http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/activities/architecture/index.html
http://architecture.about.com/od/housestyles/ig/Colonial-and-Federal/
Pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Turck_House.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hartford_Residence,_Bridgton,_ME.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Parlange_Plantation%2C_State_Highway_93%2C_New_Roads_vicinity_%28Pointe_Coupee_Parish%2C_Louisiana%29.jpg
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Architecture: New England Colonial
This style of architecture was popular from the founding of the first colonies up until the mid-18th century, mostly in New England. They were influenced strongly by the design of English cottages, which many of the colonists were familiar with. Most of these houses were strictly functional; they were built for security from both enemies and the weather. They had a central chimney which warmed the entire building, which was usually only one room deep and two across, the hall and the parlour. Rooms upsatirs typically weren't heated, so they were used mainly in the summer and for storage. There was nothing fancy about the steep, gabled roofs, clapboard fronts, and heavy doors, mainly because the colonists were concerned more with usefulness than embelishment and symmetry during this period.
Architecture: Colonial Cape Cod
This style of architecture was also popular in the 17th and 18th centuries, meaning that, although it was not the predominant architectural style being used at the time of the Revolution, it was common among houses built in the centuries leading up to it, for the most part in New England. They were based off of the New England Colonial style, but adapted to better suit America. These houses were usually 1.5 stories, with the common hall/parlour layout. They typically had clapboards on the exterior, hardwood floors, and shutters on the paned windows. These houses were more symmetrical than the New England Colonial houses, though they typically had the same gabled roof.
Architecture: German Colonial
This style was popular from the 17th to 19th centuries in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and surrounding areas, places with many northern European immigrants. These houses typically had thick, sandstone walls with wood framing insted of completely wood walls. There were arches over the windows and doors on the first floor, unlike both the New England Colonial and the Cape Cod styles. This style of architecture also included massive chimneys.
Architecture: Dutch Colonial
New York was the main region for this type of architecture, which was popular from the 17th to 19th centuries. Brick was the typical material used for Dutch Colonial buildings. The roofs of these buildings were usually gambrel and/or had wide, flared eaves, often said to look like a barn because of this. Like Goergian buildings, there were usually chimneys on either side of the building.
Architecture: French Colonial
French Colonial Architecture, for the most part, was not found in the thirteen colonies.* It was more typically found in Quebec, down the Mississippi River valley, and in Louisiana. It was popular during the 18th and 19th centuries. The further south the building was, the more is typically exemplified this style. The house would usually be raised above ground level, due to the rivers and marshes in the area. It would have a wood frame with brick or mud mixed with animan hair composing the walls. There were usually wide porched which doubled as hallways connecting rooms and often included French doors. Roofs could be either gabled or hipped.
*Spanish Colonial Architecture was not found in the original thirteen colonies either, but in the Southwest. However, French Colonial Architecture was much closer which is why it is included in this series of posts by me while Spanish Colonial is not.
Architecture: Georgian Colonial
This architectural style was named for King Georges and was popular throughout the thirteen colonies, mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries. Most Georgian style houses were symmetrical one or two story buildings that were two rooms deep. Traditionally, they have symmetrical paned windows as well, five across and two vertically, with the door in the center of the bottom row. The door would usually be panalled with mock-pillars on either side of it supporting a “simplified entablature” above the door, whitch would often be very detailed. Most of the houses were covered in clapboard, which would be painted if the colonist who owned the house in question was of the wealthier variety. There would either be two chimmenys located on both sides of the roof, symmetrically of course, or a single chimmeny in the center of the roof, like earlier styles. The inspiration for this style of home was obtained from the British, who had in turn obtained it from the Greeks and Romans (hence the fake columns).
Architecture: Federal
Federal Architecture began to develop just after the Revolution. It was the first architectural style that actually originated in the colonies which were by this time the United States. Thomas Jefferson contributed greatly to its development, being an accomplished architect. Much inspiration, such as the columns as well as many of the details, was drawn from the ancient Greeks and Romans, whose republics had been the inspiration for many of the principles on which the new country was founded. Americans liked to identify themselves with these ancient peoples, and one method of doing so was imitating their architecture. However, some inspration came from England as well, where the Adams brothers were already using many of the features used on Federal homes on new Georgian homes. Some distinguishing charictaristics include the Palladian window (large window flanked by two smaller ones, usually above the door), circular and elliptical windows, , oval rooms (like the oval office), arches, narrow windows on either side of the door, a half-circle fanight above the front door, shutters, symmetrical windows, a shallow roof, and carved swags. This style's main difference from Georgian Colonial is it's use of circles and arches.
This particular house has many Federal characteristics, but it is also missing some such as the Palladian window and windows by the door. This is because it was one of the earliest Federal structures and still strongly resembled a Georgian structure.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Great Awakening: The Separation of Church and State
The Great Awakening was an intense religious revival that occured in the 1730s and 1740s. It took place in Colonial America, originating from a town named Northhampton, in Massachusetts. This was the home of the preacher Jonathan Edwards, author of the famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Edwards believed that we were all vile sinners and the mercy of God, who "abhors you," was the only thing saving us from the fires of eternal damnation. As you can imagine, this had a great effect on the colonists of America, whose spiritual vitality had been decreasing constantly over the past century. As apposed to Edwards, the parson George Whitefield used his harmonious voice to enthrall colonists, reportedly able to make people cry with but a single word. Whitefield preached of our helplessness and how only the all powerful God could save us. Between the two of them, as well as countless imitators, these preachers were able to move thousands and thousands of colonists to intense spiritual conversion. For the first time, religion became something that occured inside a person's heart instead of inside a church.
