Sorry Crevecoeur, I'm taking a break.

As Ashley brought up, it's never to early to think about the ceiling tile. With that in mind, I realized that the functions on this blog have been updated so that we can add pictures. I don't want to inspire a ceiling-tile-posting-frenzy, but...

Whole Wheatley

This is Ben checking in...
Today's english class was one that started out like any other. It was like any lethargic early Thursday morning. Yawns were the norm, last second AP Bio homework was the norm (thank god I don't do that class), and a general sense of "How will Laz evily amuse us today?" was the norm. My congrats go out to Arka for arriving to class on time today. I truly was impressed.
I knew I'd have to be astute today because I was awarded the honor of the "class recap-er". This meant no sleeping, no drooling, no pretending to listen but actually staring at the pins on Mr. Lazarow's desk, no daydreaming about lunch, no daydreaming about dinner, and absolutely NO arguing. Damn. "This day is going to suck" I thought. But then...as if by fate...Mr. Lazarow made the announcement. It was Phillis Wheatley Day!!!
Muse, inspire my pen, and by pen i mean keyboard, to write about the days happenings...
Well...here's the deal, here's the summary, here's the recap, or, as the say in certain small yet scary areas of inner city Camden, "here's what went down."
Phillis Wheatley was a slave from West Africa who worked for a rich Boston family. She was one of the most well known poets of her time and her owners, although they did not entirely excuse her from household duties, allowed her to be well educated.
Yesterday we talked mostly about her letter to General Washington (see yesterday's post) but today we focused mostly on her short poem called "On being brought from AFRICA to AMERICA." It is important to stress strongly that her poems in NO WAY encourage the abolition of slavery. In this poem she reminds the Christains that other Negros, too, can "refine" their souls and join the "angelic train" by converting to Christianity from Paganism, as she had.
She uses self depricating language by calling her old soul "benighted" and calling her race "sable". This is definatley not a poem intended for herself to read and is pretty clearly addressed to others. It was interesting that in the second to last line of the poem the negroes are reffered to as "black as Cain", and Cain was the first murderer, a Pagan, who would therefore not be saved by God. Although the poem title suggests a change in location (Africa to America) the deeper meaning of the poem deals more with a change of her soul from a non-Christian soul to a Christian soul.
We also talked about her poem "ON IMAGINATION". We only started talking about it with about 3 minutes left i nthe class period but we were able to establish some common themes in all of her poetry by lookign at it. One thign she liekd to do was make up Godesses. In her letter to Washington she makes up Columbia and in this poem she makes up the godess "Fancy".
Her poems are also full of classical references. In Washington's letter he mentions Eolus, Muse, and even Mother Earth and in "On Imagination" she includes Helicon and Aurora.
In short, Phillis Wheatley was lucky to receive the education she did and she put her hard studies to good use by writing two main types of poems, a) Christianity poems, and b) poems that glorified America.

Ceil the Deal

Fellow Pupils,

An incredible honor has been bestowed upon us - we have been granted permission to decorate a most coveted ceiling tile. This tile represents our immortalization. We AP English III students shall live on forever, in the forms of plaster and paint. It is an august privelege to be given a tile, for our tile shall be hung among the tiles of the great AP English students before us. This next generation has an obligation to respect the dignity of the craft, and to respect the memory of those former students whose dedication and talent has inspired countless others. This tile must shine as brilliantly as the North Star of still night, and hearten all who gaze upon it. I ask, who among us has the artisic genious to compose the fresco? Not I, but surely one among us is worthy of the challenge. Does anyone care to offer their wisdom or suggestions? Perhaps some tribute to Hayakawa would be best, or a portrait of the exalted pound-and-explode handshake. Even a simple phrase with complex intentional or extentional meaning would be appropriate, such as "this is not a ceiling tile". I implore you for your suggestions

-Ashley

Another Title-less, Slightly Disorganized Post By...

Hey, everyone, it's Erin again.

