In the Heart of the Sea

Goodness! I can't believe how much I enjoyed the book, In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, by Nathaniel Philbrick. I suppose I had never thought much into the whole notion of hunting whales. The idea now is frightening to me!!! I couldn't put this book down! I even read bits of it to my friends; they were just as interested as I! There is just something about the idea of getting into a little boat and riding the waves while simultaneously poking at a sixty ton whale...It just screams: DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! How can one NOT be interested?!!

One of the most interesting aspects of the Nantucket community is that they were strong believers in their Quaker faith. Despite the Quaker's non-violent tendencies, the Nantucketers of the Essex killed whales, killed each other, AND to top if off, ATE each other!!! I will discuss this more later. The important fact to take note is that the Quakers saw nothing wrong with killing the whales, even though it was violence and may have gone "against" their beliefs. Philbrick wrote: "Nantucketers saw no contradiction between their livelihood and their religion. God Himself had granted them dominion over the fishes of the sea (9)." I think this is a big deal!!! God gave them all dominion, power, ruling over the fishes of the sea, including whales. Interesting. Here's that domination, conquering, controlling power theme that we keep stumbling upon. Philbrick continues by stating: "No matter how much the inhabitants might try to hide it, there was a savagery about this island, a bloodlust and pride that bound every mother, father, and child in a clannish commitment to the hunt (13)." Gosh, this is crazy! A bloodlust and pride that bound every mother, father, and child?!! From this excerpt it would seem that they were not a religious people at all. However, we know differently. This idea of bloodlust that bound all the people together makes me think of what I stated in a previous blog. I was mentioning conformity and how it can't be strained from our blood. I think that this bloodlust goes right along with it. Philbrick evens says, no matter how hard they try tried to hide it, they couldn't.

Another very interesting observation would be the relationships between the men and the women on the island. The men would be gone for weeks, months, YEARS, at a time! The women ran the island. I think that this is a fascinating idea. Way before their time the women of Nantucket were doing things that were probably unheard of in other parts of the country. Philbrick mentions that it was the women that ran the businesses and kept everything going while the men were away, while simultaneously raising their family and taking care of their own households. Hello, Superwoman of today...soccer mom+career woman....Good grief! Not to mention they were raising their families and running their households by themselves!!! For even years at a time!!! Who can do it all, all the time? It must have been hard but I suppose they were accustomed to the situation. And it almost seems like they wanted it to be these way! Did the women want power and control for themselves? I think maybe...We also know that women wanted to be married to men who killed whales:"There was rumored to be a secret society of young women on the island whose members pledged to marry only men who had already killed a whale (13)." Wow. Can you just imagine that today? A guy goes up to a girl and asks for a date...Boy, would he be shocked if she told him no date until he killed a whale!!! Talk about trying to impress someone!!! This brings us to another very interesting topic: masculinity.

In class we were asked what shadows of masculinity could be seen in the text. We discussed that Manhood for the men of the Essex, or probably for any of the men at that time, had to be proven over and over again. An interesting point that was made in class was that only men could been seen as masculine through the eyes of other men. We once again get this strong idea of the conquistador, especially in the conquest or conquering of a whale. Like the men in The Conquest of New Spain, the men of the Essex thought that what they were doing was right. They could be seen as heroes, not only in the eyes of their families back home on the island, but in the eyes of each other as well. I see the men of the Essex as conquistadors of the sea. They were manly. They were rugged. They were power going against multiple powers: the sea and the whales. On page 50, Philbrick talks of how the men readied themselves for the kill: "While each mate or captain had his own style, they all coaxed and cajoled their crews with words that evoked the savagery, excitement, and the almost erotic bloodlust associated with pursuing one of the largest mammals on the planet." AGAIN! The word: bloodlust! There really is something about this domination over something so much larger and powerful than man. It seems almost as if this proves a man's worthiness for his manhood. If that makes any sense. Another great example of this idea of power equating to manhood can be seen in this quote: "Chase reveled in the risk and danger of whaling. "The profession is one of great ambition," he would boast in his narrative, "and full of honorable excitement: a tame man is never known amongst them (79)."" God bless the tame man, poor guy! I'm sure he, the "tame" man, was looked down upon in the Nantucket community.

