans, and even established 'Praying Towns' directed by John Eliot to fix the Indians. The correction process bassically involved changing Indians into Englishman. Wilson explains "The converts equipped with English tools learnt European skills...and made themselves useful to the colonists." These things did not have the best out comes though, and were one of the biggest factors that lead to King Philip's War. The people of Jamestown differed from the colonists of Massachusetts because they lacked the religious fervor of the Puritans. Jamestown was not an exceptionally religious place, and this was a help to them in dealing with the Native Americans because they did not push religion on the Indians in the way that the Puritans did. The people of Jamestown were not good to the Indians; but the lessened religious pressure was an asset in at least minimizing the conflict between them.

The Powhatan Uprising came about do to the conflicts and misunderstandings between the Powhatan Indians and the people of Jamestown. The Indians gave Jamestown a surprise attack and killed three hundred and forty-seven people. King Philips War came about for similar reasons; conflict between Indians and near by settlers. This time however the settlers were the Massachusetts Puritans, and instead of an uprising of Powhatan's, it was a bloody Pan-Indian War. The Uprising was devastating to Jamestown, but was short lived and trade continued. The King Philips War in Massachusetts was different; it lasted a year and when it was over, and the Indians defeated, the "Indian resistance in southern New England was effectively broken."

The settlements of Jamestown and Massachusetts differences existed because of the completely dissimilar reasons for why the colonies even existed. The Puritan colony was settled ina way that the Puritans could practice their religion and keep their culture, so when natural differences arose between them and the Indians, they reacted in ways that would close the conflict but protect the foundational purpose for their colony. Jamestown did the same, but because the reason for their settlement was for trade, the relation ship with the Indians, though not good, did not escalate and crash in the same way that the Puritans did. This is because they were protecting a settlement with a different purpose.

Primary Cause of Conflict

Abstract: This paper will show that the root of conflict between Native Americans and Europeans was because of different religious beliefs and culture. Support comes from The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, and http://www.wyandot.org/jogues.htm. the importance of the essay is to show that the drastic differences in culture caused the most conflict, and these differences were caused by different beliefs.

The primary cause of conflict between Native Americans and Europeans was do to their totally different cultures; which resulted from their conflicting religious beliefs, such as the ways of viewing time, the difference between ideas regarding place and space, differences in work ethic, and simply the different religions of themselves.

Fresh out of the Humanistic Revolution, Reformation, and going through the Scientific Revolution, the European culture was, in the 1500s through 1700s, in a linear time mindset; was sceptical, inquisitive, progressive, and Christian.

In general terms, Native American culture at that time was in a cyclical time mindset; had nature related religions, was unquestioning of its natural surroundings, and seemingly almost stationary; without progression.

The Europeans lived in linear time; the world began and time had been steadily moving forward in a straight line. This idea had roots in their religious beliefs that God created the world and after an uncertain amount of time had elapsed the world would end. Linear time. However time wasn't just a strait line; it was also a line of progression. The Europeans were constantly trying to advance and progress towards betterment. the reason for their striving for progress was also likely connected to their religious belief about being cast from Eden. Their belief in having been cast out because of their own failure, built their desire for and need to progress. This made their linear progressive time. The American Indians, however, viewed time as more of a cycle. Nature cycled around them from season to season, and in this same way their time cycled too. This had much to do with the fact that Indians did not view themselves as above nature, but a part of it. Also, because nowhere in their beliefs were they ever deprived of something better, they did not try to progress to betterment. They were satisfied with the way they were. That is not to say that they did not progress at all; but that their progress was little, slow, and not necessary to them. This caused conflict between the two when Europeans came to America. The Europeans did not understand cyclical time and that it was reason why the Indians were so behind them in advancements; they saw it as the Indians being uncivilized. This view caused the Europeans to, for the most part, either have minimal contact with them, take it upon themselves to teach the Indians their better ways, take advantage of them, or to clear them out all together.