Yesterday we got onto the subject of why Thomas Paine choose to mention Joan of Arc. It seems that this class and AP Euro always touch on similar subjects, but now I find I can't escape from this class anywhere! I think that Paine mentions Joan of Arc, not just because she's an inspirational symbol who fought for her country, but also because she was an example of nationalism. In history as we were contrasting Neoclassic and Enlightenment thought with romantic thought, Dr. Bjornstad said that Neoclassic art or writing tried to inspire virtue, and what could be more virtuous, depending on your definition, than fighting and dying for your country. George Washington was an American example of virtue, and lifted to king-like status in Phillis Wheatley's "To His Excellency General Washington." Yesterday we talked about how George Washington, relatively unknown to the rest of the world, was surrounded in ... myth (is that the right word?), to elevate his, and the colonies', status. Then in behavioral science, we talked about how we think we know things that other people tell us that aren't true - like how George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. It didn't happen, but it made Washington look good because he "couldn't tell a lie." I suppose the reason for stories like those (for example, Abraham Lincoln walking two miles in the snow to return two cents) are used to inspire "virtue" in those that hear and elevate the status of the individual they're about. Again in history, we talked about how myths and folktales (the brothers Grimm) helped inspire nationalism, created an indentity for a certain group of people and maybe that's another point to those stories. So I guess the whole point of me spouting off all this stuff is to say 1) that this class is inescapable and 2) Paine uses Joan of Arc to inspire nationalism in a nation as of then un-created just as Phillis Wheatley tries to do the same (sorry for the *circuitous* writing).

By the way, Cristy, I love the colors. How do you do that?

Wheatley and the gods

Going through Wheatley' s writing (especially "On Imagination") I was struck by the fact that, though a devout Christian, she makes many references to Greek (or Roman) gods, goddesses, and other mythical beings. While their usages vary greatly, it is definitely safe to say that she did not intend for these references to take on a religious meaning. For example, in "On Imagination," Wheatley describes Flora, the goddess of spring and flowers, as one who reigns while not under the clutches of Winter. In addition, Sylvanus, the god of the forests and woods, is called forth during this time. Her purpose here is to evoke to the reader the great joy of imagination and the wealth of life that springs forth as a result. As a slave, it is reasonable to assume that she may have yearned for freedom; perhaps it was through her poetry that she achieved this. Winter, then, may represent the reality of her days: that she could not be free. That being said, it is also true that she was in a very comfortable position and loved and was loved by her family. Moving on, Wheatley continues in mentioning both Tithon and Aurora. Aurora, the goddess of dawn, is described as having cheeks "all glowing with celestial dies;" Tithon, briefly mentioned, was Aurora's lover, and was also the Titan of the dawn.
As was previously described, Wheatley was a devout Christian who loved and worshipped God. She did make many references to Greek (Roman) gods and goddesses, but can also be seen to scorn these mythological beings. In "On being brought from Africa to America," Wheatley starts off by saying that is was God's mercy that delivered her from her "Pagan land." This almost-disgusted tone best describes her view towards her native lands. However, as was discussed, she does glorify her new land, America, in "To His Excellency General Washington" by concentrating the ideas and ideals of America into the new goddess, Columbia. This does not relate to any religious sense but instead serves to evoke the glory of Ancient Greece and transfer it to America. In addition, it is an appeal to the Classical model.
But what do you guys think? How else did Wheatley employ Greek/Roman gods and goddesses? Could they be interpreted in a religious sense? Why does she choose these specific ones and what is their purpose?

Wed-nes-day 1/30

Hey Cristy reporting here for the daily diary of ap language III.
(as you can tell i have failed again to get my own name on the blog) :(

"Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun - but mama, that's where the fun is " - Man fred Mann's Earth Band.

Yes it was originally by Bruce but Mr. Laz likes this version better..sorry brendan, no bonus.
SO today in class we talked about Phillis Weatley "To his Excellency General Washington". Pupils mentioned how the poem exalted Washington and likened him to a king of "Columbia" (the united states). Phillis creates the goddess Columbia to be the patron goddess of the United States in its infancy. We were still discussing the audience and heard points for three: America, France/world, and the enemy. At the beginning of class, approximately 7:50 a.m. the topic of our class celing tile came up. exciting! hmmm....Semantics, Hayakawa, pupils, exploding handshake....all makes for a pretty distracting tile..anywho.... as I was saying. Phillis Wheatley's poem was found to be written after a classical Roman style and overall suggests a purpose of lending hope and inspiration to America during a hard period.
See you all tomorrow!

The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam, the history of Saddam, and his willingness to terrorize himself.

-Kudos to Ian on his AMAZING post title...I laughed for about 20 minutes.-

In class we have been speaking about nationalist documents. We’ve been dissecting documents from the past that inspired and enflamed the actions of earlier Americans. Today’s discussion of Thomas Paine was particularly revealing. Those who know how to use propaganda in a discreet yet convincing way have a very potent tool that can be used to inspire the masses.

