Mr. Money Machine

It may not be well known, but one of the only reasons for a real American success in combat was due to the support given by the French. Secret stores of shells and shot traded hands between the colonists and these Frenchmen. These supplies were absolutely vital to the survival of Washington's army and their effectiveness in less-formal combat. I must also add that due to Benjamin's efforts as the American delegate, the colonies were able to rack in the Benjamins. Ha, ha.. get it?

Washington's Army Conditions

Another difference between Washington's army and that of the British was the condition. While the British were continually supplied by an ongoing naval bombardment of supplies, the colonial combatants had to scrounge for the resources of war. In fact, guns and powder were among the lesser of their worries. Sickness by dysentery, frostbite, and starvation were among the most common enemies of Washington. Nearly 1/3 of his army was put out of action due to the abundance of such horrific conditions.

The Land, The People, The, ha, Army

The contrast between these two pictures is fairly self-explainitory, but I shall explain anyway. The colonial militiamen were nothing compared to the military men of Britain. Unprofessional, unruly, and unsupported, it is laughable to even imagine such a contest. I find it funny to see the total difference between the two lands of North America and England. One country with superb leadership and no army; the other with awful leadership and a professional army. Not so stacked now...

The Man, The Leader, The Legacy

George Washington of Virgina was the leader that the soon-to-be American people needed: a man of sincere republican values; a man willing to subject his good fortune to the risks of open rebellion in the face of incredible odds. Such a powerfully built man with all the intent of success, yet few of the skills necessary to pull the task off... Washington was 23 when given the role of winning a losing war.

In the Beginning...

Washington was not named Commander in Chief until the collaboration of 56 delegates from the thirteen colonies at what we know today as the 2nd Continental Congress. Also, this group created the Declaration of Causes; basically, this was a document that described the necessity of a colonial militia to work towards reconciliation. Out of this squad of politics came the natural leader, who is still a renowned national icon today.

How It Started

http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/1/2/51862212.jpg
Unfortunately, the follwing picture was not of the correct proportions to be properly viewed in the standard window, so please click on the uplink text.

The beginnings of Washington's army can be traced back to the Battle at Lexington. Even the word battle is misgiving due to the fact that this conflict was more of a melee betweeen armed Britons and armed colonists. Though it can not be accurately concluded as to whom started this battle, a conflict did conclusively occurred, rattling the colonies and sending many of these future Americans to Washington's embrace.

Washington's "Professional" Military

I find this post rather amusing and ironic. To kick off my topic, this picture may signify a beautifully ignorant stereotype concerning George Washington's army during the Revolutionary Way: privileged, wealthy, a gentlemen's organization. If you are of this belief and wish to retain such marvelous imaginations, please escort your eyes from this blog site. From here on in, things are about to get dirty...

The Great Awakening and Seperation of Church and State

The United States of America grew up with a fundamental distrust of government that is evident all the way back to the very beginning of its founding. Many early Americans took part in the fostering of this trait during an event known as the Great Awakening. To understand how this religious event resulted in this type of response, a closer examination of the situation is required. The Great Awakening led to the separation of Church and State as a result of anti-government feelings.

The Great Awakening was the religious movement in the mid-18th century experienced by the majority of all American Protestants. In this timeframe, both Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield preached with a fiery emotion that inspired crowds to scream, weep, and tremble. The actions of these two preachers inspired a whole new type of preacher to be unleashed across the American settlers, giving rise to a more deeply emotional and personal connection to their faith that had not existed before this time. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Great Awakening was the first spontaneous movement mass movement of this totally cosmopolitan people. It is also important to note that the majority of these people banded together on the basis of religion. From this point of view, it becomes more obvious how the American people developed a special affinity towards their faiths; these people could bond together on the premise that they all feel the same burning in their hearts and have a commonality even amongst their many differences.

