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?

Undercove Abolitionist

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Wheatley
November 5th 2009

Phillis Wheatley

1753-1784

"But when these shades of time are chased away,
And darkness ends in everlasting day,
On what seraphic pinions shall we move,
And view the landscape in the realms above?
There shall thy tongue in heavenly murmurs flow,
And there my muse with heavenly transport glow:
No more to tell of Damon's tender sighs,
Or rising radiance of Aurora's eyes,
For nobler themes demand a nobler strain,
And purer language on the ethereal plain.
Cease, gentle muse! The solemn gloom of night
Now seals the fair creation from my sight."
(Norton Pg. 761)

"In a more formal tactic, Wheatley challenged eighteenth-century evangelicals in their cherished religious arena by redeploying the same language and doctrine that whites had used to define the African, thereby undercutting conventional colonial assumptions about race and skin color."
(A Slave's Subtle War: Phillis Wheatley's Use of Biblical Myth and Symbol Oneale, Sondra)

The first quote was selected from Wheatley's A Young African Painter, on Seeing His Works. After praising Scipio Moorhead's for his natural talent, and his ability to create and give life to his artwork, Wheatley moves her perspective back to the harsh realities of the present. She seems to say that although Scipio's artwork has the power to take her away from the persecution of slavery, it's beauty is only a temporary reprieve, and at the end of the day, she must come back to a world of injustice. She admires his artwork, but see's no such angelic beauty in the world she lives in. One must understand however, that Scipio has little choice in the matter. He is a slave, just as she is, and is thus confined in the themes of his artwork, and the materialization of his passion. He is forbidden from painting the suffering he feels, the suffering of his race, and must instead synthesize a beauty that he does not feel. A beauty that is out of reach.

The second quote was selected from Sondra Oneale's A Slaves Subtle War: Phillis Wheatley's use of Biblical Myth and Symbol. Describing Wheatley's subversive use of Christianity, Oneale shows that Wheatley uses Christianity in order to fight racism. Incapable of fighting racism head on, being as she was a black slave, and a woman, Wheatley fought the struggle for equality through her verse; in the careful selection of her words, subtle moral lessons, and christian ideology. I personally find Wheatley's work to be very inspiring. It is a sad irony to consider the disgust many people garner towards her, because in truth, I find she had little choice in the style of her writing if she was ever to be published. Although it seems as though Wheatley is content in peeling off the heritage of her race, in truth, I find the opposite to be true. The only way she could survive and be a published poet was by assimilating into European culture, infiltrating it. In effect, I believe she made a great sacrifice, in the hope that she could influence change.

Look At Me, For Better To See Yourself

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Equiano
November 11th 2009

Olaudah Equiano
1745-1797

'From The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavas Vassa, the African, Written by Himself'

"Hitherto I had thought slavery only dreadful, but the state of a free negro appeared to me now equally so at least, and in some respects worse, for they live in constant alarm for their liberty; which is but nominal, for they are universally insulted and plundered, without the possibility of redress." (Norton Pg. 702)


"The book is directed not to the reason, an abstract quantity, but seeks rather to register its effect in the very bodies of its readers—at their feet, in their hearts, and in their minds. It represents individual experience to them—both the author's and their own—creating for them an isolate, intimate space through which they can respond sympathetically to its argument. It operates from the inside out, self-referentially, narrowing its focus in order to universalize its appeal." (Daniel O'Quinn, University of Guelph)

The first quote is part of Equiano's response after seeing a young mulatto man, and boat builder by the name of Joseph Clipson seized, and forced into slavery even though he was born a free man. It didn't matter that he had a certificate of being born free in St. Kitts, or that most of the people aboard the ship knew him not to be a slave, the color of his skin marked him a 'son of cain', and with the knowledge that they could take advantage of him without fear of justice, or retribution, they took everything from him. Realizing even a 'free' black man, is never truly free in the presence of racism, this quote exemplifies Equiano's understanding that there is no true escape from the injustices inflicted upon those of color until racism itself is abolished. Slavery was just the beginning of the suffering of the black man that would continue on to this very day, and as Equiano first realized hiding in the bushes in Africa: "If possibly I could escape all other animals, I could not those of the human kind." (Norton Pg. 679)

The Second quote is from Daniel O'Quinn's analysis of Equiano's narrative. In this quote, Daniel O'Quinn demonstrates Equiano's deliberate use of real life suffering to elicit a powerful response from the reader. Provoking reader-response empathy, Equiano's narrative is obviously seen as a story aimed at provoking a political change. By describing first hand the pain of losing his family, the horror of the slave ship voyages, and the mistreatment faced throughout his life, Equiano brings the reader to a place where they can sympathize with his plight, and the plight of all colored men. Through the use of his passionate exclamations, christian rhetoric, and real life suffering, he allows the reader to sympathize with him through the passage of their own memories and experiences. The same sympathy would be difficult to attain, if at all possible through reason, because there is no reason to the inhumanities of slavery. Reason is a language of right and wrong, principles and theories, and these can't represent the true wickedness of slavery. As O'Quinn says; 'the method (Equiano's) operates from the inside out, self-referencially' -thus bringing the reader a level of empathy otherwise unattainable because it allows them to truly feel how he felt as a slave.

