So Many Questions...

I want to respond to a few questions that were asked anonymously at the end of class last week. 

Several questions revolved around the relationship between Native Americans and the English colonists who settled Jamestown.

How did the Native Americans (the Powhatan Confederacy made up of Algonquian-speaking villages in Virginia) react to the English settlers?  Why were the Natives not joining their tribes together and fighting back on a massive scale?  Why didn't the colonists attempt to befriend the natives and adopt their lifestyle?  Were trading with teh Natives in the 1600s-1700s or just viewing them as hostile?
 These are great questions for which I have inadequate responses.  Much of what we know about this early relationship comes from the English perspective, the written sources that remain.  Many cultures transmitted history through oral tradition (many Native American groups included).  If those Native groups are dying at a rate of 80-90% during this period of English settlement and conquest, tradition suffers, and history can be disrupted, forgotten, or ignored.  Remember, it is the victors who often write history.  In this case, it is the English who triumph over the Natives, so we are getting an English-skewed interpretation from the surviving records.  Additionally, resisting or fighting back is next to impossible when you have disease ravaging your society.  Also, most colonists saw the Natives as vastly different from themselves, as uncivilized (at best) to savage (at worst).  Once we start discussing the settlement of Massachusetts, we will learn that the colonists viewed the Natives there as pretty much minions of the devil.  That's a harsh way to view someone.  So, the likelihood of adopting Native lifestyles is minimal.  With that said, some adaptation of Native culture is undeniable.  The English will adopt food, hunting and cooking techniques, language, and so forth.  There is a cultural exchange happening.  In the index of your book, there is a chapter by chapter bibliography for further reading or research.  In this case, check out Gary Nash's book, Red, White, and Black:  The People's of Early North America.  As an answer to the very last question above, YES.  Colonists are trading/learning from the Natives for survival.  The Natives are also key to the colonial trade in animal skins, which could be very profitable for the Europeans involved.  You want to maintain good relationships to keep these trade/economic doors open.  However, warfare/fighting disrupts these relationships periodically. 

The hierarchy of their society was difficult for me to understand...why wasn't there more revolution?  More people like Nathaniel Bacon?
Great question...I think you are asking why did people seem satisfied with their lot in life?  Why didn't they demand more rights and privileges?  I have no good answer for this except that this is the way it was always done and this is what people expected.  It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks....but one of the benefits of leaving England and coming to a new world was that you were in a new place and that allowed for new possibilities and new ways of doing things.  We do eventually have a revolution (1775-1776) and it changes everything for us, and later for the whole world.  More later in the semester on the factors that led Americans to question the notion of established status or positions within society.

What were other countries doing?  Did other countries, like China, or Russia, try to settle (in North America) as well as England?
Quick response, China...no...Russia...yes.  See map (from the later era) in your textbook, page 255.  Several years ago I visited the Alaskan town of Sitka (beautiful place).  It was settled by Russians, complete with a very Russian Orthodox Church.

When did towns in Virginia form?
The very first town was Jamestown, the original fort.  Remember that in the Virginia colony there will be very few towns, as landholders are often living on their property.  The riverways and waterways are the "road" that connects colonists to one another and to whatever governmental business they may need to conduct.  From the overhead I showed last week, early Virginia towns included Jamestown (1607); Henrico (1611); Fort Henry (Petersburg) (1645); Norfolk (1682); Hampton (1691); Yorktown (1691); Williamsburg (1699).  In 1700, for a colony this size, this is not many towns.

Midterm Exam Hint:  There will most likely be some sort of essay question on the development of slavery in early Virginia.  You may have to also explain this in the context of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.  Remember that we did the essay/journal on the transition in early Virginia from indentured servitude to slavery.  In the potential essay on the exam, you should be able to explain why this occurred by using specific evidence/discussion/logical historical reasoning.

