If I was still in high school and was asked to put a portfolio together with two of my highest quality works, I am sure that I would have hurriedly searched through my essays and chose the two with the highest grades on them. Then bam, I'd have my two ‘best works’ and be done. I am also sure that I would never have even had second thoughts about whether or not they were truly my best works. I know that the two works that I chose were not the ones that have the two highest grades marked in the upper right corner. This class has taught me better, I now know the content of the writing itself is much more important than the grade. Also, choosing two of the highest grades would leave no room to show my improvement throughout this course.
The first piece of work that I have chosen is my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong; all that did was hurt me more than anything. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though; I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book which helped me structure my ideas and explain them with efficiency. My transitions were completely horrible and I believe that my essay was weak overall. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second piece of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing midterm. It asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt; I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of my old Bacon's Rebellion essay. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term such as my strong voice and how I can correctly piece information together. As the quarter continued after the midterm paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving on my strengths. Between writing my Bacon’s Rebellion essay and my midterm, there was tremendous growth in my writing.For example, in Bacon’s Rebellion on of my stronger transitions was, “Times change and so do ideas.” Then I went on saying, “Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era.” I know that now I can actually formulate strong transitions such as one of the average transitions in my mid term that was, “Just like the old saying goes, “those who do not learn from their past will continue to make the same mistakes in the future.”” I then went on saying, “Many historians agree with that statement as well. Historian Gerda Lerner believes that history matters because she thinks that, “they often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth to it.”” It is obvious to me that the transition in my midterm was much stronger and flowed better than the one in Bacon’s Rebellion.I could not have improved so much in this short amount of time without the help of my Writing 101 course.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in this Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more than that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay, it is a conversation that is supposed to involve the reader as much as possible. Writing in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph, Jane Schaffer style, essay that most students are taught in high school. This course has definitely molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Portfolio Essay #2.
Bacon's Rebellion
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Times change and so do ideas.
Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with my peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of Virginia in 1676 because he believed that the government was not governing properly and that it was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking the colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. The killing on both sides was a vicious cycle that never seemed to cease. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was sold for so cheap that the poor suffered dramatically from the lack of profit earned from their crops. Bacon honestly wanted to end these problems. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians, he thought it might solve part of the problem. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to go ahead and continue on without the Governors approval. In the beginning of the rebellion, Bacon and his supporters burned Jamestown, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in the October of 1676 due to dysentery, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of the leader of the rebellion. Berkeley and the government then caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties, as well as putting them in jail. Now that we know a bit about Bacon’s Rebellion, it might be beneficial to examine others’ views on the rebellion. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). Howard Zinn’s point is basically that Bacon has the majority of the people behind him since the majority of the colonists are underclass, which would make sense of why the rebels were so strong. There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some believe that, "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Douglass S. Massey states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (Massey, 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crises. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain. This was one of the main reasons why I believe that the Indians were the victims, but there are many other reasons that support my belief.
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (Royal Commissioners, 1677) Basically the Royal Commissioners are insisting that Bacon killed any Indians that he came into contact with, while not caring who they were and what relations their tribe had to the English. One implication that can be made about the rebels was that to them, Indians were only Indians, no matter what tribe they are in and if they were enemies or allies. To me it seems that the group of rebels assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all just to get them out of the way, even if they were allies? In that same document the Royal Commissioners stated that, “the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all Indians…we will spare none.” The commissioners support that Bacon only thought that the Indians were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process. I believe that it would have been most beneficial to Bacon and the government if Bacon had approached the rebellion differently. One thing he could have done differently was to make sure that the only Indians he killed were actually enemies. In agreement to my belief, Governor William Berkeley wrote that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (The Journal of Southern History, 370.) Berkeley was suggesting was that the subject of expanding into the Indians’ land should be approached cautiously to make sure there will be no hostility between the English and natives. Berkeley wanted to expand just like Bacon and his supporters did but they had differences in how they wanted to go about it. The difference between Berkeley and Bacon is that Berkeley wanted to make sure expansion was done right so that it was as peaceful and as effective as possible. That is the reasoning behind the common view that the Indians were the true victims.
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American Promise, 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to the hardship that these taxes caused them. Not allowing the poor to vote was taking away their opportunity to change who was getting taxed, and how high those taxes were. The lower class had no say in how much they were getting forced to pay because they could not vote. The things that were voted on greatly impacted them because many of the votes were on subjects such as taxing and what was to be done with the land. The inhabitants of Surry County sent a petition of grievance to the Royal Commissioners in 1677 where one part stated,” We most humbly pray for the future of the County levy may be laid publickly (sic) in the Court house [that is, that all taxes should be created publicly, in the open, and not arranged in secret by a small number of privileged people.]” That petition verifies how the people felt about being underrepresented. They were saddened that they had no voice, and that the government did not care that they had no voice. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the lower class a voice by passing laws such “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. These quotes suggest that Bacon’s followers were the victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony, so they were forced seek it elsewhere which happened to be deserted Indian lands. As the English approached Indian lands, many of the Indians were killing the Englishmen so they could protect their land. Today, many people understand that the Indians were people too, so the Indians should not receive all the blame for acting upon regular human feelings and retaliating against the English.
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good of colony but for his own selfish personal interests. “Colonists…accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government official ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (The American Promise, 90) Basically what that text acknowledges is that Bacon believed he was right in rebelling against Berkeley. This also follows the ideals of Confucius. Confucius believes that if the government is governing correctly, then the people should support that government in every way possible. Confucius also states that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected. I cannot stress enough that time era and society has the most impact on the ideals out of all of the other factors.
