|
|
Post by hausmann on May 16, 2016 2:47:11 GMT
Hi everyone, below are the discussion questions for this week. I'm posting these later on Sunday than I'd like, so if you get your responses in by Thursday night rather than Thursday afternoon, that's fine.
1. Consider the Greene reading, Winthrop's sermon and the BackStory podcast. What threads do you see running through the early colonial era to today? What ideas, identities or institutions began in the seventeenth century and can still be felt or seen today? More importantly, what effect do they have today? Are they positive? Negative? Neutral?
2. What challenges did colonists face in their efforts to settle on the eastern seaboard? Consider all the readings together - why did people decide to face these challenges? What motivations did they have for attempting colonization? The readings didn't give you all the answers to this question so I'm asking you to make a historical guess or hypothesis for the second part of this one.
3. Environmental history is a branch of history that looks at how humans and the environment have interacted across time to create change in human history as well as change in the history of landscapes and environments. What effects did the wide array of colonial environments have on the different settlements down the eastern seaboard? How did environmental change affect Native Americans already living in North America? In what ways were North American environments an obstacle to overcome and in what ways were they an advantage for European settlers?
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on May 17, 2016 18:51:57 GMT
Response to Discussion Question #2:
Alan Taylor’s, “Wasty Ways: Stories of American Settlements,” discusses the hardships that were faced on the eastern seaboard by settlers. In the eighteenth century the settlers in upstate New York faced the issue of how to deter carnivorous mammals from destroying the domesticated livestock and plants that the settlers introduced to the land. As this occurred in the eighteenth century the settlers did not have another way of obtaining food to eat. Their only option to obtain food was from the crops that they grew, the animals that they domesticated and hunted. With carnivorous animals threatening their livestock and plants the settlers needed to figure a way to fix the problem. The option was to remake the dense forest that housed the mammals into a farm. The problem was that the settlers only had hand tools to tackle the project. This is just one of the many problems that settlers faced during this period of time.
William White’s, “The Colonial Virginia Frontier and International Native American Diplomacy,” introduces the topic of diplomacy between different tribes and cultures. Most cultures thought of the Native Americans of Virginia to be savages. In the 1700’s young men were sent to an Indian School in Virginia to be educated as Christian Englishmen. Providing the education was in hope of the young men returning to their nations and encouraging civilization. The motivation for doing this was to in some nations was to create negotiators so that there was a line of communication between other nations. Creating this overlying civilization was a way to provide a form of structure between the nations. If everyone is on the same page and can communicate in the same language then things would be easier for the settlers.
I believe that settlers decided to face the challenges in front of them for numerous reasons. First, if settlers did not face the challenges such as creating farms, building homes and materials then how would they have survived? The challenges may not have been ideal, but they were essential for living. Even today the same logic applies, people do not want to go to work five days a week, but they do because it needs to be done to survive. Money buys food, water, and housing, which are essential for living. Chopping down a forest to create land for a farm and wood for a shelter is what was essential for living in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on May 17, 2016 20:34:02 GMT
Response to question 2
People have always faced conflicts and challenges when it came to settling in different parts of the world. Whether it was a conflict with the native people or a conflict with challenging landscapes. One challenge discussed by William White is the challenge of instituting diplomacy between Native Americans and European settlers. Diplomacy, done correctly, can be a beautiful thing that prevents conflicts and bloodshed. It can settle disputes in a civilized matter where both parties come out of the deal happy. White also discussed how the European settlers tried to get some Native Americans to go to their schools to learn about the Europeans and to help settle disputes. This came in handy a couple of times according to White. The European settlers had great motivations to have attempt colonization. They wanted a new place to live and raise their families as a new start. The diplomacy also could come into play when trying to set up colonies along the eastern seaboard where both parties could discuss areas for colonies to set up and what areas were not to be used to set up a colony.
