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.