Recently, our President made his annual address to the nation. Unfortunately, due to prior commitments I was not able to watch his State of the Union address, but I obtained a copy of his speech on msnbc.com. Oh the joys of technology and the internet are unlimited…

Since it is an address to the entire nation, the President used the ever faithful ‘we’ device throughout his speech. It is expected that he would do so, to unify the people from across this vast nation into one collective group. Those of us in European history might have started to discuss the belief that ‘nationalism’ is an idea from the romantic era. True philosophers of the enlightenment believed in a more cosmopolitan view, a worldly one as opposed to one divided into many separate countries. So, the entire State of the Union address can be described as a type of emotional appeal to our desire to belong to a collective group or nation.

Many people have disagreed with the Presidents policies and plans of action over the course of his presidency. However this statement was made:

“We have faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it’s fair to say we’ve answered that call. Yet history will record that amid our differences, we acted with purpose. And together, we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government.”

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the President, it has a very moving and ‘touchy feely’ quality to it, as if this group of resilient American’s deserve a pat on the back and a night off. What puzzles me is that with the country so divided in terms of politics, who is the ‘we’ he is referring to?

One answer would be that he is referring to all Americans as a collective group. This seems to be the most obvious response because it is in fact, an address to the nation.

However, what puzzles me is his inclusion of the line ‘and the health and welfare of our citizens.’ Who is the ‘our’?

The President could be making a reference to Congress, but if Congress is merely a representative body of Americans, why does an ‘our’ need to be included? In my mind, ‘our’ always seems to imply some type of ownership over something. But Congress should not have control over us; we should have control over Congress.

The final reason that I believe the ‘our’ might have been included is most likely not the case but still an interesting and controversial theory. In my opinion, it almost sounds as if the President is speaking merely to his supporters. It is as if he believes that those who oppose him need to be watched and guarded over by the ‘we’. Also, it is as if together his supporters showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government (which is a very debatable statement).

I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes. I know that politics is a heated subject, and I did not intend to attack the President (it’s not as though he wrote this speech himself), but with this huge schism between parties it is almost impossible not to wonder if one party blames the other for a lack of success, or failure. (Please tell me what you think!)

Also on a side note, the quote on the title of this post is actually a modified version of a quote (so that it would all fit in the title bar) from President Bush from the Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 29, 2003. How fitting…

Class Update: Pleasure and Paine at 8 in the Morning

Today in class we discussed Thomas Paine and his selected work, "The American Crisis." As was first brought up, Paine uses strong affective connotations to describe England as "tyrannical and Hellish;" he continues declaring that "Every Tory is a coward." In addition, Paine relies on religion to describe how God is on their side; this statement seems to betray his philosophical beliefs, as a Deist. But, as was brought up, the Deist philosophy was that God had created the universe and walked out- but Paine believed that it had been so arranged that God was on America's side. Continuing with this idea, since God was on their side, how could He possibly be on Britain's side?

On another topic, Deirdre brought up how Joan of Arc is likewise brought up as a seemingly religious leader. However, Mr. Lazarow went on to explain that she was not so much a RELIGIOUS leader in this instance as an example of INSPIRATION leader who could be employed to appeal to the American commoners and to the citizens of France who were to be soon allied with the Americans.
William III (of Orange) was also alluded to, and, as was discussed, probably served the function of a comparison to Washington. Because William III was so well-known and Washington relatively unheard-of with the general American public, this comparison helps to elevate Washingotn's status as an important leader. This would serve the Americans well and the would help them in their fight against the British- for, as Mr. Lazarow explained, part of the battle of scaring the enemy beforehand.

A major strategy that Paine relies on is his avoidance of asking questions- rather, he ANSWERS questions. His confident and self-assured tone (as an embedded journalist) allows the readers (the Americans) to interpret the retreat of the American army as a glorious act, for they were able to accomplish it in a "manly and martial spirit."

Finally, Paine viciously attacks the British enemies. Though they were once the ally of the Americas (French and Indian War), they have now become the enemy. None of them could be trusted, and no American could be expected to receive any mercy from them if they were to lose. His propagandistic document is finely crafted and serves to muster support for the American cause against the British.

Thomas Paine

Hey guys, it's Allison.

Thomas Paine's work, The American Crisis inspired the early colonists during their long struggle with the British. In the brief biography of Paine presented before the reading, we learn that he attacked Christian doctrines and the Bible in his work, The Age of Reason; and that he was a Deist. Such information did not strike me as unusual until I read his work, The American Crisis. Within the work, there are countless references to religion. These references weren't surprising seeing as Paine was a Deist, and therefore, was somewhat religious.

