Do you agree with Edwards that human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good, or do you agree with Franklin that they can make themselves as good as they want to be?
The reading assignment is as follows.
- Norton editor's headnote from the bottom of 155 to 159 ("Imperial Politics" and "Pursuing Happiness"); you may also want to look at the timeline on 160-61
- The Crevecouer biographical note (bottom 309 - top 310) and the third of his Letters from an American Farmer (310 - top 320)
- The Paine biographical note (bottom 324 to 325) and the first of his The Crisis pamphlets. But I can make it shorter for you... read from bottom 332 to top 334 ("These are the times" to "arrived upon the Delaware") and top 335 to middle 337 ("I shall conclude" to "the slain of America").
- The Jefferson biographical note (bottom 338 to middle 340) and his "Declaration of Independence" (top 342 to middle 346)
- The Federalist biographical note (bottom 346 to middle 347) and the first number of The Federalist (bottom 347 to top 350)
- 31 (Viola). Why do you think the British-American settlers who protested against British policies in the "Boston Tea Party" dressed themselves as aboriginals? (see pg. 156). Unrelated side question - do you find it confusing that those aboriginals are commonly referred to as "Native Americans" or "Indians"?
- 32 (Caleigh). Crevecouer actually does live on a farm, but of course he is no more a 'simple farmer' than Cooke or Franklin. One of the interesting things about his Letters is that he tries so hard to simulate the voice of that simple farmer. Point to several examples where he uses 'farmer language,' like metaphors of animals, plants, and growing cycles.
- 33 (Sydney). Compare Crevecouer's notion of the American "hybrid" to Cooke's. In particular, consider his description of ethnic "mixture" on 311 and his pronouncement on 314 that the settlers who live on the western frontier are "no better than carnivorous animals."
- 34 (Crystal). What does Paine mean when he says that "panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt"? Why does he think that the U.S. revolution against the British is one of these "cases"? Do you think this theory about panic is true? Why or why not?
- 35 (Esther). Compare Paine's writing to that of a non-American revolutionary writer - Robespierre, Bolivar, Lenin, Mao, or whoever you like. In particular you may want to look for similarities to his absolutist statements that the British-American colonies are "infested" by British loyalists (tories) and that every one of them "is a coward" (335), or that "the blood of his children will curse his cowardice who shrinks back" (337). You might also consider comparing the tone and vocabulary he uses, which is quite different from that of Jefferson and Hamilton.
- 36 (Jennie). Choose at least one of the deletions that the Congress made to Jefferson's first draft of the "Declaration of Independence" (the underlined words), and explain why this choice might have been made. Choose at least one of the additions that the Congress made to the first draft (the small words in the right margin), and explain why this choice might have been made.
- 37 (Alyssa). Who is the implied reading audience for the "Declaration" of 1776? In other words, when "we" complain about "he," who are "we" speaking to? Why do you think this document later became the favorite resource for U.S. political activists who opposed slavery, who opposed mistreatment of aboriginals, and who favored political rights for women, etc.? And why might this fact be ironic when we consider the political beliefs of Jefferson and his editors?
- 38 (Jane). Why does Hamilton call the United States an "empire" (347)? Why does he say that it is "the most interesting" empire "in the world"? Why does he say that creating the wrong political system for the United States will result in "the general misfortune of mankind," and which of our previous writers does this statement remind you of?
- 39 (Clara). What do you think Hamilton/Publius means when he says the government should have "energy" or "efficiency" or "vigor" (349)? These sound like positive words... why would anyone be worried that the government should be like this, and what more negative words might they use instead?
- 40 (Tracy). Instead of talking about the specific content of the various pieces that we are reading this week, let us now talk about their general medium. All four of them were printed either in newspapers or in small, cheap pamphlets, and they were widely circulated and reprinted. What does this fact tell you about the social organization of the British-American colonies? Here is a related question... why do you think the Stamp Act of 1765 caused printers of newspapers and pamphlets (like Franklin) to show an anti-British bias in the content they printed?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe argument between Edwards’ idea of human beings being weak and therefore never entirely good and Franklin’s belief of human beings being able to make themselves as good as they want to be has long been discussed. Just as in the Confusions society, people have been arguing about whether people are basically good as Meng states or that the humanity of one is initially evil as Hsun believes.
