I, John Gast, know exactly what I am talking about.

I am a famous painter and you should know who I am. I, John Gast, painted Manifest Destiny, one of the most important and famous paintings that represents the progress the great Americans made. My wonderful masterpiece emphasizes the greatness of the Americans by Colombia bringing technology and education to the west. The wonderful westward expansion civilized the Native Americans and unified the entire country. Now moving away from my painting and all the wonderful things it represents, I am most pleased with the death of Osama Bin Laden. We Americans, have once again made the world a better place. With stars on our foreheads, we have lead the way in destroying the greatest evil of the 21st century. Americans are in a sense, moving westward again. They are one step closer to defeating al-Qaeda. GO AMERICA!

I AM SO FRUSTRATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In our last class, we discussed how John Neihardt was adding to Black Elk's testimony in order to bring justice to the Native Americans. At the time, this seemed like an okay thing to do because more information regarding the Native Americans can only be beneficial when most people do not know enough about their history and culture. However, when Neihardt starts adding in entire paragraphs, in what seems like every other page, I think it begins to harm the legitimacy of Black Elk's story. By adding in paragraphs and quotes that Black Elk never brought up, but relates to the history of the Native Americans, I think it takes away from the personal story Black Elk is trying to tell. I think it is frustrating Neihardt thinks it is okay to add to Black Elk's story when some of the things he brings up are not relevant to Black Elk. Even more, there are most likely going to be people who read this book and not read the footnotes. Therefore believing that everything Black Elk, or other Native Americans, say as being true.

Another thing that is frustrating me is the amount of people who do not know who Dan Rather is. Even more, there are people who do not know who Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, or Brian Williams are. I am frustrated by people who do not know who these men are because they are some of the most influential journalists of the 20th and 21st century.

Black Elk Speaks

I thought an interesting part of Black Elk's vision was when the morning star was brought up, "Then the day break star was rising, and a Voice said: 'It shall be a relative to them; and who shall see it, shall see much more, for thence comes wisdom; and those who do not see it shall be dark.' And all the people raised their faces to the east, and the star's light fell upon them..." I think this quote represents the goodness in the Native Americans and the evil in the white people because the white people were too focused on moving westward. In their attempts to push westward, their faces would not have the light of the morning star upon their faces.Thus hinting that the white people where more corrupt than the Native Americans because they were in the dark. This can also relate to how the Native Americans considered themselves one with nature. Obviously the white people in this time period did not consider themselves to be one with nature because they exploited it and destroyed it for their own personal gains.

The Railroads are BAD

In Ronald Takaki's A Different Mirror, he presents evidence on America's progress in the West. This includes details regarding the mistreatment of the Native Americans by the white settlers. One of the major factors that allowed the "civilized" Americans to settle the West, was the development of the railroad. "Senator Henry Dawes recounted an experience he had while traveling by train on a recently completed railroad track across five hundred miles of Indian territory. The potential of the terrain impressed Dawes. 'The land I passed through was as fine a wheat growing country as it could be.'" When looking at progress in the West by white settlers from a Native American's perspective, the railroad is a bad thing. It opened up and exposed the West to Americans. It fostered greed in Americans because they wanted to reap the benefits of the West at the cost of the Native Americans. Americans became willing to remove the Native Americans from their homes, convert them to the "correct" way of living, and even in some cases kill them.

We are so great at understanding nature

In Henry David Thoreau's Walden, he states, "I was in haste to buy it, before the proprietor finished getting out some rocks, cutting down the hallow apple trees, and grubbing up some young birches which had sprung up in the pasture, or in short, had made any more improvements." This passage lead me to think of how Americans today are never satisfied with what they have and often feel the incessant urge to correct the things they view as dysfunctional. To Thoreau, nature was where one could find himself/herself and determine if they were actually living. Today, I feel like most people do not view nature with the same sense that Thoreau did. Now, people view nature as conservationism or the place you go to for a quick summer camping trip. We no longer appreciate nature because we are the modern proprietors and we outweigh the modern Thoreaus'. We do not retreat into nature to reestablish our lives. We are too busy making improvements in nature by destroying it in order to make money. 

