3005WSP09

In the spring of 1692, Massachusetts Governor William Phips laid the infrastructure for an incredibly tumultuous summer, in which many Salem residents were accused and convicted of witchcraft. In present-day America, such an event seems atrocious, humorous, and ridiculous. However, in the late seventeenth century, there was great need to begin questioning the works of God.

The third generation, or beyond, of Puritans were disconnected from the roots of being a chosen people. They, unlike the early settlers, had no stories to tell of salvation and God's providence. Slowly, spirituality lost its grip on the Puritans. While religion still played a substantial role in everyday life, commerce grew important, and day to day events were no longer duly attributed to God.

However, this notion of a spiritual complacency did not sit well with the elite. The common mistake in analyzing their situation as if it were a modern day situation. Today, the elite would see no problem with such a complacency, and they would likely be encouraged. But for those who acted firmly in the cause of their parents and grandparents, the elite needed to reinvigorate religion into common practice. The elite saw the complacency as a Satanic work, and had reason to rid the devilish forces from society.

Phils and the elite were left with few choices, and one such choice was to hear the allegation, and punish accordingly. The trials were taken an extent or two (or way) too far, but the original intent was driven by a
solid incentive. Taken in the guise of the time, the notion of the elite supporting the Salem witch trials was not at all unlikely.

Posted by niem0142 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As I keep reading these writing from the Puritan, I become more and more disgusted with how the Puritans ran their communities. However, I think that Mather's writing on the trial of Martha Carrier was the most interesting pieces that we have read thus far. The language and format of the piece made it easier to read, as well as the topic that it covers, the Salem witch trials. This piece made me consider how many women and how many men were thought to be witches, although there were some men, majority were women. So why so many women and so few men? One reason that I came with could be that relating back to Adam and Eve, Eve was seen as the temptress and the one that made both of them fall from Paradise. It would only make sense that the Puritans would see these satanic acts as being caused by the women of the community. Since the Puritans were trying to make or believed this "New World" a Paradise, they were trying to rid these Eves from their community so that they would not fall again. That being said, this makes me curious as to just what the men who were thought to be witches were guilty of. At the beginning of the piece I also found it interesting that Mather's shows that the witches are not necessarily bad themselves, but that it is the devil taking over them. However, by doing this I feel that he takes away the humane qualities of the persons, thereby dehumanizing them and breaking the bond and connection of humanity that people have with one another. The article also makes me ask myself, when did exorcism start? I understand that the Puritans had a quite pessimistic view of people being successfully "saved". Mainly thinking that if a person was doing wrongs, they were not only not going to heaven, but they could ever do undo their wrongs or do rights. However, when and where was exorcism used in the United States?

Posted by selan004 at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Religion has been the cause of wars, violence, and persecution throughout history. Most claim to be justified by God and/or his word. It seems that the Puritan belief system is set up in such a way that an event like the Salem witch trials was almost inevitable. It's my understanding from what we've read that Puritans reflect on their daily life in order to know if they are saved/ one of the elect. If their life seems to be full of blessings, they would have evidence of their salvation. So how do they deal with the bad things that happen in every day life? If an event couldn't be explained, it was deemed evil. Evidence brought against Martha Carrier were events such as "strange, extraordinary and unaccountable calamities befell [Abbot's] cattle; their death being such as they could guess at no natural reason for." (537) To me, the death of cattle is just part of life, or bad luck at the most. Does the Puritan way of looking at life make it impossible to simply shrug off the bad things that happen in life?

Posted by engel340 at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” I could not help but compare his words to the ideas and concepts of communism. I read it much like fiction because it is an idea of oneness that is so surreal that I cannot even take it seriously. I admit his words are somewhat inspiring, who wouldn’t want a community who all had the same values and morals and worked together as one to better the whole, however in history this concept has tried and failed many times over. He wanted such a brotherhood to be working together as one and to put the community advancement above all individual needs. His belief of all true Christians come from one body of Christ and are all so connected that they suffer and feel all emotions together was greatly proven wrong and now days is considered to be a very intolerant and bigoted. His concept of the noise a clock makes and not that it is just the hammer that makes the noise it is all the gears working to move that one big hammer is motivating however one must recognize and respect that not all people hold the same beliefs and forcing other cultures to join the Puritans will only cause war.