ReplyDeleteBut the discussion has never reached an end, for there is no correct answer to it.
Similarly, I do not think there is a correct answer to the argument between Franklin’s idea and Edwards’ for this has never been a yes no question. However, if I can choose a side to stand (toward the question asked by Aaron), I would rather believe a little more in Franklin’s statement simply because it doesn’t “block” one’s hope of making themselves a better person and the motivation of keep progressing. As for Edwards’ idea, if we all believe that human beings are weak and would never be able to save themselves, and that the power of domination in everything is hold by God, then why should people work hard? If human beings themselves cannot make any changes due to their efforts, isn’t it too sorrowful?
Ted, if by short answer you mean the question about human psychology, post it here. Certainly not an "essay"! Four sentences might be enough, perhaps more if you find the topic interesting. You can follow Carol's model.
ReplyDeleteoh~~the "comment reply" HA
ReplyDeletesorry I didn't see it for the first time, my bad
Well, I think I agree with Edwards that human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good.
ReplyDeleteSomeone has said that babies are the most evil and dangerous creature in the world. And I think this opinion is quite real.
Without the restriction of moral education, people do everything as they want, just like babies might fight with each other in whole strength and not even think about it's outcome, at least not until their parents separate them and give them a punch(moral education).
The thought that “human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good” is nearer true human nature. But I don’t think we human beings cannot achieve “entirely good” is because we are weak; instead, the theory of inner evil which generates since we are born is more convincible.
ReplyDeleteHello, this is Crystal:)
ReplyDeleteI am here to answer the question no.34:
In my interpretation, the “panics” in the text mentioned by Paine were a sort of annoying and negative emotion aroused by the colonial oppress from the Britain. Although such anxious feelings seem to be an agitation among the Americans, it might also function as an inspiring motive and the source of power in solving their problems. As they feel panic while trying to deal with the predicament, they are more likely to reexamine their inner thoughts and feelings carefully. Besides, such unstable mental condition may urge them to take actions toward threats and even boost the working efficiency as well. This may be why Paine said that “panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt”. I myself consider this theory concerning panic a good approach as a supportive strength because it not only draws out people’s inward reflection but encourages them becoming more determined and resolute.
This is Jane Hsu.If there is one condition which can be called “entirely good,” or called “perfection,” in human beings’ conception, I think that human beings are not strong enough to reach that point by themselves. To be entirely good is an enduring status instead of instantly reaching certain point. Therefore, it must be very difficult to achieve. I do agree that human beings can do their best to change their status quo but can never be “perfect." Being entirely good, in my opinion, should be measured not only by what people did physically (outside) but also by what people think mentally (inside) and what people are (originally). Oh,lastly, I wonder who dares to claim that he/she is perfect. I really doubt it@@
ReplyDeleteBasically I agree with Edwards’ belief that human beings are weak and can never achieve entirely good. We human beings always think we are different from other “animals”; however, we are the only species on earth that kills and tortures our same kind. On the contrary, if we are good, we don’t’ need others to tell us that we will know this from our thoughts and behaviors. From my perspective, Franklin just provides his belief as a proof of human weakness: we need to be “convinced” that we are born good.
ReplyDeleteThis is Peggy. This is my comment for the question. First of all, what is “good” and what is “weak?” Are those words all defined by human beings? These definition can even change following with different societies. Therefore, I think there is no entirely good or bad thing in this world. In other words, we cannot say human’s nature is originally weak or good because there is no specific definition. In fact, I think people just make themselves as good as they want to be. It seemed that I agree with Franklin’s idea more.
