A short tidbit on Puritanism during the Tudor-Stuart Periods

“The Restoration left Puritanism to lick its self-inflicted wounds. Puritans who had believed themselves to be fighting for God’s cause blamed each other for destroying it. Instead of converting and purifying the world, the hope which the civil war had brought them, they now had to concentrate, as in the 1630s, on their survival in it.” – pg. 160, The English Civil Wars

I can definitely say that it was this blurb from Worden’s book that influenced my second paper in the class. Although we talked about the many “causes” of the civil wars and the many interpretations to it, I always found the role of Puritans – and ideology – during this time quite fascinating. They were always the loudest critics of pretty much everything that made England, England. Once the civil wars started and the interregnum took hold, you could find Puritanism somewhere in the middle.

In class, we debated quite a bit as to whether Worden was arguing that the main factor of the Civil Wars was religion or was it more than that. I don’t think we ever truly came to a conclusion, but I think this little part in the Restoration section shows that he believes it is a significant aspect when looking at the Civil Wars. For those Puritan members of Parliament, Puritan laymen scattered throughout England, Puritan (and independent) soldiers of the newly founded Army, the civil wars was about much more than just a bad king who was abusing his – and Parliament’s – rights. It was also about the fear of where Christianity would go in England, and how Puritans could influence a wide array with the “right” way of practicing Christianity. Purifying the world they were living in was more important than ever before because of the new-found power and voice they had at this time. Of course they ended up losing a lot of the traction after the restoration in 1660, but it cannot be denied that some of their wayward thoughts continued to influence English politics even after the civil wars. Although their main focus was to just survive after Charles II came back from his “travels”, their actions before had set a precedent for others.

I have to say after this class I really see and understand Puritans in a whole different light. Even though protestantism was always depicted as the “good guys” in England, I would have to say that I definitely felt like Puritans were big antagonizers during this time period. They seemed much more radical, outspoken, and problematic than I would have ever initially thought. I mean it still boggles my mind that they opposed Arminianism so vehemently when Arminianism had roots in Calvinism! They are just a very interesting group to look at and now I know that their role in Early Modern England is much more significant that I would have ever thought.

Oroonoko: The Perception on Natives

Pg. 57-59

Oh! Here’s our tiguamy, and we shall now know whether those things can speak .”

Really it’s not just this quote that I’m looking at, but the entire scene of interactions between the narrator’s group and the natives between pages 57-59. I just thought this part was really interesting and it was almost like the reactions and views were reversed. We all know that Europeans more than often had a very low opinion of people that are not of their own, but this section seems to show that it also happened with people who were the “others”.

When the narrator and her group went to explore and observe the the natives nearby, the situation ended up reversing. It was the natives who questioned their ability to speak or think intelligently. They were in awe of the foreign attire that the women were wearing – and probably thought they were dumb to wear such heavy materials in the heat that was common there. Throughout the section, the narrator’s expectations were proven false (from the reaction they received, to her image of the warriors) and the natives seemed to have had a much better, more intellectual depiction.

Whether or not this was just a figment of her imagination or an actual experience from the writer, the fact that this portion of the novella is written as such shows that to some degree people of the time understood that the natives of these new colonies were intellectual to a certain extent. I feel like it would impossible otherwise for such depictions to come about, if the consensus was that they were completely uncultured, or incapable of acting as a society. The questions these natives were wondering in this book, were the exact ones the Europeans were thinking, so it is understandable to think that she viewed the natives as someone who had some intellectual capacity. Of course this is very romanticized and still has that sense of European superiority throughout – she did say she expected the native warriors to look like beasts – it is still a different take on natives that I never came upon before.

I definitely think that since the story was so short, I was more focused on the actual storyline when I first read it. However, after our discussions in class I was compelled to look at it differently and try to find the nuances that everyone picked up on. This book is definitely richer than people would think at first glance.

Titus Andronicus: A Shift From Pure Religious Bias to More Biological Discrimination?

Note: This is sooooo late in the game, but November was a little ridiculous (as it usually is) and it’s now time for me to play catch-up. I actually started this one a lot earlier, but left it as a draft for the longest time. Luckily, I have many more posts to make on more recent books we read, and those will be easier for people to comment on.