As religion grew to be a more personal experience, colonists began to resent state controlled churches. Religion in the colonies was consistantly becoming less denominational. The number of colonists actually attending church shrunk dramatically, a number which was already low. When orthodox clergymen, or "old lights," didn't approve of the personal, emotional spirituality that the Great Awakening was envoking, many members of Congregational and Presbyterian denominations simply left for other smaller, more open ones. The "old lights" and the "new lights" disagreed on many issues, causing two of the major denominations to become divided, furthering the fragmentation of the policy of established religion. As religion became an emotional, personal experience instead of a communal one, places like Rhode Island, which did not have an established church, probably seemed more inviting to many colonists. They didn't want to have to pay for something that wasnt benefiting them. In this period just before the revolution, separation of church and state became a more and more inviting policy. In fact, by the late 1780's, all of the middle and southern colonies had disestablished their previously established churches (New England colonies following suit within 50 years).
The deep emotionalism of the Great Awakening caused religion to have a very awkward, infringing position in the state. People wanted the government to have less and less to do with what they believed, and as this became the widespread opinion, separation of Church and State became a reality.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
American Landscape
These landscapes represent my idea of America. The are all memorable, but extremely different. American landscapes, like the poeple who occupy them, are crazily diverse. Different beliefs, languages, ethnicities, religions, appearences, and homes. But they all share the fact that they lave in America. When I was looking for pictures to post, I realized that I didn't really think of any single thing when I thought "America." So , thay is exactly what I posted. All 3 pictures are very different parts of America, but that doesn't change the fact that they are all completely American landscapes.Thursday, August 5, 2010
Excuse the Odd Numbering
Excuse the odd numbering... My blog seems to be a bit confused. On the time as well... :)
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Mayflower Questions
(1) What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?
The Pilgrims had some unusual traits as a community, due to the fact that their society was based on their religion rather than some form of government. They banded together, trying to escape persecution in England. This made them a very tight-knit group, very loyal to one another. This allowed them to work together well, which would become necessary for their survival in the hard years ahead. For one thing, when people were getting sick and dying left and right that first winter, the healthy people risked their own health and devoted themselves to caring for the sickly. If they had not done so, there may have been no Plymouth colony come spring. However, this tight community did present some problems. Some people, notably the Separatists, did not think that the Pilgrims rules and beliefs were correct. This dissention caused some tension between settlers. For although the Pilgrims had left England to escape religious oppression, that seemed to be exactly what they were imposing on the non-Puritans that joined their community.
(3) Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?
In all honesty, a story about some rugged Puritans, lost, confused, and dying doesn’t seem like as good of an icon for America as the classic images. No one wants to hear “America began with the Pilgrims choosing to land at Plymouth because they couldn’t get to where they were supposed to be. They stole corn from the natives, and in fact, that is probably the only reason they survived. Even so, they nearly all died from sickness and lack of food.” No, people want ancestors that they can be proud of. So instead of the truth, we hear stories If the Pilgrims triumphantly stepping out onto Plymouth rock, immediately befriending the Native Americans, and despite a hard winter (where no one seems to die), they have plenty of food come fall and go on to happily form the USA. I think America prefers the hokey story because we all like to think that we had noble beginnings. Dont we?
(4) The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?
Rumors were circulating that Massasoit’s son Alexander was thinking of teaming up with the Narragansetts against the Pilgrims. Fearful of attack, the Pilgrims asked him to come to court, which he failed to do. Winslow brought Alexander to court by force, angering many Natives. The real tension began when, a week later, Alexander died, supposedly poisoned. Many Natives, including Alexander’s younger brother Philip suspected Winslow. This put serious strain on the bond that Plymouth colony had with the Native Americans. An unfair trial a short while later was the last straw. Both sides knew war was coming (even though neither wanted it). Despite Philips deep reluctance to fight and constant postponement of the conflict, war was, at this point, inevitable unless one side would step up and make peace. But, of course, neither did.
(5) Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?
Squanto, despite common belief, was a very manipulative, power hungry guy. Squanto was one of the only people in all on New England to know both English and the Natives’ language, and certainly the most competent when the Pilgrims arrived. This gave him a powerful position. HE could spread rumors with no one to contradict him. For instance, he told the natives that the English kept the plague in barrels and would release it on the Natives if they didn’t do what the English said. However, it is a possibility that if he hadn’t manipulated Massasoit to fear the English, they wouldn’t have given Plymouth assistance, and without the Natives assistance, Plymouth almost certainly would not have survived the first winter.
(6) The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?
The Pilgrims were a “strange vine.” They didn’t conform to the expected religion in England, and travelled across an entire ocean just to gain their religious freedom. Their religious fervor was essential to their survival and to their community. The Pilgrim’s children lacked this fervor. They didn’t have the same close-knit community that their parents had, and they knew it. They hadn’t known what religious persecution had been like. It wasn’t a main part of their likes. Survival, however, was. It is possible that they didn’t see as strong a connection between surviving and religion as their parents did. With less importance placed on religion and being criticized for it, it is possible that the Pilgrims children simply accepted that fact and moved on to survive the best way they knew how.
