Blog 9: Service Learning

1.      I participated in the Cystic Fibrosis Fundraiser and Climb.  My role was to help with the tabling and make the flyers.  I also went to the climb.

2.      Pros: getting to feel like you’re a part of something bigger, thinking about someone else for a change, getting out of the classroom, building “team spirit”, learning more about cooperation, strengthening our planning skills, having fun!

Cons: it did use up some class time we could have spent on something else.

3.      I learned that it’s really important to be clear when explaining an issue.  When we were tabling, some people were really confused when we tried to tell them what we were doing.  How we explained cystic fibrosis often made a difference in how people reacted (i.e. if they gave us money…).  I also learned that bureaucracy is hard to penetrate.  When we tried to get food to sell to earn the money, there were lots of nit-picky things that the different businesses came up with as reasons to tell us no. Sometimes people genuinely wanted to help but couldn’t because of various bureaucratic provisions.  I also learned that even though what we did felt small, it multiplied into something big because of the great advertising and PR for the entire event.  Seeing how difficult earning our money was gave me a greater appreciation for what the organizers of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation do.  I can’t imagine how much work it would be to put on the whole event.

4.      I learned that NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) have very talented people working for them.  They are able to get corporations to sponsor them and donate lots of money by clever advertising and public relations in general.  I also learned that a fair amount of money gets spent on things not directly related to the cause—for example, salaries, and things to make the events flashier like food and t-shirts.  There would be more money for cystic fibrosis research if the companies that donated food and stuff donated money instead.  But I also understand the need for events to be fun and interesting so more people will participate.  I guess what I learned, then, is that you have to spend money to make money.  I also learned the importance of hiring people who know what they are doing.  Professionalism is something that helps the NGOs run smoothly and efficiently.  I never was very sure before if NGOs needed to have professionals on their payroll, but I now believe it to be necessary.  I think that the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation seems to operate pretty well—their events seem to go well anyways, and they provide good information on their website.  I can’t speak for all NGOs; I’m sure some operate better than others.

5.      I doubt there is anyone in the public who would say they don’t care about poverty, hunger, sickness, raising awareness, or fair housing.  But what they are willing to do about it is the big thing.  It’s so easy to get wrapped up in your life and not think about greater social issues.  I think it’s really important for groups like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Habitat for Humanity to host events and advertise, because it gets us to stop what we’re doing and think about social problems for a minute.  I felt that the various volunteers we met during the event were pretty generous—they were willing to give of their time to do something really repetitive like handing out name-badges for hours at a time, or get up early on a Saturday to sing, or walk up and down the stairs to find people that needed help.  There were more people involved, generously giving of their time, than I expected.

6.      I learned that when I do little things, it may not feel like much, but it adds to all the other people doing little things to make a big difference.  I realized that even though it often takes a lot of people working together to make something big happen, my efforts are a valuable part of that.  I think that groups have several advantages in projects of this type: more people are exposed to the ideas and issues involved, having people around as you work boosts morale, and you get more accomplished.  The main drawback of working together is that it takes longer to come to a consensus on methods.  Lots of discussion happens, and it takes a while for differing opinions to merge into a workable plan.  The slow start is made up by increased returns and greater motivation, though.

7.       The overall value of a collective volunteer action such as the Cystic Fibrosis Fundraiser and Climb or Habitat for Humanity is high.  Even if we can’t address every issue or affect every person in need, it’s important for us to do what we can, and remember that we make a world of difference to the individuals we do help.  Also, collective volunteer actions help the volunteers as much as those they are trying to serve.  I think engaging in volunteer work makes for better people.

8.      I think that world issues have to be addressed at the local level.  That is where ordinary citizens have the most power to act, so it is where the greatest amount of people can be involved.  Policy-makers certainly have a role, but I think that the average citizen doing average things is where people’s minds and hearts are changed, and that is where real change starts.  All these issues like poverty, hunger, sickness, lack of housing—governments can help, but not without some changes in society at large.  That is where getting involved at the local level—making it personal—makes a difference.  Our attitudes will have to change before governmental programs will be very effective.  We need to help the people around us, get our hands dirty, be our brother’s keeper—all of that.  The local level is where we can form habits of service, and lots of individual habits can change a society. 