ReplyDeleteThen, here is my question for the text this week. After reading Crevecoeur’s work Letters from an American Farmer, I am curious about this author’s own identity. According to his biographical note, Crevecoeur traveled around different countries when he was young. Then, he came to New York and changed his name. He settled in America and lived as an American farmer. I wonder why Crevecoeur identity himself as an “American” instead of an emigrant from Europe. Was any other similar situation like him? Can we say the author create a new identity for himself through describing his ideal American?
Hi, this is Winnie.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this question about Edwards’ and Franklin’s point of views towards human beings, I think I agree with Edwards more. I believe human beings are all born imperfectly and that perfection can never be reached. Nevertheless, unlike Edwards, I do not think that what people do are vain efforts. Despite of the fact that human beings can never be entirely good, by improving themselves and making efforts they can always become better—not 100% good, but better. (In this sense, I stand closer to Franklin.) This is also the reason why we’ve been learning and educated since we first got to this world. To be better (“better” here might need further definition…)—that’s the permanent goal, at least for most people.
This is Ting-Ju. I like Franklin's "people can make themselves as good as they want to be" better, but not entirely agree with it. If people have "motivation" to do better, they have chance to reach the goal. Such motivation may come from inner world, or inspired by others, but all in all, this "motivation" should appear first.
ReplyDeleteThis is Caleigh answering question 32.
ReplyDeleteThere are many places in St. John de Crevecoeur's third letter in which he tried so hard to make himself have the tone of a farmer. These are shown in many of the metaphors. At the bottom of p.313, Crevecoeur said that "Men are like plants; the goodness and flavor of the fruit preoceeds from the peculiar soil and exposition in which they grow. We are nothing but what we derive from the air we breathe, the climate we inhabit, the government we obey, the system of religion we profess, and the nature of our employment." And he continued to say that people living there had few crimes since there are no such root among them.
What I found the most interesting was the comparison between the farmers of various religions through out p.316. At the end of p.315, Crevecoeur was discussing how the Europeans became Americans and how the various Christian sects introduced wore out, and how religious indifference become prevalent. He described that the different sects or religions, unlike in Europe, could live together side by side, and that the names of Englishman, Frenchman and European are lost. He explained the idea by comparing the farmers of different sects or religions.
A Catholic farmer who believes in transubstantiation may work and raise his wheat and have a large family of hale and robust children, and his prayers offend no one. His neighbor, a German Lutheran who believes in Consubstantiation may also work in the fields, embellish the earth and clear swamps. And his religion, the same, affects no one. Next to him lives a seceder whose zeal is hot and fiery and may cabal and mingle religious pride with worldly obstinacy. However, he grows good crops as well. "How does it concern the welfare of the community, or of the province at large," said Crevecoeur, "what this man's religious sentiments are, or really whether he has any at all?" He elaborated on the last sentence above by making an example of the last farmer, who was a Low Dutchman and thinks more of the affairs of this world than the next.
I prefer the way Franklin thinks about humanbeings. Edwards thinks that "human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good". In my opinion, people don't have to be "entirely good" and that they can be as good as they want to be. For example, seeing the disabled people on the streets, most of us may throw 10 or 50 NT into their hats, even though we know that perhaps 50% of them are fake ones. The disaster caused by typhoon in early August showed the nice hearts of the Taiwanese. I believe humanbeings are good as long as they want to be.
ReplyDeleteIts the same with our own career or studies, we can achieve if we believe. And even though we may be weak or lost at times, we can still be good if we have the heart to be.
The answer of question 37:
ReplyDeleteThe implied audiences of the Declaration of Independence are the thirteen American colonies. During the time of the American Revolution War, Thomas Jefferson (as a representative) drafted this document to make a formal announcement that the 13 American colonies became the independent states; they were no longer subject to the Great Britain.
The reason for political activists to favor this document to support their demand for the right of women, aboriginals, and Afro-Americans is because of the following famous statement:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness……”
The key statement is “that all men are created equal”. That is to say, no matter what race, what gender, or what category one belongs to, according the declaration, the nation must guarantee every individual the equal right.
