Why does Linda get so upset when her daughter is given a gold necklace to wear? What is she comparing that act to? Do you agree with the comparison
Linda is upset by this gold chain/necklace because to her it represents the chains of slavery. Even if the chain is of gold she doesn’t want her daughter to be in the chains of slavery. She describes slavery as an iron chain that enters the soul and no matter how nice the chains are life just isn’t worth it if you’re bound by slavery.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
dangerous love
Linda says that love is dangerous in slavery. Do you agree why or why not.
I feel that love in general is dangerous because at any time the other person could break your heart, but I feel that it is more dangerous in slavery because at any moment the person you love could be taken away. You have no control over what happens and you have no way of protecting the one you love. They could be whipped or tortured and all you can do is stand by and watch, or one day you could be with them and the next, they would be up on the auction block or being sold somewhere far away. In a slaves life nothing is permenant except the pain they feel, at any moment something you hold dear could be snatched away never to be seen again, and I think this is the point Linda is trying to make when she says love is dangerous.
I feel that love in general is dangerous because at any time the other person could break your heart, but I feel that it is more dangerous in slavery because at any moment the person you love could be taken away. You have no control over what happens and you have no way of protecting the one you love. They could be whipped or tortured and all you can do is stand by and watch, or one day you could be with them and the next, they would be up on the auction block or being sold somewhere far away. In a slaves life nothing is permenant except the pain they feel, at any moment something you hold dear could be snatched away never to be seen again, and I think this is the point Linda is trying to make when she says love is dangerous.
Jefferson=Hypocrite
This essay presents a much different side to Jefferson than the man who helped write the Declaration of Independence. How can one person hold such conflicting opinions?
Jefferson views African-Americans as inferior to whites, he seems to view them almost as though they were animals. He says that slaves should gradually be freed but when they are free they should have to leave and go off some where away from the whites. Jefferson believes that when freed they should be sent away to form their own colonies in order to prevent racial disagreements and mixing of the races. To me it would seem that Jefferson is a hypocrite because he’s going on about not mixing the races, when he in fact had an affair with a black woman. He’s trying to set this moral standard and ideas when in fact he himself is not following any of these rules. He seems to be nothing more than a hypocrite trying to appeal to society.
Jefferson views African-Americans as inferior to whites, he seems to view them almost as though they were animals. He says that slaves should gradually be freed but when they are free they should have to leave and go off some where away from the whites. Jefferson believes that when freed they should be sent away to form their own colonies in order to prevent racial disagreements and mixing of the races. To me it would seem that Jefferson is a hypocrite because he’s going on about not mixing the races, when he in fact had an affair with a black woman. He’s trying to set this moral standard and ideas when in fact he himself is not following any of these rules. He seems to be nothing more than a hypocrite trying to appeal to society.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Title
Wy is it important that this book is truth, not fiction? Why is it important that the editor didn't clean it up, either in terms of language or content?
I feel that it is important that the book is real (truth) rather than fiction, otherwise it could seem false unrealistic and over exaggerated, and when your discussing such an important and controvesial subject such as slavery it is important for all the facts and events to be presented in a real and believable way. I also feel its important that the editor did not clean up the book in terms of language and content, because slavery is a terrible thing and that's what the book is trying to show. So by cleaning up the language and content the book would have become less realistic and it wouldn't have adequately shown how horrible slavery is.
I feel that it is important that the book is real (truth) rather than fiction, otherwise it could seem false unrealistic and over exaggerated, and when your discussing such an important and controvesial subject such as slavery it is important for all the facts and events to be presented in a real and believable way. I also feel its important that the editor did not clean up the book in terms of language and content, because slavery is a terrible thing and that's what the book is trying to show. So by cleaning up the language and content the book would have become less realistic and it wouldn't have adequately shown how horrible slavery is.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Decleration, hmmm... interesting
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well all that sounds quite nice, but is that really how things went back then and even today. All "Men" are created equal, well if you ask me that certaintly wasn't true. How can congress, most of which were wealthy white males, who owned slaves, claim that all men are created equal when they themselves arn't treating everyone equally. There were no African-americans or Native Americans in Congress. Why? Because the majority of white males considered them to be inferior. You'll also notice that their were no women in political scociety. Women were also considered inferior, their job was to stay at home, do the house work and support their husbands in their pursuit of happiness. Essentially the purpose of woman during this time was to be seen and not heard. Both women and slaves had these unalienable rights taken from them. They didn't have liberty, and they wern't allowed to pursue their own happiness.