The proving of one's worth and manhood seemed to be in constant motion. We read about it throughout the book. If someone wasn't doing well at a specific job they would be booted to a different job, one with less significance and therefore, one lacking in the need of manhood, thus signifying they were not manly enough to handle the job. Ouch. Kind of harsh, if you ask me. We see this within the crew but the showing of manhood between the captain and the first mate is perhaps, the most intense situation. Philbrick wrote: "Pollard's behavior, after both the knockdown and the whale attack, indicates that he lacked the resolve to overrule his two younger and less experienced officers. In his deference to others, Pollard was conducting himself less like a captain and more like the veteran mate described by the Nantucketer William H. Macy: "[H]e had no lungs to blow his own trumpet, and sometimes distrusted his own powers, though generally found equal to any emergency after it arose..."...Shipowners hoped to combine a 'fishy', hard-driving captain with an approachable and steady mate. But in the labor-starved frenzy of Nantucket in 1819, the Essex had ended up with a captain who had the instincts and soul of a mate, and a mate who had the ambition and fire of a captain (101)." It almost seems to me as if they were saying that Pollard wasn't as manly as Chase. The captain?!! Ironically, as time played out both men switched their personalities. As he got older, Chase lost grip of his sanity because of the horrible things that happened through this experience. It seems so strange that throughout the affair he was stoic, in control, and calm, basically the picture of masculinity. Pollard, on the other hand, shows more integrity in the end. He may not have appeared as the picture of masculinity, but in his later years he does. Every year on the anniversary of the event, Pollard would fast and atone. Knowing this, I think his character shows how masculine he really was.

The men of the Essex went through some of the most unfathomable events. Not only did their boat sink, but they endured starvation and thirst, and eventually the killing and eating of each other in order to survive. When all seems lost how does one continue to go on? The men turned to their faith. I found this passage especially important: "Having already endured so much, Chase reasoned, they owed it to one another to cling as tenaciously to life as possible: "I reasoned with them, and told them that we would not die sooner by keeping our hopes." But it was more than a question of loyalty to one another. As far as Chase was concerned, God was also involved in this struggle for survival. "[T]he dreadful sacrifices and privations we [had] endured were to preserve us from death," he assured them, "and were not to be put in competition with the price which we set upon our lives." In addition to saying it would be "unmanly to repine a what neither admitted of alleviation nor cure," Chase insisted that "it was our solemn duty to recognize in our calamities an overruling divinity, by whose mercy we might be suddenly snatched from peril, and to rely upon him alone, 'Who tempers the wind to shorn lamb,'"Although they had seen little evidence of the Lord's mercy in the last two months, Chase insisted that they "bear up against all evils...and not weakly distrust the providence of the Almighty, by giving ourselves up to despair (169)." Chase demanded that the men depend on the good Lord. They were also to keep hope alive so that they would all survive. To give up would be the exact opposite of masculinity.

In class we discussed the idea of cannibalism and how if affected the men. At what point does survival go beyond beliefs? How did the men view their suffering? First of all, let me say that I cannot even begin to understand what those men went through. I'm not really sure if there is a point were survival goes beyond beliefs. I think that people who are truly rooted in their faith would hold firm and choose their faith over life. I know that when it comes to my faith and my beliefs I would have to choose them over life. I know that seems easier like...you say that now but what if you were in the situation? I think it just depends on the person. To answer the second question of how the men saw their suffering, I think that they saw it in a very Puritanical light. Like Mary Rowlandson they saw their suffering as a privilege from God to test the worthy. The experience even led some men to find God. Philbrick stated: "While searching the crevices and caves for water, they discovered the remains of the eight unidentified castaways, whose fate they feared would soon be their own. The skeletons lay side by side as if the people had decided to lie down and quietly die together. For Chappel, who had been once the wildest and least responsible of the Essex's crew, it was a sight that helped change his life. From that day forward, he would look to God. "I found religion not only useful," he later wrote, "but absolutely necessary to enable me to bear up under these severe trials (195)."" I think that this is the wonderful thing about faith: how it can enable people to go through the most horrific situations and still find peace.