Another interesting point that Equiano brings across through his narrative, is the manner of slavery in Africa, versus that in America, and Europe. As Equiano points out, African slavery was much more civilized and tolerable than European slavery. This can be observed through his first experiences of being subject to 'White' slavery versus that of African slavery:

"The White people looked and acted, as I thought, in so savage a manner; for I had never seen among any people such instances of brutal cruelty." (Norton Pg. 683)

"I must acknowledge, in honor of those sable destroyers of human rights, that I never met with any ill treatment, or saw any offered to their slaves, except tying them, when necessary, to keep them from running away." (Norton Pg. 680)

As can be seen from both quotations, there is a thick contrast between European and African slavery. Where European slavery depended upon fear, physical abuse, ignorance and ultimate hopelessness, the African slavery Equiano experienced depended solely on fear, and a minimum amount of physical abuse. A stark contrast to European slavery, in both the house of the smith, and the Widow, he isn't beaten or mistreated, but instead is cared for, and housed, while being forced to work. It makes one wonder how the 'civilized' Europeans came to resort to such brutality. Does the rise of civilization inevitably perpetuate violence? Will society always need a lower class to take advantage of, be it in the form of slavery, or poverty?

Baby Steps of Civil Rights

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
November 1st 2009

Journal on Apess

William Apess
1798-1893

"I would ask you if you would like to be disfranchised from all your rights, merely because your skin is white, and for no other crime." (Norton)

"Some critics claimed Apess, in adopting the rhetoric of Christian conversion narratives, "lost his voice" as a Native American and wrote in a derivative style" (Enotes.com)

The first quote exemplifies the empathetic method that Apess uses throughout An Indian's Looking-Glass For The White Man. By using sharp rhetoric, he forces the reader to contemplate the harsh realities of racism: To face inequality, and bear the manacles of segregation; To wonder what it would be like to think of yourself as an inferior, for no reason other than the color of the skin that you wear. Although non representative of his pervasively christian voice, this quote also highlights the conversational tone used in order to interact directly with the audience.

The second quote is representative of the contemporary criticism that Apess faced at the time. Being as he was a Methodist minister living in white society, many critics believed that he had no right representing Native Americans, as if Christianity naturally took the Indian out of him. I find this to be a hollow criticism. Although it is true that Apess was no longer living as a traditional tribal Indian, Apess was most definitely still an Indian. He still shared the sting of racism, the fractured childhood, and bitter abuses of an Indian heritage. Why else would he be demanding equality for Native Americans? Is it because he didn't fit the wild, and savage Indian stereotype that he faced this criticism? Because he was educated? Maybe he was seen as a man who had given up the fight for a world where Indians could still support their way of life, and turned to the society that had destroyed that possibility. But is that a crime? Did he really give up his heritage or was he just trying to keep it alive?


Another interesting thing to take note of, is the manner in which Apess brings across the Issue of race. Reminiscent of Martin Luther King Jr. Apess' use of analogies and biblical quotations echoes throughout future civil rights movements and as a method, it's very effective. By speaking in analogies, Apess gets the message across in a manner that isn't difficult to understand, and at the same time, retains a powerful depth of meaning. It doesn't exclude the lower class, and has a clarity of voice that is hard to get ahold of otherwise. It also brings about vivid imagery, and invites the audience to instill a meaning of their own to the words. The use of biblical quotations is yet another tool that is very effective because it disarms the audience of their bias. By referencing the bible, Apess roots his ideas into words that are inherently respected by the dominantly christian contemporary society. Even if they don't respect Apess because of his racial background, they respect the ideas that he presents, because they are founded on a common ground.

Apess's direct deconstruction of the typical white Jesus stereotype is also very effective. Just like the typical eurocentric representation of god as a white man living up in the clouds, the stereotype of Jesus being white is not only ignorant, but insulting. I've always thought that god would be better off being represented as a black bi-sexual cross-dressing transvestite woman, but then again, that may be asking too much. As for Jesus, it wouldn't much matter if he was accepted as being black, or brown, because he was born in the middle east and it would be an accurate representation of his complexion, but by purposefully painting him as a white man, European society implies that only a white man could be the son of god. Apess attacks this conception of superiority by bringing up the issue of Jesus' color. By establishing Jesus, as a non-white son of god, Apess dismantles the founding stereotypes of racism. He argues that if people of color are inferior, and victims of hatred, and abuse, then wouldn't the son of God be as well?

