Franklin, Part Deux

In the second installment of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, he delves much more deeply into the notion of piousness and moral perfection than he ever did in part one. Most of the pursuits in the first installment were business like in nature, but Franklin makes the transition from business to personal rather quickly in the second part. For me, this is an interesting transition, because it implies where Franklin's true passion lies. By this, I mean that it seems that his notions of perfection in business translate into his notions of perfection in life. Therefore, maybe Franklin equates doing well in his business to doing well in life. I cannot help but wondering if this notion of the American dream has both faults and virtues. The faults might be that someone who wished to do well was not able to school him or herself the way Franklin did, and therefore they might never make it. Overall, I think that Franklin's pursuit of perfection can be a tough road to follow, with many a disappointing turn. Franklin himself talks about how difficult a time he had adhering to the virtue of "order" and how discouraging it was to him.
Having said this, I would like to turn my attention to the ideas of religion that Franklin presents in the text. It seems to me that his concepts of religion are somewhat fluid and forgiving, which is a rarity considering the devout nature of Christianity during his time. However, it seems like Franklin is more of a dedicated Christian that what he lets on. From my experiences with the Christian faiths, there is a lot of time and energy focused upon the pursuits of bettering oneself, both spiritually and internally. There is also a resounding emphasis on redemption and imperfection. These tenets remind me so much of Franklin's insistence on keeping a book with his daily errors, and the fact that he strives every week to perfect his shortcomings. The notion of redemption in Christianity is based upon the idea that everyone on Earth is innately flawed to be a sinner, but one can ask God's forgiveness to rectify these imperfections. It seems that while Franklin has made his own sort of religion, his basic principles are mimicking (sometimes exactly) the aspects of Christianity that make that religion so unique. Therefore, I find it a little conflicting that he chooses to assert his independence from the church when he is really conforming to the principles of that institution. Maybe he feels like he is his own God at times, which (if it is at all possible) might be even more vain than writing this autobiography in the manner that he does.

Jefferson's Queries

I know that I've already done a post for this week's readings, but I could not resist bringing up a topic within the Jefferson piece that baffled the hell out of me. So Jefferson, in the beginning of Query 6, talks about how the Native Americans who were in America at the time were terribly misrepresented. He takes the side of the Indians by trying to explain that, they are not a backward and primitive culture as most Americans undoubtedly thought at this point in time. His main argument is that their natural surroundings, or "barbarism" has leant itself to develop traits within the Indians that differ greatly from those traits that one might find in a European. For instance, their need to scavanger food has led to the empowerment or dependency upon their women. Because of this dependency, women are forced to gather food as well as tend to many other tasks for the sake of their survival. This he explains, is why the Indian women tend not to produce as many children as Europeans do. Jefferson goes on about how nature has shaped their culture in many different ways, and that just because they are different does not mean they are inferior. Similarly, they cannot help that they are different because their dissimilarities are a product of an instinctual response. Jefferson even goes so far as to say that if Americans were reduced to live in the environment that Indians live in, that we could do no better than they have done for themselves. I have no problem with this argument until Jefferson later totally contradicts himself. And by contradicting himself, I mean he switches from being a protector of the Indian name to a defier of their very essence. Specifically, the bit where he talks about digging in their burial grounds to see how they positioned their dead. Plus his assertment that most of the land taken from Indians was not by force, but by contract. These two occurances, when propositioned with his argument that they are not a savage culture seems to me to only prove that the Europeans/Americans are the ones who are savages. I mean, who doesn't recognize that digging in a probably sacred burial ground and denying the obvious way in which Indians gave up their lands (by our force and threats) is a savage act?

