Chapter 9 The Revolution in Social Relationships

It is always interesting for me to reads about how women try to achieve equality. It was a little pleasing to finally read how the nation made an effort to give women equality, by the doctrine of separated spheres. Although it is not as equal to the equality to men, but it’s a start. The doctrine of separated sphere, to me was just a piece of paper that has the roles of both women and men have in their household. The women have the most power in the household, but I still don’t agree how the women still have to be subordinate to men. I neither do agree with having men be subordinate to women.In a relationship, men and women should both be respected and have the same amount of authority.

Back in chapter one in “The Enduring Vision”, they talked about the Native American assigning roles to men and women of the tribe. Due to the labeling the “duties”, men and women must carry out, I believe that it has affected the way we see the roles of men and women. In my opinion the Native Americans have influenced the doctrine of separated spheres, by giving the women the power of the children, just as the Native American women duties other than hunter gathering was as caretakers. People say these roles came from our gene, but it has to do with more than our genes, it has to do with “duties” given to men and women from centuries ago. Imagine if the Native Americans gave the duties of care taking to the men and hunting to the women, don’t you think it would influence the way we see men and women, it would give an opposite view how the roles of men and women should be. If that was the case men would be fighting for the same equality as women. From assigning these gender roles I think it influences what we consider as masculine and feminine.  The doctrine of separated spheres only influences us more into the gender scheme we have today and labeling what roles are appropriated for men and women should play in family.

chapter 8: Missouri compromise/ John Adams

It was interesting and sad to read how slavery can tear apart a nation apart and even slavery had separated the nation. I think the Missouri Compromise had a big contribution to separating the nation more than it was already. The nation was so concerned about making Missouri a slave state or not that it practically had the north and the south turning against each other. I was influenced that the Missouri Comprise was the right decision at that time, because it pleased both the north and south by making slave states and not slave states equal. I thinking the people of the north who agreed with the Missouri Comprise, in a way was supporting slavery instead of trying to end it. I wonder what the outcome would have been if the union declared Missouri as a not slave state. Would it have brought the nation closer to ending slavery or would it have started a rebellion.

Slavery is a very touchy subject since the 1800's and now. I believe the men who wrote the Declaration of independence and Constitution was more specific in who are considered “all men are equal”, such as whom does “men” apply to. If they were specific and said everyone is equal and entitled to their rights then it could have helped end slavery. The slaves would have been entitled to the same rights as the white men. It may have started a lot of controversy at the time but, everyone would have learned just to accept it as being part of the new nation. It could have saved a lot more time in stopping slavery. But then again slavery has to do with racism, and there was a lot of racism at that time specifically from the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. As much as I and so many others want to stop racism, it will always be present in this world.  

An important figure that I thought arose from after the Missouri compromise was John Adams. As reading I got the impression that Adams was a very determined, stubborn man. Due to him being so focused on making the United States be the the entire continent of North America. He was willing to do whatever or support whom ever to help expand the United States. In him expanding the United States he did so very smarty by not breaking any ties or upsetting the British or Spanish. He was a big impact on the United States.

The Declaration of Independence &the Constitution

I think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are strongly constructed articles, with precise structure of government. I is surprisingly well planned to keep this nation from any way from being under dictated by one power. There are a lot of component s that help shape the government and the president’s power. It was a little overwhelming reading it all and the process the president must go through, and the different structure of government, considering I am not very well with politics.

Although I am not good with politics and understanding the government, but I feel like us as a nation we are not sticking by the Declaration of Independence. I hope this does not start any conflicts but we are entitled to our own opinions. I think the nation is too worry about Obama having too much power, but I think the government has too much power and is taking away the authority from Obama. The government seems to becoming too powerful then the other branches. In the Declaration it stated “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government”, (Boyer, A-1). I think that right of ours is being taken away from us, as if the government has become too strong we are afraid to stand up and ask for a change. Another statement that surprised me, as it was describing a ruling of a king was “For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” (Boyer, A-2). When I read this statement it reminded me of the situation of Ferguson, Missouri. How they treat the people there as if they were at war with Iraq. I know times are different from 1770’s but I think our rights and our promises are slowly being taken away from us.    