Two of Paine's religious references, however, did strike me as unusual based on my knowledge of his religious beliefs. When Paine described how the English army was forced to retreat by men under the leadership of a woman, he made a reference to the biblical story about Joan of Arc. Normally, such a reference wouldn't be peculiar; however, seeing as how Since Paine attacked the Bible in one of his writings, I found this reference ironic. Why would he quote the Bible in his own work and then go on to attack it?

The second reference that caught me off guard was made when Paine argued that America wouldn't be happy until she was free of her mother country. It was at this time that Paine said "I am as confident .. that God governs the world." This statement blew me away. If Thomas Paine was a Deist, then he would believe that God was the "watchmaker" that created the universe but left it to "tick" on its own. If he was a Deist, he wouldn't have expressed his firm belief that God is active in the "ticking" of the world.

Why do you think Paine made religious references that refute his personal beliefs? Do you even think that these statements are contradictory to his beliefs?

Thomas Paine

So I was reviewing the Thomas Paine reading for class tomorrow, and I was a little confused.

In the introduction it says that Paine was against Christianity and accepted deism. In The American Crisis, however, he often uses religious imagery. He refers to heaven and hell, and he even wrote, "I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion." Doesn't that contradict the deist philosophy?

Later he mentioned Joan of Arc. I know that Joan of Arc is hailed as a hero in France for her victories in war and her patriotism, but isn't odd that some one so opposed to Chrisitianity would use a girl who claimed to have visions from saints as an arguement?

I wouldn't doubt that he would through aside his religious beliefs to gain support. Is that what he's doing?

Renewed Debate From Forever Ago...

Hey it's Ben...who you all love and/or hate...
I haven't been on the blog in forever, to tell you the truth I sort of forgot about it. I HAVE intended to though (half credit?) but my internet adventures more often than not land me on Facebook or YouTube.
I'm not really that good at sifting through dense Puritan poetry or identifying the intended audience of neoclassic works, but there is one thing I'm half good at, however, and that is the general act of disagreeing...
That being said, I am going to bring up a debate we had in class (we as in mostly Mr. Lazarow and I) from AGES ago. I seriously can't even remember how or why we were talking about this but the "random security checks" at Airports were brought up. We all know that Muslims and Arab Americans seem to be checked more than anyone else. Mr. Lazarow was of the opinion that this unfair distribution of random searches was a bad thing because it was stereotyping, discriminatory, and generally unnessesary. I am of the complete opposite opinion. In the following paragraphs I will tell you why the argument that opposes my opinion is more bogus than the outcome of OJ Simpson's first trial.
Ahhhh where to begin...
I completly agree that the "random" searches are far from random. Muslims are definatley checked more. Is there anything wrong with this (as Mr Lazarow suggests)? NO. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Not only is this unequal screening system Right...it is neccessary. It made seem rude but the phrase "bang for the buck" coems to mind. Here me out...
The airport security division would be putting many lives in danger if they checked NOBODY. The airport security division doesn't have the time or manpower to check EVERYBODY. Therefore, they are forced to check SOMEBODY...
Let's use the example of police officers given the task of finding and fighting drug problems in a city. It would be unsafe to check no neighborhoods and there's not enough police officers to check every neighborhood, so the safest and most efficient thing to do would be to check places where there were problems in the more recent past. So let's say a team of cops goes out to a particular neighborhood where there have been drug problems in the recent past...does this mean that everyone that lives there is a druggie? Of course not. Is is wrong to label a resident of this neighborhood as such? Of course it is. HOWEVER, is there a greater chance that a person in this neighborhood might be connected to drugs (however small that chance is)...YES.
If I was given a small police force of 20 officers to investigate and root out drug situations in a small area of Camden and Cinnaminson I would send almost every one of my officers to Camden. Am I sterotyping Camden residents as druggies by doing this? No. Am I suggesting that drugs don't exist in Cinnaminson? No. I would be doing nothing more than concentrating the most resources in the most important places. If I told the public how I was unequally using my police force, I am positive there would be Camden residents knocking at my door, screaming "injustice!"
This ties right into the "Muslim = terrorist idea." Nowadays are many Muslims terrorists? NO. NOT AT ALL. Are many terrorists Muslim? Yes. And you'd be wrong to deny that. Read the papers, people. Mr. Lazarow then brought up Timothy McVeigh, the American terrorist. This example fails to hold any signifigance because it is such an outlier. It exhibits no trend. Mr. Lazarow then said "Do you realize that in the 1700's, the British would've considered the colonists terrorists?" So? What's your point? That example holds no value because it is so incredibly outdated and isn't even tangentally related to the world of modern terror. I'll tell you what...the next time I see a guy in a three cornered hat saying "down with the King" in an airport, I will PERSONALLY frisk him. I beleive the IRA was also added to the list of outdated examples.
In Mr. Lazarow's opinion, 70 Year old Grandmas should be check just as much as Muslims apparently, because, after all, that is the meaning of the word "random". I ask you this...how many 70 year old Grandmas have blown themselves up in the past year? Exactly. Maybe I missed the news story about the one time that it maybe might've happened, but in general, women named Gladys and Bev aren't prone to detonate. I understand that they have the same ability to do so as anyone else but have they done so in the recent past. Nope. Let's be serious now people...
In class, upon being asked to back up my claim (that Muslims are blowing themselves up more than other people recently) with facts and figures, I was unable to do so. I was unaware of the need to prove the obvious. It's in the papers. It's on the internet. It's on the radio. Give me a break, people.
Just as I used drugs as my example, Mr. Lazarow used mutual funds. Mutual funds always give you the disclaimer "past results don't guarentee future success" before you invest. This seems to be good advice and it relates to the whole terrorist situation too because just because in the recent past most of the terror acts have been Muslim but this doesn't guarentee that this will be true in the future bla bla bla. I can definatley see where Mr. Laz is partially correct with this example. HOWEVER, this example backfires strongly. Sure, past results don't guarentee future success but what else do you have to go by? If I am looking to make money off mutual funds or stocks am I going to close my eyes and "randomly" select one or am I going to use recent results to make my decision? According to Mr. Lazarow's school of thought I should also take into account the company's fincancial records from the late 1700's, because, that kind of evidence seems to be just as important as more recent evidence, I guess. I wonder how many quills Office Max sold in 1776?
Basically this whole "random search" debate is about something much more important than morality. It's about SAFETY. It is purely irresponsible to let morality even enter the arena of a safety debate. Some Muslims say they feel "degraded" and "singled out" by this system, but it is unfortunatley necessary until recent history changes. It is my hope that this post will just be the beginning of a fiery debate...

