1. Names. Still working on placements, but I’ll let you know asap.
First couple of daily files are now on the web page. Links on Jenzabar page, also. You can see your classmates’ responses there, if you’re interested, which I hope you are. I’ll also be sending you feedback by return email, soon I hope. Note the 300-400 word specification . . . those for today ranged from 678 to 81. Too long is not a problem, but 81 is indeed on the thin side.
2. Some things in the news:
F u n n y B u s i n e s s
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To die. In the rain. Alone.
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
It was a historical inevitability.
I have just released eChicken 2003, which will not only cross
roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and
balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an inextricable
part of eChicken.
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken.
GEORGE W. BUSH
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We
just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road
or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us.
There is no middle ground here.
The chicken's habitat on the original side of the road had
been polluted by unchecked industrialist greed. The chicken
did not reach the unspoiled habitat on the other side of the
road because it was crushed by the wheels of a gas-guzzling
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads
without having their motives called into question.
On the press in
Maureen Dowd on GWB: http://nytimes.com/2003/01/15/opinion/15DOWD.html
3. From last time: Stephanie Elton:
“Then, I arrived at
4. And today, I hope to move on with Missing Peace and to do more with the particular ideas and information there. The details do matter, I think, and the real test of this book isn’t how we react initially to the positions that they take, but whether we find their analysis and evidence persuasive when we look at it closely. .
People have studied the issues and events we’re talking about, and reached conclusions about them; some are still being argued, certainly, but there’s something approaching consensus on others.
: “I think that the main thing that irritated me after reading this was the constant criticism of American leaders and of the “mistakes” that they made including various wars and slavery. Honestly, I do not believe that anyone else could have done a better job. . . . I think that instead of judging and criticizing what happened in the past, the authors should be finding solutions for the present but perhaps I am jumping to conclusions too quickly since we have not read too much in the book just yet.”
What about this? They are writing history, right? This whole “what if” question: everybody does it, don’t they? Is there a logical difference between arguing that other options might have been better and that whatever was done was the best possible option? In what other area of human endeavor do people always do the right thing?
Re chapter 2 in Juhnke/Hunter:
about the “sacred” qualities of the War of Independence? What do you think
about the mixing of categories (politics and religion) implied here? How
comfortable are you with the idea of “civil religion”—that the
If the colonists were among the freest and most prosperous people on earth in the mid-18th century, why did they feel the need to rebel?
(British miscalculations re taxes, colonists had bad theory of “grand tyranny,” overreacted to new policies.)
What other options were available, besides revolution?
(colonial representation in House of Commons, Albany Plan for colonial union without total separation, Galloway Plan for American branch of Parliament.)
(nonviolent resistance—Stamp Act was successfully
resisted (42), as were other oppressive policies. The
What major religious event played a part in the Revolution?
(Great Awakening, 1730s and 40s. War as crusade. Rhetoric vs. actual casualties. Desertions and mutinies and executions, 46-47.)
What effects did the war have on Native Americans and African Americans?
(most Indians fought on British side, if at all. Slaves/blacks fought for union, but colonists’ victory came with slavery as its price.)
What about the Canadian alternative?
(Mark Noll says
What was the role of Quaker pacifism in early American history?
(J/H argue that American “democratic republicanism was
itself a peace movement,” 53.” Discussion of the Quaker
social experiment, which lasted 70+ years. The ideal of harmony, love,
cooperation, liberty of conscience, toleration, vs. the New England Puritan
theocracy and the
Who were “classical republicans,” and why do J/H call them “peace-minded”?
(People like Jefferson, who thought that kings and aristocrats made wars and that ordinary people wouldn’t, if freed to develop their civic virtue. Jefferson and the yeoman farmer.
was the “duty to retreat” in English common law, and what doctrine came to
replace it in
(It meant that self-defense was only legal in extreme cases, that one must try to escape if at all possible. Faded in US only in early 20th century, when Supreme Court ruled on self-defense.)
early president was celebrated upon his death not for his military exploits but
as a peacemaker who disbanded the
(Washington. 60 ff. on the contradictory moods and impulses towards peace and war fervor in the early republic.)
president avoided a war with
(John Adams, in the wake of the XYZ Affair, 1798-1800.)
What president imposed a controversial embargo on all goods rather than go to war?
“successful” American war included the sacking of
(The War of 1812.)
What two regions of the world do the authors connect to the development of an American culture of violence?
(The English-Scotch-Irish border region, home to Andrew Jackson and many other immigrants post-1717, and the frontier. 69 ff. Also the Old South, with its code of honro and its rigidly layered society.)