Did men cheat on their wives?
This may sound like an odd question, but it is a great one, because it gets at the heart of what we want to know about people from the past.  Were they like us?  Were they really different?  The answer I give comes from a previous professor, Winthrop Jordan, a world-reknowned scholar of slavery.  During one particular class Jordan was asked about some behavior/relationship status/activiity between slaves and masters.  I can not remember the exact questions, but perhaps something like, "how often did masters have sex with their slaves?"  Or, "did any of these master/slave relationships involve any notion of 'love' or was it all exploitation?" (An answer to this second question would require a multilayered critical reponse..not for here).  Jordan responded that any human behavior taking place today, or that you can imagine taking place today, took place back then as well.  Whether or not certain behaviors occur with more or less frequency today or then is up for discussion, but the human heart...greed, lust, anger, envy, love, sacrifice, mercy...it happened then and happens now.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Yesterday we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as well as the 57th presidential inaugural ceremony, beginning the second term for Barak Obama.  Though our course focuses on the first half of American history, up to 1865, it would be a mistake not to include current events in the mix, especially with African American history.  I hesistate to even use the previous phrase, because I don't want to segment a separate "African American history" that will be trotted out for observation only one day or one month out of the year and then be forgotten.  As we will learn this semester, African Americans have played an intrinsic role throughout American history, to help build and shape our nation.

To phrase this another way, trying to talk about American history with only a brief mention of African Americans would be like building a brick wall without any bricks. 

History Quiz || Two and a half men

The Buzzsaw

For my students, I'm sure it is like any horror movie.  Things are moving along fine, there's love, laughter, friendship, "normal life," and then IT appears, and IT will mow you down in a second if you haven't been paying attention, or in the case of class, doing the work.  The IT I'm referring to is the QUIZ...reading quizzes...based on reading, not class discussion and lecture.  What?  Reading?  Yes, reading.  You mean I can't just come to class and listen and make an A?  Unlikely.  To be fair, these reading quizzes are quite challenging...no, they are HARD.  I don't make up the questions.  I draw them from a test bank that comes with the book.

Students, please avail yourselves of the resources that come with the textbook.  The StudySpace has practice quizzes, a place to create flashcards, and an outline for each chapter.  Remember, you can access the StudySpace by going to the weblink at the beginning of every chapter.

Also, it is important to learn what types of questions are being asked.  Some questions are simple recall.  This is I think what most of you are expecting, or at least wish for.  For example:

Who was our first president?
a.  Abraham Lincoln
b.  George Washington
c.  Thomas Jefferson
d.  James Monroe
e.  John Adams (our book adds a fifth choice!! Instead of my random chances being 1 in 4, they just went to 1 in 5...aww shucks).

Obviously, the answer is B, George Washington.  There is an easy "yes," "no" feel to this question...you either got it right or not...it is pretty black and white.  Unfortunately, most college multiple choice tests are not this easy.

Other question categories include the WOULD NOT question, or the EXCEPT question.

Which of the following would NOT characterize the Mississippian Indian culture?
a.  towns built around plazas and temples
b.  cliff dwellings and widespread use of irrigation
c.  cultivation of corn, beans, and squashes
d.  ceremonial human torture and sacrifice
e.  extensive trading activities

The easiest way to answer this question is to treat the answers as True/False statements.  You are looking for the ONE answer that is NOT true of Mississippian Indian culture.  So, just go through each statement...is it true or false?  If you do this, B is the appropriate response.

In most cases, Spanish explorers and soldiers who came to the New World were motivated by all of the following EXCEPT:
a.  religious zeal
b.  desire to serve their fellow men
c.  pursuit of riches
d.  desire for power
e.  patriotism

Again, treat the EXCEPT questions the same way, but instead of using a True/False dichotomy, you may use a Yes/No method.  Ask a simple yes/no question using the potential answer.  A.  Were Spanish explorers and soldiers motivated by religious zeal?  (answer yes or no).  B.  Where Spanish explorers and soldiers movtivated by a desire to serve their fellow men? (answer yes or no).  Again, you are looking for the EXCEPTION, the NO answer.  In this case, it comes up pretty quick...the answer is B.  The Spanish were not coming to the New World for altruistic reasons.

Finally, the other qualification for questions is that sometimes there may be an answer possibility that seems "good."  There may be another that seems "better."  However, there will always be one that will work "BEST" with the question asked.  The trick here is that the WHOLE ANSWER must be true.  Sometime students think an answer works because one half of the answer is correct, but the other half, which are they not sure about seems likely but they are not sure.  If in doubt, move on.  Sometimes half of an answer may be correct, but the other half intentionally wrong.  Look for the BEST answer.  For example:

George Washington:
a.  Became our second president, after being chosen in 1789
b.  Became our first president, after being chosen in 1789
c.  Became our first president, after being chosen in 1776
d. Became our first president, after being chosen in 1800.