In another powerful example, Apess invites the reader to envision all of the nations of the world together in one room, and search for the white man. Leaving quite a striking image, and one that is just as true today, Apess example can only leave the reader imagining a room full of colored people, with few whites. I think to myself well big deal, I knew that, but it's still shocking to realize. Representing a majority of the media today, the 'white man' is misrepresented as the majority man, although he undoubtedly isn't. Consciously I know that caucasian males are a minority, but I feel like they're a majority because when it comes down to it, in California I'm not a subject of much ethnic diversity. It makes me wonder how much inherent racism there is in American society, and how such a cycle can ever be stopped.

Childhood America

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Washington Irving
October 28th 2009

Washington Irving

1783-1859

"The great error in Rip's composition was an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable labor." (Norton Pg. 955)

Taken from the beginning of Irving's short story, this quote paints a picture of the the main character Rip Van Winkle. A good natured man, and kind neighbor, his greatest failure is in his refusal to work, and support his family. His wife in turn berates him, as he lets his children go hungry, and his farm fall into ruins.

It is hard to gauge Van Winkle as a character. In one perspective, I see Van Winkle as a rebel of sorts. He refuses to be a subject to authority, and only does work that pleases him. It's not necessarily that he is lazy, but that he does that which he prefers to do and when his wife becomes too difficult an obstacle, he leaves to the forest. On the other hand, I find Van Winkle to be a detestable character, a lazy, apathetic, and misogynistic failure of a father, who refuses to take responsibility for his family. It's a strange clashing of ideals, and it makes it hard to pick a side. Is Van Winkle the protagonist, or the antagonist, or is he just a character that the story is built around? When looked at pragmatically, I find him to be more on the side of being an anti-hero. Although the story revolves around him, he helps no-one, and is the subject of a 20 year gap which he crosses over with nonchalance. He is weak, egocentric, lazy, and apathetic, but somehow I still relate to him.

Washington Irving's story seems simple at first, but I find that beneath the story is a commentary on the American Revolution. The story begins by describing Van Winkle's aversion to all work concerning family. His wife, who is never named, representative perhaps of Monarchy under King George III, plays the part of the tyrant, and continually reprimands him for his idleness. In return however, Van Winkle refuses to work. In effect, if his wife represents the monarchy of King George, then Van Winkle, is passively rebelling against England, and thus, represents the colonies. Upon returning to the town twenty years later, the American Revolution has ended, and Van Winkle is no longer a subject to the monarchy, but even so, Van Winkle refuses to work. In describing the sign on the Union Hotel that was once the village inn Irving gives us a hint however. A sign that had once borne the face of King George, the post revolutionary sign bears the same face, but added to it, is a sword, and a cocked hat with the title George Washington beneath it. Is this symbolic perhaps of Irving's belief that government is still government by whatever name? If not Irving's, it is certainly that of Van Winkle, who takes the change of government indifferently. In the end however, why should it affect him? Government means little to a man who refused even the authority of his own wife. To him, a government no matter the form, be it a monarchy, democracy, or matrimony, was still a means of controlling him. A means which he didn't respect.

" Critics have focused on the story's theme of change, in which the contrast between the peaceful pre-Revolutionary colony and the bustling post-Revolutionary America reinforces a simultaneous sense of nostalgia for a simpler time as well as a sense of the reality of our always-shifting American world." (NovelGuide.com)

This quote was taken from an online criticism of Rip Van Winkle, and I find that it brings an interesting perspective to Irving's tale.

In writing Rip Van Winkle, Irving may have been making a commentary on the American Revolution not only by completely omitting the event from the story, but by describing the changes it caused on the village as well. Perhaps Rip Van Winkle's twenty year disappearing act during the revolution represents the detached feelings that many of the colonials felt towards the American Revolution. If they weren't subjects of England, than what were they? Besides, although the British imposed steep taxes, and made it illegal to expand westward, what reason was there for a revolution? If one was a simple man such as Van Winkle, with little care for politics, the American Revolution may have meant very little.

Secondly, Irving describes the changes caused by the American Revolution. When Van Winkle returns home, he encounters a mob of American citizens, engaging in the chaos of the new democracy. He uses words such as 'bilious' and 'idle' to describe the public speaker at the inn. Obviously ripe with negative connotations, this perspective may not have been a commentary on the change in government, but rather a commentary on the arguments that ensued over which political party to support. After all, the first question he is asked, is whether he is a federal or democrat. Van Winkle doesn't seem to care much about the politics of the situation however, and that may be Irving's enduring message. What did it matter if you were Federal, or Democrat? They just wanted to be free.