Posted by eato0067 at 3:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In general I have always had issues with John Smith, I have never been able to understand why his legacy continues on. Even our beloved Norton Anthology points out in the first sentence of the introduction of Smith by Amy E. Winans that “Smith has often been described by scholars as a swashbuckling colonial states man, A SELF MADE MAN…”(273). Although I do fully understand that these writings by Smith are historical and he had many important roles in the colonization of Jamestown I cannot help but just think why I am even reading this fiction. I am not sure where my anger really stems from however I think it centers around his self-absorption. First off his decision to write himself in as a third person really shows his interest in making himself the idol, hero whatever you may call it. He depicts himself as the main leader and maintains the appearance of having the upper hand; he even uses a twelve-year-old girl to show his superiority. All this because he wants the King and Queen and all of Europe to see that they will have much respect and be above the Natives if and when they decide to join him in the American dream.

Posted by eato0067 at 3:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cabeza de Vaca’s accounts of living with the Native Americans for nine years gives a positive spin on Native Americans which is surprising to see in early exploration literature. Through all the killing and gore that he included I could easily see he did really think of Native Americans as more humanistic epically being put side by side with Columbus’s early writing on Native Americans, where he considered them much more like barbaric savages. One can easily understand Cabeza de Vaca’s thoughts on the Native Americans, considering he spent nine years with them and had no contact with his European culture. He really had no other choice in being so excepting because he was dependent on them for such a long period of time. He even shows in his writing that he takes on traits of their culture, like when he was running around naked in the wilderness. Although this account is not completely tolerant of the Native American culture I do respect Cabeza de Vaca for attempting to show the Europeans that they are much like themselves.

Posted by eato0067 at 2:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading Mary Rowlandson’s narrative demonstrates a stout puritan’s reliance on the bible as the Word of God, and its importance for the salvation of a Christian soul. Throughout her captivity Mary Rowlandson turns to the bible for passages that will lift her spirits and remind her to trust in the lord. In the narrative Rowlandson uses passages from the bible as evidence that God is in control. Rather than viewing her circumstances as in the hands of her captors, she continually reminds herself that everything she is experiencing is part of God’s plan for her. In this way she is able to absorb the trauma without any pressure to take initiative and change her fortune. Even when she gets the chance to make a decision for herself she refuses and stays in line to wait for Providence to intervene. The last line of the narrative is a quote from Exodus that sums up her philosophy throughout her captivity experience: “Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.” However her depiction of herself and her “savage” captors may be subjective, and motivated by a desire to paint an image of herself as the ideal faithful Christian woman who turned to the Word of God for salvation in the midst of devils.

Posted by wachu002 at 11:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In A Narrative of the Captivity and Restauration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, aptly named, Rowlandson contributes to an early genre of literature, the captivity narrative. However, her work also speaks to the portrayal of the natives, in a way that is both descriptive and believable. She is unlike other authors of her time because she gives merit to the claim of attaching the words “cruel,” “barbarous,” and “savage” to the Native Americans (465). She tells the terrible story of their invasion of Lancaster, some of which bears repeating. Rowlandson tells of an Englishman who begs for mercy but subsequently is slain: “knockt him in head, stript him naked, and split open his bowels” (467). She further tells of several other Englishmen who are viciously killed and stripped.
Among several episodes of the mistreatment of Rowlandson, Mary has her Bible thrown away. Later, when Mary asks of her son, one native replied that he ate a tasty piece of her son the size of two fingers. Shortly after, she was deprived of heat, with ashes thrown into her eyes when she sought heat from a fire. Further addressing her claim that they were perpetual liars, some respond to her inquiries of her husband by telling her that he was killed or had remarried. When she refuses to give up her apron, the maid swings a stick at her with the force to kill her, but she avoided being struck, perhaps saving her life.
Later, she sees John Gillberd lying on the ground with almost no clothes, incredibly sick from swallowing his own blood. This visit with the English Youth was regarded as the beginning of an escape attempt in which the natives put his life was in danger and threatened hers with a hatchet. Finally, in her recollection of the captivity, she speaks directly about her captors: “[N]ot one week passed without the fury of the Enemy, and some desolation by fire and sword upon one place or another. They ... rejoiced in their inhumane, and devilish cruelty to the English.” Rowlandson gives us no reason to dismiss her claims or to question her objectivity as a narrator, as which she suggests that there is validity in calling the natives brutal savages.

