Respond to the following prompt: This is always a tricky discussion, but Jacoby presents some sharp arguments about the debate between evolution and creationism. For this blog, create your own discussion about this debate. Where do you stand and why? What critical criteria have you used to consider this issue (if at all -- maybe it's the first time you've thought about it)? Where does this issue stand among the issues of the day?

Here we go with creationism and evolution. Although Jacoby does argue her point very well, I am still unsure about how I feel about the situation. All in all, I am confused! Evolution seems to be the most logical explanation and arguments for evolution always seem to catch my attention. Evolution, in a Biology perspective, has to do with a change in inherited traits, or genes. This explanation is the reason for all of the life we have surrounding us from people to animals, etc... Creationism is more religious and has to deal with how things were created by a “god”. Even though evolution did seem persuasive with passing along information or genetics from person to person and so on, Creationism also has a strong argument in my eyes. Like I previously stated in my last blog, I am not too religious but some of my family members are. When I was younger I went to church and this explanation also seems logical to me. The main question that I have for both theories is this “If we are created from another being, whether it is a god like individual or from a biological perspective, who or what initially created that being?” It seems to be a constant confusing situation that I cannot seem to take a stand on yet.

pre reading blog #2

When i see the word pseudoscience i honestly don't know what to think. I know that the prefix "pseudo" means fake or unreal, but when the word science is added to the word, i get a negative definition in my head. There are so many different religions and studies in the world today that it is hard to take certain people or ideas seriously. Although i am not as religious as the rest of my family, i cannot agree with any certain situation completely. The argument between evolution and creation is another battle i cannot take a side on. Jacoby, as always, expresses her opinion and it is not always positive. I agree with some of her views, but others seem too far overdrawn for me. How are we supposed to believe something indefinitely when new theories are being proven or tested everyday?

Lincoln's Addresses

In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln explains how the country got itself into a war because of freedom. He delivered the speech at a military cemetery at one of the biggest battle sites. He explained that we were tested as a “nation” to see if we could succeed in gaining liberty. He also let it be known that by delivering the speech on the “final resting place” of people who fought for our nation to live was wrong. Our soldiers went into war so everyone could achieve liberty and our nation could become a better place, but that was not the solution in the end. The Address at Sanitary Fair also depicted the idea of war. This address had an analogy of the wolf and the sheep. It showed how the white man (the wolf) treated the sheep as an equal unless it was a black sheep, and then the rules changed. Lincoln also touched on the massacre at Fort Pillow, where three hundred black soldiers were murdered after they surrendered. This was especially upsetting because they volunteered to fight for the nation, and in the end they god killed.
The Civil war addresses the issues of freedom because the soldiers were fighting for one main goal, and that goal was liberty. The Civil War was the initial breaking point for freedom because there were also black soldiers fighting. The differences between the North and the South came down to a battle for liberty. According to Lincoln, the North wanted freedom for all men, and the ability to do what they wanted with their property which included security and the opportunity for “economic sufficiency”. In the South, he believed that they believed in mastership. These thoughts from the South concluded that they had power over other men and the products of their labor.

wk 13 ; manifest destiny

Manifest destiny was a term used to support the annexation of Texas. It was also used to justify and promote the Americans to settle on European and Indian land that was in the West and in the Great Plains. John l O’Sullivan sees a very clear connection between both manifest destiny and American freedom. He believes that the ultimate freedom for the Americans would be to take over the land to the West of them in California. One specific example of O’Sullivan’s views would be with Mexico. He believed that Mexico would be much better off governed by the Americans and become a part of the U.S. rather than stay its own country and also believed that “race” was the key to the “history of nations” (liberty 471). His ideas lead to continued conflict because some of the Southern states were still proslavery and the Americans wanted either proslavery or no slavery at all. Both the North and the South continued to conflict as the expansion of manifest destiny kept growing because it sparked the beginning of the Civil War. As the Southern states still expressed their proslavery views, the states in the West such as California did not support it. Manifest destiny was about the Americans “freedom” and both the North and South had different views of it, which eventually ended up being a battle between the two due to no compromise being made and congress trying to please both sides of the country.

Wk 12; Beecher and Grimke

In response to Beecher’s views, Grimke had a totally different view of how a person’s sex should determine his or her rights. Grimke believed that whether you were a male or female. She states “Now if naturally occurred to me, that if rights were founded in moral being, then the circumstances of sex could not give to man higher rights and responsibilities, than to woman” (freedom 219). Angela believes that everyone should have the same rights because nobody was built better than the other. Beecher’s ultimate argument was that women were considered the “subordinate” and men were considered the “superior” of the two, therefore women’s rights were in the home doing domestic deeds. She believed that women should express their rights in the home. She also believed that women should be teachers and teach the young society. It was the woman’s job to teach the children right and wrong, and the ways of life. Women’s rights were very important in this time period because of the abolitionist movement. Fighting for the rights of the slaves in America could possibly mean that one day women may have rights in the U.S. While the slaves were always being beaten and disrespected, women were treated in a less harsh, but similar matter. Although they were not beaten nor scorned in society, they were expected to follow what their husbands or other men in society said.