Moral Duty

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Henry David Thoreau
October 26th 2009

Henry David Thoreau
1817-1862

"There will never be a really free and enlightened state, until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all it's own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. (Norton Pg.1872)

Taken from the last paragraph of Thoreau's Resistance To Civil Government these final words seem to illuminate Thoreau's philosophy on government. Government, to Thoreau, had no place controlling the life of an individual. Instead, being derived from the people, and empowered by the desire for a social construct, government was made to serve, protect, and enrich the lives of the people, and it's individuals. As Thoreau says, "We should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Pg. 1858)

This seems a simple enough philosophy and one that I strongly agree with. If there is anything that should follow the path of idealism it is a system of government. Civil rights should be supported, freedom ensured, opportunity promised, and justice practiced. I should wake up every morning, and be proud to be an American, and of all the things that this country does. I should admire the wars that we wage, and the lack of educational funding at home; look up to our foreign policy and be proud of the slave labor that American companies subside on; I should be content with the sickening gap between the upper and lower classes, and respect the government in everything that I empower it to do through my taxes, but I don't. What is the problem then? As Thoreau states, government is imperfect, "The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to... is still an impure one." (Pg. 1872) No one can expect to agree on everything, it simply isn't possible. The closest you can get is through the act of respectful compromise, but even so, there are times when I am unwilling to compromise. Some moral boundaries should never be crossed.Unfortunately, Democracy being a government based upon popular vote is a government that succumbs to the desire of the majority, and thus, inherently forces the minority to live with and support whatever decisions are made. This is what Thoreau had so much difficulty with, especially on the moral grounds of slavery. The question that Thoreau tries to answer then, is whether or not the minority has a duty to continue to support a government that is no longer serving it. Thoreau give his answer in the form of a quote, "But if it is of such a nature that it require you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." (Pg 1863)

Again, I agree. Unfortunately breaking the law is no simple task. Revoking support from the government can lead to prison time, and a loss of all personal property. Even so, Thoreau's words make me want to take to the streets of San Francisco, and hold marches, and rallies against the injustices of the world. I want to stop paying taxes, go live off in the woods or some anarchistic commune, and fight for that which I believe to be right. Thoreau has a way of putting this spirit into words. With his naturally rebellious voice, he invites other to join him. After all, who doesn't want to make the world a better place? An inspiration to great minds such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, Thoreau embodied Civil Disobedience by provoking the rebel in all of us.

"What was central for Thoreau was neither nonviolence nor civil disobedience but direct action: the absolute demand that one practice — right now, and all alone if necessary — what one preaches." (Staughton Lynd)

An excerpt from Staughton Lynd's Henry Thoreau: The Admirable Radical, this quote illustrates the idea that Thoreau's true purpose in writing Resistance to Civil Government was not singular in it's goal, rather it was meant to inspire action, and fight the docility that has been embedded into the masses. In effect, he's telling the reader to get up out his chair, and scream, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

Personally, I find that this idea is just as relevant today, as it was in the 19th century. There is far too much passive acceptance of the injustices that go on today. We are all taught to be compliant to the government, taught to sit back and vote, taught that democracy is the will of the people and that fighting it is wrong. If government represents the will of the people, how can resistance be wrong? There are too many sitting behind TV screens, and computers, unwilling to stand up for what they think is right, passively supporting that which they think to be wrong. It infuriates me just thinking of all of the injustices I am forced to indirectly support through my taxes. It makes me wonder if Democracy really is the best government. Is there no way to improve upon it? Is complaisant voting, the farthest government will ever get towards representing it's people? In the end, there may never be a government that can fairly represent it's subjects. Perhaps the best form's of social structure are no longer possible with populations so vast.

Overall, Thoreau's message, is to resist that which you believe to be wrong. It is not only right to fight injustice, but man's moral duty. If nothing else, I hope that this message will endure. After all, if we don't strive to do that which is right, then it is living proof that conformity has stripped us of our humanity, and what is a human being devoid of humanity?

An Ideal World

Fred Heath

Eng 48A
Journal on Emerson
10/25/09

Ralph Waldo Emerson
1803-1882

"Nothing is at last sacred, but the integrity of our own mind." (Norton Pg. 1165)

In this quote, Emerson describes the importance of non-conformity. A recurring theme throughout self-reliance, he believed that fighting conformity was the only way to be true to one's self and, in doing so, he believed that one's 'Inner genius' would be unleashed.

In many ways Emerson's words ring true. It is important to listen to the inner thoughts, and desires that we all have, but at the same time, I disagree. There are various repressed impulses, inherent in all of mankind, that are better off that way. Society is bound by certain laws and mannerisms, and it is necessary to conform to them because society simply cannot support it's population if the people within it act upon their every desire. The social structure that has evolved with the human race serves a purpose, and it is necessary to keep it functioning. Even in the smallest of societies, social structure is necessary. It keeps mankind civilized. In the end, I find that Emerson's philosophy is unrealistic, and one that can only be practiced either by those with absolutely nothing to lose, or those that are so well off that it doesn't quite matter. On the other hand, Emerson was an idealist surrounded by friends and intellectuals, set apart from the city life. Perhaps his philosophy expects a certain civility amongst men and women. Taken in small doses, being true to one's self can have it's benefits, leading to provocative creativity, and thought-provoking philosophies, but taken too far, it inevitably leads to chaos. After all, not everyone can live in the woods.