Post for week of 1/22-1/26

For this post, I would like to explore the obvious discrepancies between William Byrd's original history of the dividing line and his secret history, which will hopefully illuminate what I feel to be an overwhelming lack of coherence that runs throughout the work. In the beginning of the narrative of Byrd's travels, a history of the Virginia and North Carolina colonies provides the reader with an overall sense of purpose for the work. Accordingly, Byrd's first secret history is of those who will be joining him on the trip to distinguish the border, which makes sense because to understand the progression of the adventure, one should understand whom exactly is making that adventure. Therefore, these two histories alongside one another are largely effective because they play off one another in a way that helps the reader to understand the situation more easily.
However, the next "set" of histories are slightly less coherent when paired with one another. Byrd starts his second real history by discussing where the line for the border should begin, but then he moves into an account of a Marooner he passes which he feels to be the perfect example of a heathen. This didactic account may not seem out of the ordinary, but when paired with the next excerpt of secret history, I feel Byrd's narrative loses all sense of purpose whatsoever. Having said this, his next secret history is about two girls who came to see them and who prompted quite a bit of fantasy on the part of the men it seems, but who remained virtuous only because an old woman guarded them. As if this strange tangent weren't enough to confuse me as to the purpose of the text, then Byrd goes into a strange (yet somewhat entertaining) account of the North Carolinian's continuous diet of hog, which prompts his rather horrifying descriptions of diseases caused by eating too much pork.
Then Byrd goes into another secret history detailing how two more women attempt to wile the men with their "hidden charms." This type of fluctuation between events that actually have something to do with Byrd's mission (to find the best border for the states of Virginia and N.C.) and events that have nothing to do with that mission (entertaining women, bears being the source of female reproductive powers,etc.) is what I find to be the most troublesome about this text. Though it may be good for entertainment value, there are parts of the regular histories and the secret histories that just threw me for a loop. To atone for this lack of coherence I would suggest that Byrd perhaps write a third history, which would include all of the actual events that pertained to finding a border between the states. Then perhaps the reader would not be deceived into thinking they were going to read a history of borders when they are really reading a history of loose women and lazy men. I understand that this sort of writing is effective in engaging the reader, but how far must one go (and how many inane stories must one tell) in order to do so?

Blog for Week of 1/12-1/19

For my first blog assignment, I am choosing to explore the historical and philosophical implications of the ideas expressed in Cotton Mather's The Christian Philosopher. First of all, it is evident that Mather is publishing this text at a time when Christianity was a prominent religion among those who were well educated and generally upper-class. This is made clear in his introduction, where he states that men will "rise into that Superiour Way of Thinking and of Living, which the Wisest of Men will chuse to take." (line 22, page one of Intro) This publication, with its constant reference to Latin, and its scientific basis is clearly meant to be read by a small portion of the very-learned population.

Having said this, it is likely that Mather's text would have been well-received by that population. I say this because Mather continually refers to complex scientific theory in his assertion that God rules Nature, even going so far as to reiterate the theories put forth by Isaac Newton, Dr. Cheyne, and other prominent scientific minds. For instance, in Essay XXI, he chooses to explain that the presence of gravity is a clear sign that God "keeps all Bodies in their proper Places and Stations, which without it would soon fall to pieces, and be utterly destroy'd." (Page 91, lines 102-105) This assertion may not seem valid today, but in the context of Mather's time it seems likely that the perplexity surrounding the scientific theory of gravity could easily lend gravity to become connected to God.

The overall historical implications of Mather's text seem to be consistent in furthering a certain set of ideas. Specifically, the idea that God is in ultimate control of the universe. Another implication of Mather's work is that his evidence most likely substantiated the Christian idea of God as the creator of all things in Nature. This is significant because Mather harmonizes the two conflicting ideals of religion and science, which most likely resulted in conversions of some people who felt the two realms to be irreconcilable. However, Mather's publication could have had the effect of alienating those who split the realms in two and those who felt that his scientific evidence was not strong enough to support his claims.

About Me

Hello everyone. My name is Marlin Earp and this post is meant to tell you a little bit about myself. First of all, I am a Junior here at Carolina. I am majoring in History (concentrating on American history) and I am thinking of double majoring in History and either Political Science or Women's Studies. I want to go to law school when I graduate, and I have recently been preparing to take the LSAT. I live at the Verge Apartments in Durham, but my family is in Angier, NC. Angier is a very small town about 20-25 miles south of Raleigh, so thankfully I am not far from home. I enjoy reading essayist works by David Sedaris and Augusten Burroughs, deep-sea fishing (yes, I was named after the billfish by my sportfishing father), and getting lots and lots of sleep. I look forward to this literature class because one day I wish to write a novel (I haven't decided yet whether it will be fiction or non-fiction), and understanding how previous authors have conveyed their ideas into print is of much interest to me.