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
Sources:
o “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
o "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" by the Royal Commissioners, many excerpts.
o "A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff.
o "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
o "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105
o "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Times change and so do ideas.
Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with my peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of Virginia in 1676 because he believed that the government was not governing properly and that it was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking the colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. The killing on both sides was a vicious cycle that never seemed to cease. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was sold for so cheap that the poor suffered dramatically from the lack of profit earned from their crops. Bacon honestly wanted to end these problems. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians, he thought it might solve part of the problem. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to go ahead and continue on without the Governors approval. In the beginning of the rebellion, Bacon and his supporters burned Jamestown, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in the October of 1676 due to dysentery, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of the leader of the rebellion. Berkeley and the government then caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties, as well as putting them in jail. Now that we know a bit about Bacon’s Rebellion, it might be beneficial to examine others’ views on the rebellion. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). Howard Zinn’s point is basically that Bacon has the majority of the people behind him since the majority of the colonists are underclass, which would make sense of why the rebels were so strong. There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some believe that, "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Douglass S. Massey states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (Massey, 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crises. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain. This was one of the main reasons why I believe that the Indians were the victims, but there are many other reasons that support my belief.
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (Royal Commissioners, 1677) Basically the Royal Commissioners are insisting that Bacon killed any Indians that he came into contact with, while not caring who they were and what relations their tribe had to the English. One implication that can be made about the rebels was that to them, Indians were only Indians, no matter what tribe they are in and if they were enemies or allies. To me it seems that the group of rebels assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all just to get them out of the way, even if they were allies? In that same document the Royal Commissioners stated that, “the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all Indians…we will spare none.” The commissioners support that Bacon only thought that the Indians were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process. I believe that it would have been most beneficial to Bacon and the government if Bacon had approached the rebellion differently. One thing he could have done differently was to make sure that the only Indians he killed were actually enemies. In agreement to my belief, Governor William Berkeley wrote that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (The Journal of Southern History, 370.) Berkeley was suggesting was that the subject of expanding into the Indians’ land should be approached cautiously to make sure there will be no hostility between the English and natives. Berkeley wanted to expand just like Bacon and his supporters did but they had differences in how they wanted to go about it. The difference between Berkeley and Bacon is that Berkeley wanted to make sure expansion was done right so that it was as peaceful and as effective as possible. That is the reasoning behind the common view that the Indians were the true victims.
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American Promise, 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to the hardship that these taxes caused them. Not allowing the poor to vote was taking away their opportunity to change who was getting taxed, and how high those taxes were. The lower class had no say in how much they were getting forced to pay because they could not vote. The things that were voted on greatly impacted them because many of the votes were on subjects such as taxing and what was to be done with the land. The inhabitants of Surry County sent a petition of grievance to the Royal Commissioners in 1677 where one part stated,” We most humbly pray for the future of the County levy may be laid publickly (sic) in the Court house [that is, that all taxes should be created publicly, in the open, and not arranged in secret by a small number of privileged people.]” That petition verifies how the people felt about being underrepresented. They were saddened that they had no voice, and that the government did not care that they had no voice. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the lower class a voice by passing laws such “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. These quotes suggest that Bacon’s followers were the victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony, so they were forced seek it elsewhere which happened to be deserted Indian lands. As the English approached Indian lands, many of the Indians were killing the Englishmen so they could protect their land. Today, many people understand that the Indians were people too, so the Indians should not receive all the blame for acting upon regular human feelings and retaliating against the English.
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good of colony but for his own selfish personal interests. “Colonists…accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government official ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (The American Promise, 90) Basically what that text acknowledges is that Bacon believed he was right in rebelling against Berkeley. This also follows the ideals of Confucius. Confucius believes that if the government is governing correctly, then the people should support that government in every way possible. Confucius also states that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected. I cannot stress enough that time era and society has the most impact on the ideals out of all of the other factors.
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
Sources:
o “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
o "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" by the Royal Commissioners, many excerpts.
o "A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff.
o "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
o "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105
o "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
Portfolio Essay #1.
Writing 101 Midterm Prompt
In the following passage, a writer presents a problem having to do with the way a culture functions.What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are the ‘lessons of history’? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present quite he same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.
We can learn from history how past generation thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequence ant that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose to possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.
–Historian, author and teacher Gerda Lerner
After reading and thinking about the quotes passage in the prompt, you will write an essay that lays out your own position on this topic in response to this writer. As you write your essay, include a description of the main issue, a summary of the author’s point of view, and your own viewpoint supported by their personal experience and observations. No research is necessary for this exam, but you can refer to historical examples as long as they do not relate to Bacon’s Rebellion.
It is important that you read the passage carefully. Think about the issues before attempting to draft a response. There is no one right answer, as long as you develop your essay. Read over your essay when you have completed it to make sure it represents the best work you can do in the time allotted. You may use grammar/text books, a thesaurus, and dictionaries – but not ones that are online.