I'm sure that none of the men that survived the Essex were ever quite the same again. What they went through cannot be truly understood unless one has gone through it. Hopefully none of us ever do. This book was full of the theme of power. It could be seen everywhere: the men killing the whales, the women running the island, the men on the ship showing their dominance and superior masculinity over others, and in the end the conquering of each other's lives. This bloodlust for power over whale, human, and situation has not disappeared. I think it is still here.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl

Freedom. I suppose we don't go about our every day lives thinking about such a concept. I have the freedom to choose whether I go to class or not, what I wear, who I talk to, and how I spend my free time. As an American, I have my rights and the freedom to vote. As a fortunate woman living in the year 2010, I still have these rights and the freedom to vote, without being denied them because of my sex. However, this is now. What about then? What about those people who lived as property? What about those people who were denied their total freedom? To submit to others' power over them? What would it be like to live like this? Would you not constantly be fearing for your life? Would you be brave enough to stand up and fight back or would you lie down and let everything happen, knowing that there is little that you can do? These dilemmas were faced by African Americans in the early life of America. In the book, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Linda, a young black woman, recounts her life experience; born into the chains of slavery, breaking free and escaping, and finding her true freedom at last.

Can you imagine if you were born into slavery? Would your parents protect this knowledge from you for as long as possible? Would it be right or wrong to do this? Is ignorance in this situation truly bliss? Linda begins her story talking of her parents and her grandmother and how they worked hard for the sake of their family. She says that her father worked extremely hard, in hopes that he would eventually be able to buy the freedom of his children. Can you imagine this?!! A father practically killing himself with work so that his children won't have to themselves. Maybe this is what kept him living and fighting in his own way. This is an idea that never ends, no matter the circumstance: loving parents want the best for their children. We still see this today. Linda's parents protected her from this knowledge that she was a slave with no freedom or choice of any kind. Linda noted: "When I was six years old, my mother died; and then, for the first time, I learned, by the talk around me, that I was a slave (133)." Would you have wanted your parents to keep this a secret from you for as long as possible? Would you do this for your own children? I honestly believe that those six years of happiness would be worth it. Why ruin that time by blemishing it with thoughts of things yet to come? Childhood should be sweet innocence and happiness. Unfortunately, many slave children were not as fortunate as Linda, and were well aware of what they were.

As the story proceeds Linda talks of how her uncle runs away to freedom. She describes how her Uncle Benjamin journeyed to New York and that her Uncle Phil met him there when he was ill. Phil gave Benjamin money and clothes and nursed him back to health. The saddest thing that came from this story was that her family never saw Benjamin again. When her Uncle Phil returns home to tell Linda and her grandmother that he has seen Benjamin they are overjoyed and immediately praise God. By knowing that one of her children was free, Linda's grandmother was given the motivation to continue hoping that her other children would be freed. She eventually did save enough money to buy her son Philip. Linda recalls that they were so happy and proud of what they had accomplished. They had proven to themselves and to the world that they could take care of themselves. However, in order for this to work they would all have to take care of each other. Linda ends the chapter saying:"He that is willing to be a slave, let him be a slave (157)." She clearly takes the views that you should stand up and fight against the wrongs that are being committed. "He that is willing" seems to be an unfathomable idea. Who is willing to be a slave and submit to the demands of others? Perhaps this was Linda's point: if you are willing then you go right ahead...To tie into taking care of each other, Linda was also talking about others outside her family, her state, and her race. This idea that we all need to take care of each other seems to make a very strong statement about humanity. Linda cries out after reflecting: "In view of these things, why are ye silent, ye free men and women of the north (161)?" This is such a powerful question!!! Linda pleads that all people break the silence and help those who cannot break the silence by themselves.