What 19th-century war led to the Civil War? What literary figure spent a night in jail due to it? What Civil War general warned about “warfare leading to even more destructive warfare” and tried to imagine “alternative histories less afflicted by violence”?
(The Mexican War, Thoreau, Grant, 72-73.)
A park along what international border is celebrated as a place “people celebrate by forgetting its name”?
(U.S.-Canada border, Wm. Stafford, 75.)
From our perspective, it seems incredible that slavery was ever such a part of American life, doesn’t it? What did you learn from this chapter about how it came to be so? What factors were important in slavery lasting as long as it did?
Speculation: What facets of our life might come to look equally incredible to future generations, in terms of the injustices we tolerate?
Some detail on Quakers and slavery—their opposition, eventually serious and sustained, took a long time to develop, 79 ff.
Nonresistant antislavery groups: Quakers, Garrisonians (most radical re nonviolence and women’s roles), Tappanites.
What were the motives behind the colonization movement?
What were the roadblocks to gradual emancipation?
was the reaction to the Nat Turner rebellion in
What was “moral suasion” and how was the term used in relation to the abolitionist movement? (85-87)
What distinction did the communitarian leader of the Hopedale community, Adin Ballou, make between types of force? (89)
What were some examples of direct nonviolent action by antislavery forces? (91-93)
What legislation in 1850 was designed to placate both North and South? What were the results? (94-7)
What do J/H argue are the true “lessons” of the antislavery movement? (100-102)
(Note: some crucial ideas here. One, the fact that nonviolence did not “work” to free the slaves doesn’t prove that it could not have worked. Many nonviolent strategies were not tried at all, or only in minor ways. Two, the goals of abolitionists were too narrow: merely eliminating slavery, rather than addressing racism and injustice in broader terms. Three, the Civil War technically ended slavery but allowed racism and oppression to continue in altered forms.
What are the lessons of history? Do we assume that whatever happened was the only thing that could have happened? Surely not. If we want to avoid repeating the worst parts of history, what do we do? Examine the tactics and the strategies of those we wish would have succeeded, study both their successes and their failures, and figure out how to avoid their mistakes the next time?
I thought that
chapter 3 portrayed some very interesting facts and events on different
peaceful times and people in our history. I had no idea about the amount of
people in our history who were not completely for war, like Thomas Jefferson. I
thought a very good thought was made by the peaceminded
Republicans, when they stated that the oridinary
people did not create war. They determined that war was decided by kings and
their problems with other leaders of the time. This reminds me a great deal of
the idea that Bush is strongly wanting to kill Sudam because he tried to kill Bush's father. It is very
important that if we do enter into war that it is for the right reasons (if
there even is a "right" reason for war). I was very surprised by the
English common law "duty to retreat". This is a law that says that no
one is to react violently when they are being attacked unless there is absolutly nothing else they can do. I found this so odd. I
think it is a good idea, but I think it would be very hard to prove one way or
another. Of course it was overturned in the
The second chapter was about the Anti-slavary movement. I have always been fascinted by the slavery time period in our country and I always learn something new everytime I read an article about the movement. It amazes me that people actually are able to justify the idea of slavery by using bible verses, such as saying that one is suppose to obey his master. I am fairly sure that does not mean the master of the house, but of the universe. Reading the different stories of how people escaped is unbelivable. There was alot of people that opposed slavery and said they were agianst slavery, but just not enough quick enough for anything to change over night. Slowly things started getting better, but it took a very long time for people to even bend of slave laws. Southern people depended on slaves to keep there land running smoothly so they were not willing to give up the slaves without a fight. The North was always fighting agianst slavery, but at the same time they had many segregation laws. So even though they did not feel it was right to hold a human agianst his own will they still did not see blacks as equals. It makes me very sad that we felt we could have control over any other human's life and that it went on for so long. I know it has been said that the Civil War ended slavery, but it if that is true then that to is very sad. I feel that we need to look at history as a learning tool and learn from our mistakes.
I have mixed feelings about the argument put forth by Juhnke and Hunter in
the reading for today. I think the examples they gave were good ones, and
they made an interesting point in regard to the uselessness of the War of
1812. I also agree with them that history glorifies the wars and fighters
this nation became less and less peaceful as it matured.
There are certain aspects of their arguments, however, that I do no agree
with. They seem to be implying that all conflict can be resolved by means
of negotiations. Though this is nice in theory, the truth is that this
will never work in practice, because power-happy people become leaders.
With power-hungry leaders all wanting more land, industry, etc., there are
definitely going to be some issues that will not be solved by negotiating.
