PSEC has been a new experience for me. I do not think I ever would have imagined learning this much. Even though I was learning at my high school and taking advances classes and passing with pretty good grades, I was not learning about myself. PSEC and Writing 101 has taught me about my writing process in ways that have helped me become a better, stronger writer.
I believe I have made a significant amount of progress since the beginning of this quarter. When I first arrived at PSEC, I was so used to the typical five paragraph essay format that had been pounded into my head for as long as I can remember, that I struggled with the first essay quite a bit. I had to relearn how to write essays to fit this new college format. So I have definitely progressed because I can now write something besides a typical high school essay. But I have also learned more about my writing style and my writing process. I do not think it has changed necessarily, but I now know what it is more and how to use that to my advantage.
I also believe that I have made considerable progress because of my performance on the final examination for Writing 101. I did find this exam quite challenging, but it did seem somewhat easier to write than the midterm. I do not think it was one of my best pieces of writing and I struggled a little trying to get started. It was easier once I was in the middle of it. The quote was a hard quote to use and it left me stuck and confused a few times but I was still able to produce a complete essay.
After taking this class, I am more aware of the specific improvements that I need to make in my writing. I am still in the process of making those improvements and changes. One of the things I need to improve on is my time management. I have formed a horrible habit of procrastinating over the years. When I procrastinate I am not able to put as much into my essays and it usually does not give me enough time to edit everything to the extent that I would like. This is the main thing that has affected my writing. For example, in my first essay on Bacon’s rebellion I did not give myself enough time before to organize all my thoughts as much as I would have liked. So I ended up rushing through the rough draft so when I went to edit it for the final I almost completely rewrote it. Another thing I still need to improve upon is my introductions and conclusions. They usually end up being kind of boring and just there for the sake of having one. I need to work on making them interesting for the reader so that they will want to keep reading. Another thing that I need to work on is hooks. “The making of America was not as simple as people coming here and settling down.” These also come across not very exciting and quite boring. I may have some things that I still need to improve but I also have some strengths that I have built upon in this class.
This class has helped me further develop some skills I already had. One of my strengths I have in my writing is having clear views and being authoritative. In the second essay we had to write I clearly stated my opinion to try and convince my “brother” to become a patriot instead of a loyalist. “It's the principle, the fact that they taxed us without our own representation. They did not have the right to do that. They have too much power over us and do not care about our rights.” I was also clear in my Bacon’s rebellion essay. I used direct quotes from my sources to clearly get my point across. I argued for my point and expanded on the quotes more in each paragraph. PSEC and Writing 101 specifically has helped me recognized these strengths and use them the best way possible.
Before PSEC, I was just like every other typical high schooler, taking all the basic classes and doing assignments to get by, not because I really cared. Now I am learning new things about myself and my work all the time, like how I learn and how I write. Also, I am being put in new situations that are changing me, I believe, for the better.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
PORTFOLIO: ESSAY #1
“The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway has got into the hands of the rich, who by extortious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of ways.” The making of America was not as simple as people coming here and settling down. There were natives that had already claimed the land for themselves. Bacon's rebellion is all about ownership. Who has the right to what land. If there were only one class of people, there would have been no rebellion. Bacon’s rebellion was brought on by the differences in the classes of the Chesapeake colonies.
Until mid-century, classes were not separated by how much money you had, but by whether you were free or not. Towards the later half of the century, three changes in the economy occurred that changed the social classes. First, tobacco prices decreased because so much of it was being exported that it became less of a luxury. This made it harder for freed servants to save up enough money to buy their own land. Second, the mortality rate in the Chesapeake lowered, so more servants survived their indentures, leading to more free landless men. Finally, since the mortality rate was declining, planters lived longer so they had more time to make money and become wealthier. This created a planters elite (3). I agree that this would cause a gap in society. When the poor are not getting money as fast and the rich are getting more money faster then it makes sense that that would cause a gap. But I don’t think money was the only reason that the two social classes grew farther apart. I think it was also their view on the Native Americans. Since the two classes had different ideas about the Indians it pushed them apart even more. Because people with the same views and opinions, generally, clump together.
The elite farmers operated off of their own selfish motives. They did not care so much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it (2). It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy and could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans (4). Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about the lessening amount of free land on the western frontier (4). I believe the landless farmers have a right to be angry because the elite were operating in a way that only benefited them personally. The friendship with the Native Americans was going good for the elite farmers so they were okay with it and did not plan to change it. But I also believe that the landless farmers took it a little too far with the rebellion, even if they did get their point across. In the end Governor Berkeley and the elite had to choose “the lesser of two evils”.
Bacon’s rebellion really pushed the switch from indentured servants to African slaves. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council, the tension between the two classes lessened, but the tensions between races increased (3). Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants (2). I agree with this statement because after Bacon’s rebellion I would understand why farmers would not want indentured servants because they would be afraid of them rebelling or causing trouble once their indentures were over. So with the increase of African slaves that created a new lower class. Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping a friendly relationship with their fellow white men was more important than their relationships with the Native Americans (3). This was a smart decision on their part because there were not as many of the natives and the farmers were not going to be shoved aside. Also, if they were trying to build a colony then they’re going to want to expand so they’re going to want those farmers to find land so that they can expand their colony.
There are still situations like this today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because they benefited more since they were able to trade with them and for protection against hostile tribes (3). Just like today the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants because it benefits them since they can do the same amount of labor and the same quality for cheaper than if they hired the average American citizen. This is because the immigrants will accept the lower paying jobs.The debate over ownership fueled Bacon’s rebellion. The landless farmers wanted land so that they could make money of their own and settle down. Governor Berkeley and the elite farmers wanted to keep their relationship with the Indians for trade and protection, but also wanted to keep their relationship with the poorer, lower class. The landless farmers were trying to push for a decision that was in their interest so they decided to act. In the aftermath of the rebellion, the differences between the classes decreased and the differences between races increased as more African slaves were sold instead of indentured servants. Bacon's rebellion was a major part in forming the future Chesapeake society.
(1) http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html
(2) http://www.bookrags.com/research/bacons-rebellion-aaw-01/
(3) The American Promise
Until mid-century, classes were not separated by how much money you had, but by whether you were free or not. Towards the later half of the century, three changes in the economy occurred that changed the social classes. First, tobacco prices decreased because so much of it was being exported that it became less of a luxury. This made it harder for freed servants to save up enough money to buy their own land. Second, the mortality rate in the Chesapeake lowered, so more servants survived their indentures, leading to more free landless men. Finally, since the mortality rate was declining, planters lived longer so they had more time to make money and become wealthier. This created a planters elite (3). I agree that this would cause a gap in society. When the poor are not getting money as fast and the rich are getting more money faster then it makes sense that that would cause a gap. But I don’t think money was the only reason that the two social classes grew farther apart. I think it was also their view on the Native Americans. Since the two classes had different ideas about the Indians it pushed them apart even more. Because people with the same views and opinions, generally, clump together.
The elite farmers operated off of their own selfish motives. They did not care so much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it (2). It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy and could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans (4). Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about the lessening amount of free land on the western frontier (4). I believe the landless farmers have a right to be angry because the elite were operating in a way that only benefited them personally. The friendship with the Native Americans was going good for the elite farmers so they were okay with it and did not plan to change it. But I also believe that the landless farmers took it a little too far with the rebellion, even if they did get their point across. In the end Governor Berkeley and the elite had to choose “the lesser of two evils”.
Bacon’s rebellion really pushed the switch from indentured servants to African slaves. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council, the tension between the two classes lessened, but the tensions between races increased (3). Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants (2). I agree with this statement because after Bacon’s rebellion I would understand why farmers would not want indentured servants because they would be afraid of them rebelling or causing trouble once their indentures were over. So with the increase of African slaves that created a new lower class. Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping a friendly relationship with their fellow white men was more important than their relationships with the Native Americans (3). This was a smart decision on their part because there were not as many of the natives and the farmers were not going to be shoved aside. Also, if they were trying to build a colony then they’re going to want to expand so they’re going to want those farmers to find land so that they can expand their colony.
There are still situations like this today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because they benefited more since they were able to trade with them and for protection against hostile tribes (3). Just like today the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants because it benefits them since they can do the same amount of labor and the same quality for cheaper than if they hired the average American citizen. This is because the immigrants will accept the lower paying jobs.The debate over ownership fueled Bacon’s rebellion. The landless farmers wanted land so that they could make money of their own and settle down. Governor Berkeley and the elite farmers wanted to keep their relationship with the Indians for trade and protection, but also wanted to keep their relationship with the poorer, lower class. The landless farmers were trying to push for a decision that was in their interest so they decided to act. In the aftermath of the rebellion, the differences between the classes decreased and the differences between races increased as more African slaves were sold instead of indentured servants. Bacon's rebellion was a major part in forming the future Chesapeake society.
(1) http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html
(2) http://www.bookrags.com/research/bacons-rebellion-aaw-01/
(3) The American Promise
PORTFOLIO: ESSAY #2
Dear William,
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that your business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understand why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I receive letters from him occasionally and he is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm, which has not become uncommon around here. Some of the other women in town often come together and we discuss matters as if we were parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. They have fooled some into believing that their “protection” is worth all the rights they take from us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given. The tax is only part of the problem. It's the principle, the fact that they taxed us without our own representation. They did not have the right to do that. They have too much power over us and do not care about our rights.