The settlers faced all of the challenges that were in front of them to simply be able to survive. The three necessities that humans need to survive are; food, water, and shelter. One challenge was how were they going to eat? Another challenge also concerning food was how are they going to cook what they hunt? Where can a settler make a home that has access to water whenever they need it is another challenge that they needed to face. The last challenge settlers faced was, where am I going to build a home and how. Maintaining food, water, and their home is another challenge that
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 18, 2016 5:15:37 GMT
Question 2:
The early colonists faced a great deal of challenges in settling on the east coast. For the most part, the major problems that faced the settlers was the natural environment, the communication and connection with the indigenous people, and the amount of knowledge on basic survival. Depending on the area that the settlers were in, whether it be north or south, had specific differences within these categories, but on the whole it was the same. For both the north and south the "wilderness" was a gift and curse for the settlers. On one hand nature gave the settlers timber, fish, game, and plentiful land, but on the other gave the settlers predators, disease, famine, and death. In the Pursuits of Happiness reading, Jack Greene mentioned that settlers died from attacks from predators, and a lack of food, but what I found more interesting was that some settlers died from drinking poisoned water or salt water from the changing tides. In the Alan Taylor, Wasty Ways reading, deaths in the north were no different, with the same note of predators, famine, but with more accounts of fire, drowning in wells, construction accidents, and even suicide. The settlers view of plentiful land accounts for their differing view of land compared to their native neighbors. In both the north and south the settlers had a cautious view of the Native Americans. For many settlers they at some point to cooperate with the natives to survive, but for almost all the settlers they took on a defensive and or offensive approach towards the natives. This led to problems of survival due to either friendly relations that helped sustain a settlement or a hostile relationship that led to the demise of a settlement or tribe. The other obstacle that faced the settlers was just how prepared they were in the "new world". For the settlers in the south hoping to find easy riches, the task of settling was arduous and left them disadvantaged, having to learn agricultural practices the hard way. For the northern settlements it was somewhat easier, however their despise for the wilderness led to extreme deforestation and depletion of wild animals.
Despite these major problems, the settlers prevailed. On the southern settlements, the newly understood methods to grow tobacco and sell it greatly influenced the south's colonization. The draw of money making and owning land was definitely an encouragement for the settlers to stay in the south. Based on Jack Greene reading, the southern colonies had more relaxed religious structures and a labor of young men, so I figure another reason settlers went and stayed was the religious freedom and the atmosphere of adventure that lured young men from Europe. In the Northern settlements it was completely different. The reasons to stay were based on a different kind of religious freedom. This kind of religious freedom was for a group to break away from assertive religious forces in Europe and have a place to assert their own personal singular religious effort. The draw here is that there can be a utopia like scenario where your idea of the perfect religion and perfect ideals of life can and must be spread out into the world. The northern settlements give the motivation to a specific religious group to get out of their current way of life. I suppose other motivations to colonize is the allure of seeing new places, or escaping problems in Europe. For those that were already in America, it probably was a motivator to stay because the thought of coming back a failure was to embarrassing, or that the first oceanic trip was enough to convince some to stay. For the northern settlers I doubt they had much to go back to in Europe so the new settlements were the best or better then what they had in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 18, 2016 10:13:33 GMT
Question 2 Response:
Most large groups of people who have tried to relocate and settle in a completely new area usually faced many obstacles and conflicts in order to eventually settle and survive in these new areas and the colonists and the eastern seaboard were no different. They came to this new land not really understanding the environment, people, land, and everything else that went along with moving to a whole new place that you know nothing about. Because of all these challenges and different practices the settlers had to undertake they may have done some things with some groups that they could have done better.
One of the problems that William White discusses is the amount of Native Americans that were living in Virginia and along the eastern seaboard. Some of the problems with the Native Americans is that each tribe is actually considered its own nation; with independence, political autonomy, and ways to deal with other American Indians. These native nations were all very different and separate but to the colonists coming to this land they were just one large group of savages who must be moved. The native Americans along with adjusting to the land, livestock, and crop season for the colonists were all major problems they had to face.
There were many reasons that these colonists were coming to this new world and most of them had to deal with looking for a better life and sometimes to avoid persecution in their own countries. In order for people to make this arduous journey to the new world they must have had it not great to begin with and these people wanted an opportunity to succeed in a new place. These people who began to colonize the eastern seaboard were tired of how their lives had been going and they wanted to make their lives better not only for them self but for future generations after them. I believe most people are always looking to improve their lives and situation and the colonists were no different, they were looking for a better life for the future and at the time they thought the best way to do that was to come to the new world even with all the unknowns and challenges that awaited them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on May 18, 2016 19:53:48 GMT
Question 2:
When any major step is taken, there will be challenges and conflicts. William White wrote about the conflict between the Native Americans and the European settlers along the eastern seaboard. Additionally the settlers faced challenges like attacks from animals and Native American tribes (who were also attacked by the settlers), no food, and salty or poisonous drinking water, according to Jack Greene. However, this is where diplomacy comes into play. The European settlers used it to their advantage by asking the Native Americans to come to their schools. This tactic was used to create solutions to problems and settle disputes between the two groups of people there. This was one way the European settlers tried to colonize the land.