However, if we take the author and the editors of this document into consideration, it turns out being ironic. Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of this declaration, was himself an owner of slaves. Likewise, other editors of this documents were either slave owners or against the Abolition. It seems that though everyone was guaranteed the equal right, but still some privileged ones were “equalier” than others.
This is Teresa. I agree with Franklin that they can make themselves as good as they want to be. In other words, I believe that people could achieve their goal by working hard and doing their best. “Motivation” and “Desire for success” not only push people forward to become a better person but also give them a hopeful blueprint in the future. I am always an optimistic person so I agree with Franklin.
ReplyDeleteThis is Sherry asking her assigned question.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading “A Declaration by the Representatives of the united States of America, In General Congress Assembled,” I became interested in the attitude and thoughts of the American Congress. From the second paragraph of the declaration, people could see that the beliefs that “all men are created equal” and that people have rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are the foundation and support of this claim of independence. In the long list of the misdeeds of the British King that comes after the first two paragraphs, the king’s “transporting [American people] beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses” is also counted as one of the faults that justify the independence of America. Nevertheless, the Congress ceases (or should I say refuses?) to make accusation on Britain’s actions on slavery, which are the actions that are far more violent than sending innocent people beyond seas for trials and are indeed against the spirit of general equality. How come, and how can such sharp contradiction appear in the declaration of independence of a new nation? How does this deliberately-produced contradiction help us understand the character and mindsets of America, or more precisely, the American Empire?
About the debate between Edwards and Franklin, I would like to take away the religious part of Edwards' and add in the "put all the effort in" of Franklin's theory. Edwards goal was to convert people to Christianity by "terrifying" first then "comforting" after, as we've discussed in class. But what's the purpose of living and working if our lives are determined only by God's will? Indeed people are weak as we can see -- in the Financial Tsunami crisis or by Nature's destructive power -- both in our mental and physical toughness. Nonetheless, many people still lead their lives in the way they desire, in how much the effort they've put into their daily lives. Yes, we could be as good as we want to be, and this doesn't mean to acheive perfection, but to acheive one's self-satisfaction. (I believe that's what Franklin means.)
ReplyDeleteOverall, I'm not siding with either of them, but just would like to combine the best of them as my opinion.
This is Jane answering question no.38.
ReplyDeleteHamilton calls the United States an “empire” (347) when the new federal government was built. In my understanding, the core of the authority was shifting from the British government to the new American Constitution at that period of time. The Union is an empire, but an interesting one. Although America is no longer under the control of a far-distant administration, it remains some traits of a continuing empire. The new empire obtains a core of authority, distributes its power hierarchically and also makes the best interest to its own people…and so on so forth. However, different from the old British authority, the new government is set up to ensure certain human rights, including liberty, dignity and happiness. Hamilton is trying to convince the “supposed-to-be American citizens” (the New Yorkers) to accept the new Constitution, moreover, to join one part of the Union. The new government is facing a challenge that is to balance the idea of democracy and the existence of a union “with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made.”(347)
Hamilton believes that if Americans (not the Native Americans) cannot succeed in balancing such difficulty, the American democracy which they are endeavor for will failed.
Ideas like “striving for humans own right and believes that Americans should strive for themselves” makes me think of Franklin and his “The Way to Wealth.” Besides, statement like “Americans tries to win their own democracy and they are the model of the world” reminds me of John Winthrop. It is because Winthrop claims that “We shall be as a city upon a hill.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is Sherry responding to the question that whether we take sides with Edward or Franklin. Honestly speaking, I support Franklin more – human beings could be very kindhearted and selfless, if they truly wish to be. Nevertheless, I believe that such thing could only be done on the premise that people understand themselves clear enough and accept the fact with peace that human beings are creatures of limits, weakness and ignorance(which is Edward’s idea), but also possess the power to overcome such weaknesses. Only by understanding and accepting such fact could people start to forgive, treat each other and themselves with “maitri” (which is a word in梵 language), and then become more unfettered, more forgiving and get better day by day.