I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us. And yet England does not see value in us enough to respect the rights that were initially given to us.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. They take away more freedoms than they let us keep, and how do we know if those are guaranteed? Yes, we have a lot of new, free land, but we do not need Britain to tell us what we can take for our own. That is simply opportunity, not freedom. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter to find you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I speak the truth and I hope you will see that. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
Sources:
1)The American Promise text book
2)Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=21212324&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
3)Is Patriotism A Mistake? (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=4012279&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that your business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understand why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I receive letters from him occasionally and he is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm, which has not become uncommon around here. Some of the other women in town often come together and we discuss matters as if we were parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. They have fooled some into believing that their “protection” is worth all the rights they take from us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given. The tax is only part of the problem. It's the principle, the fact that they taxed us without our own representation. They did not have the right to do that. They have too much power over us and do not care about our rights.
I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us. And yet England does not see value in us enough to respect the rights that were initially given to us.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. They take away more freedoms than they let us keep, and how do we know if those are guaranteed? Yes, we have a lot of new, free land, but we do not need Britain to tell us what we can take for our own. That is simply opportunity, not freedom. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter to find you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I speak the truth and I hope you will see that. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
Sources:
1)The American Promise text book
2)Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=21212324&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
3)Is Patriotism A Mistake? (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=4012279&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
Monday, December 10, 2007
PORTFOLIO: FINAL EXAM
“Why [consider history]? Simple because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” This quote is by Michel Foucault, a French philosopher. He was very interested in the history of ideas and the system of thought. In this quote, Foucault presents a theory about history in terms of the present.
I think Foucault’s theory is to reflect back on the past and having that be history and how that will affect the present and the future. We need to study history not only just by reading about it, but we also need to think about how that reflects in the present. Connections can often be found between events in history and events now. If while studying it is considered how that reflects onto current issues it often makes it easier to understand the past.
This can applied in my history class. When studying the topics of this class, it made it easier to understand the motives, arguments, and interests of the people and groups of the past when they were related to motives, arguments, and interests of the present. This works because we understand the current issues because they are real to us and are about issues that concern us. We are not in the mindset of the past. Things that were important to them may no longer be important to us. Therefore, we do not understand their point of view.
Another part to this theory is not only relating the past to the present, but also the affects of the past on the present. How the past event affected the present and how the present event will affect the future. In my writing class I did pretty badly on the first essay but I went back and looked at it and did better on the second essay. My mistakes in the past affected how I wrote my second essay because I tried not to make the same mistakes and I did end up doing better. I have been trying to do that with all of my assignments. Looking back at my mistakes and then trying not to make those mistakes again so that I will gradually progress and have no mistakes in the future.
I do not think that my learning would have been that different with a different answer to Foucault’s question. It could have possibly been different for history because it would have made the class harder for me and it would have made some of the topics we went over harder to understand. I do not think that it would have changed my learning in writing though. When you make a mistake, you naturally learn from that mistake, at least I do. I think it is just natural to get better at things once you do them several times and make mistakes and have problems. Although, making an effort to not make the same mistakes again does help your progress.
Michel Foucault’s theory is about the past, the present and history. How we should relate the past to the present and then look at the affects of the past and project that into the future. This theory applies to my class experiences and will apply in the future also. Time is never-ending so there will always be a past, present, and future and there will always be
history.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Portfolio Reflection Letter Rough Draft
PSEC has been a new experience for me. I do not think I ever would have imagined learning this much. Even though I was learning at my high school and taking advances classes and passing with pretty good grades, I was not learning about myself. PSEC and Writing 101 has taught me about my writing process in ways that have helped me become a better, stronger writer.
I believe I have made a significant amount of progress since the beginning of this quarter. When I first arrived at PSEC, I was so used to the typical five paragraph essay format that had been pounded into my head for as long as I can remember, that I struggled with the first essay quite a bit. I had to relearn how to write essays to fit this new college format. So I have definitely progressed because I can now write something besides a typical high school essay. But I have also learned more about my writing style and my writing process. I do not think it has changed necessarily, but I now know what it is more and how to use that to my advantage.
After taking this class, I am more aware of the specific improvements that I need to make in my writing. I am still in the process of making those improvements and changes. One of the things I need to improve on is my time management. I have formed a horrible habit of procrastinating over the years. When I procrastinate I am not able to put as much into my essays and it usually does not give me enough time to edit everything to the extent that I would like. This is the main thing that has affected my writing. For example, in my first essay on Bacon’s rebellion I did not give myself enough time before to organize all my thoughts as much as I would have liked. So I ended up rushing through the rough draft so when I went to edit it for the final I almost completely rewrote it. Another thing I still need to improve upon is my introductions and conclusions. They usually end up being kind of boring and just there for the sake of having one. I need to work on making them interesting for the reader so that they will want to keep reading. I may have some things that I still need to improve but I also have some strengths that I have built upon in this class.
This class has helped me further develop some skills I already had. One of these skills is being able to work in a group. In our third essay when we worked in groups to write our essays I think I did a good job of contributing to the group and providing my thoughts and suggestions. I wrote my part of the essay on what we had agreed upon and got along with my group members well. Another strength I have in my writing is having clear views and being authoritative. In my Bacon’s rebellion essay I used direct quotes from my sources to clearly get my point across. I argued for my point and expanded on the quotes more in each paragraph. PSEC and Writing 101 specifically has helped me recognized these strengths and use them the best way possible.
Before PSEC, I was just like every other typical high schooler, taking all the basic classes and doing assignments to get by, not because I really cared. Now I am learning new things about myself and my work all the time, like how I learn and how I write. Also, I am being put in new situations that are changing me, I believe, for the better.
I believe I have made a significant amount of progress since the beginning of this quarter. When I first arrived at PSEC, I was so used to the typical five paragraph essay format that had been pounded into my head for as long as I can remember, that I struggled with the first essay quite a bit. I had to relearn how to write essays to fit this new college format. So I have definitely progressed because I can now write something besides a typical high school essay. But I have also learned more about my writing style and my writing process. I do not think it has changed necessarily, but I now know what it is more and how to use that to my advantage.
After taking this class, I am more aware of the specific improvements that I need to make in my writing. I am still in the process of making those improvements and changes. One of the things I need to improve on is my time management. I have formed a horrible habit of procrastinating over the years. When I procrastinate I am not able to put as much into my essays and it usually does not give me enough time to edit everything to the extent that I would like. This is the main thing that has affected my writing. For example, in my first essay on Bacon’s rebellion I did not give myself enough time before to organize all my thoughts as much as I would have liked. So I ended up rushing through the rough draft so when I went to edit it for the final I almost completely rewrote it. Another thing I still need to improve upon is my introductions and conclusions. They usually end up being kind of boring and just there for the sake of having one. I need to work on making them interesting for the reader so that they will want to keep reading. I may have some things that I still need to improve but I also have some strengths that I have built upon in this class.
This class has helped me further develop some skills I already had. One of these skills is being able to work in a group. In our third essay when we worked in groups to write our essays I think I did a good job of contributing to the group and providing my thoughts and suggestions. I wrote my part of the essay on what we had agreed upon and got along with my group members well. Another strength I have in my writing is having clear views and being authoritative. In my Bacon’s rebellion essay I used direct quotes from my sources to clearly get my point across. I argued for my point and expanded on the quotes more in each paragraph. PSEC and Writing 101 specifically has helped me recognized these strengths and use them the best way possible.
Before PSEC, I was just like every other typical high schooler, taking all the basic classes and doing assignments to get by, not because I really cared. Now I am learning new things about myself and my work all the time, like how I learn and how I write. Also, I am being put in new situations that are changing me, I believe, for the better.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
AOD #10
On Monday, we have our debate in Craig and Ben’s class. We were in groups of four and each were assigned a state to represent. We were debating over the ratification of the Constitution. Each group researched the position of their state and fought for that position in the debate. I thought this was a good example of public judgment. We were making a decision to ratify the Constitution or not. We did an initial vote and then we voted again after the debate. As a whole, we made the decision to ratify the Constitution.
I thought this was public judgment because we were making a decision and we were allowed to vote and make the choice as to whether we wanted to ratify the Constitution or not. Also, each state had to be willing to make the Constitution work and be willing to work with all the other states.
I thought this was public judgment because we were making a decision and we were allowed to vote and make the choice as to whether we wanted to ratify the Constitution or not. Also, each state had to be willing to make the Constitution work and be willing to work with all the other states.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Essay #3 Reflection
1)Group Interaction
I think my group interacted well with each other. We got along and talked to each other about the project a lot to make sure that everyone did an equal amount of work. There weren't really any conflicts with our group and we got along well with each other. I like my group members and we work well together.
2)Use of Contract
We didn't really use our contract a whole lot. We used it for what each person was going to be doing on the wiki, but that was really it. We did not need to use it for punishment because everyone did their work and we didn't really have any problems. It was helpful that we had already decided who was going to do what as far as research and posting goes.