The settlers had many reasons and motivations to colonize the land. The most obvious of all that is they needed somewhere to live now that the Civil War is over. After the war, the settlers were independent for the first time, therefore they were starting from scratch For example, finding ways to make money was difficult. Some thought that agriculture was the right way to go, others sought out easier methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 18, 2016 22:15:19 GMT
Question 3
The Chesapeake colonies had an environment that was suitable for a cash crop like tobacco. The early settlers had in mind to conquer the land; they were motivated around individual profit. The land also supported more Indians than in northern settlements, which led to more conflict. The profit motive led to lack of planning for basic needs like food and exploitation of servants was common. These settlements had high mortality, and part of this was brought on by building in estuarine zones that contributed to disease. As worker colonies, they needed to entice workers with guarantees of land and freedom. The population was unstable with a high rate of parental death due to environmental stressors. That led to fluid family arrangements and independent children.
The New England colonies had neither the soil nor climate to develop a staple agricultural crop. The wealth structure was more equitable than the Chesapeake colonies, and there was less need for unfree laborers (except for the fishing industry). Due to the lack of quick profit opportunities, along with stable and patriarchal families, people tended to stay put. The Puritans saw the wilderness as out of control; they had less idealized views about nature’s bounty than the Chesapeake colonies. But eventually, the New England colonies did take on the wilderness like their southern counterparts.
The Native Americans used river floodplains for agriculture, and reserved upland forests for hunting and gathering. Indians used their natural environment for sustenance and for trade. European settler encroachment would have impacted the Indians. Native reliance on diplomacy and mediation helped to stabilize trade. But they would eventually have to adapt their use of environmental resources for trade or risk being marginalized. Westward expansion by settlers would ultimately displace them, and they would have to adapt to new environments.
European settlers saw the wilderness full of resources as well as dangers. The suffering that settlers first experienced and fears that they felt helps to explain their wasting of the wilderness. They had a belief system that encouraged dominion over the land, and saw the wilderness as securing their eternal as well as immediate needs. Their religious beliefs and desire to make the land marketable drove destruction of the wilderness. There was a type of revenge taken out on the land once the settlers gained the upper hand. Trees were even seen as a nuisance, and tree removal increased their pride and status. During the clearing of old growth forest, the trees that were left were anchored weakly to the soil, and became dangerous in high winds. Settler fires were magnified and reached the canopy of the old growth forests. The settlers initially had a losing battle with large animals, but eventually dominated them. But without predators, smaller animals began to threaten their crops. They had to alter their hunting methods to fix this problem. But a lack of understanding the ecology of the wilderness led to chain reactions. They had no concept of the carrying capacity of the land.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 19, 2016 1:58:25 GMT
A major focus of the Backstory podcast was the phrase of “American exceptionalism.” The term has given American’s the feeling of being extinct, or feeling special. Americans believe their success is the success of mankind. However, this can be seen as a contradiction, as Americans were inferior centuries ago. As stated in the Greene reading, it was the puritans who attempted to build foundations of a new American society, bringing in their leaders, and socioreligious goals to New England. Yet, Americans still assume that god created a great plan for this nation. A major reason for this are the political leaders who have continued to emphasize “American exceptionalism” in their own ways. For instance, Ronald Regan was a great booster of God’s given destiny. He recited Winthrop’s sermon and the phrase “city upon a hill.” Regan was an advocate for living in harmony and peace. Even Obama has referred to American exceptionalism in speeches given prior and during his candancy.
So, this term, “American exceptionalism” is a major idea that began in the colonial era and still exists today. As stated earlier, it affects Americans by making them believe they are special. Although Americans accept this idea of American exceptionalism, I think it negatively affects the viewpoints Americans have about the United States in comparison to other counties. Furthermore, I don’t think it is righteous for any to American not just accept the idea that our country is exceptional, when there are clear present-day issues. Also, by accepting the idea that our country is exceptional, it is stating that other countries are inferior. Yet, this is not true. There are many countries that are succeeding in areas that Americans are still behind on. By accepting this idea, Americans are showing an unwillingness to adapt ideas or accept foreign policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on May 19, 2016 3:44:35 GMT
Response to Question 2
People have always faced challenges when it came to settling in different parts of the world. This was especially true for the settlers coming to North America because they faced many challenges.