Billy Collins, cigarettes are bad.

The Best Cigarette by Billy Collins

There are many that I miss
having sent my last one out a car window
sparking along the road one night, years ago.

The heralded one, of course:
after sex, the two glowing tips
now the lights of a single ship;
at the end of a long dinner
with more wine to come
and a smoke ring coasting into the chandelier;
or on a white beach,
holding one with fingers still wet from a swim.

How bittersweet these punctuations
of flame and gesture;
but the best were on those mornings
when I would have a little something going
in the typewriter,
the sun bright in the windows,
maybe some Berlioz on in the background.
I would go into the kitchen for coffee
and on the way back to the page,
curled in its roller,
I would light one up and feel
its dry rush mix with the dark taste of coffee.

Then I would be my own locomotive,
trailing behind me as I returned to work
little puffs of smoke,
indicators of progress,
signs of industry and thought,
the signal that told the nineteenth century
it was moving forward.
That was the best cigarette,
when I would steam into the study
full of vaporous hope
and stand there,
the big headlamp of my face
pointed down at all the words in parallel lines. 

 

In this poem, I feel Billy Collins is using his cigarette as a metaphor for a train. After reading various articles about trains and the perceptions people had towards them, the success of the cigarette industry is comparable to that of the train industry, due its popularity and influence amongst Americans.

However in the articles there was one negative perception of the train. Like a cigarette, the train seems harmless at first, but over time it because evident that there are negative effects. For cigarette, obvious health problems will arise, but for trains there are problems of exploitation and the underdevelopment of cities, all of which can have negative effects on a person's well being. 

From an environmental perspective, the negative effects of the train can be seen when Collins says, "little puffs of smoke/ indicators of progress". In the 19th century, people did not take the environment as seriously as people do today. The more people utilized the train, they were more likely to get ahead. However, they were not thinking in the long run because with every puff of smoke a train made, they were damaging the environment. Also, the smoke emitted by the trains can be related to the corruption within the train industry. In one if the articles it said that the owners of the various train companies had a strong influence in politics. When smoke/pollution is emitted into the environment, it never fully goes away. The smoke from a train is often black, and with the more corruption of a train industry, the cloud of black smoke over the train is going to keep growing until it completely kills the environment.

 

American Landscapes

I found the thunderstorm in Thomas Cole's View from Mount Holyoke, Northampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorn - The Oxbow, 1836 one of the more interesting paintings. I think it is interesting how the landscape is divided into two sections, a forest and field. Storms are said to represent, "the coming sectional crisis and tension over the encoaching technology that threaten the landscape" (Iconography of Hudson River School)). With the storm on the side of the forest, I think it can be argued that the forest side will soon look like the field side.

Source: Thomas Cole: View from Mount Holyoke, Northampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorm--The Oxbow (08.228) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Robert Putnam isn't that great

The review I chose was from The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy. From this article, one of the first things I was able to conclude was that I am not a conservative. This review compares the opinions of conservatives and neoliberals on Bowling Alone. I fell more in line with the neoliberal reactions to Bowling Alone because I found Robert Putnam’s claims to be alarming and thought something ought to be done to reestablish citizens’ engagement in civic society, “Conservatives are unlikely to be persuaded by the data and arguments Putnam has marshaled in the book-length version of the essay, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.”

            However, this review did create problems with Putnam for me. I originally thought Putnam had a sound argument, but this review pointed out that he had no counterargument, “The book, however, offers no systematic demonstration that the benefits of its utopian agenda would outweigh the costs of ‘using government’ to bring it into being,” To only talk about the benefits and ignore all of the costs makes Putnam lose the majority of his legitimacy. Also, if some of the costs were addressed, they would lead to consequences that would most likely decrease civic involvement:

He proposes an enormous extension of social control over the lives of private individuals, which, if undertaken, would bring about massive growth of the government bureaucracy and statutory law. From that growth would unavoidably arise increases of coercion, taxation, fraud, and abuses of state power…

With this, I think that if another is able to read Bowling Alone and reach these conclusions, I think it would be best for Putnam to go back and reevaluate his ideas and apply them to the costs and benefits argument.