Early Americans developed their modern anti-governmental attitude through their emotional and communistic feelings towards religion. It is natural to want to preserve this war-fuzzy feeling and this is why the majority of Americans advocated for the separation of Church and State. The mere nature of the personalization of religion makes it impossible to be ‘blanketed’ over society. This blanketing action would come from the government and an intelligent American society could make the deduction that this would surely happen to them if they followed in the steps of the European parents. Therefore, Americans decided to keep separate their personal church and their ruling body. This view of government is negative in that the people were not willing to give up this freedom of worship in fear of losing a dimension of their personality. In conclusion, Americans did not support a joint church and state in response to their anti-governmental sentiment.

I find this scenery to be an accurate representation of America in that this picture clearly dipicts the deep roots from which the American seed has sprung. While this picture is far from a correct depiction of modern America, it certainly does exemplify where we came from and to what we can cling to as a nation: hard-work.

At first, I came up with this idea as being funny and very ironic, but then the sad reality hit me. America really seems to be defined by its commercial interests rather that its value systems or. And here is a prime example of the famous American marketing and I find it to be an accurate, if not disturbing, representation of America today.

Question 15

15. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?

For some reason, I feel like he really tried to keep morals out of this text and relay just facts, but I think that morals, if only in a dark, and obscure fashion, do appear in the Mayflower. One of these morals is a rather simple one: the past is as full of details, color, and life as any moment we experience in the present world. People tend to picture the past as a far away place with limits on every sense that we possess. To me, it seemed as if Philbrick was trying to convey this message with his vast reservoir of details about how and why things happened. It also seemed as if he was trying to impress the infinite amount of knowledge we will never possess, point to the moral in question. Whenever trying to tell something as effectively as possible, he will often say that a particular detail is lost to history. These statements impress upon me the sheer weight of the past. The other moral that I think is detectable in this book is this: our decisions greatly effect the future, no matter how big or small. This may be a result of the set of facts Philbrick meant to relay, but I still think that we can learn this life lesson from his book. So as for the critic who made that quote, I think that they need to remain more open minded while reading next time.

Question 12

12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?

Neither side can truly make a claim to moral superiority, at least not in my eyes. But then again, I have been tainted by many different modern philosphies and lifestyles that making a moral judgement call on these people would be a farcry from being fair. So, with that said, if forced to make any judgement at all, I would say the Native Americans because they act out of tradition (a tradition that does not depend on the adversary) while the Europeans act in each and every way that they seem to see fit. I find it totally appalling that English settlers would just totally massacre defenseless Indians asking for safety or to enslave them without good reason. I would absoltuely side with the Native Americans if prompted to make a decision.

Question 11

11. During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?

As explained in the previous comment, the Native Americans that were trying to remain neutral had been placed into a very awkward position between two murderous opponents. In this case, I would say that I can only judge the groups as a whole and, as a whole (a community resembling an organism in my mind), I would expect them to survive in the best way possible. With that said, I see them being intelligent and sensible even if that means arming against fellow natives. And besides, they never really had any connection as a Native American community, so it's not as if each tribesman were turning on his brother. As for the side I would choose, my choice would lay with Phillip because, though he set it up to happen, I see Phillip and his people (and ultimately mine) having alot more to lose than just land. I would go on the offense for my way of life.

Question 10

10. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?

These misconceptions led many a Native tribe away from the Plymouth. The major mistake of grouping the Native Americans into one ethnic group provide Phillip with the necessary warriors to keep up his war even as his forces were wearing thin. These misconceptions also led to terrible atrocities being committed by both sides. The English would attack any Indian on sight, friend of foe, and enslave the others that remained helpless in other fashions. The Indians would, in response, behead, scalp, and otherwise mutilate the English, but with much more digression. Anyhow, these misconceptions complicated King Phillip's War by forcing many neutral Indians into an ever tightening vice between the murdering English and the vengeful Native Americans. Not a good situation.

Question 9

9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?