(8) Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
Popular culture usually fails to integrate the fact that natives aren’t one bug group. They have separate communities, allies, and enemies. In moves it is usually “Indians vs. English” which was never really completely the case. They also were not as savage (or as peaceful) as some would like us to believe. They were peaceful, but grew aggressive when threatened or worried, just like anyone else would be. However, some traits, like the ability to move through the forest safely and quickly, skilled hunting, and resourcefulness are all true. In fact they were probably even cleverer than most people realize. Stories of how they helped the English fight display their resourcefulness and quick thinking.
(9) In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?
To me, the person that seems the most heroic is Benjamin Church. Aside from the bravery and wit he portrays (possibly because much of the information Philbrick had on him was written by Church himself), he does several things which raise him above the others as a hero. First of all, he is willing to work with Natives. He was smart enough to know that they needed help and humble enough to ask for it. Most of the English were utterly opposed to this idea because they believes that there could be no good American Indians. But Church knew what was best and stood by that. Finally, when he did get his troop of Native warriors, he bravely led them to countless victories.
(10) As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?
Because the English refused to accept that not all the Natives were out to kill them all, they (aside from Church) strongly rejected any Native assistance in the war. Not only did they reject assistance, they attacked neutral tribes. The most devastating instance of this was when the English attacked the Narragansetts’ fort that was built purely for self-defense. If they hadn’t been so blind to the fact that all Natives didn’t think alike, they might have prevented the Narragansetts from becoming their enemy. Who knows, they may have even been able to convince them to become allies.
(11) During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
Well, as question 10 pointed out, the Natives were not one group. Therefore, they are not really being treacherous, as they weren’t taking up arms against their own people. A good amount of the Natives that sided with the English were already enemies with Philip or other tribes that were fighting against the English. In these cases, they were definitely being opportunistic. They saw a way to eliminate their enemies, and if it meant fighting with the English, so be it. There were a lot of Natives that seemed to be perfectly willing to lead the English to the rest of their people when they were captured or had deserted. Those do seem a bit treacherous, but I can’t really blame them. I think that a majority of people would in that situation (even if they don’t think so at the moment). What side I would have taken in by chance I was a Native American living in New England at this time would probably depend on my tribe's relations with the English. I wouldn't go against my tribe. Now if I was the leader :) who knows? If the English had been nothing but kind to me, I may join them. It would also depend on my relationship with other tribes, though. Then again, who really knows until you are put into that situation? (which I hope that I am not any time soon) I don't think that I would choose based only on English vs. Natives though. I would consider all of the factors.
(12)Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?
Neither side truly could. Although the English would definitely try, based on claims of Christianity and higher education, in reality, they didn’t have a good argument. Many of the Natives had the exact same education as the English, and oftentimes treated their captives with more civility than the English would, as the account of Mary Rowlandson shows.
(15) One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?
He doesn’t explicitly state any moral lessons, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. I do believe that he did an excellent job of not taking sides. I think that it is inevitable that the reader will empathize more with the English, not only because we are more familiar with the lifestyles of the English, but also because there was simply more accounts written by the English than the Natives. Despite these obstacles, Philbrick made the reader see through the Native Americans eyes and want them to be okay, to keep their land and their culture. I think that Philbrick is teaching us moral lessons simply by the way he tells the saga of the Natives and the English in New England. He makes it clear that if one side had been more humble, open minded, or forgiving at several points in the war, or even before the war, some sort of peace could have been established. Even if Philbrick didn't want to teach us these lessons, they are there, written in history. I think that we would all be better off if we learned them. Even if the fate of New England isn't at stake here.
The Pilgrims had some unusual traits as a community, due to the fact that their society was based on their religion rather than some form of government. They banded together, trying to escape persecution in England. This made them a very tight-knit group, very loyal to one another. This allowed them to work together well, which would become necessary for their survival in the hard years ahead. For one thing, when people were getting sick and dying left and right that first winter, the healthy people risked their own health and devoted themselves to caring for the sickly. If they had not done so, there may have been no Plymouth colony come spring. However, this tight community did present some problems. Some people, notably the Separatists, did not think that the Pilgrims rules and beliefs were correct. This dissention caused some tension between settlers. For although the Pilgrims had left England to escape religious oppression, that seemed to be exactly what they were imposing on the non-Puritans that joined their community.
(3) Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?
In all honesty, a story about some rugged Puritans, lost, confused, and dying doesn’t seem like as good of an icon for America as the classic images. No one wants to hear “America began with the Pilgrims choosing to land at Plymouth because they couldn’t get to where they were supposed to be. They stole corn from the natives, and in fact, that is probably the only reason they survived. Even so, they nearly all died from sickness and lack of food.” No, people want ancestors that they can be proud of. So instead of the truth, we hear stories If the Pilgrims triumphantly stepping out onto Plymouth rock, immediately befriending the Native Americans, and despite a hard winter (where no one seems to die), they have plenty of food come fall and go on to happily form the USA. I think America prefers the hokey story because we all like to think that we had noble beginnings. Dont we?
(4) The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?
Rumors were circulating that Massasoit’s son Alexander was thinking of teaming up with the Narragansetts against the Pilgrims. Fearful of attack, the Pilgrims asked him to come to court, which he failed to do. Winslow brought Alexander to court by force, angering many Natives. The real tension began when, a week later, Alexander died, supposedly poisoned. Many Natives, including Alexander’s younger brother Philip suspected Winslow. This put serious strain on the bond that Plymouth colony had with the Native Americans. An unfair trial a short while later was the last straw. Both sides knew war was coming (even though neither wanted it). Despite Philips deep reluctance to fight and constant postponement of the conflict, war was, at this point, inevitable unless one side would step up and make peace. But, of course, neither did.
