Simplicity

   Thoreau seems to place emphasis on the individual and his or her ability to sort life out without the "limiting" advice of elders. Each person is different and, therefore, the life of each person will be different with unique failures and successes. Life, to Thoreau, is an experiment and to live in fear of this uncertainty and change is to not quite live at all. He mourns that the individual is entrapped in his work, becoming little more than a machine. " The finest qualities of our nature, like the blooms on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly" (p.846).
   Why does this occur? It seems that Thoreau makes a connection between the nearly feverish life of trying to accumulate material goods in life and the degrading of human life itself. People seek out material riches when the real wealth is to be found in contemplation and a simple lifestyle. People desperately try to keep up with the latest fashions, although everyone realizes fashions fade quickly and has certainly laughed at something that was once highly stylish (Think yearbooks from the 1980s and early 90s). In reference to this desire for the latest style, Thoreau refers to people as a "herd", diligently following the "luxiourious and dissipated" (p. 863). This life of chasing material wealth makes humans no better than cows, an idea very similar to Aristotle who considered a life of pleasure-seeking to be the lowest form of life: the life of cattle. This plays out in housing as well. Houses are no longer for shelter, but for fashion and are continually being made bigger and more stylish, chaining their residents to years of debt and slavery to their own work; the house owns the person instead of the other way around. 
   To Thoreau, this cuts humans off from true humanity; human spirit is stifled and enslaved. Freedom is found in a simple life connected with nature. He seems to be calling people back to a more natural, almost organic way of living and hints that this is the life of the philosopher. Clothing should be simple, durable, and practical, fulfilling its actual purpose of keeping the body warm or protected. It should also be limited so that, if one had to flee with only the clothes on his or her back, one would not need be concerned about the excess of things left behind. Housing should do the same; it does not need to be extravagant. As far as food goes, the best can be plucked off trees or dug up from the ground. Through this, Thoreau suggests, man will be free.

Good Morning, America!

   I thoroughly enjoyed "Rip Van Winkle". I remember watching the Wishbone episode when I was a kid, but the only bit that really stuck with me seems to be the giants playing nine-pins and Wishbone with a long, grey beard. Goofy. Wishbone seems to have watered down the story a bit. "Rip Van Winkle" partially reads like a grandpa should be telling it, with the speaker insisting of the accuracy and legitimacy of the tale yet knowing it's not quite believable. It's full of sarcasm, wit and clever insults; I chuckled at almost anything to do with Rip's wife and especially at her cause of death. The Romantic influence is obvious in the nearly magical descriptions of the landscape. Between Hendrick Hudson and his men and Rip himself, the story is kind of a folk tale within a folk tale. It was a great fiction break from the heavy reading we've been doing in this class and in other classes.
   On the other hand, Rip has a deeper side to it that Wishbone didn't even touch. Irving is wrestling through the changes in America and the nature of American identity and commenting on roles and relationships between men and women Rip wakes up after 20 years not as a colonist, but as an American. Who needs morning coffee with that kind of shock? (I would, actually, but that's irrelevant). Instead of sleepy, easy-going colonists dissecting three-month-old news, Rip finds his fellow-villagers to be bustling, busy, anti-Tory, politically minded Americans. Interestingly enough, although identity as a whole had changed and had made changes in every day life, Rip is still largely unchanged. Individual vs society as a whole mentality perhaps?  

Resistance and Removal

  For the lit circles, I read a section on the resistance and removal of Native American tribes from their historical homelands to land designated for them by the American government during the 1800s. Expanding America desired more territory and, through some potentially questionable treaties with the Native Americans, the government acquired Native lands. Some (very unpopular) Native leaders such as Elias Boudinot signed off on said treaties; others, like Black Hawk, insisted that the Native peoples were unaware of the implications of such agreements. The selections were more politically focused and persuasive in nature than I expected. I had assumed there would be at least one personal account of forced relocation or something similar, but, alas, there were none. At any rate, the selections were still interesting.
  The method of persuasion varied by writer. The language and phrasing used by Black Hawk showed a good grasp on the English language but the writing was also a little awkward and less "flowery" than other texts from the section where the speaker or writer was more integrated into the white American culture. Black Hawk lists the injustices done to the Native Americans and explains how the government used trickery to obtain signatures for the land treaty. He speaks of his struggle to keep peace and point to a generally quiet response on the part of the Native Americans and demands justice be done. 
  The Pawnee Chief sought to hang on to his culture and ancestral land; this came through strongly in his method of persuasion. He establishes a kind of equality between the Natives and the white people by claiming that the Great Spirit made both peoples and intended their differences (Winthrop anyone?). He then says that the white people have only made the Natives discontent and done more harm than good; the Pawnee chief basically tells the white people to mind their own business and leave the Natives to their intended life. I was particularly interested in the speech given by the Pawnee Loup Chief. He speaks of his concern for the unprotected solitary white people among the Natives, claiming deep love for the white people, and suggests that he won't be able to restrain his bold and blood-lusting young men. While the speech is set up as a warning out of loving concern, it reads like a very clever threat.
  Elias Boundinot was educated in the white community, which comes through in his method of appeal and his fluent writing. He points to the United States as benevolent benefactors of the Native peoples, playing on flattery. He suggests that the Native community is becoming "civilized" and "Christianized" under the influence of the United States and suggests that the Native Americans could continue their improvement best in their own lands. The Cherokee Council's memorial uses notes of the Declaration of Independence as part of their persuasion technique along with an appeal to the United States as benefactor and teacher of the Native peoples that is similar to Boundinot's.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was not of the Native American peoples, spoke up on behalf of the Native Americans and against the injustices done against them. Emerson points to the disconnect between the freedom and justice ideals of the American people and the oppression and injustice occurring against the Native peoples. Emerson suggests that the United States is acting as the true savage in this situation. He uses a lot of powerful language: "hitherto, the sweet omen of religion and liberty, will stink to the world" (pg. 587) "the millions of virtuous citizens, whose agents the Government are, have no place to interpose, and must shut their eyes until the last howl and wailing of these poor tormented villages and tribes shall afflict the ear of the world."
 

Adams and Adams

   I thoroughly enjoyed reading the letters between John and Abigail Adams. The letters present a marriage that seems very strong, especially in the face of a lot of distance and time apart. John speaks to Abigail as a friend, confidant, and, as far as I can tell, an equal. She seems to be a brilliant and strong woman as she supports John and makes sacrifices for the country by taking care of all matters at home alone. I enjoyed the other glimpses into their family such as Abigail referring to herself as John's Portia and to John as her "dearest Friend" and both of them calling their children their "little flock" and "the little folks". It was interesting to see such a personal side to someone I only think of in terms of the history of the American Revolution.
   The letters also worked as sort of a time-machine (or time-traveling car, if you will) and allowed me to glimpse life in the time period surrounding the American Revolution. Abigail and John's writing present the hopes and fears of the people of a baby country, struggling to make their next move. Life in the political realm was consumed with a failed attempt to take Canada and getting the major figures of the country on board with independence. Private life was equally concerned with this and fighting disease that apparently was running rampant through the colonies. There are hints of Enlightenment ideals and of prejudice in favor of New England and pure English blood. I think it's easy to turn historical figures into vocab words out of a text book when, really, they were thinking, feeling, and flawed human beings.
  Random final thought: John's statements about the Declaration of Independence on page 305 amused me. He laid out a good ol' American 4th of July pretty accurately.