Puritans

"[the Puritans] were united by their opposition to and the persecution experienced from the Church of England...the removal to New England effected for the migrating Puritans that same lost. There was no persecution, no heretical church to oppose."

In this light the Puritans were no set of outstandingly righteous people. They weren't necessarily united by common spiritual beliefs, but were by the fact that they were targets for persecution in England because they were different from everybody else, yet not necessarily different in the same way. This created immense problems in trying to create their own cohesive society in the New World. Once the persecution was removed, they had nothing to bond over and thus they were uncertain as to how to act as a society and which direction they wanted to take their settlement. The result was a community which strict behavioral rules which were rooted in fear. I think the Puritans, after having experienced persecution, had a genuine fear of each other and how each individual would be received by the community as a whole. Relating to their belief of predestination, their strict society was set up so that each individual had to prove his placement, not that he/she was worth of their predetermined place in heaven (because they're already placed, their placement cannot be changed, as is the definition of "predetermined"), but they wanted to appear to their neighbors as they had been placed into the kingdom of heaven for fear that if they did not show this through their actions, their neighbors would judge them. Ultimately this society based on fear could never survive, because the focus was so much on the individual and his or her spiritual rank that they never considered it necessary to cooperate and interact with one another as a true community.

To Whom Does Love Apply?

John Winthrop's A Model of Christian Charity is commendable in it's persistent theme of abundantly giving to those who are in need and treating others with love, however; I felt that there was a conflict of Winthrop's intent regarding the matter of who should receive Christian charity. In the beginning he says, [The Law of Grace] requires two things. First that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress." In this case the recipient of help is very non-specific and the message is clear, Christians should help everybody. Later in the passage he starts talking about relationships between Christians saying, "True Christians are of one body in Christ...no body can be perfect which wants it's proper ligament." which implies that only fellow Christians are eligible for Christian aid. If a part of the body is in trouble we should help that part recover from it's distress so that the body may again function as a whole. Unfortunately the Puritans of Winthrop's time lived by this exclusion policy , as they had a relatively low tolerance for people who upheld different beliefs than theirs. This is unfortunate because I believe it played into their own downfall. As individuals we are naturally different from each other. A society which requires us to all be the same can never flourish because by default we are all different.

Americans are...

This past Tuesday, Fox's popular television show "Glee"returned for it's second season. One of the characters, Rachel, a head-strong, lead vocalist for the high school's glee club, perfectly personified our definition of Americans as 'ambitious' from our first day of class. Generally we positively associate ambitions with dreams and aspirations leading to ultimate success, however the rigor with which Americans protect and pursue their ambitions can have detrimental affects on society as a whole. In the Glee episode, the group has lost members so they must recruit new members. Out of fear for her own place as a lead vocalist, Rachel misleads a prospective member, (and a very talented singer) to a crack-house instead of the correct time and place of auditions. As a result of Rachel's selfish actions to secure her own spotlight, the group suffers because without more members they do not qualify to compete at Nationals. We often don't realize that we have become blinded by our ambition until it is too late. Rarely do we consider the consequences of our actions for the environment and society as a whole rather than just ourselves.

The Double-Edged Sword

"He had his faults and his defects, but they were largely the defects of the qualities that made him great..."
             -Samuel Eliot Morison in Christopher Columbus, Mariner
For a recount of historical events, as the title suggests, Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States seems to be incredibly emotionally charged, but perhaps that is where the word "people's" comes into play. I wonder if it is true that humans can document anything without a biased influence. I believe that it is in our nature to voice our opinions on subjects about which we feel passionate. In America the Freedom of Speech permits us to do this. Essentially, the only thing which stops us from sharing our viewpoint is our own fear of how we will be received, thus the only thing stoping us from acting in our nature is ourselves. This represents the same "double-bladedness" of humanity as Morison's quote. Columbus was determined, stubborn, deeply religious, persistent, but the way that he put these qualities into action brought forth cruelty and violence, even racism. I think, as Morison eloquently notes, that humanity is double sided. Our best qualities which are virtuous and give us moral guidance can also lead us astray if we do not consider the consequences of pursuing such things as greed.