(5) Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?
Squanto, despite common belief, was a very manipulative, power hungry guy. Squanto was one of the only people in all on New England to know both English and the Natives’ language, and certainly the most competent when the Pilgrims arrived. This gave him a powerful position. HE could spread rumors with no one to contradict him. For instance, he told the natives that the English kept the plague in barrels and would release it on the Natives if they didn’t do what the English said. However, it is a possibility that if he hadn’t manipulated Massasoit to fear the English, they wouldn’t have given Plymouth assistance, and without the Natives assistance, Plymouth almost certainly would not have survived the first winter.
(6) The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?
The Pilgrims were a “strange vine.” They didn’t conform to the expected religion in England, and travelled across an entire ocean just to gain their religious freedom. Their religious fervor was essential to their survival and to their community. The Pilgrim’s children lacked this fervor. They didn’t have the same close-knit community that their parents had, and they knew it. They hadn’t known what religious persecution had been like. It wasn’t a main part of their likes. Survival, however, was. It is possible that they didn’t see as strong a connection between surviving and religion as their parents did. With less importance placed on religion and being criticized for it, it is possible that the Pilgrims children simply accepted that fact and moved on to survive the best way they knew how.
(8) Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
Popular culture usually fails to integrate the fact that natives aren’t one bug group. They have separate communities, allies, and enemies. In moves it is usually “Indians vs. English” which was never really completely the case. They also were not as savage (or as peaceful) as some would like us to believe. They were peaceful, but grew aggressive when threatened or worried, just like anyone else would be. However, some traits, like the ability to move through the forest safely and quickly, skilled hunting, and resourcefulness are all true. In fact they were probably even cleverer than most people realize. Stories of how they helped the English fight display their resourcefulness and quick thinking.
(9) In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?
To me, the person that seems the most heroic is Benjamin Church. Aside from the bravery and wit he portrays (possibly because much of the information Philbrick had on him was written by Church himself), he does several things which raise him above the others as a hero. First of all, he is willing to work with Natives. He was smart enough to know that they needed help and humble enough to ask for it. Most of the English were utterly opposed to this idea because they believes that there could be no good American Indians. But Church knew what was best and stood by that. Finally, when he did get his troop of Native warriors, he bravely led them to countless victories.
(10) As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?
Because the English refused to accept that not all the Natives were out to kill them all, they (aside from Church) strongly rejected any Native assistance in the war. Not only did they reject assistance, they attacked neutral tribes. The most devastating instance of this was when the English attacked the Narragansetts’ fort that was built purely for self-defense. If they hadn’t been so blind to the fact that all Natives didn’t think alike, they might have prevented the Narragansetts from becoming their enemy. Who knows, they may have even been able to convince them to become allies.
(11) During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
Well, as question 10 pointed out, the Natives were not one group. Therefore, they are not really being treacherous, as they weren’t taking up arms against their own people. A good amount of the Natives that sided with the English were already enemies with Philip or other tribes that were fighting against the English. In these cases, they were definitely being opportunistic. They saw a way to eliminate their enemies, and if it meant fighting with the English, so be it. There were a lot of Natives that seemed to be perfectly willing to lead the English to the rest of their people when they were captured or had deserted. Those do seem a bit treacherous, but I can’t really blame them. I think that a majority of people would in that situation (even if they don’t think so at the moment). What side I would have taken in by chance I was a Native American living in New England at this time would probably depend on my tribe's relations with the English. I wouldn't go against my tribe. Now if I was the leader :) who knows? If the English had been nothing but kind to me, I may join them. It would also depend on my relationship with other tribes, though. Then again, who really knows until you are put into that situation? (which I hope that I am not any time soon) I don't think that I would choose based only on English vs. Natives though. I would consider all of the factors.
(12)Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?
Neither side truly could. Although the English would definitely try, based on claims of Christianity and higher education, in reality, they didn’t have a good argument. Many of the Natives had the exact same education as the English, and oftentimes treated their captives with more civility than the English would, as the account of Mary Rowlandson shows.
(15) One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?
He doesn’t explicitly state any moral lessons, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. I do believe that he did an excellent job of not taking sides. I think that it is inevitable that the reader will empathize more with the English, not only because we are more familiar with the lifestyles of the English, but also because there was simply more accounts written by the English than the Natives. Despite these obstacles, Philbrick made the reader see through the Native Americans eyes and want them to be okay, to keep their land and their culture. I think that Philbrick is teaching us moral lessons simply by the way he tells the saga of the Natives and the English in New England. He makes it clear that if one side had been more humble, open minded, or forgiving at several points in the war, or even before the war, some sort of peace could have been established. Even if Philbrick didn't want to teach us these lessons, they are there, written in history. I think that we would all be better off if we learned them. Even if the fate of New England isn't at stake here.
Song 3 "Shaman’s Call"
What the artist hoped to accomplish.
By recreating this Native American song, the artist hoped to give people today a chance to see what native American music probably was like.
What it highlights.
This song seems to be highly spiritual. Not only the name, but the flutelike music gives a feeling of spirituality and faith.
Part of the American story.
This song is an illustration of the American culture before the Europeans showed up. See, it was there, just like Philbrick said. :)
By recreating this Native American song, the artist hoped to give people today a chance to see what native American music probably was like.
What it highlights.
This song seems to be highly spiritual. Not only the name, but the flutelike music gives a feeling of spirituality and faith.
Part of the American story.