3)Use of Wiki
We used our wiki a lot for posting research and the parts that we had written before we put them all into one essay. The wiki was great because it was a way for all group members to stay connected with each other and stay on track. I found it very helpful and it allowed me to stay on the same page as the rest of my group members. It was also one central place where we could all post our writing so it was easy to put together when we put it all into the essay.
4)Individual Progress
I think my writing has progressed quite a bit since the beginning of this year. At first it was hard trying to relearn how to write an essay and unlearn the five paragraph structure that they taught us in high school. I feel like I am doing better at writing and it comes somewhat easier to me now than before.
I think my group interacted well with each other. We got along and talked to each other about the project a lot to make sure that everyone did an equal amount of work. There weren't really any conflicts with our group and we got along well with each other. I like my group members and we work well together.
2)Use of Contract
We didn't really use our contract a whole lot. We used it for what each person was going to be doing on the wiki, but that was really it. We did not need to use it for punishment because everyone did their work and we didn't really have any problems. It was helpful that we had already decided who was going to do what as far as research and posting goes.
3)Use of Wiki
We used our wiki a lot for posting research and the parts that we had written before we put them all into one essay. The wiki was great because it was a way for all group members to stay connected with each other and stay on track. I found it very helpful and it allowed me to stay on the same page as the rest of my group members. It was also one central place where we could all post our writing so it was easy to put together when we put it all into the essay.
4)Individual Progress
I think my writing has progressed quite a bit since the beginning of this year. At first it was hard trying to relearn how to write an essay and unlearn the five paragraph structure that they taught us in high school. I feel like I am doing better at writing and it comes somewhat easier to me now than before.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Essay #3 Final Draft By Tyler, Ericka, Megan, and Patrick
The views of
The federalist and anti-federalist parties were divided over the House of Representatives. Anti-federalists disliked the idea that all the states would carry equal weight. Larger states would lose some political power and smaller states would gain political power in order to make the states have equal weight. Some of the larger states did not like this obviously because their political power was lessened because they were a larger state. The anti-federalists were not happy about the representation for each state for a different reason. They believed that the representation for each state was too small and the term was too long. One member in the House of Representatives represented about 30,000 people from their state. Whereas, the members in the state legislatures are annually elected, are selected by small circles of people, are not moved very far from their homes, their community knows everything they do, and they frequently see the people they are representing. This allows them to represent their community accurately and the people can be assured that they are well represented and their opinions are heard. Anti-federalists were afraid that with one member representing 30,000 people that there would be no way for their opinions to represented accurately. They also feared that the only representatives elected would be members of the elite and that the middle and lower classes would be shoved aside and forgotten. The federalists just wanted people who were intelligent, powerful leaders. Leaders who would pass powerful amendments that would please all the states. This was just one of the concerns that stood in the way of the ratification of the Constitution.
The anti-federalists of
Though the one of the US Constitution’s biggest goals was to unify the people, many thought that it would do just the opposite and divide society’s powers even further. A large argument against the ratification of the constitution, especially within
Belief that those who hold power control absolutely only fuels the argument towards ratification of the Constitution itself. First off, anyone can hold a place in the government as long as they’re upstanding citizens, and the people wish them to hold that position. These constrictions ensure that only productive citizens are successful in attaining a political position.
In the end the federalists won and dominated the anti-federalist perspective. The federalist’s votes outnumbered the anti-federalist votes and the constitution was ratified. Helping lay down the foundation of the great nation of
Sources:
(1)Harding, Sammuel B. "The Contest Over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in the State of
(2) Dougherty, Mary. The American Promise: A History of the
(3) McGeveran,, William A., ed. "Origin of the Constitution." World Almanac and Book of Facts (2002): 530. EBSCO. Highline,
Opinions
Megan:
I believe
Ericka:
Since the Constitution was ratified in the end, and
Patrick:
I stand on the Federalist side of the fight. The reason I agree with the constitution is because I agree that since all of the colonies had so much in common it would be a horrible idea to not all cooperate and function under the same government. I think that it would have been a bad idea for all of the states to run individually and have their own government for the simple fact that the colonies can all benefit from each other tremendously. It would be better because they can all use the ports and stand together in disagreements with other entities such as
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Essay #3 Rough Draft
Massachusetts was primarily a federalist colony in the eighteenth century. Federalism was much more followed and was a very logical way of looking at things but there was still the presence of Anti-federalism in Massachusetts at this point in time. There was a huge separation between the upper and the lower class because the writers of the constitution were primarily upper class citizens. The ratification of the constitution caused changes in Massachusetts. The key arguments the Massachusettians had towards ratifying the constitution were that they were able to add amendments, and for the ability for all of the states to carry equal weight and they strived towards the ability to have legislation, judicial and executive.
The federalists and anti-federalists were also divided over the House of Representatives. The federalists liked the idea that all the states would carry equal weight. Larger states would lose some political power and smaller states would gain political power in order to make the states have equal weight. Some of the larger states did not like this obviously because their political power was lessened because they were a larger state. The anti-federalists were not happy about the representation for each state for a different reason. They believed that the representation for each state was too small and the term was too long. One member in the House of Representatives represented about 30,000 people from their state. Whereas, the members in the state legislatures are annually elected, are selected by small circles of people, are not moved very far from their homes, their community knows everything they do, and they frequently see the people they are representing. This allows them to represent their community accurately and the people can be assured that they are well represented and their opinions are heard. Anti-federalists were afraid that with one member representing 30,000 people that there would be no way for their opinions to represented accurately. They also feared that the only representatives elected would be members of the elite and that the middle and lower classes would be shoved aside and forgotten. The federalists just wanted people who were intelligent, powerful leaders. This was not the only problem that stood in the way of the ratification of the Constitution.
The anti-federalists of Massachusetts had the concern that ratifying the Constitution would demean the original Constitution of Massachusetts. Ratifying the Federal Constitution would necessitate changes in there own constitution “which would be a violation of the compact,” (1). However the Federal Constitution is not as set in stone as the Massachusetts Constitution unlike the Massachusetts Constitution the federal Constitution can be amended. The ability to make amendments is one of the most appealing attributes of the Constitution. Under the new constitution the people now would not be confined to inflexibility of the old system. The people have been presented with the power to make amendments, the government will always be held in tact by the people. The people of Massachusetts chose to embrace the new Constitution and let go of the ties they had to their own Constitution. The Federalists prevailed and the Constitution was ratified.
Though the one of the US Constitution’s biggest goals was to unify the people, many thought that it would do just the opposite and divide society’s powers even further. A large argument against the ratification of the constitution, especially within Massachusetts, was that there’d be a strong separation within the states; some thought that ratifying the constitution would further disconnect the classes. This argument was founded on the basis of those who wrote the Constitution itself. Citizens believed that because the writers of the Constitution were mostly part upper class Americans, that only the wealthy upper-class men and women would hold positions of power and control in the land. Also, those select believe that the power that they controlled would be absolute. These few are severely misinformed, because there are several checks and balances that keep the government in check, both by the people and within its structure.
Belief that those who hold power control absolutely only fuels the argument towards ratification of the Constitution itself. First off, anyone can hold a place in the government as long as they’re upstanding citizens, and the people wish them to hold that position. These constrictions ensure that only productive citizens are successful in attaining a political position.
In the end the federalists won and dominated over anti-federalism. The constitution was ratified and there was an agreement to accept federalism more so than anti-federalism. So the future had been set in place. Now the people of Massachusetts had a common ground and a place build up from. Now that the whole ratifying and not ratifying situation had been dealt with the country as a whole could work towards making America what it is today. Their country had finally been formed and showed structure.
Opinions
Megan:
I believe Massachusetts was just being cautious before it ratified something that would govern them for the rest of their lives. The Constitution is very important and Massachusetts just wanted to make sure that the Constitution was how they wanted it to be before ratifying it. They did end up ratifying the Constitution in the end but they were not the same as the other states.
Ericka:
Massachusetts was discerning about the ratification of the constitution. They didn’t runaround ratifying things willy nilly like the first states to ratify the constitution. Like a toad Massachusetts looked before it jumped, the other states were little frogs, they didn’t look before they jumped. After thorough examination and much debate Massachusetts ended up leaping into the glorious world of ratifying the constitution. I believe that the Massachusetts way was the best way to approach the ratifying of the Constitution. I think we all should be more like Massachusetts; they were champs at making good life choices. They analyzed the situation, strove to make it better, and then ratified the constitution like good little Americans should.
Tyler:
Since the Constitution was ratified in the end, and Massachusetts was a federalist state, I agree with their decisions and opinions. At the time, a strong centralized government was necessary. Being independent states with separate governments would not help them expand either land or control. They needed to have a stronger system that would allow them to have individual voices. Sort of like an umbrella that reached over all the states entirely was, and still is, necessary. Massachusetts was internally conflicted about the ratification of the New Constitution and was the first state to give the cause of ratifying the document trouble. Even their concerns were understandable; they did break from a centralized government, parliament, and they feared stepping back into those times. Overall, their federalist views overwhelmed their anti-federalist thoughts, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Patrick:
I stand on the Federalist side of the fight. The reason I agree with the constitution is because I agree that since all of the colonies had so much in common it would be a horrible idea to not all cooperate and function under the same government. I think that it would have been a bad idea for all of the states to run individually and have their own government for the simple fact that the colonies can all benefit from each other tremendously. It would be better because they can all use the ports and stand together in disagreements with other entities such as England.