I found a book at the library called Slavery and the Making of America. It was written by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton. The book is full of information and pictures. While reading the book I discovered that having freedom for African Americans was an extremely dangerous thing. I found it interesting that Ohio, a northern state, wasn't as welcoming to the slaves searching for freedom as one might think. According to the book: "Ohio's state constitution of 1802 prohibited free blacks from voting, holding political office, or testifying against whites in court. After 1804, any black person wishing to reside in Ohio was required to register with the county as a prerequisite to employment (89)." Although they were considered "free" they really had not freedom when it came right down to it. They couldn't vote?!! They couldn't even testify against whites in court!!! I'm not really sure how much "freedom" they really had at this time. The book continues on page 90: "John Malvin, a freeman who migrated from Virginia to Ohio in the late 1820s, expressed his disappointment. "I found every door closed against the colored man," he reported, "except the jail and penitentiaries, the doors of which were thrown wide open to receive them." Isn't this horrible?!! Here in Ohio the colored people were still mistreated. Reading this passage reminds me of Linda's family being put in jail...

Dr. Flint, Linda's master, is the most disgusting character that I have read of in a long time. The most appalling aspect about this is that this story is true! As Linda grew into adolescence Dr. Flint began to haunt her. He wanted to rape her. This need and want for absolute control and power over another person's body goes beyond the physical realm and digs into the emotional and psychological. Dr. Flint wanted her to know that he could control all aspects of her humanity: she could consent and be "loved" as a "human" or she could refuse and be considered nothing more than a pet or a piece of furniture. Linda, however, was a strong woman. She refused and would not accept that she was anything less than what he was: a human: flesh, blood, soul. Later in the story, she runs into Dr. Flint who warns her to never go near her lover again. Linda ends the relationship, knowing that his life of freedom and her life as a slave would never work. This must of been one of the hardest things to do. Sacrifice love because of the danger that lurks nearby. Linda asks: "Reader, did you ever hate? I hope not. I never did but once; and I trust I never shall again. Somebody has called it "the atmosphere of hell;" and I believe it is so (174)." Her hate for Dr. Flint is so powerful at this time that it consumes her and replaces the love that was once in her heart. She calls it "the atmosphere of hell." I find this amazing because she has gone through all of these horrendous events and it is only at this one time that she chooses to hate. There is something to be said of Jesus' statement "Love thine enemies." I think it takes a person with an incredible amount of character to go through such things and not hate more than once.

Linda's stories of how the slaves were treated sound as if they could come from a horror film. In particular, the story of the young slave man who was placed in between the press of the cotton gin comes to mind. This poor soul was trapped there for four days and five nights and was later found half eaten by rats!!! Linda wrote: "Cruelty is contagious in uncivilized communities (182)." Wow. What can I say about this?!! Reading about all the poor whites who did not OWN any slaves, going around and abusing them just because they could, angered me. These poor whites did this because they had no power in their community. They did this to give themselves the feeling and the allusion that they had more power than the slaves ever could. I think that Emerson and Thoreau would agree with Linda and would also be disgusted with this idea. The majority helping to spread misery upon others would not have been supported by Emerson and Thoreau. Besides the actual physical abuse I think that it would be unwise to overlook the emotional and psychological abuse that occurred as well. Slaves were ripped from their families and sold in different states. Young children were taken from their mothers and sometimes never saw them again. This breaking of family bonds is a kind of cruelty that cannot be expressed in words. I think that if I were in that position and torn from my family, never to see them again, I would lose my will to fight and survive. I don't think that we can fully understand the cruelty that the slaves were forced to endure. The quote that I found most eye-opening was on page 189: "I was twenty-one years in that cage of obscene birds. I can testify, from my own experience and observation, that slavery is a curse to the whites as well as to the blacks. It makes the white fathers cruel and sensual; the sons violent and licentious; it contaminates the daughters, and makes the wives wretched. And as for the colored race, it needs an abler pen than mine to describe the extremity of their sufferings, the depth of their degradation." Wow. Powerful. Linda was so observant of her surroundings and of how others behaved. She says that "slavery is a curse to the whites as well as to the blacks." BAM! She couldn't have shocked me more. I never thought about it before and now that it has been brought to my attention, I understand and agree. The whites were cursed and stuck in this hideous cycle of power; ruling over others, ordering them around, heightening their own self-respect and self-worth by lowering those around them. I find it amazing that Linda saw it this way.