Writing Mid-Term Essay
One mistake that is made over and over again is driving under the influence. Some people can get away with it while other people cannot. My cousin Forrest was one of those “lucky” people who never got caught or had to pay for breaking the law. The first time he was pulled over he was twenty two and he lost his license for a year because he refused to take the breath test. It was a difficult year for him. I would have thought that he had learned his lesson. Well he didn’t, when he was twenty five he was high and on his way home from a party when he crashed. It was a pretty bad crash he and his best guy friend died while his girlfriend was put in intensive care for over three months. His first and second mistakes were exactly the same, but they were very similar and show that he didn’t learn at all. He ended up messing up again and this time it cost him his life. Just like the old saying goes, “those who do not learn from their past will continue to make the same mistakes in the future.”Many historians agree with that statement as well. Historian Gerda Lerner believes that history matters because she thinks that, “they often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth to it,” She also states that, “there are no certainties to e found in the past.” What she is saying is that history is more that just learning facts and dates of events. It is more important to learn the actual lessons history has to offer. People need to learn the cause and effect of their actions or they will continue to mess up. Her view that, “history is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way.” This means that only learning dates and events in history will not cut it, that the lessons need to be learned that understood first.
I am sure that if my cousin would have thought about the consequences of his actions, he would never have driven that night. If he had learned his lesson on the first time, he may have been alive today. But the point is that he didn’t learn which is why he is dead today. Lerner also stated, “we can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems.” Forrest should have learned by the analogy of his first mistake, not by his example which was his second time while messing up while driving under the influence. It is very true that history lessons that aren’t really learned and understood , will only be repeated.
Final Exam Frame #2.
Many people think of writing as an activity that should be totally independent and personal. It is not like there is any use for someone to read a persons written work and comment on their works based on their own opinion. There is absolutely no way that that could help out the writer, right? I would have to disagree one hundred percent on that logic. According to Optimism One, “the writing process can be greatly improved if students have a group of peers with whom they can share their writing.” Optimism One claims that having other people read a persons work will do nothing but help that writer out. One of the reasons he states is that, “If they [the reader] don’t agree or have trouble understanding, so much the better as long as their minds are not closed.” Basically the writer is saying that if peer-review is done correctly, the only thing it can do is benefit the writer. I agree with that idea because my experience in Writing 101 has proved to me that having others read a piece work before it is published can only help the writer to make the writing stronger.
My experience in Writing 101 has definitely matched up with what Optimism One thinks about why writing should be read by others. In Writing 101 all of my assignments were posted to a website, blogger.com. On blogger, I can connect with all the other students in my class. There were many times during the quarter that we did peer-review/edits on other students’ blogs. All we had to do was leave comments on their blogs about their work. All the peer-review only helped me become a stronger writer. I know that blogger was a life saver during this class because all the peer-review that I received helped my writing improve. Peer-review in general is an amazing thing because there are so many ways that it can help a writer.
I know that it is not uncommon for someone to write a sentence or phrase that makes perfect sense in the writers head, but does not make any sense in the readers mind. This is one thing that peer-review helps writers overcome. There are many different viewpoints in a class, and when someone doesn’t understand or agree with what is said in your essay, it is very beneficial to receive that peers’ reasoning as to why. That is because if something is confusing or controversial, the writer will now know that they need more support or evidence to back up what they are saying and make it clear at the same time. Another advantage to peer-review is when we begin to debate about why it is hard to understand, it gives the writer the chance to see where the reader is coming from. That then give the writer an opportunity to fix whatever is confusing, and in effect the piece of writing will be much better because it will connect to the reader more. After the piece has been finalized, it is still a good thing to have someone read it. I believe this because by gauging their reaction, the writer will have the ability to tell if their writing did what they meant it to do. It is a good way to know that the writing is as strong as possible. Although peer-review is an excellent resource, there is always the downside to it.
One of these downsides that affected me in my Writing 101 class was that some of the peer-reviews did nothing for me. Some of the review was garbage; all it did was take up space. It could either be that the reader did not really bother to read my work, or they had their minds closed. When someone has their minds closed, there is no way that that person can give constructive criticism because more often than not they won’t even discuss the topic with you. Although that rarely happened, it did happen. But the advantages of peer-review far outweigh the disadvantages. In all honesty, I do not think I would have done as well in Writing 101 if I had not been given the opportunity for all the peer-review and discussions that I received.
My experience in Writing 101 has definitely matched up with what Optimism One thinks about why writing should be read by others. In Writing 101 all of my assignments were posted to a website, blogger.com. On blogger, I can connect with all the other students in my class. There were many times during the quarter that we did peer-review/edits on other students’ blogs. All we had to do was leave comments on their blogs about their work. All the peer-review only helped me become a stronger writer. I know that blogger was a life saver during this class because all the peer-review that I received helped my writing improve. Peer-review in general is an amazing thing because there are so many ways that it can help a writer.
I know that it is not uncommon for someone to write a sentence or phrase that makes perfect sense in the writers head, but does not make any sense in the readers mind. This is one thing that peer-review helps writers overcome. There are many different viewpoints in a class, and when someone doesn’t understand or agree with what is said in your essay, it is very beneficial to receive that peers’ reasoning as to why. That is because if something is confusing or controversial, the writer will now know that they need more support or evidence to back up what they are saying and make it clear at the same time. Another advantage to peer-review is when we begin to debate about why it is hard to understand, it gives the writer the chance to see where the reader is coming from. That then give the writer an opportunity to fix whatever is confusing, and in effect the piece of writing will be much better because it will connect to the reader more. After the piece has been finalized, it is still a good thing to have someone read it. I believe this because by gauging their reaction, the writer will have the ability to tell if their writing did what they meant it to do. It is a good way to know that the writing is as strong as possible. Although peer-review is an excellent resource, there is always the downside to it.
