Anne Bradstreet and Predestination

Hi, it's Jasmine.

Anne Bradstreet's writing is definitely easier to understand than Edward Taylor's, but some sections of her poems still confuse me.

In "Prologue [to her book]", she emphasized the importance of knowing one's position and duty on earth by stating,
A Bartas (French poet she admired) can do what a Bartas will,
But simple I according to my skill.

I thought this meant that Bradstreet thought each person should "strive not above what strength hath got" (as stated by Taylor in one of his poems), because humans don't have the strength to fight against what is destined by God. She again emphasizes this when she writes, Let Greeks be Greeks, and Women what they are. I felt like she contradicted herself, because she had written earlier that she did not want to conform to the notion of what a woman should be like - one that has a needle, not a pen, in her hand. But wasn't people's belief that women should be inferior to men destined by God?

Also, in "Verses upon the Burning of our House," she wrote that she cried out to God, asking for help, when she saw the fire. Why would she plead to God for help if she thought that the fire was predestined? She could pray, but nothing would happen. In Taylor's "Upon a Wasp Chilled With Cold," we learned although the wasp reaches out to the sun, the sun merely does what it always does - prayer has no effect.

I guess what really confuses me is predestination. Do you think Bradstreet started to doubt it, but felt like she was being disloyal to God? I feel like Bradstreet often started to doubt God's plan, but always caught herself and reaffirmed her loyalty to him ("He knows it is the best for thee and me"). Since Puritans were taught to believe in predestination from a very young age, did that mean that they didn't see anything as unjust or unfair (since everything was determined by God)? Were they taught not to regret anything they did because their actions had been predestined? Did humans have any free will?

Taylor and Bradstreet similarities:

Hey, its Amy.
I think it's interesting how both Bradstreet and Taylor show examples of modesty and relation to the audience in their poems. Taylor, as we discussed in class, put himself close to the same level as those he was preaching to. "Lord, clear my misted sight that I may hence view Thy divinity..." In the second stanza of "Upon a Wasp Chilled with Cold) Taylor uses "I" to show that he, too, has no way of knowing if he is one of the elite who are predestined to go to heaven. He, too, is in search of enlightenment and relates to the problems that everyone in Puritan society faces. We see another example of this as he writes, "Till I enravished climb into the Godhead on this ladder do, where all my pipes inspired upraise and heavenly music furred with praise." The demonstrations of some modesty allow him to become closer to his audience and their issues.

Bradstreet accomplishes similar things as in her prologue to her book she summarizes that there are many areas open to criticism in her work and that she is not a poet; she simply wrote her thoughts and didn't edit to make sure that they were gramatically correct or pleasant for the reader. This idea of modesty and her view that her work is nowhere near perfect is evident in the first stanza as she writes, "To sing of Wars, of Captains, and of Kings, Of Cities founded, Common-wealths begun, for my mean pen are too superior things; or how they all, or each their dates have run, let Poets and Historians set these forth. My obscure lines shall not so dim their worth." The use of words such as mean and obscure show her thoughts that her poems are not even close to the superiority of the work of true poets and historians. This humbling also brings Bradstreet closer to her audience as it did for Taylor, showing that she is not just an author, but she is just another citizen who can relate to everyone's problems and issues.

Although Taylor's work was meant for public ears, and Bradstreets poems were thoughts that were not formed for the purpose of being published, the ability of both authors to find ways to relate to the audience is what makes these works of Puritan literature such interesting and insightful documents.

Games People Play

Hey this is Cristy D.
I just thought of one story which I think relates to the witchhunt hysteria. I apologize to anyone who I have already told this story. It happened several years ago, but the memory of it still frustrates me. It also reminds me that although we are living in the 20th century with modern technology and science we are not safe from being controlled by unreasonable hysteria.

I was at a birthday sleep-over. There were a lot of girls and no one was going to sleep. During the middle of the night, I came up from the basement to find a group of girls surrounding one girl who seemed to be muttering in her sleep. As I came over and asked what was up they all shhhhhhed me and told me the girl "Molly" was in a "trance". Apparantly, she thought she was the "real" Princess Anastasia and she was about to be kidnapped. The surrounding girls were whispering instructions to her to try and save her. They asked her questions like "what do you see?". When Molly replied that she saw a man in a black coat coming towards her. The girls would say "okay, now turn around and walk quickly away and then start running" Molly would reply "I'm running away but now he is chasing me!" By this point I was rolling my eyes, obviously Molly was just pretending. As I attempted to laugh over it all, the group of girls started to get angry with me, even scolding me "Stop laughing! You'll wake her up!" "No, this is real!" "She's really in a trance!" I realized that unlike myself, no one thought that Molly was pretending. It took me a while to accept this. Although it wasn't full-out hysteria, it was just as consuming and devoid of reason. It was a very unique experience that now allows me to better understand how the village people got caught up in the witchhunts. I dont believe it is simply a matter of greed, or of mercury poisoning. I think that supernatural topics are irresistable to many people. We all enjoy watching magic tricks and some of us believe in ghosts.

