The Spanish Indian

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on De Vaca
12/7/09

Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca
1490-1558

"we cured the sick and they killed the healthy; we had come naked and barefoot and they well dressed, mounted and armed; we did not covet anything . . . and the only aim of the others was to steal everything they found." ("Truth and Fiction Chart A Miraculous Journey", Louis Werner)

"When we saw for certain that we were drawing near the Christians, we gave thanks to God our Lord for choosing to bring us out of such a melancholy and wretched captivity." (Norton Anthology Pg.46)

The first quote illustrates De Vaca's conflicted sense of identity upon rejoining his Spanish brethren. Having lived with the Native Americans for eight long years, studied them, and survived alongside them, De Vaca could not help but see the Spanish through the eyes of an Indian. His sense of identity had changed, but regardless of the time he had spent in the Americas, he was of Spanish origin. He had crossed the Atlantic at the age of thirty seven after all, and the majority of his life, and identity, would always rest in Spain. Even so, the odyssey he had taken by foot across the Americas had changed him. He could never go back to being ignorant of the Native Americans, and would never forget the simple generosity that they gave unconditionally. Upon meeting the Spanish, his identity quickly came into question however. The Spanish could not believe that he was anything but an Indian, and the Indians could not believe that he was Spanish. In the end, he turned his back on the Native Americans, and sold them out to the Spaniards. Perhaps this decision was something he would always look back on in regret, but at the time, it was a necessary for him to reestablish his identity. Six hundred Native Americans would be enslaved because of him, but, as if paying the price, De Vaca soon became one of the greatest adversaries to slavery in the 'New World'. Originally embarking on a slave mission, De Vaca would return eight years later, a changed man. A result of the journey that had changed his life, and identity, forever.

The second quote -a contrast to the first- seems to establish De Vaca as a Spaniard, unchanged by his eight years of survival in the Americas. First, he identifies his Spanish brethren as 'Christians' -the irony is painful-, but then follows these words by giving thanks to 'God our Lord'. Establishing himself as a fellow Christian, De Vaca seems to say that he never once questioned his identity. Considering the amount of time he spent living as a Native American this seems suspicious, and he may have written these words for the purpose of ensuring his Spanish identity, but he may very well have meant them. He knew he would be questioned upon returning to Spain, however, which may have influenced his words, and the first confrontation he had with the Spanish slavers seems support the idea that he was not so sure after all. Either way, if he never once questioned his identity, why would he go to such great lengths to establish it to the Spanish?

The Cosmopolitan

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Columbus
12/3/09

Christopher Columbus

1451-1506

"When Columbus was selling Queen Isabella on the wonders of the Americas, the Indians were 'well built' and 'of quick intelligence.'... Later, when Columbus was justifying his wars, and his enslavement of the Natives, they became 'cruel' and 'stupid,' 'a people warlike and numerous, whose customs and religion are very different from ours.'" (Loewen Pg. 62)

"They traveled three days' journey and found an infinity of small hamlets and people without number, but nothing of importance." (Norton Anthology Pg.33)

The first quote illustrates what Loewen describes, as cognitive dissonance- changing ones opinions to fit ones actions. Columbus, is at first impressed by the Native Americans, and admires them for their strength and intelligence, but as soon as he comes to enslave them, they become cruel, warlike, and stupid, necessitating their enslavement. Obviously Columbus was having a crisis of identity. Was he doing wrong by slaughtering, and enslaving entire tribes, or was he managing the savages, and bringing God to them. By describing the Native Americans as cruel and warlike, Columbus excuses his own actions. It would seem wrong to enslave, and murder strong and intelligent people, so he changes his opinion of the Indians in order to safeguard his conscience from the repercussions of his actions. After all, the mind is a powerful thing capable of excusing any act, no matter how vile and deplorable it may be. It begs the question: 'Is it possible for a man to believe himself to be evil by nature?' I for one, say no.


"Jewish financiers and Jewish scientists made possible the discovery of America by Columbus, and a Jew was the first known European to set foot on American soil, according to the Rev. Dr. William H. Morgon, pastor of the First Methodist Episcopal Church." (New York Times, May 9th 1921)

"Estelle Irizarry studied his language and grammar and concluded that Columbus was a Catalan speaking man from the Kingdom of Aragon, an inland region of north-eastern Spain at the foot of the Pyrenees." (Telegraph.co.uk)