Take what you know:  George Washington was our first elected president. (so therefore the first answer is eliminated.  But to answer this question successfully, you must know more, when was he elected?  The only statement that is fully true all the way through is answer B.

A Contrarian's View of Technology: I Like My Recipes On Cards with Rubber Bands

Let me start with a story. 

In a news article a year ago, Gene and Joan Tankersly were interviewed about a movie being made in their neighborhood about Steve Jobs, who lived across the street from the Tankerslys during his youth. 

"The Tankersleys, now both in their 80s...recalled the day Steve Jobs, a friend of their daughters, raced over to invite the couple to look at what he and Wozniak had created - a box-like device with a keyboard." 

"It didn't mean anything to us," said Gene Tankersley.

"He [Jobs] said, 'Everyone is going to want one of these things,'" added Joan Tankersley.  "I said, 'Steve, what would I do with it?'  He said, 'You can put your recipes on it.'  I said, 'I like to put them on cards with rubber bands.'"
("Filming of jOBS' movie begins in Jobs family home," N&O, 17 June 2012).

I sometimes address the digital divide with my students the first day of class.  Especially the expectations of late teens and twentysomethings and their mid-fortysomething instructor regarding the use, response, and thrill of technology.

I crossed the digital divide in 1987.  I was a student at UNC-Chapel Hill and one of our history professors assigned us to the computer lab to access a "historical game model" he and a colleague had developed.  Basically you read historical scenarios and then (the magic....) you CLICKED on various computer keys to signal a yes or no response, to move you forward to another historical scenario (Excitement = PONG).  I later participated in a brief study in the pyschology department on how to use a mouse - it was like riding a bike for the first time.  Gradually, I found myself reserving time in the computer lab to type papers for class.  The most jarring moment came in 1990 when a friend studying at the University of Michigan discussed how she had communicated to another friend in Los Angeles by computer.  She said, "A box appeared, you typed a message, then hit 'send.'  Within minutes, you received a 'message' back from the friend that you could open and read on your computer."  I remember saying, "What?  That Fast? Unbelievable!"

I know, it sounds really pathetic. But that's when and how it began for me. 

I must admit that even though I've grown up with this digital divide, and could have plunged headlong into the technological buffet before me, I remained a bit of a technophobe.  A technocontrarian really.  I believe that technology offers unlimited benefits (and I want people to exploit those, I myself employ them frequently at work), but at the same time I know something has been lost.  In 1999, when visiting Oxford, Mississippi, I walked around campus and noticed that students within touching distance of one another did not talk to those around them, but instead chatted on their phones.  This is, of course, now commonplace everywhere, except even if you are in a real, live, one-on-one conversation with someone, the cellphone call may still take priority.  I have consciously tried to fight back.

For example, when I am visiting with someone, either in conversation, dinner, or a car-ride, I purposefully do not check my phone if it rings (even if I have the phone handy).  I'm of the position that if it is important, they will call back later, or leave a message that I can check and respond to later.  Or, if it is really urgent, they will contact the Highway Patrol who will pull me over on the road, or knock on my front door.  The people who really need to get in touch with me have my number, or know someone or some way to get it.

Didn't anyone else grow up when dinnertime was sacred?  You sat at the table talking and if the phone (the one right there on the wall in the kitchen) rang, you wouldn't answer it, but instead reasoned if it was really important they would call back later.  Or, for goodness sake, if they were calling between 5:30-7:30, didn't they know you were eating dinner (a forgivable offense if they were new in town and hadn't learned your family's eating schedule)?

I think I'm resisting the demand of immediacy.  Increasingly, we live in a world that demands our attention, and luckily, I'm still living with the luxury of not having to give a quick response.  Must everyone and everything be answered NOW?  The answer is simply no.  I have found that questions hastily asked, if left unanswered, will often resolve themselves within reasonable time.  On the flip side, I will admit I have missed dinner, concert, and movie invitations because I didn't have the phone handy, or didn't get to the call/text immediately.  Can I continue my pace forever...doubtful...but let me enjoy my moment.