Monday, November 26, 2007
AOD #9
Last week my family celebrated Thanksgiving. I did not realize that celebration and appreciation was an art of democracy, but it definitely is important to show thanks and appreciation for what we have done. Thanksgiving is a perfect time for this. It is a time to appreciate what we have accomplished and all of the wonderful family we have in our lives. I had a magnificent time with my family this Thanksgiving. Everyone on my mom’s side of the family lives in this general area in Washington so we all get together for the holidays. Even though we all live up here we don’t necessarily see each other a whole lot, so holidays are a nice time to catch up on things and see everyone and just have a good time together.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
AOD #8
During our wiki group essay we had to talk to the people in our group and work with them and collaborate about who was going to do what. When we were deciding about what jobs to assign everyone we took into consideration what people’s strengths and weaknesses were. People we were good researchers did the research and found the sources. People who were good writers wrote more of the essay and did the editing. If we hadn’t paid any attention to those strengths and weaknesses then we would have had a harder time writing the essay. If we had people who were not good at find good sources trying to research then we might not have had good sources and probably had fewer sources. And the same thing goes for if we had had the people who aren’t the strongest at writing doing the paper then it might not have been as good. We really needed to utilize each other to write a strong, successful essay.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
AOD #7
Today we did our reflections for our second essay. We reflected on our work and how well we thought we did. Then we evaluated our progress since our last essay and how well we worked with our partners and how well both we and our partner worked on the essay. We were asked to talk about how much better we did since the last essay and how we used our writing process.
This is the evaluation and reflection arts of democracy concept. We were assessing the lessons we had learned in Craig’s and Ben’s class and how we incorporated those into our essay.
This is the evaluation and reflection arts of democracy concept. We were assessing the lessons we had learned in Craig’s and Ben’s class and how we incorporated those into our essay.
Essay #2 Reflection
1) Your progress from essay #1 to essay #2
This essay did seem easier to write and I knew what was required more than the first essay. I knew where to go for sources and what sources were credible. I think that my writing has improved since my last essay. I think I did well on this essay. I tried to communicate with my partner. I did all of my work and got things done on time. I was a little confused towards the end as far as turning it in, but I think most people were at least a little bit confused.
2)How did your process mesh with your partners?
My process did not mesh very much with my partner's. We mainly did our own thing. We started out with the same process but once we got into writing the essay our processes varied. I did not really know what my partner was doing compared to what I was doing. I do think my partner did the work I think we just needed to communicate with what we were doing. As far as doing the essay goes I think my partner did very well. He did his end of the project. As far as communicating with me what he was doing, did not go so well.
3)If you had it, how did you handle creative conflict? If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
I guess you could say that our creative conflict wasn't really the problem. It was the lack of communication between each other that caused problems. We were not on the same page all the time and so we did not know what the other person was doing so we just kind of did our own thing. Then when we tried to match up it made it more difficult. Other than the lack of communication, our collaboration worked okay. We didn't really have any creative conflict. When we did communicate things went smoothly and we were both able to say what we wanted to say.
This essay did seem easier to write and I knew what was required more than the first essay. I knew where to go for sources and what sources were credible. I think that my writing has improved since my last essay. I think I did well on this essay. I tried to communicate with my partner. I did all of my work and got things done on time. I was a little confused towards the end as far as turning it in, but I think most people were at least a little bit confused.
2)How did your process mesh with your partners?
My process did not mesh very much with my partner's. We mainly did our own thing. We started out with the same process but once we got into writing the essay our processes varied. I did not really know what my partner was doing compared to what I was doing. I do think my partner did the work I think we just needed to communicate with what we were doing. As far as doing the essay goes I think my partner did very well. He did his end of the project. As far as communicating with me what he was doing, did not go so well.
3)If you had it, how did you handle creative conflict? If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
I guess you could say that our creative conflict wasn't really the problem. It was the lack of communication between each other that caused problems. We were not on the same page all the time and so we did not know what the other person was doing so we just kind of did our own thing. Then when we tried to match up it made it more difficult. Other than the lack of communication, our collaboration worked okay. We didn't really have any creative conflict. When we did communicate things went smoothly and we were both able to say what we wanted to say.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Final Essay #2 By Megan Thomas and Chris Orr
Dear William,
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that year business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understand why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to go help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I get letters from him occasionally. He is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm here, which has not become uncommon around here. The other women near often come together and we discuss matters as if we were in congress or parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given. Only part of the problem is the tax itself. It's the principle, the fact that they taxed us without our own representation. They did not have the right to do that. They have too much power over us and do not care about our rights.
I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us. You say that we are a valuable part of England, and yet England does not consider us valuable enough to not impose upon those rights and freedoms they gave us initially.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. They may give us some freedoms but they take away many more and those freedoms are not guaranteed. Yes, we have lots of new, free land, but we do not need Britain to tell us what we can take for our own. That is simply opportunity, not freedom. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter finds you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I speak the truth and I hope you will see that. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
Sources:
1)The American Promise text book
2)Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=21212324&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
3)Is Patriotism A Mistake? (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=4012279&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that year business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understand why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to go help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I get letters from him occasionally. He is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm here, which has not become uncommon around here. The other women near often come together and we discuss matters as if we were in congress or parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given. Only part of the problem is the tax itself. It's the principle, the fact that they taxed us without our own representation. They did not have the right to do that. They have too much power over us and do not care about our rights.
I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us. You say that we are a valuable part of England, and yet England does not consider us valuable enough to not impose upon those rights and freedoms they gave us initially.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. They may give us some freedoms but they take away many more and those freedoms are not guaranteed. Yes, we have lots of new, free land, but we do not need Britain to tell us what we can take for our own. That is simply opportunity, not freedom. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter finds you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I speak the truth and I hope you will see that. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
Sources:
1)The American Promise text book
2)Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=21212324&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
3)Is Patriotism A Mistake? (http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=4012279&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Essay #2 Rough Draft
Dear William,
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that year business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understood why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to go help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I get letters from him occasionally. He is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm here, which has not become uncommon around here. The other women near often come together and we discuss matters as if we were in congress or parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given.
What protection are they giving us? I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I have been lucky because the other day Isabel came rushing into the house in a panic. She had bruises everywhere and was limping a little. When I asked her what happened she told me that those horrible soldiers had taken over her house. This is getting so out of control and I do not know how much longer I can take all of this. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter finds you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
I hope you are well in these times of turmoil. I am sorry to hear that year business is not going well. It is just another reason for us to end this war and separate from Britain. I do not understood why you are so afraid of becoming free and ruling ourselves. We do not need Britain to sustain us. All they have done is violate our rights and force us to start this horrible war.
Jacob left to go help our brothers quite a while ago and I miss him terribly. I get letters from him occasionally. He is doing well. I have had to take over all of the duties on the farm here, which has not become uncommon around here. The other women near often come together and we discuss matters as if we were in congress or parliament.
You are not the only one who is still fooled by His Majesty’s illusions. There are many others here who believe that letting them take our rights is equal to the so called “protection” they give us. Well who is going to protect us from them? The British make all these promises and give us supposed “rights”, but then they tax us without representation and do not give us the rights that our ancestors were given.
What protection are they giving us? I fear for myself with my husband gone. The soldiers just barge into the house and demand food and lodging without any kind words. I have been lucky because the other day Isabel came rushing into the house in a panic. She had bruises everywhere and was limping a little. When I asked her what happened she told me that those horrible soldiers had taken over her house. This is getting so out of control and I do not know how much longer I can take all of this. I know we need to be independent from Britain and that it is the best thing for us. I just can’t believe that you would believe that anyone that uses their authority that way would benefit us.
I know you believe that our resistance is worthless and we are only wasting our time trying to fight the most powerful nation in the world. But these are our rights, our freedom that we must claim for our own. We should be able to make our own laws and tax ourselves. And that money should go to us. I really wish you could understand this, brother. I know you want to remain loyal to the king but I strongly urge you to change your mind.
Well I wish for this letter finds you well. I am very concerned for you and pray for you everyday. Let me know if you ever need a favor. I will try and do all that I can for you. I hope that your business keeps you well sustained until we have our freedom. Then I promise you that you will prosper like never before. I will write often.
Your dearest sister,
Elizabeth Bailey
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
AOD #6
Whenever we have a guest speaker I try to listen actively. I try to be attentive and take notes. I also try and ask questions to help me understand what they are talking about further. This really helps me understand what they are talking about and it also helps me remember what they said later on and if I do not remember then I have notes to go back and look at it to refresh my memory. I think this also encourages the speaker when you are asking questions and being attentive because you actually look like you care about what they are saying and it seems to encourage them and make them more confident.