Benjamin Church is considered to be heroic due to his tracking down and killing of Phillip. Though this brought him glory, it was his true devotion to what he belief and sense of duty that made him the hero of the war. These attributes made people think highly of him not only as a military leader but also as a good, honest man in terrible times.

Question 8

8. Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?

The Mayflower encourages us to think in a manner that is more oriented towards actual history. This book descibes in blatant detail every fault and failing of the Pilgrims as well as every success, helping us into the mindset that these were once people extraordinarily ordinary in all aspects expect for the fact that they did what no one had done before. For example, the picture I get of a Pilgrim is one of nice, shiny shoes, a funky hat, and Sunday's best. The Mayflower tells me that, though extremely religious (hence the reason for the whole voyage), these people were barely scraping a living, probably totally filthy (except Sundays because of that tradition started by the Pilgrim women) and hard-working. Big difference..

On the other hand, Native Americans are portrayed fairly accurately according to my prior thoughts. Though maybe not as friendly as I imagined, they did make a fairly steady alliance with the Pilgrims, yet remained slightly mysterious and wary of the newcomers. The fact that they pretty much saved the Pilgrims is another commonality that my Indians share with history's.

Question 6

6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?

The 2nd Generation Pilgrims were, like many youth, rebellious. However, it was not so much an active change as opposed to a passive one. Slowly, they became to see material wealth as the better of spiritual wealth. What resulted was a breakdown in the fundamentals of Pilgrim society; changes within their infalliable church occurred and behavior towards the Indians changed as well.

I honestly think that proclaiming the fact that these children will never be as good had something to do with the change in behavior. I mean, come on.. How would you feel if, while you were growig up, you were always told you would never be good enough? To answer the question, I do think it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Question 5

5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?

Squanto was a Native American captured earlier in his life and taken to Europe, where he was displayed as some kind of wonder or oddity. When he came back, he found his village wiped out by plague and was captured by Massasoit who did not trust him. When the Pilgrims showed up, Squanto acted as an interpreter between these Englishmen and the Native Americans. His dealings between them weren't without their own agenda, however...

Squanto was a major influence onhistory for his manipulation of Bradford and Massasoit. Squanto almost convinced the Pilgrims to launch a preemptive attack on Massasoit, who had supposedly turned on them. Squanto did this in the hopes of regaining his position as sachem (pride and ambition). After providing sufficient proof as to the good nature of his people, Massasoit requested Squanto's killing. From here until his death, Squanto was a wedge driving the Pilgrims away from the Pokanokets because Bradford pleaded for his friend's pardon. Squanto made such a big difference because, if an enemy had attacked the Pilgrims at this time, the Pokanokets would have been less inclined to help, reguardless of their treaty.

Question 4

4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?

It is common knowledge that good things can't last forever. In the case of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans, that good thing was peace. At first, there was only fear and that fear kept the two from any major conflicts for a god while. After this fear was overcome and contact imminent, the Pilgrims decided to persue a more democratic approach to peace because 1) they were out-numbered, 2) they were slowly dying of hunger and disease, and 3) violence would only provoke more violence. So, the Pilgrims sought peace, but over time, these ties with Massasoit and the other Indian groups began to take their toll... Bam! Violence erupts.

Qusetion 3

3.Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?

Human beings like to believe what they want to believe and a clean cut, pretty version of the Pilgrims is much more attractive than a rough, dirty reality. Then America, filled with human beings (obviously), would be inclined to follow this pattern. This pattern is clearly seen in popular cutlure and fashion and now in history. It is really easy to claim hertiage to something more attractive than to something unpleasing to the senses and that is why history can and has been changed: to fit in with the culture at the time. How knows; maybe someday people will be more attracted to historical accuracy.

Question 1

1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?