"Society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts." (Transcendentalists.com)

In this quote, Emerson describes the cost we pay for society: As society advances, man becomes more and more dependent upon it. By living in a society, we give up on individuality, and come to depend and rely on society as if it were a part of ourselves, necessary to our survival.

I agree with Emerson. Society dulls many of the hardships that are faced by those that live alone. One doesn't have to fight to survive in a society, rather one must work, and be productive to support the society that protects him. Society forces the individual to conform to it, and rely on it making it illegal to 'take the law into one's own hands'. Being unable to rely on one's self, man comes to rely on the laws, and protections of society. This can be crippling to those that live at the bottom of society however, that bear no advantage from society's protection. Having been born into the society, the lower class can't just hike off into the woods, and live off of the land because society has turned the land into a nature reserve with 'no camping' sign's posted all around the entrances. They have to put up with the society that they were born into. They have to pay their taxes, work, and hope that someday they will be more than the guy doing dishes for five dollars an hour. In the end, there is no escaping society for better or worse.

Chains of Fear

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
10/15/09

Harriet Jacobs
1813-1897

"Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women. Superadded to the burden common to all, they have wrongs, and sufferings, and mortification peculiarly to their own." (Norton pg 1820)

In this quote, saddened by the news of her second child being a girl, Harriet Jacobs goes on to explain that slavery carries uncommon burdens when inflicted upon a woman. Jacobs explains that although slavery is horrible for all, enslaved women carry the same burdens that men do on top of difficulties unique to their own sex. The way I think of it, an enslaved man that has lost his freedom, has nothing left to lose but his life, whereas an enslaved woman has quite a bit more to lose. Not only were women slaves subject to the inhumanity of slavery, they were subject to the unique degradation of sexual slavery. Worst of all however, was that the victims of rape had no choice but to bear the children of their rapists, furthering the cycle of slavery, and crushing any hope of attaining freedom.

"The slave girl is reared in an atmosphere of licentiousness and fear." Norton

In this quote, Jacobs describes the life of a female black slave, specifically, the life she experienced as a house slave in North Carolina. What she seems to be saying, is that there is an inherent fear in being a female slave because all slave girls are potential victims of sexual harassment and rape. Jacobs, although never physically raped, had a very real fear of being abused, causing her to become involved with Mr. Sands, and eventually to escape to New York.

A woman that didn't even realize she was a slave until she was six years old, Harriet Jacobs was not brought up as a traditional field slave. A contrast to Frederick Douglass, Jacobs did not have to experience the same atrocities that Douglass was subject to. Instead, she lead a much softer lifestyle, and with it, came a different class of inhumanity. Although just as despicable, the abuses that Jacobs suffered were rarely physical, and were instead manifested verbally. Rather than being beaten and lashed, Jacobs was the victim of verbal abuse, threats, and sickening sexual harassment instilling a fearful submission and passive rebellion in her. By describing the more subtle vices of female slavery, Jacobs gives a unique perspective on the multi-faceted subject of slavery.

The Slave Within

Fred Heath

Eng 48A
10/13/09

Frederick Douglass
1818-1895

"I have found that to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceases to be a man." (Norton pg. 2116)

In this Quote, Frederick Douglass describes what it takes to make a slave. Requiring enslavement of the body, spirit and mind, I can think of few worse inflictions to deal upon a man, or, more often than not, an infant. Innocent and powerless to fight back, a true slave is born into slavery, and doesn't even know the wrongness of that which is forced upon him. Farmed and fed, broken and borrowed by masters, and flesh mongers alike, Douglass admits that a slave has no humanity, because he is withheld its luxury. To make a slave, Douglass says that a man must cease to be a man, stripped not only of the body, spirit, and mind, but of the soul as well. A slave must be treated as an animal, and broken as an animal, until convinced that he is as he is thought to be. Looking into the mirror of his master's eyes, he must believe that he is nothing more than a slave. Most importantly however, Douglass says that a slave must be made to feel that slavery is right. It must be made to seem as if slavery is all there ever was, and all there ever will be, and having known nothing else, it becomes inherently right for lack of comparison.


"For what this separation is done, I do not know, unless it be to hinder the development of the child's affection towards its mother, and to blunt and destroy the natural affection of the mother from the child. This is the inevitable result." (Norton pg. 2072)

In this quote, Douglass describes the separation of slave mother from child, and the effects of the malicious segregation. Not only breaking the bonds of family, the separation in effect, makes all all the slaves foster children of the farm itself, and removes any sense of identity inherent in being part of a family. Having nothing but slavery surrounding them throughout their childhood years, most slaves grow up expecting mistreatment.