Rule of Three!!

Hey this is Cristy.
Okay, so I thought the rule of three that Mr. Lazaro mentioned was really interesting and I looked it up. Other than the sitcom, joke scenario there are loads more of examples.

"It all comes down to the way we humans process information. We have become proficient at pattern recognition by necessity, and three is the smallest number of elements required to create a pattern. This combination of pattern and brevity results in memorable content, and that’s why the Rule of Three will make you a more engaging writer." How cool is that!!!?

omg and they use "life,liberty, and the persuit of happiness" as an example! okay but did you guys think of these examples? The three little pigs, Goldilocks and the three bears, the three muskateers. ooo and i just thought of one! Stop! Drop! and Roll! And it has to be easy to remember in an emergency (if you're on fire) and it is cause there are three things. (i mean comeon, do you really need the stop in there? no u just need to drop and roll) (i mean I guess it reminds u not to run, but you wouldnt be if u followed the next two directions anyway)
ooooo and if there is a huge conspiracy or something then 9-1-1 might be an example too. It is an emergency # that is easy to remember. ( but that is probably going to far)

haha well just remember when you're writing your midterms and ap essays...the rule of three!
I'm going, going, gonee. ;)

Midterm practice

Hey everyone, it's Stephanie.
I got this question off an AP site, and it was recently on an AP test, so I tried answering it and I was just curious to see how everyone else interpreted it:

“From talk radio to television shows, from popular magazines to Web blogs, citizens, political figures, and entertainers express their opinions on a wide range of topics. Are these opinions worthwhile? Does the expression of such opinions foster democratic values?
Write an essay in which you take a position on value of such public statements of opinion, supporting your view with appropriate evidence.”

Jefferson: Appeal to Reason and Emotion

Hey, it's Jasmine. For some reason there was an error when I tried to post the first time, so I'll try to remember what I wrote (which could be difficult...).

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson makes a much more logical argument than Patrick Henry does in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. The most famous sentence of the Declaration is: "All men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He goes on to say that governments are formed to protect these rights, and if they fail to do so, people have the right to rebel. This is directly based on Locke's ideas from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment emphasized the importance of reason and also made people skeptical of authority and traditional ideas. Thus, during the Neoclassic era, people were much more skeptical of the king and Britain's motives and, at the same time, they were more open to change.