The second set of quotes bring up the issue of Columbus' identity. Who was Christopher Columbus? Was he a Christian born Italian, from Genoa as is commonly believed, or was he something else entirely? As Fiona Govan, of the Telegraph states: "Italy, France, Portugal, and even Scotland are among those who claimed Christopher Columbus as their own over the years." Even the true name of Columbus comes into question. Known as Cristòfor Colom in Catalan, Cristóbal Colón in Spanish, and Cristoforo Colombo in Italian, Columbus, as we know him, is very much an unknown (Wikipedia). Personally, however, I believe that he was originally a Catalan Jew from North Eastern Spain who converted later in life in order to keep from being expelled by Ferdinand and Isabelle's decree of expulsion. Proven not only through his powerful relations with Jews, but through the linguistic fingerprint he left behind, there is substantial evidence to support this theory (Estelle Irizarry). Moving beyond the evidence in question, however, if Columbus was in fact a Spanish Jew, it would lead him to have a strongly conflicted identity. Ruled by a king and queen that had expelled his religious following, he must have been under endless scrutiny, and would have to continually prove himself, not only as a success in the 'New World', but as a Christian as well.

The Puritan

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Bradford
12/1/09

William Bradford
1590-1657

"You, I now see, show your love like Christians indeed one to another, but we let one another lie and die like dogs." (Norton Pg.122)

"From my years young in days of youth,
God did make known to me his truth,
And call'd me from my native place
For to enjoy the means of grace.
In wilderness he did me guide,
And in strange lands for me provide.
In fears and wants, though weal and woe"
(Poem by Bradford, About.com)



The first quote is taken from Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation, wherein one of the non-Puritan sailors, sick and dying during the first long winter, admits that the ordinary settlers lack the brotherly compassion of the Puritans. An example of the differences held between the two groups that made up the Plymouth pilgrims, the Puritans and the settlers start off in stark contrasts to one another, but I don't believe that they stay that way for long. Forced to survive in the New World, with no real concept of how to survive, they experienced a long winter, of cold, disease and famine, and I believe that these hardships eventually brought them together. As Bradford tells us, in the first winter alone, more than half of the settlers died. Throughout the winter, sickness spread throughout the pilgrims, and those that were capable of retaining their health worked to keep the rest alive, both Puritans and Settlers alike. Depending on each-other for survival, they must have found respect for their English brethren.

Throughout their settlement of Massachusetts the Puritans also came to depend on the Indians such as Squanto for survival. This dependence, no doubt lead Bradford and the Puritans to admire their adversity although they still saw them as savages: "Squanto continued with them, and was their interpreter, and was a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation." After describing Squanto as a means of divine intervention, Bradford goes on to dedicate a good section of the remainder of the chapter to his amazing story of survival. In conclusion, depending on the Native Americans just as they did their fellow settlers, the Puritans must also have come to admire the natives.

Although seemingly natural for the Puritans to feel this way, admiring these godless men was a big deal at the time. Being a Separatist-Puritan, Bradford was taught to believe that from the very beginning, God had chosen who was to be saved from eternal damnation in hell, and yet here he was admiring the very heathens that his own God saw fit to torture for eternity. In a way, this foreshadows the future of Puritanism in the America's, and the religious changes that would occur over the next few centuries.

The second quote, goes on to describe the origins of American exceptionalism in the Americas:

'God did make known to me his truth and call'd me from my native place.'

Being a Puritan, Bradford saw God in all things be they good or bad. Naturally then, he believed that it was God that brought him to America, and God that lead him to survive through all the hardships rather than the Native Americans who's food kept him alive over the first winter. And there starts the beginning of American exceptionalism. When it comes down to it however, to the Puritans, whatever happened would have been God's will. Either God is giving a helping hand, by parting some lake, or smiting some people, or he is testing you by making your life miserable. Going beyond the ridiculousness of this claim, and the arrogance of believing that God had selected them to settle the Americas, however, this belief has somehow held on for centuries. Americans still believe we're the chosen ones, naturally superior to all other cultures, but why? Is it because of the history books, as Loewen might put it? Is it in the water? No matter the reason however, it seems to be a very destructive claim because by saying that we are God's chosen people what we're really saying, is that everyone else isn't.

The Feminist-American-Puritan

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
11.24.09
Journal on Bradstreet

Anne Bradstreet

1612-1672

"If for thy father asked, say thou hadst none" (Norton Pg. 213)

"In Bradstreet's Puritan culture, the love between husband and wife was supposed to be slightly repressed, so as not to distract one from devotion to God. Yet, some of Bradstreet's sonnets work against this idea." (www.uncp.edu)

In the first quote, Bradstreet ends her poem The Author to Her Book on a rebellious note by forcing the reader to accept the fact that the poem was written by a woman (herself). If you look deeper, her choice of words seem to be carefully chosen. She admits the feminine authorship of her poem, but she does so indirectly by calling her work fatherless, a bastard son that will be looked down upon, however unfairly. By doing so indirectly, she makes it easier for the reader to accept the fact that her poem is the work of a woman, but in the end, I find it to be a weak method of supporting feminist values. Its submissive undertones make it seem almost as if her declaration was simply a pen-blotch on the page, a fact that shouldn't be taken note of, or a mistake that wont be made again. Another conclusion that should be taken note of is that by calling her work fatherless, she seems to imply that it will never earn the respect that it deserves, being as a bastard son can never receive a father. By doing so, she admits that her work deserves to be accepted as equal, but she seems to accept the idea that it never will.
This being the case, when standing next to Wheatley, who was not only a woman, but black as well, she shrinks in comparison. As a Puritan woman in the 1600's however, this act is daring, but in the retrospect of the 21st century, she seems to be holding back.