Posted by niem0142 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Having the opportunity to read poetry was quite a pleasurable change of pace from the marketable journals that we have been reading thus far. Both Bradstreet and Taylor, whether writing with the intention of publication or not, opened the blinds on a small window peering into the soul of a colonial American. We were able to peek into mind of a woman defying her role with the quill as her sword. Bradstreet's script flowed very well, with references that showed her intellect rivaling anyone who might pick up her book and begin to read. Her struggles of the mind allowed us to see what only the physical but mental struggles colonial women faced. Taylor's writings reflected on a Puritan man's inward struggle with trying to follow the Bible, while facing death after death of his children. These have been by far the two deepest incites into the live of colonial Americans that we have read so far.

Posted by john4892 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was surprised that a woman poet would be recognized in the male dominated hierarchy of Puritan New England. Anne Bradstreet seems to have been a Puritan woman who knew how to keep her place while still pushing the limits on what women were allowed to do. It was interesting to see how Bradstreet addressed this issue of gender roles in her time. She maneuvers around expectations by acknowledging mens superiority, "men can do best, and woman know it well" but opens a door for herself by demanding that woman can also produce creative writing. Her humble argument is flattering to men who would be against women writing by saying that her writing will "make your glist'ring gold but more to shine." I started to think that her flattery was just a way of gaining the community's acceptance of her creative writing. She picks up the issue of gender again in her poem about Queen Elizabeth and in this work she is able to be much more upfront about the abilities of women by using Queen Elizabeth as a figure for the accomplishments of women and as an argument against women being weak by nature. Also, I thought it was interesting that her brother-in-law added a preface informing readers that Bradstreet did not neglect her duties as a wife or mother to compose her writing, but rather took the time from her "her sleep and other refreshments." This reinforces the strict expectations surrounding women's role in Puritan society and the anxiety over people stepping out of their "place."

Posted by wachu002 at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As a lover of languages I was excited to begin reading "A Key into the Language of America." Language is the means in which one can start to understand a culture different from their own, so I was somewhat disappointed to read Williams' reason for writing this Key. In the preface he says, "a man may, by this helpe, converse with thousands of Natives all over the Countrey: and by such converse it may please the Father of Mercies to spread civilitie... and Christianitie..." He doesn't meantion what the English can learn from the Native Americans.
In his observations he seems to prove the opposite. He shows many things that he has learned from the Native Americans. It even seems that he is infact proving thier value as a society. He observes in the Native Americans many of the qualities that make up what would be considered a "civilized" society. They have sport, commerce, respect for elders/sick, pride, law, justice, religion, celebration, and medical practice. He even mentions that there is less crimes such as murders, robberies, adulteries, etc.
What is his motive in these observations?
Does he do this to prove the civility of the Native Americans?
Or is it simply the only way he knows to view/describe/evaluate a society?
Ali E.

Posted by engel340 at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In "A Modell of Christian Charity," Winthrop uses several Bible references to back up his reasoning. This opens up the opportunity to use the Bible to contradict him where his reasoning is lacking. For example, he opens with the statement that God has made some men rich and some men poor. 2 Corinthians 8:13 (New International Version)states, "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." Withrop instead seems to be saying that inequality is God's will and that people should be happy in their prospective positions. With this idea of inequality there is also the parable of the workers in the vineyard in which Jesus explains, "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Matthew 20:16) This would mean that Withrop's good fortunes in life don't show his sainthood but infact would mean that he would be last in the eyes of God.
Later Winthrop speaks of brotherly love and that "the Gospell commaunds love to an enemy" (335). Where is this brotherly love and love of the enemy shown in the puritan communties? It's certainly not in their treatment of Native Americans or their neighboring communities. Infact they avoid anyone that is not a Puritan. They left England for the isolation of New England so that "posterity may be the better preserved from the Common corrupcions of this evill world to serve the Lord." (340) Much unlike the isolated Puritans, the Bible reports that Jesus spent his life immersed with sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Although I am by no means a Biblical scholar, it appears to me that Winthrop contradicts himself and the book that he bases his religion on.
Ali E.

Posted by engel340 at 6:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While slogging through Winthrop's Modell of Christian Charity, the last sentence of a paragraph that began on p 337 caught my eye: "...knitts them into one body againe in Christ whereby a man is become againe a liveing soule." This being an interesting and strange concept, I went back to the rest of the paragraph to explore.

