I love the smell of coffee

I just read Dan’s blog and thought it was amazing. I wish I would have watched Glee, but I was doing homework instead. I thought three of the four articles were rather boring. Campus was the only one I liked because (1) I was unfamiliar with the changes American colleges have gone through and that they were originally modeled after European colleges, (2) there were pictures.

On a more serious note, Stilgoe’s article emphasizes how the overwhelming features of cities can be tied in with the corruptive effects of urbanization on the people who live in those cities and the environment and landscape that was there before the urban sprawl. Then when looking at Turner’s article it says, “The romantic notion of a college in nature, removed from the corrupting forces of the city, became an American ideal. But in the process, the college had become even more fully a kind of miniature city,” so are colleges corrupting today’s young adults with its city-like qualities? Is urbanization changing our perception on what is really important? No to the first question -with city-like qualities, colleges offer community and therefore create a place for ideas to grow. For the second question, I believe it does. With urbanization, people forget what it is like to move peacefully through life and get caught up in things that do not matter, as mentioned in Stilgoe’s article. However, one could definitely argue that urbanization is a given in today’s world and people’s perceptions are changed to fit the environment in which they live.

Side note – a girl in my corridor just made coffee and it smells really good.

Side note regarding the Manitou Heights – yay for St. Olaf compensating for trees that were cut down!!

Modern Politics

Surely no problems would have arisen if Anne Hutchinson, “had attended to her household affairs, and such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling to meddle in such things as are proper for men, she had kept her wits, and might have improved then usefully and honorably in the place that God had set her,” (Barker-Benfield, 71). John Winthrop had no reason to persecute Anne Hutchinson. He only did because he was a sexist and he felt like a woman was threatening his perfect society of male superiority. It is not surprising that Winthrop felt threatened by Hutchinson because her outspokenness went against the ideal that women were silent and submissive to men, as mentioned, “Puritan government in America have additional support to the fathers’ authority in their families ‘because without assistance from them, it could not have begun to accomplish its task of enforcing the laws of God,’” (Barker-Benfield, 68). In Winthrop’s attempt to maintain power, it reminded me of modern day politicians. Now I’m not talking about every politician, but the few who have their personal interests ahead of the interests of the people who voted for them. There are corrupted politicians who would say anything, just as long as it could extend their time as an elected politician. They do not listen to the people, instead they listen to themselves and remove themselves from risks that could shorten or change their career paths. Like John Winthrop, they are afraid of change. They do not want change or anything new to come about in the world of politics because it could influence how people see them, their place in society, and most importantly, alter how they can use their power.

I went to church today

While reading Marilyn Westerkamp’s American Society of Church History, I came across a section that related back to the sermon in Chapel this morning. The pastor’s sermon was about identity and how not having a relationship with God could interfere with finding one’s identity. In Anne’s past, she moved away from Christ, “She had followed the covenant of works; she had opposed Christ,” (pg. 491). Then this passage goes on to say, “her first progressive steps toward enlightenment involved the discovery that she, herself, had to be overcome,” (pg. 491). These two quotes put together further emphasize the point of the sermon - without having Christ in your life, you will not be able to overcome challenges as easily.

Oh Those Puritans...

First thing’s first, I have a question. In Winthrop’s speech when talking about forgiveness, Winthrop states, “Whether thou didst lend by way of commerce or in mercy, if he hath nothing to pay thee, thou must forgive, (except in cause where thou hast a surety or lawful pledge)” does the exception refer to something like a loan or a written contract?

From reading the beginning stages of the Puritan movement, I found the Puritans admirable and selfless for the way they went about starting their new lives. However, I thought it was interesting how they used Bible verses to justify how everyone must act. While today that most likely wouldn’t work, it is understandable for how that would have worked for the time period. Originally, I thought this method was taking advantage of the Puritans. By utilizing the Bible, Winthrop is subconsciously instilling the fear of what would happen to them if they do not honor God’s wishes because he does not mention anything to the contrary.

Just for fun:

I appreciated how Winthrop uses the body as a metaphor for their new society. It’s cool.

“There is no body but consists of parts and that which knits these parts together, gives the body its perfection, because it makes each part so contiguous to others as thereby they do mutually participate with each other, both in strength and infirmity, in pleasure and pain”

Thanks a lot Thomas Jefferson.

When I signed up for AP US History, I thought I would be learning more than the average high school student. I was very wrong. American history classes are still keeping students ignorant about serious events that took place in the New World. In Ronald Takaki’s A Different Mirror, the truth about Thomas Jefferson wanting to bring about the demise of the Indians is brought forth. I had no idea Thomas Jefferson blamed the decline of the Indians on the Indians, he defended the stealing of Indian land, and he made strategic plans to destroy the Indians' livelihood. How can I take Thomas Jefferson seriously when he couldn’t even live by the words he wrote in the Declaration of Independence or when he told the Kaskaskias that “whites and Indians were both ‘Americans, born in the same land,’” (Takaki, 45)? Not to mention the poisoning of the Indians with wine? When I read this, I felt like my AP US History book only covered the basics and left out parts that were too compromising for the “Master Narrative”.

Learning to Love St. Olaf

because we are at St. Olaf

because Northfield is quirky

because we smell Malt-o-Meal

because we live on the Hill

because it is a community

because we are not at Carlton

we keep are rivalry strong

as we chant Um Ya Ya

because we never settle for “just ok”

we study 24/7

and we choose tea over coffee

because it has something for everyone

because you have been asked if you have seen the Snitch

because there was an activities’ fair

because we get too many emails from different organizations

because we are freshmen

because we want to find ourselves

because we have set high goals

because we strive for the future

because we are here

because we are Oles

- Sarah and Liza

Home from America Poem

In Paul-Helge Haugen’s poem, Home from America, the perspective from the people in the home country on their family members gradually reveals how extreme differences in culture can be. The most powerful line in this poem, “if you went to America/you became/a different person” made me upset. When traveling to other countries, yes, culture shock will most likely occur and the experiences that one has in that country could change you or reshape a way of thinking. However it should not be to the extent that when you return home, you cannot mesh with your family.

In respect to values, I thought of the Amy Tan article when reading the line mentioned above. For the people who were in America, they changed their values to match those of the American society.  But much like the events in the article, their change in values could no longer coincide with those of their homeland.

Side note, what does the third stanza mean? Is it that they are trying to speak with an American accent? The “ ‘r’/that was stuck/part-way down their throats” confused me.

Freedom vs. Equality

In the Eric Foner article, there was a section that mentioned how the majority of Americans would choose freedom over equality. I thought this was an interesting fact because if I had to choose, I would pick equality as well. I’m all for freedom, but I think equality has just as much to offer as freedom, if not more.  With freedom we all have rights, but freedom does not ensure that everyone will be guaranteed these rights or that no one will threaten these rights. When people are not given their proper rights, they strive to achieve them – equality. With equality we would be given the same rights and no one could infringe upon these rights because there is nothing to hold superior to them.