ReplyDeletePs. The points above, in fact, are not my self-developed ideas…I learned them from one of my favorite books. For better discussion on the subject and more accurate information, please refer to the book When Things Fall Apart, by Pema Chodron.
I agree with Edward's perspectives that "human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good". The ultimate goal that we long for achieving during the finite life is pursuing self-actualization, or some kinds of 'perfection'. The reason for us to do so is that we recognize that 'we are not good enough'. And as the life goes on, we find out that sonetimes although we have already do our best toward something that we really want to improve, we still can not get the good result. Therefore, it is not entirely true that as Franklin said that "they can make themselves as good as they want to be". I think it is just because we are unable to be 'entirely good' so that we keep challenging ousrselves when we tend to make us 'better'. Think about: if we can make ourselves as good as we want to be, then there will be no 'loser' in the world.
ReplyDeleteHere is Letitia Chen
ReplyDeleteI agree that human can never be perfect, because there is no perfection in the real world. Nevertheless, everyone can try their best to be a good person. Some people are more determined and perseverant, so they can conquer the nature weakness or flaws of human beings. Some have weak personalities, so they are more easily to surrender to the bad ideas of their minds.
Here is my question:
After reading Thomas Paine’s work, I see that he is very aggressive and passionate rebel. However, I am interested in his rebel view against traditional Christianity.
In his The Crisis, he still mentions God. He accuses the Britain misuses the power which belongs only God. What is the Paine’s definition or explanation of the word ‘God’ here? I suppose that is not the same with the meaning and definition of Edwards’. Does Paine mean Justice? Or Destiny or Opportunity ? And what is the difference between Paine and Franklin‘s ideologies of Christianity? To make my question easier: To Paine and to Franklin, the word ‘God’ means….??
This is Clara answering the question no.39.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinions, when Publius says the government should have "energy" or "efficiency" or "vigor", he may means that the government should have their function works in protecting people and keeping the country in order. To achieve these purposes, a government should have the rights on administration, legislation and judicature. In this case, all states have to diminish their political power, and summit to the principles of Constitution. If people can follow the same rules, the government would be able to carry out the new policy and ensure everything being controlled.
The negative word had been stated in the following lines, like “despotic”,” hostile to the principles of liberty”. I think that the opposition would also use”autocratic” and “over-controlled” to describe the oncoming government instead of those positive words. Generally, people would be afraid to surrender themselves to an unknown power, especially when they were just escaping from a tyranny. Just like a person have too much confidence would be arrogant, if a government have too much power would become dictatorship. This explanation may be declaimed by whom Publius had mentioned in the text: one is the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, the other one is the perverted ambition of another class of men who hope to aggrandize their power in the chaos of country.
About the question of human beings’ nature, it is hard to definite the meaning of “good person”. However, if people don’t have the potential for becoming better and better, why are there so many moral lessons and religions to teach people to be good? I believe that there are no person who born to be evil or good. We are born as a pure paper. And then the circumstances would influence the development of nature. Therefore, it is possible to make ourselves as good as we want to be.
This is Ken.
ReplyDeleteComparing Edward and Franklin’s point upon human beings, I think it can be broadly divided into two types: pessimistic and optimistic. In my opinion, I believe Franklin’s point that human beings can make themselves as good as they want to be. In my opinion, this “good” is flexible and modifiable (which differs from person to person.) Moreover, as Franklin’s thinking goes, I can see the lit of hope, which I am deeply convinced that can help people to keep sharpen and enhance themselves. I hardly can image that people are of Edward’s type, failing to believe that they can actually make themselves as good as they want to be, which seems to me as walking into a cul-de-sac.
This is Jenny, this is my version of answers for question 36.
ReplyDeleteIn the Jefferson’s introduction, it mentions that the Congress didn't agree on Jefferson’s statements for the slavery. For example, the Congress deleted the last paragraph which condemned the British's slavery trade on page 344. American is also one part of the evil slavery trade triangle. I think the Congress might also concern for the American workforce condition. Slavery might be one of American's important workforces at that time. Blaming British on this point is blaming themselves, too. This condemnation might cause American domestic problems. For the success of independence, it is important to gather American people together.