One of these downsides that affected me in my Writing 101 class was that some of the peer-reviews did nothing for me. Some of the review was garbage; all it did was take up space. It could either be that the reader did not really bother to read my work, or they had their minds closed. When someone has their minds closed, there is no way that that person can give constructive criticism because more often than not they won’t even discuss the topic with you. Although that rarely happened, it did happen. But the advantages of peer-review far outweigh the disadvantages. In all honesty, I do not think I would have done as well in Writing 101 if I had not been given the opportunity for all the peer-review and discussions that I received.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
bacon's rebellion final edit
Bacon's Rebellion
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Times change and so do ideas.
Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with my peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of Virginia in 1676 because he believed that the government was not governing properly and that it was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking the colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. The killing on both sides was a vicious cycle that never seemed to cease. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was sold for so cheap that the poor suffered dramatically from the lack of profit earned from their crops. Bacon honestly wanted to end these problems. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians, he thought it might solve part of the problem. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to go ahead and continue on without the Governors approval. In the beginning of the rebellion, Bacon and his supporters burned Jamestown, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in the October of 1676 due to dysentery, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of the leader of the rebellion. Berkeley and the government then caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties, as well as putting them in jail. Now that we know a bit about Bacon’s Rebellion, it might be beneficial to examine others’ views on the rebellion. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). Howard Zinn’s point is basically that Bacon has the majority of the people behind him since the majority of the colonists are underclass, which would make sense of why the rebels were so strong. There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some believe that, "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Douglass S. Massey states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (Massey, 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crises. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain. This was one of the main reasons why I believe that the Indians were the victims, but there are many other reasons that support my belief.
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (Royal Commissioners, 1677) Basically the Royal Commissioners are insisting that Bacon killed any Indians that he came into contact with, while not caring who they were and what relations their tribe had to the English. One implication that can be made about the rebels was that to them, Indians were only Indians, no matter what tribe they are in and if they were enemies or allies. To me it seems that the group of rebels assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all just to get them out of the way, even if they were allies? In that same document the Royal Commissioners stated that, “the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all Indians…we will spare none.” The commissioners support that Bacon only thought that the Indians were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process. I believe that it would have been most beneficial to Bacon and the government if Bacon had approached the rebellion differently. One thing he could have done differently was to make sure that the only Indians he killed were actually enemies. In agreement to my belief, Governor William Berkeley wrote that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (The Journal of Southern History, 370.) Berkeley was suggesting was that the subject of expanding into the Indians’ land should be approached cautiously to make sure there will be no hostility between the English and natives. Berkeley wanted to expand just like Bacon and his supporters did but they had differences in how they wanted to go about it. The difference between Berkeley and Bacon is that Berkeley wanted to make sure expansion was done right so that it was as peaceful and as effective as possible. That is the reasoning behind the common view that the Indians were the true victims.
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American Promise, 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to the hardship that these taxes caused them. Not allowing the poor to vote was taking away their opportunity to change who was getting taxed, and how high those taxes were. The lower class had no say in how much they were getting forced to pay because they could not vote. The things that were voted on greatly impacted them because many of the votes were on subjects such as taxing and what was to be done with the land. The inhabitants of Surry County sent a petition of grievance to the Royal Commissioners in 1677 where one part stated,” We most humbly pray for the future of the County levy may be laid publickly (sic) in the Court house [that is, that all taxes should be created publicly, in the open, and not arranged in secret by a small number of privileged people.]” That petition verifies how the people felt about being underrepresented. They were saddened that they had no voice, and that the government did not care that they had no voice. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the lower class a voice by passing laws such “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. These quotes suggest that Bacon’s followers were the victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony, so they were forced seek it elsewhere which happened to be deserted Indian lands. As the English approached Indian lands, many of the Indians were killing the Englishmen so they could protect their land. Today, many people understand that the Indians were people too, so the Indians should not receive all the blame for acting upon regular human feelings and retaliating against the English.
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good of colony but for his own selfish personal interests. “Colonists…accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government official ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (The American Promise, 90) Basically what that text acknowledges is that Bacon believed he was right in rebelling against Berkeley. This also follows the ideals of Confucius. Confucius believes that if the government is governing correctly, then the people should support that government in every way possible. Confucius also states that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected. I cannot stress enough that time era and society has the most impact on the ideals out of all of the other factors.
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
Sources:
o “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
o "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" by the Royal Commissioners, many excerpts.
o "A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff.
o "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
o "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105
o "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Times change and so do ideas.
Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with my peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of Virginia in 1676 because he believed that the government was not governing properly and that it was his duty to go against the government. The Indians were attacking the colonists, as well as colonists attacking the Indians. The killing on both sides was a vicious cycle that never seemed to cease. The government had raised taxes and the tobacco was sold for so cheap that the poor suffered dramatically from the lack of profit earned from their crops. Bacon honestly wanted to end these problems. Bacon wrote to Governor William Berkeley to try and persuade him to allow Bacon to attack the Indians, he thought it might solve part of the problem. When Berkeley did not give him the authority to do so, he decided to go ahead and continue on without the Governors approval. In the beginning of the rebellion, Bacon and his supporters burned Jamestown, and then went into a full out rebellion by killing many Indians. Bacon died in the October of 1676 due to dysentery, and his rebellion quickly ended because of the loss of the leader of the rebellion. Berkeley and the government then caught and punished Bacon's supporters by burning down or damaging their properties, as well as putting them in jail. Now that we know a bit about Bacon’s Rebellion, it might be beneficial to examine others’ views on the rebellion. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). Howard Zinn’s point is basically that Bacon has the majority of the people behind him since the majority of the colonists are underclass, which would make sense of why the rebels were so strong. There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some believe that, "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (Zinn and Stefoff, 39). The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Douglass S. Massey states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (Massey, 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crises. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain. This was one of the main reasons why I believe that the Indians were the victims, but there are many other reasons that support my belief.