Monday, October 29, 2007
AOD #5
Our United Nations simulation last week was a perfect example of negotiation. When the idea was brought up about splitting up into many small groups instead of one big group to get more things accomplished it caused a problem. Some countries were concerned that small groups would be more vulnerable than a larger group. But other countries thought that small groups would be able to accomplish more than one larger group. So we had to negotiate the pros and cons of each choice and then negotiate as to what was the best choice for all the countries. This was somewhat difficult because both sides ended up just restating their arguments over and over again. But what we really had to look at what the key interests of both sides were and what we were willing to give up and what we could not give up. Eventually, I think we came to a conclusion.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Midterm Practice
“[W]hen he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding [colonies], ‘the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us[.]” This quote is just a small piece of an important speech by John Winthrop in 1630. It had a big impact on the young, developing colonies of New England.
John Winthrop wanted to express to the immigrants in the New World that they were being watched by everyone. That they were being held to a higher standard and they must keep to that standard. They were still trying to establish the New World so this was a crucial point for them. Since they were still being established the whole world was watching them. He is saying that they needed to make themselves look good and appealing to other countries. Also, he is saying that they have an influence on the colonies that follow them, that he wanted them to be able to say that God made their colony like New England. He wanted other colonies to want to be as great as New England.
I think that John Winthrop is right that the world is going to be watching them. This was undiscovered territory that nobody really knew about so I'm sure the other countries would be curious as to how it was going to play out. They wanted to see if it was something that maybe they should try and go after, if it was worth it to them or perhaps if this did not work for England, if maybe they could do better. The world thrives on competition. Whenever you have competition of some kind you are going to watch that competition to see if there is a spot where maybe you can get ahead. To see if what their strengths and what their weaknesses are so you can take advantage of those for your own gain. I think this is what the other countries were doing. To see if maybe this New World was worth doing business with and if that would help their country or not. So I think John Winthrop is right that they needed to make themselves look good to other countries because if they did not then the other countries would not bother with trading with them and their networking with other countries would have been more difficult.
This speech was for motivational for the immigrants in New England and probably encouraged them. The development New World was a very influential time for England and for the colonies in New England. This speech might have made the colonies step it up some to show other countries that they were thriving and would survive. This is a world of competition and New England was trying to be competition.
John Winthrop wanted to express to the immigrants in the New World that they were being watched by everyone. That they were being held to a higher standard and they must keep to that standard. They were still trying to establish the New World so this was a crucial point for them. Since they were still being established the whole world was watching them. He is saying that they needed to make themselves look good and appealing to other countries. Also, he is saying that they have an influence on the colonies that follow them, that he wanted them to be able to say that God made their colony like New England. He wanted other colonies to want to be as great as New England.
I think that John Winthrop is right that the world is going to be watching them. This was undiscovered territory that nobody really knew about so I'm sure the other countries would be curious as to how it was going to play out. They wanted to see if it was something that maybe they should try and go after, if it was worth it to them or perhaps if this did not work for England, if maybe they could do better. The world thrives on competition. Whenever you have competition of some kind you are going to watch that competition to see if there is a spot where maybe you can get ahead. To see if what their strengths and what their weaknesses are so you can take advantage of those for your own gain. I think this is what the other countries were doing. To see if maybe this New World was worth doing business with and if that would help their country or not. So I think John Winthrop is right that they needed to make themselves look good to other countries because if they did not then the other countries would not bother with trading with them and their networking with other countries would have been more difficult.
This speech was for motivational for the immigrants in New England and probably encouraged them. The development New World was a very influential time for England and for the colonies in New England. This speech might have made the colonies step it up some to show other countries that they were thriving and would survive. This is a world of competition and New England was trying to be competition.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
AOD #4
My friends will get into arguments quite often, usually due to a misunderstanding or miscommunication. I get so lucky as to be the person they feel the need to talk to about these arguments. So I usually get involved and get dealt the job of patching things up and mediating the situation otherwise the world is going to come to an end. When this happens I am usually talking online with my friends and they tell me about the situation. When this happens I open up both of their conversations on my screen and listen to both sides. Then I usually get both people to reveal their true feelings on the subject. Most of the time all it takes to bring things back to peace is to simply reiterate what the other person has said in a friendlier way of saying it. Once they hear this from the other person they will agree to talk to each other again. Then they start talking to each other and in a little while I usually get a message saying “everything is fine again”.
This is my process for solving my friends’ problems and I usually find it quite successful. When I saw that mediating was on this list I actually thought that that fitted it quite well because when I looked back at my process it sounded just like mediation and what I have heard about student mediation and that sort of thing.
This is my process for solving my friends’ problems and I usually find it quite successful. When I saw that mediating was on this list I actually thought that that fitted it quite well because when I looked back at my process it sounded just like mediation and what I have heard about student mediation and that sort of thing.
Essay #1 Reflection Post
How do you think you did?
I honestly think I did ok. I think I could've done better. It was not my best work. I did things kind of last minute like I used to do in high school. This helped me to realize what kind of things I need to do before and that I should do them earlier than I did them this time. I realized that I really need to step it up and to try and get ahead when I can so that next time I will be able to do my best.
What have you learned about your....
...writing process:
I have learned that my writing process involves writing things out multiple times and doing multiple outlines and drafts and lots of time which I do not give myself enough time to do all of it. I start out by just "vomiting on the keyboard" then I sort through everything I typed and organize it into an outline. Then I do multiple outlines and add more information and more detail until it's almost a paragraph, then I write it out into paragraphs. This is what I do when I give myself enough time to do all that but generally I don't give myself enough time so I end up skipping a lot of steps and missing a lot of detail.
...writing philosophy:
I still agree with my first reflection of my writing philosophy. I use my writing as a way of expressing myself. It is hard to express yourself in an essay when it has a certain prompt or topic but it is still your writing so it still has some of you in it. Writing should show who you are. It should show your thoughts and feelings on whatever you are writing about.
What have you learned about college writing vs. high school writing?
I have learned that there is a lot more expected of you in college writing. You have to figure things out by yourself rather than it all being spoon fed to you by the teacher. Also, you really have to make sure that the sources you are using are legit. You have to make sure that your information is reliable. In college writing you put more of your opinion into it. High school writing was more like summarizing what we'd already learned or what they had told us and putting it into essay form. High school writing is five paragraph essays and have a standard format that it has to fit. College writing is more free form and you have more freedom in what you can write. But you still have to fit with the assignment.
What changes will you make for next time?
Next time I will give myself more time and not wait until the last minute. When I do that I will be able to pay more attention to detail in my essay and have enough time to make sure everything is the way I want it to be. Also, I will check my sources to make sure they are legit and that I am getting the most reliable source of information and make sure it's what I'm looking for. Most of the changes I would make depend on me giving myself more time by starting earlier so I can get ahead.
I honestly think I did ok. I think I could've done better. It was not my best work. I did things kind of last minute like I used to do in high school. This helped me to realize what kind of things I need to do before and that I should do them earlier than I did them this time. I realized that I really need to step it up and to try and get ahead when I can so that next time I will be able to do my best.
What have you learned about your....
...writing process:
I have learned that my writing process involves writing things out multiple times and doing multiple outlines and drafts and lots of time which I do not give myself enough time to do all of it. I start out by just "vomiting on the keyboard" then I sort through everything I typed and organize it into an outline. Then I do multiple outlines and add more information and more detail until it's almost a paragraph, then I write it out into paragraphs. This is what I do when I give myself enough time to do all that but generally I don't give myself enough time so I end up skipping a lot of steps and missing a lot of detail.
...writing philosophy:
I still agree with my first reflection of my writing philosophy. I use my writing as a way of expressing myself. It is hard to express yourself in an essay when it has a certain prompt or topic but it is still your writing so it still has some of you in it. Writing should show who you are. It should show your thoughts and feelings on whatever you are writing about.
What have you learned about college writing vs. high school writing?
I have learned that there is a lot more expected of you in college writing. You have to figure things out by yourself rather than it all being spoon fed to you by the teacher. Also, you really have to make sure that the sources you are using are legit. You have to make sure that your information is reliable. In college writing you put more of your opinion into it. High school writing was more like summarizing what we'd already learned or what they had told us and putting it into essay form. High school writing is five paragraph essays and have a standard format that it has to fit. College writing is more free form and you have more freedom in what you can write. But you still have to fit with the assignment.
What changes will you make for next time?
Next time I will give myself more time and not wait until the last minute. When I do that I will be able to pay more attention to detail in my essay and have enough time to make sure everything is the way I want it to be. Also, I will check my sources to make sure they are legit and that I am getting the most reliable source of information and make sure it's what I'm looking for. Most of the changes I would make depend on me giving myself more time by starting earlier so I can get ahead.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Essay Final Draft
The making of America was not as simple as people coming here and settling down. There were natives that had already claimed the land for themselves. Bacon's rebellion is all about ownership. Who has the right to what land. All of this caused confusion and frustration for the colonists in the Chesapeake. When the confusion and frustration provided no solution the poor, landless farmers chose to rebel. The rebellion and the conflict leading up to the rebellion influenced Chesapeake society even if it wasn’t as major of an event as the American Revolution.
