1) For Winthrop, what is the benefit of a well coordinated (social, spiritual, political) body?
Winthrop thought of love as having a bond... he also wanted these three social, spiritual and political (bodies) to have a bond. The benefit of having a well coordinated social, spiritual and political body is that everyone is among good nature... no one is fighting or saying one's religion is not right, they would have peace.
2) Why might the metaphor of the body make sense to Winthrop’s audience?
The metaphor of the body makes sense to the audience because the body is (once its put together and proportioned) perfect, and everyone one has the same body.
3) How might this union of separate parts create a genuine COMMONWEALTH?
Well, if you think about... if everyone has the same religion, they would then have the same (genuine) commonwealth because no one is better than anyone else and they all have like treatmeentnt
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
They Say (2) : Bacon's Rebellion
A Young People’s History of the United States
"It was not a war of American colonists against the british. Instead, Bacon's Rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies." (page 35) This statement is true because Bacon had no intentions of starting a war, he was only angry with William Berkeley and the Indians. (Bacon wanted land) "A hundred years before the American Revolution, a rebellion broke out in Virginia. Angry colonists set Jamestown, their capital, on fire." The colonists did this as a way of showing what they were capable of and determined to do. Little did they know, "England was sending thousands of soldiers across the Atlantic, to keep control of the forty thousand colonists." (This caught the colonists off guard). Then the white frontiersmen(lower class) were also mad and started an uprising, but that wasn't all, even the white servants and black slaves joined in on the anger. Their anger was a bit different though because they were mad about the gap between rich and poor people. The frontiersmen were angry because of how the colony was being run. It seemed like there were more and more people getting angry about the whole situation. On the other hand the governer of Virginia, William Berkeley was just trying to keep Virginia from war.
“Whether they be friends or foes:”
Michael J. Puglisi writes in a repetitive way, making the reading long and boring, but that doesn't mean there wasn't contreversial or important facts. Such as in this quote: "There has been a tendency in American history to see relations between Indians and American colonists purely in terms of conflict and separation. Whether in peace or in war, the traditional view has been to describe a gap, intentionally or unintentionally, between the natives and the colonists, with "them" on one side of the impassable chasm and "us" on the other." This is true because the relationship between American colonists and Indians wasn't great. They didn't agree on things and each had their own beliefs and ways of doing things. The way Puglisi used the division between the American colonists and Indians by saying "Them" and "Us" had great significance because they were two totally different people (as in the way they did things) but they were still the same, as human beings. That was a good way to state what actually happend among the American colonists and Indians.
From document number four in the packet, "Noe sooner was this intelligence brought to the Governour (William Berekely) but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers under the Comand of Sir Henry Chicheley and some other Gentlemen of the County of Rappahanock, giving them full power by Comission to make Peace or Warr." William Berkeley was the man to be at this point, he had the power to make Peace or War and we knew he didn't want to make war, so obviesly he chose peace. Which made many people happy, except of course the American colonists, Bacon, white servants, black slaves, and the frontiersmen.
"It was not a war of American colonists against the british. Instead, Bacon's Rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies." (page 35) This statement is true because Bacon had no intentions of starting a war, he was only angry with William Berkeley and the Indians. (Bacon wanted land) "A hundred years before the American Revolution, a rebellion broke out in Virginia. Angry colonists set Jamestown, their capital, on fire." The colonists did this as a way of showing what they were capable of and determined to do. Little did they know, "England was sending thousands of soldiers across the Atlantic, to keep control of the forty thousand colonists." (This caught the colonists off guard). Then the white frontiersmen(lower class) were also mad and started an uprising, but that wasn't all, even the white servants and black slaves joined in on the anger. Their anger was a bit different though because they were mad about the gap between rich and poor people. The frontiersmen were angry because of how the colony was being run. It seemed like there were more and more people getting angry about the whole situation. On the other hand the governer of Virginia, William Berkeley was just trying to keep Virginia from war.
“Whether they be friends or foes:”
Michael J. Puglisi writes in a repetitive way, making the reading long and boring, but that doesn't mean there wasn't contreversial or important facts. Such as in this quote: "There has been a tendency in American history to see relations between Indians and American colonists purely in terms of conflict and separation. Whether in peace or in war, the traditional view has been to describe a gap, intentionally or unintentionally, between the natives and the colonists, with "them" on one side of the impassable chasm and "us" on the other." This is true because the relationship between American colonists and Indians wasn't great. They didn't agree on things and each had their own beliefs and ways of doing things. The way Puglisi used the division between the American colonists and Indians by saying "Them" and "Us" had great significance because they were two totally different people (as in the way they did things) but they were still the same, as human beings. That was a good way to state what actually happend among the American colonists and Indians.