One challenge discussed by William White is trying to establish diplomacy between Native Americans and European settlers. In order to establish diplomacy between the settlers and all the Native American nations, settlers tried to recruit some Native Americans to come to their schools to get an education. They did this so they can make it easier for the nations to negotiate with settlers. They can communicate in the same language and can come to settle disputes at a much faster rate then if the Native Americans didn't go to school.
Settlers faced these challenges for because they needed to in order to survive. In order to survive in the new world, settlers need food, water, and shelter. They needed to overcome the predators destroying their livestock, as discussed in Alan Taylors reading, in order to get all the food they needed. Settlers needed to have a source of water so living near a body of water was essential. Shelter is important so they created homes from the trees on their property. If settlers didn’t face these challenges head on, then they wouldn’t have survived.
|
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on May 19, 2016 12:03:24 GMT
In response to question 2:
At the beginning of any new civilization there is a sense of wonder and there are always challenges faced. The British settlers, along with the many settlers from other parts of Europe all came to America for different reasons. Them coming to the "New World" was much like someone today entering a new school, a new job, or moving to a new neighborhood. They really didn't know anyone other that the people that they had sailed with for several weeks across the Atlantic and there was a vastness of unknown territory that had to be charted and was filled with unknown danger. The settlers face several challenges including exposure to the elements, famine, disease, and a lack of proper communication with the Native Americans. The exposure to the elements was something that was more of a problem when a settlement was about to be made, for example when the Plymouth settlement was made. The settlers that were on the Mayflower were on course to Jamestown because there was an already established colony there and instead of arriving in late fall/early winter like they did they were supposed to arrive early-to-mid fall so there would be proper time to build houses and set up themselves in the colony. They had to survive much of the winter in poorly built housing and with having no food stored and many sick and dying from the journey (scurvy was a very prominent cause of death) many of the settlers at Plymouth died before they even had contact with Native Americans.
Bringing up the point of Native Americans brings and interesting topic for me. White discusses the problem of diplomacy between the colonists and the Native Americans and I feel that it is both a blessing and a curse. This is because in the 18th century young Native men were sent to Indian Schools in Virginia where they were taught as Christian Englishmen. This encouraged the Natives to learn the way of the settlers and to also learn English. These men were thought to be both negotiators to their people and translators for the settlers. One of the hard things with the settlers doing this to the Natives was that they failed to recognize that each tribe of Native Americans was separate from another, they had separate territories and hunting grounds so that all of their people were fed without famine. Then on top of that they were part of a greater Nation, like the Iroquois Nation and the Cherokee Nation. They had laws, a language and leaders, the making of a stable government. The settlers just saw them as savages that had to be destroyed for further settlement to commence. The Natives and the settlers were always in some form of conflict whether it be over land, food or "war" and to combat the attacking from the Natives, the settlers built walls around the settlements to deter any destruction, but felt no remorse leaving the safety of their camp and traveling to the open camps of the Natives and massacring as many people as they could. Double standards...they are never good.
When I think of that I immediately think of the Disney movie, "Pocahontas". Although the movie is not the most historically accurate (it's Disney do we really expect that out a children's movie?), there is one song that is actually entitled "Savages". If you haven't seen the movie or you don't know what I am talking about, go Google it and it may make more sense. In this song the Native Americans have just learned of the settlers of Jamestown and the settlers have just learned of the Natives. The song goes back and forth between the whites and the Natives calling each other savages that need to be destroyed. As a child I never understood fully what was meant by them both using the term "savages" but after studying the lives of the settlers and the Natives together I realized that to the settlers the Natives were a group of painted warriors, that didn't speak English and seemed uncivilized because they used primitive weaponry and wore minimal clothing, they probably scared the crap out of the settlers. And to the Natives, the settlers were men dressed in strange clothing, with loud destructive weapons, and no respect for the nature around them. (sorry side thought)
Even though they faced these challenges, the settlers tried to find a way to survive by eventually making an ally of the Native Americans and learning how to farm in the different environments of the New World. Some of them did not really have a choice of going back to Europe because they came over as indentured servants or someone had paid for their trip and they had to pay that back before they could incur more debt. They had come over for the freedom of their prevailing government, and although the English stilled ruled most of the new colonization the people were allowed to practice what religion they wanted and that is where the diversity of the beginning of Christianity in America comes from. Some people were also not financially able to go back because they sold everything they had in Europe to get on the boat to America and if they were somehow able to return they would not have anything left to come home to.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 19, 2016 13:52:59 GMT