——–

“Earlier, we noted that in medieval times there were two distinct though overlapping ways of understanding blackness… The difference between these two is underlined in new ways in the early modern period…. Sub-Saharan Africans are increasingly associated with a lack of religion and culture, and painted as low born” pg. 81

I read the section on Titus Andronicus in Loomba’s book regarding Shakespeare and race. Even after reading it a couple of times, it was hard to figure out where exactly Loomba wanted to go with this particular example. I would say that has less to do with her writing style or her deduction, but rather it is just the natural complexity of the topic that somehow brings up more questions than answers when one delves in it.Talking about racism or racial attitude is always difficult when talking about the past. It is not entirely possible to determine how people felt and dealt with such topics, because values, social structure, and even meanings of words change throughout time.

When I found this quote, it really struck me as to why it was hard to follow. Between the medieval period and the early modern period, the concept of biasness towards those with a darker complexion became more and more discriminatory. While it is still relevant to say that the racism of the time was highly linked to the fierce religious tensions of the time (between Christians, Jews, and Muslims), this quote obviously shows that religious difference became less of a factor as Sub-Saharan Africans were being inherently associated with unfavorable traits. Although these traits are technically something you can pick up – a religion or a particular culture – I believe that at this time people would believe that if a society was “religion-less”, part of it could be blamed on who the actual people were. Blackness was no longer the effect of immorality and whatnot, but rather a possible cause of their behavior.

Types of Rights in Envisioning America

“…for god hath given to the tonnes of men a double right to the earth, there is a naturall right & a Civil right…” -pg. 136

This was a quote that really stuck out to me when I first read the Envisioning America book. I know that by this point there was the idea of natural right and civil right – a concept that continues to thrive in modern society. However, it was just very interesting to see a different interpretation of natural right/civil right from what we are usually taught (and how we understand it in today’s context).

In the text, the difference between natural right and civil right was the excuse for why it was fine for the English settlers to take over the land that once belonged to the Native Americans. Although the Native Americans had a natural right to the land – every group was blessed by God with a land they can utilize for their needs – it was the civil right of the English settlers to take over, because the Native Americans were not making full use of their God-given area.

It not only showed that at that time civil right trumped natural right, but it also showed that the settlers believed that they were more civilized then their American counterparts in even the simplest way – making use of the land. The natives were not civilized enough to understand that they were suppose to make the most out of the land they were naturally given. Therefore, the protestant English settlers felt like it was an affront to God to not take advantage of the land, so they had to do what was necessary – based on the ideas of civil right – to right this “wrong” they were seeing.

This was kind of how I interpreted that little tidbit (and the immediate section after). I would love to hear if anyone else was intrigued by the section on natural and civil right. Sadly, I do not remember much about the history of the concept – globalization classes have really turned them into modern political terms for me – so if anyone has any insight, that would be great.

Guide to Fixing The Comment Sections

After a half hour, I have finally figured this comment thing out… I must said it made me really question my ability to use technology now.

For those who may still be confused, here’s a quick guideline to getting it all set up:

  1. Go to Settings
  2. Go to Discussion
  3. Under Default Article Settings, check mark “allow people to post comments on new articles”
  4. Change other settings as you would like and save changes

If you had older posts and would like to open up the comments for those, go to the posts section, click “quick edit” and check mark “allow comments” which is right under the tags section.

Hope this helps anyone who hasn’t been able to figure it out yet!

(P.S. Sorry Prof. Rabin for all of emails notifying you of “new posts” from me… it took a bit of trial and error to figure this one out)

Under the Molehill – First Impressions

When I started reading this I wasn’t really sure how the book was structured. Even after 20 pages in, I was still unsure about what I was reading exactly. With a subtitle of An Elizabethan Spy Story, I sort of imagined that it would be like a historical-fiction – taking an interesting part of history and fantasizing it a little bit. It took me awhile to fully comprehend that that was not the case. Instead, it turns out to be following the thought process of the author as he attempts to solve the mystery of who the mole is. For some reason, this was not as obvious to me as I now feel like it should have been…

Maybe it is because I have never read a book structured like this before… maybe it is because the title preconditioned me to think it was something else. Regardless of the reason, it is comical to think that it has taken me close to 60 pages to finally get the gist of it.

I do want to point out a quote though. At the end of Part I Bossy wrote “…we get a snapshot of the scene in Castelnau’s chamber. I imagine he was writing the letter himself; Feron (again probably) was in the room…” This quote struck at me, mainly because it made me feel like I wasn’t completely off track. Bossy is looking at all of these documents with his own interpretation of the events, and is even fantasizing how events took place. So, while this book is not as fictional as I initially thought, there is an element of fiction in it. That does beg the question as to the trustworthiness of the text. Are many parts of exaggerated, a part of Bossy’s wild imagination? Or for the most part this book is just the scientific relaying of a theory with evidence as backup?