Americans are lazy

In Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital mentions how Americans are retreating within themselves due to the advances in technology, “There is reason to believe that deep-seated technological trends are radically ‘privatizing’ or ‘individualizing’ our use of leisure time and thus disrupting many opportunities for social-capital formation.” Robert Putnam gives the example of the television, but I think the cell phone is a better example. I think the increase in Americans who use texting to communicate is causing Americans to forget how to communicate with each other. Americans will most likely grow to fear face-to-face conversation because they are shielded by the distance texting gives. Also with the shear amount of Americans who use texting causes one to fall into the trend of social conformity. I mean who wants to look like the loser who still calls/emails people. As humans, we want social approval and if we see everyone else texting, we want to become apart of the “in crowd”. Even more, with the growing number of texters, I think there is an increase in the laziness of Americans to go out and find people to converse with. Why go to the person you wan to talk with when you can text them from the comforts of your home? Not that I hate cell phones or anything, but I think advances in technology sometimes go to far.

Understanding Alexis de Tocqueville

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville journeyed from France to America to learn more about America. This trip was inspired by de Tocqueville’s clashing with the new government of Louis Philippe (C-SPAN, 1997-1998). This trip opened de Tocqueville’s eyes to democracy because he saw the successes of a government without the rule of a monarch or aristocratic influence. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s purpose is to share his experiences in America with his fellow Frenchmen and help them realize France ought to become a democracy by illustrating the profound differences between the governmental styles.

            To de Tocqueville democracy is what a perfect, new toy is to a child. De Tocqueville’s first experience with democracy led him to view it as one of the best forms of government in the world. Therefore, he concluded America was a successful exemplar of democratic principles that other states could look to in the future. With this perception, de Tocqueville’s writing was meant to be used as an educative tool for the French to realize the oppressive nature of their government. Throughout Democracy in America de Tocqueville notes the importance of educated citizens in a democracy because it takes away a certain amount of vulnerability and lessens the chance that a democratic state would fall to the principles of a monarchy or aristocracy. Having a basic education also aids in the citizen’s ability to think for themselves and be capable of preserving their democracy, “Almost all Americans enjoy easy circumstances and can so easily acquire the basic elements of human knowledge.” (pg. 55).

            De Tocqueville favors democracy because educated citizens correlate with the foundational elements of a democracy. The Americans were able to form and maintain their democracy because it was developed out of their ideas:

No necessity forced them to leave their country; they gave up a desirable social position and assured means of livelihood; nor was their object in going to the New World to better their position or accumulate wealth; they tore themselves away from home comforts in obedience to a purely intellectual craving; in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile they hoped for the triumph of an idea. (De Tocqueville, pg. 36)

Therefore, de Tocqueville views democracy as more personal for its citizens than a monarchy or aristocracy because they have more invested in it. The democracy was founded on the citizens’ ideas and hopes for the future, not the ideas and hopes of a monarch or aristocratic class. If the democracy were to be founded by a monarch or aristocracy, the citizens’ ability to act out their ideas would not be possible.  

            With the citizen’s ideas about democracy, localism arises. De Tocqueville illustrates how citizens across the country have contributed to the democratic process by bringing forth their ideas at the various stages of a democracy:

County and township are not constituted everywhere in the same way, but one can say that the organization of township and county in the United States everywhere depends on the same idea, viz., that each man is the best judge of his own interest and the best able to satisfy his private needs (pg. 82).

            Associations can be related to localism because many associations that were founded in the 19^th century had to do with addressing and improving the needs of Americans, “An association unites the energies of divergent minds and vigorously directs them towards a clearly indicated goal.” (pg. 190). For example, the New England Women’s Club, worked towards literary, charitable, philanthropic, educational, reformatory, political, and religious goals (Croly, pg. 37).