The Congress was also concerning for the relationship with the British. On page 342, the Congress replaced the word “expunge” with “alter.” I think the replacement soften the tone. The word “expunge” means to strike, blot out, erase, obliterate, efface, wipe out, or destroy. And the word “alter” means to change, become different, or modified.
The American must have close relationship with British on business or other industries. After their independence from Britain, this document would be preserved and remembered forever. As for the future harmonious relationship between each other, the Congress might think that it’s better not to offend and blame the British people too much. The paragraphs that were began with the singular pronoun “he” was not altered by the Congress in many of the content. The word “he” indicates only the king of the British, or the symbol of the British political system. The Congress summarized and simplified a paragraph on page 344 (he has incited treasonable…of our property) into the previous paragraph (he has [excited domestic insurrection…]).Yet, when it comes to the using of the plural pronoun “they” which includes all the British people in the action of depriving or harming American people, the Congress deleted most of the content or realistic details in these paragraphs, for example, the last long paragraph on page 345 (and when occasions have been…,and)
I still have a question that is difficult to explain…On page 343, the Congress deleted “our” in the sentence “He has made our judges dependent on his will alone….” Yet, I didn’t see any reason to delete this “our.” After deleted the indication word, it’s just like this sentence was wrote to blame the king make any judges, no matter on American, other British colonies, or their domestic problems. And this declaration of independence is for American only. The similar situation also happened on page 344 where the “state”(colonies) was mentioned.
Finally, I agree with Franklin. I believe that human can approach the goal of being good if he or she wants to. To deny human being’s possible goodness from the very beginning is unreasonable in my own opinion.
This is Tracy to answer the question about Franklin & Edwards.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I prefer Edwards’ thought to Franklin’s. I think Franklin’s idea is too idealistic to be true, even he himself says in his Autobiography :“on the whole, tho’ I never arrived at the Perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was by the Endeavor made a better and a happier Man than I otherwise should have been, if I had not attempted it.”I think the presumption that Franklin held an optimistic toward human beings is that they must obey the 13 virtues he listed in his Autobiography first. And then they can makes themselves good. On the contrary, Edwards’ thought is more realistic. Every man in the world makes mistakes, and I tihnk the human nature is easily tempted by something easy to do. And most of time, some of the things which are easy to do are bad things. I think that could be one of the reasons why Edwards had such powerful work like Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God in order to appall human beings.
I'm Vincent. In my opinion, I choose to believe there are some chances for people to shape themselves. I don't conceive lives as a path full of thorns and the destination as the door which has already been chosen and closed. Edward's point of view is so pessimistic and extreme that it simply distroys all the possibilities and declines all the good elements and qualities of human beings. Although I believe there is monstrous dark side in human's natural instincts, but Edward's desperate viewpoint still makes me easy to choose a side.
ReplyDeleteThis is also Tracy, and the following is my answer to the Question 40.
ReplyDeleteBefore answering the question, I think that it is important to clarify that the definition of the so-called“social organization,”because I do not quite understand what does it mean in the description. But if I only concentrate on the 4 authors we read this week, I think they all express some similar ideology that they try to reveal and clarify the“identity of American”or the“identity of America.”The most evident part is that they all want to promote some distinctions from the Britain or Europe, no matter their identities, the regime or the social system. For example, J. Hector St. John Crevecoeur says in his Letters from an American Farmer:“He[a poor European emigrant] is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.”and Crevecoeur also says in the same paragraph that“his country is now that which gives him the land, bread, protection, and consequence.”These sentences show that Crevecoeur had already the conception that people in America are aloof to the Britain.