The different Christian religions of the Europeans were all spacial religions; meaning that the religion wasn't connected to one place, and you could practice it anywhere. The Europeans did not have any physical thing or place that they were particularly attached to that was needed for them to be Christians. The American Indian's religion on the other hand, was directly related to place. Whether because their ancestors where buried in a particular place, or because it had been important in their creation story, specific places were important and part of the base of their religious beliefs and rituals. This caused problems when Europeans wanted to move the Indians to different places, because the Indians did not want to leave their sacred places, or when Europeans wanted to mine or farm (or any other place altering movement) the Indians became angered, and the Europeans could not understand; or didn't care because these ideas where foolish.

The Europeans had a strong work ethic.

They meant to progress, they meant to make money, and at least for many of them this was at least in part due to their religion. David S. Landes, in his book "The Wealth and poverty of Nations" speaks concerning Max Webbers ideas about protestant work ethic. "Protestantism..promoted the rise of modern capitalism...by defining and sanctioning an ethic of everyday behavior that conduced to business success." The Native Americans worked differently than the Europeans. They worked doing what they had to. They only grew the food they needed for one year; they were not interested in mass farming, and they certainly had no factories. The Europeans saw them as being behind and backwards. Some innocently tried to offer help which was accepted or denied, while others used it as a way to dehumanize the Indians making it easier on peoples minds to dispose of them. As James Wilson puts it in his book The Earth Shall Weep, "Some nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars have viewed [Native American's] system not as real farming at all."

The fact that the Europeans and the Native Americans had such different religions was conflict in itself. The Europeans believed that their religion was right. In fact, every branch of Christianity believed that only it was the right religion. The Indians had their own religions, and generally didn't have a problem with others having theirs. That perspective went along with their beliefs about places being sacred; they believe because of their place and aloud you to believe your beliefs because you have a different place. The Europeans tried to convert the Indians to forms of Christianity. Some Indians Willingly converted, but it didn't always work out so easily. Some Indians were extremely angered by missionaries, such as some of the Iroquois who chewed fingers of off Father Isaac Jogues. Things went the other way as well; most Europeans saw the Indians as savages because of their difference in religion.

The Native Americans and Europeans found conflict because of how drastically their cultures differed; the way they saw time, how they worked, the space or place of their religions, and just their religions on their own. All these things are either directly related to, or are outcomes of their religious beliefs; making the difference in their religious beliefs the prime cause for conflict between the two.

Essay Question of Mine.

Compare and contrast Linear and Cyclical time; explaining how it affects culture, and realate it to Native Americans and Europeans.

Mid Term

Abstract: The statement to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means" made by Landes concerning the trend of the past 600 years is only half right. Support for this essay comes of knowedge from The World Is Flat by Friedman, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Landes, and wikipedia.com. The importance of this is to show that countries do follow a trend, but do not see the "ends".

From the beginnings of Humanism, through the Reformation, The Scientific Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, and now in the Flattening or the World, change is constant. But is the trend of all those years, as Landes says in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, that we should "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means"? More simply, is the tendency in attempting betterment and progress to never trust someone else's Truth, to challenge, to be aware of others success, and finally to first look at the consequences of actions before acting on them, so as to find the best way to get to the desired outcome.

Humanism started the close of the Middle Ages and was the beginning of the Renaissance. Humanism began with the belief that although God and getting to heaven were important to them, their lives on earth could have meaning and purpose as well. People began focusing more on the sensual human experience, most drastically expressed through art and its change from the middle ages to the Renaissance.

Eventually Humanism developed into not just believing that the individual life has meaning of its own, but it caused people to begin to question The Church's authority. The humanistic Revolution pushed "skeptical faith". Humanism made people wonder about other aspects of life besides religion and caused them to question long held beliefs; "avoiding dogma". People began to learn from Greek literature and philosophies, and they became even more skeptical of the ways in which they had been living and The Church which had taught them these things. Humanism seems to follow (Middle Ages to the left, Renaissance to the right)

most of Landers definition of the "trend", in that it caused questioning; but were the people basing their questions and actions on an end goal? Were they planning ahead and using the best means to get to a predestined outcome? Could they have for-see the Reformation and Scientific Revolution? Or did they happen as an unpredicted affect?