Jefferson appeals to colonists' logic by demonstrating how the king's actions did not follow any logic. He makes the king seem like a hypocrite. He discusses how the king was really FOR slavery but promised to free slaves if they supported the British. Jefferson says that this doesn't make any sense - the king can't pay off "former crimes committed aginst the liberties of one people (the slaves), with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another (the colonists)." By making the king's logic seem flawed, he thus allows the colonsits to conclude that their logic must be correct. He also describes the king's wrongdoings in much more detail than Henry did. His justification of breaking away from Britain is based on: taxation without representation, the restriction of American trade by Britain, the loss of traditional rights like trial by jury, and the Quartering Act. This long list of grievances would have served as evidence supporting the revolutionary cause.

Jefferson also appeals to emotion through his use of words. He uses strong "snarl" words, for example: "He (the king) has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people...taken captives on the high seas." Did these phrases remind anybody else of pirates? I think this was Jefferson's purpose, to make the king seem like a pirate who could destroy their lives and homes, thus appealing to fear, too. Lastly, Jefferson uses action verbs to make it seem like the king is physically performing all the horrible actions. It's as if the king is physically burning their towns, etc.

What do you guys think? Which method do you think was more effective - appealing to reason or appealing to emotion and fear?

Logos or Pathos?

This is Arka, by the way. A week back or so we discussed a key point of Henry's speech, namely whether it was logos (logical argument) or pathos (emotional arguments) in a facade of logos. While some felt that henry was clearly arguing logically, I feel that closer examination reveals that the latter optionis correct. Much of what Henry says makes no logical sense. For example, he first establishes the "logical" causes for war, then draws a "logical" conclusion that the armies and navies Britain is gathering are intended to make them slaves. (The validity of this is of course in doubt). However, if we examine the historical context, there is a very real threat of war in the colonies. Not only did the colonies face constant threat from the Native Americans on the frontier, but also France, who still had interests in the Americas. Furthermore, the Spanish and the Russians had entered the continent already. Essentially, Henry is using the fear of the colonists of being "enslaved" (which of course would never happen) in order to prod them into fighting. Another example of this that Henry gives is that Britain's actions for the past 10 years indicate logically that a future with Britain would be one of oppression. However, the colonies were not at all oppressed during the 10 years between the seven yrs war and the revolution. On the contrary, the colonies simply returned to the norm of taxation and trade every other colony of Britain had to have for the past hundred years. The taxes and tariffs were not, as Henry states, for the British war machine, but rather to protect the colonies.
Another interesting example of this idea of pathos vs. logos can be found in the Declaration of Independence. While undoubtedly more logical than Henry, the Declaration still contains a large amount of emotional appeals. In the second paragraph for example, Jefferson rephers to a "long train of abuses and usurpations", followed by references to "absolute despotism", "unremitting injuries", and "absolute tyranny" Although the entire first section is explained in a very logical fashion, but these terms Jefferson uses are never justified. What are these many usurpations and this tyranny? Simply a few extra taxes and undesirable laws after a long period of unenforced laws. A similar situation would be if the IRS suddenly increased taxes by some amount, and it resulted in revolution. The colonists are by far better of than the serfs of Eastern Europe or even the peasant farmers of Western Europe. In the next section, the indictment of the King, Jefferson lists many "tyrannies", which if examined from a historical context, have no actual backing. Jefferson is simply trying to emotionally appeal to his readers by using such words.
An interesting thing to note is that after the Revolution, America made up with Britain remarkably fast (although relationships did sour around 1805-1810), suggesting that much of the revolution was a spur of the moment, emotional reaction, rather than a true underlying problem that could logically explained. In addition, it is important to note that even today, most students are taught a remarkably romanticized view of the revolution, appealing emotionally. Not until AP US, did I actually learn of the true circumstances surrounding 1776.
In ending this post, I pose a question: while both logical thinking and rationalism as well as emotional propaganda were prized and used frequently, is it possible to characterize neoclassic writing as based on pathos or logos?

Deism and the Declaration

As was discussed in the intro to the Neoclassicism unit, much of the writing of the day was propagandistic in nature. The writing could be generally characterized as being addressed to a nationalistic, allied, neutral, or hostile audience (not including the unintended audience). This topic has been discussed already at length: I think the general consensus was that it was catered towards a nationalistic audience. However, the propagandistic leanings aren't the only unique characteristics of this piece. The biography included in this section described that Jefferson was a deist, and he strived to "...advocate a demystified religion that preached from a positivist perspective. He railed against the gloomy assessments of human nature he believed were characteristic of Calvanism." Knowing this, then, it is not surprising that the tenets of Deism included the beliefs that rationalism and reason could help clarify the inscrutable universe, that divinity was understandable, that man was not perfect but perfectible, and that nature ruled over all. Above all, it was not a religion so much as a philosophy. It was a conglomeration of ideas that helped people to understand the world around them. The fact that the universe existed indicated that God ("Creator") existed, but had, as Dr. B. says, "left the building."