In the book, Slavery and the Making of America, Horton and Horton discuss the difficulties that the colored people went through. They make the point that family was especially important in the slaves' lives. What else did they have, but each other? The book notes: "...even in the most dire circumstances, as their lives were shattered by the trade in human cargo, slaves might try to shield themselves and their loved ones from further harm as best they could...(105)." Family was extremely important to them. While it seems that the slaveholders were aware of this they often contradicted themselves in their actions and words. An interesting passage that I read was the following: "Planters' realization of the power of family ties and community relationships among slaves contradicted the contentions of some slaveholders that African Americans did not suffer from the family separation that was an increasingly common part of slavery with the ever-expanding internal slave trade. Many slaveholders answered charges that the trade was inhumane by arguing that slaves were limited in their ability to form human attachments and thus were not affected by being separated from other family members. Clearly their use of family as a means of slave control contradicted such assertions, and these claims were rendered ludicrous by plainly visible evidence to the contrary (107)." Hmmm....Interesting. So it was important to have human connections...but not....I cannot imagine not having my family near me. I really cannot.

As the story goes on we learn that Linda takes a lover, Mr. Sands, a white man. She does this in order to have some freedom by denying Dr. Flint what he wanted. She said: "It seems less degrading to give one's self, than to submit to compulsion (192)." Linda refused to submit to the wishes of such a monster. She wrote of how she had wanted to remain good and pure. She wrote of how she worried about her mother and what she would have thought if she were alive. She worried that she was now forever a ruined woman. This makes me wonder what I would have done if I were in her position. Would you have submitted to Dr. Flint? Would you have taken another lover just so that you could exercise the freedom to do so? I really don't know what I would do. I do know, however, that this power and control over one's own body is a powerful theme, especially when she denies this power and control to Dr. Flint.

One of the most interesting aspects of this story is Linda's trip to England. I never thought about the possibility of her traveling!!! I suppose that I just thought that slavery (even though she was "free") also meant being tied to the ground specifically. She recalled: "The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, were too sacred for the richest noble in the land to violate with impunity. Much was being done to enlighten these poor people. Schools were established among them, and benevolent societies were active in efforts to ameliorate their condition. There was no law forbidding them to learn to read and write; and if they helped each other in spelling out the Bible, they were in no danger of thirty-nine lashes, as was the case with myself and poor, pious, old uncle Fred. I repeat that the most ignorant and the most destitute of these peasants was a thousand fold better off than the most pampered American slave (349)." These people were "a thousand fold better off than the most pampered American slave." Linda's views of her freedom as a human being come through here. She would rather be extremely poor and still have the opportunities that these poor English people had. I would have to agree.

What encourages my hope in the human race is that Linda does find many people who try to help her. She is helped and supported by her family. Most importantly, however, she was protected by white women. Linda was helped by both the late Mrs. Bruce and then the later Mrs. Bruce. She said of the later woman: "Friend! It is a common word, often lightly used. Like other good and beautiful things, it may be tarnished by careless handling; but when I speak of Mrs. Bruce as my friend, the word is sacred (370)." Linda loved Mrs. Bruce because she was not afraid to help Linda find freedom for herself and her children. I think that by having this friendship Linda saw that there was hope and the possibility of change for the better. This would be most important to her, especially if she saw this change as the freedom of all her people. As long as there was the encouragement from friends, such as Mrs. Bruce, freedom would be a possibility. I will end with a quote from Slavery and the Making of America: "Suicide was rare among African American slaves; few gave up all hope. The vast majority managed some resistance to the dehumanizing and emotion-numbing impact of slavery. Relationships to family and community, humor, and music all became weapons of resistance (131)." Wow. This is incredible. The constant glimmer of hope along with connections to family and their community kept the colored people fighting for what they knew, and what we know, was right: their total freedom.

Horton, James Oliver and Lois Horton. Slavery and the Making of America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Self-Reliance & Resistance to Civil Government

Wow. I thought that class on Thursday was extremely interesting! We began by playing Simon Says. I can't remember the last time I played the game and boy, did I stink at it...Anyway, the idea that the facilitation group was trying to get across was this idea of conformity. If we didn't conform in the game we were "kicked" out. Essentially, everyone must conform because no one wants to be out and everyone want to keep playing. Imitation was also shown by the group in a movie excerpt from Hot Rod. To show the breaking away of conformity or the embracing of true self-discovery, they showed a clip from the film, Dead Poet's Society. The group did a great job with the activity, the movie clips, and the questions that were asked. I felt that class Thursday was especially intellectually stimulating. Everything that was discussed stemmed from the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Self-Reliance.