The Pilgrims survived due to unique combination of characteristics and traits; these being the fact that they were clan-like, devoted, determined, and despersate as well as having knowledge from being exiles before. The first four characteristics (C, D, D, D) allowed them to be open to opportunities readily availible that other proud Europeans would not have taken advantage of. The trait of being by nature exiles allows the Pilgrims to look inward for solutions for problems instead of blaming each other and tearing themselves apart! This trait also hampered them because it prevented them from taking help from importatnt outsiders such as John Smith, which could have saved them much pain and discomfort.

Song 15: We Didn't Start the Fire

We Didn't Start the Fire, written in 1989, is basically a massive list of interesting people and events from the most recent century. While not focusing on a particular country, this song encompasses an astonishingly large range of topics throughout the world and incorporates them into a catchy tune with friendly vocals. Ha, I enjoyed this song the most because it reminds me of an older band named The Clash. This song doesn't really help me learn anything as much as remind me what has happened in the past century that continues to efect my life in America now.

Song 14: The Hands That Built America

The Hands That Built America is a song emphasizing the diversity of America, written in 2002. It describes how America was at one time ununified and totally split, but then how these many groups came together to form the great country it is today. The verses of the song are just kind of random but in the chorus, the author names just a few of the groups in this country now. The way U2 put them in, in that whispering tone, was very subtle, signifying the remaining differences in the whole, yet still celebrating its unity. Having said that, I didn't like this song much either but found it a helpful way to remind me that America's origins are much more scattered than one would think.

Song 13: The Times They Are A-Changin'

The Times They Are A-Changin' was written in 1964 and is about, uh, times changing. These changes range from political to ethnic. In the song, the author is pleading for society as a whole to embrace these changes arguing that if people dont change, they will lose their past and their future. I think that the way the author appealed to each specific group of society (writers, politicians, parents, etc) was very intelligent because it highlights the differences between them, celebrates that difference, yet encourages a new difference to evolve between each of these groups. I really thought this song had a good message, even though I didn't like that song itself. The fact that the author has to ask for an easy change tells me that people resisted the social and political changes occurring in America at this time.

Song 12: Youngstown

Youngstown is about the industrial center of Youngstown, written in 1995. This song tells a tale of a town turned into 'hell' for the sole purpose of feeding the machine of war. From the Civil War to the Vietnam War, Youngstown's people started wondering why these wars were fought and at what cost would America win at. This story is told by the son of a man who participated in many of these events, so I wouls say its both experienced and 2ndhand history. Nevertheless, this is my favorite song so far. Definitely the most modern, Youngstown helps me understand just a small taste of how people felt about America's wars and about the industrialization America underwent.

Song 11: A Change Is Gonna Come

A Change Is Gonna Come is a song about the Civil Rights Movement, written in 1964. This song describes the emotions and thoughts of an African American enduring the stresses of seperation from the rest of society. The author of this song tells his story starting from birth with a want for change and ending with what seems to be a desperate need for change. I am curious as to what the little river is though.. I could not find any metaphors for it but feel that there is more to it than meets the eye.. Anyways, I enjoyed this song because it seemed to be much more modern, slightly jazzy and upbeat. Plus, the singing was great and helped me get into the midset of troubles that befell those during the Civil Rights Movement.

Song 10: Strange Fruit

Strange Fruit is about the mistreatment of African Americans, written in 1939. It graphically depicts the hangings that took place, vividly describing the ghastly state at which blacks were killed. I find this song to be oddly telling. Though its words are fairly simple, I can sense a deeper level of conscience in this song. I find Strange Fruit interesting; I neither like it nor dislike it, but accept the fact tht it has a deeper appeal than I can understand at this time. Nevertheless, it does speak of the hardships endured by many blacks in earlier American history.

Song 9: Do Re Me

This song is basically a beatdown of the old south, written in 1937. The Dust Bowl is the area of the middle the United States that suffered from a severe drought around this time period which would cause a large migration to California. The author of this song is saying that if you don't have the do (aka cash), re, me (just catchy finishes), then California will not be the paradise expected. This song is actually a remake of the original, but the original seems to have been written while this was occuring and portrays these migrants as slightly detested by the locals and officials. I thought this song had strong lyrics but other that the lyrics, I was not pleased.