As for the related question, I learned some basic background information about the Stamp Act of 1765 from the Wikipedia on the internet. The reason given by British government to enforce the act is that they hoped American colonies to partake in the economic expense during the Seven-year War to France. It says that“the novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament. Because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy, the Stamp Act was judged by the colonists to be the most dangerous.”I think the reason why there are different opinions to the act between British government and the American colonies is that they held different perspectives toward the act. The British government may think that because they spend so much on the war happened in America continent, the original American colonies shall contribute something back to the British government because the government do so many works to American colonies. (But I think the fallacy is that at the same time in some way the British also separate American colonies from themselves upon this issue.) As for the American colonies, they may think that since they are ruled by the British government, then why only them had to take the response to such expense rather than all people ruled by the British government. Therefore, I think even though before the time the Stamp Act of 1765 enacted, some British-American may have some ideas that they are distinct from the British, after this act enrage them( and apparently in American colonies’ point of view, they do not think the British takes them as equal as the resident in England), they began to have some anti-British thoughts in their mind. Furthermore, if we see this incident from the economic point of view, it is also inconvenient to the American colonies because costumers had to spend more in order to read published works. As a result, the Stamp Act of 1765 caused printers of newspapers and pamphlets to show an anti-British bias in the content they printed.
This is Rea. I’m ready to post a question here.
ReplyDeleteIn headnote it’s mentioned that “the first newspaper was appeared in 1704, and by the time of the Revolution there were almost fifty papers and forty magazines” (156). I wonder what the role of these media played during the not-mentioned 70 years. Who are the major audience of these media? How strong their voices were and what proportion of people in American at that time was literate? In my anticipation, there were little people who were literate; therefore, the media were, in some way, controlled by them. If this was true, was the outcome of the revolution truly “public”? I would like to know whether my theory is correct or not.
This is Teresa. Here is my question:
ReplyDeleteWe had learned a little about “American War of Independence” from our high school history course. This experience helped me a lot when I read “Imperial Politics.” On the top of page 156 has mentioned about the famous “Tea Party.” I am curious about “adopting Native American dress.” At first, I thought of the dress that Disney cartoon Pocahontas wears, and regard the “Native American dress” as “Indian’s traditional dress.” Later, another idea came to my mind. Western cultures, at that time, consider themselves are the superior one so they might not accept the traditional aboriginal’s clothes. I am interested in figuring out what kind of “Native American dress” they adopted. Furthermore, Tea Party is really a creative way of showing their protest a against British.
In “The Crisis, No. 1”, Paine mentions, “New England is not infested with tories, and we are.” (p. 335) And he also claim in the later part of the article that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states. (p. 336) So I wonder why the middle states have more tories than other provinces?
ReplyDeleteThis is Esther. The following is my answer of question no. 35
ReplyDeleteThe identical personality of being a revolutionary is that they have to possess a “silver tongue,” which includes convincible tone (to make people take their words), invigorated intonation (to inspire people who are in inferior position), and eloquence (to defeat opponents). Thomas Paine of course has it. He, to some aspects, uses his pen to stimulate the independence of America.
Che Guevara, another revolutionary of America (actually is South America and up to the whole world) after Thomas Paine for more than 150 years, whose “silver tongue” along with his revolutionary thoughts and behaviors shake the given imperialism we were accustomed for a long time. I once read a book of written records of Che Guevara’s sayings; many of them are much similar to what Thomas Paine has said. “I am an adventurer who will die for my ideal, maybe the end of my life is a sacrifice, which is not what I pursue but an inevitable situation. If one cannot face his death (in the form of sacrifice); then, one is nothing more than a politician” and “For success, first you should abandon everything” can echo to Paine’s saying of "the blood of his children will curse his cowardice who shrinks back."
However, the strategy Che Guevara uses on wording is much different form Paine. If we say “Paine’s great gift as a stylist was ‘plainness’ (Norton p. 325),”－ which here I would like to understand it as “his word choosing and speech tone are milder” than “what he says can be easily comprehend by all people even elders and children”－ Che Guevara’s will be radical and extreme. Che always mentioned brutal death of himself, violated revolution which in order to eliminate imperialism, and his “unique communism” which is different from others. He never says the imperialism is weak (at least never appeared in my book) as Paine says (every tory is a coward); he cautiously calls his opponent, the imperialism, a strong enemy who never rest. However, even though I only read those words once said from his mouth, the passionate and fervent feelings still surge me. Paine’s words otherwise don’t give me such feeling although they are also very inspired.