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (Royal Commissioners, 1677) Basically the Royal Commissioners are insisting that Bacon killed any Indians that he came into contact with, while not caring who they were and what relations their tribe had to the English. One implication that can be made about the rebels was that to them, Indians were only Indians, no matter what tribe they are in and if they were enemies or allies. To me it seems that the group of rebels assumed that the Indians were only in the way, so why shouldn’t they kill them all just to get them out of the way, even if they were allies? In that same document the Royal Commissioners stated that, “the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all Indians…we will spare none.” The commissioners support that Bacon only thought that the Indians were in his way of gaining land, and that they needed to get out of his way, taking whatever necessary actions in the process. I believe that it would have been most beneficial to Bacon and the government if Bacon had approached the rebellion differently. One thing he could have done differently was to make sure that the only Indians he killed were actually enemies. In agreement to my belief, Governor William Berkeley wrote that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (The Journal of Southern History, 370.) Berkeley was suggesting was that the subject of expanding into the Indians’ land should be approached cautiously to make sure there will be no hostility between the English and natives. Berkeley wanted to expand just like Bacon and his supporters did but they had differences in how they wanted to go about it. The difference between Berkeley and Bacon is that Berkeley wanted to make sure expansion was done right so that it was as peaceful and as effective as possible. That is the reasoning behind the common view that the Indians were the true victims.
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American Promise, 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to the hardship that these taxes caused them. Not allowing the poor to vote was taking away their opportunity to change who was getting taxed, and how high those taxes were. The lower class had no say in how much they were getting forced to pay because they could not vote. The things that were voted on greatly impacted them because many of the votes were on subjects such as taxing and what was to be done with the land. The inhabitants of Surry County sent a petition of grievance to the Royal Commissioners in 1677 where one part stated,” We most humbly pray for the future of the County levy may be laid publickly (sic) in the Court house [that is, that all taxes should be created publicly, in the open, and not arranged in secret by a small number of privileged people.]” That petition verifies how the people felt about being underrepresented. They were saddened that they had no voice, and that the government did not care that they had no voice. One reason that many people followed Bacon was because he gave the lower class a voice by passing laws such “Bacon’s Laws” when he was elected into the House of Burgesses in 1676. These quotes suggest that Bacon’s followers were the victims because they were not given any chance for success in their own colony, so they were forced seek it elsewhere which happened to be deserted Indian lands. As the English approached Indian lands, many of the Indians were killing the Englishmen so they could protect their land. Today, many people understand that the Indians were people too, so the Indians should not receive all the blame for acting upon regular human feelings and retaliating against the English.
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good of colony but for his own selfish personal interests. “Colonists…accepted social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government official ruled for the general good. When rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling.” (The American Promise, 90) Basically what that text acknowledges is that Bacon believed he was right in rebelling against Berkeley. This also follows the ideals of Confucius. Confucius believes that if the government is governing correctly, then the people should support that government in every way possible. Confucius also states that if the government is governing incorrectly, then it is the citizens’ duty to go against the government until it is corrected. I cannot stress enough that time era and society has the most impact on the ideals out of all of the other factors.
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
Sources:
o “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
o "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" by the Royal Commissioners, many excerpts.
o "A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff.
o "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
o "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105
o "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
Final reflective letter
If I was still in high school and was asked to put a portfolio together with two of my highest quality works, I am sure that I would have hurriedly searched through my essays and chose the two with the highest grades on them. Then bam, I'd have my two ‘best works’ and be done. I am also sure that I would never have even had second thoughts about whether or not they were truly my best works. I know that the two works that I chose were not the ones that have the two highest grades marked in the upper right corner. This class has taught me better, I now know the content of the writing itself is much more important than the grade. Also, choosing two of the highest grades would leave no room to show my improvement throughout this course.
The first piece of work that I have chosen is my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong; all that did was hurt me more than anything. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though; I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book which helped me structure my ideas and explain them with efficiency. My transitions were completely horrible and I believe that my essay was weak overall. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second piece of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing midterm. It asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt; I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of my old Bacon's Rebellion essay. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term such as my strong voice and how I can correctly piece information together. As the quarter continued after the midterm paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving on my strengths.
Between writing my Bacon’s Rebellion essay and my midterm, there was tremendous growth in my writing. In the beginning of the quarter, my transitions were terrible. For example, in Bacon’s Rebellion on of my stronger transitions was, “Times change and so do ideas.” Then I went on saying, “
Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era.” I know that now I can actually formulate strong transitions such as one of the average transitions in my mid term that was, “Just like the old saying goes, “those who do not learn from their past will continue to make the same mistakes in the future.”” I then went on saying, “Many historians agree with that statement as well. Historian Gerda Lerner believes that history matters because she thinks that, “they often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth to it.”” It is obvious to me that the transition in my midterm was much stronger and flowed better than the one in Bacon’s Rebellion. I could not have improved so much in this short amount of time without the help of my Writing 101 course.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in this Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more than that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay, it is a conversation that is supposed to involve the reader as much as possible. Writing in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph, Jane Schaffer style, essay that most students are taught in high school. This course has definitely molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
Reflective letter draft 2
If I was still in high school and was asked to put a portfolio together with two of my highest quality works, I am sure that I would have hurriedly searched through my essays and chose the two with the highest grades on them. Then bam, I'd have my two ‘best works’ and be done. I am also sure that I would never have even had second thoughts about whether or not they were truly my best works. I know that the two works that I chose were not the ones that have the two highest grades marked in the upper right corner. This class has taught me better, I now know the content of the writing itself is much more important than the grade. Also, choosing two of the highest grades would leave no room to show my improvement throughout this course.