Rationalism and reason seem to best characterize the propagandistic goals of the document. As seen in the middle section of the D.O.I. (the list of grievances), the listing of the reasons for which America had the right to rebel was very rational. Instead of simply stating "We...reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain...," he adds backing to his argument. This idea also ties in with the Unitarian belief that man was not perfect but perfectible. In a parallel sense, surely the colonies as the were were not perfect. Though Jefferson much loved his home state of Virginia, it was necessary to break free from Britain in order to "form a more perfect union." (Constitution!). Jefferson makes many references to God, often as the "Creator." I am quite confused as to why he does this; though I am sure he was conscious of the Deist belief of a duty to God, I don't think he added it for that reason. Additionally, it does not seem to stick out as moral support for the document, as was seen in Henry's "Give me liberty..." speech. What do you think? What other Deist tenets are represented here? What may be an unintended audience? Is there a second motive to the document?

The ideas behind the Declaration of Independence

Hey, it's Amy again.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson combines the forces of history, philosophy, and religion to justify the revolutionary actions of the colonies against Great Britain. Many of his ideas came from Locke, who believed that man was born good and with natural rights that no one had the power to take away. Locke also believed in the idea that the purpose of government was to protect these rights, and the people had the responsibility to abolish or reform the government if their inalienable rights were not protected, as with the colonies.

Thomas Jefferson uses the influence of this historical philosopher to communicate ideas already known to many and create a sense of familiarity and validity with the revolution through his use of Locke's concepts in numerous areas of his writing. Jefferson states that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"

He later uses the ideas of Hobbes, another well-known philosopher: "And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This statement illustrates the main ideas of Hobbes, that mankind are more disposed to suffer and show evil characteristics, but at the same time Jefferson says that although we all suffer, we have a duty to right the tyrannical government, an evil of mankind, if we ever wish to decrease our evil tendencies, an idea that does not comply with Hobbes, who views government as an establishment to control and protect those who do not know how to protect themselves. Instead, he refers back to the ideas of Locke.

The ideas of English Whigs are also incorporated into the Declaration of Independence. In some ways there are similarities between the WHigs and the Colonists, as both were anti-Royalist and attacked the moral corruption in English political behavior and decisions and connected this criticism to civil liberties. According to our bio on Jefferson, "The Whigs constantly warned the lulledd citizens of the threats to their liberties and proposed all sorts of liberal reforms..." Jefferson included a list of "unremitting injuries and usurpations" of Britain and afterwards wrote about the deprivation of basic rights and emphasized how the colonies had petitioned for redress, only to be repeatedly denied.

Jefferson also illustrated Britain's cruelty as Britain sends over foreign mercenaries and British soldiers to kill the colonists. Jefferson describes the situation as beyond reconciliation as the colonies have no chance to reach agreement with Britain, and the only other option is to fight for freedom and what it right.

God on our side

Hey, it's Amy!

On the second page of PAtrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death," one of the techniques he uses is repitition for emphasis. Yes, this has nothing to do with the title, but I just wanted to mention it. For example, to lodge his ideas in the minds of others, he said, "we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight." We see this repitition in other areas as well such as, "let it come! I reapeat it, sir, let it come." This emphasis is to drive the rebellion in a time where war has already started, according to Henry, and the colonies must take action immediately to keep up with Great Britain or they will forever be bound in chains.

Back to the title of this entry,Patric Henry also uses the force of God to encourage and demand action from the colonists. It has been seen throughout history that nations at war will claim that God is supporting them, not their enemies, and the side that wins gets to affirm that their ambitions were the holy ones. We see this idea of God taking sides for the most holy cause in Patrick Henry's work as he puts religious emphasis on his ideas. "An appeal to arms and tot he God of Hosts is all that is left us," demonstrates his invoking of God's assistance in the rebellion along with his statement in the last paragraph, "Is life so dar, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" Henry portrays the revolution as a holy and religious effort as he states "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty..." This illustration of rebellion is to provoke mainly nationalist into action and possibly sway some neutrals, although the language is too strong to be directed towards neutrals.

Hey everyone, It's Paige. I was just reading through some Thomas Paine writings, and I had some semantic thoughts. In "The American Crisis" he seems to be working on a highly abstract level started with the first sentence, "THESE are the times that try men's souls." This sounds convincing, but what does that really mean in terms of the extensional world? He seems to have very vivid imagery linked with snarl words when he speaks of tyranny. "Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered", as well as saying "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny..." His connect is quite clear his connection of Britain being like hell through tyranny seems to bring out a lot of negative connotations. Although his tone is forceful with the information, he appears to be a demogague. He claims, "God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction..." He is using his audience's emotions again themselves in raising a false sense of security.