A major focus of the Backstory podcast was the phrase of “American exceptionalism.” The term has given American’s the feeling of being extinct, or feeling special. Americans believe their success is the success of mankind. However, this can be seen as a contradiction, as Americans were inferior centuries ago. As stated in the Greene reading, it was the puritans who attempted to build foundations of a new American society, bringing in their leaders, and socioreligious goals to New England. Yet, Americans still assume that god created a great plan for this nation. A major reason for this are the political leaders who have continued to emphasize “American exceptionalism” in their own ways. For instance, Ronald Regan was a great booster of God’s given destiny. He recited Winthrop’s sermon and the phrase “city upon a hill.” Regan was an advocate for living in harmony and peace. Even Obama has referred to American exceptionalism in speeches given prior and during his candancy. So, this term, “American exceptionalism” is a major idea that began in the colonial era and still exists today. As stated earlier, it affects Americans by making them believe they are special. Although Americans accept this idea of American exceptionalism, I think it negatively affects the viewpoints Americans have about the United States in comparison to other counties. Furthermore, I don’t think it is righteous for any to American not just accept the idea that our country is exceptional, when there are clear present-day issues. Also, by accepting the idea that our country is exceptional, it is stating that other countries are inferior. Yet, this is not true. There are many countries that are succeeding in areas that Americans are still behind on. By accepting this idea, Americans are showing an unwillingness to adapt ideas or accept foreign policies. The use of divine providence can be applied to the Native Americans and the European settlers. In "After the Mayflower", Tall Oak stated that the natives believed everything was a gift from the creator. Colin Calloway summed up the European view as God clearing the path for the chosen people. The natives led a more pastoral existence, but had limited technologies and ambitions. European industrial know how and superior numbers dictated whose beliefs would win the day. It seems to me that their beliefs were dictated by communal use of the land versus private property rights. Exceptionalism seems to have blossomed from these beginnings. Exceptionalism was a factor in our unilateral approach to dealing with terrorist extremists after 9/11. If we had taken a more multilateral approach, we may have dealt more effectively with the terrorist threat, and in particular the situation developing after the second war in Iraq. Exceptionalism may have also played a role in the struggles of the Kyoto Treaty, which the U.S and Australia did not sign. Granted, developing nations, like China, were exempt from the treaty. Climate pollution and trashing of the oceans have been occurring during the whole time that industrialized nations, and the U.S. in particular, were developing. There is nothing exceptional about that history of pollution. |
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on May 19, 2016 14:16:52 GMT
Answer to question 1:
In a time where we have potential presidential candidates talking about making "America great again", our readings for this week consider if America was every really great. BackStory considers the great academic term American exceptionalism, what have we done that make us exceptional? Does our hubris allow us to be closer to god, to judge other civilizations? Winthrop, a puritan, wrote a speech talking about a 'City Upon a Hill', but what does that speech mean, and how have we allowed it to change our views on our society.
Starting from the very moment that American civilization started, there has been an air of self-importance that settlers felt. From Winthrop's misguided speech about a 'City Upon a hill' to JFK's speech about how great America is, we have been consistently told that we are god blessed, and we must be great because other countries are watching us. Our democracy, economy, manufacturers and entertainment made us better because we started these first. We were better then other countries because we were unique. We shouldn't have worked and yet we did. As Backstory stats the idea of execeptionalism grew because we defied socialism unlike our counterparts the Soviet Union. It was this hatred of the Soviet Union that grew the idea that America was better, they believed in god, money, and voting, the Soviet Union did not participate in any of those things. So although the idea that America is better first started in the 20th century, it still holds true today for we still believe we are better than anybody and everybody, if only for the fact that we are American and they are not.
This idea can even be seen in Greene's reading. The north thinks they are better then the south because they didn't have slaves, and they were welcoming the modern way of life. So for all of our identity as being Americans we have been told that we are great, we are 'exceptional', that we are better then others simply because we are 'blessed' by god, and it is our divine right. The truth is that we are no more great then any other country. As we can see in the speeches that Donald Trump gives, thinking that we are better then anybody is a dangerous mindset, and leads to people treating others with less respect. America is not greater then any other country just because of our rough beginnings, which people do not think about. America is not execptional because god choose us to be, we hold no more power then any other country or any other people. America got its start because our early settlers through a hissy fit over England rules and proceed to run away from home. America was built through the fear of returning to England and the backs off of people who did not want to be here, and who were already here and being killed.
|
|
Q2 Response - Daniel Kogan
Guest
|
Post by Q2 Response - Daniel Kogan on May 19, 2016 15:46:54 GMT
I believe disparity is a central theme to consider when attempting to historically understand lifestyle challenges colonists faced when settling on the Eastern seaboard. While there are numerous events associated with the idea of disparity, it is important to understand that there most likely existed a general aura of discouragement among the colonists. Starvation, hostility, disease, and lack of adequate political and governmental leadership were all conditions that overtook the norm.