Chapter 6 securing independence, defining nationhood

I guess I can describe myself as a feminist. I strongly believe that women should have the same opportunities and rights just as men. It is very insulting for me as a woman when they describe women as a lower statue. It was very inspiring and exciting to read how Abigail Adams wrote to her husband about establishing gender relations. It was not mentioned hardly at all in the book, but women were a large part of the Revolutionary war. I think they deserve to be recognized and acknowledge for the part they played in the war. They took upon the roles of the men while they were fighting, supported them, and cared for them too. What would the men do without the women? The women always step up to fulfill men’s roles, just like World War One, how they took over and did men’s jobs. I think over time women continue to show the men why they deserve equality over and over again.

            It is impressive to read how the women tried to have the same rights as men, by disguising themselves as men so they can fight as well. How they would follow the troops cooking, and nursing their wounds, for every man. I just don’t understand why the new nation would not give a permanent gain for the women.  During certain eras there were strong woman figures such as Joan of Arc in the period of the Middle Ages, Harriet Tubman from the civil war era, and many more. I thing Abigail Adams is one of the powerful woman figures during the Revolutionary war. She showed the intelligence that women had and stood up to the men to say we deserve gender equality. It was shocking and funny to read how she wrote a threat to her husband, John Adams, how the women are determined to start a rebellion if there is no equality. She wanted to fight for equality and she was not afraid to. I consider her on of the first American women to fight for women equality in America; she is motivation to keep fighting for equality for woman.

Thomas Paine

It is very inspiring reading some of Thomas Paine’s quotes. I can see the passion he had in making a new nation away from Britain.  It was interesting how he described how it was possible to make a new nation and comparing it to the story of Noah. How he explained they were similar situations, it was quite understandable for me to compare those two. It is a good comparison, and it is encouraging to help people know that making a new nation is possible. Some of his quotes were very encouraging, and while reading them I began to feel proud that I live in this nation and how I have this equal right, and independence, instead of being reigned by a king. To me it is a privilege and an honor to have these opportunities to have our freedom of speech and our rights, compared to many other counties.

I see Thomas Paine as one of the big figures in America, just like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others, because he gave us the push, the encouragement, and inspired us to make this change and separate from Britain. I think without his knowledge and his words it would have taken longer for us as people to separate from Britain, either because we did not think about it, or because we were simply just too scared to fight against the king at the time. Thomas Paine did sell 100,000 copies, so it is not unreasonable to think that he inspired and encouraged many people to go through with the actions. His quotes had me think and touched me, his quotes were not influencing, but he had you make your own opinion about certain situations, and make you want to act out on it.

My favorite quote of his that I read was “For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.”  (goodreads.com). I think it’s great that we have the opportunity to decide our own future, and have equal opportunity as everyone else. During that time it is true that it was no fair to man no to have the same opportunities as the rich, because we cannot decide what family to be born into. As of now and the past we just accept the family we are born into despite not being able to pick them, and we go through the difficulties and continue living. Being able to have equal opportunities unlike the past sort of makes living more encouraging knowing that we have the power to determine our lives, unlike the past lives were already planned for you since birth. I believe people today take for granted the equal opportunities we have, and do not appreciate what freedom they have compared to other countries. People now do not take advantage of the opportunities given to them. Knowing our past what was given to us we as a nation should acknowledge them more and be appreciated of them, as well as appreciating Thomas Paine for that push to become the nation we are today.