This song is an illustration of the American culture before the Europeans showed up. See, it was there, just like Philbrick said. :)
Song 2 "Apache Indian Drums (Sedona)"
What the artist hoped to accomplish?
The artist probably wanted to preserve a sample of what Native American music was like to share with later generations.
What it highlights.
This song seems to be part of a ritual. It is just about the same beat throughout the song, with the exception of a wind instrument partway through. The repetitive nature of the song makes me think of some kind of dance.
Part of the American story.
This is just as much a part of the American story as anything the Europeans did, maybe even more so. The history of American did not start with the Europeans. It streched back further than that.
The artist probably wanted to preserve a sample of what Native American music was like to share with later generations.
What it highlights.
This song seems to be part of a ritual. It is just about the same beat throughout the song, with the exception of a wind instrument partway through. The repetitive nature of the song makes me think of some kind of dance.
Part of the American story.
This is just as much a part of the American story as anything the Europeans did, maybe even more so. The history of American did not start with the Europeans. It streched back further than that.
Song 1 "Anon: Virgen Madre De Dios"
What the artist hoped to accomplish.
The artists, Savae, hoped to recreate as closely as possible authentic, European influenced, Native American music.
What it highlights.
This song highlights the blending of cultures. This would be something like what the Praying Indians might have sang, inspired by the Virgin of Guatelupe.
Part of the American story.
This was a very important mart of the American story, just as seperate cultures began to blend. This is foreshadowing the extremely blended culture that America would eventually have.
The artists, Savae, hoped to recreate as closely as possible authentic, European influenced, Native American music.
What it highlights.
This song highlights the blending of cultures. This would be something like what the Praying Indians might have sang, inspired by the Virgin of Guatelupe.
Part of the American story.
This was a very important mart of the American story, just as seperate cultures began to blend. This is foreshadowing the extremely blended culture that America would eventually have.
Song 15 "We Didn't Start the Fire"
By Billy Joel.
When it was written.
1989.
What it is about.
This song is a long list of historically significant events in the 40 year period from 1949 (when Billy was born) to 1989 (When he released the song). It includes all kinds of things from movies (Psycho) and Bands (U2, BritishBeatle mania) to invasions (Bay of Pigs) and politics (Nixon, Watergate). They range in importance from hula hoops to JFK's assasination. Some things are easy to understand, while others are just begging you to read up on them. I actually wonder how many significant events and people/places are not on this list. My guess would be... not too many.
How the story is told.
The "story" is not so much a story as a list of events and people. Thats it. A very long list. Meaning that there is no metaphors or much perspective, but it isnt really neccesary in this song.
My thoughts.
I think that this is just about the catchiest song on the CD. Even if som of it is hard to understand until you start to look up what each thing is.
What we can learn.
You can learn a huge deal about the last half of the 20th century from this song. One little catch... you have to look it all up. :)
When it was written.
1989.
What it is about.
This song is a long list of historically significant events in the 40 year period from 1949 (when Billy was born) to 1989 (When he released the song). It includes all kinds of things from movies (Psycho) and Bands (U2, BritishBeatle mania) to invasions (Bay of Pigs) and politics (Nixon, Watergate). They range in importance from hula hoops to JFK's assasination. Some things are easy to understand, while others are just begging you to read up on them. I actually wonder how many significant events and people/places are not on this list. My guess would be... not too many.
How the story is told.
The "story" is not so much a story as a list of events and people. Thats it. A very long list. Meaning that there is no metaphors or much perspective, but it isnt really neccesary in this song.
My thoughts.
I think that this is just about the catchiest song on the CD. Even if som of it is hard to understand until you start to look up what each thing is.
What we can learn.
You can learn a huge deal about the last half of the 20th century from this song. One little catch... you have to look it all up. :)
Song 14 "The Hands That Built America"
U2 wrote this song for the movie Gangs of New York.
When it was written.
2002.
What it is about.
As the title suggests, it is about the people that built America. What changed out country and still does today. It makes the point that America wasnt built by Americans, but by everyone. It is an extremely diverse culture buily by many different nationalities, cultures, and religions.
How the story is told.
The story is told like he has lived through it all, looking back on his life and the life of America. He makes references to some historical events like "It's early fall, there's a cloud on the New York skyline. Innocence, dragged across a yellow line." That being a refernce to 911.
My thoughts.
My immediate thoughts were that it was a sad song. It does seem really melancholy. But it really isn't. It is simply very reflective. I like how the names of all of the nationalities were whispered in the chorus, almost too quiet to notice. But it emphasizes the fact that America was built from hundreds of different kinds of "hands".
What we can learn.
We can learn that all the hardships that America had gone through have brought all of these diverse cultures together to form America.
When it was written.
2002.
What it is about.
As the title suggests, it is about the people that built America. What changed out country and still does today. It makes the point that America wasnt built by Americans, but by everyone. It is an extremely diverse culture buily by many different nationalities, cultures, and religions.
How the story is told.
The story is told like he has lived through it all, looking back on his life and the life of America. He makes references to some historical events like "It's early fall, there's a cloud on the New York skyline. Innocence, dragged across a yellow line." That being a refernce to 911.
My thoughts.
My immediate thoughts were that it was a sad song. It does seem really melancholy. But it really isn't. It is simply very reflective. I like how the names of all of the nationalities were whispered in the chorus, almost too quiet to notice. But it emphasizes the fact that America was built from hundreds of different kinds of "hands".
What we can learn.
We can learn that all the hardships that America had gone through have brought all of these diverse cultures together to form America.