Blog 8: Revolutionary Culture

Part I: A Tory, also called a loyalist, was someone who was loyal to the British government before and during the Revolutionary War. The loyalists (particularly the clergy of the Anglican Church, like Inglis) were threatened and treated with violence and cast into jail on spurious charges, and when they would try to flee, they would be arrested, brought back, and “tried for the Lives.” After the Declaration of Independence, the clergy were face with a dilemma: to omit prayers for the King would go against their Oath, but prayers for the King would have “drawn inevitable Destruction.” To “avoid both evils,” they had to simply close their churches. Inglis believed that the “Abolition of the Church of England” was one of the principal goals of the “Dissenting Leaders.” I’ve never heard that before, but it makes sense. We’re told that 20% of the free population sided with Britain. The only thing about that that surprises me is that there weren’t more who sided with Britain. The Whig cause was audacious, and incredibly risky. It was much more likely that rebellion would make things worse rather than better. I honestly don’t know whether I would have been a Whig or a Tory. On the one hand, I have always believed the United States to be a very special place, and have reverenced the Patriots and Founders and all that. On the other hand, I am not a rebellious person, and I hate confrontations and fights. I believe in working within the law to effect change, and in being loyal to your government. My church has something called the Articles of Faith, which I have grown up memorizing and reciting. One of them is, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” So even though I am very glad that the Revolution happened and that some people were Whigs, I probably would have been a Tory because supporting the government would have seemed like the most conscionable thing to do. That is a bit cowardly, but there you are.

Part II: Mercy Otis Warren feels that “politicks” commands “the attention of the mother and the wife” because the recent occurrences were, in her words, “so alarming.” She also felt the subject was “interwoven with the enjoyments of social and domestic life” and noted that women may “be called to weep over… [their] beloved sons,” slain by the British. Mercy does not apologize for “touching on a subject a little out of the line of female attention” because she and her friend are “happily united” to men who think them “capable of taking part in whatever affects themselves.” I think it’s interesting that the personality of her husband is the reason Mercy would or wouldn’t apologize for involvement in politics. In her letter to Mercy, Hannah Fayerweather Winthrop describes the citizens’ terrified flight from Cambridge following news of the fighting at Lexington—she called it the “Bloody Massacre at Lexington” and recounts the scenes with horror. She regrets that she cannot visit her friend, because “the Length of the journey & the uncertainty of the times forbid it.” It appears that she is afraid to travel because of the fighting of the Revolution. These letters show that women at the time of the Revolution felt free to discuss politics, to read and write, and even express opinions, but only if their husbands were okay with it. Women stayed out of the fighting, and felt the need to justify their involvement in politics at all. It seems that women played an important rhetorical role in politics but were limited by culturally necessary deference to men.

Part III: In his letter to John Sullivan, John Adams defends property ownership as the prerequisite to the right to vote. He believes that men who have no property have very little “Judgment of their own,” but instead are directed by someone who owns property in how to vote, thus leading to corruption because men of property essentially get more than one vote (theirs and all the property-less people they influence). He also says (quite ironically to the modern ear) that any argument one could use for granting men without property the right to vote would naturally extend to woman and children, who are equally dependent on others (and I think he is holding that situation up as ludicrous). John Adams’ ideas are not practical for today for so many reasons. First of all, the number of people who rent rather than owning property is huge—that would be a lot of people without votes. Secondly, many of the issues facing voters today affect those who don’t (and particularly those who can’t) own property differently that those who do. Because of all the social programs that government is involved in (not present in Adams’ time), the poor (who typically do not own property) must have a voice. Thirdly, we obviously do value women’s votes today, so that part of Adam’s argument isn’t applicable. All of this is the ideal situation for votes. The truth of the matter is that those who own property, specifically wealthy property owners, are grossly overrepresented in government, as well as in proportion of voter turnout. So even though those without property can vote, many of them aren’t, so perhaps Adams’ ideas are being perpetuated even though we say we don’t agree with them. In the last two paragraphs, Adams basically expresses a fear of equality. He worries that extending votes to greater numbers of people would “confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell.” Basically, he wanted liberty, but not for everyone, and certainly not in equal amounts. He wanted the status quo to be perpetuated, with the same people in power in the Americas, just without the distant connection to England. Even though Adams’ fear is certainly hypocritical, it is understandable. With the ideas of social position so ingrained in us as we grow up, it is natural to fear the upset of “social order”. It amounts to the fear of the unknown. These early patriots seemed to be saying, “We want change, but let’s not get too crazy.” Clearly, equality was a little “too crazy” for them, and with how long it is taking us to achieve small measures of equality today, we just might think it’s “too crazy,” too.