From document number four in the packet, "Noe sooner was this intelligence brought to the Governour (William Berekely) but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers under the Comand of Sir Henry Chicheley and some other Gentlemen of the County of Rappahanock, giving them full power by Comission to make Peace or Warr." William Berkeley was the man to be at this point, he had the power to make Peace or War and we knew he didn't want to make war, so obviesly he chose peace. Which made many people happy, except of course the American colonists, Bacon, white servants, black slaves, and the frontiersmen.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
They Say: Bacon's Rebellion
A Young People’s History of the United States
From the reading by: Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff, "They say It was not a war of American colonists against the british. Instead, Bacon's Rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies." (page 35) I agree with this statement because Bacon had no intentions of starting a war, he was only angry with William Berkeley and the Indians. (Bacon wanted land) "They also say; A hundred years before the American Revolution, a rebellion broke out in Virginia. Angry colonists set Jamestown, their capital, on fire." I believe that the colonists did this as a way of showing what they were capable of and determined to do. Little did they know, "England was sending thousands of soldiers across the Atlantic, to keep control of the forty thousand colonists." (This caught the colonists off guard).
“Whether they be friends or foes:”
To be honest, After reading this, I was bored!!! Michael J. Puglisi was very repetitive which made it hard to keep reading. Puglisi has some good points in his writing though, such as: "There has been a tendency in American history to see relations between Indians and American colonists purely in terms of conflict and separation. Whether in peace or in war, the traditional view has been to describe a gap, intentionally or unintentionally, between the natives and the colonists, with "them" on one side of the impassable chasm and "us" on the other." I do agree with this, because the relationship between American colonists and Indians Isn't good... meaning, they don't agree on things and each have their own beliefs and ways of doing things. I liked the way Puglisi used the division between the American colonists and Indians by saying "Them" and "Us." I believe that is a good way to state what actually happend among the two (totally different people's).
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Political Economy" of the body- Response to the 3rd qoute
“In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical , inverted figure of the king.” (29)
Basically, the condemned man is the servant/ slave of the king. He must obey and follow what the king tells him to do. If he doesn't respect the king's orders, there will be definite consequences. The condemned man must be symmetrical to the inverted figure of the king. For example he must follow what the king says.
Basically, the condemned man is the servant/ slave of the king. He must obey and follow what the king tells him to do. If he doesn't respect the king's orders, there will be definite consequences. The condemned man must be symmetrical to the inverted figure of the king. For example he must follow what the king says.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"Political Economy" of the body
“[T]he body is . . . directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.” (25)
The body is strong and can endure great pain to a point; training it for something can either be easy or hard depending on the task in which training for. My understanding of to invest it (the body)… is to possibly in our time put life insurance upon yourself. To me this is investing the body with security upon demand of it. To train it is to go through tasks and learn what to do and what not to do while completing these tasks. To torture the body can also mean to irritate the body; for example if you have broken a bone, you know that your body goes through tremendous pain and it’s somewhat like torture.. Forcing the body to do something is to make the body do something that it wasn’t made or able to do. Basically the body has enormous power and a great deal of understanding to pain and tasks.
“[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labor power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)
In order for the body to be productive; it feeds off of power and is run by domination. To meet the demands of production your body needs physical power. Getting this power comes from nutrients that the body feeds off of, you mainly get this power by eating good food and getting your sleep a whole 8-10 hours is the best way for your body to get the power that it needs for the next day. I agree that " the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body" because having a productive and subjected body; equals power and force.
The body is strong and can endure great pain to a point; training it for something can either be easy or hard depending on the task in which training for. My understanding of to invest it (the body)… is to possibly in our time put life insurance upon yourself. To me this is investing the body with security upon demand of it. To train it is to go through tasks and learn what to do and what not to do while completing these tasks. To torture the body can also mean to irritate the body; for example if you have broken a bone, you know that your body goes through tremendous pain and it’s somewhat like torture.. Forcing the body to do something is to make the body do something that it wasn’t made or able to do. Basically the body has enormous power and a great deal of understanding to pain and tasks.
“[I]t is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labor power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection . . . the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.” (26)
In order for the body to be productive; it feeds off of power and is run by domination. To meet the demands of production your body needs physical power. Getting this power comes from nutrients that the body feeds off of, you mainly get this power by eating good food and getting your sleep a whole 8-10 hours is the best way for your body to get the power that it needs for the next day. I agree that " the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body" because having a productive and subjected body; equals power and force.
Summary: American Tobacco and European Consumers
From my understanding America was " the hot spot " for tobacco in these days of the 1600s. The main cause for consumption was because the Europeans wanted tobacco. They heard through the grape vines; that tobacco was good for their health. Especially in large amounts and many times a day, many of the Europeans smoked as much as they could. During the introduction to tobacco; Snuff became popular because it made you sneeze. The reason that sneezing while using Snuff was popular was because it was considered fashionable and good for your health. If you smoked tobacco or did snuff in the early days of tobacco; you were considered good company. On the other hand if you didn't smoke tobacco you were not considered good company or friends of your fellow men. Tobacco is highly addictive as the Europeans found out; they would often have their pipes and paraphernalia by their pellow as they slept (probably so they didn't have to get out of bed and grab what they needed to feed their addiction during the early hours of the morning.) I believe that during this time period; none of the Americans let alone the European knew that tobacco is really bad for your health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