Perhaps it's just me and it is in my genes?  My older brother and I are both phone phobic.  Growing up, the phone used to start ringing in the kitchen and my brother would direct me to answer it.  I'd say, "I'm not getting it, you get it."  He'd retort, "I'm not getting it, it's your turn."  We'd both ping-pong responsibility and continue to watch TV as the phone rang for the thirteenth or fourteenth time.  You could get away with this in the 70s and 80s because the neighbors calling just assumed you were not home, or outside playing.  However, if you ignored the fourteenth ring, and mentally returned to TV only to be interrupted by another immediate series of rings, you could rest assured it was a parent - usually my Mom, requesting that we take the casserole out of the oven in order not to ruin dinner, and question what in the world we were doing not to get to the phone sooner.

Here's a list of technological things I don't do:  Facebook, Twitter, Skype.  I do use email.  I purchased my first cell phone in 2006.  I still don't have a Smartphone, an iPad, Kindle, Nook, a flatscreen TV, HDTV, DVR, or even a dishwasher! If I see you in person I WILL want to talk to you.  If I read a book, it's the old fashioned way.  I do wash dishes, by hand.  Amazing how life continues even when you are not plugged in.

I'm slowly moving into our new century, but please let me come in at a pace that maintains a balance of simplicity, need, connection, and sanity.  Feel free to stop by the back porch to say hello.  We can talk for a while and enjoy the view together.

Please let me suggest The Social Network, an excellent film that highlights the potential loneliness of connectedness.

Good Neighbors and Burned Marshmallows

One of my New Year resolutions is to entertain more, be a bit more spontaneous, and try a few things out of my comfort zone.  Today I risked #1 and #2.  Result:  At least the house is still standing.

After a morning of errands and an afternoon of UNC basketball and a haircut, the skies cleared into a beautiful winter afternoon (temperatures in the low 70s).  I quickly texted a couple of friends to join me on the back porch for some refreshments as we watched sunset.  I threw out some peanuts, almonds and some really tasty watermelon.  Still in my 1970s nostalgia haze (see previous post), I decided to offer up a simple treat we made when I was a kid....it's kind of smorelike, but a poorer man's version...toasted marshmallows on Ritz Crackers.  (This is actually really yummy, you get the sweet and salty in  one bite.  Place a few Ritz Crackers on a baking sheet, then just plop a marshmallow on each one.  Place in a heated oven until the marshmallows melt inside.) 

Important reminder:  Don't forget to check on the oven.  I so enjoyed my company and the nice winter afternoon, that a treat that should cook for 2 minutes was in the oven for about 15 or 20.  One guest looked into the kitchen and asked, "why is smoke pouring out of your oven"? 

P-R-E-S-S  P-A-N-I-C  B-U-T-T-O-N

Needless to say, sunset viewing turned into gasping, and doors and windows being flung open to let in some fresh air...by the way burned marshmallows are not such an inviting aroma.  End result, everything is fine.  I came away with some awesome photographs of epic fail party food.

 

 

 

Getting My Groove Back

Well, I really didn't have much groove to begin with, but I am a child of the 70s.  Literally, a child.  I was aged 3-13 during this trainwreck of a fascinating decade.  After recently watching Argo memories flooded back.  While I had NO recall of the American Embassy workers who were helped out of Teheran by the Canadians and our government - the main plot of the movie, I do remember the planned rescue of the embassy hostages that ended in failure.

I woke up that morning in my twin bed with the green spread, in the blue-paneled room I shared with my brother. The bedside radio droned the news in somber tones. The sunbeams that flooded through the windows with promises of a warm afternoon and a bike ride after school, became lasers that zapped any enthusiasm.  For me, it was like those who experienced the Kennedy assassination, or later, 9-11, an unforgettable moment.  No doubt I ate my vanilla frosted, vanilla cremed, chocolate PopTarts (which I sometimes broke apart into the formations of various U. S. states as I ate them) and scuttled along to school, but the feeling of disappointment was palpable.