One of the reasons I believe this continued so long was because the girls thought it was exciting. Molly obviously was enjoying her power over her audience and kept the game going. (we are still accusing classmates of being "witches" for its entertainment value)
I was later exiled to the basement when I ended up waking up Molly who probably heard me. Because I refused to play "the game" I was left out. Molly would wake up "confused" and asking "what happened?". The girls would rush to explain the story Molly had JUST created and then work to put her back into a "trance". I left the game frustrated and annoyed but realized I could not convince anyone that Molly was pretending. This scared me then and still scares me today. The will of the majority is hard to change and is usually not open to discussion.

When I look back at it, I again begin to doubt if all those girls really believed that Molly was experiencing a parallel universe experience. If they did not, then why did they keep playing the game? Girls were saying how they were "getting freaked out" and "wouldn't be able to sleep" which shows how the "game" got out of control.

So I just thought I'd put my story out there, and see if anyone had any similar experiences, or had any ideas why this "game" kept going the entire night? ( I doubt everyone had mercury poisoning)
some other modern examples I can think of are the War of the Worlds broadcast and how scared people get after watching ghost movies. Its like Mr. Lazarow said, unless someone is undecided, if they are on the fence, we can never really change their mind. It is a scary thought. Why do we all have to be so stubborn? (then are we all already decided on our beliefs on superstitious topics?)

ps. the next morning "Molly" declared she had just been "kidding"

Puritan Literature: Can Someone Please Help Me Analyze The Code?

Hello fellow pupils. It's Ashley

So, I'm curious. How are we all getting along with our Puritan literature? There have been some excellent class discussions. People have made really insightful points (at least when they remember to actually read the packet.) Unfortunately, I'm having a bit of difficulty "decoding" the messages. When I analyze poetry, I try to look for examples of imagery, diction (i.e. word choice), what the dramatic situation is (who is speaking / to whom they are speaking), and syntax. It's harder for me to study these poems and such because they're written in old English; I don't know if they are purposefully using this flowery, figurative language or if that's just how they spoke back then! When Taylor writes,
"We'll Nightingaile sing like / When pearcht on high / In Glories Cage, the glory, bright / And thankfully / For Joy"
I thought he was referencing the Puritan society - the "city upon a hill"- because they are perched on high, above all other nations, for everyone to see their example of morality and righteousness. Their society is a cage in that the inhabitants are secure within their town - the Puritan citizens have found the right path and do not want to be led astray (i.e. be released from the cage.) They are content to be there and remain there. They sing thankfully and for joy that they are safe within the confines of the cage.
I had no idea that he was referring to the cage as heaven! Is that the right answer? Is there only one right answer?

Do our names influence what we like?

Hi, it's Jasmine.

I know we're not really talking about Hayakawa in class right now, but I found an interesting article in Newsweek.

Our names subconsciously affect our lives, according to some scientists. For example, baseball batters whose names begin with K are more likely to strike out (since there is a 'K' in 'strike'), based on statistics compiled from 1913 to the present. Another study revealed that business school students whose names began with C or D earned worse grades than those whose names began with A or B. This phenomena is called the "name-letter preference."

We've talked about the power of words (especially names) before. Our names are part of our identity - do they also affect our actions and desires without our realizing it?

What do you think? Am I more likely to like jam, Jell-O, or J-Crew because my name starts with a J? Or do you think these scientists are trying to make connections that don't really exist?

History

Wow, it's been a very long time since my last post! Something that's been nagging at me for quite some time (as we have discussed in class) is the topic of history in general. I am very confused as to what history itself is. To ask any high schooler or person one may pass in the street, history is the collection of actions, events, and people in the past- something immutable, over-and-done-with. However, reading William Bradford's writings from the Puritan literature packet, my thoughts of history have changed. As was stated earlier in the year, there can be no absolute "reality" because life is comparable to the view of a spectator at a game- no one experiences the same events. History, then, is what we call 'the past.' We judge one document of history to be 'factual' and 'correct' by comparing them to other documents written at the same time. For all we know, how can we know that all the documents written about these subjects are incorrect? Now, it is quite apparent that some events in history did indeed occur, such as World War II. We have radio feeds, pictures, and the millions of accounts of survivors. But what about an event such as the Battle of Hastings, for which we have only ancient texts and pieces of art?

In addition, history is simply not the collection of events that occurred in the past. It also, as I recently discovered, covers all parts of the mindset, culture, and people of the time period. Indeed, one may read extensively on the subject of the Salem witch hunts, but one has only gained a full understanding of the period when the psychology of the people involved (according to records) has been explored. One may find the reasoning behind many of these actions. Relating this back to what we have done in class, many events of the colonial days of America in New England (Puritans) relate back to the anxiety and fear of the settlers. They did not know whether or not, according to their specific religion, they would be accepted in Heaven for eternal salvation. Leading such a life, which goes without saying, can only be called stressful. What does everyone else think? Is history purely subjective or purely objective? Is it a mix? What else can history include?