One of lines that really caught my attention was at the very beginning of the piece on page 1163: "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men-that is genius." There is something about this sentence that really starts to get the wheels moving in your brain. In class we discussed how one must develop one's own ideas and not change them to go along with other's ideas. One should also stand up for what they believe in but should not be afraid to always question everything. Personally, I feel that I can question a lot of simple things: is this right? why did this happen? how should I respond? However, when it comes to bigger things, like my faith, I cannot. Emerson also says on page 1164: "Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine Providence has found for you; the society of your contemporaries, the connexion of events." This is so important to Emerson's ideas of self-reliance, self-trust, and non-conformity. TRUST THYSELF. He continues by giving the advice that we should accept where ever we end up and accept the society and the events that surround us. We do not have to conform to them, just accept them for what they are.

Another quote that really made me stop and think was on page 1166. Emerson wrote: "...truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it-else it is none." We had a long discussion about this idea. Should one be completely selfish? Should one NOT feel much obligation towards their peers? I agree with the point made in the class discussion that Emerson was actually referring to oneself. One must be comfortable with oneself before helping others. I believe that this is a good point. If one is burdened inside, how can they help others before helping themselves become stronger as an individual? I have come to this conclusion with this excerpt. You should take care of yourself and then take care of others if you feel the need to do so. I have always been a caring person and more times than I'd like to admit, I put others' needs before my own. I then find myself living my life for others and not living my life for myself. While I will always remain a caring a nurturing person (it is part of my nature) I should try to live a little for myself. Just like Emerson suggests in his essay.

Obviously, Emerson was not afraid of being different. He believed that to conform and deny one's own genius was a crime. He also believed that life should be spontaneous; especially if questioning everything. In the essay he says: "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do..." We can see here his idea of keeping life interesting and fun. Later, he continues by asking a question: "Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood (1168)." By listing all of these amazing individuals Emerson hoped to show that you must be misunderstood to be "pure and wise" and to be a great person.

Society never advances. TALK. TALK. TALK. That is all that ever seems to happen. The action of change remains neglected. We continuously see this throughout the history of our country and still continue to see it to this very day. Emerson says on page 1178: "All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves. Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other." This brings me back to past ideas from other blogs. Mainly, the idea that comes to my mind is this unquenchable, insatiable, undying need for more, and more, and more. When is it enough?!! Throughout history itself, the only things that were important were obtaining land, gold, and others that they could dominate over. Today, this still seems to be the case. People still want land. They still want money. They want cars, and boats, and designer handbags and shoes. They want to fly away to Paris or Rome on a whim, in their own private jet. People still want power. It seems that this is "the goal" that everyone has. But the sad truth is that there are a very small percentage of people that have and do all these things. Many people worry about paying bills to keep their electricity on. Others wonder if they will have enough food to feed their families in the next week. Most of these people buy their clothing second hand from thrift stores.For them it would be outrageous to spend $700 on a handbag when there is so much NEED right in front of their very eyes. This reminds me of all the high school girls that wear the same stupid things because "everyone else has a pair...is wearing it..." Apparently, they want to be like everyone else. CONFORMITY!!! I still would like to have faith in humanity to believe that we can break through this conformity of constant talk and no action. However, I also believe humans will always be striving for something better. This is in our blood. We cannot strain it and leave it behind. And because of this I'm afraid that conformity will always be present.

In class we also discussed Henry David Thoreau's essay, Resistance to Civil Government. He was friends with Emerson who called Thoreau "a youthful giant." Though the two men shared ideas and went against the norm, their relationship was fragile. Thoreau said: "I'm under an awful necessity to be who I am." He couldn't choose his identity...he just was. Thoreau looked up to Emerson and wanted to be like him with his ideas. He even began to imitate Emerson. Isn't this a type of conformity?!! Anyhow, the two men had a very strained relationship. Thoreau wanted so much to be considered an equal to Emerson in Emerson's eyes, and could never measure up...even after his death!!! Isn't this tragic?!!