What do you guys think?

Slavery Imagery in Henry's Speech

Hey guys, it's Allison.

In our discussion of Patrick Henry's speech, I mentioned how Henry uses the imagery of slavery to arouse certain feelings and reactions in the reader based on the word's affective connotation. Mr. Lazarow then elaborated on the idea and explained how Henry used the imagery of slavery to describe how he felt England viewed the colonies.

When I re-read the speech, I was surprised by the number of times Henry made reference to slavery. To begin the speech, he said that he considered the issue with England to be "nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery". And so began his multiple allusions to slavery. Henry then went on to ask, "Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?". I took his use of the word liberty and his description of having to struggle for it to be a reference to how slaves must fight if they wish to be free. When Henry described the British cultivation of a strong army and navy, he said the military were "sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." Such a judgment exemplifies Henry's concern that the British saw their colonists as their slaves. When Henry suggested that the colonists must fight to protect their freedom, he made yet another reference to slavery: "Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" To reinforce his point, Henry said, "There is no retreat, but submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!"

I think Henry used the slavery imagery as a fear tactic to scare the nationalists into action. Henry suggested that the colonists fight to preserve their freedom and if the colonists believed that losing their freedom to the British was a pressing issue, they might have followed Henry's course of action. Do you think that Henry's use of slavery imagery was appropriate? Was his use of the imagery effective?

The power of God over man

Hey, it's Jasmine.

I was doing my Spanish homework and the story I was reading reminded me of what we talked about in English class a while ago. The story is called "The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths." It's about a Babylonian king who constructs an elaborate and complex labyrinth and an Arab king who uses the desert as his labyrinth. The story states that the Babylonian king's labyrnith causes an uproar because the ability to confuse can only be employed by God, not man. At the end, God triumphs over man when the Babylonian king dies in the desert (which is a labyrnith constructed by God, not humans).

This reminded me of our last unit on Puritans. In the poem, "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly," Edward Taylor writes, "Strive not above what strength hath got." This meant that humans didn't have the strength to fight what they were destined to be - human beings, not gods. Thus, the Babylonian king shouldn't have tried to act like God, controlling the fates of those who got lost in his labyrinth.

This concept also relates to the lightning rod, invented by Benjamin Franklin. Many people opposed the idea of the lightning rod because they believed that if lightning struck a house, it was an act of God. They believed that it was immoral to challenge God's will. Furthermore, in his speech, Patrick Henry stated, "There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." Do you think that some of the colonists were inspired to fight because they thought God was on their side? Did the colonists feel obliged to fight back because it was (supposedly) God's will? I'm not sure how much God factored into the mood of the war, but I think the reassurance that He was on the colonists' side made them more optimistic. As long as God supported them, not the British, they were sure to win, since God's power was always stronger than man's.

Patrick Henry

There seems to be a trend in our Neoclassicism packet from passages directed at enemy audiences towards passages directed at nationalist audiences. We just finished going over Franklin's witty satire of Britain's policy towards her American colonies, which was in fact intended for a British audience. The passage that we just finished reading, by Patrick Henry, appears to me to be directed at a neutral audience. Finally, if I recall correctly from history class last year, both Jefferson and Paine wrote their major works of the time with a nationalist audience in mind.

Going back to "Give me Liberty or give me Death!", I was struck by its differences with Benjamin Franklin's letter from only two years before. While Franklin leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, Henry insists that war is inevitable. While Franklin attempts to connect with a foreign audience, Henry speaks to colonists who still want to pursue diplomatic solutions. His argument is that history has shown that the British have no interest in reconciliation, and hoping that this will change is foolish. Of course, he does not say it quite like that, as he does not want to offend or scare away people neutral to the Revolutionary cause. In fact, his very first sentence assures his audience of his respect for those who do not support the war.

A central theme of Henry's speech is hope. His audience has hope that reconciliation is possible, and little or no hope that the colonists can win a war with Britain. The speech attempts to convince these people that just the opposite is true. Henry presents an emotional appeal to the people in each case, using words with strong affective connotations. Finally, he ends with a line derived from an Aristotelian two-valued orientation that also serves as the title of the speech. I thought that this was similar to President Bush's famous words "You're either for us or against us". Although the context of each respective statement is different, both politicians use the same device in an appeal to neutrals.