Chapter 5 Road to Revolution

I believe the British made it really hard to live in the colonies due to the many Acts they enforced. If I lived during the time of the 1760's I think I would stay in Britain to avoid all the chaos and avoid paying the high cost of taxes. Although the colonies seemed like a new adventure and a start to the new beginning, Britain made the colonies undesirable to live there. I got the impression that the British made the Sugar Act as a way for them to continue their search and seizures in homes and ships without it being illegal. As Otis believed, “The Parliament had no authority to violate the rights of the Englishmen” (Boyer, 98). I stand by what he believed because it was not right on the British part to violate the people’s homes or even ships, without evidence to lead them for the search. I feel like the British took advantage of their power over the colonist. It surprises me how badly they treat the colonist and not expect them to revolt. To me I thought the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act were taking away the colonist rights. In lecture as a class we talked about the push, the pull, and the means to going and living in the Americas. Over time I think the push, the pull, and means greatly changed when the Acts were put into place, I wouldn't be surprise it there was a push to move back to Britain. The pull could of being going back to the comfort of home, not paying a large amount of taxes, and not having your rights violated. The push I believe would definitely get away from Acts. The means would be just sailing back to Britain but that was probably more easily said than done. I assumed that the British did not treat people on the “homeland” the same as the colonist. I did not quite understand why the British only taxed the colonist instead of taxing the people back on the homeland as well. When I think about the situation of how Britain was in debt, I think they handled it not in the proper manner with the colonist. If I was a colonist I would definitely move back to the homeland I would not want to live in such chaos and have my rights be violated. With all the Acts Britain is putting into action with the colonist, it is their own fault in losing control over their colonies. It was impressive to read how the colonist took action to revolt against the British. Despite Britain’s power over the  colonist, the colonist were not afraid to fight back such as creating groups and secrete meeting to plot how to overcome the Acts. It was inspiring to read how the colonist did not take action by using their weapons but they used their word and knowledge as a way to revolt against the British.

Chapter 4 The Bonds of Empire

It is still really shocking to read how the British treated the Catholics. Maybe it is more shocking to me because I am Catholic, and possibly take it to heart and find it as an insult. As referring back to the previous chapter, (chapter 3), how they made Maryland a refuge for the Catholics, and now in this chapter they continue to explain the difficulties the Catholics must face. It's shocking how after making Maryland a refuge for the Catholics, now the British would not accept the Catholics to live in there colonies. It seems like the British have a strong hatred for the Catholics, because they welcome any non- British people and offer them farmland, but they exclude the Catholics. They take away their promise to them about making Maryland a place for them, it is like the Catholics do not have any place for them, and the British are making it really hard for the Catholic to live in North America.

Reading Benjamin Franklin’s statements about how the English are making these immigrants come to North American to make the new English colony, makes me wonder why the English would bring over more non-English people rather than their own people. In reality it seems like they are making a colony of non-English people. I understand it is to make money by making them servants or slaves, but I assume that when there is more non- English then English people, that the colony would lose its English values, beliefs, and even control. It makes me wonder, if a certain area of North America is populated for example by, Dutch immigrants (who they allowed to come), then wouldn't that area be controlled by the Netherlands since they are Netherlands citizens and belong to Netherlands? Wouldn't they have more control of their own citizens rather than citizens from other countries? I can understand the possible anger Benjamin Franklin had when making his statement. I completely agree with what he had said, and believe that the English were making a big mistake by making other immigrants go live in North America.

It was impressive to read how James Oglethorpe banned slavery from Georgia and his reason why. I think it was very brave to take that kind of action at the time, because it was like going against the king’s orders. Although the ban of slavery did not last long, he should still be recognized for the attempt he made for equality, because he did something that no one at the time would do or agree on. I wonder for him trying to ban slavery, if he put his life in danger because it is sort of like him supporting the slaves, and plus he insulted the whites by calling them lazy. I believe Oglethorpe made a noble decision and action by trying to ban slavery. 

chapter 3 THE EMERGENCE OF COLONIAL SOCIETIES

At the beginning of the chapter the author opens up the reading about Native Americas but instead of calling them Native Americans like the previous chapters he begins to start calling them Indians. I do not take it as an insult, but when he refers to them as Indians, many different ideas comes to mind. For instance when he uses the word Indian I can think he is referring to people from India or using it as another name for Native Americans. If the author begins to call them Native Americans he should continuing calling them that instead of randomly going back and forth calling them Indians and Native Americans, I think he should stick to one name. When he changes randomly to calling them Indians when he once called them Native Americans, it can get confusing because I may refer the Indians as people from India instead of Native.