Fitzhugh and Proslavery

Paternalism is the idea supported by Fitzhugh that states “the master, has a right to the obedience and labor of the slave, but the slave has also his mutual rights in the master” (Liberty 299). He argues that this whole concept is necessary to for slavery because it also gives “rights” to the slave. Fitzhugh also has a very strong opinion on the “free market”. He believes that slavery is better because although African American individuals were called slaves, the slave-owners and the slaves both shared a “community of interest” (403). This community of interest that both the owners and slaves had was unheard of in a free market. He also goes on to explain how the slaves in the southern states were some of the happiest and “freest” people in the world. Writers went on to explain how freedom would not have been possible without slavery, and this statement could not be any truer. George Fitzhugh’s view of women compared to slavery was based on dependence. He compares women and slaves by saying that they are weak, dependent, and helpless. Slaves depend on their owners for guidance and protection just as a woman and children would look up to her husband or father for security and protection in the home.

Emerson and Thorea

the Market Revolution changed the lives of the average person in America by making things more convenient. The invention of cotton mills and improved farming and manufacturing made life easier for the average American. It also created more jobs for people. The telegraph and the first railroad were also invented in this time which became the main transportation and way of communicating in America. Transcendentalism is a group of people who "insisted on the primacy of individual judgement over existing social traditions and institutions" (voices, 150). Individualism was the belief that each and every man should believe that the world belonged to him and he could do what he wanted. These two ideas were both for the fact that Americans should create their own customs and get out of England's shadow. Both Emerson and Walden expressed their opinions differently. Emerson explained that man should "walk on his own feet and work with his own hands". He also believed that "a nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes in himself" (154). This idea was brilliant. One always has confidence when one believes they can accomplish something, and Emerson's idea clearly proves that man wants to be in control of himself. Thoreau expressed his ideas by saying that we did not need all of these technological improvements that were being invented, such as the telegraph to communicate with each other. Simplicity was his motto. Thoreau also believed by building the railroads that we were "not riding on the railroads; it rides upon us". He explained that we were riding on yankees, irishmen, etc. that previously died on our soil.

Tecumseh on Indians and Land

William Harrison was the territorial governor of Indiana. Tecumseh met with him in 1810, and told him he believed that a war would soon break out if the Whites did not stop imposing on the Indians’ land. Tecumseh refused to sign the Treaty of Greenville, which was a treaty between the Indians and the English which created a boundary between the Indian’s territory and the English in the exchange for certain goods worth a lot of money. Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa were brothers. Tecumseh was famous for not signing the Treaty of Greenville and Tenskwatawa was a religious prophet. Their presence and influence was important to the war of 1812 because they warned William Harrison that it would end up in war if they did not stop taking their land. Tecumseh had a good argument against the English by saying that they had different customs than the Indians. The Indians believed that the land belonged to them because they were there first and the land should not be sold to anyone unless the decision was made as a whole, this was the main difference between the two. The English were up for selling land in order to gain profit and bigger farms, while the Indians did not.

Stamp Act

The earlier conflict between the British and the American Colonies began when the British combined some of the major colonies and named them the Dominion of New England. England appointed one governor for this new colony, who was the previous governer of New York. This did not last long however, because he was eventually overthrown and put in jail. He only favored the views of the Protestants and not the Puritans. Once he was put into jail, the colonies were able to go back to the way they once were and govern themselves. There was a big change made in the American Colony lifestyle once the new rules were imposed. Instead of having each colony govern themselves they all had one set of rules, which was a brand new idea for the colonists. The stamp act was seen as unacceptable because England only wanted to put a "stamp" on every product produced in America because it was an easy way for them to make money by being across the ocean. The Virginia House of Burgess probably rejected the last three resolutions that the Stamp Act Congress had came up with because they only pertained to certain people, and those people were the British and not the people who lived in the colonies. The people from the Congress made the people from Britain seem as though they were above those of the colonies.

The Great Awakening

During the Great Awakening, there were many different social groups that expressed different religions. The different early establishments around the colonies all had different views and strict rules on religion. The most lenient of all of the communities were the Quakers in New England. Every other colony had a punishment for not attending the local church gathering. These punishments consisted of anything from a whipping, being put in a stock, jail time, or a fine. The “revivalists” were a small group of people who claimed that one could regain religious faith by good behavior. They used a scaring tactic in their sermons in order to scare people into believing that they were sentenced to hell. During the 1730’s the revivalist group began to expand. There were four men who established this movement and began traveling around the country to different colonies to express their views. These men were Theodore Frelinghuysen, William Tennent Jr., and Gilbert and John Tennent. The critics of these revivalists did not believe their ways. The Evangelicals (the critics) believed that one could be saved through the graces of god, and did not just need to behave well for a certain period of time before being saved. Although George Whitefield was criticized for publicly giving sermons from Jonathan Edwards A faithful narrative of the Suprizing Works of God, he was also praised for the fact that he would speak to people in parks, etc where the people who felt uncomfortable in church could go to listen. When the Great Awakening was over, it had a huge impact on colonial America. The different religious beliefs and movements were drastically different from colony to colony and helped the early American society become what it is today.