Song 13 "The Times They Are A-Changin'"
Bob Dylan.
When it was written.
1964
What it is about.
This song is urging people to adapt to the changing times, because if they don't, the won't survive. It is telling people in positions of power that they have to act now, while they can. It is telling mothers and fathers (people whose time to shape the world has passed) to let their children take over now. A new world is coming, and it's being shaped now. (or in 1964)
How the story is told.
Bob is talking to the audience, which is very effective for the subject matter of the song. He uses numerous little metaphors (such as a persons road being a metaphor for his/her time in the world).
My thoughts.
My first thought was that this is a very different song. But then again, a lot of the songs on this CD are.
What we can learn.
We can learn from this song that we are the people that are shaping the world, but we dont have long to do it before out children will be taking over for us. So lets get going!
When it was written.
1964
What it is about.
This song is urging people to adapt to the changing times, because if they don't, the won't survive. It is telling people in positions of power that they have to act now, while they can. It is telling mothers and fathers (people whose time to shape the world has passed) to let their children take over now. A new world is coming, and it's being shaped now. (or in 1964)
How the story is told.
Bob is talking to the audience, which is very effective for the subject matter of the song. He uses numerous little metaphors (such as a persons road being a metaphor for his/her time in the world).
My thoughts.
My first thought was that this is a very different song. But then again, a lot of the songs on this CD are.
What we can learn.
We can learn from this song that we are the people that are shaping the world, but we dont have long to do it before out children will be taking over for us. So lets get going!
Song 12 "Youngstown"
by Bruce Springsteen
When it was written.
1995
What it is about.
It is about Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown was a center of steel production, and many people like the narrator worked as hard as they could (making other people rich) in the factory. All Youngstown was known for was steel... a huge amount of the people living their made their living in the steel business. When the factories shut down, they all lost their jobs.
How the story is told.
Springsteen is singing as though he went through these experiences which, to me, makes it more interesting. I did find that it is a common misconcepton that the "Jenny" in the song is a girl. In reality it was some sort of Furnace in Youngstown. I sort of think that he probably meant for there to be some confusion (I mean, how could there not be) but I wonder why.
My thoughts.
I think this was a good song, although it really helps to look some facts up, it makes a lot more sense.
What we can learn.
Even a huge steel company's future isn't sure. People still had uncertainty about their livelihood. Much like the dust bowl, all of the sudden, peoples means of supporting themselves were snached away and were left in the midst of a mass of other people with no jobs either.
When it was written.
1995
What it is about.
It is about Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown was a center of steel production, and many people like the narrator worked as hard as they could (making other people rich) in the factory. All Youngstown was known for was steel... a huge amount of the people living their made their living in the steel business. When the factories shut down, they all lost their jobs.
How the story is told.
Springsteen is singing as though he went through these experiences which, to me, makes it more interesting. I did find that it is a common misconcepton that the "Jenny" in the song is a girl. In reality it was some sort of Furnace in Youngstown. I sort of think that he probably meant for there to be some confusion (I mean, how could there not be) but I wonder why.
My thoughts.
I think this was a good song, although it really helps to look some facts up, it makes a lot more sense.
What we can learn.
Even a huge steel company's future isn't sure. People still had uncertainty about their livelihood. Much like the dust bowl, all of the sudden, peoples means of supporting themselves were snached away and were left in the midst of a mass of other people with no jobs either.
Song 11 "A Change Is Gonna Come"
by Seal (although it was originally by Sam Cooke)
When it was written.
1963 (released 1964)
What it is about.
This song was inspired by tragic events in Cookes life. However, it came to represent the civil rights movement.
How the story is told.
The story is told by a guy who has been treated unfairly all of his life and only hopes for change. "There have been times that I thought I couldn't last for long, but now I think I'm able to carry on. It's been a long time coming, but I know a change is gonna come." The original writer, Sam Cooke was alive during the civil rights movement, and I think the true emotion of having been there is evident in the song.
My thoughts.
To me this was a very hopeful song. I loved that a man who had so much misfortune could keep such a brave amd hopeful face.
What we can learn.
This song seems to represent the feel of the civil rights movement very well. They have been opressed, and now they want change. Thats was supposed to be the point of America. Equal rights and equal opportunity. And the people in the civil rights movement (and other movements too for that matter) keep their hopes up in the face of all opposition and eventually succeeded.
When it was written.
1963 (released 1964)
What it is about.
This song was inspired by tragic events in Cookes life. However, it came to represent the civil rights movement.
How the story is told.
The story is told by a guy who has been treated unfairly all of his life and only hopes for change. "There have been times that I thought I couldn't last for long, but now I think I'm able to carry on. It's been a long time coming, but I know a change is gonna come." The original writer, Sam Cooke was alive during the civil rights movement, and I think the true emotion of having been there is evident in the song.
My thoughts.
To me this was a very hopeful song. I loved that a man who had so much misfortune could keep such a brave amd hopeful face.
What we can learn.
This song seems to represent the feel of the civil rights movement very well. They have been opressed, and now they want change. Thats was supposed to be the point of America. Equal rights and equal opportunity. And the people in the civil rights movement (and other movements too for that matter) keep their hopes up in the face of all opposition and eventually succeeded.
Song 10 "Strange Fruit"
By Billie Holiday.
When it was written.
1939.
What it is about.
This song is about the lynchings that were occuring in the southern states with frightening rapidity. African Americans were haging from trees like "strange fruit" as the song puts it.
How the story is told.