Even more, while bringing Americans into the social and political realm, associations’ acted as balancers towards the democracy, “they established a first line of defense against the concentration of monolithic state power.” (Ryan, pg. 579). If associations and citizen involvement were not present in a democracy, the democracy would easily fall to aristocratic or monarchic principles. As well as keeping the government officials in check, associations kept the citizen in check, “Nowhere has the law left greater scope to arbitrary power than in democratic republics, because there they feel they have nothing to fear from it.” (pg. 206). Associations kept citizens from naïveté. Furthermore, the various wants and needs the associations’ expressed, as well as where they placed their political power gave politicians good reason to pay attention to them:

Although it would take another generation for local associations of labor, women, and civil rights advocates to congeal into well-oiled national organizations capable of effecting federal policy, the defining characteristics of powerful social movements were apparent by 1850 (Ryan, pg. 579).

All in all, associations kept political officials and citizens from amassing to much power. The New England Women’s Club promoted the separation of power amongst citizens because, “It was to be a voluntary associating of kindred spirits, drawn together with no ties of family, neighborhood, or church.” (Croly, pg. 37).

            De Tocqueville viewed equality as one of the most important aspects of a democracy. However, he viewed it as a double-edged sword. On one side, de Tocqueville viewed equality as a positive aspect. Democracy has fostered equality since its beginning and this has greatly contributed to America not falling to aristocratic or monarchic principles, “I said in the last chapter that a high degree of equality prevailed among the immigrants who first settled on the coast of New England.” (pg. 50). Equality amongst citizens has also led to the formation of associations because each equal citizen by himself/herself is not strong enough to influence the democracy. However, the weakness of each citizen is overall beneficial to the democracy because it limits the chances of a monarchy arising. De Tocqueville then views equality within a democracy as a dangerous aspect because it can easily lead to the destruction of the democracy. If all the citizens are equal, there is a strong chance that they will retreat within themselves to focus solely on themselves:

Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the masses of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of his family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself (pg. 506).

            Due to the various associations in America, like the New England Women’s Club, they helped de Tocqueville form his perception on America and served as a successful exemplar for why democracy is one of the better forms of government.

De Tocqueville and Religion

The other day after class, Karin and I were talking about how much de Tocqueville discusses religion and politics. De Tocqueville believed it would be best if religion and politics were kept separate in a democracy. We thought it was interesting that he believed this and still discussed this topic throughout the sections we read. Even though de Tocqueville states that he is religious, we began to wonder whether he talks about religion and politics as much as he does due to the popularity of religion at this time. Religion was a foundational element in many people’s lives, both in America and Europe. If he did not mention religion as much as he did, would people have taken his thoughts about democracy seriously?

Another de Tocqueville

De Tocqueville confuses me when he says, “Democratic freedom does not carry its undertakings through as perfectly as an intelligent despotism would; it often abandons them before it has reaped the profit, or embarks on perilous ones; but in the long run it produces more; each thing is less well done, but more things are done.” I understand that everything about America and democracy was infinitely better than his current political situation in France, but to have a governmental system that does not try its hardest on everything seems wrong. I think if a democracy is doing things just to get them done and not actually putting forth effort, it is not beneficial to the people. If government officials were to do this, I would think that they don’t actually care about making the government work for the society.

De Tocqueville and Mearsheimer

De Tocqueville states, “For a democratic republic to survive without trouble in a European nation, it would be necessary for republics to be established in all the others at the same time.” I found it interesting how this quote ties into what my World Politics class is currently talking about. In John Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics it talks about how states are unable to trust one another because it is impossible to know what the intentions of the other states are. This lack of trust then leads to the inability to cooperate because trusting other states is potentially dangerous to the state’s survival. This relates to how a sole democracy would not survive in Europe when surrounded by aristocracies, oligarchies, and monarchies. The main point that caught my attention when relating these two texts was when Mearsheimer talked about the democratic peace theory, where democracies do not go to war against other democracies. Although there would not be complete trust or cooperation between states if this were the situation, there would be a significant increase in trust and cooperation if all the states in Europe were democracies.

Egypt and Education?