The first piece of work that I have chosen is my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong; all that did was hurt me more than anything. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though; I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book which helped me structure my ideas and explain them with efficiency. My transitions were completely horrible and I believe that my essay was weak overall. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second piece of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing mid-term. It asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt; I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of my old Bacon's Rebellion essay. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term such as my strong voice and how I can correctly piece information together. As the quarter continued after the mid-term paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving on my strengths.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in this Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more than that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay, it is a conversation that is supposed to involve the reader as much as possible. Writing in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph, Jane Schaffer style, essay that most students are taught in high school. This course has definitely molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
The first piece of work that I have chosen is my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong; all that did was hurt me more than anything. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though; I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book which helped me structure my ideas and explain them with efficiency. My transitions were completely horrible and I believe that my essay was weak overall. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second piece of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing mid-term. It asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt; I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of my old Bacon's Rebellion essay. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term such as my strong voice and how I can correctly piece information together. As the quarter continued after the mid-term paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving on my strengths.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in this Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more than that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay, it is a conversation that is supposed to involve the reader as much as possible. Writing in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph, Jane Schaffer style, essay that most students are taught in high school. This course has definitely molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
Typed midterm paper
Writing 101 Midterm Prompt
In the following passage, a writer presents a problem having to do with the way a culture functions.What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are the ‘lessons of history’? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present quite he same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.
We can learn from history how past generation thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequence ant that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose to possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.
–Historian, author and teacher Gerda Lerner
After reading and thinking about the quotes passage in the prompt, you will write an essay that lays out your own position on this topic in response to this writer. As you write your essay, include a description of the main issue, a summary of the author’s point of view, and your own viewpoint supported by their personal experience and observations. No research is necessary for this exam, but you can refer to historical examples as long as they do not relate to Bacon’s Rebellion.
It is important that you read the passage carefully. Think about the issues before attempting to draft a response. There is no one right answer, as long as you develop your essay. Read over your essay when you have completed it to make sure it represents the best work you can do in the time allotted. You may use grammar/text books, a thesaurus, and dictionaries – but not ones that are online.
Writing Mid-Term Essay
One mistake that is made over and over again is driving under the influence. Some people can get away with it while other people cannot. My cousin Forrest was one of those “lucky” people who never got caught or had to pay for breaking the law. The first time he was pulled over he was twenty two and he lost his license for a year because he refused to take the breath test. It was a difficult year for him. I would have thought that he had learned his lesson. Well he didn’t, when he was twenty five he was high and on his way home from a party when he crashed. It was a pretty bad crash he and his best guy friend died while his girlfriend was put in intensive care for over three months. His first and second mistakes were exactly the same, but they were very similar and show that he didn’t learn at all. He ended up messing up again and this time it cost him his life. Just like the old saying goes, “those who do not learn from their past will continue to make the same mistakes in the future.”Many historians agree with that statement as well. Historian Gerda Lerner believes that history matters because she thinks that, “they often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth to it,” She also states that, “there are no certainties to e found in the past.” What she is saying is that history is more that just learning facts and dates of events. It is more important to learn the actual lessons history has to offer. People need to learn the cause and effect of their actions or they will continue to mess up. Her view that, “history is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way.” This means that only learning dates and events in history will not cut it, that the lessons need to be learned that understood first.
I am sure that if my cousin would have thought about the consequences of his actions, he would never have driven that night. If he had learned his lesson on the first time, he may have been alive today. But the point is that he didn’t learn which is why he is dead today. Lerner also stated, “we can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems.” Forrest should have learned by the analogy of his first mistake, not by his example which was his second time while messing up while driving under the influence. It is very true that history lessons that aren’t really learned and understood , will only be repeated.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Reflective Letter Draft !.
If I were still in high school and was asked to put a portfolio together with two of my best works, I am sure that I would hurridly search through my essays and chose the two with the highest grades on them. Then bam, I'd be done. I am also sure that I would never have even had second thoughts about whether or not they were actually my best works. I know that the two works that I chose, they were not the ones that have the two highest grades marked in the upper right corner. This class has taught me better, the content of the writing itself is much more important than the grade. Also, chosing two of the highest grades would leave no room to show my improvement throughout this course.
The first piece of work that I have chosen was my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in in this course. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong, now I know better. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though, I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book. This helped me structure my ideas and explain them with effiency as well. My transitions were completely vomituous, and I belive my essay was overly weak. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second peice of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing mid-term, it asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt, I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved on my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of Bacon's Rebellion. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term. As the quarter continued after the mid-term paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving my strengths.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in Craig's Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more to that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay. Writing in in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph Jane Schaffer essay style that most students are taught in high school. This course has definately molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
The first piece of work that I have chosen was my Bacon's Rebellion essay, as it was the starting point to this course. It was the first actual essay that we were asked to turn in in this course. I thought the best way to receive a high grade on the paper was to jam in as much information as I could into this paper. Boy was I wrong, now I know better. My Bacon's Rebellion essay was not a complete disaster though, I did use the templates of the "They Say/I Say" book. This helped me structure my ideas and explain them with effiency as well. My transitions were completely vomituous, and I belive my essay was overly weak. I still received an average grade on this essay, but to me the grade didn't really matter. I wanted to know how to improve my writing, how to make it better for the reader to read. This class taught me how to do that. My second peice of work is proof to that.