The second quote taken from an online criticism of Bradstreet, brings up her counter-Puritan tendencies, by illustrating her difficulties with religion. As can be seen in her poem To My Dear and Loving Husband, Bradstreet most definitely does not repress the love she has for her husband: "I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold, or all the riches that the East doth hold. Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense. My love is such that rivers cannot quench." (Norton pg. 206) Looking back, there seems to be no reason why one should repress his or her love, but as pointed out, from a Puritans perspective it was distracting from God. Bradstreet seems comfortable in displaying the love she feels however. This was not the only qualm she had with Puritanism in the new world however. Predestination was yet another issue that she had difficulty accepting, as can be seen in her poem Here Follows Some Verses upon the Burning of Our House: "The world no longer let me love, My hope and treasure lies above." Although accepting the idea that her true hope, and treasure lies with God, she obviously has difficulty in accepting His 'decision' to let her house burn down. By saying that 'the world no longer let me love', for example, she uses the world as the culprit rather than God. Being as Puritans blamed just about everything, from incontinence to plague on God however, this sudden change of heart seems to say something. Once again however, she accepts what she cannot seem to change.

Salvation for Sinners

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Edwards
November 19th 2009

Jonathan Edwards

1703-1758"You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness... Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?" (Norton Pg.436)

"God's excellency, his wisdom, his purity and love, seemed to appear in everything; in the sun, moon, and stars; in the clouds, and blue sky; in the grass, flowers, trees; in the water, and all nature; which used greatly to fix my mind." (Personal Narrative, Edwards)

The first quote is taken from the final pages of Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. After all the fire and brimstone, all the fear-mongering, and colorful analogies, Edwards finally turns on the 'natural' or unsaved, and gives him a chance to be 'saved' by God; 'Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open' He says, promising an escape from a life of sin. The salvation that Edwards speaks of however, is not a part of the Puritan beliefs that he stands for. The foundations of Puritanism describe the salvation of man as predestined by god, and set in stone, while Edwards words illustrate the possibility of attaining purity on earth. An important distinction between the two, Edwards beliefs signal a change in the founding Puritan beliefs. By denying predestination, he submits that men are capable of attaining salvation on earth. Although at the time, it may have been considered controversial to do so, it seems to me that it was a powerful means of attracting followers. In a predominantly Christian society, it had the effect of making believers more fervent, and making non-believers consider becoming Christian. Obviously the technique endured, as can be seen today in evangelicalism, but personally, I find it to be one of the more detestable methods of converting. Preaching salvation after describing god as a vengeful murderer that takes pleasure in torturing his own children seems just plain sick. Shouldn't love inspire belief in God rather than fear? Why would a person want to believe in a god that is such a monster? Isn't it like supporting slavery for fear of being enslaved?

The second quote is taken from Edwards self narrative. A description of the beauty found on Earth, this quote illustrates his belief that God puts beauty into the world. Yet another controversial idea in the context of puritan belief, this idea goes against the idea that life on Earth is just a test, devoid of god's beauty. Why someone would Want to believe that life on earth was devoid of 'gods' beauty, or any beauty at all is beyond me however. It's hard enough finding beauty in this world sometimes, especially back then. The worlds hard enough, so why shit on it? In this respect, I agree with Edwards. Although it's questionable that it is a beauty imbued by god, I believe that it is important to respect the beauty that is out there in the world. Actually, I think people should spend more time just admiring the beauty that is out there, in all the little things. It might add another smile into the day, and those are rare enough as it is.