This was true back then, and it’s still true. In the 1800s, Americans
wanted more land and trade. Today, we want more oil. So we try to use our
power and gain access to the oil by force. I believe that if the United
States would spend less money on fighting the major oil-producing countries,
we would have a whole lot more money that we could spend on developing an
alternate source of fuel.
I agree with Juhnke and Hunter when they write, "Americans are so
accustomed to celebrating war heroes that we have forgotten our usable
peacemaking past" (53). When I look back on what I learned in history
class in high school, I remember focusing on wars and not much else. In
elementary school, however, I do remember learning about William Penn (even
taking a field trip to Pennsbury Manor, his mansion)
and the Quakers. Parially, I'm sure, because I grew
Chapter Four talks about the Antislavery Movement and its apparent failure. The chapter ends with arguments stating that nonviolence did not fail, but what did fail was three things(101): "The failure of a larger society to supper the use of nonviolent means to end the conflict between the states.", "The white abolitionisht movement failed to listen sufficiently to the African American analysis.", and "The Civil War ended slavery." These arguments are true..but they are true because we can look back upon history and see the outlining causes and the whole of society. Personally, I don't see the point in looking back upon history and trying to make the argument that if this was done different, then this would have happened. People always say, "Hindsight is 20/20." I agree, that if things were done differently, than maybe slavery could and would have been stopped without a war a peacefully. But that is because we are on the outside looking back and we see the whole picture.
I feel that the way that the northen states got rid of slavery was ideal,
but the way that the northern states looked at slavery was completely
different than the southern states. I think that it would have been
virtually impossible for the southern states to free the slaves with gradual
emancipation. I feel this way because how some southerners still talk about
african americans. It would have been even harder for southern states
because the amount of money that those states made from slaves working in
the fields. The book states that it would cost five to six hundred million
dollars to pay owners of emancipated slaves which if I was the head of those
states I would have a hard time freeing all slaves. So I feel that the war
was the last straw and that what it came down too.
I found the reading assignment for
this Thursday was quite interesting. It raised a great deal of questions in my
mind, far too many to respond to in this paper. However a few stood out amidst
the rest. I found the information about the “duty to retreat” doctrine to be
intriguing because the authors blame
I think that the main thing that irritated me after reading this was the constant criticism of American leaders and of the “mistakes” that they made including various wars and slavery. Honestly, I do not believe that anyone else could have done a better job. We have freedoms that are simply unheard of in other parts of the world and that is because of the leaders of the past. It is unfair to judge history based upon the moral beliefs of today. Of course we all know that slavery is wrong and that treating a group of people like animals simply based on race is a huge injustice but people’s actions are based upon what they know and back then that is all they knew. Individual people are capable of determining right from wrong but people en mass seem to lose their individual morality and take on the will of the crowd, however wrong it may be. I think that instead of judging and criticizing what happened in the past, the authors should be finding solutions for the present but perhaps I am jumping to conclusions to quickly since we have not read too much in the book just yet.
I am still not quite sure how I feel over all about the reading. Part of me just hates what this guy is saying... yet this is also forcing me to question the history as well. Something I found funny that he mentions in chapter four when he says "Protestant ministers assured their congregations that God ordained slavery ... " When in contrast God also freed the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery. I just found that to be particually intresting.
“Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you,” (55). This is what I try to live by; it is the basis of my
beliefs and how I look at live.
In the first five chapters, Juhnke & Hunter have put into words what I accept as true. Maybe I’m too gullible or too easily persuaded, but so far I agree with the authors.
In chapter four they talk about how
nobody wants war, but how the society we live in stimulates war. Men have to be
tough and strong, they are ‘praised’ when fighting
wars and become heroes. Our culture teaches kids that this is what you do to be
a good citizen and to defend your country. It is like Juhnke
& Hunter mentioned, nowhere in American history classes do they learn about
peacefully solved problems of the past. All they hear is about the wars and how
In chapter five the Antislavery Movement is discussed. The quote I started out with applies here too. I guess I just don’t understand how cruel people can be. I learned in this chapter that the Quakers have had a big influence on the freeing of the slaves. I was not aware of that. The first time (mentioned in the book) an active antislavery Quaker spoke up was in 1727 (79). What baffles me is that nothing drastic happened until the late 1800’s, and even then blacks were not able to lead equal lives. It must have been around the 1830’s that Frederick Douglass wisely said: “No on is truly free when anyone is a slave…. The issue is not whether the black man’s slavery shall be perpetuated, but whether the freedom of any Americans can be permanent,” (85). He was basically saying that the Whites had no right enslaving blacks, and that in doing so they brought themselves in danger because what made them think something similar was not going to happen to them? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”