De Tocqueville considered citizens possessing an education to be one of the most important factors when building a democracy. With an education, citizens are less likely to fall to aristocratic principles. According to the CIA World Factbook, only 71.4% of the total population (over the age of 15) are literate. From De Tocqueville's perspective, I would be worried. In the news it has been mentioned that the leaders of the military have been summoned to temporarily handle the country's affairs. Will Egypt be able to form a democracy with a low literacy percentage or will the military elite form an aristocratic government? However, this is the 21st century and times are different, so hopefully Egypt will be able to prove De Tocqueville wrong.

De Tocqueville and Equality

In Democracy in America, I feel that Alexis De Tocqueville confuses equality with democracy and freedom. De Tocqueville states, “I said in the last chapter that a high degree of equality prevailed among the immigrants who first settled on the coast of New England.” If there was equality amongst the immigrants in New England, why didn’t it continue in America? Why were women barred from voting? Why were blacks different from whites? Why were some capable of owning land while others were not? Just because a government is set up with democratic principles does not mean that there is equality for all. In a democratic government people are given freedoms that others cannot infringe upon, but there have been certain groups throughout history where these freedoms have been infringed upon. I think De Tocqueville is able to gloss over equality because he is smitten with the fact that the immigrants started off with nothing and were able to build a new, democratic form of government – moving away from European systems and moving into the future, by themselves. Even if there was not equality for all, the equality presented at this time was a significant step up from the monarchy under which De Tocqueville lived.

Lincoln and the American Dream

Earlier this year I said in a blog, “I believe the American Dream has to do with finding personal happiness and being able to realize that having a dream gives oneself a purpose in life.” Throughout this chapter it became evident that in past years the American Dream was associated with wealth and power. With this, I disagree with Lincoln when Cullen mentions, “Lincoln was not opposed to slavery because he cared very much about slaves. He was opposed to slavery because he cared very, very deeply about whites (and unlike some of his fellow Republicans, he cared about all whites). Slavery was bad for them. And it was bad because it contaminated and, if left unchecked, would eventually destroy the American Dream which he believed so deeply.” I disagree with this because it does not take into consideration all Americans. It frustrates me when Lincoln noted that the main difference between slaves and whites was skin color, but yet they were not capable of upward mobility, and thus, the American Dream (yes I am a where of the time period).

However I also agree with Lincoln when he said slavery would destroy the American Dream because slaves cannot bring people the American Dream. With how I view the American Dream, whites needed to abandon slavery so they could find their American Dream on their own.

Religion in America

Today’s reading reminded me of a blog I wrote a couple days ago, where I talked about how the 2^nd Great Awakening influenced the formation of the American identity. “As mass popular movements, churches came to be places in which fundamental political assumptions were forged: ideas about the meaning of America…” I found this statement interesting because I never considered that it was religion that helped contribute to what American democracy is. I always thought it was American democratic ideals came first and these influenced the development of religion in America. I also found it interesting when it said, “In an age when people expected almost everything from religion (and churches) and almost nothing from politics (and the state), the popular churches are essential to comprehending the enduring shape of American democracy.” I think people relied so heavily on religion and churches because it gave them a social outlet. People could discuss their ideas on religion, politics, etc. It was a place where they could build solid relationships in a developing country.

Religious Literature

In the 2^nd Great Awakening, I believe literature was of great importance because it allowed readers to dream. People could create new ideals for their country by being exposed to different types of literature. After reading Amy Frykholm’s reading, I believe religious literature produces citizens who are willing to unite with others, are able to understand that they will encounter citizens who are different from them, and work towards a better future.

2nd Great Awakening

In Evangelical Mobilization it states, “The Methodists were also hurt by their association with the Church of England, an association the American patriots perceived as disloyalty to the United States.” The 2^nd Great Awakening was so successful because it allowed Americans to start anew. Americans wanted to form new ideals that had not been influenced by the old ideals. I think the 2^nd Great Awakening continued for as long as it did because it helped the process of establishing the American identity. For example, women greatly affected social reform because they realized any person could cause change if it was really needed or wanted. The 2^nd Great Awakening caused Americans to realize that America has the potential to be anything the citizens want it to be. A cheesy clique to expand on this point - History doesn’t write itself - the Americans who worked within the religious and social revivals realized they needed to put their ideas out there if they wanted the country to move forward and achieve its fullest potential.