Despite his personal shortcomings Thoreau continuously demanded that all people should be able to have their freedom and exercise it too. He was against the idea of a government that governs at all! In the beginning of his essay he states: "That government is best which governs not at all (1857)." He continues on urging the audience to think of for themselves and in echoes Emerson's own views and ideas of conformity. "Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine (1863)." Conformity is the machine. Government is the machine. Thoreau believed that everyone should do their part in being different, standing out, and going against the norm, no matter the consequence. In my opinion, one of the best excerpts from his essay would be on page 1867: "I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion." This is just a beautiful excerpt to me. I was not born to be forced!!! Thoreau's passion for his beliefs could not be stated in a stronger manner. If only we weren't all "forced" to do things that society demands of us. School. College. Job. Marriage. Now I like school and college. I want to get a job and I want to get married. Maybe I only think I want these things because of society. Or maybe I really do want them...This is all beside the point...The expectations of society and the being weighted down by conformity does, I believe, keep some people from realizing their true potential as an individual.

At the end of Thoreau's essay he asks the question: "Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of men? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly (1872)." This sums it all up. Thoreau didn't care what the government thought. He wasn't going to pay his taxes, even if he had to sit in jail. I think that Thoreau would not have wanted to be seen as someone who wanted others approval. However, he seemed always eager to impress his friend, Emerson. While Thoreau may have had his true "freedom" one cannot imagine that he was happy. What a lonely life he must have led...

Should you be happy with what you have? Or should you demand that you have your freedom no matter what? It all boils down to having complete control. Is it worth it to have this complete control and live a hard life? Or should you live with the mentality that you'll follow but you'll be happy and content despite NOT having this complete control. Is having just a little control over ones' life, enough? I think that it is enough for me. I'm all for standing out and being different. However, I don't think that a life of loneliness and unhappiness is the life for me. I'd rather have a some control over my life, have to follow the "rules" like everyone else, and still be happy, than having complete control, standing out, and being miserable. But that is just me.

I think that this idea of control and the need for complete control or not, just depends on the person. But like I said above, I don't think life would be worth anything without some kind of happiness in it. My mother always tells me that I'm the only one to blame in how I perceive my life; happy or not. Only YOU can make yourself happy and content. Don't expect others to do it for you. This reminds me of a great line that I read in Self-Reliance. I'll end this post with that quote from Emerson: "Nothing can bring you peace but yourself (1180)." So, while I might not have complete control, I have just enough to bring peace to myself. And that is all that really matters to me.

The Coquette

The Coquette is a seductive narrative based on a true story. The book is composed of letters written between a woman, Eliza Wharton, and her friends Miss Lucy Freeman and Miss Julia Granby. It also shows letters written by the men in Eliza's life, Rev. Mr. Boyer and Mr. Sanford. The story begins with Eliza losing her fiancee (a much older man) to death after caring for him for a great length of time. She then meets two men: said Rev. Mr. Boyer and Mr. Sanford. Eliza immediately takes a liking to both men and they to her. After awhile Eliza is stuck between two choices: the safe and ever faithful but boring Mr. Boyer OR the dangerous and ever unfaithful but passionate Mr. Sanford. After refusing Mr. Boyer's proposals of moving forward in their relationship he finds Eliza in the garden with Mr. Sanford. Despite the many suggestions from her friends to choose Mr. Boyer and stay away from Mr. Sanford, she cannot resist. Later, Eliza is left ALONE while both men marry other women. She is quite depressed until she runs into Mr. Sanford once more!!! As we later learn she becomes pregnant with the scoundrel's child and leaves her mother to go to a bar/tavern. At the end of the book we learn that Eliza dies shortly after giving birth to her child. What a tragedy!!!

Let's get straight to the point: Eliza Wharton is that friend you might have (Lord knows everyone has one or two of them!) that not matter how much you try to help or give her advice about her relationship problems she refuses to listen! But what can we really say to our close friends about the relationship choices that they make? They will usually do what they want anyone, no matter how great your advice might be! On page 27, Lucy, Eliza's close friend writes: "Let me advise you then, in conducting this affair; an affair, big, perhaps, with your future fate, to lay aside those coquettish airs which you sometimes put on; and remember that you are not dealing with a fop, who will take advantage of every concession; but with a man of sense and honor, who will properly estimate your condescension, and frankness." Clearly Lucy is suggesting that Mr. Boyer would be the best choice for Eliza. However, he is dull and unattractive. Eliza still finds it great fun to flirt with him though she has no intention of settling with any one man until she is good and ready. This is how it was in the case of Eliza.