Another thing that draws my interest is the enslavement of newborn children. I feel that the only way in which it is possible to truly force a man to become a slave is by enclosing the clasps of slavery on him as a child. Doing so not only enables physical enslavement, but more importantly a mental slavery otherwise unattainable. Frederick Douglass was one such slave. Embodied by the first daring act of breathing, a newborn child has no choice but to accept that which he is given. Having never been blessed with the right to think for himself or to receive an education, a slave is not allowed to realize the morbid truths that embody the position of his servitude. As Mr. Auld says, "If you teach that nigger how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy." An intriguing quote, and perhaps one of the greatest inspirations for Douglass to learn, this quote not only illustrates the importance of attaining knowledge in order to achieve mental freedom, but highlights the implicit understanding of the slave owners, and the calculated methods which they used to enslave the minds of their slaves as well. Helplessly ignorant, and made so by the malicious treatment of their masters true slaves don't even see slavery as a bad thing, because they have known nothing else since the day they were born.

The Split Mind

Edgar Allan Poe
1809-1849

"Although as boys, we had been even intimate associates, yet I really knew little of my friend. His reserve had been always excessive and habitual. I was aware, however, that his very ancient family had been noted, time out of mind, for a peculiar sensibility of temperament"
(Norton pg 1554)

As this quote points out, Roderick, and the Ushers in general, seem to suffer from being a very reserved, and possibly repressed family, saying perhaps that the control with which the family carries it's emotions is so extreme that it verges on being awkward. In many ways, I find that this quote describes the battle between the imagination, or inner self, and reason, the veil that we wear over our true selves in order to be accepted in society.

"From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were---I have not seen
As others saw---I could not bring
My passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I lov'd, I loved alone."
(Alone by Edgar Allan Poe)

I find that a lot of Poe's life had overtones of loneliness. As a child he was taken, but never fully adopted into a troubled family. He moved quite a bit, both into and out of England, didn't see eye to eye with his adopted father, and was most likely a misfit. In this loneliness however, he was a man who said what he felt, as can be seen in his scathing reviews, poetry, and writing. He may have been a natural rebel, but the University of Virginia, his first college experience, nurtured this internal honesty as well, having been a school based on freedom, and individuality which allowed students to choose their subjects of study, and form their own student government (no doubt a revolutionary idea at the time). Wherever it came from however, this reckless honesty, and freedom of thought defined him as a writer, but at the same time made him many enemies. Nevertheless, I think that the battles he fought over conformity, and reason, versus freedom of the imagination, and true inner emotion made him the amazing writer he became.

In Poe's "The Fall Of The House of Ushers" Roderick, can obviously be seen, as a madman. A hypochondriac, suffering from depression, paranoia, and potential schizophrenia. He is anything but mentally sound, his loneliness, and paranoia personified by the gloomy, and pervasively empty house that he lives in, and never leaves. The cause of this madness, and the ultimate fall of the house of usher remains uncertain however. There may have never meant to be a reason, but I believe Poe meant for the story go be an allegory for the isolated inner self that Roderick suppresses, and that all men suppress to a degree, painting it as a cause of madness, and depression that ultimately leads to insanity and death. Poe himself experienced isolation throughout his life, and most definitely knew what it was to be repressed, being as he spent 4 years in the military, two of which were spent in the army, and the last two at West Point. Throughout his military career however, he wrote -An outlet for the repression of his inner self?-and published two books of poetry. Perhaps this understanding of the separation between, the inner mind or ego, and the outer appearance, or super ego, is represented in Roderick a man who is a victim of repression, and unable to release his true desires. This split personality can be seen in the way Roderick speaks:

"His voice varied rapidly from a tremulous indecision (when the animal spirits seemed utterly in abeyance) to that species of energetic concision- that abrupt, weighty, unhurried, and hollow sounding enunciation- that leaden, self-balanced, and perfectly modulated guttural utterance, which may be observed in the moments of intensest excitement of the lost drunkard, or the irreclaimable eater of opium." (Norton pg 1556)

His voice, representative of his mind, goes back and forth from being fervently passionate to awkwardly reserved. Exemplifying the battle going on in his mind, Roderick is most definitely schizophrenic. Torn by this repression, Roderick becomes split between two minds. Perhaps this split is physically manifested in the fissure that runs down the house into the tarn. It may also be representative in the relationship of the twins. He may have had the carnal desire to commit incest, and in trying to destroy that desire, buries alive his sister. His sister breaking out of the Coffin then, may represent those inner feelings coming back with a vengeance.