It has kind of an extended metaphor in it. The lynched African Americans were the strange fruit on the southern trees. "Here is fruit for the crows to pluck, For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck, For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop, Here is a strange and bitter crop."
My thoughts.
This song really was quite full of emotions. Listening to it made me not only sad, but also a little frightened. It was also amazing that such a short little song could convey so much.
What we can learn.
This song teaches us about the condition of African Americans at this time. Lynchings, the song suggests, were common events, completely norman, at least in the south. They had an absolutely frigtening mass of people against them, nearly the whole southern part of the country.
When it was written.
1939.
What it is about.
This song is about the lynchings that were occuring in the southern states with frightening rapidity. African Americans were haging from trees like "strange fruit" as the song puts it.
How the story is told.
It has kind of an extended metaphor in it. The lynched African Americans were the strange fruit on the southern trees. "Here is fruit for the crows to pluck, For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck, For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop, Here is a strange and bitter crop."
My thoughts.
This song really was quite full of emotions. Listening to it made me not only sad, but also a little frightened. It was also amazing that such a short little song could convey so much.
What we can learn.
This song teaches us about the condition of African Americans at this time. Lynchings, the song suggests, were common events, completely norman, at least in the south. They had an absolutely frigtening mass of people against them, nearly the whole southern part of the country.
Song 9 "Do Re Mi"
This song is sang by Ani DiFranco, but it was written originally by Woody Guthrie.
When it was written.
1940.
What it is about.
This song is about people leaving the dust bowl for California , looking for better fortune. However, the singer is telling them that if they "ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi. Why you better get back to beautiful Texas, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee." In other words, there weren't enough jobs available in California for all of these migrants. They would be much better off just staying where they were than making the trip for nothing.
How the story is told.
It is a little but vague. For instance "Do Re Mi" is never really explained, although one can assume that it refers to something like good fortune (a job and money).
My thoughts.
I thought that this song was different from the baginning of the CD because most of those songs were about war. It was a welcome break. There was just something catchy about the smoothness of the song.
What we can learn.
This period in American history was an extremely tough time. Life in the dust bowl was getting so bad that people just left their homes and their community to look for a job that probably wouldnt be there in California. It was full of desperate, displaced Americans, and the hard times continued.
When it was written.
1940.
What it is about.
This song is about people leaving the dust bowl for California , looking for better fortune. However, the singer is telling them that if they "ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi. Why you better get back to beautiful Texas, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee." In other words, there weren't enough jobs available in California for all of these migrants. They would be much better off just staying where they were than making the trip for nothing.
How the story is told.
It is a little but vague. For instance "Do Re Mi" is never really explained, although one can assume that it refers to something like good fortune (a job and money).
My thoughts.
I thought that this song was different from the baginning of the CD because most of those songs were about war. It was a welcome break. There was just something catchy about the smoothness of the song.
What we can learn.
This period in American history was an extremely tough time. Life in the dust bowl was getting so bad that people just left their homes and their community to look for a job that probably wouldnt be there in California. It was full of desperate, displaced Americans, and the hard times continued.
Song 8 "Jesus Christ"
Woody Guthrie.
When it was written.
1964.
What it is about.
This song is about, well, Jesus Christ. Most of the song is basically just the story of Jesus., which most people are already familiar with. However, the last verse states that if Jesus came to New York and started preaching like he had 2000 years ago, "they" would probably kill him now too.
How the story is told.
This song is told like, well, like it happened a long time ago. He uses the same line over and over to create eotion... "And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave."
My thoughts.
I think that this song is frighteningly true. I really wish that it wasn't, but I can't really deny it.
What we can learn.
Well obviously, if there would be no change in reaction to Jesus over 2000 years, we did not learn the lesson thathe intended for us. This song calls us to change that.
When it was written.
1964.
What it is about.
This song is about, well, Jesus Christ. Most of the song is basically just the story of Jesus., which most people are already familiar with. However, the last verse states that if Jesus came to New York and started preaching like he had 2000 years ago, "they" would probably kill him now too.
How the story is told.
This song is told like, well, like it happened a long time ago. He uses the same line over and over to create eotion... "And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave."
My thoughts.
I think that this song is frighteningly true. I really wish that it wasn't, but I can't really deny it.
What we can learn.
Well obviously, if there would be no change in reaction to Jesus over 2000 years, we did not learn the lesson thathe intended for us. This song calls us to change that.
Song 7 "Paddy's Lament"
By Sinead O'Conner.
When it was written.
2002.
What it is about.
It is about the emigration of an Irishman to America during the time of the Civil War. When he gets here, all he finds is struggle and war, immediately regretting his decision to come. He is thrust into the war unwillingly, losing a leg in the process.
How the story is told.
It is written from the point of view of Paddy. It was interesting, because it was not told by an American, but from the view that Irish had. Fed up of fighting.
My thoughts.
I didn't love this song either.
What we can learn.
Yet another song on the hardships of the wars in America.
When it was written.
2002.
What it is about.
It is about the emigration of an Irishman to America during the time of the Civil War. When he gets here, all he finds is struggle and war, immediately regretting his decision to come. He is thrust into the war unwillingly, losing a leg in the process.
How the story is told.
It is written from the point of view of Paddy. It was interesting, because it was not told by an American, but from the view that Irish had. Fed up of fighting.
My thoughts.
I didn't love this song either.
What we can learn.
Yet another song on the hardships of the wars in America.
Song 6 "Hard Times Come Again No More"
This song was originally written by Stephen C. Foster, covered by many different people.