Bacon’s rebellion was brought on by the differences in the classes of the Chesapeake colonies. Until mid-century, classes were not separated by how much money you had, but by whether you were free or not. Towards the later half of the century, three changes in the economy occurred that changed the social classes. First, tobacco prices decreased because so much of it was being exported that it became less of a luxury. This made it harder for freed servants to save up enough money to buy their own land. Second, the mortality rate in the Chesapeake lowered, so more servants survived their indentures, leading to more free landless men. Finally, since the mortality rate was declining, planters lived longer so they had more time to make money and become wealthier. This created a planters elite (3). I agree that this would cause a gap in society. When the poor are not getting money as fast and the rich are getting more money faster then it makes sense that that would cause a gap. But I don’t think money was the only reason that the two social classes grew farther apart. I think it was also their view on the Native Americans. Since the two classes had different ideas about the Indians it pushed them apart even more. Because people with the same views and opinions, generally, clump together.
The Native Americans were a great ally to the colonists and they should have kept their friendship with them at all costs. To try and do this “William Berkeley, the colonial governor, hewed to a policy that honored alliances with friendly tribes, which in turn acted as buffers and allies against the hostile tribes” (2). This statement makes a good point in saying that the friendly tribes would protect them from the hostile tribes. Since the colonists had had other attacks by Indians this was a smart idea. The friendly tribes could communicate with the hostile tribes for the colonists or they could help them if the hostile tribes ever attacked. But the lower class failed to see the protection that this friendship would bring because they were too worried about finding land to buy and settle on. The elite farmers did not care so much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it (2). It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy and could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans (4). Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about the lessening amount of free land on the western frontier (4). I believe the landless farmers have a right to be angry because the elite were operating in a way that only benefited them personally. The friendship with the Native Americans was going good for the elite farmers so they were okay with it and did not plan to change it. But I also believe that the landless farmers took it a little too far with the rebellion, even if they did get their point across. In the end Governor Berkeley and the elite had to choose “the lesser of two evils”. This situation enraged the Chesapeake’s lower class which caused the rebellion. When the rebels started looking for a leader that would support their views, “Nathaniel Bacon embraced the opportunity to elevate his local standing and agreed to lead volunteer militia units” (2). This seems unusual that Bacon would choose to be the leader of this rebellion when he was the cousin of Governor Berkeley by marriage and was not in the lower class of the landless farmers and freed servants (2). He was welcomed into the elite society when he arrived in Virginia in 1674 (2). So it is strange that Bacon would choose to lead the lower class against the upper class when he was originally in the upper class. And much less so that he could increase his local standing with the people. Leading a rebellion does not seem like the way to make you really popular in society accept maybe with the rebels. But now Nathaniel Bacon is famous for what is considered his rebellion which is really a battle between rich and poor.
Bacon’s rebellion really pushed the switch from indentured servants to African slaves. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council, the tension between the two classes lessened, but the tensions between races increased (3). Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants (2). I agree with this statement because after Bacon’s rebellion I would understand why farmers would not want indentured servants because they would be afraid of them rebelling or causing trouble once their indentures were over. So with the increase of African slaves that created a new lower class. Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping a friendly relationship with their fellow white men was more important than their relationships with the Native Americans (3). This was a smart decision on their part because there were not as many of the natives and the farmers were not going to be shoved aside. Also, if they were trying to build a colony then they’re going to want to expand so they’re going to want those farmers to find land so that they can expand their colony.
There are still situations like this today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because they benefited more since they were able to trade with them and for protection against hostile tribes (3). Just like today the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants because it benefits them since they can do the same amount of labor and the same quality for cheaper than if they hired the average American citizen. This is because the immigrants will accept the lower paying jobs.
The lack of land and the problem of ownership caused Bacon's rebellion. The landless farmers wanted land so that they could make money of their own and settle down. Governor Berkeley and the elite farmers wanted to keep their relationship with the Indians for trade and protection, but also wanted to keep their relationship with the poorer, lower class. The landless farmers wanted a decision so they decided to act. Bacon's rebellion changed Chesapeake society. The differences between the classes decreased and the differences between races increased as more African slaves were sold instead of indentured servants. Bacon's rebellion was very influential even if it was not as major as the American Revolution or other rebellions in history.
(1) http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html
(2) http://www.bookrags.com/research/bacons-rebellion-aaw-01/
(3) The American Promise
Bacon’s rebellion was brought on by the differences in the classes of the Chesapeake colonies. Until mid-century, classes were not separated by how much money you had, but by whether you were free or not. Towards the later half of the century, three changes in the economy occurred that changed the social classes. First, tobacco prices decreased because so much of it was being exported that it became less of a luxury. This made it harder for freed servants to save up enough money to buy their own land. Second, the mortality rate in the Chesapeake lowered, so more servants survived their indentures, leading to more free landless men. Finally, since the mortality rate was declining, planters lived longer so they had more time to make money and become wealthier. This created a planters elite (3). I agree that this would cause a gap in society. When the poor are not getting money as fast and the rich are getting more money faster then it makes sense that that would cause a gap. But I don’t think money was the only reason that the two social classes grew farther apart. I think it was also their view on the Native Americans. Since the two classes had different ideas about the Indians it pushed them apart even more. Because people with the same views and opinions, generally, clump together.
The Native Americans were a great ally to the colonists and they should have kept their friendship with them at all costs. To try and do this “William Berkeley, the colonial governor, hewed to a policy that honored alliances with friendly tribes, which in turn acted as buffers and allies against the hostile tribes” (2). This statement makes a good point in saying that the friendly tribes would protect them from the hostile tribes. Since the colonists had had other attacks by Indians this was a smart idea. The friendly tribes could communicate with the hostile tribes for the colonists or they could help them if the hostile tribes ever attacked. But the lower class failed to see the protection that this friendship would bring because they were too worried about finding land to buy and settle on. The elite farmers did not care so much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it (2). It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy and could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans (4). Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about the lessening amount of free land on the western frontier (4). I believe the landless farmers have a right to be angry because the elite were operating in a way that only benefited them personally. The friendship with the Native Americans was going good for the elite farmers so they were okay with it and did not plan to change it. But I also believe that the landless farmers took it a little too far with the rebellion, even if they did get their point across. In the end Governor Berkeley and the elite had to choose “the lesser of two evils”. This situation enraged the Chesapeake’s lower class which caused the rebellion. When the rebels started looking for a leader that would support their views, “Nathaniel Bacon embraced the opportunity to elevate his local standing and agreed to lead volunteer militia units” (2). This seems unusual that Bacon would choose to be the leader of this rebellion when he was the cousin of Governor Berkeley by marriage and was not in the lower class of the landless farmers and freed servants (2). He was welcomed into the elite society when he arrived in Virginia in 1674 (2). So it is strange that Bacon would choose to lead the lower class against the upper class when he was originally in the upper class. And much less so that he could increase his local standing with the people. Leading a rebellion does not seem like the way to make you really popular in society accept maybe with the rebels. But now Nathaniel Bacon is famous for what is considered his rebellion which is really a battle between rich and poor.
Bacon’s rebellion really pushed the switch from indentured servants to African slaves. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council, the tension between the two classes lessened, but the tensions between races increased (3). Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants (2). I agree with this statement because after Bacon’s rebellion I would understand why farmers would not want indentured servants because they would be afraid of them rebelling or causing trouble once their indentures were over. So with the increase of African slaves that created a new lower class. Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping a friendly relationship with their fellow white men was more important than their relationships with the Native Americans (3). This was a smart decision on their part because there were not as many of the natives and the farmers were not going to be shoved aside. Also, if they were trying to build a colony then they’re going to want to expand so they’re going to want those farmers to find land so that they can expand their colony.
There are still situations like this today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because they benefited more since they were able to trade with them and for protection against hostile tribes (3). Just like today the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants because it benefits them since they can do the same amount of labor and the same quality for cheaper than if they hired the average American citizen. This is because the immigrants will accept the lower paying jobs.
The lack of land and the problem of ownership caused Bacon's rebellion. The landless farmers wanted land so that they could make money of their own and settle down. Governor Berkeley and the elite farmers wanted to keep their relationship with the Indians for trade and protection, but also wanted to keep their relationship with the poorer, lower class. The landless farmers wanted a decision so they decided to act. Bacon's rebellion changed Chesapeake society. The differences between the classes decreased and the differences between races increased as more African slaves were sold instead of indentured servants. Bacon's rebellion was very influential even if it was not as major as the American Revolution or other rebellions in history.
(1) http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html
(2) http://www.bookrags.com/research/bacons-rebellion-aaw-01/
(3) The American Promise
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion rough draft #2
The making of America was not as simple as people coming there and settling down. There were natives that had already claimed the land for themselves. Bacon's rebellion is all about ownership. Who has the right to what land. All of this caused confusion and frustration for the colonists in the Chesapeake. When the confusion and frustration provided no solution the poor, landless farmers chose to rebel. The rebellion, and the conflict leading up to the rebellion, influenced Chesapeake society even if it as major of an event as the American revolution.