The second piece of work that I chose was my writing mid-term, it asked me to read a quote about learning the lessons of history, and then write about it while relating it to some even or parts of my life. I was really excited at this prompt, I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. I used some of the templates in the "They Say/I Say" book that we were given to read. These templates made my story flow so much better, and overall it made the structure of my essay much stronger. My thesis was strong and I had a great hook in the beginning. I was proud that I had greatly improved on my transitions compared to those, or lack thereof, in the Bacon's Rebellion essay. I am sure that if I were to have been assigned this prompt at the beginning of the quarter, I would have approached this essay in a totally different light. It would have been another repeat of Bacon's Rebellion. Most of my strengths are shown in the mid-term. As the quarter continued after the mid-term paper, I continued to work on my weaknesses shown in the Bacon's Rebellion paper as well as improving my strengths.
Before arriving to Puget Sound Early College, I thought that this writing course would be a regular boring writing class where students only wrote for the purpose of stating information and that was as in depth that the essays went. That was how I wrote my essays up until I began doing work in Craig's Writing 101 class. Now that I have taken this course, I have realized that writing is so much more to that. After taking the Writing 101 course I have learned that writing isn't about how well I can or cannot simply state dates or random facts into an essay. Writing in in a conversation is much more effective than writing a typical, five paragraph Jane Schaffer essay style that most students are taught in high school. This course has definately molded me into a better writer by teaching me more effective and practical methods of writing. It not only transformed my writing, it also transformed how I approached writing.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Essay #2 Reflection.
The hardest part about this essay was the research. I found that my new method of researching (databases, books etc) proved to give me way better information that just searching websites. Although my state didn't really have much information on it, I found enough material to reasonably make my point. As for the actual writing of the essay, I find myself wanting to go back to my old writing habits because it make more sense to me. But I just stuck it out and used the new style as much as I could by using the "They say/I say" book and it made things a lot more simple and convienent. Compared to the first essay I think this one had much more strength in the way that I didn't put too much unneeded information in it. But I also think that I provided enough information to satisfy my ideas.
After the first essay I realized that my transitions and topic sentences were weak so I worked a lot more on them this time. I believe that my ideas flowed a bit better this essay. I know my conclusion was not what I wanted it to be AT ALL, I was having a hard time wrapping up my essay for some reason. So next time I know that I have to work more on that and make it what I want it to be, and not have to settle for less. Since there was a lot less time allotted for this essay, I believe that I didn't over-think it like I did last time which caused me to write a no-so-great essay. That was one of the things that Craig brough up to me when we talked about my essay. The maximum page requirements for this essay were also very helpful to me because it made me think a lot more about what information I really needed in the essay and what I didn't. So I just got straight to my points and there was no beating around the bush, I liked that because my essay wasn't so lengthy and it made me really know what information I had to had, and what I could cut out. So next time I write an essay I'm gonna do my best to make sure that I don't write too much, I don't wanna bore my professors too much. =]
After the first essay I realized that my transitions and topic sentences were weak so I worked a lot more on them this time. I believe that my ideas flowed a bit better this essay. I know my conclusion was not what I wanted it to be AT ALL, I was having a hard time wrapping up my essay for some reason. So next time I know that I have to work more on that and make it what I want it to be, and not have to settle for less. Since there was a lot less time allotted for this essay, I believe that I didn't over-think it like I did last time which caused me to write a no-so-great essay. That was one of the things that Craig brough up to me when we talked about my essay. The maximum page requirements for this essay were also very helpful to me because it made me think a lot more about what information I really needed in the essay and what I didn't. So I just got straight to my points and there was no beating around the bush, I liked that because my essay wasn't so lengthy and it made me really know what information I had to had, and what I could cut out. So next time I write an essay I'm gonna do my best to make sure that I don't write too much, I don't wanna bore my professors too much. =]
Monday, November 24, 2008
TA on the whiskey rebellion.
Who is writing: The President of the United States, George Washington.
Who is the audience: The people of the United States. It is a written proclamation for the people.
Who do the writers represent: George Washington represents the government of the United States.
what is being argued/requested: A lot is being said, at first it talks about how the government is trying to deter those who might be afraid to accept government jobs because they are afraid that people might injure their property or body. Then it goes on talking about making sure that people don't commit treason because it just messing things up. After that it lays down how and when militias can be made according to the government of the United States. A lot of this document is saying what power the President has and what power he does not have, and that the people need to listen to his decisions about the militia and things of that nature. Then at the end it is saying that everyone needs to abide by the laws, by law, and it gave George Washington's testimony.
How is it being said: It is being said is a pretty high manner, like he is in a place of authority. Which he respectively is, but I noticed that its pretty apparent how he feels about his position. But it is not being rude or anything towards the people of the U.S., its just clearly laying down the laws and pretty much trying to get people to follow what he says and give him power over the militia. The people liked Washington in his time, so there shouldn't be much problem with following him but he is just making sure.
Justification: It is justified because the President, George Washington, signed it. He says in the last paragraph, "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed t these presents, and signed the same with my hand." This shows that its a legitimate document.
Who is the audience: The people of the United States. It is a written proclamation for the people.
Who do the writers represent: George Washington represents the government of the United States.
what is being argued/requested: A lot is being said, at first it talks about how the government is trying to deter those who might be afraid to accept government jobs because they are afraid that people might injure their property or body. Then it goes on talking about making sure that people don't commit treason because it just messing things up. After that it lays down how and when militias can be made according to the government of the United States. A lot of this document is saying what power the President has and what power he does not have, and that the people need to listen to his decisions about the militia and things of that nature. Then at the end it is saying that everyone needs to abide by the laws, by law, and it gave George Washington's testimony.