In White’s article, when referencing to the colonists, it is mentioned that “It is a story of diverse people with complex interests pursuing the diplomatic goals of their own nations.” In my opinion, while a small diverse population has advantageous values, for this era, such a vast diverse population was essentially uncontrolled and boundless. This condition brings with it conflict. To support this position, later in his article White discusses colonial interactions noting that “It is critical to understand these diplomatic relationships were not only complex but also personal. Situations easily and quickly escalated…” Furthermore, William Berkley’s, The Challenges of Colonization, essentially outlines a conflict of an armed rebellion executed by Virginia settlers against Governor William Berkeley. Such a historical event further supports the claim that uncontrolled diversity may be a contributing factor to occurrences of conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on May 19, 2016 17:48:34 GMT
Response to Question 2
The new world offered opportunities and resources such as acres of woods containing various timbers so dense the settlers saw these forests as problems, but profitable. Along with the fur pelts of newly discovered animals, these settlers had drained many existing animals in the newly established towns and cities putting several breeds of animals into extinction. Once on the Eastern shores the colonist faced the Native Americans not realizing that they had their own culture, economics and political norms already recognized. The pioneers came due to overcrowding of prisons, poverty, sickness, and opportunity. In the seventeenth century, an average citizen in London especially a commoner or unskilled laborer had no opportunity for growth or expansion due to lack of availability of land or funds. This was primarily the reason that made the new immigrants and colonists attempted the long and dangerous trip across the ocean. As an American today we face a similar situation where we are no longer the main producers for dry goods or agriculture any more. We have contaminated our water supplies and have been black listed to sell our agriculture goods outside of the U.S. due to the GMO’s we use as growth accelerators and insect repellants. We have become a service industry country, which makes us a less self-sufficient country. Because these factors exist, there are countries that will educate our college students for free of charge as long as they are willing to stay in that country for a certain amount of years to repay their debt. This sounds a little like being an indentured servant in my opinion especially in an area like Tokyo, where China is the mother country. There is room for growth in the third world countries that have not yet become service industry driven economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on May 19, 2016 17:54:57 GMT
Question #1
Between the readings of John Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill Sermon," the podcast, and Greene's "Pursuit of Happiness," there is a recurring theme of religion. Belief in God was a very prominent aspect of people's life in the beginnings with colonization-believing God would bless them in their loyalty. Winthrop urges people to keep Him adamant in their lives, so that He will walk with them and dwell amongst them. If they were to turn to other gods and pleasures, they would perish and not prosper. He reminds the people that they are a city upon a hill, with the eyes of people upon them, if they were unfaithful to God, he would withdraw his help for them. A similar concept is seen in a line from Berkley on Bacon's Rebellion, "I call the great God Judge of all things in heaven and earth to wittness, that I doe not know of any thing relateive to this Country wherein I have acted unjustly, corruptly, or negligently in distributeing equall Justice to all men, and takeing all possible care to preserve their proprietys, and defend the from their barbarous enimies." There is a heavy emphasis on religious beliefs, and that depending on their faith would bring good things to their country.
An unusual twist is taken to this with the BackStory podcast on "City Upon a Hill." The idea of "American Exceptionalism" is discussed of the unique American ideology and what makes it so different from other nations. Is it the faith put in God that our nation was built upon? Was it the repetition of this idea in the readings, that the leaders considered us better than other nations because of this trust put in him. Did they consider us "superior"? Lincoln even touches this concept saying that in America there is a duty to see that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Greene begins with reminding us of a quote our country was started upon saying "all men are created equal" and that the founding of our nation was "the most important step in the progressive course of human improvement." However, the course of slavery that flooded the south was quite ironic for the statement. This emphasizes that hidden agenda of "superiority" that Americans have demonstrated in their quest to be "close to God". Its a dangerous concept and overall negative, in my opinion. It's a concept that has been stressed from our origins as a country and that our ancestors have continuously believed. As Americans, we are different. We have religious freedom, freedom of speech and much more that our Amendments offer. They are freedoms, but not freedoms that are supposed to make us better than an other citizen or country. It's meant for equality, but I feel its a concept that has been misconstrued throughout our history.
|
|