It would seem to me that perhaps the founding fathers were living in some sort of fantasy world that not even they could live up to. They over looked the wrongs that they were commiting and wrote up this document as a way to protect their rites, not to give rites to others.
Well all that sounds quite nice, but is that really how things went back then and even today. All "Men" are created equal, well if you ask me that certaintly wasn't true. How can congress, most of which were wealthy white males, who owned slaves, claim that all men are created equal when they themselves arn't treating everyone equally. There were no African-americans or Native Americans in Congress. Why? Because the majority of white males considered them to be inferior. You'll also notice that their were no women in political scociety. Women were also considered inferior, their job was to stay at home, do the house work and support their husbands in their pursuit of happiness. Essentially the purpose of woman during this time was to be seen and not heard. Both women and slaves had these unalienable rights taken from them. They didn't have liberty, and they wern't allowed to pursue their own happiness.
It would seem to me that perhaps the founding fathers were living in some sort of fantasy world that not even they could live up to. They over looked the wrongs that they were commiting and wrote up this document as a way to protect their rites, not to give rites to others.
Paine and Panic
Paine says that ‘panics can produce as much good as hurt.’ What does he mean by this? Do you agree?
I agree with this statement. To me it seems to mean, that panic can be good but it does have a bad size. Panic can create unity amongst people and give them a drive to achieve a goal, however at the same time it could split people up and cause extreme disorganisation. It also has the capability to shatter a drive for a goal, panic can cause depression and depression can efectively destroy an effort.
I agree with this statement. To me it seems to mean, that panic can be good but it does have a bad size. Panic can create unity amongst people and give them a drive to achieve a goal, however at the same time it could split people up and cause extreme disorganisation. It also has the capability to shatter a drive for a goal, panic can cause depression and depression can efectively destroy an effort.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God-wtf-they were way to strict
In Jonathan Edwards famous speech sinners in the hands of an angry God, he is painting for us the image of the early Puritan beliefs. Basically they believed that they were all doomed to go to hell. That the day you're born you're basically doomed, but if you lived a good life just maybe, maybe (not even like a 1% chance), but maybe God will change his mind and let you go to heaven, but if someone was to put it into words like that then it was considered heracey. During this time, the colonies were pretty close knitt and there was really no room for disagreement, unless you wanted to be banished from your colony or tried for being a witch. In the case of Anne Hutchinson, she was banished for believing in spiritualism, that God can speak directly to someone without needing a minister or priest to interpret. So most of the colonist, Puritans included, weren't very tolerant. You either follow the beliefs of the colony exactly or you get out. There was no room for the slightest bit of differance, the Puritans especially were socially repressive, if you didn't believe exactly what was being preached to you, then you just had to deal with it and keep it to yourself if you wanted to stay in the colony. It was like super clique to the extream, if you wern't exactly the same as everyone else than you're just not allowed in the group and you have to go find another one that'l take you. Kind of sad really.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Elaborate on Class disscusion
I did find todays class discussion to be quite fascinating, because I had not looked at the book from that point of view. Gatsby=Gun (Gatsby gets shot), none of the love is real (symbolizing how they only focused on their material possesions and therefore could not know true/real love).
I think that todays disscusion brought out a much deeper meaning of the book. Now that we know this we can percieve the book differently all that was in doubt has now hopefully for most been cleared up.
The main Themes of the book, The Green Light, Love, Class, God/religion, they all tie together now in a much deeper way than before. Overall I think this was a very good book, with many controversial issuse and morals, which in the end made for a very interesting story.
I think that todays disscusion brought out a much deeper meaning of the book. Now that we know this we can percieve the book differently all that was in doubt has now hopefully for most been cleared up.
The main Themes of the book, The Green Light, Love, Class, God/religion, they all tie together now in a much deeper way than before. Overall I think this was a very good book, with many controversial issuse and morals, which in the end made for a very interesting story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