A Question of Purity

Shirley Geok-Lin Lim's poem, Learning to Love America, poem starts with a clearly cynical tone, "because it has no pure products". The emphasis of the word 'pure' causes the effect of cynicism because it is unclear what the narrator is trying to imply. Perhaps she means 'pure' in the sense that our products are tainted by foreign influences. America's diverse population would support this assertion. If our country represents a confluence of so many different cultures, how can we put forth any purely 'American' product if by definition our culture is impure? Or perhaps she means 'pure' in the sense of honest or honorable intentions. For ages the idea of the American Dream has pushed Americans to 'get ahead' economically by whatever means necessary, sometimes, unfortunately, at the cost of the freedoms of others. Rarely do we think how the processes we take part in to put forth a product affect others. For example, Walmart's current slogan is "Save money, Live better," but who does this freedom for Americans to pay less for everyday items conversely affect? The people who work for minimum wage to produce Walmart products probably don't live better because others are saving money. In this sense our commercial morals are less than pure. Although, the cynicism may feel harsh, I feel the weight of a very important question that the narrator of this poem asks readers to consider which is, what can Americans be proud of?

Freedom of Self Expression

            As Americans, we pride ourselves in fact that our country allows us to express our individuality without fear of judgment or penalty. We strive to be unique as much as we try to “fit-in” to a cohesive society, and the freedom to express who we are as a part of the American “melting pot” allows this to occur. We are one yet we are many. I think this concept really highlights the freedom of self-expression and it’s place in American society. I chose my pointe shoes to represent this freedom because it represents a manner in which I express who I am and what I feel. The shoe itself connects to a specific art form, ballet, which has been preserved since its origins in the Baroque period in Europe, yet this specific pair evokes a more modern image of dance because they are brightly colored. Interestingly Modern Dance began in America as a sort of rebellion against the strict rules and limitations of ballet technique. Additionally, the contemporary music associated with Modern Dance could be considered more ‘American’ as opposed to classical music, which came from Europe. The art on the shoes is also my own. I used bright colors because I feel I am a bright person. I intended the pattern of colors to be random representing my busy senior year, although some hidden features which remind me of specific elements of my life. For example, the purple waves represent Cape Cod, a place that serves as an escape from my busy life. The idea of ‘personalization’ is important to Americans. We want to make every product our own from a dance to a desktop background or even cell ringtones.  Personalization allows us to express who we are and what we feel and allows us to be individuals.

Where do our morals lie?

Last class our ORC group talked about the Amy Tan article and her struggles with finding the place of American freedoms in the rest of the world. In other words, where does the line lie between respecting another country's sovereignty and a moral responsibility to help other human beings in need? One lens through which we could answer this question is one of a global perspective. For example, which side would maintain peace between nations? Clearly the first value, respecting another country's sovereignty over it's own domain, would maintain a peaceful political balance between nations, however is the World really at peace if a country denies it's own people help that they need? This then also begs the question, 'what is peace'? Is it enough to achieve 'world peace' from a political stand-point? I believe that it isn't but I also don't believe that peace is accomplished by requiring everyone to cherish the same values and beliefs that we do as Americans. I think humans possess an innate sense of compassion and our humanity drives us to help others when we can, however, often we limit ourselves in the help that we can give by only trying to help in ways that are familiar to us. This 'my way or the highway' standpoint which we saw in Tan's editorial failed to help the orphans of China and in fact worsened their situation, barring them from receiving further assistance. Perhaps a compromise can be made in situations such as these. Perhaps it is best to exercise our sense of compassion and moral responsibility in a way that is most convenient for those who we are trying to help rather than only considering the ways of helping with which we are most fluent. In this manner we avoid dictating how other countries should help their own citizens, yet we can still have a voice in securing a better future for those in need.