Bacon’s rebellion was brought on by the differences in the classes of the
The Native Americans were a great ally to the colonists and they should have kept their friendship with them at all costs. To try and do this “William Berkeley, the colonial governor, hewed to a policy that honored alliances with friendly tribes, which in turn acted as buffers and allies against the hostile tribes” (2). This statement makes a good point in saying that the friendly tribes would help them with the hostile tribes. Since the colonists had had other attacks by Indians this was a smart idea. The friendly tribes could communicate with the hostile tribes for the colonists or they could help them if the hostile tribes ever attacked. But the lower class failed to see the protection that this friendship would bring because they were too worried about finding land to buy and settle on. The elite farmers did not care so much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it (2). It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy that could not find it because of
Bacon’s rebellion really pushed the switch from indentured servants to African slaves. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council the tension between the two classes lessened, but the tensions between races increased (3). Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants (2). I agree with this statement because after Bacon’s rebellion I would understand why farmers would not want indentured servants because they would be afraid of them rebellion or causing trouble once their indentures were over. So with the increase of African slaves that created a new lower class.
There are still situations like this today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because they benefited more because they were able to trade with them and for protection against hostile tribes (3). Just like now how the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants are sending work out of the country because it benefits them because they can do the same amount of labor and the same quality for cheaper than if they hired the average American citizen.
(1) http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html
(2) http://www.bookrags.com/research/bacons-rebellion-aaw-01/
(3) The American Promise
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
AOD #3
Community meetings are a perfect example of public dialogue. Public dialogue is public talk on matters that concern us all, which is exactly what we do in community meetings. We discuss matters that concern all PSEC students and staff. And we discuss these matters all together. Community meetings are setup so that there is a chance for every student or staff to participate that wants to participate and give their input. Every student and staff’s input is important because it has an effect on everyone in the community. The meetings are also conducted in a way so that the dialogue is a discussion and not just a lecture and there is always room for changing, adding, or correcting anything that is said or done in the meeting.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Essay Rough Draft
Bacon’s rebellion was brought on by the differences in the classes of the Chesapeake colonies. The classes changed and evolved throughout the century. Until mid-century, classes were not separated by how much money you had, but by whether you were free or not. Towards the later half of the century, three changes in the economy occurred that redrew the social class lines. First, as more and more tobacco was grown, it made tobacco prices decrease because it was not as much of a luxury anymore, this decreased planter’s profits. So it took freed servants longer to save up enough money to buy their own land. Second, the mortality rate in the Chesapeake lowered, so more servants survived their indentures, leading to more free landless men. Finally, since the mortality rate was declining, planters lived longer so they had more time to make money and become wealthier. This created a planters elite. These three changes separated the colonies into two different classes. The upper class was made up of the elite planters and yeoman planters and the lower class was made up of the landless colonists who were mostly freed servants. These two different classes had completely different lifestyles. The freed slaves were trying to find land to buy and make enough money to buy it which was more difficult because the elite society, including Berkeley, wanted to keep relationships with the Indians for trade and other purposes.
Class had a big impact on Bacon’s rebellion. Governor Berkeley felt like the Indians were more of a threat than the lower class, freed servants. Therefore, Berkeley made sure to keep relations with the Native Americans and give them plenty of land even if it meant not giving the lower class what they wanted. This caused a lot of conflict between the landless farmers on the western frontier and then Indians trying to protect their land. The elite farmers did not care as much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it. It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy that could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans. Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about lessening amount of free land on the western frontier. Berkeley and the elite wanted to keep their ties with the Indians for trade and to keep the peace with them since there had been problems with Indians before. If all of the freed servants had already had land or if enough land was already available then there would not have been a problem, accept for the fact that many indentured servants were living out their indentures so they were free so there were many newly freed servants. This situation enraged the Chesapeake’s lower class which caused the rebellion. The rebels looked for a leader that would support their views and Nathaniel Bacon saw this as a good opportunity to increase his local standing so he agreed to lead volunteer militia units. This seems odd that Bacon would choose to be the leader of this rebellion when he was the cousin of General Berkeley by marriage and was not in the lower class of the landless farmers and freed servants. He was welcomed into the elite society when he arrived in Virginia in 1674. So it seems odd that Bacon would choose to lead the lower class against the upper class when he was originally in the upper class. And much less, so that he could increase his local standing with the people. Leading a rebellion does not seem like the way to make yourself real popular in society, expect maybe with the rebels. But now Nathaniel Bacon is famous for what is considered his rebellion which is really a battle between the poor and wealthy.
This rebellion changed the Chesapeake colonies immensely. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council the tension between the two classes lessened. But the tensions between races increased. Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants. This was the start of the racism to come, not only for the African slaves but also for the Indian tribes. Both were looked down upon more after the rebellion. And Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping friendly relationships with their fellow white men was more important then their relationships with the Native Americans. We still see something like this in society today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because that benefited them more because they were able to trade with them. Just like now how the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants and sending work out of the country because it benefits them because they can do the same amount of labor for cheaper than if they hired your average American citizen. History does repeat itself. Hopefully, there will not be another rebellion.
Class had a big impact on Bacon’s rebellion. Governor Berkeley felt like the Indians were more of a threat than the lower class, freed servants. Therefore, Berkeley made sure to keep relations with the Native Americans and give them plenty of land even if it meant not giving the lower class what they wanted. This caused a lot of conflict between the landless farmers on the western frontier and then Indians trying to protect their land. The elite farmers did not care as much about the little amount of land available because they already had their land and were making a good profit off of it. It was the landless farmers that were trying to find land to buy that could not find it because of Berkeley’s loyalties to the Native Americans. Because of this, the lower class thought that the elite farmers were operating the government for their own gain because they did not do anything about lessening amount of free land on the western frontier. Berkeley and the elite wanted to keep their ties with the Indians for trade and to keep the peace with them since there had been problems with Indians before. If all of the freed servants had already had land or if enough land was already available then there would not have been a problem, accept for the fact that many indentured servants were living out their indentures so they were free so there were many newly freed servants. This situation enraged the Chesapeake’s lower class which caused the rebellion. The rebels looked for a leader that would support their views and Nathaniel Bacon saw this as a good opportunity to increase his local standing so he agreed to lead volunteer militia units. This seems odd that Bacon would choose to be the leader of this rebellion when he was the cousin of General Berkeley by marriage and was not in the lower class of the landless farmers and freed servants. He was welcomed into the elite society when he arrived in Virginia in 1674. So it seems odd that Bacon would choose to lead the lower class against the upper class when he was originally in the upper class. And much less, so that he could increase his local standing with the people. Leading a rebellion does not seem like the way to make yourself real popular in society, expect maybe with the rebels. But now Nathaniel Bacon is famous for what is considered his rebellion which is really a battle between the poor and wealthy.
This rebellion changed the Chesapeake colonies immensely. Although the grandees still remained in power of the council the tension between the two classes lessened. But the tensions between races increased. Some believe this is because after the rebellion, most planters and land owners made the switch to African slaves instead of indentured servants. This was the start of the racism to come, not only for the African slaves but also for the Indian tribes. Both were looked down upon more after the rebellion. And Berkeley and the elite society realized that keeping friendly relationships with their fellow white men was more important then their relationships with the Native Americans. We still see something like this in society today. At first, the elite sided with the Indians because that benefited them more because they were able to trade with them. Just like now how the bigger companies are hiring more immigrants and sending work out of the country because it benefits them because they can do the same amount of labor for cheaper than if they hired your average American citizen. History does repeat itself. Hopefully, there will not be another rebellion.
Monday, October 8, 2007
AOD #2
I was watching a show yesterday and then when I was thinking about what to do my blog on today it popped into my head. In the show the main character was in class with her friends and the teacher was explaining an assignment. The teacher was going to talk to them individually and ask them questions about what they were interested in for a career when they graduated and what their interests were. Based on their answers the teacher picked an internship for them and they interned wherever he told them to for a week. The main characters ended up getting jobs that had nothing to do with their answers. They had to give presentations about their internships and the students learned that their careers they had thought they wanted to do did not match up with their values. At the end of the show they realized that their values would change over the years and so they couldn’t base their ideal job off of what they wanted right then because those jobs were not all that realistic and most of them thought they were going to have their perfect job right away.
When I was looking at the list of Arts of Democracy concepts, I saw the political imagination concept and thought this show fit it perfectly because it talks about futures and how those match up with our values.
When I was looking at the list of Arts of Democracy concepts, I saw the political imagination concept and thought this show fit it perfectly because it talks about futures and how those match up with our values.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Brainstorming
Choose one: Race, Class, Politics, Economics
-How it was resolved by Bacon's Rebellion?
-How it was resolved by Bacon's Rebellion?
-How that resolution contributed to transforming the character of Chesapeake society in the colonal period?
-Relate theme from this historical episode with a common theme of American life today.