Erasmus was a Humanist who, although he did not want division in the church, played a part in bringing about the Reformation. He made editions of The Old Testament, and added into it Humanistic touches, and would criticize the Catholic Church. Though he played his part in causing people who read his works to question some of the practices of their Catholic religion he remained a catholic himself, and it was Martin Luther who really made the Reformation happen. Luther wrote his 95 theses, or criticisms of The Church which were printed, distributed, and read by hundreds. Eventually Luther broke away completely from The Catholic Church, with a religion or his own, and many followed him. Among many of Luther's ideas, was his institution of "solo scriptora" meaning that the truth is in the text and you find it yourself, what you find is truth for you, and only you can find it. Luther challenged The Church and it's dogma, the Reformation gave many people a more skeptical faith in their superiors, but was Martin Luther planning for the end outcome of his revolt? Was it really his plan for hundreds of religions to break off of each other after his example? Could he possibly have been thinking that the shake in Catholic authority would help bring about the Scientific Revolution?

Humanism through the Reformation brought questioning, skepticism, and rebellion from The Church, there wasn't a better time for science to follow suite then while the flame for answers was flaring. The Scientific Revolution came about and tested Faith, tradition, The Church, and formerly believed science. The publication of Diderot's Encyclopedia created conflict with some of it's articles that contradicted Church doctrine. Galileo, following the Copernican idea of a sun centered universe, shook Europe with his work to prove heliocentricism over the traditionally believed earth centered universe theory. As science pulled away from tradition and The Church people were put in a place where they would have to believe science that said it had proof, or their religious faith that said it had Truth. Was the Scientific Revolution testing other's truths, learning from others, and challenging dogma and faith? Yes. But was the plan of the scientists and those who followed them to be the start of a continuing and worsening science versus religion, creation versus a godless universe battle? Was it their plan to lead into Industrializing Europe and beyond? Could they have thought all that?

Science and it's machine inventions such as the steam engine and spinning wheel fueled the Industrial Revolution. Farmers, due to new farm equipment, were able to produce more food than was needed for their family, and so were able to sell it. Because people could now purchase food, not every one needed to be a farmer. This freed people to be able to work in factories.

Britain excelled and for a long period of time led Europe at industrialization. Britain pulled ahead because they saw the benefit of producing goods in an industrialized way and how it would be good for their economy. For a long time other countries, like Spain, did not follow the example. Spain, having great wealth from the New World chose not to take part in industrializing their country and bought instead of keeping up exports to maintain their wealth. However, when countries like France and Germany finally decided they needed to follow Britain's example, they did the smartest thing they could have; they didn't start at the beginning and work their way to Britain's present position. Instead they started right with the newest ideas, forms of machinery and practices. This in turn brought them ahead of Britain who, instead of embracing the ideas and advances of other countries, clung to their secret, but old ways of doing things, falling some what behind. The Industrial Revolution is the perfect example of "listening and watching well". When Britain took the leap into industrializing they were doing just that, they realized the advantage and took it. The rest of Europe when it followed the example of Britain, and continued to push forward also was "listening and watching well". But were the owners of the factories and the inventors of the new machines and other technologies aware of the huge part they were playing in progressing the economic flatness of the world? Could they have known they were bringing about our society today?

From the beginning of industries we have moved to where we are now: an ever flattening economic world. Technology is progressing rapidly as we try to keep up with it. Out sourcing, in sourcing, off shoring, supply chaining, and automating and informing all come with it. Countries are connected, businesses are connected, ideas and information are shared and spread quickly and easily. The flattening of the world is also a good example of "listen and watch well". People who succeed in The Flat World are people who are conscious of the advances made around them and who not only keep up, but stay ahead and never let their neighbor learn something without taking advantage of the knowledge, putting it to use and building off of it. But as these technologies and advancements progress seemingly always greater, farther, and faster, are we even looking to an "end"?

Clearly, from the Humanistic Revolution to the Flat World, the trend has been, as Landes stated, to "cultivate a sceptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well". The Humanists were skeptical of faith, the men of the Reformation avoided dogma, those in the Scientific Revolution were both skeptical of faith and avoiding dogma, the Industrial Revolution and The Flat World both exemplify times of listening and watching well. The end of Landers statement however, "try to clarify ends, the better to choose means" does not really hold true. The early Humanists, the Reformists, Scientists, and Industrializers could not have seen the ends, or rather, beginnings that would eventually come of their actions, and in the flattening world in which we live, we aren't looking for ends.