Perhaps it is because Paine is not that kind of person as Che who is always in the van of his men. What he has done more is sit behind the battlefront and use his pen to stimulate people to join the war.
This is Zoe. My opinion on whether human beings are "never entirely good" or "can be as good as they want" is that both can exist in the society of human kind. There is similar composition of whether man is bad or good from the beginning in ancient China and interesting theories went on at that time. To me, I think every person is unique. Some people are just angle-like from the bottom of his/her heart; Some people are devil before they're born. And still some may be good at times but devil at another side. There are all kinds of possibility, and therefore I cannot entirely agree with Edwards nor Franklin.
ReplyDeleteThis is Sydney, and here’s my answer to question 33:
ReplyDeleteI think both Crevecoeur and Cooke appreciate the unmixed Englishmen, as Crevecoeur mentions their merits and achievements on page 311. Also both of Crevecoeur and Cooke’s descriptions show some kind of barbarity, as when Crevecoeur says the settlers who live on the western frontier are "no better than carnivorous animals." However, unlike the totally opposition to the American settlers’ life showed in Cooke’s poem, the unpleasant condition showed by Crevecoeur is only associated with those last settlers dwelling in the frontier. And it is because they have not yet really settle down that they have to face these chaos and difficulty. In fact, he gives more about the promising prospects of the hybrid Americans in the text. Because of the mixture of blood, Americans don’t belong to any other countries, thus they can get rid of the ancient burden which carried by their ancestors from different countries. Therefore, Americans can develop their own new culture, struggle for and win their own equality and wealth. From this perspective, the American hybrid has more advantages than those purebred.
And for question of Edward and Franklin:
I agree with Edward’s idea that human beings are weak and therefore never entirely good. Because I think it is impossible for human beings to achieve “entirely good.” As I believe that every one is selfish. No matter what people done, there’s always some degree of concern for themselves. “A perfect person” is no longer a “person” but a god. Everyone has his defect. And some defects can’t never be overcome through effort.
About the ideas of Edward and Franklin, I agree with Franklins's more. I think Edward's idea about the wealness of people is right. However, as Franklin believe, people can try to be good. As Franklin believe, education can play an important role for all human beings. I believe people are natually good. Though it is defficult to reach the perfection, people still can do hard to be as good as they wish.
ReplyDeleteAnswer for Question 31:
ReplyDeleteThe prerequisite is as the text book has pointed out that the British-American settlers were testing the limits of British rule. There must had been estimated danger coming with such move, and of course the British-American settlers couldn’t risk huge danger before making sure how great their political force and the British’s could be. Any misstep would easily destroy their sprouting revolution. Therefore, they disguised as Native Americans to have a specific victim for the “Boston Tea Party,” for the settlers’ power were too weak to be killed but the aboriginals’ were already killed. It’s always easier to renew one life than to live a difficult life so that might not be hard to see that the settlers had a wonderful reason to disguise: it’s the settlers really matter because they were the key point to better protection of the native Americans, and so they themselves had to be protected beforehand, and in conclusion it’s for the pursuing of loving mankind.
As for the side question I am a little bit confused exactly, but I can understand such usage of the words “aboriginals,” “Native Americans” and “Indians” because simply in Taiwan there has been many in Chinese words referring to the aboriginals. Like “山地人,” “原住民,” and “高山族.” Maybe our classmates can help explain their meanings in class : )
In "Pursuing Happiness", it mentions that in America, due to the lack of feudal hierarchy, social change can happen without social upheaval. However, I am wondering, how about the slaves? In the essay, it also mentions that at that time even people who play important role in the nation founding have slaves, for instance, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So for the slaves, is it really possible or is there any chance for them to get out of the situation without any fierce actions?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Aaron, actually my name is Qian-Yu. If you like to call my family name then it should be Hsu. But I think you can call me Qian-Yu in class.