No matter the reason, I find that 'The Fall of The House of Usher' is a story that explores the darker side of madness, humanity and insanity. Those things which are truly scary, are the things that make you fear yourself, and Poe is a writer capable of drawing out that fear.

The Monster of the Mind

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Hawthorne
10/6/09

Nathaniel Hawthorne
1804-1864

"Why do you tremble at me alone? Tremble also at each other! Have men avoided me, and women shown no pity, and children screamed and fled only for my black veil? What but the mystery which it obscurely typifies, has made this piece of crape so aweful? When the friend shows his inmost heart to his friend; the lover to his best-beloved; when men does not vainly shrink from the eye of his creator, loathsomely treasuring up the secret of his sin; then deem me a monster, for the symbol beneath which I have lived and die! I look around me and lo, on every visage a black veil!" (pg 1320 Norton)

Sitting up from his deathbed, Father Hooper thus gives his final sermon to the people of Milford. Although open to endless interpretation, as Hawthorn no doubt wanted it, I find that the preacher's words demonstrate that he had a specific purpose in wearing the ominous black veil. After declaring that all men, hide their innermost heart from friends, lovers, and even from God, he describes the veil as a symbol. Hooper, gives the readers no simple answers, withholding the meaning of the veil, but at the same time, is conscious of it's presence, implying that the symbol is meant to be understood. In doing so, he keeps the veil a mystery, forcing the people of Milford, and the readers to form their own opinion.

"In the depths of every heart there is a tomb and a dungeon, though the lights, the music, and revelry above may cause us to forget their existence, and the buried ones, or prisoners whom they hide. But sometimes, and oftenest at midnight, these dark receptacles are flung wide open. In an hour like his....pray that your griefs may slumber." (The Haunted Mind)

Exemplifying Hawthorne's interest in the darker recesses of the heart and mind, this quote shows Hawthornes opinion that all men have a dark 'tomb' hidden beneath the veil of normalcy.

Perhaps 'The Ministers Black Veil' is an allegory for mankinds inability to express it's innermost self. Throughout Hawthorne's tale, Father Hooper's veil is the subject of fear, a mystery empowered by the imaginations of the onlookers that bestow meaning to it's obscurity. In many ways, I find that it represents the dark secrets that all of man hides beneath the surface. It is only an object reflective of the 'sins' that it's audience carries within, an object that is fueled by imagination, and natural fear of the unknown. The black veil alone, is nothing more than thin cloth, but upon the face of a man, it becomes a dark mystery; an instrument used to hide the monster that lies beneath, the monster that lives in our own minds.

Another perspective that may be attributed from this reading is Lincoln's Biblical reference 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' Hooper is feared and harshly judged by a people that assume the worst of him, driven to judgment by their own imagination. They fear the mystery of what hides beneath the black crape. In Hooper's final sermon, however, he tells the people not to fear him, but to fear themselves, ending with the powerful statement: "I look around me and lo, on every visage a black veil!" Perhaps he is saying that all men hide their 'sins' beneath a mask, be it a mask of crape, or flesh, and that the true purpose of the black veil, is to remind them of the darkness that lies within. A very religious statement. In other words: Feel guilty, very guilty.

Slaves of Industry: Victims of Society

Fred D. Heath
English 48A
Journal for Davis
October 1st, 2009

Rebecca Harding Davis
1831-1910

"There is no hope that it will ever end. Think that god put into this man's soul a fierce thirst for beauty, -to know it, to create it; to be -something, he knows not what, -other than he is." (The Norton Anthology pg 2606)

"Whether Alcott, Emerson, and their disciples discussed pears or the war, their views gave you the same sense of unreality...Their theories were like beautiful bubbles blown from a child's pipe, floating overhead, with queer reflections on them of sky and earth and human beings, all in a glow of fairy color and all a little distorted." (pg 33-37 Bits of Gossip)


The first quote is selected from Davis' description of Wolfe. In it she describes a man of desperate desire. A man born with the gift of being able to see with the eyes of an artist, but condemned to a life of slavery. A man who doesn't even know what he desires, simply knowing that he wants something more, and will never be given the chance. He is a victim of society, a man born into a world of injustice, driven on by men of power, only to die having never had the chance to live.

The second quote was selected from Davis' 'Bits of Gossip', in which she describes the contemporary essayists, philosophers and poets of the time as they talk in a parlor at Hawthorne's estate. She describes the lack of actual experience that these great men base their philosophies and theories upon, finding them 'distorted', and 'unreal'. In doing so, she describes a society detached from the reality of suffering going on in the United States. Perhaps these experiences are what brought Davis to lead the realist literary movement.