Hey, it's Amy.
I was thinking about our "traitor hunt" tomorrow. I think it relates really well to the Salem witch trials. We're not experiencing mass hysteria or anything, but like the citizens in Salem, we all want to find the witch. We know that there's a witch out there somewhere and we just have to see who doesn't fit in. However, if someone forgets one of the laws, the rest of us will most likely become suspicious. It's a competition to see if we can pick the witch out among the "pupils" and it's better to be safe than sorry. We don't have the same motivation as seen throughout history as we are not concerned about our protection or the safety of the nation against intruders, but in the end we want to accomplish similar goals.

Safety or Rights?

Hey, it's Erin.
With any sort of "witchhunt", there seems to be certain characteristics displayed. One such is fear, that both motivates and suppresses opposition. But what that fear leads to is people sacrificing their rights in order for safety from some unknown enemy. For example, what went on in most of the McCarthy hearings technically would be illegal (I guess that's the word). But McCarthy was right in that there were spies in the government. The problem was how he went about finding them and prosecuting them. That leads to an important question, is it alright to work outside of the law in order to punish criminals (or so-called criminals)? Because allowing that, even once, creates a precedent for the future. Some people say that terrorism right now can be likened to McCarthyism and some think that the Patriot Act is a form of it. Obviously, true terrorists are dangerous and we would all to feel safe. But does that make it okay for the government to possibly spy on people? Restrict their ability to buy guns or board planes? The problem is there is no set profile for a terrorist, like there was none for a witch in "The Crucible". So what's more important?

Terrorist Witch Hunt

The witch hunt that seemed to get everyone excited today was about terrorism and racial profiling. All witch hunts seem to be motivated by fear, especially about something that is nonexistent or exaggerated. I feel that the danger presented by terrorism is somewhat exaggerated in American society. I once read that, based on past attacks, an average American has about a one in eighty thousand chance of being killed in a terrorist act. We feel a little more threatened than we actually are, which can result in distrust or hatred of people associated with terrorism, namely Middle Eastern Muslims. Only a diminutive group of radical Muslims actually participate in the violent acts, yet some feel that no Muslims can be trusted. There is nothing inherently wrong with Islam or Muslim people.

At the same time however, you can't say that a sixty year old grandma is just as likely to be a terrorist as a middle-aged Muslim man. I agree that statistics can be misleading and that you can never use past events to predict the future with absolute certainty. However, this does not mean that we must ignore past events completely. I have absolutely nothing against Islam itself. I have a friend who is Muslim, and I do not support racial profiling. I'm simply saying that there is a pattern that we see in regards to the ethnic and religious background of terrorists that should not be ignored for the sake of political correctness.

Mccarthyism- Join or Die

Hey, it's Amy.
When I was researching Mccarthyism and the Red Scare, I began to relate it to George Orwell's novel 1984. The novel describes the life of Winston who refuses to believe the lies of the dictatorship of England under the reign of the omnipresent "Big Brother." Anyway, in both societies, mccarthy's and Orwell's, it's a do or die situation. There is no possibility of rebellion because if someone steps out of line, in both cases the government eliminates them. Mccarthy punished people associated with the New Deal and who he suspected had any communist ties while Big Brother knocked anyone who knew too much or didn't follow the policies right out of existence.

Fear is a huge strategy to keep up a form of government or a political idea because no one can rebel because they'll be alone. This fear also unifies the public and the ideas soon become realities. Like in Hayakawa where he describes when he was at the train station and people where suspicious of him because he was Japanese. If you hear something enough times, it begins to become the truth.

The Red Scare

I have been intrigued by communist theology and its effects on history since I first learned about it freshman year in History class. I am interested in communism because it is an ideal government, but human nature always gets in the way. I am also fascinated by the propaganda used against communism.

While I was researching the Red Scare this weekend I learned that the Cincinnati Reds baseball team changed "Reds" to "Redlegs" to avoid association with communism. The name was not changed back to just "Reds" until 1961. This bit of information started to make me think about how the Red Square affected American life and language.

My mother was born in 1950, and my father in 1952. The Red Square was a large part of their childhood. They had "duck and cover" drills in school, much like we have lockdown drills today. They dreaded foreign invasion and nuclear holocaust. Imagine coming of age during all of that. Much of what they have gone through reminds me of our current position in "The War on Terror."

My parents often use the phrase "Nuke it" when in lieu of "Microwave it." When I was younger I just thought my parents had a peculiar and embarrassing way of speaking, not realizing that the reference to nuclear bombs was due to the Red Scare. Once, when I was with my mother in Atlantic City, we found ourselves encircled by three ironically placed restaurants: Red Square, Cuba Libre, and P.F. Chang's. When I pointed out the peculiarity my mother laughed and said something like, "That's weird. The USSR, Cuba, and Red China all in row?" I was a little put off by her use of "Red China." Why couldn't she have just said "China" like a normal person would have? It was as if she had slipped back into another time in American history. I then realized she had grown up during the Red Scare and had probably heard China referred to as "Red China" incessantly.

The effects of the Red Square are still felt in America today. Haven't we all felt the negative connatation that comes with the word "communist?" Through Hayakawa I'm sure we can all realize that being a communist is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a label for people who believe a certain theory of government should be used.