From The American Promise:
-Bacon's Rebellion was a dispute over Virginia's Indian policy
-Indians relinquished claims to land already settled by English
-Land beyond English settlement was supposed to be reserved for Indian use only
-Freed servants pushed beyond treaty limits
-During 1660s and 1670s violence between colonists and Indians happened frequently
-Government tried to reestablish peace
-Frontier settlers wanted revenge
-Bacon charged that the elite planters ran the government for their own personal gain
-Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a traitor
-He called new elections and local leaders were elected, including Bacon
-New legislature passed Bacon's Laws
-Bacon declared war against Berkeley
-Bacon unexpectedly died in October
-Allies of Bacon's were hung and the rebellion died
After:
-Grandees were not dislodged from powerful positions
-Berkeley was replaced
-Bacon's Laws were nullified
-Export tax on every hogshead of tobacco
-Tensions between great planters and small farmers lessened
-Ruling elite decided it was better for colonists to fight Indians rather than each other
-Colonial government reduced taxes by 75% between 1660 and 1700
-Declined importance of the servant labor system
-Differences between poor farmers and rich planters minimized
-Differences between whites and blacks magnified
Other sources:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
-How it was resolved by Bacon's Rebellion?
-How it was resolved by Bacon's Rebellion?
-How that resolution contributed to transforming the character of Chesapeake society in the colonal period?
-Relate theme from this historical episode with a common theme of American life today.
From The American Promise:
-Bacon's Rebellion was a dispute over Virginia's Indian policy
-Indians relinquished claims to land already settled by English
-Land beyond English settlement was supposed to be reserved for Indian use only
-Freed servants pushed beyond treaty limits
-During 1660s and 1670s violence between colonists and Indians happened frequently
-Government tried to reestablish peace
-Frontier settlers wanted revenge
-Bacon charged that the elite planters ran the government for their own personal gain
-Governor Berkeley pronounced Bacon a traitor
-He called new elections and local leaders were elected, including Bacon
-New legislature passed Bacon's Laws
-Bacon declared war against Berkeley
-Bacon unexpectedly died in October
-Allies of Bacon's were hung and the rebellion died
After:
-Grandees were not dislodged from powerful positions
-Berkeley was replaced
-Bacon's Laws were nullified
-Export tax on every hogshead of tobacco
-Tensions between great planters and small farmers lessened
-Ruling elite decided it was better for colonists to fight Indians rather than each other
-Colonial government reduced taxes by 75% between 1660 and 1700
-Declined importance of the servant labor system
-Differences between poor farmers and rich planters minimized
-Differences between whites and blacks magnified
Other sources:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Tobacco Industry
The tobacco industry helped the colonists in the beginning of America, but the tobacco industry has done nothing to help US citizens of today. Tobacco was a luxury for the colonists. It was a way to make money so that they could start their colony in the New World. The colonists had trouble growing enough corn to feed themselves but they had much more luck with tobacco. Which quickly caused tobacco to become a major export for Virginia. With so much success, planters were in need of more help which provided many new job opportunities. Today tobacco is no longer a luxury, but a killer. According to http://www.thetruth.com/, "tobacco companies' products kill 36,000 people every month." Tobacco companies' products are no longer in demand as much as they used to be but they are still popular enough for the companies to not go out of business. That is the only reason they are still around. Tobacco companies are not as important as they were, in fact, they are not important at all unless you smoke. They do not provide as many jobs and it is no longer a major export that sells for a high price. There are also many different ingredients rather than just tobacco causing them to be much more dangerous and poisonous. It is not needed to help establish a country or colony because one is already established. Today, tobacco only causes death and disease. Tobacco companies helped early US citizens, now it only kills US citizens.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
ARGs
I am still unsure as to why we were supposed to read this article on ARGs. It is an interesting topic but I do not see how it relates to writing. Unless we are possibly playing an ARG...I can't really think of any other reasoning for reading this. This might impact me if I wanted to know more about ARGs or if I wanted to know how they work. This situation calls for lots of analysis as to why we were supposed to read the article. Unless perhaps we are in an ARG and we have to figure out what the rules are and how it works like the article said. We figure things out as we go along.
Monday, October 1, 2007
AOD #1
Puget Sound Early College is a very diverse school and that surprised me some at first. There are many people that come from different countries, have different religious values, are from different cultures or just from different backgrounds. This causes school to be a very interesting place and it often starts many different debates/arguments during FaCT time.
I remember sitting with a group of friends on the second day of school and someone mention that two people were having a religious argument/debate again. I instantly realized that many different beliefs, values, along with other things, were going to be challenged during this school year.
PSEC is a great example that everyone is different. Lots of people have different personalities and different backgrounds which will make working with other people in groups for projects quite exciting and possibly frustrating.
I remember sitting with a group of friends on the second day of school and someone mention that two people were having a religious argument/debate again. I instantly realized that many different beliefs, values, along with other things, were going to be challenged during this school year.
PSEC is a great example that everyone is different. Lots of people have different personalities and different backgrounds which will make working with other people in groups for projects quite exciting and possibly frustrating.
Community Service Project
For the community service project on Friday we went to a lady's house and did housework and yard work for her and her husband. We cleaned her bathrooms, vacuumed, and organized their office. The client was blind and took care of her son and grandson. She was very kind and willingly accepted our help. She would talk to us while we were working. She had two dogs (one was her seeing eye dog), two cats, a bird, and an aquarium. One of their cats (the big, white, fluffy one) decided that my sweatshirt would make a nice pillow so it curled up on it and went straight to sleep. I didn't mind so I let it sleep. I felt bad about moving it when we had to go. They also had many things in their house which we tried to organize while we cleaned. While we were organizing their office we saw that she had the whole Bible in braille on their shelves. I thought this was really cool. It was a great experience and it felt good to help someone who really could use our help. We did some work outside like weeding and mowing the lawn. Their yard was in pretty good shape and the client's husband worked with us out in the yard. The fact that they accepted our help made it easier for us to help them.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Justifying Conquest
Three different people expanded on their thoughts about the Spaniards conquest of the Native Americans. One of which was a Dominican friar, Anton Montecino. Anton wrote a sermon in 1511, where he argued that the Spanish conquistadors were greedy for gold and did not really care about spreading Christianity to the native peoples. He insisted that they were sinning and that the conquistadors had no right to kill the natives or force them into slavery, since the natives did nothing to harm the Spaniards. In response to this sermon, in 1512 and 1513 King Ferdinand of Spain gathered his philosophers, theologians and other advisors and wrote the Requerimiento. This document was written to justify the conquest of the native peoples. It was read to the Indians before the Spaniards took over. But since the natives did not speak spanish they could not understand the Conquistadors. It gives them a chance to convert to Christianity and let the Spaniards take over peacefully. It also stated that the Pope was God on earth and that he gave the Indian's land to the king and queen of Spain. Therefore, giving them the right to take it and rule it. If the allowed the Spaniards to take over and allow their priests to preach to them and hear what they had to say then the Spaniards insisted that "we...shall receive you in all love and charity", leave their women, children and land for them to do with as they please, not force them to convert to Chrisitianity, and many other benefits. If they refused or delayed too long in making a decision then the Conquistadors and their army would enter their country and make war, force their religion upon them, take their wives and children and sell them, take away their goods, do harm and damage to them and their belongings, and kill them if they resisted further. The third and final person is Bartolome de Las Casas who was an eye witness to the cruelties in the New World. In 1552, he wrote his accounts in The Cruelties of the Spaniards Committed in America Destruction of the Indies. Bartolome describes the island San Salvador as highly populated, with fertile soil, and very diverse. He claims that the Indians are kind and welcoming to the travelers. He agrees with the friar that the Spaniards were greedy for gold. Bartolome reports that the Native American peoples "undeservedly perished" and did not know why they were killed and were not told of Christianity before they were killed. On the Island Hispaniola the people started to defend themselves but their weapons were no match for the advanced tactics and armor of the Spaniards. This only angered the Spaniards and they started killing every person, sparing no one. They killed them in the cruelest of ways such as burning them or smashing their skulls on rocks. Bartolome is saying that the natives should have been given a chance to convert and live peacefully with the Europeans rather than just killing them. All three people agree that the Spaniards were greedy for gold and riches and they justified that greed and the many murders they committed by stating that the Pope had given them the land.
Many of these issues seen here are still in society today. Differences in cultures or people in general are still not accepted very well. So this problem is too be expected that the Natives would not be received well by the Spaniards. They were driven by their lust for gold and wealth and didn't care about spreading Christianity. This is also an issue in today's society. Our culture is driven by the spirit of competition and having money. Although, just because these issues are still shown in our own human nature it does not justify the Spaniards actions anymore than they're reasoning that the Pope gave them the right. It just goes to show that we have not learned much from the past. If the Spaniards had learned that the way they approached the New World was all wrong then maybe our society would be different then it is. It guess we just never learn.
Many of these issues seen here are still in society today. Differences in cultures or people in general are still not accepted very well. So this problem is too be expected that the Natives would not be received well by the Spaniards. They were driven by their lust for gold and wealth and didn't care about spreading Christianity. This is also an issue in today's society. Our culture is driven by the spirit of competition and having money. Although, just because these issues are still shown in our own human nature it does not justify the Spaniards actions anymore than they're reasoning that the Pope gave them the right. It just goes to show that we have not learned much from the past. If the Spaniards had learned that the way they approached the New World was all wrong then maybe our society would be different then it is. It guess we just never learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)