A short story that Davis had obviously intended to be a narrative on social classes, 'Life In The Iron Mills' serves to describe the effects of society on a quickly growing worker class, testing the moral fiber of America's industrial future. Davis starts by describing the setting of the town of iron-works, a town of smoke and fog, burdened with so much pollution as to place it on the verge of being inhospitable. Within this town of industry Hugh Wolfe, like all the workers, is a slave, a slave made up to be a voluntary worker, and born into the lower class with no means of escaping it.

Representing the hope in all slaves, however small, and seemingly insignificant, Hugh Wolfe desires more. A man with the gift of being a great artist, Wolfe is inflicted with the desire to create beauty, in a world devoid of kindness. Unfortunately, in trying to escape his fate, society condemns him to a life in prison, and unwilling to be a slave once more, he kills himself. Is Wolfe guilty for taking the chance to escape his world of slavery? When a man is inflicted with desperation, is an attempt at escape, whatever the cost immoral? What would you do to escape a life of slavery? What would you be willing to do if your life was at stake? Davis forces the reader to confront these moral dilemmas, putting the truth in perspective.


One of the strongest points I found in her story, was the apathetic nature with which the work camps were treated. An apathy that made such slavery possible in the industrial world. Kirby, and his friends walk around the iron-mill with a detached interest. Kirby, when confronted by Mitchell says "I wash my hands of all social problems, -slavery, caste, white or black.". He knows that what he does is wrong, but denies the fact that he is the direct cause, finding no guilt in it. Mitchell goes on to say that the man who allowed Jesus to be put on the cross said the same, mocking him for the methods of his denial.

Note that the three men described all give different methods of accepting the inhumanity of slavery. Kirby, making a profit off of the work, cares not, and goes so far as to say that he doesn't even feel guilty for their fate; the Doctor wants to help, but then decides not to, saying there would be no use in helping only one man; and Mitchell finds himself to be above the workers, going so far as to say that he isn't one of 'them'. Describing the common arguments for accepting slavery, Davis plainly paints a picture of the lies people tell themselves in order to accept what they know to be wrong, and it's a powerful statement.

It seems strange indeed that with the end of the civil war, came the end an era only to give birth to a new one in which slavery was no longer a burden of race, but of an entire social class.

The end of humanity - The rise of the machine

Fred D. Heath
English 48A
Journal for Melville
September 29th, 2009

Herman Melville

1819-1891

"What I feel most moved to write, that is banned, -it will not pay. Yet, altogether, write the other way I can not. So the product is a final hash, and all my books are botches." (pg 2305 The Norton Anthology)

"He who has never failed somewhere, that man can not be great."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first quote Melville speaks of his inability to write what he desires because there is no money in it, furthermore, he says that he can no longer write for the pleasure of the masses because his work becomes worthless in doing so. I think that Melville struggled quite a bit with this problem, especially after being alienated, and shunned as a lunatic. He starts his career with amazing success, only to lose it all when he becomes truly great. He was a man that dreamed of writing great books comparable to Shakespeare, but the public simply wanted entertainment. Don't give cake to monkeys, they won't appreciate it.

The last quote says rather plainly that if you haven't failed you haven't lived. I chose this quote because even though Melville went through so much failure in life, he never truly gave up. I admire this quality in him. This stubborn 'all or nothing' philosophy. Luckily he was in a situation, being the third of eight in a well off family, that he was never thrown into a state of poverty. Even though he was able to live comparatively comfortably however, he had many hardships, and throughout all the trials of his life, he stuck it out and followed his dreams and I find that to be something worth respecting. The road of virtue is never an easy one.

In a period of growth that would forever change the United States, Melville depicts some of the inherent problems of an industrialized society that has lost sight of the values of individuality in his novella 'Bartelby the Scrivener'. Rebellion, conformity, madness, alienation and the social morals that bind them, are just a few of the subjects that Melville touches upon in his short story. Bartelby, the protagonist, is a man who refuses to conform to the society that he has become a victim of. Representing the pre-industrial world of the past, he refuses to become an agent of the contemporary world of industry, and decides to give up working as a mindless scrivener. By refusing to work as a part of the system however, the narrator, a man who represents a world that has no use for individuality, doesn't know what do do him and the rest of the short story is devoted to society's response. Forced to treat him humanely because of Bartelby's respectably obtuse manner, and confused by his actions, they treat him like a madman, fear, alienate, and ultimately imprison him for not conforming to society's desires. In the end, Bartelby dies, a victim of the society that has killed him, and the individuality that he represents. We all become outdated eventually, it is the price of progress.

One of the things I admire most about Melville is his courage. Deciding to go out and work on a whaling boat, jumping ship, and joining the navy, were all amazingly courageous considering his upbringing. Then he comes back and has the ambition to up and write a book, and does it! Taking the most courage of all however, was his decision to continue writing as he wanted to write instead of conforming to the desires of his audience. Living the life he preferred, as apposed to the life he did not.


"It is not down on any map; true places never are."

"A whale ship was my Yale College, and my Harvard."