Song 8: Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is about, well, Jesus Christ, written in 1944. The song is a very elementary overview of His life and has almost no reference to anything but Jesus until the last verse. Here, He was depicted in New York, where He would have met the same fate as he had everywhere else. I think this is meant to say that, at this time in American history, New York City was an especially immoral and lawless place; a place where Jesus would be rejected.. so sad... O;. I can honestly say the only part of this song I liked was Jesus' name.

Song 7: Paddy's Lament

Paddy's Lament is about an Irish immigrant to America in the hopes of starting over with a new and prosperous life. It was written during the Civil War hence the 'murderin cannons' and violence. This song depicts America as a hellish, bloody, forsaken land. It also speaks of the conscription that occurred among immigrants and others. It is, again, a fairly straight-forward song that tells me quite plainly that America was not a pleasant place to live in during the Civil War and that the Irish thought lowly of America at this time. I actually enjoyed this song because not only the singing was good, but the lyrics were somewhat more modern.

Song 6: Hard Times Come Again No More

Ok, this song is fairly easy to understand. Written in 1854, Hard Times Come Again No More talks about the hardships faced by the majority of the people just before the Civil War and foretelling the hard times to come. The song is written from the point of view of someone whose life isn't so bad, hence "While we seek mirth and beauty and music light and gay". The female singer is pleading for some help to be given to those less fortunate than her because she feels it is alomst her responsbility to help these people. This song feels as if it was written while looking out a window and seeing these events occurring day to day which leads me to believe that there really was a extremely large majority of poor people in America at this time. Again, I did not like the song because its tempo was still too slow, but its historical value is undeniable.

Song 5: Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier

Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier is obviously about a woman's husband leaving her to go off to fight in the American Revolution. This song was written in the late 18th century and goes on to describe her despair, and yet how she tried to help him even though it meant that her lifestyle would suffer in order to buy him a sword. In this story, the story is told by a narrator looking at the situation from outside it. It seems to have been sung soon after these events unfolded, but not during. The song was a little too slow for my taste though the fife and drums provided an interesting background. This song just fortifies a universal thought (therefore including America) that I have had for a while; war not only causesw pain and suffering on the battlefield, but also at home.

Song 4: Brave Wolfe

This song takes place in 1759 in Quebec, Canada. Genreal James Wolfe, so brave and valiant, was slain in the in the offensive aginst the French which would result in a British victory. I feel that the author of this song is sympathetic towards Wolfe and attempted to portray him as an unfortunate casualty of war. The 'war' between the two instruments symbolizes to two sides of the argument. Though this song contains no lyrics, it is fairly easy to attain a sense of courage and conflict from the tune. For some reason, this song drew me more to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly towards the beginning, but slowly revewaled itself to be more civil warlike later on. I greatly enjoyed it though this type of music is not my preferred stlye.

Songs 1 - 3

In these first three songs [Anon: Virgen Madre De Dios\ San Antonio Voc.., Apache Indian Drums (Sedona)\ American Indian..., and Shaman's Call (From Earth Spirit\ R.Carlos N...], I feel as if something sacred is trying to be preserved in such a way that makes it easily passed on. Though I can only guess as to the thing being preserved (possible a glorius battle, the life of a elder, or the culture itself), I can feel a sense of peace and jubilance. The way the music smoothly flows and seems to wax and wane is telltale of lyrical art that has a higher purpose than one might suspect.

As for whether or not these voices and instruments represent America, I believe they do. Everything spawns from something unlike itself at one time. We, as humans, totally transform our bodies from helpless infants into strong, capable adults. So too did America transform. From this soulful, spiritual entity sprung an advanced society based on the values passed down from this generation. So yes, theses songs do represent American history.

Testing Testing

1. 1, 2.