Several years ago, I attended church on the island for a while.  One Sunday I entered the small congregation and sat next to an older man.  As we exchanged pleasantries and I shared my work experience we found a few common acquaintances.  I had never met this gentleman before, and I didn't know if he attended regularly, but he amusing stated that he was there "to give moral support for his wife, who sang in the choir."  When I mentioned to one of my work acquaintances that I had met ____ at church the Sunday before, my coworker said, "well, he'd never tell you, but he's a real hero.  He was on one of the helicopters in the mission that went awry to rescue the hostages from Iran." 

I encourage you to see the movie, though some editing of events has taken place to increase the thrill, the story is still quite incredible, affirming the old adage, "truth is stranger than fiction."

 

 

The viewing of the movie also coincided with my desire to move a bit more into the modern age with the purchase of an iPod Shuffle (yes, the mini, affordable version).  After seeing Argo, I started loading a few 70s songs, you know the ones (those old enough reading), those that make you get on the treadmill and run harder or dance faster.  I've uploaded Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive, and Barry Manilow's Could It Be Magic.  For those more daring check out Donna Summers's cover of Could it Be Magic, as well as K. D. Lang's I Will Survive (though Lang's version is not available on iTunes - see YouTube).  Also see Big Star's Thirteen above.  Big Star, music lovers find all sorts of connections when researching them.  Other 70s hits will surely follow, they are too reinvigorating not to revisit. 

A New Semester Dawns

One of the great joys of teaching at the collegiate level is that you get to start fresh every four or five months.  A completely new slate wiped clean of the old students, duties, papers, and errors.  The new year brings optimisim, hope, and a recasting of priorities for the classroom.  The new year is also a time to restate the benefits of studying history, and more specifically a broader liberal arts curriculum.

Over the past decade one of favorite defenses of the liberal arts, an area currently under attack by those who seek more professionalized and job-tailored education, comes from Mark Edmundson, a Professor of English at the University of Virginia.  His 2004 book, Why Read?, explores the importance of literature for and through our lives.  Throughout the book, there are golden nuggets of wisdom.  Let me share a few.

"A true liberal arts education requires that the student's whole life be radically changed by it, that what he learns may affect his action, his tastes, his choices, that no previous attachment be immune to examination and hence re-evaluation.  Liberal education puts everything at risk and requires students who are able to risk everything." (p. 6)

How many students, and teachers, today really risk "everything" in their education....all preconceived ideas, or previously learned behaviors to jump off into the realm of where knowledge may take you?  As I am learning more each year, any growth requires discomfort and risk.  You may fail...miserably fail, but the flip side is that you may experience surprising success.  Advice:  Take the risk.

"A liberal arts education uses books to rejuvenate, reaffirm, revise, overwhelm, replace, in some cases (alas) even help begin to generate the web of words that we're defined by...A new language, whether we learn it from a historian, a poet, a painter, or a composer of music, is potentially a new way to live." (p. 31-32)

I love the preceding quote because it reminds me that through study, I sometimes learn that what I am feeling, or thinking, or experiencing, has been dealt with before by others.  It has a name, a context, a history.  This brings great comfort.  The liberal arts also show us potentially better ways to live life.  If you've watched Jersey Shore, Buckwild, or any of the Real Housewives series, you know we could all benefit from someone gently suggesting better life choices.  But, how do I know what I want if I have never seen or heard of it before?  Education helps to show you.  Author John Mason Brown notes, "The more one has seen of the good, the more one asks for the better."

Thirdly, a quote from Edmundson on what some may perceive as growing student and general public apathy toward challenging, difficult reading. 

"Describing his initiation into modern literature, into Kafka, Joyce, Proust, and their contemporaries, Lionel Trilling writes:  'Some of these books at first rejected me; I bored them.  But as I grew older and they knew me better, they came to have more sympathy with me and to understand my hidden meanings.  Their nature is such that our relationship has been very intimate.' 'I bored them,' says Trilling.  Given the form of literary education now broadly available, it is almost impossible that a student would say of a group of books, 'I bored them.'" (p. 47)

This line provides a great comeback for any instructor.  When the students start to complain that the reading is boring, read them this quote, and just tell the student that perhaps it's them that is boring.  Enough said, you'll get dead silence.

Finally, a recent editorial in the Raleigh News & Observer by Western Carolina University professor Bruce Henderson, sums things up nicely.  "There is nothing magical about a liberal arts education," Henderson writes, "it works when students are required to read a lot, write a lot and think a lot."  End of story.