Blog 7: Common Sense, Freedom, and Slavery

Paine: In the introduction to Common Sense in our textbook, Paine is praised for using “simple language” and “biblical references”. While his language may not seem simple to the modern ear, I think that he does show simplicity in boldly laying out a plan rather than just spouting patriotic rhetoric. This kind of “get down to business” attitude can be appreciated by the “simple folk” as well as philosophers because it is concrete, something you can really wrap your mind around, and something that can be debated easily. The only example I found of a biblical reference was in Paine’s reference to the King as “the Pharaoh of England”. Here he is subtly comparing the Americans to the Israelites in the Bible when they were enslaved in Egypt. This is a very effective comparison because God was on the side of the Israelites and supported them in miraculous ways. It was the Israelite’s destiny to come out from under Pharaoh’s dominance, and here I think Paine hopes to convey that same idea of destiny and Divine favor towards the cause of American independence. Paine feels that the “King of America” should be the law. I find this a very astute statement. I think that Paine’s ideas are common sense. His point that no other solution besides independence could bring lasting happiness is, in my opinion, a true one. The Crown and the Colonies had gotten to the point where their goals did not line up any more, and no agreement could be reached without one majorly conceding to the other, which neither party would have been pleased with. I do agree with his ideas, especially his statement that “Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.” I think that is the best form of government, with lots of people giving input, with a few wise and able people consolidating the ideas into the best solution for everyone.

The Declaration of Independence: The introduction of the Declaration of Independence section states, “The famous words of the preamble, included below along with the concluding paragraph, remain far better known than the list of accusations aimed at the King that Jefferson also added”. In the section included in the book, the King is accused of “injuries and usurpations,” and of establishing “an absolute tyranny over these States.” Jefferson goes on to elaborate on these in the parts of the Declaration not included in the textbook. Most interesting to note is what was not included: Jefferson’s denunciation of slavery that was in the original draft, accusing the King of first enslaving Africans and then leading them in insurrections to wreak havoc in the Colonies. This part was left out of the final document due to complaints from many of the (mostly Southern) delegates. The declaration in the preamble that “all men are created equal” did not alter the status of women and slaves, nor was it meant to. I don’t think the men who crafted the Declaration considered women and slaves to be included in “all men,” or even worthy of mention. The introduction to this section says, “The idea… meant that free citizens were politically equal” (emphasis added). This was actually a pretty radical notion at the time, but these men would have considered the equality of the sexes and races as beyond radical into utter madness.

Wheatley: In this section, Phillis Wheatley is writing to Samson Occum in response to his letter to her in which he criticized “Christian ministers who spoke of liberty while owning slaves” (textbook, pg 195). Wheatley writes that “in every human breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom; it is impatient of Oppression, and pants for Deliverance.” She addresses the “strange absurdity” of the conduct of those Americans who promote slavery, crying for Liberty while exercising “oppressive Power over others.” Yet Wheatley shows passive acceptance of slavery in the poems included in The Great Awakening. She says that it was mercy that brought her from Africa to America, because there she learned about God and Christ. She seems to express that African slaves can be the spiritual equals of white men with lines like, “You shall be sons, and kings, and priests to God,” and “Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,/May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.” I guess this does defy the bondage of slavery a little, but in these poems she doesn’t actually talk about any liberty other than spiritual. Kidd writes, “Thomas Jefferson, for one, dismissed her poetry with a sneer.” Jefferson called her poetry “below the dignity of criticism.” Kidd says that Jefferson needed Wheatley’s poetry to be so, because “it might jeopardize his assumptions about African Americans’ intellectual inferiority to European Americans.” I agree with that statement. Jefferson seems to be a very confused individual when it comes to slavery. One the one hand, he owned slaves, and believed them intellectually inferior, sneering at Wheatley’s poetry. On the other hand, he felt the need to denounce slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.