Democracy

After reading Walt Whitman’s Democratic Vistas, I believe America’s democracy is no longer regard with the esteem it once had. There was once a strong devotion to protecting the ideals of one’s country and believing future generations would find it in themselves to continue the tradition of making America a better place - not that there aren’t people who still do this. Walt Whitman speaks of a time when America’s democracy was threatened and many Americans felt they had a responsibility to themselves and their country to maintain their democracy. I feel Americans and today’s democracy are no longer like the Americans and democracy Walt Whitman spoke of. I feel democracy has become something everyday Americans leave to the politicians, thus moving more towards a republic. I feel Americans are accepting of this because their personal freedoms are not being threatened in the process or they are unaware of the transition from a democracy to a republic.  

Throughout Walt Whitman’s Democratic Vistas he emphasizes that democracy can be found within every individual, “Then it is also good to reduce the whole matter to the consideration of the single self, a man, a woman, on permanent grounds.” Every individual has the power to bring about democracy. It then becomes the individual’s responsibility to come together with others to allow democracy to flourish. I feel this is where today’s democracy falls apart. For the most part, Americans no longer pride themselves on governing the country and personally upholding the ideals of democracy. We are leaving this to the people we elect, those who are willing to speak for the masses. I feel this is not the community Whitman spoke of when he said, “where a couple of hundred best men and women, of ordinary worldly status, have by luck been drawn together, with nothing extra of genius or wealth, but virtuous, chaste, industrious, cheerful, resolute, friendly and devout.” Democracy will be successful when every American finds it in himself/herself to work for all Americans. This is why America is becoming more of a republic, our democracy is no longer a “for the people by the people” but a by these people for those people.

When reading the Democratic Vistas, I came across an idea that has remained somewhat the same from Walt Whitman’s democracy to our democracy. Whitman speaks of unknown soldiers who were willing to fight and eventually die to preserve their ideals. He called them, “The People, of their own choice, fighting, dying for their own idea, insolently attack’d by the secession-slave-power, and its very existence imperil’d.” The people as people are more powerful than the known. Everyday Americans who come together to protect their ideals are more powerful and moving than a political figurehead who represents the democratic ideals. I believe this is the strong end of democracy in America and will continue to be the strong end because it illustrates the driving forces behind democracy – the ability to utilize personal freedoms. Democracy allows us to think, speak, and act freely. If these freedoms were to be threatened, Americans today would easily become comparable to the unknown soldiers who tried to defend their ideals.

Whitman later goes on to say, “We have frequently printed the word Democracy. Yet I cannot too often repeat that it is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawaken’d, notwithstanding the resonance and the many angry tempests out of which its syllables have come, from pen to tongue.” Americans then and Americans now struggle with the meaning of democracy because so many Americans are unable to find it in themselves to contribute to democracy. How can America have an effective democracy if not all of its citizens chose not to partake in the one thing most important to our democracy, voting? If we are to understand democracy, we need to care about democracy. To understand democracy, we need to do more than simply lookup the definition of democracy and say we now understand. To understand our democracy, we need to become immersed in democracy. We need to realize that if we want our democracy to affect us, we need to affect it.

Egypt

Today in class we began to talk about the conflict in Egypt and America’s growing interest of a functioning democratic Egyptian government. On the news various correspondents and political officials have given vague statements regarding this conflict because the US wants to remain on the up and up, whether this is with Mubarak, the Egyptian people, or other countries in the world who are also monitoring this conflict. I believe the US and other countries should not become involved in Egypt’s political problems because that would corrupt Egypt’s attempts to form a government that works best for the Egyptian people. I do not think it is right for countries to suggest methods for enabling a democratic government when the cultures of the two countries vary greatly – just because democracy works in American does not mean it will work in Egypt. If the US were to suggest that Egypt follow the US’s model for democracy, it would not be a true democracy for the Egyptian people. The Egyptians should be the ones who determine what works best for them and how they are to go about reaching a democracy if that is what they truly want. If the Egyptians want to bring about change, they should find it within themselves to do so.