The Daring Idealist

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Jefferson
11/18/09

Thomas Jefferson

1743-1826

"We hold these truths to be self evident: 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;" (Norton Pg 652)

"Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?" (Benjamin Rush's Letter to Adams, Spur of Fame)

"This act was called by General Green a "bold speculation." It was happily a successful one. Human wisdom had derived more honor from it than it deserves. Most of the men who had been active in bringing it about, were blind actors in the business." (An Account of Political and Military Events and Observations, Benjamin Rush)

The first quote is taken from the second paragraph of Thomas Jefferson's A Declaration By The Representatives of The United States of America, In General Congress Assembled. A seemingly strange way to begin what is considered to be the document that lead to the American Revolution, Jefferson doesn't start by bringing up the concept of revolution, but the idea of equality, and of man's inherent inalienable rights. Granting moral support for the revolution to come, Jefferson speaks of equality, and puts across one of the most controversial quotes of all time, saying that all men are created equal. In a world of kings, this statement seems far from the truth, but Jefferson isn't appealing to man's reason, rather he is appealing to his hope, and sense of moral justice. Jefferson's words are not meant for King George, they are a cry out to all mankind carrying with them the philosophy that all men deserve to be free. The title of the document gives itself away by being called a declaration. Jefferson isn't writing to the king, he is writing to the world, saying that men should be equal. His words don't just promote freedom and equality, however, he even goes so far as to subtly accept religious freedom by using the word 'Creator' instead of God. It begs one to wonder whether these men knew that their words would be echoed throughout the centuries. In their carefully chosen words however, this document means as much now as it did then.

The Second and Third quote were taken from letters by Benjamin Rush, and they put into perspective, just how daunting the creation of the Declaration of Independence was to those that signed it. As Rush says, at the time, they were practically signing their own death warrants. It really goes to show how much hope and idealism was put into the writing. I believe the declaration would have come out quite differently if there hadn't been so much at stake. If anything, it was it's daring that defined it. It wasn't speaking of reality, but of an existence that they believed should exist. It was idealism in action, and we owe a great deal to their bold words even today. They put everything on the line, and they came out with it all. In effect, they were saying, we may die tomorrow, but we live today, in the hope of achieving something better, and luckily, they did.

The Radical

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Paine
November 10th 2009

Thomas Paine

1737-1809

"I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object."(Norton Pg. 635)

"Paine had turned Americans into radicals-and we have remained radicals at heart ever since." (Harvey J. Kaye)

The first quote, taken from Thomas Paine's Common Sense, exemplifies Paine as the gadfly of pre-revolutionary times. After describing the horrors of the British military occupation of Boston, he describes his true purpose -although vaguely- in writing Common Sense. As he says, his object is not to provoke revenge but to awaken the Colonists to the reality of British sovereignty, and define an object for which to pursue. Although seemingly straightforwards, this quote is far from your regular deep dish slice of American common sense. Although Paine say's: 'I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge' his disclaimer seems hollow, and devoid of any real substance to support it. So much for common sense, Paine is authorizing the reader to feel like he deserves revenge for the Boston occupation, but of course he has no real purpose in telling the reader this. A very subtle and manipulative disclaimer, this quote inevitably provokes anger, and although it may not be Paine's primary objective, it is most definitely part of the game-plan. Following this statement, he goes on to say that instead of provoking revenge, his true purpose is to 'awaken' us -as colonials- from our 'fatal' and 'unmanly' slumber so that we can pursue some fixed object. Obviously, his words are designed to provoke feeling. Words like 'fatal' and 'unmanly' incite the reader to react, they grab the reader by the throat, throw him out of bed, and force him to fight back against the accusation. He is not only saying that the colonists are 'slumbering' through British abuse, but that they are hiding from it, and being 'unmanly' in their servitude to their British Sovereign. Finally, after all of his subtle manipulations, Paine says that his true purpose is to lay us on the path, 'that we may pursue determinately some fixed object'. A vague purpose if I've ever heard one, we all know that Paine's 'fixed object' is freedom, but what does he get out of alluding to it? Naysayers crucify me, but I find that the reason he defines his true purpose as a 'fixed object' instead of freedom, is because to Paine, freedom shouldn't even be a necessary incentive to fight back against the British. He seems to be saying that even if you don't give a shit about freedom, you should be a man, and fight back against the British sovereignty that is holding you down, pillaging your country, and ultimately emasculating you.

The second quote describes the radical philosophy that Paine embodied and his lasting impression on the world of today. As Americans, we are enormously indebted to this man. Not only did Paine instigate the Revolutionary War, literally putting America on the map, he started the 'common man' American prose, putting American literature on the map with a bang. Most enduring however, is the American philosophy that he left behind, founded in his actions and beliefs, and laminated in the blood of revolution. Paine, was the ultimate rebel. He was not only against Authority, but Religion and Slavery as well, all of which were the biggest issues of the time, and would be for the next century and a half. He was the man that said "A government of our own is our natural right." (Norton Pg. 636), and, "That which we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly, it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be so highly rated."(My head). Paine was an amazing, and revolutionary man, but his power of manipulation can also be seen as disturbing. When it comes down to it, it is very reminiscent of Hitler. Especially his idea of American exceptionalism, which is going strong to this very day, Aryan race anyone?