In the 1630 Maryland was made as a refuge for the Catholics. I think the word refuge is used ironically. The word refuge is defined as being safe and away from danger or trouble, but the Europeans Catholics were in the center of danger. Instead of being kept safe the Catholic’s, three leaders were hung. I was alarming to read how Lord Baltimore made Maryland specific for the Catholic, but the Catholic's could not practice their religion in public and had to pay the Anglican Church. What was promised to them to be a safe place and it turned out to be the opposite, which I find very ironic.

It was out of the ordinary for me to read how a country that colonized a land to be different then the country they came from. John Winthrop wanted to differ the colonies from England. This is sort of surprising because I would think they would want to spread their beliefs and values to the new colonies, to make it like where they came from. When a country takes over new land you would expect it to make everything the same, as a way to identify and know they dominate this land. To me it was like Winthrop was trying to get away from England's belief and values and start something new at the colonies. I got the interpretation that he wanted the colonies to be better than England, which the colonies should watch over England instead of England watching over the colonies, Hence Winthrop's remark "we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people upon us" (Boyer, 47). In the end I think the colonies do begin to put England behind them and build their own society that will over power England one day. I get that understanding by how Massachusetts made their own political system, legislature, and general court. As if Winthrop’s words motivated the people to part from England's ways.

Chapter 2 The Rise of the Atlantic world

When I think about Africa, I think of how less civilized, and the challenges they face with having a lack of resources, basically being poor. It was surprising to read how some parts of Africa were civilized more than certain parts are today, such as how it was dominated by trade and gold. It was interesting to read how in African religion they believe there is another world that their souls go too.

It's discouraging to read how, when Columbus discovered these lands, how he badly affected each one by bringing diseases to the people. To think about how many deaths he caused, or how these diseases could have practically killed a whole community, that unfortunately we do not know about today. Columbus is not known for the bad, the death he brought to the new lands, but instead only he is recognized for power he brought back to the Europeans. During the time Columbus has found these new lands Europe was in its time of the Renaissance. The Renaissance sparks my attention, and is very enlightening to me. It was a start of bringing knowledge to society and knowledge that we need to know today, and it had a big impact to today’s society. Since it introduced major and important subjects such as medicine, science, and philosophy, it allows us in today’s society to explore more in depth, and find new discoveries, that may benefit our lives. If I could I would go back in time and relive the Renaissance, to me it was a time of knowledge, beauty in art, and exploring the unknown, taking risks, it was an exciting time. 

I understand that many things changed from now since the 1620, but I found it a bit insulting how women we supposed to act to their husband. I believe there should not be any dominance in a relationship, both the husband and wife should have equal power. The gender schema the Europeans follows in the 1620 I think arose for the Native Americans because the Native America had set roles for genders as well. I think the set roles that were established in the past have influenced the way we see how men and women should act. I do agree how husbands should treat their wives with consideration, but I do not agree with how the wives should give all the authority to their husbands. The gender schema the Europeans establish I find very gender bias, for instances why the male role has to represent God's rule of creation. I find it as a woman and with my religion very insulting. I do understand during that time why these roles were given, and how it was acceptable at that time. I feel because of the gender schema that was determined it has affect the way men have treated woman over time. It has impacted women more and more as time has evolved by taking away their rights, and how they were discriminated. Since Europeans colonized North America, their gender schema has affected women’s future in America. It is interesting to know how male and female roles where first established and to think about how it impacted how we think now of gender schemas.