Winthrop begins with talking about how since Adam tore himself away from god, every human being's original nature upon birth is to tear away from things. He explicitly states that a person will "love and seeke himselfe onely" which sounded at first like positive qualities, things like good self-esteem and personal introspection, but I get the feeling based on the next bit that what Winthrop actually means is a person is originally only concerned for their own well-being, and doesn't care about anyone else. When a person finds Jesus, they gain the ability to care about other people, and also about god, and they have a never ending supply of love due to their connection to Jesus. Then there's a bit I can't make any sense out of, talking about how "as the head and the roote by which hee is united get the predominency in the soule, soe by little and little expells the former".

After stating that god is the source of love, Winthrop goes over how you can't love anything until you find Jesus ("new birth" = rebirth = born again) since god is the source of all love. He then moves on to the eye-catching passage, talking about how this brotherly love causes the "bones" (individual people?) to become bound together and form again Adam, the first perfect man. After a man (or all of man kind?) forms again into Adam and "knitts" (by the power of love!) again to Jesus and gains his soul.

The way I follow this, you need Jesus to love, and love to "knitt" things together. To gain your "living soule" you need to knit to Jesus. Therefore, without Jesus you don't have a soul. Unless there is a difference between a regular soul and a living soul? I do not know enough about Christianity to work this out any way other than how I have. But if people who don't have Jesus don't have souls, that would explain a lot about the Puritans' lack of tolerance towards people of other faiths in general and the Native Americans in particular. You don't have to treat them like people because they don't have souls!

Posted by Margo Robmann at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

William Bradford’s entries are interesting as an opportunity to read the journal of a puritan and the concern over wickedness infiltrating the new land. The section “Wickedness Breaks Forth�? highlights possible ways that wickedness has made its way from England onto the new land where the puritans hope to establish a godly community of saints. Bradford believes the puritans are God’s chosen people, attributing all of their success to him, and any obstacles to their purpose as stemming from that which is wicked. With an outlook like that Bradford and the puritans were free to enact their harsh laws including executions and banishment for anyone who threatened to taint their community of “saints�? with wickedness, for they were defending God and all his holiness. Bradford’s extreme paranoia over the threat of wickedness makes the reading of his journal seem like the texts of a crazy cult leader, with Bradford describing the atrocities the puritans commit in the name of god. Bradford states that “Satan hath more power in these heathen lands, as some have thought, than in more Christian nations, especially over God’s servants in them.�? The puritans moving into a new land that they considered heathen and wicked came with the discipline of a military regiment, giving all power to the men who led them, and ready to wage war for God against the evil of humanity.

Posted by wachu002 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thomas Morton in New English Canaan became a stalwart defender of the natives. His effort to portray the natives not as savages but civilians no different than the English could have been a noble cause. However, his ulterior motive of framing the Puritans, who distanced themselves in such a way from the Anglican Church that they crossed an ocean to purify its flaws, as detractors from a mission to cohabitate with the Native Americans to attack their credibility is shameful. Morton, a cavalier and defender of the Anglican Church, stood against the reforms promoted by the Puritans. His goal of capitalizing on this to affirm himself as best prepared to lead the colonization efforts is even further deplorable.
In Book I of New English Canaan, the anthology provides five unique passages to assert the similarities between English culture and that of Native Americans. Morton writes of their habitation, their modesty in apparel, their respect of elders, their belief in Kytan, and their contended lifestyle. In each chapter, Morton relates the natives to the English, suggesting to his readers that cohabitating with (and ultimately converting) the natives would be a simple task requiring little to no force. By making such a suggestion, Morton charges that the Puritans in their reckless ways have failed in their opportunity to achieve the goals of English colonization.
Morton further escalated his efforts to undermining the Puritans in Book III of New English Canaan. He writes of unfair deceitful practices committed against the natives and of a friendly communal party turned into a massacre by the men of “Plimmouth.�? He also includes his account of his banishment from Massachusetts by Miles Standish in 1628, boasting in the story’s conclusion of his acquittal, “Noe man being able to taxe him of any thinge,�? and return to Massachusetts, where he claimed the Puritans had “hoped they had bin ridd of him.�? These excerpts in particular are meant to convey the brutality of the Puritans in contrast with the relaxed, contented lifestyle of the natives, in which Morton intends for the readers to take sides against the Puritans.

Posted by niem0142 at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)