Eliza really had a distorted image of marriage in her head, especially after taking care of Mr. Haly, her sick fiancee, for so long. She says of it in a letter to Lucy: "Marriage is the tomb of friendship. It appears to me a very selfish state. Why do people, in general, as soon as they are married, centre all their cares, their concerns, and pleasures in their own families? former acquaintances are neglected or forgotten. The tenderest ties between friends are weakened, or dissolved; and benevolence itself moves in a very limited sphere. It is the glory of the marriage state, she rejoined, to refine, by circumscribing our enjoyments (24)." Eliza wanted independence and some kind of say in how she would spend her future years. Unfortunately some of the choices that she made led to bigger consequences that would change, or in this case, end any kind of future for her at all.

I think that another big, big, BIG, issue in Eliza's life was the society in which she lived in. Women were not independent. Eliza was revolutionary in her ideas that she could be independent and yet live with an unblemished reputation...Newsflash!!! I don't think so!!! I think that I will go to the library to try and find a book on the role of women in society during this time period. This paragraph will be longer...

In class on Thursday we discussed who we would have chosen if we had been in Eliza's shoes. Would we rather have Mr. Boyer or Mr. Sanford? Not surprisingly most of the class said they would choose Mr. Sanford over Mr. Boyer. Among the reasons why they would choose Mr. Sanford were: they wouldn't be bored, there was passion, and he was attractive. I, however, would choose Mr. Boyer. I'm a very sensitive person when it comes to relationships, and while passion is a must in any healthy relationship, faithfulness is most important. It has a lot to do with respect. I know that I could never be with someone who could not remain faithful to me. I have seen many of my friends and even my friends' parents have relationships full of passion. However, they remain unhappy. I believe that you should not depend on others for your own happiness. In a letter from Eliza's mother, she states: "In whatever situation we are placed, our greater or less degree of happiness must be derived from ourselves. Happiness is in a great measure the result of our own dispositions and actions. Let us conduct uprightly and justly; with propriety and steadiness; not servilely cringing for favor, nor arrogantly claiming more attention and respect than our due; let us bear with fortitude the providential, and unavoidable evils of life, and we shall spend our days with respectability and contentment, at least (41)." I don't believe that passion equals happiness. It is my opinion that over time you would be able to find passion in your marriage. I have read many books and articles on the art of arranged marriages. Almost all of these people have never met before their weddings! And many of them do find happiness and passion within their marriage. Eliza had even more independence in that she could CHOOSE who she wanted to marry. I suppose that this was the most dangerous aspect of independence that she possessed.

We must also hit on this key idea that Eliza had a certain amount of freedom...she just didn't know what to do with it! Like Diaz and his men, Eliza and Mr. Sanford are both like conquistadors. They are both extremely selfish and use all the weapons in their arsenal: charm, manipulation, and the ability to know the other opponent, among others, to get what they want. Selfishness is were this is all centered. All that matters is the pleasure that each get from each other. I see them both as using each other for the high that they get for the conquest or the pursuit. There does not seem to be any kind of sacrifice for either one of them. Unless you count the sacrifices of pain that Eliza's mother and friends felt after they learned that she was a "fallen woman."

We also discussed in class how dangerous this need for conquest really can be. It is insatiable because the fun is all in the getting to the pleasure. Once it is obtained the fun is over and there is a great NEED and WANT for more. When is it enough?! Eliza's situation runs parallel to the early American government. Who will govern this nation? What appetites does it thrive on? Who will save us if these appetites take over? Can we trust others if we are a nation that needs saving? All of these questions that were asked in class can be connected to Eliza and her situation in some way. We have moved away from the faith theme, though it may linger in the background, and are now dominated (haha), by the theme of freedom, of conquering, and the never ending need for more and more and more and more and more...