How is it being said: It is being said is a pretty high manner, like he is in a place of authority. Which he respectively is, but I noticed that its pretty apparent how he feels about his position. But it is not being rude or anything towards the people of the U.S., its just clearly laying down the laws and pretty much trying to get people to follow what he says and give him power over the militia. The people liked Washington in his time, so there shouldn't be much problem with following him but he is just making sure.
Justification: It is justified because the President, George Washington, signed it. He says in the last paragraph, "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed t these presents, and signed the same with my hand." This shows that its a legitimate document.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Delaware Loyalists Final Draft.
Delaware Loyalists
Niccolo Machiavelli once said that, “...good morals, if they are to be maintained, have need of the laws...” (Niccolo, Machiavelli. Personal quote) The idea of breaking away from England is the type of idea that will cause the Patriots to go wrong by ignoring laws which, in effect, cause them not to follow or to forget their learned morals and values. It is written, “that every freeman for every injury done him in his goods, lands, or person, by another person, ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right for the injury done to him freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.” (The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776) Since the Patriots were convinced that the only right thing to do was to break away from England, they have forgotten that basic right according to the Bill of Rights. There are many Loyalists who have had their property destroyed by the Patriots simply because they do not wish to separate from England. Other than the idea that destroying property in such a manner is morally wrong, it will also continue to make Delaware’s economics suffer. The economy will not only suffer because of the property damage, but because the Patriots refuse to accept the fact that Delaware needs help from the English in order to create a strong economy. Eventually the financial fight to re-build or fix the broken economy will be a battle that the people of Delaware cannot win without support from England. In effect, breaking away from England will only set up Delaware for financial ruin. Breaking away from England will also degrade all the standards and qualities that the great colony of Delaware was founded upon, as well as harm the people both politically and economically.
Politics will be dramatically affected in a negative if Delaware separates from England. In the Delaware Bill of Rights it is written, “That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.” (The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776) In order to properly govern with this bill in mind, the people of Delaware will have to do what is best for the colony. Breaking away from England certainly is not the best for Delaware because it will only hurt trade since England is responsible for much of the profit from imports and exports. So in the case that Delaware separates from England, there will be hostility between the two and the trade market will go down in ruins. Also, ignoring the Bill of Rights will show that there is no pride in Delaware because that would be knowingly disobeying one vital piece of the foundation Delaware was built upon. Showing no pride in Delaware restates the fact that the Patriots' morals are failing. Politics are not the only areas in which Delaware will suffer if they do separate from England.
Economics will also greatly suffer from any separation from England. In 1723 and 1729 Delaware was going through economic crises. Delaware “issued currency to combat depressions in the early part of the eighteenth century.” (The Journal of Political Economy) After creating the new currency to assist Delaware, it was said that the beneficial effects of this first act were so immediate that on November 2, 1723, a second Act was passed providing for the further issuance. This fact supports the fact that Delaware can begin to support itself in order to stay strong, but it also needs the additional help from England because the problem did not end here. The first time this crisis occurred was in 1723, while it reoccurred again in 1729. (Currency Issues to Overcome Depressions in Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Maryland, 1715-37) Based on repeating patterns there is enough evidence to conclude that if there is no support from England, Delaware will surely fall, once again, into financial ruins because of their lack of experience.
In one instance, a great deal of illegal smuggling was taking place in Delaware. The British then stepped in, in order to help stop the smuggling and help restore the economy. It was told that, “Consequently the state of illicit trade would be a better indication of the effects of the British legislation, especially upon the trade of this district, than either the number of new manufactures or the fluctuations of the amount turned into the exchequer. One of the chief aims of the new acts was the prevention of illicit trade.” (The Trade of the Delaware District Before the Revolution) It is clear to me that the British wanted to help out and stop the smuggling in order for local manufactures can make more profit based on the fact that according to the English, “The chief aim was to make the empire self-sufficing, and as a means to this end it was thought that the mother country should furnish necessary protection to the colonies, who, in return, should render her obedience.” (The Trade of the Delaware District Before the Revolution) I agree that the British wanted to help strengthen local manufactures for the good of Delaware. A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that Delaware is supposed to, by moral, stay loyal and obedient to England to show their gratitude.
True loyalists know the importance of staying faithful to their mother England. It is known that Delaware is in England’s debt. In the Petition of American Loyalists, 1778, it is said that, “We [loyalists] have taken the Liberty to address ourselves to your Lordship on this Subject; and we entreat your Lordship to communicate to his Majesty our Desires to serve him and Readines to Sacrifice our Lives in Defence of his Person and Government” (Petition of American Loyalists) It is all clearly stated in that document, that many people of the colonies still love the King and are willing to do anything in order to serve him. Following this petition is one way that confirms that the Loyalists, opposed to the Patriots, have not forgotten or ignored their values. There is no morally correct side to choose from except for that of the loyalists because they live with their values in mind when problems such as breaking away from England arise.
Hanna, Mary. "The Trade of the Delaware District Before the Revolution ." (1917): 267-275, 320.
Lester, Richard . "Currency Issues to Overcome Depressions in Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Maryland, 1715-37." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 47 No. 2(1939): 182-217
Farrand, Max . "The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776." The American Historical Review Vol. 3, No. 4 (1898): 641-649.
Quarterly, William, Mary . "Petition of American Loyalists, 1778." The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series Vol. 1, No. 1(1921): 70-71.
Niccolo, Machiavelli. "Quote."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