When it was written.
1854.
What it is about.
This song is about the poor side of America. It is wishing for the poverty and civil war that plagues America to be gone. It makes the point that although we may be at times happy, the impoverished and soldiers are still around us. It emphasizes idea of the American dream, that everyone in America should be able to escape from their hard times and prosper.
How the story is told.
This story is told as though the singer were right in the middle of the situation. Which he most likely was. "Hard Times, hard times, come again no more. Many days you have lingered around my cabin door; Oh hard times come again no more." He is speaking to and about the "Hard Times" like a person.
My thoughts.
This was one of the less likable songs , in my opinion. I liked the idea, but, to me, it didnt convey the same emotion as many of the other songs did so well. However, I did think it was a good example of one of those songs that everyone can relate to. Whether you are poor, at war, or just going through hard times, you do want them to "come again no more."
What we can learn.
This is another song that teaches of the struggles that Americans went through to become the unified nation that we are today.
Song 5 "Johnny Has Gone For a Soldier"
Johnny Has Gone For a Soldier is a traditional American folk song that Mark O'Connor (and a few others) sang.
When it was written.
The O'Connor version was written in 1997, but the traditional song dates back to around the American Revolution.
What it is about.
This song is about what people had to go through and give up during the American Revolution, particularly women. A girls husband has gone off to war and she not only has to deal with his leaving (and most probably dying) but she sells much that she owns to buy him a sword. It goes on to say that she will most likely become a begger after "Johnny" is gone.
How the story is told.
Although the original song is told by the girl and Johnny, now it is told about the them by an unspecified 3rd party, giving a slightly different perspective on the situation. Sill, he isnt singing about these people like it happened over 200 years ago, but more like it just happened and he witnessed it.
My thoughts.
I think that this is a beautiful song. I love that it focuses on what the women had to go through during the war. Usually you hear more about the soldiers than the wives of soldiers.
What we can learn.
We learn from this song about the hardships that many Americans went through, not only during the American revolution, but during other wars too.
When it was written.
The O'Connor version was written in 1997, but the traditional song dates back to around the American Revolution.
What it is about.
This song is about what people had to go through and give up during the American Revolution, particularly women. A girls husband has gone off to war and she not only has to deal with his leaving (and most probably dying) but she sells much that she owns to buy him a sword. It goes on to say that she will most likely become a begger after "Johnny" is gone.
How the story is told.
Although the original song is told by the girl and Johnny, now it is told about the them by an unspecified 3rd party, giving a slightly different perspective on the situation. Sill, he isnt singing about these people like it happened over 200 years ago, but more like it just happened and he witnessed it.
My thoughts.
I think that this is a beautiful song. I love that it focuses on what the women had to go through during the war. Usually you hear more about the soldiers than the wives of soldiers.
What we can learn.
We learn from this song about the hardships that many Americans went through, not only during the American revolution, but during other wars too.
Song 4 "Brave Wolfe"
Brave Wolfe is a ballad about the Battle of Quebec in 1759. Martin O'Connor and Wynton Marsalis do an instrumental version of the ballad.
When it was written.
The Martin O'Connor version was composed in 1997.
What it is about.
It is about the Battle of Quebec and how people in America at the time of the American revolution were ready and willing to go to battle and die so that their country would be free. Although the lyrics differ version to version, the gist is that a brave young man goes away to the Battle of Quebec. He and General Montcalm go bravely into battle, but the young man is injured, close to death. He asks someone how the battle is going and learns that they are winning. With that, he dies.
How the story is told.
The story is told in this version entirely through the music. (Of course... there are no words). However, it conveys emotion very well, despite the lack of words. Even if you don't know what the song is about, you will feel the same sadness and excitement. It starts out slow and melancholy, eventually growing bolder, still quiet and slow though. If you know the story, it is easy to follow the journey of the brave young man getting called to war, his bravery, and finally his death.
My thoughts.
I loved that the song didn't have any words. Somehow it seems more emotional without them. I listened to a few versions with the lyrics I just didn't like them as much.
What we can learn.
I must admit, you can learn more from looking at the lyrics than from the instrumental version. But I was especially struck by the sadness at the beginning of the song, when the young man was called to war. It helps you to understand the sacrifices that so mant people made for America, even before the USA was in existance.
When it was written.
The Martin O'Connor version was composed in 1997.
What it is about.
It is about the Battle of Quebec and how people in America at the time of the American revolution were ready and willing to go to battle and die so that their country would be free. Although the lyrics differ version to version, the gist is that a brave young man goes away to the Battle of Quebec. He and General Montcalm go bravely into battle, but the young man is injured, close to death. He asks someone how the battle is going and learns that they are winning. With that, he dies.
How the story is told.
The story is told in this version entirely through the music. (Of course... there are no words). However, it conveys emotion very well, despite the lack of words. Even if you don't know what the song is about, you will feel the same sadness and excitement. It starts out slow and melancholy, eventually growing bolder, still quiet and slow though. If you know the story, it is easy to follow the journey of the brave young man getting called to war, his bravery, and finally his death.
My thoughts.
I loved that the song didn't have any words. Somehow it seems more emotional without them. I listened to a few versions with the lyrics I just didn't like them as much.
What we can learn.
I must admit, you can learn more from looking at the lyrics than from the instrumental version. But I was especially struck by the sadness at the beginning of the song, when the young man was called to war. It helps you to understand the sacrifices that so mant people made for America, even before the USA was in existance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)